In an action brought in a state court against the judges of the
Court of Commissioners of the Alabama Claims, by one who had been
an attorney of that court, to recover damages caused by an order of
the court disbarring him, the plaintiff averred and contended that
the court had not been legally organized, and that it did not act
judicially in making the order complained of,
held that a
decision by the state court that the Court of Alabama Claims was
legally organized and did act judicially in that matter denied to
the plaintiff no title, right, privilege or immunity claimed by him
under the Constitution, or under a treaty or statute of the United
States, or under a commission held or authority exercised under the
United States.
The decision of a state court that a judge of a federal court
acted judicially in disbarring an attorney of the court involves no
federal question.
A petition for a writ of error forms no part of the record upon
which action is taken here.
Motion to dismiss or affirm. The case, as stated by the Court in
its opinion, was as follows.
Jerome F. Manning brought an action of tort in the Superior
Court of Massachusetts against James Harlan of Iowa, Andrew S.
Draper of New York, and Asa French of Massachusetts, to recover
damages for being prevented from acting as an attorney and
counselor in or before the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims
of the United States, or in relation to any matter of business
pending therein, by the defendants, who
"falsely pretended to be judges of said Court of Commissioners
of Alabama Claims, and actually acted as judges thereof, though in
truth and fact neither of them was a
Page 133 U. S. 187
judge thereof."
Service was had upon the defendant French, but upon neither of
the other defendants, and he, for answer, denied each and every
allegation in the declaration. The following statement appears in
the record, in the "plaintiff's exceptions," which were allowed by
the presiding judge:
"At the trial, which was without a jury, it appeared that the
plaintiff, in 1885, was and for many years had been an attorney and
counselor at law duly admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of
the United States, in the Court of Claims of the United States, and
in all the courts of this Commonwealth; that he acted as an
attorney and counselor before the Court of Commissioners of Alabama
Claims, commencing in January, 1875, and ending July 29, 1885; that
he presented and prosecuted before said Court of Commissioners
about seven hundred and fifty petitions of the class known as
'Alabama Claims,' representing about fourteen hundred claimants and
beneficiaries, and thereby became entitled to receive from said
claimants and beneficiaries divers sums of money, amounting in all
to many thousands of dollars; that the Court of Commissioners of
Alabama Claims was established by Act of Congress approved June 23,
1874, chapter 459; reestablished by another act approved June 5,
1882, chapter 195, and continued by another act approved June 3,
1884, chapter 62; that in 1874 said Court of Commissioners adopted,
among other rules, the following:"
"Rule V. Any person of good moral character admitted to practice
as attorney or counselor in the supreme court of any state or
territory or the District of Columbia, or in any of the federal
courts, on filing with the clerk a written statement of the date
and place of such admission, with his name and post office address
in full, may, on motion, be admitted to practice in this
court;"
"That on January 26, 1875, the plaintiff was, on motion of
Robert M. Corvine, Esquire, admitted to practice in said Court of
Commissioners, and that on October 5, 1882, said Court of
Commissioners adopted certain additional rules, among which was the
following:"
"Rule XIV. All attorneys admitted to practice in the Court of
Commissioners of Alabama Claims as created under the law of
Congress approved
Page 133 U. S. 188
June 23, 1874, will be recognized as attorneys in this court,
reestablished under the law of Congress approved June 5, 1882,"
"but the plaintiff claimed that said rules five and fourteen
were unauthorized and of no effect, and that the said Court of
Commissioners had no power to create a bar or to admit attorneys
thereto or to expel them therefrom."
The record of the proceedings in
In re Manning in the
said Court of Commissioners, duly attested, was put in evidence,
which proceedings culminated in an order, made July 25, 1885,
that
"The said Jerome F. Manning be, and he hereby is, prohibited
from appearing and acting in this Court in relation to any matter
or business therein pending, and from exercising in any way the
functions of an attorney and counselor of this court. This decree
to stand until further order of the court."
That record also contained a motion to rescind the foregoing
order, and the action of the court denying the same.
The exceptions thus continue
"It also appeared that on the twenty-ninth of July, 1885, said
Court of Commissioners made the following order:"
" Ordered, that the clerk of the court is hereby authorized to
substitute the name of any attorney of this Court in place of said
Jerome F. Manning in any case upon the receipt of the request in
writing from the claimant therein or from his legal representatives
to that effect."
"It also appeared that the defendant French was commissioned and
qualified as a judge of said Court of Commissioners on or about
July 5, 1882, and not otherwise, and that the defendant Harlan was
commissioned and qualified about the same time, and not otherwise,
and that the defendant Draper was commissioned and qualified in the
year 1885, and not otherwise, and that each of said judges
concurred in said orders of July 24, July 25, July 29 and October
15, 1885, touching the plaintiff."
"It also appeared that in addressing the court on July 25, as
mentioned in the foregoing record, Robert Christy, Esq., as counsel
for the plaintiff, read to said Court of Commissioners section 725
of the Revised Statutes of the United States and the decisions of
the Supreme Court of the United States U.S.
Page 133 U. S. 189
in the cases of
Ex Parte Robinson, in 19
Wall. 505, and
Ex Parte Bradley, in 7 Wall.
364, and argued that said commissioners had no power to prohibit
the plaintiff from practicing before them."
"The defendant French admitted that he concurred with the other
members of said Court of Commissioners in issuing and enforcing
said orders of July 24 and 29, and that the plaintiff was thereby
damaged, and claimed that the said Court of Commissioners had
authority to issue and enforce the same, and that any loss
sustained by the plaintiff thereby was
damnum absque
injuria."
"The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that each of
the allegations in his declaration was true, and asked the court to
make the following rulings"
"First. That the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims had no
authority to make the order made by them touching the plaintiff on
July 29, 1885, and that the same was unlawful."
"Second. That the defendant French having admitted that he
concurred with the other defendants in issuing and enforcing said
order of July 29, 1885, and that the plaintiff was thereby injured,
the plaintiff is entitled to recover from said French compensation
for all losses sustained by him as the direct result of said order
of July 29, 1885, and of the enforcement thereof from thence to
December 31, 1885."
"Third. That more than two years having elapsed after the
reorganization of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims
under the Act of June 5, 1882, and after the appointment of the
defendant French and the other defendants, but prior to July 24,
1885, the said French and the other defendants had, on said
last-mentioned day and thereafter, no lawful authority to act as
judges of said Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims."
"But the court declined so to rule, found the facts to be as
stated in said printed record, ruled that the action could not be
maintained, and found for the defendants."
"The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the foregoing rulings and
refusals to rule, excepts, thereto, and prays that his exceptions
may be allowed. "
Page 133 U. S. 190
The exceptions having been entered in the Supreme Judicial Court
of Massachusetts, the cause was there argued and the exceptions
overruled on the 21st day of June, 1889, 149 Mass. 391. As to the
contention of the plaintiff that the judges who in fact composed
the court on July 25, 1885, were not lawfully in office, and
particularly that the defendant French was not then lawfully in
office, the court said:
"It appears that French was commissioned and qualified as judge
'on or about July 5, 1882.' The argument is that, as by the Act of
June 5, 1882, the existence of the court was limited to two years,
the commission of Judge French had expired before July 25, 1885,
when the court passed the order of which the plaintiff complains.
It is contended that when the existence of the court was continued
beyond two years by the statute of June 3, 1884, it was necessary
that the judges be reappointed in order lawfully to hold their
office during the continued existence of the court."
The court held that it was unnecessary to consider whether the
plaintiff's right in the matter of his complaint would be greater
against a judge
de facto than against a judge
de
jure; that it did not appear that the judges were originally
commissioned for any definite time; that they would continue to
hold their office while the court continued to exist unless they
were lawfully removed; that it was within the power of Congress, by
statute, to extend the existence of the court before the original
term of its existence expired, and that the judges, by virtue of
their original appointment, continued to be judges while the court
continued to exist. It was also held that the Court of
Commissioners of Alabama Claims had the powers which the statutes
conferred upon it, and that, under the acts of Congress, it had the
power to prescribe by rule the qualification of attorneys to be
admitted to practice before it, and therefore the power to
determine whether the persons who asked to be admitted had the
requisite qualifications and whether the persons who had been
admitted retained the requisite qualifications, and that
"in the exercise of this power, after notice to the plaintiff
and a hearing, that court prohibited the plaintiff from further
exercising before it the functions of an attorney of the court.
Congress had the right
Page 133 U. S. 191
to confer this power exclusively upon that court, to be
exercised as a judicial power, and the judges of the court are not
liable to individuals for judicial acts done within their
jurisdiction.
Randall v. Brigham, 7 Wall.
523;
Randall, Petitioner, 11 Allen 473."
On the first day of July, 1889, judgment for costs was entered
for the defendant. The plaintiff, Manning, thereupon sued out a
writ of error from this Court, and a motion to dismiss or affirm
was made by defendant in error.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after stating the facts as above,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Jurisdiction to review the final judgment rendered in this case
cannot be maintained upon the ground of the denial by the state
courts of any title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under
the Constitution, or some treaty, or statute of, or commission held
or authority exercised under, the United States, as the plaintiff
in error set up and claimed none such.
Spies v. Illinois,
123 U. S. 131,
123 U. S. 181;
Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U. S. 132. And
the decision that the defendant was not liable in damages, because
in concurring in the order complained of he acted in his judicial
capacity, in itself involved no federal question.
Lange v.
Benedict, 99 U. S. 68,
99 U. S. 71. Nor
can the plaintiff object that the validity of a statute of, or an
authority exercised under, the United States was drawn in question,
or that a title, right, privilege, or immunity was claimed under
the Constitution, or a statute of, or a commission held or an
authority exercised under, the United States, on the ground that
the defendant claimed to exercise an authority under acts of
Congress, or under a commission held under the United States, since
this was not plaintiff's contention,
Page 133 U. S. 192
but the defendants', and the state courts decided not against
but in favor of the authority, title, right, privilege, or immunity
so claimed.
The three rulings asked by the plaintiff and refused by the
court, were:
First. That the court of commissioners of Alabama claims had no
authority to make the order entered by them, touching the
plaintiff.
Second. That, the defendant French having admitted that he
concurred with the other defendants in issuing and enforcing said
order, the plaintiff was entitled to recover from him compensation
for all loss sustained by him, as the direct result of its entry
and enforcement.
Third. That more than two years having elapsed after the
reorganization of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims
under the Act of Congress of June 5, 1882, and after the
appointment of the defendants, but prior to the date of the order,
the defendants had no lawful authority to act as judges of said
court of commissioners.
The court held that the term of the judges had not expired, and
that they had authority to make the order, and therefore that the
plaintiff could not recover, and in so holding decided in favor of
the validity of the authority exercised by the defendant under the
United States, and of the right he claimed under the statutes of
the United States and the commission held by him. The petition for
the writ of error avers
"that said action involves divers federal questions, one of
which is whether said acts of Congress authorized said defendants
to promulgate or enforce said order, and another of which is
whether so much of said acts of Congress as undertakes -- if any
part thereof undertakes -- to authorize the defendants to make such
order was not in violation of Articles V and VII of the amendments
of the Constitution of the United States, and the decision of said
state court was adverse to the plaintiff's contention upon all of
said federal questions."
The grounds thus suggested have been disposed of by what has
been said, and it may be added that the petition for a writ
Page 133 U. S. 193
or error forms no part of the record upon which action here is
taken.
Clark v. Pennsylvania, 128 U.
S. 395;
Warfield v. Chaffe, 91 U. S.
690.
The writ of error must be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.