Supreme Court of the United States, 1895

Winona & St. Peter Land Co. v. Minnesota

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 11, 1895 · Brewer

159 U.S. 540; 16 S. Ct. 88; 40 L. Ed. 252; 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2319 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. James A. Tawney for plaintiff in error., Mr. H. W. Ohilds, Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, for defendant in error. Mr. George B. Edgerton was on his brief., Mr. John Lind filed a brief for defendant in error on behalf of Brown County.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Jackson v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1925)
Emma Taylor, 1 Administratrix of Frank Taylor, Deceased, and John P. Kirby, in Error v. Drainage District Number Fifty-Six of Emmet County, Iowa (Supreme Court of the United States 1917)
Taylor v. Drainage District Number Fifty-six (Supreme Court of the United States 1917)
Eastern Building Assn. v. Welling (Supreme Court of the United States 1901)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brewer

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is similar to the one between the same parties ■just decided, in that the questions presented to the state courts involved the taxability of lands included in the legislative grants of May 22, 1857, and March 10, 1862, the Barney contract of October' 31, 1867, and the decree in the United States Circuit Court of March 7, 1887. The tax proceedings were under the law of 1881, but were had in the county of Brown instead of the county of Redwood. The case, however, differs from the preceding, in that the Federal questions sought to be raised in this ,court were not seasonably presented in the state cburts. The alleged immunity from taxation and lack of due process'of law were not “specially set up or claimed ” prior to the decision in the Supreme Court. The failure so to do prevents this court, as has been frequently held, from acquiring jurisdiction. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. *541 131, 181; Brooks v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394; Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U. S. 132; Brown v. Massachusetts, 144 U. S. 573; Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong, 150 U. S. 85; Powell v. Brunswick County, 150 U. S. 433; Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535; Morrison v. Watson, 154 U. S. 111; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180.

The writ of error must, therefore, he dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.