UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ET AL.
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.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company served as surety on a bond for state deposits that were lost when a bank became insolvent, and the State of Oklahoma obtained judgment against the surety for the full bond amount. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the surety's claim that a 1913 Oklahoma statute impaired its contract rights was not sufficiently presented in or decided by the state court to warrant federal review under the applicable jurisdictional statute. The Court established that mere assertion of a constitutional right is insufficient for jurisdiction; there must be a real and substantial controversy of the required character that was actually decided by the lower court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
May 18, 1909, plaintiff in error became surety upon a bond to secure repayment of funds to be deposited by Commissioners of the Land Office of Oklahoma with the Columbia Bank & Trust Co. After receiving more than $50,000 the Trust Company became ilisolvent, and in September, 1909, refused to honor a proper demand therefor. The State sued the surety in one of its own courts, December 24, 1909, and judgment there for full amount of the bond was affirmed, by the Supreme Court, October 9,1917. 168 Pac. Rep. 234.
The cause is here on writ of error and jurisdiction of this court is challenged upon the ground that the suit is not one “where is drawn in.question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity.” Judicial Code, § 237, as amended by Act approved'September 6, 1916. We think the point well taken and the writ must be.dismissed.
In support of our jurisdiction it is said: “The case is properly here by writ of error because it involves the validity of legislation of the State of Oklahoma alleged by the plaintiff in error to impair the obligation of its contract.” But we have often held that mere assertion of a claim in respect of some constitutional right is not sufficient; there must be a real and substantial controversy of the required character which deserves serious consideration. Ennis Water Works v. City of Ennis, 233 U. S. 652, 658.
Counsel for plaintiff in error further say: “Our position is that tinder this bond and the statutes in force at the time it was executed a contract was created between the State, the Columbia Bank & Trust Company, and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, pursuant to which the Guaranty Company was liable to the State for such, loss as it might sustain by reason of the failure of the Trust Company; that the Guaranty Company was entitled to exoneration from the Trust Company and to contribution from the guaranty fund; and that this contract was impaired by the Act of March 6, 1913.” (§ 9, c. 22, Session Laws, 1913.) It provides, “No deposit in a state bank, otherwise secured, shall be protected by, or paid out of, the Depositors’ Guaranty Fund created under the laws .of the State of Oklahoma, nor included in the computation of average daily deposits as a basis for assessments. . No deposit in any state bank, on which a greater rate of interest is allowed or paid, either directly or indirectly, than is permitted by the rules of the Bank Commissioner, shall participate in the benefits of the Guaranty Fund.”
The opinion of the Supreme Court makes no reference to the Act of March 6,1913, and we can discover no plausible basis for the argument that, notwithstanding such omission, force and effect were really given thereto — that it must have been the basis of the decision. The court approved, and undertook to support its conclusion by former opinions, commencing with Columbia Bank & Trust Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 33 Oklahoma, 535, decided in 1912, which, it declared, show a consistent view contrary to the position maintained by plaintiff in error. And an examination of these opinions leaves no doubt that they are relevant and tend to uphold the doctrine applied in the present cause. We find nothing to indicate a purpose to give effect to the specified act.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. United States, 205 F.2d 765 (10th Cir. 1953)…court held that the menace created by the presence of the guns did not impose a servitude or constitute an appropriation or taking of private property for public use. And again, in Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Company v. United States, 250 U.S. 1, 39 S.Ct. 399, 63 L.Ed. 809, subsequent gun fire over the same land was held not to justify a different conclusion. But repeated and cumulated firing over the same lands was held to amount to the imposition of a servitude and a taking in Portsmouth Harbor Land &…
-
United States v. Dickinson, 152 F.2d 865 (4th Cir. 1946)…a private owner as a suitable field over which to fire heavy guns installed for the purpose may constitute a taking; Peabody v. United States, 231 U.S. 530, 34 S.Ct. 159, 58 L.Ed. 351; Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 1, 39 S.Ct. 399, 63 L.Ed. 809; but it is obvious that in such a situation, the existence of the intention itself deprives the owner of the use of his land and constitutes a taking. Pumpelly v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co., 13 Wall. 166, 37 S.Ct. 380, 61 L.Ed.…
-
Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corp. (N.D. Ohio 1930)…ion Law, page 16, and the very excellent survey of the eases in an annotation, 42 A. L. R. 945. In the cases of Peabody v. United States, 231 U. S. 530, 34 S. Ct. 159, 58 L. Ed. 351; Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 250 U. S. 1, 39 S. Ct. 399, 63 L. Ed. 809; and Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 327, 43 S. Ct. 135, 67 L. Ed. 287, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in effect, that the shooting of guns across the land of an adjoining owner from forts…
Authorities Cited
- Ennis Water Works v. City of Ennis, 233 U.S. 652 (U.S. 1914)