New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-19
q Will be resumed this morning.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
THE OAKLAND WATER FRONT SUIT DISMISSED
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

THE OAKLAND WATER FRONT SUIT DISMISSED
FOR LACK OF JUHIsDICToN
Washington. March lS.-The supreme Court Of the
United states to-day. in an opinion read by chef
Justice Fuller. dismissed the bill OF the state Of
California against the Contra Pacific Railroad Com
pany involving the possession and control Of Tie
water front OF city Of Oakland, for the reason
that it was not a case in which the court Aal orig
inal jurisdiction. The city of oakland and the OAK
land Water Front Company. the Chief Justice sad.
were 50 situated. not being parties 10 the sr that
the Supreme Court of the United states ought not
t. proceed in ;heir absence. But even i they We're
present and included within the scope Of the .ug1-
ton he said the Court could not exercise original
Jurisdiction. and the BIZ therefore dismissed.
The effect Of this decision is that The s,Ic must re-
new its litigation IN anoth-r tribunal. OF Wa.e1 the
Supreme Court OF the United states has appellate
Jurisdiction.
Justice Harlan read dissenting opinion, IN which
he was Joined by Justice Brewer. He said ma II
the Supreme Court Of the United states would not
exercise its original jurisdiction IN this case T. Wa
dncult to see where it would do So Justice F.o1
read brief statement expressing his regret tAit
the controversy between the state and IN" rail
road company owing 70 the limited jurisdiction o.
the Supreme Cour; Of the United states. c1Hd not
now be heard and finally determined. for the con
troversv would seriously affect the interests Of bo;n
until il was determined. lie expressed the belief
that by proceeding begun IN the state courts ana
reaching the supreme Court Of the United states ~
that route the state would speedily find 3 means o.
ending the controversy.
The Mexican National Construction Company ~
the State OF Colorado assigned a certain cl' ~
agains. the Mexican National Railroad Company.
also 4 citizen Of Colorado 20 Joseph & DAVE on ID.
New-York He began sui, thereon against the rail-
road company in the Supreme Court Of the state o.
New-York whence j; removed 20 the F"deri4
Court for the Eastern District Il N"w-f-1H on
dot .l t0f
given apainst The railroad in favor o. Davidson on
November a. 1893 for E1jl 30 An appea. vas taken
10 the Circuit Court OF Appeals, which ccrtii"i {"
the Supreme Court Of me United states the Quc'-
ton Did the United states Court for the Eastern
District Of New-York have jurs .ct!on to hear and
determine the cause Of action For reasons which
were set forth az length in an opinion prepared by
Chief Justice Fuller the supreme Court Of The
United States answered that the New-York Cour;
did not have jurisdiction.
O-her decisions rendered were as follows:
No 2ls An,hony r. seeberser. collector, etc, ast
COMPANY. In error - Circuit Court fog the North
ern District of nlinos.-Judgment affirmed Win
10 ii6 j T Stokes ct a.. ag; the United States ties
i ~ fFI of AIaFbia g aiiirmed
No 793 James T shields; jr. receiver ETC; ag,
John Coleman ct al appeal from the Circuit Corrj
FOR the Eastern District OF Tennessee order OF
January g. 1894, overriding the motion OF appelaHl
and directing him 10 take possession Of the railroad
properly set aside; costs 70 tas cO"Il 20 'Se PdII
by the appelces and cause remanfed for further
proceedings not inconsistent VITA the op-n.cn OF
no Si Henry y. Frsbie ast The United State
In error to the Circuit court i2r ne Eastern H'7-
No 100 JACOB Mchels aei. GeoCSe =. ";,I,iehl,
Appeal from The circuit court ioT me N',.'IH
District OF M.ss)uri.-Deorec affirmed, with c4a'a
J. T. potter. guardian, etc. 81 al on a cert1cue
from the court OF Appeals for the With Circuit
First question certified answered in n negative,
No ~. Lucien Baker agt. samuel y. NgoI et 81