PEOPLE
v.
CENTRAL RAILROAD
PEOPLE
CENTRAL RAILROAD
12 Wall. 455
Supreme Court of the United States (1870)
Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 20 L. Ed. 458 · SCDB 1871-061 · 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1219
Cited by 12 cases
Opinion of the Court
The CHIEF JUSTICE:
We think that the statement of the case shows that the question arose under the agreement and not under any act of Congress. The assent of Congress did not make the act giving it a statute of the United States, in the sense of the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. The construction of the act was in no way drawn in question, nor has any title or right been set up under it and denied by the State court. It had no effect beyond giving the consent. of Congress to the compact between the two States.
The writ of error must, therefore, be
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1981)…has become a law of the Union. What further legislation can be desired for judicial action?” Id., at 566; see also Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573, 581-582 (1904). Although the law-of-the-Union doctrine was questioned in People v. Central R. Co., 12 Wall. 455, 456 (1872) and in Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 109 (1938), any doubts as to its continued vitality were put to rest in Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Comm’n v. Colburn, 310 U. S., at 427-428, where the Cou…
-
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1938)…he compact between Colorado and New Mexico does not make it a “treaty or statute of the United States” within the meaning of § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code, and no question as to the validity of the. consent is presented. People v. Central Railroad, 12 Wall. 455. A claim based on the equitable interstate apportionment of water, like one "based on the proper location of a State boundary, is not within the provisions of [*110] § 237. (a). Rust Land & Lumber Co. v. Jackson, 250 U. S. 71. The appeal must theref…1 / 2
-
Del. River Joint Toll Bridge Comm'n v. Colburn, 310 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1940)…sted its decision. 123 N. J. L. 197; 8 A. 2d 663. We granted certiorari, 308 U. S. 549, the questions of the construction of the Compact between states and of the jurisdiction of this Court being of public importance. In People v. Central Railroad, 12 Wall. 455, jurisdiction of this Court to review a judgment of a state court construing a compact between states was denied on the ground that the Compact was not a statute of the United States and that the construction of the Act of Congress giving consent wa…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence