The opinion
Mr. Chief Justice 'White,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is apparent from the statement which we have made that the ruling as to the question of jurisdiction made in the two previous cases involving the same subject-matter which is here in controversy so far as it concerned the jurisdiction of the court as a Federal court, conclusively demonstrates that the court below erred in declining to take cognizance of the cause upon the theory that it was without its jurisdiction as a Federal court to do so. While it is clear, the question of. jurisdiction being thus determined, that webtáve power to consider and dispose of the merits, we think it is equally clear that we ought not to exert the authority, (a), because to do so would be out of harmony with the provisions of the Judicial Code, giving a right to direct review on questions of jurisdiction; and (6), because it would be in a broad sense incompatible with the provisions giving finality to the judgments and decrees of the Circuit Court of Appeals in cases, of which this is one, within the final competency of those courts. We say
*587
the first, because it is apparent that if wé now determine the merits of this-case, we shall in a large sense virtually decide the merits of the two other cases concerning in a sense the same subject-matter involved in the cases which came here on direct appeals as to jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone and which now, the question of jurisdiction alone having been determined, doubtless await the action of the District Court and the review of that action by the court below if after the cases have been decided by the District Court they are carried to the Circuit Court of Appeals for review and final decision. We say the second, because as this case is one pvér which the action of the court below is made final by the statute, we are of opinion that its refusal to decide the case on the merits because of an erroneous conclusion as to want of power as a Federal court to do so ought not under the circumstances here disclosed to be made the basis by which this cou"‘t would perform a duty which the statute contemplates should be discharged by the court below.
Indeed, the views just stated have been applied by previous rulings.
Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co.
v.
Knight,
217 U. S. 257 ;
United States
v.
Rimer,
220 U. S. 547 ;
Wm. Cramp Sons
v.
Curtiss Turbine Co.,
228 U. S. 645 . In the
.Lutcher Case
which was brought here by the allowance of a writ of certiorari, it was found that the court below, the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, had from a mistake of law refused to consider the merits of the case and although it was recognized that as the result of the certiorari the whole case was open to our review, it was yet pointed out that as by the provisions of the act of 1891 the cause was one which apart from certiorari was within the competency of the Circuit Court of Appeals and its judgment when rendered would be final, the duty of this court was not to determine the case on the merits but after correcting the error which had stood in the way of the court below performing its duty, to remand the case
*588
to that court so that such duty might be discharged. So in the
Rimer Case
which was brought here by certiorari, when it was discovered that the writ had obviously been allowed upon a mistaken conception as to the existence in the case of a far-reaching question of public importance justifying the issue of .the writ, it was pointed out that, the mistake.becoming apparent, it was our duty not to decide the case but to remand it to the Circuit Court of Appeals to which the certiorari had been directed to enable that court to discharge its duty. And. the same principle was involved in the
Cramp Case
where, after the case had been brought to this court by certiorari and it was held that the decision of the court below was void because the court which decided it was not legally organized, while it was recognized that there was power under the certiorari to dispose of. the whole case, it was held that the duty arose in order to give effect to the statute not to decide, but to remand the case so that when the court below was organized conformably to the statute the case might be considered and disposed of as the statute contemplated it should be.
While it follows from th.ese considerations that the decree below must be reversed, it also results that it is our duty to remand the case to the court below, that is, the-Circuit Court of. Appeals, to the end that, all questions concerning its jurisdiction as a Federal court having been determined by the prior decision of this court, it proceed to discharge its duty of hearing and deciding the case conformably to law.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.