Manila Investment Co. v. Trammell

239 U.S. 31, 36 S. Ct. 12, 60 L. Ed. 129, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1520
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 1, 1915
Docket250
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 239 U.S. 31 (Manila Investment Co. v. Trammell) 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
Manila Investment Co. v. Trammell, 239 U.S. 31, 36 S. Ct. 12, 60 L. Ed. 129, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1520 (1915).

Opinion

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Justice Day,

by direction of the court.

This case-was begun in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, upon a bill praying to have the title to certain lands decreed to be held in trust for complainant by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of Florida, and to recover lands deeded to others but likewise held in trust for complainants. The court below dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction.

An examination of. the bill shows that the ground of recovery rests upon the allegation that the trustees contracted to convey the lands in question to the complainants, and afterwards, by formal resolution, the Board repudiated its former action, and refused to recognize the alleged trust, and- declared the complainants’ title null and void. Complainants contend that this action by the trustees, as an agency of the State, in repudiation of its former action and the conveyance of part of the land to others in violation of the trust, constituted a taking of its property without due process of law, in violation of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the only ground of Federal jurisdiction insisted upon.

The case presented no real and substantial controversy involving the construction or effect of the Federal Constitution. The allegations relied upon to give jurisdiction show a breach of contract merely and bring the case within the principles decided by this court in St. Paul Gas Light *33 Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U. S. 142; Dawson v. Columbia Avenue &c. Co., 197 U. S. 178; Shawnee Sewerage Co. v. Stearns, 220 U. S. 462; McCormick v. Oklahoma City, 236 U. S. 657.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Russo v. School Board
835 F. Supp. 2d 125 (E.D. Virginia, 2011)
Bishop v. Indiana Technical Vocational College
742 F. Supp. 524 (N.D. Indiana, 1990)
Sudeikis v. Chicago Transit Authority
774 F.2d 766 (Seventh Circuit, 1985)
Heath v. City Of Fairfax
542 F.2d 1236 (Fourth Circuit, 1976)
South Cutler Bay, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.
349 F. Supp. 1205 (S.D. Florida, 1972)
Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Collins
234 F.2d 319 (Fifth Circuit, 1956)
Coastal Petroleum Company v. Leroy Collins
234 F.2d 319 (Fifth Circuit, 1956)
Grantham v. City of Chadron
20 F.2d 40 (Eighth Circuit, 1927)
Ex parte Mitchell
256 F. 229 (N.D. New York, 1919)
Lincoln v. Power
241 U.S. 651 (Supreme Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 U.S. 31, 36 S. Ct. 12, 60 L. Ed. 129, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manila-investment-co-v-trammell-scotus-1915.