Republican River Bridge Company v. Kansas Pacific Railway Company
| Citation | 23 L.Ed. 515,92 U.S. 315 |
| Parties | REPUBLICAN RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY v. KANSAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1875 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas.
Mr. Robert McBratney for the plaintiff in error; and Mr. William T. Otto, contra.
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. The contest in the State court concerned the title to real estate, both parties claiming under grants from Congress made at different times. In the District Court for the County of Shawnee, where the suit was originally brought, the parties submitted the case to the court without the intervention of a jury; and that court found a series of facts, fourteen in number, on which it declared the law to be for the defendant. This judgment was affirmed on error in the Supreme Court of the State, which decision the present writ of error brings before us.
The finding by the District Court was received by the Supreme Court of the State as conclusive as to all facts in issue, and it is equally conclusive upon us. Where a right is set up under an act of Congress in a State court, any matter of law found in the record, decided by the highest court of the State, bearing on the right so set up under the act of Congress, can be re-examined here.
In chancery cases, or in any other class of cases where all the evidence becomes part of the record in the highest court of the State, the same record being brought here, this court can review the decision of that court on both the law and the fact, so far as may be necessary to determine the validity of the right to set up under the act of Congress; but in cases where the facts are submitted to a jury, and are passed upon by the verdict, in a common-law action, this court has the same inability to review those facts in a case coming from a State court that it has in a case coming from a circuit court of the United States.
This conclusiveness of the facts found extends to the finding by a State court to whom they have been submitted by waiving a jury, or to a referee, where they are so held by State laws, as well as to the verdict of a jury. Boggs v. The Merced Mining Co., 3 Wall. 304.
Two propositions of law ruled by the State court were excepted to by plaintiff, the first of which gives construction to the grant under which defendant claims the land, and the other to the grant under which the plaintiff claims. The first is in the following language:——
'That the joint resolution passed by Congress, approved July 26, 1866, was and must be construed as a grant by Congress to the defendant of the land in controversy; and that upon the issuance of the executive order of the President, dated July 19, 1867, the legal title to said land vested in defendant, and relates back to the date of the passage of said joint resolution of July 26, 1866.'
The joint resolution here referred to is as follows:——
'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that, subject to approval by the President, the right of way one hundred feet in width in hereby granted to the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and the companies constructing the branch roads connecting therewith, for the construction and operation of their roads over and upon all military reserves through which the same may pass; and the President is hereby authorized to set apart to the Union Pacific Railroad Company, eastern division, twenty acres of the Fort Riley Military Reservation for depot and other purposes in the bottom opposite 'Riley City;' also fractional section 'one,' on the west side of said reservation, near Junction City, for the same purposes; and also to restore from time to time to the public domain any portion of said military reserve over which the Union Pacific Railroad or any of its branches may pass, and which shall not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr
...between "questions of law only," "questions of fact," and questions "of mixed law and fact"); Republican River Bridge Co. v. Kansas Pacific R. Co. , 92 U.S. 315, 318–319, 23 L.Ed. 515 (1876) (distinguishing between a "mixed question of law and fact," a "law question," and a "fact [question]......
-
Central Pac Co v. People of State of California
...decided upon the weight of evidence will not be reviewed by this court.' That rule is equally binding on us. Republican River Bridge Co. v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 92 U. S. 315; Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658, 14 Sup. Ct. It was argued in the supreme court of California, as it has been here, ......
-
Dower v. Richards
...as to the verdict of a jury.' And Boggs v. Mining Co., and Crary v. Devlin, above cited, were referred to as supporting this conclusion. 92 U. S. 315-317. Whether the suggestion in that opinion as to the power of this court, in chancery cases, to review the decision of a state court on both......
-
Clipper Mining Company v. Eli Mining Land Company
...has no jurisdiction to review the conclusions of the highest court of a state upon questions of fact. Republican River Bridge Co. v. Kansas P. R. Co. 92 U. S. 315, 23 L. ed. 515; Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658, 38 L. ed. 305, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 452; Israel v. Arthur, 152 U. S. 355, 38 L. ed......