Supreme Court of the United States
Capron v. Van Noorden
6 U.S. 126 · 2 Cranch 126
Decided March 18, 1804
Good LawGood law: 11 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.
Summary
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment because the lower court lacked jurisdiction, holding that an error of the Court may be used to reverse a judgment even when the error is to the plaintiff's advantage.
Holdings
- Whether a judgment may be reversed for an error of the Court even when the error is to the plaintiff's advantage, and whether lack of jurisdiction constitutes such an error.. The judgment is reversed because the lower court lacked jurisdiction; an error of the Court may be used to reverse a judgment even if the error is to the plaintiff's advantage. 6 U.S. 126, 127
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
178 opinions cite this case
Cited
Struckman v. Warden, Pickaway Correctional Institution. A federal court is further obliged to note lack of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.
Cited
Merlene Frett-Smith, Appellant v. Joey Vanterpool; Cheryl Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396. judgment loser successfully raised lack of diversity jurisdiction for the first time before the Supreme Court
Cited
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443. Historical illustration of the any-time availability of subject-matter-jurisdiction challenges.
Cited
Brown Shoe Co., Inc. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294. the mere consent of the parties to the Court's consideration and decision of the case cannot, by itself, confer jurisdiction on the Court
Cited
American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6. Early instance of a party assigning for error the court's want of jurisdiction.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
CAPRON
v.
VAN NOORDEN.
Supreme Court of United States.
*127 Harper, for the plaintiff in error.
It is true, as a general rule, that a man cannot reverse a judgment for error in process or delay, unless he can shew that the error was to his disadvantage; but it is also a rule, that he may reverse a judgment for an error of the Court, even though it be for his advantage. As if a verdict be found for the debt, damages, and costs; and the judgment be only for the debt and damages, the defendant may assign for error that the judgment was not also for costs, although the error is for his advantage.
Here it was the duty of the Court to see that they had jurisdiction, for the consent of parties could not give it.
It is therefore an error of the Court, and the plaintiff has a right to take advantage of it. 2 Bac. Ab. Tit. Error. (K. 4.) 8 Co. 59. (a) Beecher's case. 1 Roll. Ab. 759. Moor 692. 1 Lev. 289. Bernard v. Bernard.
The defendant in error did not appear, but the citation having been duly served, the judgment was reversed.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Company & Another v. Swan & Another111 U.S. 379 (1884)
- American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn341 U.S. 6 (1951)
- Brown Shoe Co., Inc. v. United States370 U.S. 294 (1962)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L. P.541 U.S. 567 (2004)
- Steel Co., Aka Chicago Steel & Pickling Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment523 U.S. 83 (1998)