231 U.S. 583 (1913), 105, John v. Paullin

Docket Nº:No. 105
Citation:231 U.S. 583, 34 S.Ct. 178, 58 L.Ed. 381
Party Name:John v. Paullin
Case Date:December 22, 1913
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 583

231 U.S. 583 (1913)

34 S.Ct. 178, 58 L.Ed. 381




No. 105

United States Supreme Court

December 22, 1913

Argued December 8, 9, 1913




No federal right is denied by an appellate court of a state in dismissing an appeal from a lower court because its jurisdiction was not invoked in accordance with the laws of the state, and this Court cannot review such a judgment under § 709, Rev.Stat., now Judicial Code, § 237.

It rests with each state to prescribe the jurisdiction of its appellate courts, and the mode of invoking it, and their rules are equally applicable when federal, as when only local, rights are involved.

Section 12 of the Act of March 3, 1905, 33 Stat. 1048, 1081, providing for the review of judgments of the courts temporarily established in the Indian Territory, related only to such judgments, and has no application to judgments rendered by the state courts after statehood.

The method of subjecting the judgments of a subordinate state court to review by appellate courts of the state is a matter of local concern, and not within the control of Congress. Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559.

Page 584

In this case, as nothing was decided but a preliminary question of the jurisdiction of a state appellate court which turned entirely upon a question of local law, the writ of error is dismissed.

Writ of error to review 24 Okl. 636 dismissed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court under § 237 of the judicial Code to review a judgment of the appellate court of a state dismissing an appeal from an inferior court, are stated in the opinion.

VANDEVANTER, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

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 (June 16, 1906, 34 Stat. 267, c. 3335; id., 1286, c. 2911) and the state constitution (see Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, 246), the case was then transferred to the District Court of Bryan County, where a trial resulted in a...

To continue reading