ROGERS
v.
JONES

U.S. | 1909-05-24
No. 196
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration and disposition of this case.
214 U.S. 196 Supreme Court of the United States (1909) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 53 L. Ed. 965 · 29 S. Ct. 635 · 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1908 · SCDB 1908-163
Cited by 13 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 in a dispute over title to land, holding that the Mississippi Supreme Court's judgment rested on adequate state law grounds—including defective description in the marshal's return, failure to deraign title, and the bar of Mississippi's statute of limitations—that were independent of any federal question regarding an 1838 Act of Congress governing the time and place of judicial sales. Because the federal question was not necessary to the Court's decision, the federal writ of error could not be maintained.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

In entering the decree of December 23, 1905, the Chancellor manifestly proceeded on the decision of the Supreme-Court 'of Mississippi, reported in 85 Mississippi, 802, as did the Supreme Court in affirming, October 22, 1906, the Chancellor’s decree. To this decree the pending writ of error was allowed and issued September 18, 1907.

The. contention" is that, in determining the rights of plaintiffs in error, the Mississippi Supreme. Court put a wrong construction upon the special act of Congress of February 16, 1838, referring to the time and place for the making of judicial sales in Mississippi, in that it held that the marshal’s salé relied on as the foundation of title was made at the wrong place. But the Supreme Court made other and decisive rulings, as well as that in reference to the place of the alleged sale.

In the first place, that court held thát the alleged return ,on the writ of fieri facias did not describe the lands in controversy, and therefore could not confer title, even though regular and valid. The act of Congress of February 16, 1839, did hot attempt to define what is and what is not a good and valid description of real estate, of to make any rule by which a-purchaser at a marshal’s sále could take possession of lands other than those specifically described in the process. The question of a sufficient description was a question of general law.

In the second place, the court held that under the Mississippi statute authorizing suits of the character then before the court, plaintiffs in error had not deraigned a title to the lands in controversy, which, under the Mississippi statute under which the suit was instituted, was a fatal objection to the bill.

In the third place, the court held that the claim of plaintiffs in error was barred by the Mississippi statute of limitations, in that it failed to show possession by the plaintiffs, or their ancestor, during the sixty-four years that intervened between the marshal's sale and the bringing of the suit, and did not, as required by the rules of practice in courts of equity in Mississippi, show that it was the defendants or those in privity with them who had fraudulently concealed from plaintiffs the evidence of their claim.

It is true that the Supreme Court of Mississippi in the subsequent case, of Kennedy v. Sanders, 90 Mississippi, 524, decided May 20, 1907, overruled the ruling in Jones v. Rogers, applying the ten-year statute of limitations, and quoting what the court then observed in that regard, said that “this announcement was not necessary to the decision in Jones v. Rogers, for the court had already held that the complainants in that case had deraigned no title.” And it will have been perceived that this writ of error runs to the judgment of the Supreme Court of October 22, 1906.

The result is, therefore, that this writ of error comes within the rule that where the disposition of a Federal question was . not necessary to the determination of the cause and the judgment is based 6n a distinct ground or grounds broad enough to sustain it, over which this court has no jurisdiction, the writ of error cannot be maintained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration and disposition of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983)
    …onomic interests of celebrities, enabling those whose achievements have imbued their identities with pecuniary value to profit from their fame.” Id. 116; Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 573, 575-76, 97 S.Ct. 2849, 2857-58, 53 L.Ed. 965 (1977). Second, the right of publicity fosters “the production of intellectual and creative works by providing the financial incentive for individuals to expend the time and resources necessary to produce them.” Limitations on the Right of Publicit…
  • Straus and Straus v. Am. Publishers' Ass'n, 231 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1913)
  • Triangle Publ'ns, Inc. v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 626 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1980)
    …Supreme Court’s commercial free speech cases. To begin with, the right of free speech is not absolute and must be analyzed in light of other legitimate interests. See, e. g., Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S.Ct. 2849, 53 L.Ed. 965 (1977), discussed in note 2, supra. Moreover, the right of commercial free speech is afforded even less protection than non-commercial speech. As the Court stated in Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447, 456, 98 S.Ct. 1912, 1918, 56…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (61 total)

View all 61 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw