CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


BRADLEY V. LIGHTCAP NO. 3, 195 U. S. 25 (1904)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 195 U. S. 25 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Bradley v. Lightcap No. 3, 195 U.S. 25 (1904)

Bradley v. Lightcap No. 3

No. 393

Argued April 21, 1904

Decided May 31, 1904

195 U.S. 25

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Syllabus

A case does not necessarily arise under the constitution or laws of the United States every time a writ of error would lie to the judgment of the state court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a bill filed by Mrs. Bradley to quiet her title to the premises in controversy in No. 243, and for appropriate relief, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, and was dismissed for want of jurisdiction May 22, 1902. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 195 U. S. 26

The circuit court, Grosscup, J., was of opinion that the statute of 1872 was not one of limitation in the same sense as a statute limiting the time within which foreclosure proceedings must be brought; that the failure to take out the deed within five years raised no presumption that the mortgage debt had been paid, and that the act was, in effect, simply a limitation on the time within which the foreclosure decree could be availed of, and not operate to forfeit the mortgagee's title to the mortgagor if the deed were not taken out. But he thought that Mrs. Bradley's title by possession as mortgagee had not been held by the state court to have been cut off by the statute of 1872, as the record in that court stood, as reported in 186 Ill. 510, and that therefore the constitutional question did not arise. If, however, the supreme court had ruled that her title as mortgagee in possession had been so destroyed, the remedy was by writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision in 201 Ill. 511, was rendered February 18, 1903. Taking into view the controversy as presented in the two other cases, and that the judgments in those cases are now directed to be reversed, and bearing in mind that a case does not necessarily arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States every time a writ of error would lie to the judgment of the state court, the decrees of the circuit court will be

Affirmed.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED