Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. Texas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The suit, as it appears upon the face of the petition of plaintiff, was upon the bonds given by the company for the loan of a portion of the school fund, and to foreclose the lien of the state upon the property of the company, and in the petition reference was made to the act of 1870 for the purpose of stating the amount due on the bonds for principal and interest. Nothing upon the face of this petition showed any fact upon which federal jurisdiction could be based. The company answered by alleging certain payments in treasury warrants, which, if properly credited, would show that with the other payments that had been made there was nothing due the plaintiff on the bonds. As an answer to this defense, the plaintiff set up the invalidity of the laws providing for payments in treasury warrants; that the warrants were issued by the state in violation of both the state and federal Constitutions; and that the payments were therefore illegal and void. This was no part of the plaintiff’s cause of action upon which suit was brought, and that cause of action did not in any way involve a question arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. The defendant therefore made out no case for a removal to the United States Circuit Court; citing Oregon & C. Ry. Co. v. Skottowe, 163 U. S. 490, 494 [16 Sup. Ct. 869, 40 L. Ed. 1048 ] ; Tennessee v. Union & P. Bank, 153 U. S. 454 [14 Sup. Ct. 654, 38 L. Ed. 511 ] ; Galveston, Harrisburg, etc., Ry. v. Texas, 170 U. S. 226, 235 [18 S”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shellenbarger v. Fewel

2. ““ Thus we see that, although the decision of the state court was based upon the ground that the warrants in which these payments were made had been issued in utter violation of the state constitution, and were hence void, and that no payments made with such warrants had any validity, and although this ground of invalidity was arrived at without any reference made to the act of 1870, yet the necessary consequence of the' judgment was that effect was thereby given to that act, and in a manner which the company has always claimed to be illegal and unwarranted by the act when properly construed. The company has never accepted such a construction, but on the contrary has always opposed it, and raises the question in this proceeding at the very outset. Upon these facts this court has jurisdiction, and it is its duty to determine for itself the existence, construction and validity of the alleged contract, and also to determine whether, as construed by this court, it has been impaired by any subsequent state legislation to which effect has been- given by the court below. Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Company, 1 Wall. 116 ; University v. People, 99 U. S. 309 ; Fisk v. Jefferson Police Jury, 116 U. S. 131 ; New Orleans Water Works Company v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Company, 125 U. S. 18 ; Central Land Company v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103 , 109; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207 , 216; McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Co. v. South Carolina

3. ““Even assuming tbat tbe complaint showed upon its face that the relief sought would be inconsistent with the power to regulate commerce, or with regulations established by congress, or with the fourteenth amendment, as contended, it would only demonstrate that the suit cannot be maintained at all, and not that the cause of action arose under the constitution or laws of the United States.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. South Carolina v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.