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.

Swope Vs. Leffingwell

Swope vs Leffingwell

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1881
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/84213

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
105 U.S. 3
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Swope

Respondent

Leffingwell

Excerpt

swope v. leffingwell - 105 u.s. 3 (1881) u.s. supreme court swope v. leffingwell, 105 u.s. 3 (1881) swope v. leffingwell 105 u.s. 3 error to the supreme court of missouri syllabus this court has jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment of a state court involving the right of a national bank to purchase a promissory note secured by a deed of trust upon real estate. a motion to affirm will, however, be granted where that is the only federal question in the case and the decision below is in recognition of the right this was a suit brought in the circuit court of st. louis county, missouri, against leffingwell and the other defendants, to restrain and enjoin the sale of certain real estate in the city of st. louis under a deed of trust executed to secure the payment of a promissory note whereof the atlas national bank of boston became the purchaser. the case was ultimately determined by the supreme court of the state reversing the decrees of the subordinate courts, and directing that the bill be dismissed. swope sued out this writ of error. a motion was made to dismiss the writ for want of jurisdiction, upon the ground that there was no federal question involved; to which was united a motion to affirm. page 105 u. s. 4 mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. we have jurisdiction of this case. the motion to dismiss is therefore denied; but as the only federal question presented on the merits was decided by the court below in accordance with our rulings in national bank v. matthews, 98 u. s. 621 , and national bank v. whitney, 103 u. s. 99 , the motion to affirm is granted.

Full Judgment

Swope v. Leffingwell - 105 U.S. 3 (1881)
U.S. Supreme Court Swope v. Leffingwell, 105 U.S. 3 (1881)

Swope v. Leffingwell

105 U.S. 3

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

SYLLABUS

This Court has jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment of a state court involving the right of a national bank to purchase a promissory note secured by a deed of trust upon real estate. A motion to affirm will, however, be granted where that is the only federal question in the case and the decision below is in recognition of the right

This was a suit brought in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, against Leffingwell and the other defendants, to restrain and enjoin the sale of certain real estate in the City of St. Louis under a deed of trust executed to secure the payment of a promissory note whereof the Atlas National Bank of Boston became the purchaser. The case was ultimately determined by the supreme court of the state reversing the decrees of the subordinate courts, and directing that the bill be dismissed. Swope sued out this writ of error.

A motion was made to dismiss the writ for want of jurisdiction, upon the ground that there was no federal question involved; to which was united a motion to affirm.

Page 105 U. S. 4

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

We have jurisdiction of this case. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied; but as the only federal question presented on the merits was decided by the court below in accordance with our rulings in National Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621 , and National Bank v. Whitney, 103 U. S. 99 , the motion to affirm is

Granted.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial