Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U.S. 170 (1923). · Go Syfert
Search
Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U.S. 170 (1923). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
177 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 60 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Holland (flmd, 1974-03-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1925 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1925 1975 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Holland
M.D. Fla. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Oliver Iron v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172 , 43 S.Ct. 526 , 67 L.Ed. 929 (1923); Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 , 38 S.Ct. 529 , 62 L.Ed. 1101 (1918).
discussed Cited "see" Lindsey v. Normet (2×)
SCOTUS · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U. S. 170 ; American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U. S. 156 .
cited Cited "see" Calvert v. PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY
Tex. App. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172 , 43 S.Ct. 526 , 67 L.Ed. 929 .
examined Cited "see" Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin (3×)
2d Cir. · 1932 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U. S. 170, 172 , 43 S. Ct. 526 , 67 L.
cited Cited "see, e.g." J. Gregory Merrion and Robert L. Bayless, D/B/A Merrion and Bayless, Jerome T. McHugh Chase Oil Company, Dugan Production Corporation, Consolidated Oil and Gas, Inc., Southland Royalty Company, Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, Amerada Hess, Supron Energy Corporation, Energy Reserves Group, Inc., J. M. Huber Corporation, Continental Oil Company, Atlantic Richfield Company, Phillips Petroleum Company, Tenneco Oil Company, Getty Oil Company, and Gulf Oil Corporation v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council, and Cecil Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, Mobile Oil Corporation and Oxy Petroleum, Inc., Intervenors-Appellees. Amoco Production Company and Marathon Oil Company v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council, Gwendolyn Velarde, Treasurer of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Cecil Andrus, Secretary of the Interior
10th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172 , 43 S.Ct. 526 , 67 L.Ed. 929 (1923).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe
10th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172 , 43 S.Ct. 526 , 67 L.Ed. 929 (1923).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1974 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U. S. 170 (1923); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56 (1972).
examined Cited "see, e.g." General Insurance Company of America v. Deen (3×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1966 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Grant Timber & Manufacturing Co. v. Gray, 236 U.S. 133 , 35 S.Ct. 279 , 59 L.Ed. 501 , Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U.S. 170 , 43 S.Ct. 526 , 67 L.Ed. 928 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bianchi Et Al.
v.
Morales Et Al.
934.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 7, 1923.
262 U.S. 170
Mr. Phelan Beale and Mr. George W. Study for appellants-, Mr. Carroll G. Walter for appellees.
Holmes.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
[*171] Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill in equity filed in the District Court to restrain proceedings under the Mortgage Law of Porto Rico to foreclose a mortgage. That law gives a summary suit in which, speaking broadly, no defence is open except payment, Mortgage Law Regulations, Art. 175, and it is contended that this deprives the plaintiffs, (appellants,) of their property without due process of law. The statutes give a separate action to annul the mortgage in which any defence to it may be set up, and also provide for a cautionary notice, Mortgage Law, Art. 42; Mortgage Law Regulations, Art. 91, which the Supreme Court of Porto Rico regards as a sufficient substitute for an injunction. American Trading Co. v. Monserrat, 18 P. R. 268. See Romeu v. Todd, 206 U. S. 358. The bill was dismissed by the District Court for want of jurisdiction. The ap-pellees move that the decree be affirmed.

The facts stated and admitted in the motion papers make it so plain that the bill cannot be maintained that we shall affirm the decree below without putting the parties to the expense of printing the full record. Apart from other matters urged by the appellees the constitutional objection is simply another form of the objection to the separation between possessory and petitory suits familiar to countries that inherit Roman law and not wholly unfamiliar in our own. The United States, the States, and equally Porto Rico, may exclude all claims of ultimate right from possessory actions, consistently with due process of law. Grant Timber & Manufacturing Co. v. Gray, 236 U. S. 133. Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554. Before these decisions it had been strongly intimated by Chief Justice White that the foreclosure by summary process allowed by the law of Porto Rico was valid, Torres v. Lathrop, Luce & Co., 231 U. S. 171, 177, and a decision to the same effect was rendered by[*172] the Supreme Court of the Island. Giménez v. Brenes, 10 P. R. 124. In view of these decisions we are of opinion that the constitutional question raised was only colorable and that the decree dismissing the bill was right.

Decree affirmed.