Hawks v. Hamill, 288 U.S. 52 (1932)

U.S. Supreme Court, (December 09, 1932)

Docket number: 147

/us/288/52/case.html
Permanent Link: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/20017135
Id. vLex: VLEX-20017135

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Supreme Court - Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434 (1977)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - Ag Services of America, Inc., an Iowa Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John D. Nielsen, Also Known as Jack Nielsen and Diamond Hill Farms, Clovis, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Third-Party Counter- Defendants-Appellants, v. Terry Lundell, Third-Party Defendant- Third-Party Counter-Claimaint., 231 F.3d 726 (10th Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - AG Services of America Inc. v. Nielsen (10th Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - Colorado Visionary Academy, a Colorado Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Medtronic, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation; Tobin Real Estate Company D/B/a Cresa Partners-Minneapolis/St. Paul, a Minnesota Corporation, Defendants-Appellees., 397 F.3d 867 (10th Cir. 2005)

U.S. Supreme Court - Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976)

U.S. Supreme Court - Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Jonathan Hanna Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John J. Toner Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 630 F.2d 442 (6th Cir. 1980)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Akin Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 504 F.2d 115 (10th Cir. 1974)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Phyllis Lynch Et Al., Appellees, v. Frank W. Snepp Et Al., Appellants., 472 F.2d 769 (4th Cir. 1973)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court HAWKS v. HAMILL, 288 U.S. 52 (1933)

[Page 288 U.S. 52, 62]

to be removed. There would still remain the uncertainty whether the franchise granted by the county was to the grantees for their own use or for the use of a corporation to be organized thereafter; whether the corporation was to be one under the 'Wagon Road' Law, with an indeterminate duration, or under the 'Bridge Companies' Act, with a duration of twenty years; and whether the public policy of Oklahoma, disclosed by her statutes and decisions, and irrespective of decisions elsewhere, sets a limit upon the toll right, or what is known as the secondary franchise, coterminous with the primary franchise to exist and engage in business in a corporate capacity. By the statement of these questions, we convey no hint as to the answer. We do no more than emphasize the complexities of law as well as of policy in which the respondents' title is involved, and the unwisdom of superseding the official acts and powers of the agents of the vicinage by writ out of a federal court.

The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be reversed, and the judgment of the District Court dismissing the complaint affirmed.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access