Imágenes de páginas

mately redeemed. The people of the state subsequently ordained by its constitution that the debt of the state should not be increased so as to exceed $25,000,000. And after this, there being no money unappropriated in the treasury, and the debt of the state then being $25,000,000, the legislature passed an act to pay the contractor $50,331, to reimburse him the losses which he had sustained by the state's want of good faith in paying him in money all that it owed him under its contract. On an application for a mandamus the Supreme Court of the state adjudged that this act created a new debt, and so increased the debt of the state above $25,000,000, and was void. Held, in this court, that no writ of error lay, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. Salomons v. Graham, 15 Wall. 208.

292. (Dec., 1872.) The court refused to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction, a case brought here as within the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, when they could see a federal question raised under it, though raised somewhat obscurely; and though they had a very clear conviction" that the decision of the state court was correct, so clear indeed that, as it finally turned out (see infra, next case [Pennywit v. Eaton, p. 332] ), they affirmed it with ten per cent damages, because any writ of error could have been prosecuted only for delay. Pennyrit v. Eaton, 15 Wall. 380.

293. (Dec., 1872.) The rule redeclared, that a decree of the highest court of a state which, merely dissolving an injunction granted in an inferior court, leaves the whole case to be disposed of on its merits, is not a “ final decree," and, therefore, does not come within the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, or the second section of the act of 1867, giving revisory powers to this court over final decrees or judgments rendered in certain cases in such highest court. Moses v. The Mayor, 15 Wall. 387.

294. (Dec., 1872.) On a bill to enforce a vendor's lien, where the vendee set up that the deed which the complainant

[ocr errors]

had given him was insufficiently stamped (which fact, if true, would, under an act of Congress, prevent its being used in evidence), the Supreme Court of a state, disregarding the objection, enforced the lien. The vendee brought the case here, as within the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. Held, that, however frivolous the objection of the vendee, it raised a question under the section. Hall v. Jordan, 15 Wall, 393.

295. (Dec., 1872.) Where the court perceives, from the pleadings themselves, that a case may have been decided on the form of remedy which the practice in the state courts required the plaintiff to adopt, or on the technical insufficiency of the pleadings, — and especially where it perceives this more plainly from reported decisions in the state courts, — jurisdiction of the case will not be entertained, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, though the court can also perceive that the case might have been decided on grounds which would have brought it within that section, and which, therefore, would have given to the court jurisdiction. Commercial Bank v. Rochester, 15 Wall. 639.

296. (Dec., 1872.) The power of a state to prescribe the qualifications for admission to the bar of its own courts, is unaffected by the fourteenth amendment (to the Constitution), and this court cannot inquire into the reasonableness or propriety of the rules it may prescribe. Bradwell v. The State, 16 Wall. 130.

297. (Dec., 1872.) Where a complainant, setting out a case in the highest state court, for equitable relief against a sale, which a third party had undertaken to make of land, alleged that the party in making the sale had violated an act of Congress, and that the sale was therefore null and void, and the state court dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction,Held, that although the question whether the sale was not a nullity might have been presented, yet that the case having been dismissed below, for want of jurisdiction, it did not ap

pear that a federal question had been decided, much less that it had been decided adversely to the complainant.

Held, accordingly, that no jurisdiction existed here in such a case, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, or the act of Feb. 5, 1867, amendatory of it. Smith v. Adsit, 16 Wall. 185.

298. (Dec., 1872.) A case brought here, as within the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, dismissed; neither the record nor the opinion of the Supreme Court, which was in the records, showing any question before that court, except one relating to the interruption of a "prescription" (statute of limitations) set up as a defence, and the opivion showing that this question was decided exclusively upon the principles of the jurisprudence of the state. Marqueze v. Bloom, 16 Wall. 351.

299. (Dec., 1872.) On a suit in New York between the assignee in insolvency appointed by the Massachusetts court, and the sheriff of New York, to determine with whom was the prior right, whether with the Massachusetts assignee in insolvency or the New York attaching creditor, it was held by the highest court of New York that the prior right was with the New York attaching creditor.

On appeal to this court, where a question as to its jurisdiction to review the decision of the New York court was raised as a preliminary point,

Held, that the New York court necessarily decided what effect the insolvent proceedings in Massachusetts had by the law and usage in that state ; and that, as it decided against the effect which the defendant set up for them, this court had jurisdiction 1 to review the judgment of the New York court. Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. 610.

(Under article 4, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state ; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."]


500. (Dec., 1872.) Weld, that the legal sufficiency of the ground maintained by the Supreme Court of the state for its decree, to wit, that by the laws and practice of the state the complainant's remedy on a legal title was at law, and not in equity, is a question within the jurisdiction of this court, and revisable under the twenty-fifth section, on a second writ of error. Tyler v. Maguire, 17 Wall. 254.

301. That under the Judiciary Act, as well as under that of the 5th February, 1867, amendatory of it, on a second writ of error to a state court, this court " may proceed to a final judgment and award execution.” Ib.

302. (Oct., 1873.) A writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States, to review the judgment of a state court, must be issued to the highest court of the state in which a decision of the case could be had, even if that court be an inferior court of the state. Accordingly, where a Circuit Court of Virginia had jurisdiction to decide a case finally, the Court of Appeals of that state not having jurisdiction to review the decision, by reason of the amount in controversy being under $500, a writ of error from this court issued to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. If allowable at all, the writ should have been issued to the Circuit Court. Miller v. Joseph, 17 Wall. 655.

303. (Oct., 1873.) A decree in a court below, reversing a decree where, on a bill to foreclose a mortgage, a court below it had decreed in favor of the complainant, and “ remanding ” the case to such inferior court for " such other and further proceedings as to law and justice shall appertain," is not a final decree, within either the Judiciary Act of 1789, or the act of 1867 amendatory of it. A writ taken on a contrary assumption dismissed. Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588.1

304. (Oct., 1873.) No judgment is final which does not terminate the litigation between the parties. A judgment reversing the judgment of an inferior court, and remanding

1 Writ of error to state court.

the cause for such other and further proceedings as to law and justice shall appertain, does not do this. A writ of error to such a judgment dismissed, on the authority of Moore v. Robbins, supra, p. 563. St. Clair County v. Livingston, 18 Wall. 628.1

305. (Oct., 1873.) Where the judgment of a state court was annulled by the decree of a court of the same state, on the ground that the notes on which the judgment was rendered were given for a loan of Confederate money; and that the transactions, which resulted in the acquisition of the notes, were had between enemies during the late civil war, in violation of the proclamation of the President forbidding commercial intercourse with the enemy,

this court cannot review the ruling in these particulars. It conflicts with no part of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and presents no federal question. Stevenson v. William8, 19 Wall. 572.

306. (Oct., 1873.) Whether the legislature of a state has authority, under the constitution of the state, to pass a particular statute, what is the true interpretation of any statute passed by it for a purpose specified, and what acts will be justified under the statute, are matters which lie exclusively within the determination of the highest court of the state. Aicardi v. The State, 19 Wall. 635.

307. (Oct., 1873.) The decisions of the highest court of the state to the contrary will not be respected by this court, when such decisions are not satisfactory to the minils of the judges here; and when the matter in question is bonils issued in negotiable form, by a township of that state,? and now in the hands of a citizen of another state, or a foreigner, bona fide and for value paid. Township, fc. v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666.

308. (Oct., 1874.) Where the consideration of a question is prima facie within the jurisdiction and control of a state

1 Writ of error to state court.
2 Michigan.

« AnteriorContinuar »