« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
murrer to a bill in chancery, was wholly irregular; but (2) That this
court was without jurisdiction as the order was not a final decree.
2. It appearing that, before reaching and deciding the federal question dis-
cussed here, the Supreme Court of South Carolina had already decided
that the plaintiff's action could not be sustained according to the mean-
ing of the provisions of the statute of that State under which it was
brought, this court dismisses the writ of error for want of jurisdic-
tion, under the well settled rule that, to give this court jurisdiction of
a writ of error to a state court it must appear affirmatively not only
that a federal question was presented for decision to the highest court
of the State having jurisdiction, but that its decision was necessary to
the determination of the cause, and that it was actually decided, or
that the judgment as rendered could not have been given without
deciding it. De Saussure v. Gaillard, 216.
3. When a State grants a right of remedy against itself, or against its offi-
cers in a case in which the proceeding is in fact against the State,
it may attach whatever limitations and conditions it chooses to the
remedy; and its own interpretation and application of its statutes
on that subject, given by its own judicial tribunals, are conclusive
upon the parties seeking the benefits of them. 16.
4. This court has not original jurisdiction of an action by a State upon a
judgment recovered by it in one of its own courts against a citizen or
a corporation of another State for a pecuniary penalty for a violation
of its municipal law. Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 265.
5. An action in the Circuit Court by a patentee for breach of an agreement
of a licensee to make and sell the patented article and to pay royalties,
in which the validity and the infringement of the patent are contro-
verted, is a "case touching patent rights,” of which this court has
appellate jurisdiction, under § 699 of the Revised Statutes, without
regard to the sum or value in dispute. St. Paul Plow Works v. Star-
6. The copies of orders made in this cause by the Circuit Court of the
State after the entry of the final judgment to which the writ of error
from the Supreme Court of the State was directed, although annexed
to the petition for that writ, were too late in the cause to constitute a
ground for importing a federal question into it. Calhoun v. Lanauz, 634.
WRIT OF ERROR, 2.
B. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT. COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. Two plaintiffs, citizens of Georgia, brought a suit in equity, in the
Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina,
against S., a citizen of South Carolina, and H., a sister of the plaintiffs,
also a citizen of South Carolina, to set aside the alleged payment by
S. to R., another defendant, of a bond and mortgage given by him to
B., the father of the plaintiffs and of H., and to have the satisfaction
of the mortgage annulled, and the bond and mortgage delivered up by
S., and the bond paid, and the mortgaged premises sold. Before the
alleged payment to R., B. had assigned the bond to R., in trust for
the three children. When the suit was brought, B. was a citizen of
South Carolina: Held, that, as B. could not have brought the suit, the
Circuit Court was forbidden to take cognizance of it, by § 1 of the act
of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470. Blacklock v. Small, 96.
2. This suit was a suit founded on contract, in favor of an assignee, and
was not a suit founded on the wrongful detention by S. of the bond
and mortgage. Ib.
3. The defendant H., by answer, joined in the prayer of the bill, and asked
to have the bond and mortgage declared valid in the hands of R., as
trustee, for the benefit of H. and the plaintiffs, and for a decree that
S. pay to H. and the plaintiffs the amount secured by the bond and
mortgage: Held, that as H. and S. were, when the suit was brought,
both of them citizens of South Carolina, the Circuit Court had no
4. As that court had dismissed the bill on its merits, with costs, and the
plaintiffs and H. had appealed to this court, the decree was reversed,
with costs, in this court against the appellants, and the case was re-
manded, with a direction to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction,
without costs of that court. 16.
5. On the authority of United States v. Hill, 123 U. S. 681, it is held, that
an action against sureties to recover on a bail bond conditioned for
the appearance of the principal to answer to an indictment for making
and forging checks against an assistant treasurer is not a case for the
enforcement of a revenue law, within the intent of Rev. Stat. & 699.
United States v. Broadhead, 212.
6. A petition by defendant for removal of a cause from a state court, on
the ground of citizenship, which alleges that he is a citizen of another
named State of which none of the complainants are citizens, is insuffi-
cient unless the record discloses that they are citizens of other named
States of which the defendant is not a citizen, or are aliens. Cameron
v. Hodges, 322.
7. This court of its own motion uniformly takes the objection of want of
jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, especially as regards citizenship. Ib.
8. A want of jurisdiction of a Circuit Court arising out of a defect in the
allegations of citizenship in a cause removed from a state court, on the
ground of citizenship, cannot be cured by affidavits here. Ib.
9. This court questions the opinion of the Supreme Court of Louisiana
that the Circuit Court of the United States would have no authority
to order the erasure of an incumbrance from a mortgage book within
the State. Calhoun y. Lanaux, 634.
See Practice, 2.
C. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
The acts of Congress and the statutes of Indiana make it a criminal
offence for an inspector of elections, or other election officer, at which
an election for a member of Congress is held, to whom is committed
the safe keeping and delivery to the board of canvassers of the poll
books, the tally sheets, and the certificates of the votes, to fail or omit
to perform this duty of safe-keeping and delivery. The prisoners in
the present case are specifically charged with an offence against the
election laws of Indiana and of the United States, by a conspiracy to
violate those laws; and this court holds that the District Court of the
United States for Indiana had jurisdiction to try and punish thern for
that offence, and the judgment of the Circuit Court refusing the writ
of habeas corpus is accordingly affirmed. In re Coy, 731.
See ConstitUTIONAL LAW, A, 25;
D. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
Under $ 1069 of the Revised Statutes, the Court of Claims had no jurisdic-
tion of so much of the claim to the 5 per cent fund, belonging to the
State of Louisiana under the provision of the Swamp Land Acts, as
was credited to the State on the books of the Treasury Department
more than six years before the bringing of the suit. United States v.
See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6.
E. JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS.
The appointment by a Circuit Court of the United States of a receiver of
a corporation organized under the laws of a Státe does not deprive a
court of the State of jurisdiction to hear and determine an application
for a mandamus directing a recorder of mortgages in the State to
cancel and erase from the books of his office an inscription against
property of the petitioner in favor of the corporation, the petition de-
scribing it as a mortgage on real estate, and setting forth the interest
of the corporation. Calhoun v. Lanaux, 634.
G. performed work for the District of Columbia, and received therefor in
January, 1874, certificates of indebtedness of the Board of Public
Works of the District. He pledged these certificates as collateral for
a 60-days note for an amount much less than their face, and made a
general transfer of them to the pledgee. Before the maturity of the
note his creditor absconded. He then notified the President and the
Treasurer of the Board verbally of the transfer, and verbally protested
to the Board against payment of the certificates to the persons who
had become holders of them. In June, 1874, the Board was abolished,
and a Board of Audit was created to examine and audit for settlement
the outstanding certificates of indebtedness issued by it. In October,
1874, G. filed a bill in equity for the purpose, among other things, of
restraining the Board of Audit from allowing these certificates to their
holders. On demurrer a restraining order, which had been made
under this bill, was dissolved. The Board of Audit then allowed the
certificates to their holders, and 3.65 bonds of the District were issued
for them. G. then commenced this action against the District. Held,
that he had been guilty of gross negligence in the matter, which pre-
vented him from recovering against the District. Gleason v. District
of Columbia, 133.
See CORPORATION, 1;
LIMITATION, STATUTES OF.
See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, 8, 9.
LIMITATION, STATUTES OF.
The United States are not bound by any statute of limitations, nor barred
by laches of their officers in a suit brought by them, as sovereign, to
enforce a public right, or to assert a public interest; but where they
are formal parties to the suit, and the real remedy sought in their
nanie is the enforcement of a private right for the benefit of a private
party, and no interest of the United States is involved, a court of
equity will not be restrained from administering the equities between
the real parties by any exemption of the government, designed for the
protection of the rights of the United States alone. United States v.
LOCAL LAW, 6.
1. Under the Code of Civil Procedure of California a plaintiff asserting
which is brought within its territory and there habitually used and
employed, the same rate of taxation which is imposed upon similar
property used in like way by its own citizens, it has not done so in the
taxing laws of the State which were in force when the tax in contro-
versy was imposed. Marye v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 117.
3. The statutes of Virginia relied upon by the plaintiff in error are not
applicable to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, but are
confined to corporations which derive their authority from the laws
of Virginia. Ib.
4. In Michigan a declaration of trust which declares that the parties exe-
cuting it hold the property in trust for themselves and two other
persons is an express trust, and under the laws of that State the whole
estate in law and in equity is vested in the trustees. Culbertson v.
The H. Witbeck Co., 326.
5. When a party to an action of ejectment in Michigan sets up a tax title,
several years old, it is competent for the other party, after showing by
the official records that an illegal expenditure of public money was
ordered, sufficient under the laws of the State to vitiate the whole tax
if paid from it, to prove by parol evidence that the sum so ordered
to be paid was paid out of the moneys raised by the tax in question.
6. In a suit in Louisiana against a corporation for damages for refusal to
permit a transfer of shares on its books, the prescription of ten years
applies: but that prescription is not available in this case. St. Romes
v. Levee Steam Cotton Press Co., 614.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 4; JUDGMEXT, 2;