CALIFORNIA
v.
SAN PABLO AND TULARE RAILROAD COMPANY

U.S. | 1893-05-10
No. 257
149 U.S. 308 Supreme Court of the United States (1893) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 37 L. Ed. 747 · 13 S. Ct. 876 · 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2304 · SCDB 1892-221
Cited by 305 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

California sued the San Pablo and Tulare Railroad Company for money owed, but the railroad deposited the full amount claimed—including interest, penalties, and costs—in a bank before the Supreme Court decided the case, which under California law had the same legal effect as actual payment. The Court dismissed the writ of error as moot because the cause of action no longer existed and the state had obtained everything it could recover, holding that courts lack power to decide abstract questions or declare legal principles when the dispute between the parties has been resolved.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Gray

Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon the fact most properly and frankly admitted in open court by the Attorney General of the State of California, there can be no doubt that this writ of error must be dismissed-, because the cause of action has ceased to exist. Any obligation of the defendant to pay to the State the sums sued for in this case, together with interest, penalties and costs, has been extinguished by the offer to pay all these sums, and the deposit of the money in a bank, which by a statute of the State have the same effect as actual payment and receipt of the money. And the State has obtained everything that it could recover in this case by a judgment of this court in its favor. The duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it. When, in determining such rights, it becomes necessary to give an opinion upon a question of law, that opinion may have weight as a precedent for future decisions. But the court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. No stipulation of parties or counsel, whether in the case before the court .or in any other case, can enlarge the power, or affect the duty, of the court in this regard.

The case at bar cannot be distinguished in principle from previous cases in which writs of error have been dismissed by this court under similar or analogous circumstances. Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, 255; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333; San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 116 U. S. 138; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547; Singer Manuf. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696. See also Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578.

Writ of error dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (93 total)

  • State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 74 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1954)
    …tions or abstract propositions, or to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it.” People of State of California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314, 13 S.Ct. 876, 878, 37 L.Ed. 747. In State ex rel. Ayres v. Gray, Fla., 69 So. 2d 187, decided December 11, 1953, we were asked to determine whether or not an election for Governor would be held in 1954. I agreed that jurisdiction of that case…
    1 / 2
  • Econ. Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc v. Cleaning, 128 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1937)
    …e actually controverted before it * * ,*. No stipulation of parties or counsel,, whether in the case before the court or in any other case, can enlarge the power, or affect the duty, of the court in this regard.’ California v. San Pablo & T. R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, 314, 37 L. Ed. 747, 748, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 876. See Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 654, 40 L. Ed. 293, 294, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 132. The fact that effect was given to the stipulation by the appellate courts of Ohio does not conclude this court. See Tyl…
  • State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 70 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1954)
    …to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it.” California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314, 13 S.Ct. 876, 878, 37 L.Ed. 747. In State ex rel. Ayres v. Gray, Fla., 69 So. 2d 187, decided December 11, 1953, we were asked to determine whether or not an election for Governor would be held in 1954. I agreed that jurisdiction of that case…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 93 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