New York Life Insurance Company v. Hendren
| Citation | 23 L.Ed. 709,92 U.S. 286 |
| Parties | NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HENDREN |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1875 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia.
The plaintiff in error, a company incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, having its home office in New-York City, issued its policy of insurance, bearing date Aug. 25, 1856, to Mrs. Hendren, the defendant in error, on the life of her husband. The insurance was negotiated through an agent of the company at Norfolk, in Virginia, in which State Mrs. Hendren and her husband then, and until his death, resided. He died Aug. 15, 1862.
She brought this suit to recover the amount of the policy. Judgment was rendered in her favor in the Court of the Corporation of the City of Norfolk, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State. The company sued out this writ of error.
Mr. Edward O. Hinkley for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Albert Ritchie, contra.
This record does not show that any Federal question was decided or necessarily involved in the judgment rendered by the court below. The pleadings, as well as the instructions asked and refused, present questions of general law alone. The court was asked to decide as to the effect, under the general public law, of a state of sectional civil war upon the contract of life insurance, which was the subject of the action. It was not contended, so far as we can discover, that the general laws of war, as recognized by the law of nations applicable to this case, were in any respect modified or suspended by the constitution laws, treaties, or executive proclamations, of the United States. This distinguishes the present case from Matthews v. McStea, where jurisdiction was taken at the last term (20 Wall. 640), and the case decided at the present term. 91 U. S. 7. The question was there presented, whether the President's proclamation of April 19, 1861, did not suspend, for the time being, the operation of that principle in the law of war which prohibited commercial intercourse in time of war between the adherents of the two contending powers. Here there is nothing of the kind.
Our jurisdiction over the decisions of the State courts is limited. It is not derived from the citizenship of the parties, but from the questions involved and decided. It must appear in the record, or we cannot proceed. We act upon questions actually presented to the court below, not upon such as might have been presented or brought into the case, but were not.
The case, therefore, having been presented to the court below for decision upon principles of general law alone, and it nowhere appearing that the constitution, laws, treaties, or executive proclamations, of the United States were necessarily involved in the decision, we have no jurisdiction. We have often so decided. Bethel v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537; Delmas v. Insurance Co., 14 id. 666; Tarver v. Keach, 15 id. 67; Rockhold v. Rockhold, supra, p. 129.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
I dissent from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duane v. Merchants' Legal Stamp Co.
...respecting the life, liberty and property of litigants are adjudicated, then no federal question is involved. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U. S. 286, 23 L. Ed. 709;Delmas v. Merchants Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 661, 666, 20 L. Ed. 757;Delmar Jockey Club v. Missouri, 210 U. S. 324, 335, 28 ......
-
Al Odah v. U.S.
...S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), but even then "the law of nations" did not present "any Federal question." N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U.S. 286, 286-87, 23 L.Ed. 709 (1875); see Oliver Am. Trading Co. v. Mexico, 264 U.S. 440, 442-43, S.Ct. 390, 390-91, 68 L.Ed. 778 (1924). And for go......
-
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC
...nor in any treaty, act of Congress, or any authority, or commission derived from the United States.”); N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U.S. 286, 286–87, 23 L.Ed. 709 (1875) (holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear a case involving “the general laws of war, as recognized by the ......
-
Dickerson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... L. Dickerson against the Western Union Telegraph Company ... and the Postal Telegraph Cable Company. From a ... New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 223 U.S. 1, 32 ... S.Ct. 169, 56 ... 661, 20 L.Ed. 757; New York L. Ins ... Co. v. Hendren, 92 U.S. 286, 23 L.Ed. 709; ... United States v ... ...
-
Customary international law as U.S. law: a critique of the revisionist and intermediate positions and a defense of the modern position.
...Lack of Jurisdiction or to Affirm for Want of Substantial Issues at 6-7, Wulfsohn, 266 U.S. 580 (No. 65). (158) Id. at 5, 9-10, 12. (159) 92 U.S. 286 (160) See id. at 286-87. (161) Bradley & Goldsmith, Critique, supra note 9, at 824 & n.53; Weisburd, supra note 18, at 39. (162) Hend......
-
The use and abuse of foreign law in constitutional interpretation.
...reasonable minds" implied that the Court "cannot confidently say that judicial factfinding seriously diminishes accuracy." (95.) 92 U.S. 286 (96.) Id. at 286-88. (97.) Id. at 288 (Bradley, J., dissenting). (98.) Id. at 287. (99.) Id. at 288. (100.) 110 U.S. 421 (1884). (101.) Id. at 447. (1......