1. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.; sufficiency of Federal question raised; asser-
tion of right under Federal statute.
Even if a demurrer in an action in the United States Court of Indian
Territory, on the ground that the action should be at law instead
of in equity, does amount to an assertion of right under § 723, Rev.
Stat., that section is so plainly inapplicable to the practice in such
court that no substantial Federal question is raised that would war-
rant this court in reviewing, under § 709, Rev. Stat., the judgment
of the state court to which the case was transferred on Statehood.
Dill v. Ebey, 199.
2. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.; sufficiency of Federal question raised; setting
up right under trial by jury provision of Constitution.
Demurrer in the territorial court, on the ground that the action should
be at law and not in equity, is not such a demand for a jury trial as
to amount to specially setting up a right under the trial by jury
provision of the Federal Constitution. Ib.
3. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.; action transferred from territorial court on
Statehood; time for raising Federal question.
In order to entitle plaintiff in error to have this court review a judg-
ment of the state court in an action transferred to that court from
the territorial court after Statehood, the Federal question should
be specially set up in the state court at the proper time; he cannot
rely on a premature assertion of the right in the territorial court.
Ib.
4. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.; effect of fact that case might have been decided
from non- -Federal point of view.
Where the case was decided on the Federal question, the fact that it
might have been decided from a non-Federal point of view does not
afford a basis for holding that it was decided on the latter ground
and that this court has no jurisdiction under § 709, Rev. Stat.
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. McWhirter, 265.
5. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.; involution of Federal question.
While the power of this court to review the judgment of a state court
is controlled by § 709, Rev. Stat., § 237, Judicial Code, yet where
in a controversy of a purely Federal character the claim is made
and denied that there was no evidence tending to show liability
under the Federal statute, such ruling, when duly excepted to, is
reviewable, because inherently involving the operation and effect
of the Federal law. Ib.
6. To review judgment of state court resting on non-Federal grounds suffi-
cient to sustain it.
This court will not review the judgment of the state court when it rests
not only on Federal, but also on non-Federal grounds, and the
latter are sufficient to sustain it and were necessarily decided.
Adams v. Russell, 353.
7. To review judgment of state court resting on non-Federal ground suffi-
cient to sustain it.
The state court having held that, under the applicable statutes, the
parole granted to a prisoner was absolutely void and was therefore
properly vacated, such ground is sufficient to sustain the judgment,
and this court cannot review it on the asserted Federal question
that the state officers had vacated the parole in such manner as to
violate the prisoner's constitutional rights secured by the Four-
teenth Amendment. Ib.
8. To review judgment of state court in condemnation proceeding; involu-
tion of constitutional question.
A judgment by which an owner of condemned property gets less than
he ought, and in that sense is deprived of his property, cannot come
to this court on the constitutional question unless there is some-
thing more than an ordinary honest mistake of law in the proceed-
ings. (Backus v. Fort Street Depot, 169 U. S. 557.) McGovern v.
New York, 363.
9. To review judgments of territorial supreme court; scope of, under § 2,
act of 1874.
Under the act of April 7, 1874, c. 80, § 2, the review by this court of
judgments of the Supreme Court of a Territory is confined to de-
termining whether the facts found by the court below sustain the
judgment. Citizens' National Bank v. Davisson, 212.
10. To review, on certiorari, decisions of Circuit Courts of Appeals.
The exceptional power of this court to review, upon certiorari, decisions
of the Circuit Court of Appeals on an appeal from an interlocutory
order is intended to be, and is, sparingly exercised; that power does
exist, however, in a case where no appeal lies from the final decision
of that court. Denver v. New York Trust Co., 123.
11. To review, on certiorari, decisions of Circuit Courts of Appeals; when
judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals final.
A suit to enforce a contract between a municipality and a water com-
pany for the purchase, as is claimed, by the former of the water
plant of the latter and to enjoin the city from constructing another
plant, is not without more a case arising under the Constitution of
the United States. In such a case the decision of the Circuit Court
of Appeals is final and the writ of certiorari may be exercised. Ib.
12. Under Criminal Appeals Act; effect of granting motion to quash serv-
ice of process.
The decision of the court below, granting a motion to quash the service
on the ground that the statute on which the indictment is based
does not include the defendant, is equivalent to a decision sus-
taining a demurrer to the indictment and is based upon the con-
struction of the statute, and this court has jurisdiction under the
Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907. United States v. Adams
Express Co., 381.
B. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1;
JURISDICTION, A 11.
On removal from state court.
Where the defects in service of process and in procedure in the state
court are waivable, and after removal there is presented to the
Circuit Court a controversy involving more than $2,000 and be-
tween citizens of different States, that court has jurisdiction and
the method of getting the case before the court cannot operate to
deprive it of jurisdiction. Mackay v. Uinta Co., 173.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1;
ATTACHMENT.
D. OF FEDERAL COURTS GENERALLY.
1. Motives in seeking; materiality of.
The motives of litigants in seeking Federal jurisdiction are immaterial.
(Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 401.) Wheeler v. Denver, 342.
2. Collusion; effect on jurisdiction of indemnifying plaintiff in taxpayer's
suit against liability for costs and fees.
The fact that the plaintiff in a taxpayer's suit against a municipality
was solicited to bring the suit and was indemnified against liability
for costs and fees is not enough in itself in the absence of any illegal
purpose to make the case collusive so as to deprive the court of
jurisdiction. Cashman v. Amador Canal Co., 118 U. S. 58, distin-
guished. Ib.
3. Equity, under § 723, Rev. Stat.
Under § 723, Rev. Stat., a bill of equity does not lie in the courts of
the United States where a plain, adequate and complete remedy
can be had at law. Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Benedict, 481.
4. Equity; duty of court where remedy at law obvious.
Where it is obvious that there is a remedy at law, it is the duty of the
court to interpose that objection sua sponte to a suit in equity. Ib.
5. Equity; objection to; availability in appellate court.
Where, as in this case, there has been no waiver on the part of the
defendant, the objection is available in the appellate court. Ib.
The illegality or unconstitutionality of a state or municipal tax is not
itself a ground for equitable relief in the Federal courts. (Boise
Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U. S. 276.) Ib.
7. Equity; of suit maintainable in state court.
The state courts cannot define the equity jurisdiction of the Federal
courts; but where the state courts have held that a suit in equity
could be maintained in the courts of the State, the same suit can be
maintained in the Federal court having jurisdiction in other re-
spects. Ib.
|