SEATTLE, RENTON & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, EX REL. LINHOFF
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.
The Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Company challenged a mandamus judgment requiring it to issue transfers to and from the competing Seattle Electric Company at reduced rates, claiming the ordinance taking effect constituted a taking of property without due process of law. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Washington Supreme Court's construction of the local ordinance and that the railway failed to establish a constitutional violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This writ of error seeks to reverse a judgment in mandamus requiring the plaintiff in error, a street railway, to issue and accept transfers to and from the Seattle Electric Company, another street railway, redeemable by payment of two cents and a half for the ordinary five cent fares and of one cent and a quarter for school childrens’ tickets costing two cents and a half. 62 Washington, 544. The Seattle Electric Company was made a defendant but did not appeal from the judgment of the court of first instance, affirmed by the Supreme Court. The plaintiff-in error contends that its-property is taken without due process of law by the construction given to the ordinance under which it was operating its line when the suit was brought. That ordinance requires a division “on the basis of settlement that the transfer is to be redeemed at or for such a proportionate part of the fare paid as the rim or local route of the car on which transfer is received, bears to the sum of the runs of the local route of the cars from which the transfer is issued and on which the transfer is received.” The Supreme Court construed the words 'or local route’ as meaning 'the entire distance the passenger may travel upon that system of railway as if he had paid the ordinary fare, whether he changes cars upon that system or not.’ 62 Washington, 549. Noting that the Electric Company had not appealed, it decided for an equal division of the fares. At every point of intersection between the two, roads, the line of the Electric Company is longer than that of the plaintiff in error. In some cases a single car is routed over the entire length, in others the routes are divided, but a passenger is entitled to a transfer that will take him the whole length in the same general direction. Whether there shall be a continuous single route or a divided one is determined by each company for itself.
The possibility of a different construction and the grounds for the one adopted both are obvious, but this court does not sit to revise the construction of documents by state courts, even if alleged, as this ordinance is not alleged, to be contracts protected by the Constitution of the United States. Fisher v. New Orleans, 218 U. S. 438. There is no impairment of rights by later legislation, and it takes more than a possible misconstruction by a court to make a case under the Fourteenth Amendment. Cross Lake Shooting & Fishing Club v. Louisiana, 224 U. S. 632, 638; Ross v. Oregon, 227 U. S. 150, 162; McGovern v. New York, 229 U. S. 363, 370, 371.
The plaintiff in error put forward suggestions of want of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, &c., on the ground that since this suit was begun the ordinance referred to has been superseded by another. The Supreme Court, not we,, is the judge of its own jurisdiction, but the later ordinance does not appear in the record. It was held not to affect the case when brought up at an earlier stage. 62 Washington, 124. In short, while the Railway seems to have brought the case here under a strong conviction as to what were its rights and although it refers to the Constitution in its answer, it discloses no grievance for which it is entitled to any remedy in this court.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 261 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1923)…ond time, to determine the effect to be given to the decision made when the case was first there. Cross Lake Shooting & Fishing Club v. Louisiana, 224 U. S. 632, 638; Ross v. Oregon, 227 U. S. 150, 161; Seattle, Renton & Southern Ry. Co. v. Linhoff, 231 U. S. 568; Kryger v. Wilson, 242 U. S. 171, 177; Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Co. v. South Carolina, post, 236. And see King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92, 100; Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U. S. 436, 444. Assuming that the objection to a change in decisio…
-
Roberts v. NEW York City, 295 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1935)…vidence. Due process is a growth too sturdy to succumb to the infection of the least ingredient of error. “ It takes more than a possible misconstruction by a court to make a case under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Seattle, R. & S. Ry. Co. v. Linhoff, 231 U. S. 568, 570. In the setting of this background we approach the consideration of the rulings that are here assigned as error. 1. First in importance is the appraisal of the private easements. The franchise to maintain an elevated railway “ with an interes…
-
Skipper v. Schumacher, 299 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1936)…The motion for leave to file amended statement as to jurisdiction is granted. The motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Seattle, R. & S. Ry. v. Linhoff, 231 U. S. 568, 570; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 165, 166; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S 312, 316, 317; American Railway Express Co. v. Kentucky, 273 U. S. 269, 272, 273; Secor v. Fulton, 293 U. S. 517. Insofar as the papers whereo…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McGOVERN v. City of N.Y., 229 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1913)
- Ross v. State of Or., 227 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1913)
- Cross Lake Shooting & Fishing Club v. State of La., 224 U.S. 632 (U.S. 1912)
- Fisher v. City of New Orleans, 218 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1910)