Pim v. City of St Louis
| Citation | 41 L.Ed. 714,17 S.Ct. 322,165 U.S. 273 |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1897 |
| Docket Number | No. 180,180 |
| Parties | PIM v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Leverett Bell, for plaintiff in error.
W C. Marshall, for defendants in error.
This was an action for the recovery of certain real estate in the city of St. Louis, of the possession of which the plaintiff in error, who was the plaintiff below, alleged that she was illegally and wrongfully deprived by the defendants. The city denied the plaintiff's claim, and relied upon continuous adverse possession for 10 years prior to the accruing of the plaintiff's cause of action.
We held at the present term, in Chicago & N. W Ry. v. City of Chicago, 164 U. S. 454, 457, 17 Sup. Ct. 129, as had frequently before been adjudged, that this court could not review the final judgment of the highest court of the state, alleged to have denied a right protected by the constitution of the United States, unless such right was specially set up or claimed in the state court by the party against whom the judgment was rendered. Rev. St. U. S. § 709.
It is contended on this writ of error that the judgment below deprived the plaintiff in error of her property without due process of law, and that this result was accomplished by applying to the case a certain statute of limitations of Missouri, as construed and enforced by the highest court of that state.
Upon inspecting the record, we find that no federal right was set up or claimed, in any form, until after the final decision of the case by the supreme court of Missouri, and then by a petition for rehearing. That petition was overruled by that court without any determination of the alleged federal question,—indeed, without any allusion to it. The claim of a federal right came too late, so far as the revisory power of this court is concerned. Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580, 585, 13 Sup. Ct. 934; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 183, 15 Sup. Ct. 777.
It is contended that the cases of Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 13 Sup. Ct. 224; Marchant v. Railroad Co., 153 U. S. 380, 14 Sup. Ct. 894; and Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 14 Sup. Ct. 1108,—recognized some exceptions to this general rule. But an examination of the first and last named of those cases, as reported, will show that a federal right was specially claimed in, and was passed upon by, the state court. In Marchant v. Railroad Co., it does not distinctly appear from the opinion of the court that the federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tidal Oil Co v. Flanagan
...47 L. Ed. 480, 63 L. R. A 33; Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589, 592, 21 Sup. Ct. 730, 45 L. Ed. 1015; Pim v. St. Louis, 165 U. S. 273, 17 Sup. Ct. 322, 41 L. Ed. 714. It was the purpose of the Act of 1922 to change the rule established by this formidable array of authorities as to t......
-
West Virginia Motor Truck Ass'n v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
...79, 24 S.Ct. 390, 48 L.Ed. 623; Mallett v. State of North Carolina, 181 U.S. 589, 21 S.Ct. 730, 45 L.Ed. 1015; Pim v. City of St. Louis, 165 U.S. 273, 17 S.Ct. 322, 41 L.Ed. 714; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180, 15 S.Ct. 777, 39 L.Ed. 941; Miller v. State of Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 14 S.Ct. 874......
-
Brown v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co.
...be invoked for the first time in an appellate court. Vaughn v. Railroad, 145 Mo., loc. cit. 61, 46 S. W. 952; Pim v. St. Louis, 165 U. S. 273, 17 Sup. Ct. 322, 41 L. Ed. 714; Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler Co., 166 U. S. 648, 17 Sup. Ct. 709, 41 L. Ed. Unless the constitutionality of an act unde......
-
Hardwicke v. Wurmser
... ... Appeal ... from Jackson Circuit Court. -- Hon. Walter A. Powell, Judge ... ... Transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals ... Pence & Sanford for plaintiff ... (1) ... Courts of Appeals have no jurisdiction of ... Railroad, 105 Mo. 642, we had ... previously given an outline of the law on the point involved ... In the Bennett case the St. Louis Court of Appeals had ... transferred the case here on the ground that a constitutional ... question was involved. In retransferring the case to the ... ...