BETHELL
v.
DEMARET
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 this appeal from a Louisiana state court decision, the Supreme Court addressed whether a federal question existed regarding the validity of contracts made with Confederate currency. The Court held that no federal constitutional issue was presented, as the state court's decision merely applied state law in finding that promissory notes and a mortgage were void because their consideration—Confederate currency—was illegal under Louisiana law. The Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the general authority of a state court to hear cases does not itself present a federal question reviewable by the Supreme Court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
There was no Federal question presented to the court below by the plaintiff in error, so far as appears frorñ the record. There is no statute of a State in question here.
But it is insisted that there was an authority under the State of Louisiana exercised in the case drawn in question, and which was repugnant to the Constitution, and the decision in favor of its validity, and that is,-the Supreme Court of the State were acting under the authority of the State at the time its decision was rendered.
There are two answers to this .ground: 1st. That'the authority conferred on a court to hear and determine cases in’ a State, is not the kind of authority referred to in the 25th section, otherwise every judgment of the Supreme Court of a State would be re-examinable under the section; and 2d. The decision of the court was not repugnant to the Constitution. It simply held that the promissory notes, together with the mortgage in question, were,nullities, on the ground that the' “ Confederate currency,” which constituted the consideration, was illegal according to the law of the State at the time the contract was entered in'tq.
As no Federal question appears in ihe record the motion to dismiss must be
Granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. La. Sugar Ref. Co., 125 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1888)…rought here from the Circuit Courts of the United States. Planters' Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483, 497; Confederate Note Case, 19 Wall. 548; Wilmington & Weldon Railroad v. King, 91 U. S. 3; Cook v. Lillo, 103 U. S. 792. Yet in Bethel v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537, where a suit on a mortgage to secure the payment of promissory notes given for a loan of Confederate currency had been dismissed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on the ground that the notes and mortgage were nullities, because the Confederate cu…
-
Pa. R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1903)…according to its understanding and interpretation of it, being only amenable to review in the Federal Supreme Court where some right, title, immunity or privilege, the creation of the Federal power, has been asserted and denied. Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537; Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 661; Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U. S. 286; United States v. Thompson, 93 U. S. 587. In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania a further assignment of error was made as follows: “III. The learned court below, erred in entering…
-
Tullock v. Mulvane, 184 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1902)…s so or not does not depend upon any statute of the United States, but upon the principles of general law alone. We have [*522] many times held that we have no power to review the decisions of the State courts upon such questions. Bethel v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537; Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 666 ; Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U. S. 287; Rockhold v. Rockhold, 92 U. S. 130.” In San Francisco v. Scott, 111 U. S. 268, referring to the question as to the effect^of an alcalde grant of the pueblo title, and which was d…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence