Carlson v. Washington Ex Rel. Curtiss

Syllabus

<p>Although plaintiff in error, after setting up a Federal defense in the trial court, may not have based any exceptions upon the failure of that court to recognize it, if the appellate court did recognize, and by its decision necessarily overruled, that defense, this court must deal with the Federal question. North Carolina R. R. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248.</p> <p>While, in ordinary cases, this court is bound by the findings of the state court of last resort, that court cannot, by omitting to pass upon basic questions of fact, deprive a litigant of the benefit of a Federal right properly asserted; and it is the duty of this court, in the absence of adequate findings, to examine the record in order to determine whether there is evidence which furnishes a basis for such a Federal right. Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601.</p> <p>¿iter reviewing the congressional and state legislation in regard to the construction of the Lake Washington Waterway, held that Congress has refrained from authorizing any work on behalf of the Federal Government with reference to lowering the level of Lake Washington, and that all responsibility in that respect was assumed by the State and county; and, notwithstanding the contract was made by an officer of the United States Army, it was not on behalf of the United States, but as representing the State of Washington.</p> <p>Under the acts of Congress relative to the Lake Washington Waterway, no agency of the Federal Government could have arisen prior to the action involved in this case with respect to anything done in connection with the construction of the canal.</p> <p>Orders given by an officer of the United States in connection with work not authorized by any act of Congress will not justify one violating the injunction of a state court as doing the act under the direction of officer's of the United States in charge of Government work.</p> <p>The fact that title to right of way for a canal has vested in the United States and