FRENCH v. HOPKINS .
124 U.S. 524 (8 S.Ct. 589, 31 L.Ed. 536)
FRENCH v. HOPKINS et al.
Decided: February 6, 1888
William M. Stewart, for motion.
J. W. Douglass, opposed.
WAITE, C. J.
This motion is granted. The record fails to show, either expressly or by implication, that any 'right, title, privilege, or immunity,' under the constitution or laws o the United States, was 'specially set up or claimed' in either of the courts below. This is fatal to our jurisdiction. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 21, 22. The only question below was whether a sale of mortgaged property, under a decree of foreclosure, should be set aside because the property had been sold 'as a whole and in one parcel,' when it was capable of division into parts. The court of original jurisdiction set aside the sale, but the supreme court, on appeal, confirmed it, and gave judgment accordingly. In doing this, it was held to be 'within the jurisdiction of the court by its judgment to direct that the property should be sold in one or several parcels,' and that there was nothing in the statutes of the state to the contrary of this. That was the only decision in the case, and it certainly involved no question of federal law. Counsel are in error in supposing that our jurisdiction, under section 709 of the Revised Statutes, for the review of a decision of the highest court of a state, is dependent at all on the citizenship of the parties. In such cases we look only to the questions involved. Dismissed.
CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org
- FREDERICK SEYMOUR BARRINGTON, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF MISSOURI.
- WINONA & ST. P. R. CO. v. TOWN OF PLAINVIEW. SAME v. TOWN OF ELGIN.
- COLUMBIA WATER-POWER CO. v. COLUMBIA ELECTRIC STREET-RAILWAY. LIGHT & POWER CO.
- EASTERN BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, v. LAWRENCE S. WELLING and Marion Bonnoitt.