HAGAR v. CALIFORNIA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 898. Submitted October 15, 1877. Decided November 12, 1878. This court has no jurisdiction over a judgment of a state court when it does not appear that a Federal question was raised, and that it was either decided or necessarily involved in the judgment pronounced. The case is stated in the opinion. MOTION TO DISMISS. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. It nowhere appears from this record that any Federal question was actually decided by the court below. None is specifically made by the pleadings, and we cannot find that any was raised under the general allegations in the answer or demurrer. The whole defence seems to have been predicated upon a supposed repugnancy between the law authorizing the assessment and the state constitution, and upon certain alleged irregularities in the proceedings under the law. It is not enough that a Federal question might have been raised. We have no jurisdiction unless it actually was raised and either decided or necessarily involved in the judgment pronounced. Mr. Justice Story, in Crowell v. Randall, 10 Peters, 368, decided in 1836, after reviewing all the cases down to that time, thus states the rule: "It is not sufficient to show that a question might have arisen or been applicable to the case, unless it is further shown, on the record, that it did arise and was applied by the state court to the case." To the same effect is Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 558. The motion to dismiss is granted. Mr. Montgomery Blair for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. A. Sargent, Mr. S. W. Sanderson and Mr. Wm. Blanding for defendants in error. KEOGH v. ORIENT FIRE INS. CO. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 917. Submitted January 14, 1878.- Decided January 28, 1878. The facts stated in the opinion show that there is not a sufficient amount involved in this case to give this court jurisdiction. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. We have no jurisdiction in this case. The litigation below involved in the appeal was between Keogh and the Orient Fire Insurance Company as to the ownership of a fund in court for distribution, amounting to $1411.44. Each of the parties claimed the whole, but the court divided it between them, giving Keogh $729.16, and the Insurance Company $682.29. Keogh alone appeals. The Insurance Company is satisfied. It is clear, therefore, that the value of the matter in dispute here is only $682.29. To give us jurisdiction in appeals from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, the matter in dispute must exceed $1000. (Rev. Stat. Sec. 705.) Appeal dismissed. Mr. Enoch Totten for appellant. Mr. S. R. Bond for appellees. NORTHWESTERN LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. MARTIN. SAME. WELLBORN. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. Nos. 1009 and 1008. Submitted December 17, 1877. Decided January 7, 1878. Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, followed. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE announced the decision of the court. Verdicts having been rendered in each of these cases against the plaintiff in error (the defendant below) for more than five thousand dollars, the plaintiffs respectively remitted all over that sum, and judgments were entered by the court, against the remonstrance of the defendant for five thousand dollars and no more. The cases having been brought here by the defendant below, the defendants in error (plaintiffs below) moved to dismiss because the amount in controversy is not sufficient to give us jurisdiction. The question thus presented has just been decided in Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, and the motions are granted for the reasons stated in the opinion read in that case. Mr. Wm. P. Lynde and Mr. L. D. McKisick for plaintiff in error. Mr. Josiah Patterson for defendants in error. WILSON v. GOODRICH. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 100. Argued December 20, 1878. Decided December 23, 1878. Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, followed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. In Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, we held that an assignee in bankruptcy under the Bankrupt Act of 1867, as it stood before the revision, had authority to bring suit in the state courts, whenever those courts were invested with appropriate jurisdiction suited to the nature of the case. This suit was begun March 18, 1872, before the Revised Statutes were in force. Section 5597 provides that the repeal of the acts embraced in the revision should not affect any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil cause before the repeal. This leaves the present case, therefore, within the rule settled in Claflin v. Houseman, and renders it unnecessary to consider whether the jurisdiction in this class of cases was taken away by the revision as to suits afterwards commenced. Mr. Edward Avery for plaintiff in error. Mr. N. B. Bryant for defendant in error. Judgment affirmed. JAEGER v. MOORE. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 232. Argued April 15, 16, 1879. — - Decided May 5, 1879. On the facts, the decree below is reversed in part, and in part affirmed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. This decree is reversed as to the appellant Ulman, but in all other respects affirmed. The cause is remanded with instructions to dismiss the bill as to Ulman, and to enforce the deed of trust under which the appellee claims only against that part of the premises therein described which was not conveyed to him. The costs of this court are to be paid, one-half by the appellants Jaeger, and one-half by the appellee. No further opinion will be delivered. Mr. Enoch Totten and Mr. Linden Kent for appellants. Mr. Robert D. Morrison and Mr. E. J. D. Cross for appellee. BURKE . TREGRE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. Burke v. Miltenberger, 19 Wall. 579, followed. The finding of the Supreme Court of the State as to the suspension of General Orders Nos. 60 and 70 is sustained by the evidence. VOL. CLIV-41 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE announced the judgment of the court. The only Federal question presented for our consideration in this case not decided adversely to the present appellant in Burke v. Miltenberger, 19 Wall. 579, is that which relates to the effect of General Orders Nos. 60 and 70 upon the judicial sale under which the appellees claim. As to these orders it was found as a fact by the Supreme Court of the State that they were suspended by a special permit allowing the sale to be made, and we think this finding is sustained by the evidence. Mr. George S. Lacey for plaintiff in error. Mr. Thomas L. Bayne for defendants in error. Judgment affirmed. LEAVENWORTH v. KINNEY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. No. 744. Submitted January 10, 1879. - Decided March 3. 1879. Commissioners v. Sellew, 99 U. S. 624, followed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. This case is substantially disposed of by that of Board of County Commissioners of the County of Leavenworth v. Sellew, just decided, 99 U. S. 624. A peremptory writ of mandamus has been ordered against the mayor and council of the city of Leavenworth in their corporate capacity, and the objection is that it should have been directed to the persons who were mayor and councilmen. The principle upon which the decision in the other case rests is conclusive of this, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is consequently affirmned, and the cause remanded with authority, if necessary, to so modify the order which has been entered, in respect to the time for the levy and collection of the tax, as to make the writ effective for the end to be accomplished. Affirmed. Mr. M. H. Carpenter for plaintiff in error. Mr. T. A. Hurd and Mr. L. B. Wheat for defendant in error. CASE v. MARCHAND. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. No. 804. Submitted January 13, 1879. - Decided January 27, 1879. In a case of conflicting evidence on a question of fact, the court affirms the decree of the court below. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. The Crescent City National Bank of New Orleans having failed to redeem some of its circulating notes, on a demand made March 17, 1873, was put into liquidation, and the present appellant appointed receiver by the comptroller of the currency. In the process of liquidation the comptroller issued a call of seventy per cent upon the amount of the capital stock held by each shareholder at the time of the failure, and the suit now before us on appeal is a bill in equity brought in the Circuit Court of the United States to discover who was liable under this order on fifty shares of the stock, standing in the name of Edward Lubie, and for a decree for the sum assessed. The bill charged that Lubie was insolvent, and that the transfer of the shares on the books of the corporation, made by Keenan, one of the defendants, to Lubie, a day or two before the failure, was a device to evade the liability under the act of Congress, which it is the purpose of this bill to enforce, and that Alfred Marchand, the other defendant, was the real owner of the stock when the bank failed. Lubie permitted a decree to be taken pro confesso against himself, and then became a witness against Marchand, and swears that he merely acted for Marchand and permitted the stock to be transferred to his name, because he was insolvent and could not be hurt, and that Marchand furnished the money paid to Keenan for the shares. Marchand denies all this under examination as a witness. There is much other conflicting and doubtful testimony. The case is one whose decision involves no question of law, and is otherwise unimportant, and we shall not criticise the evidence closely in this opinion. Lubie renders himself incredible by his own confessions and by his manner of testifying. The books of the company and the certificates of the shares delivered to him are record evidence against him, and while there are suspicious circumstances against Marchand, there is not enough to justify us in reversing the decree of the Circuit Court in his favor, and it is accordingly Affirmed. Mr. J. D. Rouse and Mr. William Grant for appellant. |