Слике страница
PDF
ePub

the appointment of the trustees was void was one arising under
the laws of the United States within the meaning of $ 24, Judicial
Code, and the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals is not final.
Although there may be a general prayer for relief if no relief other
than injunction against prosecution of a suit in the state court is
brought to the attention of either the District Court or the Circuit
Court of Appeals, the general prayer should be treated as aban-
doned. Ib.

3. Of direct appeal from District Court under $ 238, Judicial Code; in-

volution of construction of treaties with Indians.
Where complainant's entire case rests on the construction of treaties

with Indians in regard to reservations and on the claim that cer-
tain of such treaties have been repealed by the subsequent admis-
sion of the Territory within which the reservations are situated,
this court has jurisdiction of a direct appeal from the District Court
under $ 238, Judicial Code. Johnson v. Gearlds, 422.

4. On direct appeal from District Court under $ 238, Judicial Code; scope

of consideration.
On a direct appeal under $ 238, Judicial Code, from a judgment of the

District Court dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction on the
ground that neither of the parties was a resident of that district
and that the suit was one that could only be brought in a district
in which one of the parties resided, this court is only concerned
with the jurisdiction of the District Court as a Federal court;
whether appellant is entitled to the relief sought is not a jurisdic-
tional question in the sense of $ 238. Louisville & Nashville R. R.
Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 369.

5. On direct appeal from District Court under $ 238, Judicial Code; ques-

tion open.

When the matter in controversy is of the requisite value and diverse

citizenship exists, the question is simply whether the case is cog-
nizable in the particular District Court in which the case is brought.
Ib.

6. Of direct appeal from District Court under $ 238, Judicial Code; involu-

tion of constitutional question.
A case otherwise within the jurisdiction of the District Court of the

United States and reviewable in the Circuit Court of Appeals is not
a case which may come direct to this court under $ 238, Judicial
Code, merely because in the course of the case a question has arisen
as to whether a change in decision of the state court as to the effect

and scope of a state statute amounts to an impairment of the ob-
ligation of a contract. Moore-Mansfield Co. v. Electrical Co., 619.

7. To review judgment of state court; when judgment rested on non-Federal

grounds sufficient to sustain it.
Denial of full faith and credit to the statutes of another State cannot

be made the basis of review by this court where it appears that the
court below reached the same result that plaintiff contended for on
grounds wholly independent of the Federal question and sufficient
to sustain its action. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 123.

8. To review judgment of state court involving question of extraterritoriality

of its laws.
There is a clear distinction between questions concerning the operation

and effect of the law of a State within its borders and upon the con-
duct of persons within its jurisdiction, and questions concerning the
right of the State to extend its authority beyond its borders with
the same effect; and a decision upon the former does not constitute
a ground for refusing to entertain a writ of error to review the judg-
ment of the state court involving the latter. New York Life Ins.
Co. v. Head, 149, 166.

9. To review judgment of state court in case transferred from territorial

court.
Under 88 32 and 33 of the Arizona Enabling Act of June 20, 1910, the

judgment of the state court in a case transferred to it from the
territorial court is not reviewable by this court simply because it
was pending in the territorial court at the time of the Enabling
Act; such a judgment can only be reviewed by this court where a
Federal question exists to give jurisdiction as in the case of judg-
ments from the courts of other States. Van Dyke v. Cordova Cop-
per Co., 188.

10. To review judgment of state court; when Federal question sufficiently

raised.
Although the state appellate court may not have referred to the con-

stitutional questions in its opinion, this court cannot regard such
silence as a condemnation of the time at, or manner in which, those
questions were raised; and, if the record shows that they were
raised in that court, this court has jurisdiction. International Har-
vester Co. v. Missouri, 199.

11. To review judgment of state court; when Federal question raised too late.
Attempts to inject Federal questions into the record by filing amended

pleadings after the case has been remanded by the appellate court
come too late to lay the foundation for review by this court, Mutual
Life Insurance Co. v. Kirchoff, 169 U. S. 103, except so far as the ap-
pellate court gives consideration to, and passes upon, such ques-
tions when the case again comes before it. (Miedreich v. Lauen-
stein, 232 U. S. 236.) Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Higdon,
592.

12. To review state court's finding as to navigability of river wholly within

State.
The question of navigability of a river wholly within a State is purely

one of fact, and where the state court has decided that such a river
is non-navigable there is no right left to review. Illinois v. Econ-
omy Power Co., 497.

13. To review state court's finding as to navigability of river wholly within

State; status of State.
A State has no Federal rights which it may exert for itself or on behalf

of its citizens or of all the citizens of the United States in regard to a
river wholly within its boundaries which the highest court of the
State has declared to be non-navigable; nor are any such rights
created by acts of Congress merely authorizing surveys for and esti-
mates of cost of, improvements and not actually authorizing or
appropriating for the same. Ib.

14. To review judgment of state court in suit against foreign corporation;

scope of review.
Where the state court has denied a motion to quash the service of

process on a foreign corporation, and has also held that the statute
on which the action is based is not unconstitutional, both the ques-
tion of validity of the service and that of the constitutionality of
the act are before this court for review. International Harvester
Co. v. Kentucky, 589.

15. To review judgment of state court; involution of Federal question.
Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the state court to review a judg..

ment in an action under the Employers' Liability Act in which the
construction of the Safety Appliance Acts was involved, denied.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Crockett, 725.

16. To review judgment of state court; questions not reviewable.
A mere error of law not involving a Federal question and committed

in the exercise of jurisdiction by giving conclusive effect to a judg-
ment rendered in another State affords no opportunity for a review
in this court. Roller v. Murray, 738.

17. To review judgment of state court under $ 237, Judicial Code; involu-

tion of Federal question.
Where the effect of the judgment of another State dissolving an in-

junction as res judicata is denied on the ground that it is not a final
decree, if the contention that a final decree was subsequently ren-
dered which concluded the merits was not presented to the court,
there is no basis for review in this court under $ 237, Judicial Code,
on the ground that full faith and credit was not given to the original
judgment. Ib.

18. Under $ 237, Judicial Code; raising Federal question; controlling ef-

fect of state practice.
In order that the denial of a Federal right may be the basis of reviewing

the judgment of the state court, the claim of Federal right must be
made in the state court in the manner required by the state prac-
tice, and unless there is an unwarranted resort to rules of practice
by the state court to evade decision of the Federal question, this
court will not review the judgment. Louisville & Nashville R. R.
Co. v. Woodford, 46.

19. Under $ 237, Judicial Code; denial of Federal right; what constitutes.
Raising the Federal claim of right on motion for new trial is not suffi-

cient unless the court actually passes upon and denies the claim;
and a decision by the appellate court that the Federal claim was not
properly raised is not a denial of the Federal right but merely an
enforcement of a rule of state practice. Ib.

20. Under $ 237, Judicial Code; what constitutes denial of Federal right.
Where the judgment of a state court rests upon an independent ground

not only adequate to sustain it but in entire harmony with an as-
serted Federal right, there is no denial of that right in the sense
contemplated by $ 237 of the Judicial Code, and the writ of error
will be dismissed. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. National Rice
Co., 80.

21. Under $ 237, Judicial Code; what constitutes denial of Federal right.
Where the initial carrier sets up the Carmack Amendment and also

denies negligence, but the state court finds from conflicting evi-
· dence that the loss was occasioned by the negligence of the con-
necting carrier, the judgment rests on that finding as an independ-
ent ground, and this court has not jurisdiction. Ib.

22. Under $ 237, Judicial Code; what constitutes denial of Federal right;

estoppel of defendant.
Plaintiff, an injured employé of an interstate common carrier by rail,

sued for personal injury, alleging that he was employed in inter-
state commerce, and stating a good cause of action under the Fed-
eral Employers' Liability Act, if so employed, and, if not, under
the state law; the defendant asked for an instruction that the proof
did not show that the injury occurred in interstate commerce,
which the court gave, and then, over defendant's objection, treated
the allegation to that effect as eliminated from the declaration and
submitted the case to the jury as one under the state law, and
plaintiff had a verdict. Held, that defendant having asked for the
instruction that the case could not be maintained under the Fed-
eral act, was bound thereby, and, therefore, was denied no right
under the Federal law by the action of the state court, and the writ
of error must be dismissed. Wabash R. R. Co. v. Hayes, 86.

23. Under $ 237, Judicial Code; what constitutes denial of Federal right.
Where the state court treats a mistaken allegation that the injury

occurred in interstate commerce as eliminated, it merely gives
effect to a rule of local practice and does not deprive defendant of
any Federal right. Ib.

24. Under $ 237, Judicial Code; what constitutes denial of Federal right;

quære as to.
Quære, as to what the effect would be if the shift from a claim under the

Federal act to one under the state law cut the defendant off from
presenting a defense open under the latter or deprived him of a
right of removal. 1b.

25. Under $ 237, Judicial Code; when Federal question sufficiently in-

volved.
Although plaintiff in error, after setting up a Federal defense in the

trial court, may not have based any exceptions upon the failure of
that court to recognize it, if the appellate court did recognize, and
by its decision necessarily overruled, that defense, this court must
deal with the Federal question. (North Carolina R. R. v. Zachary,
232 U. S. 248.) Carlson v. Curtiss, 103.

26. Under $ 237, Judicial Code; when Federal question raised on petition

for reargument in appellate court.
Where the trial court did not infringe any Federal right of plaintiff in

error, but the decision of the appellate court ran counter to the al-
leged Federal right which was raised on petition for reargument
and specifically passed on and overruled in refusing the reargument,
this court has jurisdiction under $ 237, Judicial Code, to review
the judgment. Grannis v. Ordean, 385.

« ПретходнаНастави »