HENKEL
v.
CINCINNATI
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.
Henkel sought federal review of an Ohio state court judgment dismissing his bill for injunction against a special tax assessment, claiming the assessment violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error because the federal constitutional question was not raised in the state proceedings before judgment, and a post-judgment certificate from the Ohio Supreme Court's Chief Justice could not create jurisdiction where none existed. A federal question must be presented to and decided by a state court before judgment in order to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to review the decision.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*171] The Chief Justice :
Bill for injunction to restrain collection of a special assessment filed in Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, and on hearing dismissed. Carried by appeal to circuit court of Hamilton County, heard there, and again dismissed. Appealed to Supremé Court of Ohio, and the judgment of the circuit court affirmed June 14, 1898, it being ordered “ that a special mandate be sent to the circuit court of Hamilton County to carry this judgment into execution.” June 21, “ mandate issued,” and “ original papers sent to clerk.” Opinion, 58 Ohio St. 726: “Judgment affirmed on authority of Cleveland v. Wick, 18 Ohio St. 303.”
January 6, 1899, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio made and signed a certificate that the question whether the assessment was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted to the court, and that the court decided that it was not.
The record does not show that any Federal question was raised prior to judgment, but it appears in the. petition for writ of error from this court, and accompanying assignment of errors. The certificate of the Chief Justice could not confer jurisdiction. Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36; Powell v. Brunswick County, 150 U. S. 433, 439; Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Company, 163 U. S. 63, 69.
The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 183; Ansbro v. United States, 159 U. S. 695; Oxley Stave Company v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648; Miller v. Cornwall Railroad Company, 168 U. S. 131; Keokuk and Hamilton Bridge Company v. Illinois, 175 U. S. 626.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler Cnty., 166 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1897)
- Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1895)
- Miller v. Cornwall R.R. Co., 168 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1897)
- Powell v. Brunswick Cnty., 150 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1893)
- Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Co., 163 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1896)
- Ansbro v. United States, 159 U.S. 695 (U.S. 1895)
- Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Illinois, 175 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1900)
- Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36 (U.S. 1870)