This Court cannot be called upon to review the action of the
state court by piecemeal, and even if the judgment does finally
dispose of some elements of the controversy, unless it is final on
its face as to the entire controversy, this Court will not review
it.
On the question of finality, the form of the judgment is
controlling, and that form cannot be disregarded in order to
ascertain whether the judgment is a final one according to state
law.
This Court has the power and duty when reviewing the final
judgment of a state court to pass on all federal controversies in
the cause irrespective of how far such questions were concluded by
the state law during the litigation and before a final judgment
reviewable here was rendered.
The dismissal of the writ of error for want of finality of the
judgment in this case is on the presumption that the case otherwise
involves federal questions reviewable by this Court.
Writ of error to review 125 La. 740 dismissed.
The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court of writs
of error to state courts, and what constitutes a final judgment
reviewable by this Court, are stated in the opinion.
Page 226 U. S. 100
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana in this case reviewed the
judgment of a trial court which dismissed the petition of the
plaintiff because it stated no cause of action. The plaintiff in
error here was plaintiff in the trial court and appellant in the
court below. The suit was based on an alleged right to recover
damages for slander of the title of plaintiff to described lands.
Under the law of Louisiana, for the purpose of passing upon the
exception of no cause of action, the case in substance became one
petitory in its character -- that is, one to try title to land.
Treating the action as of that nature, the court below elaborately
reviewed the averments of the petition, and expressed the opinion
that, in some respects, a cause of action was stated -- that is,
that there was allegation of title as to some of the land, and that
there was no title alleged to other of the land involved. The court
concluded as follows:
"We think, therefore, that plaintiff should be again afforded an
opportunity to amend its petition . . . by setting forth
specifically the particular places or portions of its property upon
which the alleged trespass has been committed, together with the
time and manner of the trespass."
The judgment was as follows:
"It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the
judgment appealed from be set aside, and that this case be remanded
to the district court, to be there proceeded with in accordance
with the views expressed in this opinion . . ."
Upon the theory that federal questions were involved
Page 226 U. S. 101
within the cognizance of this Court, this writ of error to the
judgment thus rendered was sued out. But, as the judgment of the
court below on its face is not a final one, it follows that a
motion to dismiss must prevail.
Haseltine v. Bank,
183 U. S. 130;
Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173;
Missouri &c. Ry. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U.
S. 185.
The contention, however, is that the judgment below is final for
the purpose of review by this Court because, when the opinion of
the Supreme Court of Louisiana is carefully weighed, it will be
found that that court practically finally disposed adversely to the
title of the plaintiff of the substantial part of the lands
involved in the suit, and hence that the court, in remanding the
cause for further proceedings, did so only as to other lands. But,
conceding this to be true, it does not justify the claim based on
it. In the first place, it is settled that this Court may not be
called upon to review by piecemeal the action of a state court
which otherwise would be within its jurisdiction, and in the second
place, the rule established by the authorities to which we have
referred is that, on the question of finality, the form of the
judgment is controlling, and hence that this Court cannot, for the
purpose of determining whether its reviewing power exists, be
called upon to disregard the form of the judgment in order to
ascertain whether a judgment which is in form not final might, by
applying the state law, be treated as final in character. Indeed,
it has been pointed out that the confusion and contradiction which
inevitably arose from resorting to the state law for the purpose of
converting a judgment not on its face final into one final in
character was the dominating reason leading to the establishment of
the principle that the form of the judgment was controlling for the
purpose of ascertaining its finality.
Norfolk Turnpike Co. v.
Virginia, 225 U. S. 264,
225 U. S.
268.
The suggestion that the right to review by this Court will be
lost if it does not disregard the form of the judgment,
Page 226 U. S. 102
and review the action of the court below concerning the title to
land as to which the court below expressed opinions which, as the
law of the case, will hereafter be binding upon it and upon other
courts of the State of Louisiana, is without merit. We say this
because the contention is but illustrative of the misconception
which the argument involves, which we have already pointed out. The
rule which excludes the right to review questions arising in a
cause depending in a state court until a final judgment is rendered
by such court involves as a necessary correlative the power and the
duty of this Court when a final judgment in form is rendered and
the cause is brought here for review, to consider and pass upon all
the federal controversies in the cause, irrespective of how far it
may be that, by the state law such questions were concluded during
the litigation, and before a final judgment susceptible of review
here was rendered.
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v.
McCabe, 213 U. S. 207,
213 U. S.
214.
Of course, for the purpose of disposing of the motion to dismiss
upon the ground of the want of finality of the judgment, we have
taken it for granted, for the sake of the argument, that the case
otherwise involved federal questions within our power to
review.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.