Longest v. Langford

• Citation: 47 S.Ct. 668,274 U.S. 499,71 L.Ed. 1170
• Decision Date: 31 May 1927
• Docket Number: No. 342,342
• Parties: LONGEST v. LANGFORD et al
• Court: United States Supreme Court

274 U.S. 499

47 S.Ct. 668

71 L.Ed. 1170

LONGEST

v LANGFORD et al.

No. 342.

Submitted on Motion to Dismiss May 16, 1927.

Decided May 31, 1927.

Mr. H. A. Ledbetter, of Ardmore, Okl., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. S. R. Bowen, of Washington, D. C., and W. F. Semple, of Durant, Okl., for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We here are asked to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma rendered after the Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, amending the Judicial Code, became effective. An allotment made in the name and right of a deceased Choctaw Indian woman under section 22 of the Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, is involved. The only federal question in the case is whether Congress intended by that section and other related congressional enactments that the surviving husband of the deceased should take an estate by the curtesy in the land. This question was resolved by the Supreme Court of the state in favor of the husband; and at the instance of the opposing party the chief justice of that court allowed a writ of error bringing the judgment here for review. The writ obviously was improvidently allowed. Section 237(a) of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1214) restricts the cases in which we may review a judgment or decree of a state court on writ of error to those 'where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States, and the decision is against its validity; or where is drawn, in question the validity of a statute of any state, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treates, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity.' This case does not involve any such constitutional question, but only a question of the construction and application of congressional enactments concededly valid. It therefore falls within the class where a review in this court may be had only on petition for certiorari under section 237(b) of the Judicial Code. The distinction is important, has a real purpose and should be given effect by all who are invested with authority to allow writs of error running from this court to a state court. A failure to observe it may subject the party suing out the writ to damages and double costs (Rev. Stat. § 1010 (Comp. St. § 1671); Judicial Code, § 237(c)) and result in harmful embarrassment to the other party. Of course where the writ is improvidently allowed the other party may move...