UNITED STATES
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

U.S. | 1897-12-13
No. 133
168 U.S. 505 Supreme Court of the United States (1897) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 42 L. Ed. 559 · 18 S. Ct. 167 · 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1743 · SCDB 1897-039
Cited by 16 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 United States sought Supreme Court review via certificate of a dispute with Union Pacific Railway Company over railroad rights and land improvements on a Delaware Indian reservation, involving interpretation of various treaties, the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862, and corporate consolidation statutes. The Court dismissed the certificate because the questions presented did not constitute distinct legal propositions that could be answered independently, but instead required consideration of the entire case, which violated the statutory requirements for certified questions established in prior precedent.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mb. Chief -Justice Fullee,

Mb. Chief -Justice Fullee,

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

It is settled that the certification provided for in sections five and six of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, is governed by the rules laid down in respect of certificates of division under the Revised Statutes. Columbus Watch Company v. Robbins, 148 U. S. 266; Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60.

By those rules,- as repeated in these cases from prior decisions, “ each question had to be a distinct point or proposition of law, clearly stated, so that it could be distinctly answered without regard to the other issues of law in the case ; to be a question of law only, and not a question of fact, or of mixed law and fact, and hence could not involve or imply a conclusion or judgment upon the weight or effect of testimony or facts adduced in the case; and could not embrace the whole case, even where its decision turned upon matter of law only, and even though it was split up in the form of questions.” Fire Insurance Association v. Wickham, 128 U. S. 426 ; Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution, 128 U. S. 510.

The questions propounded in this certificate do not present distinct points or propositions of law, clearly stated, so that each could be distinctly answered without regard to the other issues of law involved, and they obviously bring the whole case up for consideration and disposition.

Elaborate argument on behalf of the Government. was made at the bar, dealing with the Delaware treaties of 1831, 1854, 1860, 1861 and 1866, and the construction of various provisions thereof; with the construction of the Pacific Railroad act of July 1, 1862, c. 120, 12 Stat. 489; and'also with the legislation in relation to the incorporation of the Leavenworth, Pawnee and "Western Railroad Company; its change of name ; and consolidation with other railroad .companies, under the name of the Union Pacific Railway Company. Laws Kansas, 1855, c. 86, p. 914; Act of July 2,1864, c. 216,13 Stat. 356 ; Resolution of March, 3, 1869, 15 Stat. 348; Act of March. 3, 1869, c. 127, 15 Stat. 324. Defendants in error contended that the petition was fatally defective in respect of any ground of liability’' for the improvements ; that there was no. sale of the improvements separate from the lands; that the stipulated patent carried title to the improvements with the lands; that by section two of the Pacific Railroad act of July 1, 1862, the United States granted the right of way through the reservation and undertook to extinguish the Indian title; that the gprant was of a free right of way, and the United States were estopped by it from maintaining the second cause of action; that this question was res judicata by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kansas in Grinter v. Kansas Pacific Railway, 23 Kansas, 642; that the line of the Kansas Pacific Company upon the right of way in question was not the line of the Leavenworth, Pawnee and Western Railroad Company or its successor, but of an independent corporation created by an act of Congress; and that even on the theory of the Government the defence of laches and limitations was available and formed a complete bar. To answer the questions certified would require us to consider the several matters thus pressed on our attention; to pass upon questions of law not specifically propounded; and to dispose of the whole case. It follows that the certificate is insufficient under the statute.

Certificate dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)
    …d speculative. United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 267, 273; Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54, 55; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 432-435; United States v. Hall, 131 U. S. 50, 52; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 63; United States v. Union Pacific Rwy. Co., 168 U. S. 505, 512; Chicago, B. & Q. Rwy. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 452, 453; 214 U. S. 492; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 107; The Folmina, 212 U. S. 354, 363; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 215 U. S. 216, 221, 223. But, on the ot…
  • Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1913)
    …a proper statement, of the facts upon which the questions of law arise,- and we deal with the facts as thus certified, and not otherwise. Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435, 437; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 63; United States v. Union Pacific Railway, 168 U. S. 505, 512; Emsheimer v. New Orleans, 186 U. S. 33; Cincinnati, Hamilton Railroad v. McKeen, 149 U. S. 259. It would therefore be improper for us at this time to enter into the question whether the clause, “a reasonable allowance for depreciation of prop…
  • Kindred v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 225 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1912)
    …oad company, save as there was a dispute as to whether the assignees were entitled to compensation, and, if so, as to who should pay it. See Grintner v. Kansas Pacific Railway Co., 23 Kansas, 642; Id. 659; United States v. Union Pacific Railway Co., 168 U. S. 505. In 1892 Congress recognized the right of the assignees to be compensated for the right of way, and made an appropriation to pay them, accompanying it with a direction to the Attorney General to institute proceedings against the railroad company to…

Previewing 3 of 8 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