Miller v. Cornwall Railroad
Citations
- 168 U.S. 131
- 18 S. Ct. 34
- 42 L. Ed. 409
- 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1712
Syllabus
<p>The validity of a statute is drawn in question whenever the power to enact it, as it is by its terms, or is made to read by construction, is fairly open to denial, and is denied.</p> <p>Under Rev. Stat. § 709, if the ground on which the jurisdiction of this court is invoked to review a judgment of a state court is, that the validity of a state law was drawn in question as in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, and the decision of the state court is in favor of its validity, this must appear on the face of the record before the decision below can be reexamined here.</p> <p>A suggestion of such appearance, made on application for reargument, after the judgment of the trial court is affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, comes too late.</p> <p>This court has no jurisdiction on a writ of error to a state court to declare a state law void on account of its collision with the state constitution.</p> <p>An objection in the trial of an action in a state court that an act of the State was “ unconstitutional and void,” when construed in those courts as raising the question whether the state legislature had power, under the state constitution, to pass the act, and not as having reference to any repugnance to the Constitution of the United States, is properly construed.</p> <p>The report of this case in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shows that it assumed that it was dealing, under the assignments of error, only with the state constitution.</p>
Judges: FulleR
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Gibbes v. ZimmermanSupreme Court· 1933-12-04· cited 108×
- Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. KirvenSupreme Court· 1909-12-06· cited 59×
- Jacobi v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1902-11-17· cited 29×
- Charleston & South Side Bridge Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1897-11-01· cited 25×
- Layton v. MissouriSupreme Court· 1902-12-22· cited 21×
- Thomas v. IowaSupreme Court· 1908-03-23· cited 18×
- Chapin v. FyeSupreme Court· 1900-11-19· cited 15×
- Bowe v. ScottSupreme Court· 1914-05-25· cited 15×
- Reid v. Solar CorporationN.D. Iowa· 1946-11-22· cited 15×
- Kipley v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1898-04-18· cited 13×
- Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad v. ThiebaudSupreme Court· 1900-05-14· cited 9×
- Liebes v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueNinth Circuit· 1933-03-06· cited 9×
- New York Central Railroad v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1902-06-02· cited 8×
- Henkel v. CincinnatiSupreme Court· 1900-04-09· cited 8×
- Scudder v. Comptroller of New YorkSupreme Court· 1899-10-30· cited 5×
- Boehringer v. Yuma CountyArizona Supreme Court· 1914-05-06· cited 5×
- El Paso Sash & Door Co. v. CarrawaySupreme Court· 1918-02-04· cited 4×
- Chappell Chemical & Fertilizer Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co.Supreme Court· 1899-01-09· cited 3×
- Lufkin v. LufkinSupreme Court· 1904-01-04
- Baird v. MonroeSupreme Court· 1907-10-28
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Loeber v. SchroederSupreme Court· 1893-05-10· cited 39×
- Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Co.Supreme Court· 1896-05-04· cited 31×
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court· 1890-11-03· cited 30×
- Pim v. St. LouisSupreme Court· 1897-02-01· cited 16×
- James D. Porter and Others, in Error v. Bushrod W. FoleySupreme Court· 1861-03-14· cited 4×
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.