Supreme Court of the United States · 1804 · Civil Procedure
6 U.S. 126 (1804)
Updated
Civil ProcedureSubject-Matter JurisdictionAppellate Reviewjurisdictionerror of the courtappellate reversalconsent cannot confer jurisdiction
Facts
The plaintiff challenged the judgment on the ground that the court below lacked jurisdiction. Counsel argued that although a party generally cannot reverse a judgment for an error in process or delay unless the error caused disadvantage, a party may reverse for an error of the court even if the error was advantageous to him. The asserted defect was jurisdictional, and the argument emphasized that the court itself had a duty to determine whether jurisdiction existed. The defendant in error did not appear, though the citation had been duly served.
Issue
May a party obtain reversal of a judgment on the ground that the lower court lacked jurisdiction, even if that party invoked the court and even if the jurisdictional error was not to that party's disadvantage?
Rule
A party may assign as error a court's exercise of jurisdiction where jurisdiction is lacking, even if the error benefited that party, because jurisdiction must be established by the court itself and cannot be supplied by consent of the parties.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Nadia Brooks filed a contract action in a federal trial court in Cleveland, Ohio. After losing on the merits, she appealed and argued for the first time that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the pleadings never established any basis for federal judicial power.
How should the appellate court respond to Nadia's jurisdictional argument?
Explanation. The governing rule is that jurisdiction is the court's own responsibility to verify. If the court proceeded without jurisdiction, that is an error of the court, not merely an ordinary procedural defect. For that reason, the party who invoked the court may still assign the lack of jurisdiction as error on appeal, and no separate showing of disadvantage is required. (Derived from Capron v. Van Noorden (1804).)