UNITED STATES
v.
THOMPSON ET AL.
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 held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a state court judgment against the United States on a writ of error where the state court's decision rested solely on general principles of law rather than any question of federal constitutional or statutory significance. The Court dismissed the writ, reaffirming its longstanding rule that it cannot review state court decisions on matters of general law applicable equally to private parties and the government alike.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion. of the court.
Judgments in the State courts against the United States cannot be brought; here for re-examination upon a writ of error, except in cases where the same relief would be afforded to private parties. It was conceded upon the argument in behalf of the United States, that the question of priority of payment, under the laws of the United States, was not decided in the court below, because it was found that there was-no debt due. With this concession, which could not be avoided, it is difficult to see what Federal question there is in the record.
It appears affirmatively that the Circuit Court rejected the claim, because it had been paid; and the presumption, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, is, that the Court of Appeals based its decision upon the same ground. But, in addition to thL, on looking into the opinion which has been sent here, as part of the record in that court, we find that all questions as to the original liability of McFreely & Hopper to the United States were expressly waived, and the decision -placed solely upon the ground that “ any claim the United States may have ever had 'against the'firm, growing out of these dealings with Thompson, has been paid and extinguished.”
It is not contended that this decision is repugnant to the Constitution, or any law or treaty of the United -States; but the argument is, that, as the check of McFreely & Hopper was not paid, it did not pay their debt. Whether this is so or not, does not depend upon any statute, of the' United States, but upon the' principles of general law alone. We haye 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 id. 666; Ins. Co. v. Henvdren, 92 U. S. 287; Rockhold v. Rockhold, id. 130.
Writ dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1896)…xercised by the defendants as officers of the United States depends, according to the decision in United States v. Lee, before cited, upon the question whether the United States had or had not a good title in the land. In United States v. Thompson, 93 U. S. 586, 588, Chief Justice Waite said: “Judgments in the state-courts against the United States cannot be brought here for reexamination upon a writ of error, except in cases where the same relief would be afforded to private parties.” This dictum, in so g…
-
Tullock v. Mulvane, 184 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1902)…upon principles of general láw alone, and it nowhere' appearing that the Constitution, laws, treaties or executive proclamations of the United States were necessarily involved in the decision, we have no jurisdiction.” In United States v. Thompson, 93 U. S. 586,- which came here from the highest court of Maryland, and in which suit the United States was a party, seeking payment of a debt it held against an insolvent partnership, the court said: “ It is not contended that this decision is repugnant to the C…
-
Fink v. O'Neil, 106 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1882)…s it is, the intent seems to embrace, instead of excluding, civil actions in which the government is a party. Nothing adverse to this view can be gathered from the exceptions made in the amendment passed in 1865.” See also United States v. Thompson, 93 U. S. 586; United States v. Railroad Company, 105 id. 263. And although it has been decided by the highest judicial tribunals in England — Feather v. The Queen, 6 B. & S. 257; Dixon v. London Small Arms Co., 1 App. Cas. 632 — that the sovereign is entitled-t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537 (U.S. 1870)