Summary

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Defiance Water Company v. Defiance…

Litigation in the state courts cannot be dragged into the Federal courts at such a stage and in such a way. The proposition is wholly untenable that, before the state courts in which a case is properly pending can proceed to adjudication in the regular and orderly administration of justice, the courts of the United States can be called on to interpose on the ground that the state courts might so decide as to render their final action unconstitutional.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Defiance Water Company v. Defiance…

Diverse citizenship did not exist, and, unless the case was one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the jurisdiction of the circuit court was not properly invoked, and should not have been maintained.
We have repeatedly held that 'when a suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy as to the effect or construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States, upon the determination of which the result depends, it is not a suit arising under the Constitution or laws.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Defiance Water Company v. Defiance…

Congress gave its construction to that part of the Constitution by the 25th section of the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat. at L. 85, chap. 20] , and has adhered to it in subsequent legislation.'
Complainant rested its assertion of jurisdiction on two grounds:
1. That the resolution or ordinance of January 7, 1896, impaired the obligation of the contract created by the ordinance of August 17, 1887.
2. That if complainant were perpetually enjoined, as prayed in the suit in the state courts, the state would thereby have deprived it of its property without due process of law.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature