pleadings after the case has been remanded by the appellate court
come too late to lay the foundation for review by this court, Mutual
Life Insurance Co. v. Kirchoff, 169 U. S. 103, except so far as the ap-
pellate court gives consideration to, and passes upon, such ques-
tions when the case again comes before it. (Miedreich v. Lauen-
stein, 232 U. S. 236.) Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Higdon,
592.
12. To review state court's finding as to navigability of river wholly within
State.
The question of navigability of a river wholly within a State is purely
one of fact, and where the state court has decided that such a river
is non-navigable there is no right left to review. Illinois v. Econ-
omy Power Co., 497.
13. To review state court's finding as to navigability of river wholly within
State; status of State.
A State has no Federal rights which it may exert for itself or on behalf
of its citizens or of all the citizens of the United States in regard to a
river wholly within its boundaries which the highest court of the
State has declared to be non-navigable; nor are any such rights
created by acts of Congress merely authorizing surveys for and esti-
mates of cost of, improvements and not actually authorizing or
appropriating for the same. Ib.
14. To review judgment of state court in suit against foreign corporation;
scope of review.
Where the state court has denied a motion to quash the service of
process on a foreign corporation, and has also held that the statute
on which the action is based is not unconstitutional, both the ques-
tion of validity of the service and that of the constitutionality of
the act are before this court for review. International Harvester
Co. v. Kentucky, 589.
15. To review judgment of state court; involution of Federal question..
Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the state court to review a judg-
ment in an action under the Employers' Liability Act in which the
construction of the Safety Appliance Acts was involved, denied.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Crockett, 725.
16. To review judgment of state court; questions not reviewable.
A mere error of law not involving a Federal question and committed
in the exercise of jurisdiction by giving conclusive effect to a judg-
ment rendered in another State affords no opportunity for a review
in this court. Roller v. Murray, 738.
17. To review judgment of state court under § 237, Judicial Code; involu-
tion of Federal question.
Where the effect of the judgment of another State dissolving an in-
junction as res judicata is denied on the ground that it is not a final
decree, if the contention that a final decree was subsequently ren-
dered which concluded the merits was not presented to the court,
there is no basis for review in this court under § 237, Judicial Code,
on the ground that full faith and credit was not given to the original
judgment. Ib.
18. Under § 237, Judicial Code; raising Federal question; controlling ef-
fect of state practice.
In order that the denial of a Federal right may be the basis of reviewing
the judgment of the state court, the claim of Federal right must be
made in the state court in the manner required by the state prac-
tice, and unless there is an unwarranted resort to rules of practice
by the state court to evade decision of the Federal question, this
court will not review the judgment. Louisville & Nashville R. R.
Co. v. Woodford, 46.
19. Under § 237, Judicial Code; denial of Federal right; what constitutes.
Raising the Federal claim of right on motion for new trial is not suffi-
cient unless the court actually passes upon and denies the claim;
and a decision by the appellate court that the Federal claim was not
properly raised is not a denial of the Federal right but merely an
enforcement of a rule of state practice. Ib.
20. Under § 237, Judicial Code; what constitutes denial of Federal right.
Where the judgment of a state court rests upon an independent ground
not only adequate to sustain it but in entire harmony with an as-
serted Federal right, there is no denial of that right in the sense
contemplated by § 237 of the Judicial Code, and the writ of error
will be dismissed. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. National Rice
Co., 80.
21. Under § 237, Judicial Code; what constitutes denial of Federal right.
Where the initial carrier sets up the Carmack Amendment and also
denies negligence, but the state court finds from conflicting evi-
dence that the loss was occasioned by the negligence of the con-
necting carrier, the judgment rests on that finding as an independ-
ent ground, and this court has not jurisdiction. Ib.
22. Under § 237, Judicial Code; what constitutes denial of Federal right;
estoppel of defendant.
Plaintiff, an injured employé of an interstate common carrier by rail,
sued for personal injury, alleging that he was employed in inter-
state commerce, and stating a good cause of action under the Fed-
eral Employers' Liability Act, if so employed, and, if not, under
the state law; the defendant asked for an instruction that the proof
did not show that the injury occurred in interstate commerce,
which the court gave, and then, over defendant's objection, treated
the allegation to that effect as eliminated from the declaration and
submitted the case to the jury as one under the state law, and
plaintiff had a verdict. Held, that defendant having asked for the
instruction that the case could not be maintained under the Fed-
eral act, was bound thereby, and, therefore, was denied no right
under the Federal law by the action of the state court, and the writ
of error must be dismissed. Wabash R. R. Co. v. Hayes, 86.
23. Under § 237, Judicial Code; what constitutes denial of Federal right.
Where the state court treats a mistaken allegation that the injury
occurred in interstate commerce as eliminated, it merely gives
effect to a rule of local practice and does not deprive defendant of
any Federal right. Ib.
24. Under § 237, Judicial Code; what constitutes denial of Federal right;
quære as to.
Quare, as to what the effect would be if the shift from a claim under the
Federal act to one under the state law cut the defendant off from
presenting a defense open under the latter or deprived him of a
right of removal. Ib.
25. Under § 237, Judicial Code; when Federal question sufficiently in-
volved.
Although plaintiff in error, after setting up a Federal defense in the
trial court, may not have based any exceptions upon the failure of
that court to recognize it, if the appellate court did recognize, and
by its decision necessarily overruled, that defense, this court must
deal with the Federal question. (North Carolina R. R. v. Zachary,
232 U. S. 248.) Carlson v. Curtiss, 103.
26. Under § 237, Judicial Code; when Federal question raised on petition
for reargument in appellate court.
Where the trial court did not infringe any Federal right of plaintiff in
error, but the decision of the appellate court ran counter to the al-
leged Federal right which was raised on petition for reargument
and specifically passed on and overruled in refusing the reargument,
this court has jurisdiction under § 237, Judicial Code, to review
the judgment. Grannis v. Ordean, 385.
This court cannot review on its merits a case which it must dismiss for
want of jurisdiction. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 123.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 2;
BANKRUPTCY, 6;
1. Under § 57, Judicial Code; situs of property the test; sufficiency of serv-
ice of process.
Section 57, Judicial Code, makes suits to remove any.encumbrance,
lien or cloud upon title to real or personal property cognizable by
the District Court of the district in which the property is situated
regardless of residence of the parties and process for service of the
non-resident defendants by notification outside of the district or by
publication. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Western Union
Tel. Co., 369.
2. Under § 57, Judicial Code; when suit one to remove cloud on title cog-
nizable in District Court.
In Mississippi, as declared by its highest court, the judgment of a
special court of eminent domain may be challenged by a bill in
equity upon the ground that the condemnation is not for a public
purpose, and if other elements of Federal jurisdiction are present
the case is one to remove cloud upon title and, under § 57, Judicial
Code, the case is cognizable in the District Court of the district in
which the property is situated although neither of the parties re-
side therein. Ib.
3. Under § 57, Judicial Code; suits to remove cloud on title within.
The provision in § 57, Judicial Code, respecting suits to remove clouds
from title embraces a suit to remove a cloud cast upon the title by a
deed or instrument which is void upon its face when such suit is
founded upon a remedial statute of the State, as well as when rest-
ing upon established usages and practice of equity. Ib.
4. Under § 24, Judicial Code; consideration in determining whether case
one arising under Constitution, law or treaty of United States.
Whether a case begun in a District Court is one arising under the Con-
stitution or a law or treaty of the United States in the sense of the
jurisdictional statute (Judicial Code, § 24), must be determined
from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his
own claim in the declaration unaided by anything alleged in an-
ticipation or avoidance of defenses which may be interposed by
defendant. Taylor v. Anderson, 74.
See JURISDICTION, A 4, 5.
Of suit to enjoin enforcement of order of Interstate Commerce Commission.
The Commerce Court had jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin the enforce-
ment of the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission in-
volved in these cases and which refused the request of carriers to
put in force rates requested by them. Intermountain Rate Cases,
476.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 10, 11.
E. OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
F. OF FEDERAL COURTS GENERALLY.
See CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES, 2;
COURTS, 2;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 15.
G. ADMIRALTY.
See ADMIRALTY, 1, 2, 3.
H. BANKRUPTCY.
See BANKRUPTCY, 4, 8.
I. ANCILLARY.
See BANKRUPTCY, 5.
J. OF STATE COURTS.
See CORPORATIONS, 1;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 4.
K. OF SUPREME COURT OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
See PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 1.
L. OF UNITED STATES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6.
|