Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

SOME RECENT CRITICISM

OF

GELPCKE VERSUS DUBUQUE

BEING THE SHARSWOOD PRIZE ESSAY FOR 1899, IN THE

[blocks in formation]

LECTURER ON BUSINESS LAW AND CONTRACTS IN THE COLBEGE,

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

SECTION II.-THE PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH THE CASE WAS

DECIDED

3

A. The federal courts are bound absolutely to accept the state court's interpretation of state statutes

[ocr errors]

B. The decision was based on the theory that the state courts' reversal of interpretation of the statute was a law impairing the obligation of contracts

[merged small][ocr errors]

SECTION III.-THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

A. The judicial construction of a state statute becomes a part of the statute, as much so as if incorporated into the text. B. The federal courts have, in fact, treated the judicial interpretation of state statutes by state courts, as being the law, not merely the interpretation of the law

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

34

[ocr errors]

36,

[ocr errors]

SECTION V.-DISCUSSION OF THE CASE ON PRINCIPLE A. The rule in Gelpcke v. Dubuque has never been disputed by authority

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

55

57

B. Is the function of the American courts, when deciding as to the validity of legislative acts, a legislative or judicial function? .. (1) THE STATUS OF THE POWER TO NEGATIVE LEGISLATIVE ACTS IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

ба

60

(2) AN EXAMINATION OF THE OPINIONS OF THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS EXPRESSED IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION 67 (a) The end which the framers of the Constitution had in view. 67 (b) Methods proposed by which it was intended to accomplish

this purpose

(c) The clause or clauses in the Constitution, by virtue of which the courts obtained the power to pass upon the validity of legislative acts.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

(3) THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER WAS

RECEIVED BY THE COUNTRY.

C. Concluding observations.

SECTION VI.-SHOULD THE

PAGE

77

81

SUPREME COURT ALLOW

WRITS OF ERROR IN CASES SIMILAR TO GELPCKE v.

DUBUQUE?.

A. An examination of the cases similar to Gelpcke v. Dubuque which have come up by writ of error to state courts and have been refused consideration.

B. An examination of the cases coming up by writ of error to state courts where the act involves a contract

C. The question of jurisdiction examined on principle .

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Bryan v. The Board of Education, 151 U. S. 639

.

Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20.

Butz v. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575

Central Land Co v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 102

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors]

14

Christy v. Pridgeon, 4 Wall. 196

35

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« НазадПродовжити »