State Attorney General v. Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

The supreme court of Michigan held that the state might be estopped by its acts, conduct, silence, and acquiescence; that the only question necessary to be considered and determined was the question of estoppel,-and, after a full consideration of the facts applicable to this branch of the case, reached the conclusion that the claim of the state had no foundation in equity, justice, or good conscience; that it had become stale; and that the state was estopped to assert title in itself to the lands in question. As its judgment thus rested upon the decision of a question which was not federal, this court has no jurisdiction to review it, and the writ of error must be dismissed. Adams Co. v. Burlington & M. R. Co., 112 U.S. 123, 5 Sup. Ct. 77; Israel v. Arthur, 14 Sup. Ct. 583.

Writ of error dismissed.