Skip to content


King Vs. Putnam Investment Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number248 U.S. 23
AppellantKing
RespondentPutnam Investment Co.
Excerpt:
king v. putnam investment co. - 248 u.s. 23 (1918) u.s. supreme court king v. putnam investment co., 248 u.s. 23 (1918) king v. putnam investment company no. 10 submitted november 7, 1918 decided november 18, 1918 248 u.s. 23 error to the supreme court of the state of kansas syllabus the contention that a contract of agency to sell real estate was void because federal lands, under homestead entry, were included presents no federal question where the state court found they were not included and the record supports the finding. writ of error to review 96 kan. 109 dismissed. the case is stated in the opinion. memorandum for the court by the chief justice. having previously considered this case (82 kan......
Judgment:
King v. Putnam Investment Co. - 248 U.S. 23 (1918)
U.S. Supreme Court King v. Putnam Investment Co., 248 U.S. 23 (1918)

King v. Putnam Investment Company

No. 10

Submitted November 7, 1918

Decided November 18, 1918

248 U.S. 23

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Syllabus

The contention that a contract of agency to sell real estate was void because federal lands, under homestead entry, were included presents no federal question where the state court found they were not included and the record supports the finding.

Writ of error to review 96 Kan. 109 dismissed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Memorandum for the Court by the CHIEF JUSTICE.

Having previously considered this case (82 Kan. 216; 87 Kan. 842) the court awarded relief because of the violation of a contract of employment to procure the sale of real estate. 96 Kan. 109.

The case is here in reliance upon a federal question based upon the assumption that the authority to sell included land belonging to the United States covered by an inchoate homestead entry. But the court below expressly

Page 248 U. S. 24

found that such land was not included in the contract, hence the sole basis for the asserted federal question disappears.

And this result is not changed by considering, to the extent that it is our duty to do so, the question of fact upon which the existence of the alleged federal question depends. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585 , 236 U. S. 593 ; Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246 , 225 U. S. 261 ; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573 , 223 U. S. 591 . We so conclude because the result of discharging that duty leaves us convinced that the finding below was adequately sustained -- indeed, that the record makes it clear that the alleged ground for the federal question was a mere afterthought. The case therefore must be, and is,

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //