Skip to main content
· 11/30/1903

Defiance Water Co. v. Defiance

Citations

  • 191 U.S. 184
  • 24 S. Ct. 63
  • 48 L. Ed. 140
  • 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1443

Syllabus

<p>The fundamental question of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes, presents itself on every writ of error and appeal, and must be answered by the court whether propounded by counsel or not.</p> <p>When a ^uit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy as to the effect or construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States, upon the determination of which the result depends, it is not a suit arising under the Constitution or laws; and it must appear on the record, by a statement in legal and logical form, such as is required in good pleading, that the suit is one which does really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy as to a right, which depends on the construction of the Constitution or some law or treaty of the United States, before jurisdiction can be maintained on that ground.</p> <p>State courts are competent to decide Federal questions arising before them; it is their duty to do so, and the presumption is that they will do what the Constitution and laws of the United States require. If error intervenes the remedy is found in § 709 of the Revised Statutes, and the Federal courts cannot be called on to interpose in a controversy properly pending in the state courts on the ground that the state court might so decide as to render their final action unconstitutional. -' Ws-'</p> <p>The fact that the council of a city has passed a resolution providing for payment of a pending bill of a water company claiming a franchise, with a saving clause against the city, being estopped from denying the existence of contract right, does’not give the Circuit Court jurisdiction to maintain an action in equity to enjoin the city from appropriating money in the water fund to the- payment of any indebtedness other than the complainant on the ground that such resolution is a law impairing the obligation of a contract within the purview of the Federal Constitution.</p> <p>Where in an actio

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting “the presumption” that “in all cases . . . the state courts will do what the Constitution and laws of the United States require”
  • noting “the presumption” that “in all cases . . . the state courts will do what the Constitution and laws of the United States require”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fuller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.