Parmelee v. Lawrence

Supreme Court

Parmelee v. Lawrence

78 U.S. 36, 20 L. Ed. 48, 11 Wall. 36, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1456

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 18, 1871

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 78 U.S. 36 (Parmelee v. Lawrence) 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

Parmelee v. Lawrence, 78 U.S. 36, 20 L. Ed. 48, 11 Wall. 36, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1456 (1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

In Lawler et al. v. Walker et al. † it is said that the 25th section of the Judiciary Act required something more definite than the certificate of the Supreme Court to give this court jurisdiction.

The conflict of the State law with the Constitution of the United States, and a decision by a State court in favor of its validity, must appear on the face of the record before it can be re-examined in this court. It must appear in the pleadings of the suit, or from the evidence in the course of the trial, in the instructions asked for, or from exceptions taken to the rulings of the court. It must be that such a question was necessarily involved in the decision, and that the State court would not have given a judgment without deciding it. The decision in this case was approved, and applied in Railroad Company v. Rock. The certificate was as full in that case as in the present, but it was the only evidence of the fact that a Federal question had been presented.

The judge, in delivering the opinion of the court in that case, observed that “ it is probable that counsel in the argument of the case in the Supreme Court of Iowa, insisted that these matters were involved, and that the chief justice felt bound to certify, when requested, that they were drawn *39 iii question. But if the record,” he proceeds, “ does not show that they were necessarily drawn in question, this court cannot take jurisdiction to reverse the decision of the highest court of a State upon the ground that counsel brought them in question in argumeut.” We will add, if this court should entertain jurisdiction upon a certificate alone in the absence of any evidence of the question in the record, then the Supreme Court of the State can give the jurisdiction in every case where the question is made by counsel in the argumeut. The office of the certificate, as it respects the Federal question, is to make more certain and specific what is too general aifd indefinite in the record, but is incompetent to originate the question within the true construction of the 25th section.

Motion to dismiss granted.

†

14 Howard, 152.

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.

In Lawler et al. v. Walker et al. † it is said that the 25th section of the Judiciary Act required something more definite than the certificate of the Supreme Court to give this court jurisdiction.

The conflict of the State law with the Constitution of the United States, and a decision by a State court in favor of its validity, must appear on the face of the record before it can be re-examined in this court. It must appear in the pleadings of the suit, or from the evidence in the course of the trial, in the instructions asked for, or from exceptions taken to the rulings of the court. It must be that such a question was necessarily involved in the decision, and that the State court would not have given a judgment without deciding it. The decision in this case was approved, and applied in Railroad Company v. Rock. The certificate was as full in that case as in the present, but it was the only evidence of the fact that a Federal question had been presented.

The judge, in delivering the opinion of the court in that case, observed that “ it is probable that counsel in the argument of the case in the Supreme Court of Iowa, insisted that these matters were involved, and that the chief justice felt bound to certify, when requested, that they were drawn *39 iii question. But if the record,” he proceeds, “ does not show that they were necessarily drawn in question, this court cannot take jurisdiction to reverse the decision of the highest court of a State upon the ground that counsel brought them in question in argumeut.” We will add, if this court should entertain jurisdiction upon a certificate alone in the absence of any evidence of the question in the record, then the Supreme Court of the State can give the jurisdiction in every case where the question is made by counsel in the argumeut. The office of the certificate, as it respects the Federal question, is to make more certain and specific what is too general aifd indefinite in the record, but is incompetent to originate the question within the true construction of the 25th section.

Motion to dismiss granted.

†

14 Howard, 152.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 U.S. 36, 20 L. Ed. 48, 11 Wall. 36, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parmelee-v-lawrence-scotus-1871.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack