Bethell v. Demaret

Supreme Court

Bethell v. Demaret

77 U.S. 537, 19 L. Ed. 1007, 10 Wall. 537, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1148

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 30, 1871

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 77 U.S. 537 (Bethell v. Demaret) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bethell v. Demaret, 77 U.S. 537, 19 L. Ed. 1007, 10 Wall. 537, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1148 (1871).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 U.S. 537, 19 L. Ed. 1007, 10 Wall. 537, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bethell-v-demaret-scotus-1871.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack