stead entry, will be dismissed; the state court, on sufficient evidence, expressly finding that such land was not included in the contract.

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas.

8. EMINENT DOMAIN 70-AMENDMENTS OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTION-APPLICABILITY TO STATE.

Action by the Putnam Investment Company against H. C. King. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kansas (96 Kan. 109, 150 Pac. 559), and defendant brings error. Dismissed. Mr. Lee Monroe, of Topeka, Kan., for plain- record, writ of error to state court will be dismissed by the court sua sponte. tiff in error.

As against act by the state, one cannot claim that he is deprived of property without compensation, in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 5. 4. COURTS 391(3)-ERROR TO STATE COURT -FEDERAL QUESTION-JURISDICTION.

No federal question being presented by the

Mr. B. I. Litowich, of Salina, Kan., for defendant in error.

decision of which by state Supreme Court is controlling with federal courts; no federal right being involved.

(248 U. S. 32)

Action by Albert Palmer and others against Memorandum for the Court by the CHIEF the State of Ohio. Judgment dismissing the JUSTICE. petition was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state (96 Ohio St. 513, 118 N. E. 102), and plaintiffs bring error. Dismissed.

|

Having previously considered this case (82 Kan. 216, 107 Pac. 559; 87 Kan. 842, 126 Pac. 1093) the court awarded relief because of the violation of a contract of employment to pro cure the sale of real estate. 96 Kan. 109,

150 Pac. 559.

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.

PALMER et al. v. STATE OF OHIO.

(Submitted on Motion to Affirm Oct. 28, 1918.

Decided Nov. 18, 1918.)

No. 260.

Messrs. John G. Romer, of St. Henry, Ohio, and T. F. Raudabaugh, of Celina, Ohio, for plaintiffs in error.

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 found that such land was not includ-ion of the Court. ed in the contract, hence the sole basis for the asserted federal question disappears.

The plaintiffs in error sued the state of Ohio for damages for flooding lands by elevating the spillway of a state-maintained dam. The Supreme Court of the state af

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 exist-firmed the action of the lower courts in disence of the alleged federal question depends. missing the petition on the ground that the Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 state had not consented so to be sued, and U. S. 585, 593, 35 Sup. Ct. 429, 59 L. Ed. 735, we are asked to review this decision. L. R. A. 1917F, 1148, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1; Creswill v. Grand Lodge K. P., 225 U. S. 246, 261, 32 Sup. Ct. 822, 56 L. Ed. 1074; Kansas City Southern R. R. Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573, 591, 32 Sup. Ct. 316, 56 L. Ed. 556. 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.

The plaintiffs in error agree, as they must, that their suit cannot be maintained without the consent of the state, but they claim that such consent was given in an amendment to section 16 of article 1 of the state Constitution, adopted in 1912, which reads:

Messrs. Clarence D. Laylin and Frank Davis, Jr., both of Columbus, Ohio, for the State of Ohio.

*Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opin

"Suits may be brought against the state, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law."

The state Supreme Court held that this amendment is not self-executing, and that

the General Assembly of the state having

failed to designate the courts and the manner in which such suits might be brought, effective consent to sue had not been given. This decision, the plaintiffs in error claim, vaguely and indefinitely, somehow deprives them of their property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

1. STATES~191(1)—ACTION BY INDIVIDUAL -SOURCE OF RIGHT.

Right of individuals to sue a state can come only from consent of the state, and not from Constitution or laws of United States.

[1, 2] The right of individuals to sue a state, in either a federal or a state court, cannot be derived from the Constitution or laws of the United States. It can come only 2. COURTS 366(1)—FEDERAL COURTS-FOL- from the consent of the state. Beers v. LOWING DECISION OF STATE COURT-LOCAL State of Arkansas, 20 How. 527, 15 L. Ed. LAW. Whether state Constitution gave_consent of 991; Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U. s. state to be sued is a question of local state law, 337, 25 L. Ed. 960; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

*33

1918)

PALMER v. STATE OF OHIO

[3] The further claim that the plaintiffs in error are deprived of their property withBarron out compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is palpably groundless.

U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 504, 33 L. Ed. 842. Whether Ohio gave the required consent must be determined by the construction to be given to the constitutional amendment quoted, and this is a question of local state law, as to which the decision of the state v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250, Supreme Court is controlling with this court, 8 L. Ed 672; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. no federal right being involved. Elmendorf S. 172, 174, 20 Sup. Ct. 77, 44 L. Ed. 119. v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152, 159, 6 L. Ed. 289; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U. S. 100, 116, 33 Sup. Ct. 967, 57 L. Ed. 1410; Memphis Street Railway Co. v. Moore, 243 U. S. 299, 301, 37 Sup. Ct. 273, 61 L. Ed. 733.

[4] No federal question being presented by the record the motion to affirm is denied and this court sua sponte, dismisses the writ Dismissed. of error for want of jurisdiction.

39 SUP.CT.-2

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS

DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1918

(248 U. S. 534)

No. 352. DESCHUTES RAILROAD COM- | of Atlanta, Ga., and Leon Weil, of Montgomery, PANY, appellant, v. EASTERN OREGON Ala., for appellee. Petition for a writ of certiLAND COMPANY. Nov. 4, 1918. Appeal orari herein denied. from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For opinion below, see 246 Fed. 400, 158 C. C. A. 464. See, also, 245 U. S. 672, 38 Sup. Ct. 192, 62 L. Ed. 540. Messrs. Arthur C. Spencer and James G. Wilson, both of Portland, Or., for appellant. Messrs. Alex. Britton and Evans Browne, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) a. Section 128 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1133 [Comp. St. 1916, § 1120]); Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 237 U. S. 300, 35 Sup. Ct. 598, 59 L. Ed. 965; b. Equitable Assurance Soc. v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314, 23 Sup. Ct. 123, 47 L. Ed. 190; Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, 33 Sup. Ct. 80, 57 L. Ed. 140; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; (2) a. Bankers' Mutual Casualty Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co., 192 U. S. 371, 383, 385, 24 Sup. Ct. 325, 48 L. Ed. 484; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 34 Sup. Ct. 892, 58 L. Ed. 1557; b. Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74, 34 Sup. Ct. 724, 58 L. Ed. 1218; Joy v. City of St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332, 26 Sup. Ct. 478, 50| L. Ed. 776. See writ of certiorari denied, Deschutes R. R. Co. v. Oregon Land Co., 245 U. S. 672, 38 Sup. Ct. 192, 62 L. Ed. 540.

(248 U. S. 533, 575)

No. 457. The ZANESVILLE & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. Charles F. WILLIAMS, administrator, etc. Nov. 4, 1918. In error to the Court of Appeals of Muskingum County, State of Ohio. Mr. John H. Doyle, of Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237. Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of Congress of September 6, 1916, chap. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. 1916, § 1214); and petition for cer

tiorari denied.

(248 U. S. 575)

No. 523. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, appellant, v. The ATLANTA & WEST POINT RAILROAD COMPANY. Nov. 4, 1918. For opinion below, see 250 Fed. 208. Mr. William L. Clay, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant. Messrs. Sanders McDaniel,

(248 U. S. 532)

No. 524. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, appellant, v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. Nov. 4, 1918. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. For opinion below, see 250 Fed. 199, which affirmed 243 Fed. 687. Mr. William L. Clay, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant. Messrs. Henry L. Stone, of Louisville, Ky., and Henry C. Peeples, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) a. Section 128 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1133 [Comp. St. 1916, § 1120]); Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 237 U. S. 300, 35 Sup. Ct. 598, 59 L. Ed. 965; b. Equitable Assurance Soc. v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314, 23 Sup. Ct. 123, 47 L. Ed. 190; Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, 33 Sup. Ct. 80, 57 L. Ed. 140; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; (2) Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. Ed. 708; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S. 239, 20 Sup. Ct. 867, 44 L. Ed. 1052; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 195 U. S. 540, 25 Sup. Ct. 133, 49 L. Ed. 312, 1 Ann. Cas. 517; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Richmond, 224 U. S. 160, 32 Sup. Ct. 449, 56 L. Ed. 710; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 237 U. S. 300, 35 Sup. Ct. 598, 59 L. Ed. 965. See Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 244 U. S. 649, 37 Sup. Ct. 743, 61 L. Ed. 1371.

1918)

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS

Louisville, Ky., for petitioner. Petition for a 'the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit the Sixth Circuit denied.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 578)
No. 703. Samuel R. MAYNARD, petition-
er, v. Matt G. REYNOLDS et al., etc. Nov.
4, 1918. For opinion below, see 251 Fed. 784.
Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United
Circuit denied.
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth

(248 U. S. 557)

No. 625. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. J. J. GRAY. Nov. 4, 1918. Mr. Jo-Berry S. Lyles, of Columbia, S. C., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari' to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina granted.

(248 U. S. 578)

No. 717. Drusa STURM et al., petitioners,
Nov. 4, 1918. See,
V. John S. STUMP et al.
also, 239 Fed. 749. Petition for a writ of cer-
tiorari to the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 577)

No. 648. LOUISIANA NAVIGATION COMPANY, petitioner, v. OYSTER COMMISSION OF LOUISIANA et al. Nov. 4, 1918. For opinion below, see 79 South. 213. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana denied.

No. 1. STATE OF LOUISIANA ex rel. v. Jared Y. SANDERS, Governor, et al. Nov. Willis J. ROUSSEL, etc., plaintiff in error, 5, 1918. Death of Willis J. Roussel, the plainance of Wilhelmine G. Schmidt, widow of Willis tiff in error herein, suggested, and the appearJ. Roussel, deceased, and testamentary executrix of his succession, as the party plaintiff in error herein, filed and entered.

(248 U. S. 556)

No. 649. Alvah CROCKER et al., trustees, petitioners, v. John F. MALLEY, Collector of Internal Revenue. Nov. 4, 1918. For opinion below, see 250 Fed. 817. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted.

(248 U. S. 577)

No. 678. S. T. HILLS, as trustee, etc., petitioner, v. C. D. STIMSON COMPANY. Nov. 4, 1918. For opinion below, see 172 Pac. 1181. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington denied.

(248 U. S. 590) No. 12. Stephen W. ALLEN et al., plaintiffs in error, v. J. F. TRIMMER, as treasurer, etc. of the State of Oklahoma. For opinion below, Nov. 7, 1918. In error to the Supreme Court see 45 Okl. 83, 144 Pac. 795. Mr. Albert Rennie, of Pauls Valley, Okl., for plaintiff in error. Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for Dismissed with costs, purdefendant in error. suant to the Sixteenth Rule (32 Sup. Ct. ix) on motion of Mr. S. P. Freeling for the defendant in error.

(248 U. S. 556)

No. 682. Bessie TYRRELL, etc., petitioner, v. Charles B. SHAFFER et al. Nov. 4, 1918. For opinion below, see 174 Pac. 1074. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma granted.

(248 U. S. 534) No. 1. The STATE OF LOUISIANA ex rel. Wilhelmine G. SCHMIDT, widow, etc., plaintiff in error, v. Jared Y. SANDERS, GovIn error to the For ernor, et al. Nov. 11, 1918. Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Mr. Willis J. Roussel, for plaintiff in error. opinion below, see State ex rel. Roussel v. Sanders, 128 La. 635, 54 South. 1036. Dismissed for want of juPER CURIAM. risdiction upon the authority of (1) Bilby et al. v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Čt. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 37 Sup. Ct. 643, 61 L. Ed. 1153; Stewart v. City of Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14, 36 Sup. Ct. 15, 60 L. Ed. 120; (2) Stearns v. Minnesota ex rel. Marr, 179 U. S. 223, 21 Sup. Ct. 73, 45 L. Ed. 162; Board of Liquidation v. Louisiana ex rel. Wilder, 179 U. S. 622, 21 Sup. Ct. 263, 45 L. Ed. 347; (3) Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544.

(248 U. S. 577)

No. 683. The STATE OF LOUISIANA, petitioner, v. NEW ORLEANS LAND COMPANY. Nov. 4, 1918. For opinion below, see 79 South. 515. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana denied.

(248 U. S. 578)

No. 686. Maurice SUGAR, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES. Nov. 4, 1918. For opinion below, see 252 Fed. 74. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 578)

No. 687. Maurice SUGAR, petitioner, v. The
UNITED STATES. Nov. 4, 1918. For opin-
ion below, see 252 Fed. 79, which affirms 243
Fed. 423. Petition for a writ of certiorari to

In

(248 U. S. 591) No. 30. METROPOLITAN STATE BANK, plaintiff in error, v. The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Nov. 11, 1918. error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. For opinion below, see 272 Ill. 311, 111 N. E. 992. Messrs. Philip J. McKenna and Howard F. Bishop, both of Chicago, Ill., for Messrs. Edward J. Brunplaintiff in error. Disdage, Atty. Gen., and James H. Wilkerson, both of Chicago, Ill., for defendant in error. missed with costs, pursuant to the 19th Rule (32 Sup. Ct. ix).