*Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opin-[638] ion of the court:
carried on at the expense of and for the sole
benefit of the railroad company; that such
company had no authority under the law to The principal contention of the plaintiff
do the work and thereby damage defendant's in error (the defendant below) is that, as he
property without first making compensation had never been con pensated in damages for[639]
for the damage he would sustain by reason the injury to his property by altering the
of such work; and that he had a right to pre- grade of the street in front of his lot, he had
vent the completion of the work until he a right to abate the nuisance caused by the
should have received full compensation for proposed changes, and that in the refusal of
all damages he would sustain by such work, the state court to recognize this principle
and hence that complainants were not en- he had been deprived of his property without
titled to the relief prayed for. Further an- due process of law within the meaning of the
swering, he insisted that under the Consti- Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Con-
tution of the state he had a right to free ac-stitution.
cess to the street from his property and to
the free admission of light and air; and that
no alteration in the grade of the street could
be lawfully made until a proper method of
procedure should have been prescribed by the
legislature for the exercise of the power of
eminent domain, "whereby this defendant
may receive proper and adequate compensa-
tion for the damage that will result to him
by said alteration of grades and exclusion
of light and air."
But no such question was raised in the
pleadings, unless the allegation of the an-
swer that the plaintiffs had no right to make
the alterations in question without first com-
pensating defendant for his damages be
treated as equivalent to an allegation
that his property had been taken without
due process of law. The right of the defend-
ant to damages was, however, assumed in the
opinion of the vice chancellor, who disposed
of the answer by saying that the defendant
The case was heard upon the pleadings and had mistaken his remedy, and must resort
proofs, and a decree rendered that the defend- to another proceeding against the city for
ant be perpetually enjoined from interfering his damages. This was beyond all doubt a
with the completion of the sidewalk and ruling broad enough to support the decree
curbing, and from removing or interfering regardless of any Federal question that
with the pavement, sidewalk, or curbing af- might possibly have been raised from the al-
ter the same shall have been completed. legation of the answer. In his petition for
[638] *In his opinion the vice chancellor put the an appeal, defendant repeated his allegation
case upon the grounds that the defendant had that his property had been damaged without
no right to take the law into his own hands compensation, and averred generally that
and bid defiance to the city authorities; that the decree was contrary to the Constitution
the city being liable for damages sustained of the United States, but made no specific al-
because of the want of repaired streets, and legation of any conflict therewith. As the
having undertaken to repair them according court of errors and appeals delivered no
to the grade which had been prescribed, the opinion, it is impossible to state definitely
court was justified in enjoining defendant upon what ground the decree of the vice
from any interference; that the only question chancellor was affirmed. The presumption
at issue was one with respect to the damages is that it was satisfied with the opinion of
to which McQuade was entitled; that he the court below, and affirmed the decree for
might have ascertained these before the city reasons stated in the opinion of the vice chan-
or railroad company took any steps, but that cellor; but, however this may be, it is quite
he allowed the company to go on and make evident that a Federal question was not
all the changes necessary without taking di-necessarily involved in the case, and hence
rect proceedings to compel them to ascertain
the damages and compensate him; and that
he has still an ample remedy for a redress of
his grievances without interfering with the
right of the public to the use of the street in
front of his dwelling.
that this court has no jurisdiction. Kau-
kauna Water Power Company v. Green Bay
& M. Canal Co. 142 U. S. 254 [35: 1004];
Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Needles, 113 U. S.
574 [28: 1084]; Eureka Lake & Y. Canal Co.
v. Yuba County Super. Ct. 116 U. S. 410
[29: 671].
From this decree McQuade appealed to the court of errors and appeals upon the ground We have repeatedly held that even the dethat under such decree the complainants cision by the state court of a Federal queswere permitted to take and damage his prop- tion will not sustain the jurisdiction of this erty for public use without compensation, be- court, if another question not Federal were cause no procedure for taking and injuring also raised and decided against the plainhis property in the manner set forth had been tiff in error, and the decision thereof be suffi-[640] prescribed by the legislature, and "because cient, notwithstanding the Federal question, the decree is in sundry other respects contra- to sustain the judgment. Much more is this ry to the Constitution of the United States the case where no Federal question is shown and to the law of the land." The petition to have been decided, and the case might of appeal was dismissed by the court of errors and appeals and the case remanded for an execution of the decree. No written opinion was delivered.
Mr. David McClure for plaintiff in error.
No counsel for defendants in error.
have been, and probably was, disposed of
upon non-Federal grounds. Harrison v.
Morton, 171 U. S. 38 [43: 63]; Bacon v.
Texas, 163 U. S. 207 [41: 132], and cases
cited.
The writ of error in this case must there-
fore be dismissed.