Manning v. French

• Decision Date: 27 January 1890
• Citation: 10 S.Ct. 258,133 U.S. 186,33 L.Ed. 582
• Parties: MANNING v. FRENCH. 1
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

133 U.S. 186

10 S.Ct. 258

33 L.Ed. 582

MANNING v. FRENCH.¹

January 27, 1890.

[Statement of Case from pages 186-191 intentionally omitted] Chas. Cowley, for plaintiff in error.

Chas. Theo. Russell, Jr., for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

Jurisdiction to review the final judgment rendered in this case cannot be maintained upon the ground of the denial by the state courts of any title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the constitution, or some treaty, or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, as the plaintiff in error set up and claimed none such. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 22; Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U. S. 132, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 40. And the decision that the defendant was not liable in damages, because in concurring in the order complained of he acted in his judicial capacity, in itself involved no federal question. Lange v. Benedict, 99 U. S. 68, 71 Nor can the plaintiff object that the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States was drawn in question, or that a title, right, privilege, or immunity was claimed under the constitution, or a statute of, or a commission held or an authority exercised under, the United States, on the ground that the defendant claimed to exercise an authority under acts of congress, or under a commission held under the United States, since this was not plaintiff's con- tention, but the defendant's, and the state courts decided not against but in favor of the authority, title, right, privilege, or immunity so claimed.

The three rulings asked by the plaintiff and refused by the court, were: First. That the court of commissioners of Alabama claims had no authority to make the order entered by them, touching the plaintiff. Second. That, the defendant French having admitted that he concurred with the other defendants in issuing and enforcing said order, the plaintiff was entitled to recover from him compensation for all loss sustained by him, as the direct result ofits entry and enforcement. Third. That more than two years having elapsed after the reorganization of the court of commissioners of Alabama claims, under the act of congress of June 5, 1882, and after the appointment of the defendants, but prior to the date of the order, the defendants had no lawful authority to act as judges of said court of commissioners.

The...