City and County of San Francisco v. Itsell
Decision Date | 20 January 1890 |
Citation | 10 S.Ct. 241,33 L.Ed. 570,133 U.S. 65 |
Parties | CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO v. ITSELL et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
John L. Love, John B. Mhoon, and John Flournoy, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas D. Riordan, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
This court has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of the highest court of a state, unless a federal question has been, either in express terms or by necessary effect, decided by that court against the plaintiff in error. Rev. St. § 709; Water-Works v. Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 18, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 741; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1053; Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. ——, ante, 171. In the present case, the record of the pleadings, findings of fact, and judgment shows that it was unnecessary for that court to decide, and its opinion filed in the case and copied in the record shows that it did not decide, any question against the plaintiff in error, except the issue whether the former judgment rendered against it, and in favor of the grantor of the defendants in error, was a bar to this action. That was a question of general law only, in no wise depending upon the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States. Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340. Writ of error dismissed, for want of jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boillot v. Income Guar. Co.
...Co., 290 S.W. 133, l.c. 134. (b) A decision that the question in issue is res ajudicata, does not present a Federal question. San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U.S. 65, l.c. 66, 33, L. Ed. 570, 10 S.C. 240; North Pac. R.R. Co. v. Ellis, 144 U.S. 458, l.c. 465, 36 L. Ed. 504, 12 S.C. 427; Adams v......
-
Boillot v. Income Guar. Co.
...Co., 290 S.W. 133, l.c. 134. (b) A decision that the question in issue is res adjudicata, does not present a Federal question. San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U.S. 65, l.c. 66, 33 L. Ed. 570, 10 S.C. 240; North Pac. R.R. Co., v. Ellis, 144 U.S. 458, l.c. 465, 36 L. Ed. 504, 12 S.C. 427; Adams ......
-
Bundo v. City of Walled Lake
...... Upon request of the local legislative body in any county of less than 1,000,000 population, after due notice and proper hearing by the body, the commission ......
-
Robinson v. Houston-Galveston Area Council
...... matter of state law, holds position "at the will and pleasure of the city"); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974) ... See also Stenseth v. Greater Ft. Worth and Tarrant County Community Action Agency, 673 F.2d 842, 846 (5th Cir.1982); Downing v. ......