Seeberger v. McCormick

Citations

• 175 U.S. 274
• 20 S. Ct. 128
• 44 L. Ed. 161
• 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1563

Syllabus

<p>The contention, even if formally made, that plaintiffs in error were seeking to avail themselves of some right or immunity under the Constitution or laws of the United States, does not give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of a State, where that judgment was based upon a doctrine of general law, sufficient of itself to determine the case.</p> <p>It having been decided in McCormick v. Market Bank, 165 U. S. 538, that the contract of lease there in suit was void, the plaintiff in error in that case commenced this action in a state court in Illinois to recover from citizens of that State the rent for the property .which had been intended to be leased to the bank by the void lease, on the ground that they had falsely assumed corporate authority to make the void lease. Such proceedings were had in the state courts that judgment was finally rendered by the Supreme Court of that State in McCormick’s favor. Held, that the question whether the plaintiffs in error rendered themselves liable to McCormick by reason of their false assumption of corporate authority was one of general law, and not one to be solved by reference to any law, statutory or constitutional, of the United States; and that, as no Federal question was in form presented to or passed upon by the state Supreme Court, and because its judgment was based upon matter of general and not Federal law, this court was without jurisdiction to review it.</p>