Case: MISSOURI ex rel. THE QUINCY, MISSOURI AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. HARRIS
Abbreviation: Missouri ex rel. Quincy, Missouri & Pacific Railroad v. Harris
Decision Date: 1892-04-04
Docket Number: No. 256
Citation: 144 U.S. 210
Volume: 144
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: MISSOURI ex rel. THE QUINCY, MISSOURI AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. HARRIS.
Judges: 
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
MISSOURI ex rel. THE QUINCY, MISSOURI AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. HARRIS.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE MISSOURI.
No. 256.
Argued March 29, 1892.
Decided April 4, 1892.
No Federal question is involved when the Supreme Court of a State decides that a municipal corporation within the State had not power, under the constitution and laws of the State, to make the contract sued on.
Mandamus, to compel the performance of an alleged subscription by. Sullivan County, Missouri, to stock of a railroad company. The defence was that no valid subscription had been made under the constitution and laws of Missouri. The ^Supreme Court of the State, in rendering the judgment to which this writ of error was sued out, said, in its opinion:
“ The power of the county court to subscribe to the stock of a railroad company was made by the constitution of 1865 and (bren. Stat., 1865, p. 338, § 17, to depend upon the fact, that two-thirds of the qualified voters of the county at a regular, or special election held therein should assent thereto. . . . /Taking in this case the admission that the registration books offered in evidence contained the names of 1940 persons' as qualified to vote in said county at said election, it is evident that two-thirds of the qualified voters of the county of Sullivan did not assent to said subscription, as only 1049 of said voters voted in favor of the subscription. Besides this, while there was evidence tending to show that the railroad .company had complied with the. conditions of the subscription, there was also evidence to show that it had not complied, and the trial court might on this ground have well denied the relief asked. The judgment, for the reasons given, is hereby affirmed.”
' Mr. John P. Butler for plaintiff in error.
Mr. A. W. Mullins for defendants in error. Mr. D. M. Wilson was with him on the brief.

Opinion:
The Chief Justice :
The writ of error is dismissed because no Federal question is involved, upon the authority, among other cases, of Railroad Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177, 181; Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton, 121 U. S. 388; N. O. Water Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 18, 30; and Railroad Co. v. Todd County, 142 U. S. 282.
Writ of error dismissed.