Crossley v. City of New Orleans

Supreme Court

Crossley v. City of New Orleans

108 U.S. 105, 2 S. Ct. 300, 27 L. Ed. 667, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1009

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 19, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 108 U.S. 105 (Crossley v. City of New Orleans) 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

Crossley v. City of New Orleans, 108 U.S. 105, 2 S. Ct. 300, 27 L. Ed. 667, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1009 (1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the .court.

The record shows that the defendants’in error sought to enjoin the collection, of a judgment against their property to enforce an assessment under the drainage lays of Louisiana f 1, because under the operation of the laws authorizing the judgment nothing more remained to be paid thereon; and, 2, because the judgment had, in terms, been released and discharged by certain acts of the’ general assembly of the State, passed in 1811 and 1818. If the case was decided below on -the first of these grounds, no federal question is involved.

It was settled long ago that, in cases coming to this court from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the opinion of the court below, as set out in the record; may be referred to, if necessary, to determine whether the judgment is one we have authority to review. Armstrong v. Treasurer of Athens Co., 16 Pet. 281; Almonester v. Kenton, 9 How. 1; Grand Gulf R. R. and Banking Co. v. Marshall, 12 How. 165; Cousin v. La batut, 19 How. 202; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590. From the statement of the case and the opinion found in this record, it is manifest the decision was placed entirely on the *106 ground that the judgment was not collectible under the law as it stood before the acts of 1876 and 1877 were'passed. Consequently the case was disposed of before the federal question presented by the pleadings was reached, and that question was not and need not have been decided. Under these circumstances we have no jurisdiction, and the

Motion to dismiss is granted

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the .court.

The record shows that the defendants’in error sought to enjoin the collection, of a judgment against their property to enforce an assessment under the drainage lays of Louisiana f 1, because under the operation of the laws authorizing the judgment nothing more remained to be paid thereon; and, 2, because the judgment had, in terms, been released and discharged by certain acts of the’ general assembly of the State, passed in 1811 and 1818. If the case was decided below on -the first of these grounds, no federal question is involved.

It was settled long ago that, in cases coming to this court from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the opinion of the court below, as set out in the record; may be referred to, if necessary, to determine whether the judgment is one we have authority to review. Armstrong v. Treasurer of Athens Co., 16 Pet. 281; Almonester v. Kenton, 9 How. 1; Grand Gulf R. R. and Banking Co. v. Marshall, 12 How. 165; Cousin v. La batut, 19 How. 202; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590. From the statement of the case and the opinion found in this record, it is manifest the decision was placed entirely on the *106 ground that the judgment was not collectible under the law as it stood before the acts of 1876 and 1877 were'passed. Consequently the case was disposed of before the federal question presented by the pleadings was reached, and that question was not and need not have been decided. Under these circumstances we have no jurisdiction, and the

Motion to dismiss is granted

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 U.S. 105, 2 S. Ct. 300, 27 L. Ed. 667, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crossley-v-city-of-new-orleans-scotus-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack