Supreme Court of United States.
*364 Mr. Conrad Reno, (with whom was Mr. William A. Macleod on the brief,) for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Edwin B. Hale, (with whom was Mr. James B. Richardson on the brief,) for defendants in error.
*366 MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS, after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is settled law that, to give this court jurisdiction of a writ of error to a state court, it must appear affirmatively, not only that a Federal question was presented for decision by the state court, but that its decision was necessary to the determination of the cause, and that it was actually decided adversely to the party claiming a right under the Federal laws or Constitution, or that the judgment as rendered could not have been given without deciding it. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590; Cook County v. Calumet & Chicago Canal Co., 138 U.S. 635.
It is likewise settled law that, where the record discloses that if a question has been raised and decided adversely to a party claiming the benefit of a provision of the Constitution or laws of the United States, another question, not Federal, has been also raised and decided against such party, and the decision of the latter question is sufficient, notwithstanding the Federal question, to sustain the judgment, this court will not review the judgment.
In Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257, 263, this court, through Mr. Justice Bradley, said: "The rules which govern *367 the action of this court in cases of this sort are well settled. Where it appears by the record that the judgment of the state court might have been based either upon a law which would raise a question of repugnancy to the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or upon some other independent ground, and it appears that the court did, in fact, base its judgment on such independent ground and not on the law raising the Federal question, this court will not take jurisdiction of the case, even though it might think the position of the state court an unsound one. But where it does not appear on which of the two grounds the judgment was based, then, if the independent ground on which it might have been based was a good and valid one, sufficient of itself to sustain the judgment, this court will not assume jurisdiction of the case; but if such independent ground was not a good and valid one, it will be presumed that the state court based its judgment on the law raising the Federal question, and this court will then take jurisdiction."
In Johnson v. Risk, 137 U.S. 300, the record showed that, in the Supreme Court of Tennessee, two grounds of defence had been urged, one of which involved the construction of the provisions of the Federal bankrupt act of March 2, 1867, and the other the bar of the statute of limitations of the State of Tennessee; and this court held that "where, in an action pending in a state court, two grounds of defence are interposed, each broad enough to defeat a recovery, and only one of them involves a Federal question, and judgment passes for the defendant, the record must show, in order to justify a writ of error from this court, that the judgment was rested upon the disposition of the Federal question; and if this does not affirmatively appear, the writ of error will be dismissed, unless the defence which does not involve a Federal question is so palpably unfounded that it cannot be presumed to have been entertained by the state court."
Different phases of the question were presented, and the same conclusion was reached in Murray v. Charleston, 96 U.S. 432, 441; Jenkins v. Lwenthal, 110 U.S. 222; Hale v. Akers, 132 U.S. 554.
*368 In this state of the law we are met, at the threshold in the present case, with the question whether the record discloses that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decided adversely to the plaintiffs in error any claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or whether the judgment of that court was placed on another ground, not involving Federal law, and sufficient of itself to sustain the judgment.
The defendants in the trial court depended on a discharge obtained by them under regular proceedings, under the insolvency statutes of Massachusetts. This defence the plaintiffs met by alleging that the statutes, under which the defendants had procured their discharge, had been enacted after the promissory note sued on had been executed and delivered, and that, to give effect to a discharge obtained under such subsequent laws, would impair the obligation of a contract, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Upon such a state of facts, it is plain that a Federal question, decisive of the case, was presented, and that if the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts adjudged that question adversely to the plaintiffs, it would be the duty of this court to consider the soundness of such a judgment.
The record, however, further discloses that William T. Eustis, represented in this court by his executors, had accepted and receipted for the money which had been awarded him, as his portion, under the insolvency proceedings, and that the court below, conceding that his cause of action could not be taken away from him, without his consent, by proceedings under statutes of insolvency passed subsequently to the vesting of his rights, held that the action of Eustis, in so accepting and receipting for his dividend in the insolvency proceedings, was a waiver of his right to object to the validity of the insolvency statutes, and that, accordingly, the defendants were entitled to the judgment.
The view of the court was that, when the composition was confirmed, Eustis was put to his election whether he would avail himself of the composition offer, or would reject it and *369 rely upon his right to enforce his debt against his debtors notwithstanding their discharge.
In its discussion of this question the court below cited and claimed to follow the decision of this court in the case of Clay v. Smith, 3 Pet. 411, where it was held that the plaintiff, by proving his debt and taking a dividend under the bankrupt laws of Louisiana, waived his right to object that the law did not constitutionally apply to his debt, he being a creditor residing in another State. But in deciding that it was competent for Eustis to waive his legal rights, and that accepting his dividend under the insolvency proceedings was such a waiver, the court below did not decide a Federal question. Whether that view of the case was sound or not, it is not for us to inquire. It was broad enough, in itself, to support the final judgment, without reference to the Federal question.
The case of Beaupré v. Noyes, 138 U.S. 397, 401, seems to cover the present one. There the plaintiff in error complained that an assignment of property, not accompanied by delivery and an actual change of possession, was, as to him, fraudulent; and as his contention to that effect was denied to him, he claimed he was denied a right arising under an authority exercised under the United States. But this court said: "Whether the state court so interpreted the territorial statute as to deny such right to the plaintiffs in error, we need not inquire, for it proceeded, in part, upon another and distinct ground, not involving any Federal question, and sufficient, in itself, to maintain the judgment, without reference to that question. That ground is that there was evidence tending to show that the defendants acquiesced in and assented to all that was done, and waived any irregularity in the mode in which the assignee conducted the business; and that the question, whether the defendants so acquiesced and assented with knowledge of all the facts, and thereby waived their right to treat the assignment as fraudulent, was properly submitted to the jury. The state court evidently intended to hold that, even if the assignment was originally fraudulent, as against the creditors, by reason *370 of Young," the assignor, remaining in apparent possession, "it was competent for the plaintiffs in error to waive the fraud and treat the assignment as valid... . That view does not involve a Federal question. Whether sound or not, we do not inquire. It is broad enough, in itself, to support the final judgment, without reference to the Federal question."
Having reached the conclusion that we are not called upon to determine any Federal question, nor to consider whether the state court was right or wrong in its decision of the other question in the case, it only remains to inquire whether that conclusion requires us to affirm the judgment of the court below, or to dismiss the writ of error. An examination of our records will show that, in similar cases, this court has sometimes affirmed the judgment of the court below, and sometimes has dismissed the writ of error. This discrepancy may have originated in a difference of views as to the precise scope of the questions presented. However that may be, we think that, when we find it unnecessary to decide any Federal question, and when the state court has based its decision on a local or state question, our logical course is to dismiss the writ of error. This was the judgment pronounced in Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257; N.O. Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U.S. 18; Kreigher v. Shelby Railroad, 125 U.S. 39; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U.S. 216; Hale v. Akers, 132 U.S. 554; Hopkins v. McLure, 133 U.S. 380; Johnson v. Risk, 137 U.S. 300, 307; and in numerous other cases which it is unnecessary to cite.
Accordingly, our judgment is that, in the present case, the writ of error must be
Dismissed.
