Open main menu

Salmon Falls Manufacturing Company v. Goddard/Dissent Daniel

Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinions
Daniel
Curtis

United States Supreme Court

55 U.S. 446

Salmon Falls Manufacturing Company  v.  Goddard


DANIEL, Justice, dissenting.

Upon the point made in this case, on the Statute of Frauds, I entirely concur in the exposition of the law just announced by the court. With respect, however, to the proceedings ordered by this court to be taken in this case in the Circuit Court, I am constrained to dissent from the decision of my brethren. My opinion is, that under the 2d section of the 3d article of the Constitution, the courts of the United States could not take cognizance of the controversy between these parties; and that therefore the proper direction to the Circuit Court would have been to dismiss this suit for want of jurisdiction. My reasons, for the conclusion here expressed, having been given in detail in the case of Rundle et al. v. The Delaware and Raritan Canal Company, during the present term, it is unnecessary to repeat them on this occasion.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).