Biddle v. Luvisch/Opinion of the Court
This certificate fails to meet often announced requirements and must be dismissed. It does not submit one or more definite questions of law arising upon the record, but in effect asks decision of the whole case. City of Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U.S. 699, 700, 704, 6 S.C.t. 622, 29 L. Ed. 772; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U.S. 426, 433, 8 S.C.t. 193, 31 L. Ed. 190; Cross v. Evans, 167 U.S. 60, 63, 65, 17 S.C.t. 733, 42 L. Ed. 77; United States v. Union Pacific Ry., 168 U.S. 505, 512, 513, 18 S.C.t. 167, 42 L. Ed. 559; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. v. Williams, 205 U.S. 444, 452, 27 S.C.t. 559, 51 L. Ed. 875; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U.S. 101, 106, 107, 28 S.C.t. 498, 52 L. Ed. 702.

The constantly increasing demands upon us make it highly important that only matters which are both substantial and in approved form should be presented.

Certificate dismissed. 

Notes