MILLER (FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES)
v.
NICHOLLS
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 a writ of error challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision because the record did not demonstrate that any federal law was applicable to the case or that the constitutionality of a federal statute was at issue. Chief Justice Marshall held that while a record need not explicitly state that a federal act was drawn into question, it must show that some federal law was applicable to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review a state court judgment, and absent such a showing, the Court lacks authority to review matters of purely state law construction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. The question decided in the Supreme Court for the State of Pennsylvania respected only the construction of a law of that State. It does not appear, from the record, that either the constitutionality of the law of Pennsylvania, or any act of Congress was drawn into question.
It would not be required, that' the record should, in terms, state a misconstruction of an act of Congress, or that an. act of Congress was drawn into question. It would have been sufficient to give this. Court jurisdiction of the cause, that the record should sho;w that an act of Congress was applicable to the. case. That is not shown by this record. The act of Congress which is supposed to have been disregarded, and which, probably, was disregarded by the State Court, is that which gives'the United States priority in cases of insolvency. Had the fact of insolvency appeared upon the record, that would have enabled, this Court to revise the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. But that fact does not appear.. No other question is presented, than the correctness of the decision of the State Court, according to the laws of Pennsylvania, and that is a question over which this Court can take no jurisdiction.
The writ of error must be dismissed.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (U.S. 1821)
-
Worcester v. The State of Ga., 6 Pet. 515 (U.S. 1832)
-
Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1887)
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (U.S. 1816)
- Inglee v. Coolidge, 2 Wheat. 363 (U.S. 1817)