
    CHAMBERLIN et al. v. Q. & C. CO. et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    July 2, 1919.)
    No. 2688.
    Courts <g=>405(5)~Review or District Court — Appellate Jurisdiction.
    The Circuit Court of Appeals is without Jurisdiction of appeal from decree of District Court dismissing hill on the ground of want of jurisdiction depending on diversity of citizenship; but power to review is exclusively in the Supreme Court.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
    Suit by Walter H. Chamberlin and another against the Q. & C. Company and others. Bill dismissed and complainants appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    
      David S. Wegg, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
    Horace Kent Tenney, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
    Before BAKER and EVANS, Circuit Judges, and FITZHENRY, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s bill involved a controversy over which .,the District Court would have no jurisdiction unless there was the requisite diversity of citizenship. Appellees Quincy and Q. & C. Company moved to dismiss the bill, “upon the ground that it involves a controversy between citizens of the same state.” The motion was sustained, and the decree which is brought here for review “dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction.”

Whether the facts set forth in the bill presented a case which under the Constitution and statutes of the United States was cognizable in a federal court is a question that has been elaborately discussed by counsel ; but we are precluded from answering, because exclusive appellate jurisdiction of that question is in the Supreme Court. Raton Water Works v. Raton, 249 U. S. 552, 39 Sup. Ct. 384, 63 L. Ed. 768 (May 5, 1919); Blumenstock v. Curtis Publishing Co., 258 Fed. 927,-C. C. A.-(decided at the present session of this court).

On our own motion, the appeal is dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction.  