KUHN v. FAIRMONT COAL *1 CO; CO n Kuhn, Argument for 215 U. S COAL v. FAIRMONT KUHN COMPANY. APPEALS THE CO CRT OF FOR FROM CERTIFICATE CIRCUIT THE. CIRCUIT. FOURTH 3, January 3, Argued 1909. Decided No. 50. December determining rights accruing- laws and administering state When court is an thereunder, jurisdiction of the Federal independent- with, to, one, and not subordinate coordinate concurrent of the state courts. jurisdiction estate, by so state decisions relating of law to real established Rules accrued, parties to have become the'rights before of the rendered and-action, court; by the Federal property accepted rules of the right duty has thus been settled it is but where the law always as it does judgment, Federal court to exercise its own of the law and general on doctrines of commercial depending in cases jurisprudence. judg- its own in which the Federal court exercises questions
Even should, comity and to ment, for the sake of avoid the Federal court if confusion, with state court- agreement lean to with doubt. balanced or written'instruments conveyances of. determining the effect
When States,N right different it is the private parties, citizens of between independent its own judg- court to exercise of the Federal been rendered no authoritative state decision'had ment where .the and become had state court before accrued final. decision, is not bound of the state ren- The Federal-court involved in the case in Federal court was after the deed
dered , sustained, injury holding that there is no made and after and, in a ooal conveying reservation deed implied subsurface in its enough support mine it to leave coal to the surface position. original opinion. are stated facts Williams for Homer W.
Mr. Kuhn: court does not construe case decided The Griffin cannot, placed in of cases the class decided any statute
Argument for Kuhn. by the state courts which control Federal courts. Nor does it establish any rule This is ah property. action of tres- on the case tort. None of the pass cases cited defend- *2 ant apply. of the court
Decisions state even when decided a stat- upon of an principle ute or established rule of property, the Federal court from preclude do passing questions of which contract out the cause action accrued before the of the state court. v. Tyson, 1; decision 16 Pet. Swift Griffin Co., 584; Wheel 9 v. Overman C. C. A. Rowan Runnels, v. 10 Lawrence v. 134; Wickware, 8,148; How. Fed. Cas. No. C., S. 599; McLean, 56; Peck, 4 Pease v. 18 How. Roberts v. Bolles, 119; 20; v. Burgess Seligman, U. S. 107 U. S. 101 Detroit v. Co., 569; 55 Fed. Rep. King Co., Railroad v. Investment 28 33; Groves 15 Slaughter, 497; Fed. v. Pet. Rep. Sims v. Huns- How. 1. ley, 6
The- Federal courts aré not bound in cases involving va- by bonds decisions of lidity municipal state courts made Jordan, 680; the bonds are issued. v. 119 after U. S. Enfield 759; Brimfield, Bolles v. 120 U. S. Bamum v. Okolona, 148 393; Gibson v. Lyon, U. S. 439.
The Federal courts not bound decisions are to be determined private rights court where application rules v. 2 alone, Chicago Robbins, 418; common-law Black, 29 or 55; C. C. A. contract Hite, Hill v. on a depending of the if or Constitution the decision provision state statute made after the contract. Central Trust court is Co. state v. Trust Co., 1; 82 Fed. Co. v. Railway Rep. Cincinnati. 76 Street v. Hotel 79 296; Co., Rep. Jones Fed. 447. Rep. Fed. merely As a deed that are contractual and provisions affect the title courts are not bound by do not Federal Fire Ins. Co. v. Railway Co., state court decisions. 62 Fed. City Austin, v. 85 904; Rep. 359; Bartholomew Fed. Rep. 370; Rep. 86 Fed. and see also v. Co., Speer v. Hotel Jones 749; Fed. v. Otoe Commissioners, Rep. Clapp County, 88 104 Fed. Rep. ' CO. v. FAIRMONT COAL
KUHN Argument Fairmont for Coal Co. S. 215 U. court be followed to of the state the decision
Nor should law. Faulkner truth, or justice to sacrifice an extent as such 462; Vick, 3 How. v. 416; Lane v. Hart, 82 N. Y. v. Foxcraft 113 Fed. Harris, Rep. Loan 353; Co. Mallett, How. Brannon Mr. Edward A. Vinson Taylor Mr. Z. Coal Company: Fairmont courts to follow the decisions Federal duty is the
It
in cases
the former
pending
of a State
highest
court construes
state
of the state
statute
the decision
where
real
deeds or
estate and
grants
or interprets
local law
wherein no Federal
thereto,
ques-
rights pertaining
determines
the fact that
affected
involved; nor is'this
tion
court after the contract rights
made
decision'is
court had accrued. Hart-
in the Federal
the case
involved
U. S.
Rowan
Co.,
108;
Ry.
&c.
Chicago
Ins. Co.
*3
ford
139;
Curtenius,
1;
v.
20 How.
134,
Morgan,
How.
Runnels, 5
v.
47, 52;
v.
Burgess
100 U. S.
County,
Selig-
v. Gallatin
Fairfield
Blunt, 147 U.
35;
647,
Bauserman v.
S.
20,
man, 107 U. S.
304,. 311;
U. S.
Sioux City
170
Williams v. Eggleston,
653;
A.,
The court highest State given parties, private and followed will lies, adopted land 'the Fed- which the question presented the same them. courts whenever eral Eureka 204 Co., v. Central U. S. 266, East Eureka Co. Central 352 1909.
Argument for Coal Co. U. S. Fairmont 215 ,v. 272; citing Co., Ins. 96 U. S. De- 627, 636; Brine Hartford v. Vaughn Hutchinson, 566; 165 U. S. and see also United v. 7 Crosby, Cranch, 115; Clark v. Graham, States 6 Wheat. 577; Scales, 23; McGoon v. 9 Olcott Bynum, Wall. v. 17 Wall. Ex 44; McNeil, 236; parte Clark,-178 Wall. Clark v. S. 13 U. 186; Clarke, Oliver v. Rep. 402; Berry 106 Fed. v. 93 Bank, Fed. Rep. Federal,
The courts will an agreement of views lean.toward with the state courts if seems- balanced with Port-, 244; doubt. Waterworks v. 199 U. S. Mead Tampa, v. land, 163; 200 Burgess U.'S. U. Seligman, 20; v. 107 S. Wilson 412; 184 U. Standefer, 399, v. S. Bienville Water Mo- Có. v. 212, 220; 186 U. bile, S. ChicagoSeminary Illinois, v. 622, 674. given construction the similar case,
deeds the Griffin announced no new rules interpre- but, deeds; contrary,' tation followed strictly a line of decisions of West Virginia state courts Virginia long made the date of the deed prior involved this case. rule of No law established has been but previously changed the decision is in with the perfect English accord decisions. McSwinney Mines, 507; on' see W. Va. Hurst Hurst, 59 v. Va; Va, 339; Snodgrass 7 W. 11 W. Wolf, 1.58; v. Barber v., Co., 658; F. M. Ins. 16'W. O’Brien Brice, & v. 21 Va.-W. Va.. W; 704; v: Gibney Fitzsimmons, 45 Va. 334; Long Perrine, v. 158; 41 W. Va. McDougall 509; v. W. Va. Musgrave, Inst. 1066; Minor’s pp. Carrington Goddin, 13 Gratt. 587; Langhome, Wilson v. 102 Virginia, 631; King Norfolk Western, Virginia, &. *4 court will write new into covenants a deed. See 22 308; v. Wall. Crump,
Gavinzel- Baltzer Air v. Line Co,, 115 H. Canal 634; D. & Co. v. Co., U. S.- Coal 276, Penna. 8 Wall. State in which 290. The laws land is situated control descent, alienation exclusively transfer, and and the effect and construction instruments .to.convey .intended it. Cases U.,S. Casey,-179 210).Claiborne Abraham v. and supra v. Co. COAL CO. v. FAIRMONT KUHN 3.53 Opinion the Court. U. S. 215 Rutland, 13 400; 306; v. Wall. Williams 111 U. S. Brooks, Williamson, 24 v. How. 316; Suydam 134 S.U. Griggs, Arndt v. y. 2 Bobbins, 418; Neal, Green 6 Pet. Black, .427; v. Chicago 291, 296. principle include covered
The rules of property War- transfer, descent, possession. title and those governing 903; v. 484; Cyc. Kerr, 11 White, U. S. burton v. 176 Buford 90 Fed. 513; Co., Rep. Foster Oil Gas v. & Rep. 90 Fed. own decisions so has times overruled ité at This titles affecting conform the decisions to to 367; Lewis, U. S. Lowndes v. v. real estate. Roberts to 104 U. S. For- 1; Bank, 625; Moores v. 153 U. S. Huntington, 518; Coler, Board U. Hammond, S. sythe court. Justice Harlan delivered Mr. under a the au- propounded This case is here on 1891, Act of March Judiciary 3, relating thority courts of the States. Stat. 826, United jurisdiction of which the question 6. The facts out arises c. § now substantially as will be stated. November, 1889,
On twenty-first day plaintiff of. Ohio, conveyed Kuhn, citizen sold Camden all in West tract of land Virginia the coal certain underlying The deed he, Kuhn, the owner fee. contained do first part grant these clauses: “The unto the mining Johnson Camden all the privileges said N. coal necessary same, the removal in, convenient a certain tract of land parcel and under situated in upon Marion, on county of the waters the West Fork River, . . follows, and described to wit: Together bounded and under land and right upon mine, enter said with'the .to remove, all coal, remove and to úpon said excavate .of lands said the coal from and under adjacent, and under the lands, and also the -and neighboring coterminous of land hereinbefore tract described enter and under vol. ccxv—23 *5 TERM, 1909.
Opinion of the.Court. necessary roads, excavations, structures, ways, make all and and or con- airshafts,’ drains, drainways openings necessary coal mining for the and removal said coal and the venient coterminous lands neighboring from market.” on trespass action present brought case was 18th,' 1906. The declaration coal January alleged that the above deed to the passed covered defendant, Company, Fairmont Coal West Virginia corporation, January, 1906; the-of that the plaintiff Kuhn en- to have all his titled surface and other strata over- the coal lying süpported natural state either by pillars of coal or artificial or blocks support; that on the-day defendant company named the mined and removed coal land, under the leaving, from however, large blocks or pil- means of lars coal as a supporting the overlying surface; disregarding coal company, the plaintiff’s did rights, knowingly, willfully negligently, without any making compensation therefor, or for the damages arising therefrom, mine and of. remove all blocks and pillars said of coal so left, by reason whereof and because the failure to provide any or or sufficient other proper support artificial the over- lying surface, the plaintiff’s land, surface a large portion thereof, was caused fall; that was cracked, broken rent, causing large holes and fissures appear upon the surface and destroying the water and water courses.
The contract under which the title to the. coal originally was executed in passed West Virginia and the plaintiff’s cause action arose that State.
A demurrer the declaration was sustained the Circuit Court, an elaborate being delivered Judge Dayton, Coal Co., Kuhn Fairmont 152 Fed. Rep. 1013. The case was then writ of taken error to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
It from appears statement the case made by Circuit that .in Court the year Appeals 1902, after Kuhn’s to Camden, deed one Griffin brought, in a court of West v. FAIRMONT COAL CO.
KUHN 215 TJ.S. action, one, similar in all respects present an
Virginia, Fairmont Coal the successor of Camden. Company, against *6 arose from deed. almost identical with that His rights Kuhn to Camden. case was ruled favor by executed That .in and, was taken to the Company, subsequently, of the Coal which announced its Virginia, opinion West Suprefne Court A for November, in 1905. petition rehearing having therein But stayed. was the was filed, petition been the judgment on which 27, 1906, day, overruled March after Kuhn’s suit in decision announced the previously was the Griffin brought, final under the rules the Court of the Supreme case became Co., v. Coal 59 W. 480. Va. State. Griffin in the Coal the court below by Company The contention in the decision the case covered, sub- was thát Griffin the same as the one here it stantially, involved) - of the Federal court to that decision as duty, afccept the was of the whatever present parties, might controlling own as to the law to this case. The applicable its be Federal court' was under a of Kuhn was that the contention parties upon determine the of the. present to the decision judgment, giving independent own such as should be accorded to only weight law of to the Sstablished con- according principles also, and of sound Federal court reasoning; tracts court in an action not bound decision was on the for a the title involving tort trespass case land. the- being issue,' Appeals, pro- Court
Such Circuit the Judiciary 3d, 1891, under Act of c. ceeding March to be answered: up following question sent have court bound Supreme decision Court “Is this Fairmont Company, being case Coal in the Griffin for damages thé defendant plaintiff against an action for a tort damages and this an action tort, being for a lan- identical, almost facts and circumstances based being reference to the clause granting with of the deeds guage n case identical, fact been decided having con- after upon tract which defendant relies executed, was after of was injury complained sustained, and action after instituted?”
There room is no for doubt scope the decision The 480) the Griffin case. syllabus (p. which West — the, is the law of- Virginia case, may' whatever reason- in the ing employed opinion- of the court—is as follows: coal conveying “1. Deeds with rights of removal should be in the same way construed other written instruments, as. intention of as manifest the language in the itself used deed should govern. vendor land convey sell and his may coal and grant to-the vendee the to enter and under land said and to mine, excavate *7 coal and remove all the purchased and paid by for him, if and the removal of the coal necessarily causes the surface or break, grantor to subside -the cannot heard to complain thereof. Where a deed the conveys coal under a tract of .3. with land, together right the to enter upon under said land, mine, and to excavate of it, and remove all there is no reservation in an instrument implied such that the grantee must leave coal to in enough the surface its support original 4. It is the position. the court to construe contracts they are made parties the and to full thereto, give force and effect to the language used, clear, when it is plain, simple 5. It is unambiguous. only where the a language con- is ambiguous tract and uncertain and susceptible more than one construction that a court may, under the well- rules of established construction, to interfere reach a proper and make certain construction that which in itself uncer- tain.” that
Nor can be doubted point the decided in the Griffin case previously adjudged not been had Supreme Court for of that Counsel the Coal State. Company expressly involved that the here was never question before the legislature Virginia or courts West until deed involved the. COAL CO. v. FAIRMONT KUHN State Court that Supreme came before case Griffin was no law and no then-there “until construction; for in West Virginia;” force subject local custom of the state holding after the “only and that narrow therein question said case could it be Griffin rule of that State.” property had become’a decided in. court bound to case was not the In view the Federal this its according between the to the dispute determine were acquired as to what judgment, .independent own coal? If relating the contract them under was Company was Coal Federal. court while out the coal in obligation taking a legal under and to to proceed way use such such as not precautions to materially injure land, the surface it bound destroy in a contrary because, to adjudge simply single case, a Kuhn was not and which was party which determined after had accrued and become fixed present parties their contract, injury complained under of had after occurred, the state view of took different the law? .court when jurisdiction the Federal court was If, invoked, of Ohio .Kuhn, had, valid judgment cause citizen of action thé Coal against injury Company he was that court complained, obliged subordinate its view law that the state court? expressed by
In too cases numerous to be here cited the general sub- these suggested by questions has been ject considered It will both unnecessary impracticable Court. be. *8 an extended review of upon enter those cases. They are to the profession. familiar But course this opinion in.the will refer to a few of we them. as to The binding force state decisions re (cid:127) full very in'
ceived Burgess Seligman, consideration- After U. judgment S. that case by United .the Circuit-Court, States Supreme Court the State rendered of which judgments, two each was adverse to the grounds which the Circuit Court had and' con- proceeded,
Opinionof the Court. 215U. S. that tention was this court should follow those decisions of and the state court reverse the judgment Circuit Court. in that case states that order opinion to avoid mis the court had apprehension given the subject special con note, sideration, and the extended at the close of that the prior shows cases were all closely scrutinized by eminent Justice who wrote the A opinion. conclusion was reached that received the approval all the members 1 from; place court. We an margin extract the opinion 1 “We do not consider ourselves bound to follow the decision of state court in this case. controversy When the transactions occurred, and when the case was under the Cir- consideration of the Court, no construction of the cuit statute had been given by the state contrary by given tribunals to that the Circuit Court. The Federal independent jurisdiction have an courts in the administration of laws, with,' coordinate to, state and not subordinate of the state courts', bound to and are exercise their own judgment as to the mean- ing effect those laws. The juris- and existence of two coordinate territory peculiar, in the dictions same and the results be would and respect anomalous inconvenient but for the exercise of mutual ordinary and deference. Since the administration of law is carried courts, necessarily happens the state course of become,rules their decisions certain rules are established law, property State, and action in the all have the effect and. wrong which it would be especially regard to disturb. This is with true law and the construction of constitutions state real.estate statutes. Suóh always established regarded rules are courts, Federal no less themselves, than the state courts as au- declarations thoritative of what the law is. But where the law has settled, not been thus it is the right and of the Federal courts to judgment; their own they always exercise also indo reference to the doctrines commercial general jurisprudence. law and when So contracts transactions into, have been entered have particular thereon under a decisions, accrued state of the or whenthere decision, tribunals, no has been properly courts Federal adopt interpretation their own claim the applicable of the law case, although interpretation a different may adopted by cases, state courts after such have accrued. in such But even harmony and to confusion, the sake of avoid the Federal courts \yill agreement an of views with lean towards courts if the *9 ' v. FAIRMONT COAL CO. 359 KUHN 215 U. S. Bradley. In Bucher v. Cheshire Railroad Co., Mr. Justice Mr. 555, 584, Miller,
125 U. S.
speaking
Justice
584):
may
“It
be said
(p.
generally
observed
that wherever
of the
the decisions
state courts relate to some law of a local
have
may
which
become
character,
established by those
or
been a
courts,
always
part
has
the law of the State,
subject
the decisions
are
usually
.
conclusive,
highest
entitled
always
respect
the Federal
subject
courts. The whole
this
has recently been very
of Burgess
the case
v.
reviewed
ably
Seligman, 107 U. S.
local
or
Where such
law custom has been established by
highest
decisions
courts of a State
repeated
it becomes
the law
the courts
governing
also
United States sitting
also
State.” See
Jackson v. Chew,
Wheat. 153.
12
time
these
present
Up
principles have not been
disregarded by
court. On
modified
the contrary, they
reaffirmed without
been
substantial qualification
have
cases, some of which
subsequent
many
here cited. East
Ry.
Doe,
Co. v.
U.
340;
S.
114
Bucher v. Cheshire
Alabama
555; Gormley
125 U. S.
Co.,
Clark,
R. R.
We take are courts in cases before them to determining Federal the When state administering rules: 1. by. the'following guided laws the under those determining rights accruing laws and an one, of court is independent the Federal jurisdiction juris- coordinate and concurrent with the to but subordinate Where, the rights of the state courts. 2. diction before .of to have been accrued, rules.relating certain real estate parties as to rules of prop- decisions become established so state rules State,, action in the those accepted and erty of court as authoritative declarations the law Federal thus But law the has not been where the State State. Federal is not but the only right duty settled, as does judgment, always exercise-its own it also court to of com- case the doctrines depends upon before it when and con- jurisprudence.- So', law when general mercial are entered have rights and transactions into, tracts or decisions, under state the local particular accrued has beenno decision the state court on the there particular when involved, Federal claim the then the courts properly question is the effect to their own as to what give- judgment to case, state to the where a different applicable law of the even state expressed by' rights has been court after view .the oases,, accrued. But even in such for the sake of parties to should confusion, avoid the Federal court comity an lean to with the court if the always agreement ques- with is balanced tion doubt. care,
The court took Burgess say Seligman, Federal court would not fail but would only duty, its for which the object defeat the national courts were given of controversies, between of different jurisdiction citizens while to an States, if, leaning agreement with the state involving it did not exercise an independent judgment cases not settled principles by previous adjudications. seem now according
It would those principles, established, firmly Federal court, CO. FAIRMONT COAL
KUHN v. Opinion the Court. case, independent judgment to exercise the present relative obligations parties were the what their, contract. The before it-was question under written for an injury of the Coal liability Company arising failure of that while corporation, mining taking from the to furnish sufficient or coal, support overlying out the a, surface land. Whether such case involves a rule prop any terms, only sense those erty proper law within the court to general province de Federal itself, termine for the fact exists that there no had.been determination the state court before question,by accrued and. became fixed under their or before the of. In contract,- injury complained either case, *11 was the Federal bound under established doctrines to’ court own independent exercise its with a judgment, leaning, how for sake of an ever, just suggested, harmony, agree if court, ment with the state of law question involved If, was. deemed to be doubtful. before the .of in this case were fixed written parties contract, it had settled, a rule of law in become West manifested Virginia,.as of its or highest court, decisions that the his suc grantee cessors such a deed was under no involved, as is-here legal land, the surface of obligation guard grantor against from injury resulting and removal of the mining coal a wholly different would purchased, have been presented. cases involving
There are of adjudged meaning written contracts more less connection having with land that- a rule in law regarded involving were of real estate, only presenting questions general but as law touching courts have always which the Federal exercised their own to which respect they are not judgment, bound to lopk the views state courts. Let us accept at some They may cases. throw light upon those the present discus sion.
In Chicago City Robbins, Black, 418, 428, which was ; 1909.. action, on an the case for damages, the question was as to city Chicago was under a duty —which see that its streets were in safe condition for kept persons and hold one property liable Robbins for damages so using —to his lot on a public street as to cause injury to a passer-by. held city The was liable to the latter and sued Robbins on that account. court, a similar case, decided for defendant, it was contended that the 'Federal court accept should the- views of the local court as to the legal rights But this parties. speaking by Mr. Davis, Justice said: rules in a property State fully “.Where settled by of adjudications, a series this court adopts decisions of courts. But private are to be deter- where by the application mined common-law alone, rules this court, although entertaining state tribunals the highest does not feel bound their respect, decisions.” Lane v. Vick, In How. 472, 476, thé nature controversy was such as to’ require' of a will construction other which, among property, devised certain real estate at the time of which, suit, within the limits Vicksburg, There had Mississippi. been construction of the will by the Court State, (Miss.) 1 How. Supreme 379, and that construction, it was insisted, was binding the Federal But “Every, court. said: writing instrument' so construed should be as to if effectuate, practicable, the- intention it. This principle applies with *12 ' force to a will. . . The in peculiar parties that case the same as those were not now before court; this and that not does affect the interests of the complainants decision here. The before the Mississippi was, court whether certain within the town grounds, had plat, been dedicated to public use. The construction of will was incidental to the main object and of suit, course binding was not on any one under claiming the will. With the greatest respect, - it may be that this say, court does not follow proper in courts their construction of a will or any other-ihsfru- FAIRMONT KUHN v. CO. COAL Opinion of the Court. in ment, they do the construction of statutes. Where, as in Chew, 167, the case Jackson v. Wheat. the construc- tion of a will had by highest been settled courts' and had been as a rule State, long in acquiesced 'property, it this would because had become rule it, a property. follow The construction of a statute Supreme Court of a State followed, without reference to the it affect, interests may or the to the suit which its parties construction was in- volved. But the construction of a will by mere a state court does a not, the construction of statute of' State, con- stitute a rule of decision for the courts the United States. In Tyson, the case v. 16 Pet. 1, the effect sec- Swift tion 34 of-the Act of Judiciary 1789, and the construction of courts, instruments the' state -are considered with greater is found some precision preceding cases th¿in subject.” same
In Mallett, 4 How. 353, 379, object Foxcroft was to recover land in action certain Maine. The case turned on the construction to be part to a given mortgage of land to and to certain local adjudications Williams. College, which, to those it was relating lands, contended, were con “But,” said, clusive on the this court “on parties. examin ing (3 of the cases cited particulars govern Fair 398; field, it 84, 88; 51), 14 Maine R. will be Shepley, seen the construction mortgage college, condition, respect.to this’reservation appears to never :or been, have been had the decision agitated. would be' If as¡ it should high though .entitled to respect, regarded of a conclusive on mere construction deed as to matters the common language belonging law, not to any Sumner, 136, 277.” statute. 3 local Southard, 12 139, In Russell How. controlling in any case it was whéther was admissible show quéstion on its face of evidence that certain extraneous real deed Kentucky intended really as a estate a loan and as mortgage. security speaking *13 364
Opinion of Court. Curtis, sustaining after cases citing adjudged Mr. Justice by ,was kind admissible that evidence the proposition that a different rule is States, said: “It is suggested certain If Kentucky; were, court of by highest equity held for would not court, that learned this court great respect with (cid:127) oral This a thereby. feel bound suit being equity, force admitted, or the mere being rejected, evidence but statute, equity state any principles 'general views this court must be its own governed jurisprudence, Robinson v. 3 Wheat. Campbell, of those principles” citing— 108; 4 Zacharie 212; Howland, Boyle v. Wheat. v. States United Mal 1; v. 658; Tyson, Pet. 16 Pet. 635, 6 Swift Foxcroft lett, How. Milwaukee,
In Yates
10 Wall.
497, 506,
question
of an
of land
right
the nature
extent
owner
as to
on a
to make
Wisconsin, bordering
public navigable water,
or
use or for
wharf
his own
the use
landing,
pier
a
There was a
in the
of dedication to
question
case
public.
city
use,
sought
change
Milwaukee
public
in front of
wharf erected
owner
riparian
remove
Justice
said:
Miller,
This
Mr!
speaking by
lot.
his
case
on which the whole of that
dedication,
“This
fact,
ascertaining
was one
be determined
turned,
from
lots,
did,
of those who laid
what they
out
intention
common law
from the application
general
principles
This does not
depend upon
statute or
their.acts.
The law which
the case is the com-
governs
local-state law.
,on
which
court has never
law,
acknowledged
mon
courts to
our decisions,
control
except,
in cláss of cases where
a
the state courts have estab-
perhaps,
decisions,
rule
lished, by
regard to
repeated
property
land
State.”
peculiar
titles
Co. v. City Cincinnati,
In Louisville Trust
76 Fed. Rep.
was a suit
296, 300, 304,
by Kentucky
corporation,
e
necessary to- determin
the force and.
of a
it became
effect
in a state
of Ohio
statute
and certain
mortgage originating
v. FAIRMONT COAL CO.
KUHN
Opinion
the Court.
U. S.
*14
in Cincinnati.
covering street easements
ordinances
municipal
in a
which
trustee in the
court,
mortgage
suit to
The state
the.
scope,
a decree
the
effect
declaring
a party, passed
was not
or
which the
contracts
ordinances under
duration of
and
It was in-
franchises originated.
easements and
mortgage,
court was bound
views
accept
sisted that the Federal
the
of
the Circuit Court'
held
Appeals,
of the state court. But
Taft,
Hammond,
and
ruled otherwise.
Lurton,
by Judges
Lurton,
for all the members of that court,
Judge
speaking
of
authorities,
the
and observed
made ah extended review
if
was
as conclusive
upon
decision
regarded
the state
of
a
“the constitutional
as
right
complainant,
parties,
to have its
a
Ohio,
rights
citizen of a State other than
as
by a court
adjudged
defined and
of
United
mortgagee'
court,
for
If this
cannot
itself
is of no real value.
States
validity,
contracts' and determine their
examine these street
effect,
and must follow the
and.
duration,
interpretation
and
in a suit
begun
on
another court
placed
them
construction
which
and to
it ioas
accrued,
as
had
rights mortgagee
after
not
a
to have a
mortgagee
d
then
such
party,
and
trial before execution is a
before
a
hearing
.judgment
better forum
a
The
matter of form without substance.'
. The
a
of the State.
.
would be court
suitor so situated
granted
street easements
duration
effect, and
validity,
a question
ordinances is
laws and
or claimed under these
to have decided
is entitled
which this complainant
of the
States,
Supreme
opinion
courts of
United
a
respect
highest
while entitled to
Ohio,
Court
greater
can
no
ability,
weight
be given
exalted
tribunal
where the contract
shall
reasoning
demand,
than its
respect
involved,
who was'
a citizen
another State
rights
nor
suit in which
privy
party
neither
us
therefore,
justifies
special fact,
was delivered.
meaning
validity
for ourselves the true
determining
of which the
ordinances,
out
city
Ohio statutes
it'
fact
citizen
is the
this complainant spring,
215 U. S. .-
State, and that the contract under
another
which it has ac-'
originated
an interest
qyired
prior,
judicial opinion
our
foreclosing
judgment.”
rebed
as to
Úpon
general question
the Federal
to exercise its independent
judgment
where there- had
not been a decision
in
volved, before the
parties accrued, Carroll
County
Smith,
111 U.
S.
Southern Hotel Co.
Great
Jones,
that view McClain, the contracts between plaintiffs to the making of in the statute court had adjudged constitution, it would have state been violation Court, and equally duty Circuit this duty of either court as to the proper whatever court, instrument, such decision accept prior construction thereafter.'' parties accruing as determining constitutionality But decision of the state been rendered having the statute question, after their contracts, suit had been fixed if it been derelict had not Circuit Court would have touching validity independent judgment exercised In this declaration we. making here question. the ‘statute at all qualifying-, principle must be understood not dirty of the Federal court to that, cases, in all it is the lean court, where the issue relates to an agreement with the construction of the constitu- depending upon matters of the' tion or laws State.” cannot be suggested suggestion passed
It been has. —and views have herein expressed without notice—that the we court,- utterances of this in-harmony with'some recent East Co. v. are referred to Cent. E. M. Eureka we Central Co., 272. That case other- involved, among of a deed for mining property.' This' questions, meaning *16 of in referrál to decision the state court opinion court its deed, of object expressed to real the concurrence the quite court. That was sufficient to with the views in the it was further of the case. But said- dispose opinion a,of 272): conveyance “The and effect be construction (p. a' matter as to we follow parties is the private tween Brine v. citing Company, of’the Insurance State” — 636; Hutchinson, U. S. DeVaughn U. S. to- just give if broad seems language quoted Even some defendant, it is to be ob to the contention support in the reference is made to the nu- served that no cited, (cid:127)merous some of which are cases, above holding that bound, Federal court is in not cases between citizens of the. States, to if decision, different follow the state it was rendered date thé transaction out which the of the after arose, no Certainly there was on the purpose, part to overrule or modify the doctrines of those cases; and the broad East quoted from &c. language Cent. Co. Central Eureka must therefore in interpreted light cases particular support cited the view which that language .imports. What were those cases and they what did decide?
Brine v. Insurance one of the cases Company, cited, was a suit, in the Federal Court to Circuit foreclose a mortgage A had, real estate. foreclosure sale were the decree, following the established rules Federal court, allowed pay the defendant to mortgage debt one hundred days; if the was and. debt within paid time, then the mas- ' was ordered sell land ter for cash accordance with practice the course and of the Federal court. When the mort- was made there in force gage was in Illinois and had been for a statute if many years, which, controlling, allowed the de- fendant, suit, in a foreclosure twelve months after sale re- the land sold: there Thus, deem was a conflict between the statute and the rules and practice local obtaining the Fed- court, and was question eral whether the state statute or rules governed those parties as to the time redemption. This court held that the statute of State, when the being mortgage executed, en- force into the between the parties tered must control contract 6'1 rights. the determination their Speaking by Mr. Justice Miller, it said “The (p. 636): legislature Illinois has pre- scribed, as an essential element transfer the courts in suits, foreclosure remain there shall to the mortgagor for twelve right months, and to redemption credi- judgment similar, before, right tors for fifteen months, after the sale, the'purchaser title becomes vested.' This
(cid:127) KUHN v. FAIRMONT COAL CO.
215 U. S. on which title right, passes, as a condition is as' obligatory courts, on the Federal courts as in because both a of by cases it is made property legislature, rule which had such a rule. ... At all power prescribe events, decisions of this court are numerous that the laws which pre of enforcing contract, scribe the mode a which are in existence made, when it is far a part are so contract that no change seriously in these laws which interfere that with enforcement valid, they impair obligation because within the mean of United of the Constitution States. Edwards ing U. S. very 595. That this Kearzey, right redemption, a of foreclosure, a under decree a part after sale is the con where the law mortgage, giving tract exists when is is made, very clearly by contract stated Mr. Chief Jus Kinzie, the case Bronson v. 1 How. tice'Taney, 311.” Hutchinson, the other DeVaughn case cited, involved the construction a will in 1867 real devising made Columbia, and the estate the District decision was based had the law of as it often upon Maryland been declared by courts to-be while this District Maryland part from the indeed, as it was time Maryland became- State — aii State. independent Brine case
It thus appears rights of the par in conformity with a valid ties were determined local statute accrued; when those while in the DeVaughn case, force law of upon was based Maryland, the decision while the that State, a series de District was evidenced part of court of highest Maryland, made cisions before accrued. Nothing opposed parties or decided in either of those cases. said anything as to the' effect of the scope here involved writ depend Kuhn Camden does not ing upon any given nor rule any of West established Virginia, statute made before the rights accrued. course decisions from East Central quoted words &c. v. above So must "not intérpreted-as Eureka Co. applicable-to Central cqxv vol. —24 *18 JJ., dissenting.
Holmes, McKenna, White and us, case like the one before nor denying authority a. of the Federal when the effect determining or written between conveyances private instruments par- ties, States, citizens different to exercise its own inde- where state pendent judgment authoritative decision had no been rendered the state court of the par- béfore ties accrued and became fixed.
Without expressing any opinion par- ties under contract, only say that, their we need for the- stated, reasons question to this court the Circuit .sent Court of in negative. answered It- will be Appeals so certified. Holmes,
Mr. Justice with whom concurred Mr. Justice McKenna, White and Mr. Justice dissenting.
This is a of the question title to real It estate.' does not it-arises; matter what form action the decision must be the same action of tort be in an it would a in. writ of to real right. title estate general depends upon the —The ii^ statutes and decisions the fetate within which it lies. I think it a to be while thing regretted if, mass of great cases the who state courts determine is the finally "owner land, how much he owns and conveys by- what he his deed, the courts of United States, when accident and ex- ception them; same comes before do not follow the. what for all ordinary is the law. purposes
I admit that plenty language can be found in. the earlier cases to support present decision. is not That surprising view the uncertainty and of the theory vacillation Tyson, Pet. and the later 1, extensions Swift proceeded. doctrine have But suppose it will be ad I mitted on side the other that éven the independent jurisdic tion of the Circuit Courts States is jurisdic United law, tion at only least in case like declare the present, only to declare law-of the It State. is not an au to make thority Tyson it. justified the ground Swift CO. FAIRMONT COAL
KUHN
dissenting.
JJ.,
McKenna,
Holmes, White and
U. S:
courts did. But as
all that the state
that was
has.been
able writer,
accomplished
a recent
out
pointed
when
and was abandoned
had
be abandoned
fiction
cases, beginning
bond
municipal
came to decide
Gray,
on the
only
should be
given
prospective
and therefore
State,
op
had been
into
contracts
under the law
when
eration
entered
Pike County,
v.
Whether Swift to I enquire. I not care both do assume cases Dubuque, doctrines, reconcilable Or settled not. whether. represent leave those which it principles is de- you moment But the United throughout uniform States and make sirable this court tend to make uniform, ob- decisions courts of the undesirable for the United most it is viously an interjecting arbitrary ex- occasional to appear States I in case never every prevails. other a rule ception reason justifying a statement power, have heard an$ yet in one. The rule imagine hard to Gelpcke I find it in grant when contract help no gives Dubuque a declaration of on the faith previous made been has not. ' (cid:127) McKenna, JJ., dissenting. Holmes, White ir in authority say gen- I know of no 'this court law. only shall make law for the future. Ju- eral state decisions have had for near a retrospective operation dicial decisions enough way, There were difficulties years. thousand but them there was a Dubuque, cases like Gelpcke even or smack of constitutional Here there is suggestion right. our It is said we must exercise nothing that^sort... as to what? independent judgment Surely as —but Certainly law of the States. Whence does that law issue? not from But it does issue and has been recognized by us. from from the state courts as well as issuing this court as we know what the source of the law When legislatures. state "bo, it shall our is at an end. The law authority has said that of a State does not become outside something court and of it called the common law. independent being law by.the Whatever it is called it is the as declared nothing else. judges believe, my correct, I is our
If,
reasoning
justifies
when we come to a kind
case that
nature and
stopping
and one as to which
local,
the latest
necessity
peculiarly
decisions of this court are
wholly
intimations
indeed
I
I
accord
think to be sound
refer to
lan
with what
law..
through
of the court
Mr. Justice
guage
speaking
Miller
Co.,
Brine v.
Fire Insurance