|
|
Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U.S. 14 (1937)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U.S. 14 (1937)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 300 U.S. 5, click here.
Honeyman v. Hanan No. 370 Argued January 14, 1937 Decided February 1, 1937 300 U.S. 14
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
1. To constitute jurisdiction over an appeal from a state court, it must appear affirmatively from the record not only that a federal question was presented for decision to the highest court of the State having jurisdiction, but that its decision of the federal question was necessary to the determination of the cause. P. 18.
2. Whether these requirements have been met is itself a federal question. Id.
3. In deciding whether it has jurisdiction, this Court must determine whether a federal question was necessarily decided by the state court; the determination must rest upon an examination of the record, and, while a certificate or statement by the state court that a federal question has been presented to it and necessarily passed upon may aid this Court in such examination of the record, it cannot avail to foreclose the inquiry or to import a federal question into the record. Id.
4. In the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, this Court may make such disposition of the case as justice shall require. A case may be remanded to a state court to afford opportunity for an amendment of the record appropriate to show definitely the precise nature of the federal question, how it was raised, and the grounds of its disposition by the state court, to the end that this Court may be able to decide whether a substantial question within its jurisdiction was necessarily determined. P. 25.
271 N.Y. 564, 3 N.E.2d 186, judgment vacated.
Appeal from the affirmance of a judgment of the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division (246 App.Div. 781, 285 N.Y.S. 527), which had affirmed a judgment of the Special Term dismissing the complaint in a suit to recover a deficiency judgment on a collateral bond which had been executed as additional security for a bond and mortgage debt.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U.S. 14 (1937) in 300 U.S. 14 300 U.S. 15. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R6XSGK6S7U3T8TW.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U.S. 14 (1937), in 300 U.S. 14, page 300 U.S. 15. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R6XSGK6S7U3T8TW.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U.S. 14 (1937). cited in 1937, 300 U.S. 14, pp.300 U.S. 15. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R6XSGK6S7U3T8TW.
|