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.
Quare, 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. Ib.
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.
This court cannot review on its merits a case which it must dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 123. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 2; BANKRUPTCY, 6;
1. Under § 57, Judicial Code; situs of property the test; sufficiency of serv- ice of process. Section 57, Judicial Code, makes suits to remove any.encumbrance,
lien or cloud upon title to real or personal property cognizable by the District Court of the district in which the property is situated regardless of residence of the parties and process for service of the non-resident defendants by notification outside of the district or by publication. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 369.
2. Under § 57, Judicial Code; when suit one to remove cloud on title cog- nizable in District Court.
In Mississippi, as declared by its highest court, the judgment of a special court of eminent domain may be challenged by a bill in equity upon the ground that the condemnation is not for a public purpose, and if other elements of Federal jurisdiction are present the case is one to remove cloud upon title and, under § 57, Judicial Code, the case is cognizable in the District Court of the district in which the property is situated although neither of the parties re- side therein. Ib.
3. Under § 57, Judicial Code; suits to remove cloud on title within. The provision in § 57, Judicial Code, respecting suits to remove clouds from title embraces a suit to remove a cloud cast upon the title by a deed or instrument which is void upon its face when such suit is founded upon a remedial statute of the State, as well as when rest- ing upon established usages and practice of equity. Ib.
4. Under § 24, Judicial Code; consideration in determining whether case one arising under Constitution, law or treaty of United States. Whether a case begun in a District Court is one arising under the Con-
stitution or a law or treaty of the United States in the sense of the
jurisdictional statute (Judicial Code, § 24), must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the declaration unaided by anything alleged in an- ticipation or avoidance of defenses which may be interposed by defendant. Taylor v. Anderson, 74.
See JURISDICTION, A 4, 5.
Of suit to enjoin enforcement of order of Interstate Commerce Commission. The Commerce Court had jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin the enforce-
ment of the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission in- volved in these cases and which refused the request of carriers to put in force rates requested by them. Intermountain Rate Cases, 476.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 10, 11.
E. OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
F. OF FEDERAL COURTS GENERALLY. See CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES, 2; COURTS, 2;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 15.
G. ADMIRALTY.
See ADMIRALTY, 1, 2, 3.
H. BANKRUPTCY.
See BANKRUPTCY, 4, 8.
I. ANCILLARY.
See BANKRUPTCY, 5.
J. OF STATE COURTS.
See CORPORATIONS, 1;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 4.
K. OF SUPREME COURT OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
See PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 1.
L. OF UNITED STATES. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6.
« ПретходнаНастави » |