Bradley Vs. Lightcap No. 3

Bradley vs Lightcap No. 3

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-31-1904

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/89677

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/89677
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: May-31-1904
Case Number: 195 U.S. 25
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bradley

Respondent

Lightcap No. 3

Excerpt

.....the premises in controversy in no. 243, and for appropriate relief, in the circuit court of the united states for the northern district of illinois, and was dismissed for want of jurisdiction may 22, 1902. page 195 u. s. 26 the circuit court, grosscup, j., was of opinion that the statute of 1872 was not one of limitation in the same sense as a statute limiting the time within which foreclosure proceedings must be brought; that the failure to take out the deed within five years raised no presumption that the mortgage debt had been paid, and that the act was, in effect, simply a limitation on the time within which the foreclosure decree could be availed of, and not operate to forfeit the mortgagee's title to the mortgagor if the deed were not taken out. but he thought that mrs. bradley's title by possession as mortgagee had not been held by the state court to have been cut off by the statute of 1872, as the record in that court stood, as reported in 186 ill. 510, and that therefore the constitutional question did not arise. if, however, the supreme court had ruled that her title as mortgagee in possession had been so destroyed, the remedy was by writ of error from the supreme court of the united states. the decision in 201 ill. 511, was rendered february 18, 1903. taking into view the controversy as presented in the two other cases, and that the judgments in those cases are now directed to be reversed, and bearing in mind that a case does not necessarily arise under the constitution or laws of the united states every time a writ of error would lie to the judgment of the state court, the decrees of the circuit court will be affirmed.

Full Judgment

Bradley v. Lightcap No. 3 - 195 U.S. 25 (1904)
U.S. Supreme Court Bradley v. Lightcap No. 3, 195 U.S. 25 (1904)

Bradley v. Lightcap No. 3

No. 393

Argued April 21, 1904

Decided May 31, 1904

195 U.S. 25

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SYLLABUS

A case does not necessarily arise under the constitution or laws of the United States every time a writ of error would lie to the judgment of the state court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

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

This was a bill filed by Mrs. Bradley to quiet her title to the premises in controversy in No. 243, and for appropriate relief, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, and was dismissed for want of jurisdiction May 22, 1902.

Page 195 U. S. 26

The circuit court, Grosscup, J., was of opinion that the statute of 1872 was not one of limitation in the same sense as a statute limiting the time within which foreclosure proceedings must be brought; that the failure to take out the deed within five years raised no presumption that the mortgage debt had been paid, and that the act was, in effect, simply a limitation on the time within which the foreclosure decree could be availed of, and not operate to forfeit the mortgagee's title to the mortgagor if the deed were not taken out. But he thought that Mrs. Bradley's title by possession as mortgagee had not been held by the state court to have been cut off by the statute of 1872, as the record in that court stood, as reported in 186 Ill. 510, and that therefore the constitutional question did not arise. If, however, the supreme court had ruled that her title as mortgagee in possession had been so destroyed, the remedy was by writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision in 201 Ill. 511, was rendered February 18, 1903. Taking into view the controversy as presented in the two other cases, and that the judgments in those cases are now directed to be reversed, and bearing in mind that a case does not necessarily arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States every time a writ of error would lie to the judgment of the state court, the decrees of the circuit court will be

Affirmed.

Same Parties Bradley vs Lightcap No. 3 Same Subject Education