This Court has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of the
highest court of a state unless a federal question has been, either
in express terms or by necessary effect, decided by that court
against the plaintiff in error.
The original action was ejectment, brought in the Superior Court
of San Francisco by the City and County of San Francisco to recover
a tract of land in San Francisco of which the plaintiff alleged
that it was seized in fee, and entitled to the possession, in trust
for the use of the State of California and of the people of the
city and county as a public plaza, park, common or square, and
commonly known as Hamilton Square or Plaza.
It was duly pleaded in the answer and found by the court, a
trial by jury having been waived by the parties, as follows:
1st. In July, 1869, a compromise was agreed upon between the
city and one Tompkins, who claimed this and other land, by which
the officers of the city, under an ordinance of the board of
supervisors, executed a conveyance of the land to Tompkins, and in
consideration thereof Tompkins conveyed to the city the other land
claimed by him. On February 19, 1870, the ordinance and conveyances
were ratified and confirmed by act of the Legislature of
California. On July 23, 1869, Tompkins conveyed this land to one
Palmer.
2d. On September 11, 1869, Palmer brought an action against the
city in a court of the state having jurisdiction of the subject
matter and of the parties alleging that he had the title in fee and
the right of possession of this land, and that the city claimed an
adverse interest, but had no title, interest, or estate therein;
the city appeared and denied his allegations, and the issue was
decided in his favor, and it was adjudged that he was the lawful
owner in fee simple absolute of the land, and that the city had no
estate, right, title or interest
Page 133 U. S. 66
therein, and be forever restrained and debarred from asserting
any. That judgment remained in full force and effect. And on May
21, 1875, Palmer conveyed this land to one Hollis, from whom by
mesne conveyances these defendants claimed title.
The superior court gave judgment for the defendants, and the
plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of California, which
affirmed the judgment, and the plaintiff sued out this writ of
error.
Opinions of the Supreme Court Commissioners and of the supreme
court of the state were filed in the case and copied in the record.
The Commissioners were of opinion that under the rule stated in
Hoadley v. San Francisco, 50 Cal. 265;
Sawyer v. San
Francisco, 50 Cal. 320, and
Hoadley v. San Francisco,
70 Cal. 320, and
124 U. S. 124 U.S.
639, the compromise could not be sustained, for want of power in
the city to make it, but that the judgment pleaded was a bar,
according to the decision in
San Francisco v. Holliday, 76
Cal. 18. The Supreme Court was of opinion that the judgment should
be affirmed for the reasons given in the opinion of the
Commissioners. 22 P. 75.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the
opinion of the Court.
This Court has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of the
highest court of a state unless a federal question has been, either
in express terms or by necessary effect, decided by that court
against the plaintiff in error. Rev.Stat. ยง 709;
New Orleans
Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S.
18;
De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U.
S. 216;
Hale v. Akers, 132 U.
S. 554.
In the present case, the record of the pleadings, findings
of
Page 133 U. S. 67
fact, and judgment shows that it was unnecessary for that court
to decide, and its opinion filed in the case and copied in the
record shows that it did not decide, any question against the
plaintiff in error except the issue whether the former judgment
rendered against it, and in favor of the grantor of the defendants
in error, was a bar to this action. That was a question of general
law only, in no wise depending upon the Constitution, treaties, or
statutes of the United States.
Chouteau v. Gibson,
111 U. S. 200.
Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.