California v. San Pablo & Tulare Railroad

Supreme Court

California v. San Pablo & Tulare Railroad

149 U.S. 308, 13 S. Ct. 876, 37 L. Ed. 747, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2304

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 10, 1893

Docket257

StatusPublished

Cited by335 cases

This text of 149 U.S. 308 (California v. San Pablo & Tulare Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

California v. San Pablo & Tulare Railroad, 149 U.S. 308, 13 S. Ct. 876, 37 L. Ed. 747, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2304 (1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gray

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon the fact most properly and frankly admitted in open court by the Attorney General of the State of California, there can be no doubt that this writ of error must be dismissed-, because the cause of action has ceased to exist. Any obligation of the defendant to pay to the State the sums sued for in this case, together with interest, penalties and costs, has been *314 extinguished by the offer to pay all these sums, and the deposit of the money in a bank, which by a statute of the State have the same effect as actual payment and receipt of the money. And the State has obtained everything that it could recover in this case by a judgment of this court in its favor. The duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it. When, in determining such rights, it becomes necessary to give an opinion upon a question of law, that opinion may have weight as a precedent for future decisions. But the court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. No stipulation of parties or counsel, whether in the case before the court .or in any other case, can enlarge the power, or affect the duty, of the court in this regard.

The case at bar cannot be distinguished in principle from previous cases in which writs of error have been dismissed by this court under similar or analogous circumstances. Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, 255; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333; San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 116 U. S. 138; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547; Singer Manuf. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696. See also Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578.

Writ of error dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Gray

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon the fact most properly and frankly admitted in open court by the Attorney General of the State of California, there can be no doubt that this writ of error must be dismissed-, because the cause of action has ceased to exist. Any obligation of the defendant to pay to the State the sums sued for in this case, together with interest, penalties and costs, has been *314 extinguished by the offer to pay all these sums, and the deposit of the money in a bank, which by a statute of the State have the same effect as actual payment and receipt of the money. And the State has obtained everything that it could recover in this case by a judgment of this court in its favor. The duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it. When, in determining such rights, it becomes necessary to give an opinion upon a question of law, that opinion may have weight as a precedent for future decisions. But the court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. No stipulation of parties or counsel, whether in the case before the court .or in any other case, can enlarge the power, or affect the duty, of the court in this regard.

The case at bar cannot be distinguished in principle from previous cases in which writs of error have been dismissed by this court under similar or analogous circumstances. Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, 255; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333; San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 116 U. S. 138; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547; Singer Manuf. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696. See also Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578.

Writ of error dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 U.S. 308, 13 S. Ct. 876, 37 L. Ed. 747, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/california-v-san-pablo-tulare-railroad-scotus-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack