Hippolite Filhiol v. George Torney

• Citation: 24 S.Ct. 698,48 L.Ed. 1014,194 U.S. 356
• Decision Date: 16 May 1904
• Docket Number: No. 252,252
• Parties: HIPPOLITE FILHIOL, Francis J. Watts, Harriet L. Watkins, et al., Plffs. in Err. , v. GEORGE H. TORNEY
• Court: United States Supreme Court

194 U.S. 356

24 S.Ct. 698

48 L.Ed. 1014

HIPPOLITE FILHIOL, Francis J. Watts, Harriet L. Watkins, et al., Plffs. in Err.,

v GEORGE H. TORNEY.

No. 252.

Submitted April 25, 1904.

Decided May 16, 1904.

Messrs. Branch K. Miller, James K. Jones, J. H. McGowan, and William F. Vilas for plaintiffs in error.

Solicitor General Hoyt and Messrs. Marsden C. Burch and Robert A. Howard for defendant in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:

This was an action of ejectment, commenced in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkansas, based upon the same title which was presented in Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co. 168 U. S. 430, 42 L. ed. 531, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 109, and Filhiol v. Maurice, 185 U. S. 108, 46 L. ed. 827, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained on the ground of want of jurisdiction, and a judgment entered for the defendant, and thereupon the case was brought directly to this court on writ of error.

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

The only question decided by the circuit court was one of jurisdiction, but the record contains no certificate of that question, nor anything which can be considered an equivalent thereto. The demurrer filed by the defendant stated three grounds therefor: First, a want of jurisdiction over the present defendant; second, a like want of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action; and, third, that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The judgment was that the 'demurrer to the jurisdiction . . . be sustained' and the complaint dismissed. In the opinion of the court, only the question of jurisdiction over the subject-matter was discussed. The assignment of errors contains nine specifications, some going to the matter of jurisdiction; others, such as the fifth, eighth, and ninth, running to the merits, the ninth being general and in this language: 'The court erred in divers other matters manifest upon the face of the record of said action.' The petition for a writ of error alleged that the plaintiffs, 'being aggrieved by the judgment made and en- tered in the above entitled cause on the 12th day of January, 1903, and the several rulings of the court herein, file herewith their assignment of errors in said cause, and pray a writ of error, to the end that the rulings and judgment of said court in said cause may be reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States.' This petition was allowed generally, and without any limitation or specification. The necessity of a certificate was affirmed in Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324 38 L. ed. 179, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353, and what may be considered a sufficient certificate, or taken as equivalent thereto, considered in Re Lehigh Min & Mfg. Co. 156 U. S. 322, 39 L. ed. 438, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375; Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168, 39 L. ed. 660, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570; The Bayonne, 159 U. S. 687, 40 L. ed. 306, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185; Interior Constr. Co. v. Gibney, 160 U. S. 217, 40 L. ed. 401, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Van Wagenen v. Sewall, 160 U. S. 369, 40 L. ed. 460, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370; Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499, 40 L. ed. 510, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 397; Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355, 40 L. ed. 731, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490. The case of Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499, 40 L. ed. 510, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 397, is closely in point. In that case Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court, after referring to tests laid down in prior cases, observed (p. 508, L. ed. p. 513, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 399):

'The record in the present case falls far short of satisfying any such test. The defendant, among many other defenses, and in various forms, objected to the jurisdiction of the district court, because the act of Congress under which the proceedings were instituted was unconstitutional, because the proceedings were not according to the laws of the United States, and because they should have been had in a court of the state of Maryland; and the court, overruling or disregarding all the objections, whether to its jurisdiction over the case, or to the merits or the form of the proceedings, entered final judgment for the petitioners. There is no formal certificate of any question of jurisdiction; the allowance of the writ of error is general, and not expressly limited to such a question; and the petition for the writ, after mentioning all the proceedings in detail, asks for a review of all the 'rulings, judgments, and orders' of the court 'upon the question of jurisdiction raised in said exceptions, pleas, and demurrers, and the other papers on file in this cause,' without defining or indicating any specific question of jurisdiction. Here, certainly, is no such clear, full, and separate statement of a definite question of jurisdiction as will supply the want of a formal certificate under the first clause of the statute.'

There being no sufficient certificate of jurisdiction, counsel for plaintiffs in error rely upon the proposition that there is involved in the case the application of the Constitution of the United States, and also the meaning and force of the treaty of October 21, 1803, between the United States and the Republic of France, and that, therefore, the case was rightfully brought directly to this court.

'But no question of jurisdiction having been separately certified or specified, and the writ of error having been allowed without restriction or qualification, this court, under the other clause of the statute, above cited, has appellate jurisdiction of this case as one in which the constitutionality of a law of the United States was drawn in question.' Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 509, 40 L. ed. 513, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 400. See also Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475, 486, 47 L. ed. 909, 912, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 639.

The title upon which the plaintiffs rest was a grant made on February 22, 1788, by the governor general, in the name of the King of Spain, then the sovereign of the territory, and, as contended, protected by the treaty of 1803, which provided that the inhabitants of the province ceded...