MANILA INVESTMENT COMPANY
v.
TRAMMELL
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.
Manila Investment Company brought suit in federal court seeking to recover lands that it alleged the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund had promised to convey in trust but subsequently repudiated, claiming this violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the case presented merely a breach of contract rather than a real and substantial constitutional controversy, and therefore did not qualify for federal jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by
Mr. Justice Day,
by direction of the court.
This case-was begun in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, upon a bill praying to have the title to certain lands decreed to be held in trust for complainant by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of Florida, and to recover lands deeded to others but likewise held in trust for complainants. The court below dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction.
An examination of. the bill shows that the ground of recovery rests upon the allegation that the trustees contracted to convey the lands in question to the complainants, and afterwards, by formal resolution, the Board repudiated its former action, and refused to recognize the alleged trust, and-declared the complainants’ title null and void. Complainants contend that this action by the trustees, as an agency of the State, in repudiation of its former action and the conveyance of part of the land to others in violation of the trust, constituted a taking of its property without due process of law, in violation of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the only ground of Federal jurisdiction insisted upon.
The case presented no real and substantial controversy involving the construction or effect of the Federal Constitution. The allegations relied upon to give jurisdiction show a breach of contract merely and bring the case within the principles decided by this court in St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U. S. 142; Dawson v. Columbia Avenue &c. Co., 197 U. S. 178; Shawnee Sewerage Co. v. Stearns, 220 U. S. 462; McCormick v. Oklahoma City, 236 U. S. 657.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bozant v. Bank of N.Y., 156 F.2d 787 (2d Cir. 1946)…ery obligations, and that notion persists. Bacon v. Hooker, 177 Mass. 335, 337, 58 N.E. 1078, 83 Am.St. Rep. 279; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189, 206, 23 S.Ct. 277, 47 L.Ed. 439; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Riefler, 239 U.S. 17, 25, 36 S.Ct. 12, 60 L.Ed. 121. Bills of exchange, negotiable notes and most commercial paper are also usually treated as “specialties,” and in this respect assimilated .to bonds. Williston on Contracts, § 1890. For some purposes shares of stock and bills of lading…
-
Heath v. City OF Fairfax, 542 F.2d 1236 (4th Cir. 1976)…has been uniformly repudiated. Shawnee Sewerage & Dr. Co. v. Stearns (1911) 220 U.S. 462, 471, 31 S.Ct. 452, 55 L.Ed. 544; McCormick v. Oklahoma City (1915) 236 U.S. 657, 660, 35 S.Ct. 455, 456, 59 L.Ed. 771; Manila Investment Co. v. Trammell (1915) 239 U.S. 31, 32-3, 36 S.Ct. 12, 60 L.Ed. 129; Doby v. Brown, supra, 232 F. 2d at 505; South Carolina State P. A. v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. (E.D.S.C.1954) 124 F.Supp. 533, 539; Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co. (E.D.Pa.1963) 215 F.Supp. 729, 730-1, aff’d 3 C…1 / 2
-
Anne L. Sudeikis and Stephen J. Kabala v. Chicago Transit Auth., 774 F.2d 766 (7th Cir. 1985)…these claims amounts to nothing more than a breach of contract action. It has long been settled that a mere breach of contract by the government does not give rise to a constitutional claim. See, e.g., Manila Investment Co. v. Trammell, 239 U.S. 31, 36 S.Ct. 12, 60 L.Ed. 129 (1915). As to the second claim, defamation associated with termination from government employment may, under certain circumstances, constitute a constitutional deprivation. See, e.g., Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.E…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Dawson v. Columbia Ave. Saving Fund, 197 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1905)
- ST. Paul Gas Light Co. v. ST. Paul, 181 U.S. 142 (U.S. 1901)
- Shawnee Sewerage & Drainage Co. v. Stearns, 220 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1911)
- McCORMICK v. Okla. City, 236 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1915)