JONES ET AL.
v.
BUFFALO CREEK COAL & COKE COMPANY
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.
Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Company brought an ejectment action against Jones and others in federal court, relying on title derived from West Virginia state land sales conducted under state statutes. The defendants claimed the trial court's admission of evidence from prior state court proceedings and judgment against them violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that a trial judge's error in admitting evidence or entering judgment does not constitute a denial of due process of law, and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply since the complained-of action was not state action.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action of ejectment brought by the Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Company in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia. Jurisdiction of-that court was invoked solely on the ground of diversity of citizenship. A verdict was.directed for the plaintiff below; and the case was brought here by direct writ of error, defendants below claiming that, by the action of the lower court, they have been deprived of their property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution. Plaintiff below set up title from the State derived through mesne conveyances, by virtue of sales made for the benefit of the school fund under statutes which have repeatedly been held valid by this court.,1 The action of which defendants complain as depriving them of due process of law, is the admission in evidence herein of the records and papers in three proceedings brought in the state courts of West Virginia under these statutes, and the rendering of judgment herein against them. As the action now complained of is not the action of a State, the Fourteenth Amendment can have no application. And the claim that the action of the court violates the Fifth Amendment is likewise unfounded.
It was the contention of the plaintiff below that the records and papers in the three suits established title in those under whom it claims; and also that the decrees in those suits created res judicata as against the defendant, because their predecessors in title had been parties or privies to those suits. The defendants below contended, among other things, that the premises in question were not within the tracts affected by one or more of the decrees in those suits and that they were not bound by any of them. It is conceivable that the defendants below were right in whole or in part, and that the trial judge erred in admitting some or all of the evidence objected to and in rendering judgment for the plaintiff. But error of a trial judge in admitting evidence or .entering judgment after full hearing does-not constitute a denial of due process of law. Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112. The writ of-error must be
Dismissed.
King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404; King v. Panther Lumber Co., 171 U. S. 437; Swann v. Treasurer of West Virginia, 188 U. S. 739; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92; Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 455; King v. Buskirk, 231 U. S. 735.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Gallagher, 183 F.2d 342 (3d Cir. 1950)…1950, 180 F. 2d 413. . Kercheval v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009. . Central Land Company of West Virginia v. Laidley, 1895, 159 U.S. 103, 112, 16 S.Ct. 80, 40 L.Ed. 91; Jones v. Buffalo Creek Coal Co., 1917, 245 U.S. 328, 329, 38 S.Ct. 121, 62 L.Ed. 325; Corrigan v. Buckley, 1926, 271 U.S. 323, 332, 46 S.Ct. 521, 70 L.Ed. 969. . “Rule 20. Transfer From the District for Plea and Sentence “A defendant arrested in a district other than that in which the indictment or…1 / 2
-
Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1926)…y Club v. Missouri, supra, 335. Mere error of a court, if any there be, in a judgment entered after a full hearing, does not constitute a denial of due process of law. Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112; Jones v. Buffalo Creek Coal Co., 245 U. S. 328, 329. It results that, in the absence of any substantial constitutional or statutory question giving us jurisdiction of this appeal under the provisions of § 250 of the Judicial Code, we cannot determine upon the merits the contentions earnestly pr…
-
United States v. Unger (S.D.N.Y. 1928)…; United States v. Ginsberg, supra; Tutun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568, 46 S. Ct. 425, 70 L. Ed. 738; Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227, 32 S. Ct. 613, 56 L. Ed. 1066. In United States v. Ness, supra, Mr. Justice Brandeis, at page 327 (38 S. Ct. 121), states: “But in our opinion section 11 [8 USCA § 399] and section 15 [8 USCA § 405] were designed to afford cumulative protection against fraudulent or illegal naturalization.” i It follows from the above that the petition to cancel the certifica…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cent. Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1895)
- King v. Mullins, 171 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1898)
- King v. State of W. Va. & Spruce Coal & Lumber Co., 216 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1910)
- FAY v. Crozer, 217 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1910)
- King v. Panther Lumber Co., 171 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1898)
- Hale v. Hilliker, 188 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1903)
- Swann v. State of W. Va., 188 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1903)
- The Glenwood Light & Water Co. v. The Town of Glenwood Springs, 231 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1913)
- Chino Lee v. The United States, 231 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1913)