Page images
PDF
EPUB

or a request to charge, that a Federal question is involved.3 This is not, however, indispensable, if the Supreme Court

city plaintiff had a vested right of property therein, and in the performance thereof and that a refusal to perform amounts to a deprivation of such property is insufficient since it amounts to no more than an allegation of a breach of contract. McCormick V. Oklahoma City, 236 U. S. 657.

3 Zadiz v. Baldwin, 166 U. S. 485, 41 L. ed. 1087; Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648, 41 L. ed. 1149; Carney v. Chapman, 247 U. S. 102, 38 Sup. Ct. 449, 62 L. ed. 1005. It is not necessary to state specifically the particular provision of the Constitution of the United States upon which the party relies. Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken L. & I. Co., 1 Wall. 116, 17 L. ed. 571; Furman v. Nichol, 8 Wall. 44, 19 L. ed. 370; Columbia Water Power Co. v. Columbia El. St. Ry., Lt. & P. Co., 172 U. S. 475, 485, 43 L. ed. 521, 524. But see New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. New York, 186 U. S. 269, 46 L. ed. 1158. For a case where the pleading raised the question, see Am. Express Co. v. Michigan, 177 U. S. 404, 409, 44 L. ed. 823, 825. When an immunity was claimed under a specified statute, it was said that it would be an excessive requirement to hold the plaintiff in error bound, in the first instance, to anticipate the specific and qualified form in which the immunity finally was denied. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Wehrmann, 202 U. S. 295, 299, 50 L. ed. 1036, 1039. But a general claim below that a statute is unconstitutional is insufficient, since it may have called the attention of the court to the

State Constitution only. Endowment & Ben. Ass'n v. Kansas, 120 U. S. 103, 30 L. ed. 593; Miller v. Cornwall R. Co., 168 U. S. 131, 42 L. ed. 409; Layton v. Missouri, 187 U. S. 356, 47 L. ed. 214. It seems that a claim that a statutory proceeding is not due process of law is insufficient unless reference is specifically made to the Fourteenth amendment. Bollen v. Nebraska, 176 U. S. 83, 44 L. ed. 382. See Hulbert v. Chicago, 202 U. S. 275, 50 L. ed. 1026. An exception because the judgment deprives plaintiff in error of his property without due process of law, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, only brings up the question whether the proceedings themselves show a want of such due process. Appleby v. City of Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, 55 L. ed. 838. When the plaintiff in error had claimed protection below under the Fifth and Seventh amendments to the Federal Constitution, which do not apply to the States, he was not allowed in the Supreme Court of the United States to claim that the statute in question was obnoxious to the Fourteenth amendment. Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127, 45 L. ed. 119. A general claim in the answer, that "this proceeding is in violation of the Constitution of the United States," was held to be insufficient to raise a Federal question that did not appear to have been argued below. Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 248, 46 L. ed. 171, 176. In an action founded upon the Employers' Liability Act, an exception to a

can see by an examination of the record that the Federal question was raised and decided adversely to the plaintiff in error.4

part of a charge concerning contributory negligence does not raise a Federal question, unless it specifically refers to some provision of that statute. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Duvall, 225 U. S. 477, 56 L. ed. 1171. The mention in a pleading of a defense based upon the Constitution of the United States seems to be insufficient when the same is not called to the attention of the State court of first instance or of that of review. Hulbert v. Chicago, 202 U. S. 275, 50 L. ed. 1026; Olympia Mining & Milling Co. v. Kerns, 236 U. S. 211.

The safer practice is to raise the question clearly by a request to the court of first instance for a ruling thereupon and an exception. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Duvall, 225 U. S. 477, 56 L. ed. 1171. In a trial by jury, this should be done by a request for instructions. Ibid.; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 293, 52 L. ed. 1061, 1067.

In

a case tried by a judge, by a request for a finding of fact or conclusion of law upon the subject. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 293, 52 L. ed. 1061, 1067.

4 Furman v. Nichol, 8 Wall. 44, 19 L. ed. 370; Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 368, 9 L. ed. 458; Armstrong v. Treas. of Athens County, 16 Pet. 281, 10 L. ed. 965; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, 24 L. ed. 989. See Roby v. Colehour, 146 U. S. 153, 36 L. ed. 922; Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Patten P. Co., 172 U. S. 58, 43 L. ed. 364; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255,

38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. ed. 701; Dickinson v. Stiles, 246 U. S. 631.

The certification by the clerk of briefs not a part of the record is insufficient. Zadig v. Baldwin, 166 U. S. 485, 41 L. ed. 1087; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 49 L. ed. 394. A certificate of the presiding justice of the State court or a certificate of that court may be examined for that purpose. Cited with approval by Dayton, J., in Re Charleston Light & Power Co., 199 Fed. 846, 857; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 593, 22 L. ed. 429; Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300, 307, 34 L. ed. 683, 686; Roby v. Colehour, 146 U. S. 153, 36 L. ed. 922; Gulf & S. I'd R. Co. v. Hewes, 183 U. S. 66, 46 L. ed. 86. "Such certificate is insufficient to give us jurisdiction where it does not appear in the record, and that its office is to make more certain and specific what is too vague and general in the record." Brown, J., in Yazoo & Miss. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 41, 48, 45 L. ed. 415, 418. Where a judge of the highest court of a State, in allowing a writ of error, adds to his signature "P. J. etc., in the absence of the chief judge from the State,'' such recital is prima facie evidence that the chief judge is absent and that the judge signing is presiding. Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Wiese, 208 U. S. 234, 5 L. ed. 466. But not when made after the case has passed beyond the control of such court. Home for Incurables v. New York, 187 U. S. 155, 47 L. ed. 117, 63 L. R. A. 329. Neither of these, however, is conclusive. Adams

A discussion of the point in the opinion below is sufficient.5

If the question was not raised until a motion for a rehearing in the highest court of the State, no writ of error will lie, unless the rehearing was granted," or the court entertains the motion and expressly passes upon the point. The constitutional question may be raised for the first time upon a motion for a

County v. B. & Mo. R. R. Co., 112 U. S. 123, 129, 28 L. ed. 678, 680; Gross v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477, 27 L. ed. 795; Roby v. Colehour, 146 U. S. 153, 36 L. ed. 922; Powell v. Brunswick County, 150 U. S. 433, 37 L. ed. 1134; Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Co., 163 U. S. 63, 41 L. ed. 72; Yazoo & Miss. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 41, 48, 45 L. ed. 415, 418. "It is elementary that the certificate of a court of last resort may not import a Federal question into a record where otherwise such a question does not arise." Citing Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Duvall, 225 U. S. 477, 56 L. ed. 1171; Fullerton v. Texas, 196 U. S. 192, 49 L. ed. 443; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith, H. & Co., 204 U. S. 551, 51 L. ed. 612. See also Erie R. R. Co. v. Solomon, 237 U. S. 427. "It is equally elementary that such a certificate may serve to elucidate the determination whether a Federal question exists." Rector v. City Deposit Bank Co., 200 U. S. 405, 412, 50 L. ed. 527, 529; Illinois C. R. Co. v. McKendree, 203 U. S. 514, 525, 51 L. ed. 298, 303; Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. City of Tacoma, Wash., 199 Fed. 853.

5 When the opinion of the State court considers a Federal question without any criticism of the manner in which it was raised, the Supreme Court will hold that the point was

duly made although the record contains no mention thereof. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Hesterly, 228 U. S. 702; Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U. S. 236; Carlson v. Washington, 234 U. S. 103; Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. Missouri, 238 U. S. 41; Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 319; Cissna v. Tennessee, 246 U. S. 289, 38 Sup. Ct. 306, 62 L. ed. 720; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Solum, 247 U. S. 477, 38 Sup. Ct. 550, 62 L. ed. 1221; Dickinson v. Stiles, 246 U. S. 631, 38 Sup. Ct. 415, 62 L. ed. 908.

6 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. So. Pac. Ry. Co., 137 U. S. 48; Turner v. Richardson, 180 U. S. 87; McCorquodale v. State of Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 53 L. ed. 269; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 53 L. ed. 431; Forbes v. State Council of Virginia, Junior Order United Am. Mechanics of the State of Virginia, 216 U. S. 396, 54 L. ed. 534; Bowe v. Scott, 233 U. S. 658; St. Louis and San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255; Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 51 U. S.

179.

7 Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589, 592, 45 L. ed. 1015, 1017.

8 Disconto Gesellschaft V. Umbreit, 208 U. S. 570, 52 L. ed. 625; Smithsonian Institution v. St. John, 214 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 892; Gran

new trial, even where it arose upon rebuttal,10 even if it has not been subsequently considered in the highest court of the State.11 The assertion of a Federal right in an unsuccessful application to the highest State court for a writ of error to a lower court, is insufficient.12

Where the State practice requires that the objection be raised before the trial,13 or at a later stage of the case,14 and for that reason the highest court of the State refused to consider one subsequently raised, the Supreme Court of the United States cannot take jurisdiction,15 unless there has been an unwarranted resort by the State court to rules of practice in order to evade a decision upon the Federal question, 16 or where it is claimed that a change in the rule of law or construction of statutes applicable

nis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Harold, 241 U. S. 371. A denial "after mature consideration" does not show that the Federal question was considered; Forbes v. State Council, 216 U. S. 396, 54 L. ed. 534; Consol. Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk & O. V. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 57 L. ed. -.

9 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 231, 41 L. ed. 979, 982; San Jose Land & Water Co. v. San Jose Ranch Co., 189 U. S. 117, 47 L. ed. 765.

⚫ 10 San Jose Land & Water Co. v. San Jose Ranch Co., 189 U. S. 177, 47 L. ed. 765.

11 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 47 L. ed. 979. 12 El Paso & Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Eichel, 226 U. S. 590.

13 Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Mims, 242 U. S. 532; NevadaCalifornia-Oregon Railway v. Burrus, 244 U. S. 103.

14 Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U. S. 86, 91, when raised upon a second appeal; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Woodford, 234 U. S. 46, 51 (upon the argument of a motion for

a new trial but not specified in the written notice or motion); Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Higdon, 234 U. S. 592; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Sealy, 248 U. S. 363, 39 Sup. Ct. 97, 63 L. ed. 296; Barbour v. State of Georgia, 249 U. S. 454. The silence of the State court upon the question cannot be construed as a ruling that it was not properly brought to its attention. International Harvester Co. v. State of Missouri, 234 U. S. 200; Reinman v. Little Rock, 237 U. S. 171.

15 Erie R. Co. v. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148, 46 L. ed. 847; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, 47 L. ed. 480, 63 L. R. A. 33; Cleveland & Pittsburgh R. R. v. Cleveland, 235 U. S. 50; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Taber, 244 U. S. 200; Barbour v. Georgia, 249 U. S. 454, 39 Sup. Ct. 316, 63 L. ed. 704; Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 249 U. S. 490, 39 Sup. Ct. 336, 63 L. ed. 722.

16 Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Woodford, 24 U. S. 46; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Mims, 242 U. S. 535.

to a contract would be repugnant to the Constitution.17 A mention of a Federal question in a petition for a writ of error, or in an assignment of errors, 18 after judgment by the State court, is insufficient to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction.19 § 692c. Practice upon writs of error to State courts. A writ of error to a State court is not allowed as a matter of right. The usual practice is to submit a certified copy of the record of the State court to a Justice of the Supreme Court, whose duty it then is to ascertain upon examination whether the case upon the face of the record will justify the allowance of the writ. He may refer the application to the whole court for decision as to the propriety of the issue of the writ. The application may also be made to the presiding judge of the State court to which the writ of error is addressed. The writ will be denied if there is no Federal question involved, or if the decision complained of was, as regards the Federal question, so plainly right as not to require argument.5 The writ does not

17 Act of February 17, 1922, quoted supra, § 692.

18 Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462, 35 L. ed. 225; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123; Cleveland and Pittsburgh R. R. Co. v. Cleveland, 235 U. S. 50; Jett Bros. Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1.

19 Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127, 45 L. ed. 119.

§ 692c. 1 Twitchell V. Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321, 19 L. ed. 223; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 143, 31 L. ed. 80.

2 Ibid. A justice of the Supreme Court may grant the writ after its refusal by the judges of the State court. Ex parte Chadwick, 159 Fed. 576.

[blocks in formation]

of the court has indorsed on the record a request that the application be made to the full bench. Re Ingalls, 139 U. S. 548, 35 L. ed. 266. The application for a writ of error, if made to a single Justice, is usually ex parte. When made to the full court, usually both sides are heard. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 31 L. ed. 80; Re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436, 437, 34 L. ed. 519.

4 Sheppard v. Wilson, 5 How. 210, 12 L. ed. 120; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 14 Wall. 26, 20 L. ed. 792. Where the order allowing the writ of error states that the chief justice is absent, and is signed by a judge as presiding judge of the State court, it will be presumed that the writ was properly allowed. Butler v. Gage, 138 U. S. 52, 56, 34 L. ed. 869, 371.

5 Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 166, 31 L. ed. 80, 86; Brooks v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394, 31 L. ed. 454; New Orleans Waterworks Co.

« PreviousContinue »