FRENCH
v.
HOPKINS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court dismissed French v. Hopkins for lack of jurisdiction because the case involved only a state law question regarding whether mortgaged property should be sold as a single parcel or in separate parts during foreclosure, and no federal constitutional or statutory right was properly raised or claimed in the lower courts. The Court held that federal jurisdiction under the relevant statute depends on whether federal questions are presented, not on the citizenship of the parties.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justioe Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This motion is granted. The record fails to show, either expressly or by implication, that any “ right, title, privilege, or immunity,” under the Constitution or laws of the United States, was “specially set up or claimed” in either of the courts below. This is fatal to our jurisdiction. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181. The only question below was, whether a sale of mortgaged property under a decree of foreclosure should be set aside because the property had been sold “ as a whole and in one parcel,” when it was capable of division into parts. The court of original jurisdiction set aside the sale, but the Supreme Court, on appeal, confirmed it, and gave judgment accordingly. In doing this, it was held to be “ within the jurisdiction, of the court by its judgment to direct that the property should be sold in one or several parcels,” and that there was nothing in the statutes of the State to the contrary of this. That was the only decision in the case, and it cer- ' tainly inyolved.no question of federal law. Counsel are in. error in supposing that our jurisdiction, under §709 of the Eevised Statutes, for the review of a decision of the highest court of a State is dependent at,all on the citizenship of the parties. In such cases we look only to the questions involved.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marvin v. Trout, 199 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1905)
-
Columbia Water Power Co. v. Columbia Elec. St. Ry. Light & Power Co., 172 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1899)…s no doubt that under the third class the Federal right, title, privilege or immunity must be, with possibly some rare exceptions, specially set up or claimed to give this court jurisdiction. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181; French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S. 524; Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U. S. 132; Baldwin v. Kansas, 129 U. S. 52; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462; Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648. But where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is raised, and the decision i…
-
Carstairs v. Cochran, 193 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1904)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1887)