This Court has no jurisdiction to re-examine the judgment of a
state court unless the record shows affirmatively or by fair
implication that a federal question necessary to the determination
of the cause is involved.
This was a suit brought in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia by the American Exchange National Bank against John W.
Boughton upon two promissory notes whereof he was the maker. His
affidavit of defense alleging usury having been declared to be
insufficient, judgment was rendered against him which was affirmed
by the supreme court of the state. He then sued out this writ.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
To give us jurisdiction for the review of a judgment of a state
court, the record must show affirmatively or by fair implication
that some federal question was involved which was necessary to the
determination of the cause. The defense set up in this case was
that the notes sued on were void for usury under the laws of New
York, where they were made. Judgment was given against the
plaintiff in error for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
This judgment would be right if the affidavit was not such as was
required by law or the practice of the court for the presentation
of a defense like that relied on. As it is incumbent on him to show
by the record not only that this was not the ground of the decision
below, but
Page 104 U. S. 428
that some wrong determination of a federal question was -- and
it has not been done -- we might dismiss the suit without further
examination; but on looking into the opinion, which has been sent
up with the record, we find that the Court of Appeals based its
judgment, which alone we can review, entirely on the fact that the
affidavit was not sufficiently specific in its averments to meet
the requirements of the rules of pleading applicable to such
cases.
It is clear, therefore, that we have no jurisdiction.
Motion granted.