Delaware City, Salem & Philadelphia Steamboat Navigation Co. v. Reybold

Citations

• 142 U.S. 636
• 12 S. Ct. 290
• 35 L. Ed. 1141
• 1892 U.S. LEXIS 1997

Syllabus

<p>Tbo plaintiff below sued.in assumpsit to recover from tbe defendant company tlie sum of $2898.18. The first count was for money had and received to the plaintiff’s use, being money paid by the United States for the pilotage, hire and service of a steam vessel. The claim under this counfwas, that a contract had been made with the plaintiff by which he was to prosecute the claim and receive to his own use whatever he might get for it. Such claims being unassignable under Itcv. Stat. § 3477, the company received the money, and set up in defence as against the first count (1), that it never made the contract, and (2),-that the assignment was illegal. The second count was for money due, and owing plaintiff, for work and labor in the prosecution of the claim. The jury returned a verdict for less than the sum claimed, without specifying under which count the damages ivero assessed. The Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of Delaware affirmed the judgment on the ground that it had no power to review the finding on a question of fact, and the finding on the second count being in plaintiff’s favor there was no error in the rendition of the judgment by the court below on such a finding. Held, that the only Federal question raised in the cáse at the trial was not necessarily involved in the trial-of the issue under the second count, and that, as the judgment could be sustained under that count, this court was without jurisdiction.</p> <p>Even if a Federal question was raised in the state court, yet, if the case was decided on grounds broad enough, in themselves, to sustain the judgment without reference to the Federal question, this court will not entertain jurisdiction.</p>