Summary

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Anthony Seeberger v. McCormick…

Indeed, the fraud, if any, arises out of the contractual relations which the parties have assumed. The express contract purporting to bind the principal may be void, but if the agent has given his warranty, express or implied, that he is authorized by his principal to execute that contract when he has no such authority, we know of no principle in law or logic which would prevent the other party from recovering for the breach of such warranty where injury has been sustained by such breach.'
Did such a state of facts and law present a Federal question?
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Anthony Seeberger v. McCormick…

It has been frequently held that the contention, even if formally made, that plaintiffs in error were seeking to avail themselves of some right or immunity under the Constitution or laws of the United States, does not give us jurisdiction to review the judgment of the supreme court of a state where that judgment was based upon a doctrine of general law sufficient of itself to determine the case.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Anthony Seeberger v. McCormick…

Where the contract is made in good faith and both parties are fully cognizant of the facts, and the mistake is one of law only, the result of which is to exonerate the principal from liability, because the agent had no lawful authority to make the contract, it is clear that the agent cannot be held liable, either ex contractu or ex delicto.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature