261 U.S. 114 (1923), 285, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company
|Docket Nº:||No. 285|
|Citation:||261 U.S. 114, 43 S.Ct. 288, 67 L.Ed. 556|
|Party Name:||Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company|
|Case Date:||February 19, 1923|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted January 25, 1923
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
1. An objection that a state statute violates the federal Constitution, not presented to the state trial court nor to the state supreme court except by a petition for rehearing which was denied without opinion, will not support a writ of error from this Court. P. 116.
2. The claim that a decision of a state supreme court, by construing an agreement otherwise than it had construed it upon a former interlocutory appeal in the same case, impaired the obligation of the agreement and violated rights under the Fourteenth Amendment will not sustain a writ of error under Jud.Code, § 237, as amended by the Act of 1916. P. 117.
Writ of error to review 131 N.E. 769 dismissed.
Error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Indiana. The case is stated in the opinion.
VANDEVANTER, J., lead opinion
MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
For present purposes, this case may be shortly stated. A wife and husband, both financially embarrassed, transferred certain land in Indiana to a corporate trustee pursuant to an arrangement whereby the trustee was to advance moneys for their benefit, assist in procuring advances from others, protect the title, ultimately sell the land, use the proceeds in satisfying such mortgages or liens as might be superior to the rights of the trustee and in repaying moneys advanced by it and by others, and turn the residue over to the wife, her personal representatives, or assigns. The purpose of the transfer and the engagements of the parties were set forth in two deeds and a trust agreement, all executed the same day. Differences afterwards arose between the parties, and the grantors brought a suit in a state court in Indiana against the trustee charging that it had violated and repudiated the trust, demanding damages and an accounting, and praying that the trustee be removed and a receiver appointed to administer the trust. The trustee answered taking issue with portions of the complaint, and in an amended cross-complaint set up what it claimed had been done under the trust agreement, alleged in substance that the trustee was not in...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP