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

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
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 : 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

MCDONALD V. OREGON R. & NAVIGATION CO., 233 U. S. 665 (1914)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 233 U. S. 665 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

McDonald v. Oregon R. & Navigation Co., 233 U.S. 665 (1914)

McDonald v. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company

No. 463

Motion to dismiss submitted May 4, 1914

Decided May 25, 1914

233 U.S. 665


The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not control methods of state procedure or give jurisdiction to this Court to review mere errors of law alleged to have been committed by a state court in the performance of its duties and within the scope of its authority concerning matters nonfederal in character.

It is the lack of jurisdiction in the sense of fundamental absence of any and all right to take cognizance of the cause that amounts to deprivation of property without due process of law and gives this Court power to review the judgment of the state court under § 237, Judicial Code, not the wrongful exercise of jurisdiction in the sense of duty to chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 233 U. S. 666

rightfully decide subjects to which judicial power extends. Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674.

Where a defendant in the state court did not object to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an action to enjoin him from enforcing his right of ownership, but went further and sought affirmative relief in that action, he cannot be heard in this Court to deny that the court had any power to exert the very jurisdiction which he invoked.

Writ of error to review 58 Or. 228 dismissed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court under § 237, Judicial Code, to review a judgment of the state court involving a railroad right of way, are stated in the opinion.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™