MCSTAY ET AL.
v.
FRIEDMAN
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.
Friedman brought an ejectment action to recover possession of San Francisco Pueblo lands confirmed to the city by Congress, claiming prior possession by himself and his grantors, while McStay and others defended by asserting adverse possession under the Statute of Limitations and a transfer of the city's title to themselves under California law. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that no federal question was actually involved in the dispute since the controversy concerned only the transfer of the city's title under state law rather than the validity of the federal congressional act confirming the land to San Francisco.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action of ejectment brought by Friedman to recover the possession of a certain parcel of the Pueblo lands confirmed to the city of San Francisco by the act of Congress passed March 8, 1866 (14 Stat. 4). He did not attempt to connect himself with the city title, but relied entirely upon his alleged prior possession and that of his grantors.
The defendants, who are the plaintiffs in error, set up in their answer, as defences, (1) adverse possession, with specifications to bring themselves within the operation of the Statute of Limitations; and (2) the title of the city of San Francisco under the act of Congress, and an assignment of that title to themselves, pursuant to the provisions of an ordinance of the city and an act of the legislature of California.
At the trial no question was raised as to the validity or operative effect of the act of Congress. The effort on the part of the plaintiffs in error seems to have been (1) to establish their defence under the Statute of Limitations ; and (2) to prove such possession as would, according to their claim, transfer the city title to them under the operation of the city ordinance and the act of the legislature.
No Federal question was involved in the decision of the Supreme Court. The city title was not drawn in question. The real controversy was. as to the transfer of that title to the plaintiffs in error; and this did not depend upon the “ Constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.” The case is, therefore, in all essential particulars, like that of Romie et al. v. Casanova, 91 U. S. 379; and the writ must be
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co., 175 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1900)…ir litigation extends only to the determination of the rights which they have severally acquired under it.” Accordingly the writ of error to the Supreme Court of California was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. [*580] Again, in McStay v. Friedman, 92 U. S. 723, where, in ejectment for a part of the lands confirmed to the city of San Francisco by an act of Congress, the validity and operative effect of which were not questioned, this court held that it had no jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Supr…
-
Carondelet Canal & Navigation Co. v. State of La., 233 U.S. 362 (U.S. 1914)
-
McCUNE v. Essig, 199 U.S. 382 (U.S. 1905)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Romie v. Casanova, 91 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1875)