Leonard v. Vicksburg, S. & PR Co., 198 U.S. 416 (1905)
Leonard v. Vicksburg, S. & PR Co., 198 U.S. 416 (1905)
Leonard v. Vicksburg, S. & PR Co., 198 U.S. 416 (1905)
416
25 S.Ct. 750
49 L.Ed. 1108
a county for swamp and overflowed lands gives no better right than the
county had to the lands which had been previously certified to the state.
The court then stated that, apart from these defenses, there appeared to be
no objection to plaintiff's title.
The judgment of the district court was affirmed, and this writ of error
allowed. Motions to dismiss or affirm were submitted and their
consideration postponed to the hearing on the merits.
Messrs. William P. Hall, A. H. Leonard, and E. W. Sutherlin for plaintiffs
in error.
Messrs. Harry H. Hall, Frank P. Stubbs, and W. H. Wise for defendants in
error.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:
We assume from the errors assigned, and no other grounds are indicated by the
record, that Federal questions in two aspects are relied on to justify this writ of
error.
First. The construction and application of the acts of Congress of 1849, 1850,
and 1856, taken with other acts referred to.
But as to this it should be pointed out in the first place that the state court
adjudged the Smith title invalid on the independent ground, among others, of
noncompliance with an act of the general assembly of Louisiana; and, in the
second place, that the Federal question thus suggested had been so explicitly
foreclosed by previous decisions as to leave no room for real controversy.
Rogers Locomotive Mach. Works v. American Emigrant Co. 164 U. S. 559, 41
L. ed. 552, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188; Michigan Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U.
S. 592, 42 L. ed. 592, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 208; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v.
Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 47 L. ed. 190, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 123.
Second. That the supreme court of Louisiana, by its judgment in this case,
denied a right specially set up or claimed under the Constitution of the United
States, or an authority exercised under the United States; that is to say, that such
a right was asserted, and was denied by the state supreme court, in declining to
give collateral effect to a judgment, under certain circumstances, rendered by a
court of the United States in Louisiana.
We inquire, then, whether, when the state court, while holding the defense
good as to the 35.18 acres by reason of the judgment in Smith v. Turner, held
that, in the circumstances detailed, defendants could not be permitted to insist
that the thing adjudged in that case determined the title to the entire tract, that
ruling presented a Federal question.
Generally speaking, questions of this sort are not Federal questions. In Pierce v.
Somerset R. Co. 171 U. S. 641, 648, 43 L. ed. 316, 319, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 64,
66, we said: 'A person may, by his acts or omission to act, waive a right which
he might otherwise have under the Constitution of the United States as well as
under a statute, and the question whether he has or has not lost such right by his
failure to act or by his action is not a Federal one.' Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S.
361, 37 L. ed. 1111, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 131; Rutland R. Co. v. Central Vermont
R. Co. 159 U. S. 630, 40 L. ed. 284, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113, and Seneca Nation
of Indians v. Christy, 162 U. S. 283, 40 L. ed. 970, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 828, were
cited.
In Eustis v. Bolles, the state court held that, by accepting his dividend under
insolvency proceedings, Eustis had waived his legal right to claim that the
discharge obtained under subsequent laws impaired the obligation of contract,
and this court held that, whether that view of the case was sound or not, it was
not a Federal question, and therefore not within the province of this court to
inquire into. it was held by the state court that even if it was held by the state
court tht even if there were a right of recovery on the part of plaintiffs in error
because a certain grant was in contravention of the Constitution Constitution of
the United States, yet that such recovery was barred by the New York statute of
limitations.
In Gillis v. Stinchfield, 159 U. S. 658, 40 L. ed. 295, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 131, and
Speed v. McCarthy, 181 U. S. 269, 45 L. ed. 855, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 613, it was
ruled that the application of the doctrine of estoppel to mining locatons did not
raise Federal questions.
In the present case, the supreme court of Louisiana, applied the doctrine which
forbids parties from assuming inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings.
10
In its view, Smith, having insisted, in Smith v. Turner, that, notwithstanding the
railroad company had come in as defendant, and each party asserted title to the
entire tract, the title to the 35.18 acres was alone in issue, and that the value of
the whole tract was, therefore, not involved, and the railroad company having
been thereby deprived of its writ of error, must be confined in this suit to the
specific recovery obtained in that, so far as the effect of that judgment was
concerned. That was a question of estoppel or quasi-estoppel, and not a Federal
question. Whether it was sound or not, it is not for us to inquire. It was broad
enough to support the judgment without reference to any Federal question.
11