Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

MclaughlIn Vs. Fowler

Mclaughlin vs Fowler

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Dec-13-1880
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/83862

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
154 U.S. 663
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mclaughlin

Respondent

Fowler

Excerpt

mclaughlin v. fowler - 154 u.s. 663 (1880) u.s. supreme court mclaughlin v. fowler, 154 u.s. 663 (1880) mclaughlin v. fowler nos. 94, 95 argued december 2, 1880 decided december 13, 1880 154 u.s. 663 error to the supreme court of the state of california syllabus in cases brought here from state courts, this court can only look beyond the federal question when that has been decided erroneously. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. the only federal question in these cases is whether the patents to the western railroad company for lands within the limits of the moquelomnes grant are valid. if that question was not decided by the court below, we have no jurisdiction; if it was, the judgment was right because in accordance with newhall v. sanger, 92 u. s. 761 , brought here in 1875 for the determination of the same identical question. such being the case, the judgment must be affirmed. we can only look beyond the federal question when that has been decided erroneously, and then only to see whether there are any other matters or issues adjudged by the state court sufficiently broad to maintain the judgment notwithstanding the error in the decision of the federal question. murdock v. memphis, 20 wall. 590. the judgment in each of these cases is affirmed on the authority of newhall v. sanger.

Full Judgment

McLaughlin v. Fowler - 154 U.S. 663 (1880)
U.S. Supreme Court McLaughlin v. Fowler, 154 U.S. 663 (1880)

McLaughlin v. Fowler

Nos. 94, 95

Argued December 2, 1880

Decided December 13, 1880

154 U.S. 663

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SYLLABUS

In cases brought here from state courts, this Court can only look beyond the federal question when that has been decided erroneously.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only federal question in these cases is whether the patents to the Western Railroad Company for lands within the limits of the Moquelomnes grant are valid. If that question was not decided by the court below, we have no jurisdiction; if it was, the judgment was right because in accordance with Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761 , brought here in 1875 for the determination of the same identical question. Such being the case, the judgment must be affirmed. We can only look beyond the federal question when that has been decided erroneously, and then only to see whether there are any other matters or issues adjudged by the state court sufficiently broad to maintain the judgment notwithstanding the error in the decision of the federal question. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590.

The judgment in each of these cases is affirmed on the authority of Newhall v. Sanger.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial