JAMES D. PORTER AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
BUSHROD W. FOLEY

U.S. | 1860-12-01
24 How. 415 Supreme Court of the United States (1860) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 16 L. Ed. 740 · 1860 U.S. LEXIS 420 · SCDB 1860-049
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error challenging a Kentucky state court's decision upholding a state law authorizing executors to sell the real estate of minors. The Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the case because the state court's decision involved only the validity of the Kentucky law under Kentucky's state constitution, not any question arising under the United States Constitution, and therefore fell outside the Court's appellate authority under the Judiciary Act.


© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice GREER

Mr. Justice GREER delivered the opinion of the. court.

The record of this case does not show that any question arose or was decided by the State court, which this court has authority to re-examine by virtue of the 25th section of the Judiciary act.

Without entering into a tedious analysis of the casé, it is sufficient to state, that the chief or only question in it was, whether an act of Assembly of Kentucky, authorizing an executor to sell the real estate of minors, was a valid exercise of power by the Legislature.

' The counsel for plaintiff objected to thé admission of the deed made, in pursuance of such authority, “ because-said act and supplement were unconstitutional and void.”

This objection was very properly construed by the court as having reference to the validity of the act of the Legislature of Kentucky, not as contrary to any provision of the Constitution of the United States, but as raising the question whether the Legislature had a power under the' Constitution of that State, by general or special enactment, to authorize, the sale of real estate of infants. The court decided that it had such power;' and if.it had, it is abundantly evident that there is no article nor clause in the Constitution of the United States which could interfere with it.

; Let the writ of error be dismissed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Rogers v. Peck, 199 U.S. 425 (U.S. 1905)
  • Miller v. Cornwall R.R. Co., 168 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1897)
    …erly construed in those courts as raising the question whether the state legislature had the power under the state constitution to pass the act, and not as having reference to any repugnance to the Constitution of the United States. Porter v. Foley, 24 How. 415. By the constitution of Pennsylvania, it has always been declared that all men “ have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and r…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw