GIBSON
v.
CHOUTEAU
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.
In Gibson v. Chouteau, the Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error because the state court's reversal of a land title judgment did not necessarily rest on a federal question of cognizable jurisdiction. The Court held that counsel's arguments regarding the statute of limitations, presented in a motion for rehearing, could not be treated as part of the record and did not conclusively establish that the state court decided the case on that federal ground. Applying precedent that a court's opinion cannot be used to demonstrate that a state court decided a federal question, the Court concluded the record failed to show the case involved a matter within federal jurisdiction and therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court The record presented to the Supreme Court questions the validity of Mrs. McRee’s title, the transfer of her titlé to plaintiff, the trust asserted by which plaintiff’s title enured to the benefit of defendants, and the statute of limitations. On all these the court below must have found for plaintiff, for such a finding was essential to his recovery. The first judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the judgmeut of the Land Court must also have found all these issues for the plaintiff. We arc asked now to hold that the second judgment of the Supreme Court, which reversed that of tiie Laud Court, was founded on the question of limitation. If we look to the language used in the judgment of the court in setting aside its judgment of affirmance and granting a rehearing, or in the final judgment of reversal, we can see nothing to justify that inference. Tins court has decided, in the case of Rector v. Ashley, * following Williams v. Norris, † that the opinion of the court cannot be resorted to for the purpose of showing that a question of Federal cognizance was decided by the State court. In the present case it is said that the application for a rehearing was based exclusively on the question of the statute of limitation. That which is here called a motion for a rehearing is merely an argument of counsel setting forth numerous decisions of the courts, and many reasons of counsel why the statute should be held to be a bar; and it insists that this question had not received sufficient attention at the hands of the court. It is not easy to see how this argument can be regarded as a part of the record of the ease.' It can have no better claim to be so regarded than the opiuion of the court, which accompanies the record. If, however, it could be treated as part of the record) it. affords no conclusive evidence that the reheftring was granted on that ground. But if we could infer that the rehearing was granted because the court was of opiuion that it had not well considered that question, it is to be remembered that the' reargument took place four months afterwards, that there is nothing to show what might then have been presented by counsel on either side, or what might have been considered by the court, for the case was fully opened, by setting aside the former judgment, to every consideration which cóuld rightfully influence the decision. It is hardly a reasonable inference, under these circumstances, that the court did decide the case on the question of the statute of limitation, and certainly it does not appear that the case was uecessarily decided on that quostiou, or that the proposition was essential to the judgment. It is our opinion, therefore, that under the repeated decisions of this court, this record presents no case of which we have jurisdiction. The writ of error is therefore Dismissed. * 6 Wallace, 142. † 12 Wheaton, 117.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loeb v. Columbia Twp. Trs., 179 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1900)…d States, this court said : “ It was formerly held that, even in writs of error to a state court, the opinion of the court below was not a part of the record, Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117, 119; Rector v. Ashley, 6 Wall. 142; Gibson v. Chouteau, 8 Wall. 314; but the inconvenience of this rule became so great that it was subsequently changed, Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, and, finally, the eighth rule of this court was so modified, in 1873, as to require a copy of the opinion to be incorporated in t…
-
Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Batchers' Union Slaughter-House Co., 120 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1887)…for an erroneous ruling of the state [*157] court on a Federal question not necessary to the decision of the cause. Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 634; Jenkins v. Loewenthal, 110 U. S. 222; Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172; Gibson v. Chouteau, 8 Wall. 314. However that may be, we are of the opinion, on other grounds, that the Supreme Court of Louisiana in this case erred in not giving due effect to the decree in question of the Circuit Court of the United States. The latter is a court coordinate to…
-
Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1895)…it of error forms no part of the record upon which action is taken here. Butler v. Gage, 138 U. S. 52, and cases cited. 5, Nor do the arguments of counsel, though the opinions of the [*184] state courts are now made such by rule. Gibson v. Chouteau, 8 Wall. 314; Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36; Gross v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477, 484; United States v. Taylor, 147 U. S. 695, 700. 6. The right on which the party relies must have been called to the attention of the court, in some proper way, and t…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams against Norris, 12 Wheat. 117 (U.S. 1827)