Court Opinion

ID: 9418223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:14:17.496439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:57.839180
License: Public Domain

Mb. Justice Holmes
with whom concurred Mb. Justice Lubton dissenting:
When a Federal right is held by a state court to háve been lost by subsequent conduct that' of itself involves no' Federal question I think we are not at liberty to reexamine the decision unless we can say that the state court in substance is denying the right. So it has been held or strongly intimated as to res judicata, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ellis, 144 U. S. 458, estoppel, Hale v. Lewis, 181 U. S. 473, the statute of limitations, Rector v. Ashley, 6 Wall. 142. and laches, Moran v. Horsky, 178 U. S. 205, 214, 215, Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U. S. 641, and the principle was recognized only the other day in Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 468, 470 471. I do not see the distinction by which we can review the decision in the opposite case, where it is held that the right is not lost or that it cannot be interfered with because of laches on the other side. In a case where the state court held that there *264was no defense under the statute of limitations or estoppel, the writ of error was dismissed. Carothers v. Mayer, 164 U. S. 325. I will content myself with saying that I do not see how the decision can be reversed on the ground of laches.
Mr. . Justice Lurton concurs in this view and is of opinion that the writ should be dismissed.