CARPENTER
v.
WILLIAMS
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 Supreme Court dismissed a writ in a dispute over land title where both parties claimed under federal confirmation, holding that the case presented no federal question because it involved only the personal identity of the intended recipient of the confirmation rather than the interpretation of any federal statute or the validity of federal authority. The Court established that not every real estate dispute between parties claiming under federal grants raises a question of federal jurisdiction when the resolution depends solely on common law rules of personal identity.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. We are of opinion that the record presents no case for the jurisdiction of this court. The case turns solely on the pei’sonal identity of the individual to whom the recorder confirmed, or intended to confirm, the lot in question. It involves the construction of no act of Congress. The decision of the court below denies the validity of no act under the authority of the United States. It recognizes to its fullest extent the title, confirmed by the act of Congress and the act of confirmation, and only determines to whom that confirmation was made.
It is a mistake to suppose that every suit for real estate, in which the parties claiming under the Federal government are at issue as to which of them is entitled to the benefit of that title, necessarily'raises a question of Federal cognizance.
If this were so, the title to all the vast domain, once vested in the United States, could be brought from the State courts to this tribunal.
In the case before us, the rules which must determine the question at issue are common law rules, and the result cannot be varied by the application of any principle of Federal law or Federal authority.*
Writ dismissed.
*
Ryan v. Thomas, 4 Wallace, 604.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids, 223 U.S. 655 (U.S. 1912)
-
Grayson v. Harris, 267 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1925)…de Power Co. v. Rio Grande, etc. Ry., 175 U. S. 639, 645; Illinois v. Economy Power Co., 234 U. S. 497, 523-524; Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658, 668, et seq.; Crary v. Devlin, 154 U. S. 619; Egan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188, 192; Carpenter v. Williams, 9 Wall. 785, 786. Nor meed we inquire into the defense of the statute of limitations. The decision now under - review entirely ignores it. The rule that, when the decision of a state court may rest upon a'non-federal ground adequate to support it, this court w…
-
Corkran Oil & Dev. Co. v. Arnaudet, 199 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1905)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence