Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
McLAUGHLIN v. FOWLER. SAME v. THORPE, 1880 — 154 U.S. 663 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
McLAUGHLIN v. FOWLER. SAME v. THORPE
154 U.S. 66326 L. Ed. 176·Supreme Court of the United States·1880
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
McLAUGHLIN v. FOWLER. SAME v. THORPE.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Nos. 94 and 95.
Argued December 2, 1880.
Decided December 13, 1880.
In cases brought here from state courts this court can only look beyond the Federal question when that has been decided erroneously.
Mr. Henry Wise Garnett for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendants in-error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only Federal question in these eases is whether the patents to the Western Railroad Company for lands within the limits of the Moquelomnes grant are valid. If that-question was not decided by the court below we have no jurisdiction; if it was, the judgment was right, because in accordance with Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761, brought here in 1875 for the determination of the same identical question. Such being the case the judgment must be affirmed. We can only look beyond the Federal question when that has been decided erroneously, and then only to see whether there are any other matters or issues adjudged by the state court sufficiently broad to maintain the judgment, notwithstanding the error in the decision 'of the Federal question. Murdoch v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 591.
The judgment in each of these cases is affirmed on the 'authority of Newhall v. Sanger.