North Carolina v. Trustees of Univ.
| Citation | 65 N.C. 714,1 Hughes 133,18 F.Cas. 347,5 N.B.R. 466 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1871 |
| Parties | NORTH CAROLINA v. TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
This was a bill in equity by the state of North Carolina against the trustees of University and C. W. Dewey, assignee, and others.
The attention of the court has not been invited to the question of jurisdiction in this case by either the complainant or respondent in their arguments, yet that is a question to be considered in the opinion of the court, and the first properly demanding attention. All the authority vested in the courts of the United States to hear and determine causes arises under the provisions of the constitution of the United States or acts of congress. By the provisions of the constitution the supreme court of the United States is established, and its jurisdiction prescribed directly, and it is further provided that congress shall have power to create or establish inferior courts. Then we think that it necessarily follows that congress has the power to prescribe the jurisdiction of such courts. We are sustained in this view by the opinion in the case of Osborne v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. [22 U. S.] 738, and Sheldon v. Gill, 8 How. [49 U. S.] 448. The second section of the third article of the constitution relates to the subjects or classes of cases declared to be within the jurisdiction or power of the United States courts, and is as follows: ‘The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution; the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states,’ and lastly, ‘between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.’ If the framers of our constitution had proceeded no further, it might be contended with more reason that this suit as instituted comes within the jurisdiction intended to be conferred upon the circuit courts, but, as if to leave no doubt upon the subject, they proceed, in the second clause of the second section of the third article, to enumerate the class of cases over which the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction, and with these we find all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party; and it is further provided that, as to all other subjects included within the jurisdiction prescribed, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction. It may be said that, though original jurisdiction is by this provision of the constitution conferred upon the supreme court, it is not exclusive, but only concurrent with some other tribunal. We think that a fair construction of the language of the constitution excludes such a conclusion, and we are happily sustained in this opinion by the opinion of the court in the case of Gale v. Babcock [Case No. 5,188]. It will be seen that in this case it is decided tht the circuit courts have no jurisdiction of a cause in which a state is a party. If more authority should be desired upon this point, we refer to the case of Osborne v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. [22 U. S.] 820, in which it is declared that, in such cases in which original jurisdiction is conferred upon the supreme court, founded on the character of the parties, the judicial power of the United States cannot be exercised in its appellate form. In the case before us the state of North Carolina is complainant, and the only complainant, and it is the character of that party that brings the case within the original jurisdiction prescribed for the supreme court, and consequently, according to the opinion of the court in the case last cited, is excluded from the appellate jurisdiction of that court.
We hold that it was not intended by any provision of the constitution or the laws to confer jurisdiction on this court in any case involving many thousands of dollars (as in this case) without the right of appeal in the event either party should be dissatisfied with the decision of this court.2
Again, in the cases of Martin v. Hunter's Lessees, 1 Wheat. [14 U. S.] 237; Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. [19 U. S.] 392,—it is decided that, in such cases as draw in question the laws, constitution, or treaties of the United States, though a state may be a party, the jurisdiction of the supreme court is appellate, for in such a case the jurisdiction is founded, not upon the character of the parties, but upon the nature of the controversy. Such cases may be taken by appeal or writ of error from the highest judicial tribunal of a state to the supreme court of the United States.
The great American constitutional judge, in delivering the opinion of the supreme court of the United States in Cohen v. Virginia before referred to, uses this language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial