French v. Hopkins

Supreme Court

French v. Hopkins

124 U.S. 524, 8 S. Ct. 589, 31 L. Ed. 536, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1891

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 6, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 124 U.S. 524 (French v. Hopkins) 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

French v. Hopkins, 124 U.S. 524, 8 S. Ct. 589, 31 L. Ed. 536, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1891 (1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justioe Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is granted. The record fails to show, either expressly or by implication, that any “ right, title, privilege, or immunity,” under the Constitution or laws of the United States, was “specially set up or claimed” in either of the courts below. This is fatal to our jurisdiction. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181. The only question below was, whether a sale of mortgaged property under a decree of foreclosure should be set aside because the property had been sold “ as a whole and in one parcel,” when it was capable of division into parts. The court of original jurisdiction set aside the sale, but the Supreme Court, on appeal, confirmed it, and gave judgment accordingly. In doing this, it was held to be “ within the jurisdiction, of the court by its judgment to direct that the property should be sold in one or several parcels,” and that there was nothing in the statutes of tlie State to the contrary of this. That was the only decision in the case, and it cer- ' tainly inyolved.no question of federal law.

*525 Counsel are in. error in supposing that our jurisdiction, under §709 of the Eevised Statutes, for the review of a decision of the highest court of a State is dependent at,all on the citizenship of the parties. In such cases we look only to the questions involved.

Dismissed.

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

Mr. Chief Justioe Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is granted. The record fails to show, either expressly or by implication, that any “ right, title, privilege, or immunity,” under the Constitution or laws of the United States, was “specially set up or claimed” in either of the courts below. This is fatal to our jurisdiction. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181. The only question below was, whether a sale of mortgaged property under a decree of foreclosure should be set aside because the property had been sold “ as a whole and in one parcel,” when it was capable of division into parts. The court of original jurisdiction set aside the sale, but the Supreme Court, on appeal, confirmed it, and gave judgment accordingly. In doing this, it was held to be “ within the jurisdiction, of the court by its judgment to direct that the property should be sold in one or several parcels,” and that there was nothing in the statutes of tlie State to the contrary of this. That was the only decision in the case, and it cer- ' tainly inyolved.no question of federal law.

*525 Counsel are in. error in supposing that our jurisdiction, under §709 of the Eevised Statutes, for the review of a decision of the highest court of a State is dependent at,all on the citizenship of the parties. In such cases we look only to the questions involved.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 U.S. 524, 8 S. Ct. 589, 31 L. Ed. 536, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-hopkins-scotus-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack