1. A certificate from the Supreme Court of Iowa (lately a
territory) that in a case brought here from its final judgment, the
validity of the Partition Law of Iowa Territory, approved January
4, 1839, was drawn in question on the ground that the same was in
conflict with the Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of the United
States, the treaties and laws thereof, the objections thereto
overruled, and the statute held to be valid against the rights and
interests of the defendant, as claimed by them, presents the
constitutional objection in too general a form to give this Court
jurisdiction under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.
2. That section does not apply to the case where is drawn in
question the validity of a statute of a territory.
Page 77 U. S. 508
3. Where an ordinance of the United States, then existing, has
been incorporated as organic law into the system of laws of a new
territory, with a provision, however, that the ordinance should be
subject to be altered, modified, or repealed by its governor and
legislature, the decision of the supreme court of the state (lately
the territory) cannot be brought here under the 25th section on the
ground that in a suit before it there was drawn in question the
validity of a statute of the territory as being repugnant to a law
of the United States.
Mason sued Messenger in one of the county courts of Iowa to
recover the possession of certain land in that state. He relied
upon a judgment in partition of the tract rendered in the District
Court of the Territory of Iowa in April, 1841, in pursuance of a
law of that territory.
The defendant objected to the admission of the record of
judgment on the ground that the law under which the proceedings
were had was unconstitutional and void.
The objection was overruled, the record admitted, and a verdict
and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. On an appeal to the
supreme court of the territory by the defendant, the judgment was
affirmed and the case was brought here as within the 25th section
of the Judiciary Act.
The certificate from the Supreme Court of Iowa certified:
"That on the final hearing, the validity of the partition law of
Iowa Territory, approved January 4, 1839, was drawn in question on
the ground that the same was in conflict with the Ordinance of
1787, the Constitution of the United States, the treaties and laws
thereof, that the objections thereto were overruled, and the
statute held to be valid."
The Territory of Iowa, it should be stated, was not a part of
that to which the Ordinance of 1787 originally applied, but was a
part of the Louisiana purchase. Prior to June 12, 1838, it was part
of the Territory of Wisconsin. [
Footnote 1] The act, however, of the date just mentioned,
which set it off and
Page 77 U. S. 509
made its organic law, incorporated into its laws indirectly many
of the provisions of the ordinance by extending to its inhabitants
the rights and privileges theretofore secured to the Territory of
Wisconsin by
its organic law, among which were those found
in the ordinance. [
Footnote 2]
But the section that conferred these rights and privileges upon the
new Territory of Iowa provided that they should be subject "to be
altered, modified, or repealed" by its governor and legislative
assembly.
MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is insisted on the part of the defendant in error that an
examination of the record will show that there is no federal
question in the case of which this Court can take cognizance.
In the case of
Maxwell v. Newbold, [
Footnote 3] it was held the objection that
"the charge of the court, the verdict of the jury, and the
judgment below are each against and in conflict with the
Constitution and laws of the United States"
was not sufficiently specific to raise a question within the
provisions of this section. The Chief Justice, in delivering the
opinion of the Court, observes that
"the clause in the Constitution and the law of Congress should
have been specified by the plaintiffs in error in the state court
in order
Page 77 U. S. 510
that this Court might see what was the right claimed by them,
and whether it was denied by the decision of the state court."
This Court had previously held, in
Lawler v. Walker,
[
Footnote 4] that the statement
in a certificate of the state court that there was drawn in
question the validity of statutes of Ohio, without saying what
statutes, was too indefinite, and that the statutes complained of
in the case should have been specified. These decisions were
reaffirmed in
Hoyt v. Shelden. [
Footnote 5] It is quite clear upon these authorities
that the constitutional objection taken in the present case is too
general to be noticed on a writ of error under this 25th
section.
As to the effect of the certificate from the court below,
see Commercial Bank v. Buckingham, [
Footnote 6]
Lawler v. Walker, [
Footnote 7] and
Porter v.
Foley. [
Footnote 8]
One difficulty in bringing the case within this 25th section is
that it makes no provision for the reexamination of a judgment in a
state court which upholds the validity of a statute of a territory
in contravention of the Constitution. It applies only to the case
where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or
authority exercised under, any state. The circumstance, therefore,
that the court below held the statute of the territory providing
for partition of lands among tenants in common valid is of no
importance in the case. [
Footnote
9]
It has been urged on the argument, however, in view of the
certificate of the court, that a right set up under the Ordinance
of 1787 by the defendants at the trial had been denied them, and
that the construction of a law of Congress had thus been drawn in
question.
Although the organic law of the Territory of Iowa did
incorporate into its system of laws indirectly many of the
provisions of the Ordinance of 1787 by extending to its inhabitants
the rights and privileges theretofore secured to the Territory of
Wisconsin by its organic law, among which were those found in the
ordinance, yet the same section
Page 77 U. S. 511
that conferred these rights and privileges upon the Territory of
Iowa provided that they should be subject to be altered, modified,
or repealed by the governor and legislative assembly of the said
territory. If, therefore, anything is found in this act of
partition in conflict with these provisions, to that extent they
must be regarded as altered or modified, which affords a complete
answer to the ground relied upon under the ordinance.
Motion granted.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER took no part in the decision, having been
counsel in the case.
[
Footnote 1]
5 Stat. at Large 235.
[
Footnote 2]
Act of 7 August, 1789, 1 Stat. at Large 50.
[
Footnote 3]
59 U. S. 18 How.
511.
[
Footnote 4]
55 U. S. 14 How.
149.
[
Footnote 5]
66 U. S. 1 Black
518.
[
Footnote 6]
46 U. S. 5 How.
317.
[
Footnote 7]
55 U. S. 14 How.
149.
[
Footnote 8]
65 U. S. 24 How.
413.
[
Footnote 9]
Scott v.
Jones, 5 How. 375.
