The Supreme Court of Arkansas ordered judgment for a plaintiff
suing on a note given for the price of slaves. Subsequently to
this, the State of Louisiana ordained as part of its
constitution,
"That all contracts for the sale or purchase of slaves were null
and void, and that no court of the state
Page 81 U. S. 13
should take cognizance of any suit founded upon such contracts,
and that no amount should ever be collected or recovered on any
judgment or decree which bad been or should thereafter be rendered
on account of any such contract or obligation."
On application by the defendant in the suit to supersede and
perpetually stay all proceedings on the judgment against him, the
Supreme Court overruled the application. The case being brought
here under an assumption that it was within the 25th section, held
that it was not so, and the case was dismissed for want of
jurisdiction accordingly.
Motion by Mr. S. W. Williams to dismiss for want of jurisdiction
a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, taken under an
assumption that the case fell within the 25th section of the
Judiciary Act, quoted
supra, pp.
81
U. S. 5-6. The plaintiff in error was Sevier,
administrator of Jordan; the defendant in error Haskell,
administrator of Smith.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE stated the case, and delivered the opinion of
the Court.
The case, so far as it is necessary to state it, was a
proceeding in equity to foreclose a mortgage given by the intestate
of Sevier to the intestate of Haskell, to secure the payment of
four promissory notes therein described, and the accruing interest.
The answer set up as a defense that the consideration of the notes
was the purchase of eighty-five slaves by Jordan of Smith; that the
slaves had since become emancipated and lost to the estate of
Jordan, and that the consideration of the notes had thus wholly
failed. The circuit court, at the May Term 1867, decreed that the
bill should be dismissed and the complainant pay the costs. The
case was appealed to the supreme court of the state, and that
court, at the December Term 1867, reversed the decree and remanded
the cause to the circuit court with directions to enter a decree
for the complainant, which was accordingly done.
The plaintiffs in error applied to the circuit court at the
November Term 1868 for an order that all further proceedings upon
the decree should be superseded and perpetually stayed for the
reason that, on the 11th day of February, 1868, since the decision
of the supreme court of the state
Page 81 U. S. 14
in the case was made, it was ordained by the constitution of the
state then adopted, that all contracts for the sale or purchase of
slaves were null and void, and that no court of the state should
take cognizance of any suit founded upon such contracts, and that
no amount should ever be collected or recovered on any judgment or
decree which had been, or should thereafter be, rendered on account
of any such contract or obligation. The circuit court overruled the
application, and the plaintiffs in error excepted. The case was
again taken to the supreme court of the state and that court
affirmed the decision of the lower court.
Where the judgment of a state court is brought into this Court
for review, to warrant the exercise of the jurisdiction invoked,
the case must fall within one of three categories:
(1) There must have been drawn in question the validity of a
treaty or statute of -- or an authority exercised under -- the
United States, and the decision of the state court must have been
against the validity of the claim which either is relied upon to
maintain; (2) or there must have been drawn in question a statute
of, or an authority exercised under, a state, on the ground of
their being repugnant to the Constitution, a law or treaty of the
United States, and the decision must have been in favor of the
validity of the state law or authority in question; (3) or a right
must have been claimed under the Constitution or a treaty or law
of, or by virtue of a commission held or authority exercised under
the United States, and the decision must have been against the
right so claimed.
*
The case before us is within neither of these classes. Before
the state Constitution of 1868 was adopted, the Supreme Court must
have proceeded upon the general principles of the jurisprudence of
the state. Whether in applying those principles that tribunal
reached the proper conclusions, cannot be a subject of
consideration by this Court. We have no authority to enter upon
such an inquiry. After the constitution
Page 81 U. S. 15
of 1868 was adopted, the plaintiffs in error relied upon that,
to annul the decree which had been rendered. The Supreme Court
affirmed the validity of the decree, the provision in the state
constitution relied upon to the contrary notwithstanding.
Here again, no federal question is presented. What
considerations controlled the judgment of the court is not
disclosed in the record. If it were held, as it well may have been,
that the provision in the federal Constitution which forbids any
state to pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts, protects
from the operation of the state constitution slave contracts made
prior to its adoption, as the contract here in question was
sustained and enforced, still no question arose of which this Court
can take cognizance. The record exhibiting no such question, the
motion must prevail.
Writ dismissed.
* 14 Stat. at Large 386.