Supreme Court of the United States, 1871

Bethell v. Demaret

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 30, 1871 · Nelson

77 U.S. 537; 19 L. Ed. 1007; 10 Wall. 537; 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1148 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. J. A. Campbell now moved to dismiss the writ' for want of jurisdiction., Mr. Miles Taylor, in support of the writ: , Mr. Campbell, contra, in support of Ms motion :

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

New York Life Insurance Company v. Hendren (Supreme Court of the United States 1876)
Dickerson v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (Miss. 1917)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Piper (Tex. App. 1916)
Bank v. McVeigh (Supreme Court of the United States 1878)
United States v. Thompson (Supreme Court of the United States 1877)
Rockhold v. Rockhold (Supreme Court of the United States 1876)
United States of America, for the Use and Benefit Of, Statham Instruments, Inc. v. Western Casualty & Surety Company (6th Cir. 1966)
PHILA. & READ. C. & I. CO. v. Gilbert (Supreme Court of the United States 1917)
Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert (Supreme Court of the United States 1917)
Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad v. Newell (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
Snow v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1886)
Saginaw Gas-Light Co. v. City of Saginaw (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan 1886)
Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1877)
Henderson v. Merchants' Mutual Insurance (La. 1873)
Cousin v. Generes (Supreme Court of the United States 1871)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

There was no Federal question presented to the court below by the plaintiff in error, so far as appears frorñ the record. There is no statute of a State in question here. ■

But it is insisted that there was an authority under the State of Louisiana exercised in the case drawn in question, and which was repugnant to the Constitution, and the decision in favor of its validity, and that is,-the Supreme Court of the State were acting under the authority of the State at the time its decision was rendered.

There are two answers to this .ground: 1st. That'the authority conferred on a court to hear and determine cases in’ a State, is not the kind of authority referred to in the 25th section, otherwise every judgment of the Supreme Court of a State would be re-examinable under the section; and 2d. The decision of the court was not repugnant to the Constitution. It simply held that the promissory notes, together with the mortgage in question, were,nullities, on the ground that the' “ Confederate currency,” which constituted the consideration, was illegal according to the law of the State at the time the contract was entered in'tq.

As no Federal question appears in ihe record the motion to dismiss must be ■

Granted.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.