Hagon John v. Lewis Paullin
| Decision Date | 22 December 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 105,105 |
| Citation | 58 L.Ed. 381,34 S.Ct. 178,231 U.S. 583 |
| Parties | HAGON JOHN, Guardian, etc., Plff. in Err., v. LEWIS PAULLIN et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Edward F. Colladay and Napoleon B. Maxey for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. W. T. Sprowls, V. B. Hays, and Robert Crockett for defendants in error.
Our jurisdiction in this case is challenged by a motion to dismiss. The case was begun in the United States court for the central district of the Indian territory, and was pending in that court when the territory of Oklahoma and the Indian territory were admitted into the Union as the state of Oklahoma. Under the combined operation of the Oklahoma enabling act (34 Stat. at L. 267, chap. 3335; Id. 1286, chap. 2911) and the state constitution (see Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, 246, 13 L. ed. 119, 124), the case was then transferred to the district court of Bryan court, where a trial resulted in a judgment determining the matters in controversy, which turned in part upon the validity, under the laws of the United States, of certain deeds and leases executed by an Indian allottee, since deceased. The guardian of two minor heirs of the allottee had intervened in the cause, had asserted the invalidity of all the deeds and leases, and had set up a claim to the property in question as against the other parties; but this claim was rejected, and the guardian sought to have the judgment reviewed and reversed by the supreme court of the state. That court held that some of the parties below, whose presence in the appellate proceeding was essential, had not been brought into that proceeding, or voluntarily appeared therein, in accordance with the law of the state, and upon that ground dismissed the proceeding, 24 Okla. 636, 104 Pac. 365, 106 Pac. 848. The guardian then sued out the present writ of error.
As the supreme court of the state did not pass upon the merits of the case or upon the correctness of any of the rulings below, but, on the contrary, held that it was powerless to do so because its appellate jurisdiction was not invoked in accordance with the laws of the state, we do not perceive any theory upon which its judgment of dismissal may be reviewed by us consistently with the familiar limitations upon our authority. See Rev. Stat. § 709, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 575; Judicial Code, § 237 []. Certainly no Federal right was denied by that court, and if, as was held by it, its appellate jurisdiction was not properly invoked, no Federal question was before it for decision.
Without any doubt it rests with each state to prescribe the jurisdiction of its appellate courts, the mode and time of invoking that jurisdiction, and the rules of practice to be applied in its exercise; and the state law and practice in this regard are no less applicable when Federal rights are in controversy than when the case turns entirely upon questions of local or general law. Callan v. Bransford, 139 U. S. 197, 35 L. ed. 144, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 519; Brown v. Massachusetts, 144 U. S. 573, 36 L. ed. 546, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 757; Jacobi v. Alabama, 187 U. S. 133, 47 L. ed. 106, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 48; Hulbert v. Chicago, 202 U. S. 275, 281, 50 L. ed. 1026, 1028, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617; Newman v. Gates, 204 U. S. 89, 51 L. ed. 385, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. McDonald, 214 U. S. 191, 195, 53 L. ed. 963, 965, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 546.
But it is said that the proceedings by which it was attempted to secure a review of the judgment of the trial court should have been tested by the act of Congress of March 3, 1905, 33 Stat. at L. 1081, chap. 1479, § 12, and that the supreme court of the state erred in holding otherwise. We cannot accede to the contention. The act of 1905, § 12, related to the review of judgments rendered in the courts temporarily established by Congress in the Indian territory, and had no application to judgments rendered after statehood in the courts of the state. Besides, the mode of subjecting the judgments of the state's subordiinate courts to review in its supreme court was a matter of local concern only, and not within the control of Congress. See Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 55 L. ed. 853, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 688.
The state Constitution provided ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfe v. State of North Carolina
...51 L.Ed. 385; Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. McDonald, 214 U.S. 191, 195, 29 S.Ct. 546, 548, 53 L.Ed. 963.' John v. Paullin, 231 U.S. 583, 585, 34 S.Ct. 178, 58 L.Ed. 381. '(W)hen as here there can be no pretence that the (state) Court adopted its view in order to evade a constitutional i......
-
Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc
...963, 8 L.Ed.2d 98; Wolfe v. State of North Carolina, 364 U.S. 177, 195, 80 S.Ct. 1482, 1492, 4 L.Ed.2d 1650; John v. Paullin, 231 U.S. 583, 585, 34 S.Ct. 178, 179, 58 L.Ed. 381.3 Rule 59 of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 'The (appellant's) statement of the questions involved must set forth ......
-
Mooney v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co.
...S.Ct. 34, 35, 36, 52 L.Ed. 143; St. Louis I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 281, 28 S.Ct. 616, 52 L.Ed. 1061; John v. Paullin, 231 U.S. 583, 34 S.Ct. 178, 58 L.Ed. 381.' (Emphasis In the case of Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 840, 91 L.Ed. 1055, the Supreme......
-
Kilroy v. Superior Court
...persons holding state elective or important nonelective executive, legislative, and judicial positions"]; John v. Paullin (1913) 231 U.S. 583, 585, 34 S.Ct. 178, 178, 58 L.Ed. 381 ["Without any doubt it rests with each State to prescribe the jurisdiction of its appellate courts, the mode an......