Hippolite Filhiol v. Charles Maurice

• Decision Date: 07 April 1902
• Docket Number: No. 50,50
• Parties: HIPPOLITE FILHIOL et al., Plffs. in Err. , v. CHARLES E. MAURICE, Charles G. Convers, and William G. Maurice
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

185 U.S. 108

22 S.Ct. 560

46 L.Ed. 827

HIPPOLITE FILHIOL et al., Plffs. in Err.,

v CHARLES E. MAURICE, Charles G. Convers, and William G. Maurice.

No. 50.

Argued March 5, 6, 1902.

Decided April 7, 1902.

This was an action of ejectment brought by Hippolite Filhiol and others in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkansas, against Charles E. Maurice, Charles G. Convers, and William G. Maurice, for the recovery of a parcel of land in the city of Hot Springs, Garland county, Arkansas, on the permanent reservation at Hot Springs de- scribed as Bath house sits No. 8, and for rent thereof as damages. Plaintiffs deraigned title as heirs at law of Don Juan Filhiol, to whom it was alleged the lands were granted February 22, 1788, by the then Spanish governor of the province of Louisiana, by virtue of which grant said Filhiol became the owner of a tract of 'about three miles square, embracing all the hot springs in the city of Hot Springs, Garland county, Arkansas,' and including the parcel of land for which plaintiffs brought suit. The complaint did not aver the citizenship of plaintiff or defendants, although the caption described plaintiffs as residents of several states other than Arkansas; but it was averred as follows: 'And for cause of action say that by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the 3d article of the treaty of the United States of America and the Republic of France, which was ratified on the 21st day of October, 1803, the United States undertook and agreed to maintain the said Don Juan Filhiol and his heirs in their right and title to the land in controversy and their full enjoyment of the same, but, in violation of the provisions of said treaty, and without due process of law, and in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, defendants did, without condemnation and without compensation to plaintiffs, on or about the 2d day of January, 1807, wrongfully and without right, oust the plaintiffs from the possession of the land in controversy, and for more than two years last past have held possession, and they now hold possession, of the land in controversy, wrongfully and without right, and they refuse to surrender possession of the same to plaintiffs.' Defendants demurred to the complaint, on the ground that its allegations did not 'constitute a cause of action.'

The circuit court sustained the demurrer, and, plaintiffs electing to stand on their complaint and declining to amend, the complaint was dismissed with costs. A writ of error directly from this court was then allowed.

Messrs. William F. Vilas, Clifford S. Walton, J. H. McGowan, and Branch K. Miller for plaintiffs in error.

Assistant Attorney General Pradt and Mr. George H. Gorman for defendants in error.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:

Writs of error may be sued out directly from this court to the circuit courts in cases in which the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States is involved, or in which the validity or construction of any treaty made under the authority of the United States is drawn in question. Act of March 3, 1891, chap. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. at L. 826.

And we repeat, as has often been said before, that a case may be said to involve the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States when a title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under that instrument; but a definite issue in respect to the possession of the right must be distinctly deducible from the record before the judgment of the court below can be revised on the ground of error in the disposal of such a claim by its decision. The same rule is applicable in respect of the validity or construction of a treaty....