NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
ELLIS

U.S. | 1892-04-11
No. 1495
144 U.S. 458 Supreme Court of the United States (1892) Caution
Also reported at: 36 L. Ed. 504 · 12 S. Ct. 724 · 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2090 · SCDB 1891-183
Cited by 24 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error brought by Northern Pacific Railroad Company because the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision rested on the independent state law doctrine of res adjudicata, which did not involve a federal question and therefore was not subject to Supreme Court review. The Court held that once the Wisconsin court had rendered and announced its judgment on a prior appeal in the same case, it lacked the power to review that judgment again, and this application of settled res adjudicata principles did not implicate any federal constitutional issue.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion óf the court.

The motion to dismiss the writ of error must be sustained. The decision of thé Supreme Court of Wisconsin rested upon an independent ground not involving a Federal question and broad enough to maintain the judgment. Hammond v. Johnston, 142 U. S. 73.

The Supreme Court held that by reason of its decision of May 20, 1890, when the case was presented to the court on the appeal of the railroad company from the order of the lower court upon demurrer, the rights of the parties were res adjucUcata, and that it was itself, as the parties were, bound by its own former judgment. Its conclusion had been announced and its mandate had gone down, and it had no power upon a second appeal to review that judgment. This' is the settled rule in Wisconsin; Lathrop v. Knapp, 37 Wisconsin, 307; Oshkosh Fire Department v. Tuttle, 50 Wisconsin, 552; and in this court; Clark v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567; Peck v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42; Hick man v. Fort Scott, 141 U. S. 415. Under these circumstances the judgment of the Supreme Court is not subject to review here.

The suit in the state court involving certain lots was commenced before the institution of the action in respect to other real estate in the Circuit Court of the. United States, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State had become res adjudicata between the parties, before the decree was entered by the Circuit Court. / The judgment before us was rendered in accordance with well-settled principles of general law, not involving any Federal question, and did not deny to the decree of the Circuit Court the effect which would be accorded under similar circumstances to the judgments and decrees of the state court.

The writ of error is Dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant & Ry. Co., 168 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1897)
    …the same suit. The first decision has become the’settled law of. the case. Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S. 498, and cases cited in the opinion; Clark, v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567; Northern Pacific Railroad, v. Ellis, 144 U. S. 458; Great Western Telegraph Company v. Burnham, 162 U. S. 339, 343. "Whenever a case comes from the highest court of a State for review, and by statute or settled practice in that State the opinion of the court is a part of the record, we are authoriz…
  • Creswill v. Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias of Ga., 225 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1912)
    …o' Federal question I think we are not at liberty to reexamine the decision unless we can say that the state court in substance is denying the right. So it has been held or strongly intimated as to res judicata, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ellis, 144 U. S. 458, estoppel, Hale v. Lewis, 181 U. S. 473, the statute of limitations, Rector v. Ashley, 6 Wall. 142. and laches, Moran v. Horsky, 178 U. S. 205, 214, 215, Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U. S. 641, and the principle was recognized only the other day in G…
  • Gaar v. Shannon, 223 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1912)
    …the ruling of the state court was based on the application of the doctrine of res adjudicóla, laches, statute of limitations, and others [*471] similar in kind to that involving the effect of a voluntary-payment. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ellis, 144 U. S. 458; Hale v. Lewis, 181 U. S. 473; Moran v. Horsky, 178. U. S. 205; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U. S. 641, 648; Rector v. Ashley, 6 Wall. 142. It is, however, equally well settled that if the Federal question is properly presented and necessarily contr…

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw