KING
v.
PUTNAM INVESTMENT 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.
King sued Putnam Investment Company over breach of an employment contract to procure the sale of real estate, and the Kansas Supreme Court awarded relief. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the alleged federal question—whether the contract included land belonging to the United States covered by a homestead entry—was not actually present, as the Kansas court had expressly found such land was not included in the contract. The Court determined that the federal question was merely an afterthought and lacked any genuine basis in the record.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
memorandum for the court by The Chief Justice.
Having previously considered this case (82 Kansas, 216; 87 Kansas, 842) the court awarded relief because of the violation of a contract of employment to procure the sale of real estate. 96 Kansas, 109.
The case is here in rebanee upon a federal question based upon the assumption that the authority to sell included land belonging to the United States covered by an inchoate homestead entry. But the court below expressly found that such land was not-included in the contract , hence the sole basis for the asserted federal question disappears.
And this result is not changed by considering, to .the extent that it is our duty to do so, the question of fact upon which the existence of the alleged federal question depends. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, 593; Creswill v. Knights of Pythias 225 U. S. 246, 261;, Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573, 591. We so conclude because, the result of discharging that duty, leaves us convinced. that the finding below was adequately sustained; indeed, that the record makes it clear that the alleged ground for the federal question was a mere afterthought. The case, therefore, must be and is
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. State of N.D. on Relation of McCue, 236 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1915)
- Kan. City S. Ry. Co. v. C. H. Albers Comm'n Co., 223 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1912)
- Creswill v. Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias of Ga., 225 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1912)