Chicago, Indianapolis Louisville Railway Company v. Patrick Guire
| Decision Date | 03 January 1905 |
| Docket Number | No. 69,69 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS, & LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. PATRICK McGUIRE et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a suit in the nature of a bill in equity instituted in the circuit court for Pulaski county, by the railroad company, to quiet its title to certain land, and for an injunction. The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict returned for the defendants, under instruction of the court.
Both parties claimed title through the Louisville, New Albany, & Chicago Railway Company,—plaintiff in error, which was also plaintiff below,—through certain mortgages given by the New Albany company in 1886, 1890, and 1894, which were foreclosed in the United States circuit court, and through which foreclosure and subsequent sale its title became vested; defendants, through a judgment recovered by McGuire September 24, 1896, in the circuit court of White county, against the New Albany company for $2,416.30, upon which an execution was issued October 16, 1897, to the sheriff of Pulaski county, and a levy made upon the real estate in dispute. A sale was made November 13, 1897, to the defendant Hathaway, to whom a deed was executed by the sheriff November 23, 1898.
It was insisted by the plaintiff railroad company that the property in controversy was a part of the ground appurtenant to its station at Francesville, Indiana, and that the foreclosure and sale of the property of the New Albany road, through which it obtained its title, carried with it the title to the premises in dispute. The judgment of McGuire was obtained after the execution of the mortgages through which the plaintiff claimed its title. Defendants insisted that the disputed property was not embraced within the mortgages under the after-acquired property clause inserted therein, because entirely foreign to the operation of the railroad, and therefore could not have been embraced within the foreclosure and sale.
The appellate court of Indiana sustained their contention, held that the trial court was right in instructing the jury to return a verdict for the appellees, and affirmed its judgment. 31 Ind. App. 110, 99 Am. St. Rep. 249, 65 N. E. 932. The supreme court denied a petition for review.
plaintiff in error.
Messrs. W. H. H. Miller and Maurice Winfield for defendants in error.
Motion is made to dismiss this writ of error upon two grounds: (1) That the supposed Federal question was not set up and claimed until too late; (2) that there is no Federal question in the case.
The motion must be sustained upon the first ground. The Federal question not put forward by the plaintiff in that the appellate court failed to give full faith and credit to the foreclosure decree made by the circuit court of the United States and the sale in pursuance thereof, in refusing to hold that the mortgages foreclosed by said decree covered and included in their description of the property therein conveyed the real estate in controversy. This question, however, never seems to have been presented either to the court of first instance or to the court of appellate jurisdiction. It is true the question was argued at length as to what was intended to be covered by the description in the mortgages and by the foreclosure and sale, but the Federal character of this question was not indicated until after a petition for a rehearing in the appellate court had been overruled. Plaintiff then filed in the supreme court of the state a petition for the transfer of the cause to that court, and, as grounds for such transfer, insisted that the appellate court erred in holding that the property in controversy was after-acquired property not used for railway purposes, and on this account was not within the mortgages upon which appellant's title was based, and that the court thereby 'refused to give due effect to the judgment of the Federal court.'
This petition appears to have been denied by the supreme court without an opinion. Doubtless, if that court had proceeded to pass upon this as a Federal question we should have held it sufficient, but it will be observed that the petition contained a mere suggestion of a violation of a Federal right, not the distinct presentation of a Federal question, and that no reference was made to the Constitution of the United States. F. G. Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648, 41 L. ed. 1149, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 709. We are left to infer that the petition was denied because the point of constitutionality was not made in either of the courts below. The rule seems to be settled in Indiana, as in many other states, that the matter assigned in the supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hemphill v. New York
...question." Clarke v. McDade , 165 U.S. 168, 172, 17 S.Ct. 284, 41 L.Ed. 673 (1897) ; see also Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. McGuire , 196 U.S. 128, 131, 25 S.Ct. 200, 49 L.Ed. 413 (1905) ("mere suggestion of a violation of a Federal right"—rather than "the distinct presentation of a Federal qu......
-
Street v. New York
...party in this Court can affirmatively show the contrary. See, e.g., Bailey v. Anderson, supra; Chicago, I. & L.R. Co. v. McGuire, 196 U.S. 128, 131—133, 25 S.Ct. 200, 201, 49 L.Ed. 413 (1905). In this case, any want of presentation by the appellant must have occurred at the trial level, for......
-
Memphis Natural Gas Co v. Beeler
...63 L.R.A. 33, and appellant's burden is to show affirmatively that we have jurisdiction. Chicago, Indianapolis, etc., Ry. Co. v. McGuire, 196 U.S. 128, 132, 25 S.Ct. 200, 201, 49 L.Ed. 413; cf. Lynch v. People of New York, 293 U.S. 52, 54, 55, 55 S.Ct. 16, 17, 79 L.Ed. 191; Enriquez v. Enri......
-
Bailey v. Anderson
...Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U.S. 291, 309, 23 S.Ct. 375, 378, 47 L.Ed. 480, 63 L.R.A. 33; Chicago, I. & L.R. Co. v. McGuire, 196 U.S. 128, 131, 25 S.Ct. 200, 201, 49 L.Ed. 413; see Flournoy v. Wiener, 321 U.S. 253, 262, 263, 64 S.Ct. 548, 552, 553, 88 L.Ed. 708, and cases The appeal......