Church v. Kelsey
Decision Date | 18 April 1887 |
Citation | 7 S.Ct. 897,30 L.Ed. 960,121 U.S. 282 |
Parties | CHURCH and another v. KELSEY and others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
a. Ricketts, for plaintiffs in error.
Chapin Brown, for defendants in error.
If we understand correctly the questions on which it is claimed our jurisdiction in this case rests, they are: (1) That the provision in section 1, art. 14, of the amendments of the constitution of the United States, that a state shall not 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,' prevents the state of Pennsylvania from giving jurisdiction to a court of equity of a suit brought by the owner of an equitable interest in land to establish his rights against the holder of the legal title, because it deprives the holder of the legal title of the right to a trial by jury, which he would have in a suit at law; and (2) that, as the constitution of a state is the 'fundamental contract made between the collective body of citizens of the state and each individual citizen,' a state statute which violates a state constitution is a 'law impairing the obligation of contracts,' within the meaning of that term as used in art. 1, § 10, cl. 1, of the constitution of the United States.
It sufficiently appears from the record that the first of these questions was actually presented to and decided by the court below adversely to the claim of the plaintiffs in error. That is sufficient to give us jurisdiction; but the decision was so clearly right that it is unnecessary to keep the case here for further argument. Certainly the provision of the constitution referred to cannot have the effect of taking away from the states the power of giving a court of equity jurisdiction in cases requiring equitable relief. It may be true that in Pennsylvania 'equity powers have been doled out to the courts by the legislature with a sparing hand,' but there is nothing in the constitution of the United States which requires that this should always be so. The suit of which complaint is made in this case was brought to establish a trust in the holder of the legal title, which from time immemorial has been a proper subject o chancery jurisdiction. It is useless to contend that the constitution of the United States prevents any state from giving a court of equity the power to hear and determine such a case. This has not been doubted in the courts of Pennsylvania, as we understand. North Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. snowden, 42 Pa. St. 488, 492.
We cannot find that the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Anarchists Case Ex parte Spies and others
...case ought not to be held for further argument.' Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U. S. 194, 195, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1023; Church v. Kelsey, 121 U. S. 282, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897. The propriety of adopting a similar rule upon motions in open court for the allowance of a writ of error is apparent, for......
- United States v. Wells
-
Young v. City of Colorado
...have reference to hearings of causes of action, and not to mere incidental questions of procedure. In Church v. Kelsey, 121 U. S. 282, 7 Sup. Ct. 897, 30 L. Ed. 960, it was held that the constitutional provisions against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of l......
-
City of Indianapolis v. Central Trust Co.
... ... 4 Wheat. 563; Bank v. Buckingham's Ex'rs, 5 ... How. 317; Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U.S ... 548; Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 817; Church ... v. Kelsey, 121 U.S. 282, 7 Sup.Ct. 897; Lehigh Water ... Co. v. Easton, 121 U.S. 388, 7 Sup.Ct. 916. But in none ... of those cases was there ... ...