TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Manila Investment Co. v. Trammell

Manila Investment Company v. Trammell

Manila Inv. Co. v. Trammell, 239 U.S. 31 (1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 1, 1915
Docket
No. 250
Judges
Day
Citations
239 U.S. 3136 S. Ct. 1260 L. Ed. 1291915 U.S. LEXIS 1520
Syllabus
Mere breach of contract on the part of state officers does not amount to a taking of plaintiff’s property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Where the allegation of the bill relied on to give jurisdiction shows mere breach of contract on the part of state officers the case does not present a real ánd substantial controversy involving the construction or effect of the Federal Constitution and the District Court does not have jurisdiction on that ground.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States in cases involving constitutional questions, are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Day

Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice Day, by direction of the court.

This case-was begun in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, upon a bill praying to have the title to certain lands decreed to be held in trust for complainant by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of Florida, and to recover lands deeded to others but likewise held in trust for complainants. The court below dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction.

An examination of. the bill shows that the ground of recovery rests upon the allegation that the trustees contracted to convey the lands in question to the complainants, and afterwards, by formal resolution, the Board repudiated its former action, and refused to recognize the alleged trust, and- declared the complainants’ title null and void. Complainants contend that this action by the trustees, as an agency of the State, in repudiation of its former action and the conveyance of part of the land to others in violation of the trust, constituted a taking of its property without due process of law, in violation of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the only ground of Federal jurisdiction insisted upon.

The case presented no real and substantial controversy involving the construction or effect of the Federal Constitution. The allegations relied upon to give jurisdiction show a breach of contract merely and bring the case within the principles decided by this court in St. Paul Gas Light *33 Co.

v. St. Paul, 181 U. S. 142 ;

Dawson v. Columbia Avenue &c. Co., 197 U. S. 178 ;

Shawnee Sewerage Co.

v. Stearns, 220 U. S. 462 ;

McCormick v. Oklahoma City, 236 U. S. 657 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1916: 11919: 11924: 11927: 11956: 11958: 11972: 11976: 11985: 11990: 22011: 119162026peak 1990 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. INNER CITY LEASING & TRUCKING, CO. v. City of Gary, Ind.759 F. Supp. 461 (N.D. Ind. 1990)
  2. John & Sal's Automotive Service, Inc. v. Sinclair Refining Co.165 F. Supp. 518 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)
  3. South Cutler Bay, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.349 F. Supp. 1205 (S.D. Fla. 1972)
  4. Russo v. School Board835 F. Supp. 2d 125 (E.D. Va. 2011)
  5. Bishop v. Indiana Technical Vocational College742 F. Supp. 524 (N.D. Ind. 1990)
  6. Grantham v. City of Chadron20 F.2d 40 (8th Cir. 1927)

Most recent

  1. Russo v. School Board835 F. Supp. 2d 125 (E.D. Va. 2011)
  2. Bishop v. Indiana Technical Vocational College742 F. Supp. 524 (N.D. Ind. 1990)
  3. INNER CITY LEASING & TRUCKING, CO. v. City of Gary, Ind.759 F. Supp. 461 (N.D. Ind. 1990)
  4. Sudeikis v. Chicago Transit Authority774 F.2d 766 (7th Cir. 1985)
  5. Heath v. City of Fairfax542 F.2d 1236 (4th Cir. 1976)
  6. South Cutler Bay, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.349 F. Supp. 1205 (S.D. Fla. 1972)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
City of Dawson v. Columbia Ave. Saving Fund, 197 U.S. 178 (1905) 154
St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U.S. 142 (1901) 71
Shawnee Sewerage & Drainage Co. v. Stearns, 220 U.S. 462 (1911) 35
McCormick v. Okla. City, 236 U.S. 657 (1915) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list