Knop v. Monongahela River Consolidated Coal and Coke Company

Supreme Court

Knop v. Monongahela River Consolidated Coal and Coke Company

211 U.S. 485, 53 L. Ed. 294, 29 S. Ct. 188, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1777

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 4, 1909

Docket449

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 211 U.S. 485 (Knop v. Monongahela River Consolidated Coal and Coke Company) 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

Knop v. Monongahela River Consolidated Coal and Coke Company, 211 U.S. 485, 53 L. Ed. 294, 29 S. Ct. 188, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1777 (1909).

Pincite

Opinion

*488 Mb. Justice Brewer,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

An appeal was taken under § 5 of the act creating the Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 Stat. 826, 827. The mere construction of a state statute does not of itself present a Federal question: But the contention of appellants is that the Circuit Court improperly construed the act of 1904; that correctly construed it applies not merely to sales by boat- or barge load, or some aliquot part thereof,, but also to sales by weight or measurement, and that under such construction a question is presented of a conflict between it and the Federal 'Constitution.

But the difficulty with this contention is, first, that the statute construed as ‘applied to. boat and barge loads' has been declared valid by this court; and further, that there is no claim by the appellee of any invalidity in the statute, but only of its inapplicability to the facts. -In the face of the decision of this court.and the.claim of the appellee it is difficult to see how there can be any question of a conflict between the legislation and the Federal Constitution. After a final decision, it is going too far to hold that there" still remains an undecided question, and that when we have held that a statute of .a State is valid there remains a controversy as to its validity, and this is emphatically true when neither .party challenges that decision. Nor for like reason does there appear any ground for holding that there is a question as to the construction or application of the Constitution. While in § 10 of Art. I of the Federal Constitution there is a recognition of the power of the State to pass inspection laws, yet to justify a holding that the application of the Federal Constitution is involved there should be a question as to the relation between some constitutional provision and the state statute.

Under these circumstances we are of opinion that this court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal' must be

Dismissed.

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

*488 Mb. Justice Brewer,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

An appeal was taken under § 5 of the act creating the Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 Stat. 826, 827. The mere construction of a state statute does not of itself present a Federal question: But the contention of appellants is that the Circuit Court improperly construed the act of 1904; that correctly construed it applies not merely to sales by boat- or barge load, or some aliquot part thereof,, but also to sales by weight or measurement, and that under such construction a question is presented of a conflict between it and the Federal 'Constitution.

But the difficulty with this contention is, first, that the statute construed as ‘applied to. boat and barge loads' has been declared valid by this court; and further, that there is no claim by the appellee of any invalidity in the statute, but only of its inapplicability to the facts. -In the face of the decision of this court.and the.claim of the appellee it is difficult to see how there can be any question of a conflict between the legislation and the Federal Constitution. After a final decision, it is going too far to hold that there" still remains an undecided question, and that when we have held that a statute of .a State is valid there remains a controversy as to its validity, and this is emphatically true when neither .party challenges that decision. Nor for like reason does there appear any ground for holding that there is a question as to the construction or application of the Constitution. While in § 10 of Art. I of the Federal Constitution there is a recognition of the power of the State to pass inspection laws, yet to justify a holding that the application of the Federal Constitution is involved there should be a question as to the relation between some constitutional provision and the state statute.

Under these circumstances we are of opinion that this court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal' must be

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 U.S. 485, 53 L. Ed. 294, 29 S. Ct. 188, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knop-v-monongahela-river-consolidated-coal-and-coke-company-scotus-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack