Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Gillis v. Stinchfield

Gillis v. Stinchfield, 159 U.S. 658 (1895)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1895-11-18
Topic
general

The Chief Justice: Neither in the pleadings nor in the proceedings during the trial, nor in the specifications of error below, was any Federal question specifically raised, nor was any right, title, privilege, or immunity of a Federal náture set up or claimed. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180. It is, howevér, contended that the record shows that a Federal question arose in the case, as considered by both the Superior and the Supreme Courts, and was decided adversely to plain-, tiffs in error, namely, that Gillis had the right to follow what was known as the Rice vein, which had its apex on the Carrington mine, upon its dip, beneath the surface of the 'Pine Tree mine, and to appropriate to his own use the gold found *660 in that vein at the point of its intersection with the so-called West vein, which had its apex on the Pine Tree mine, because the Carrington mine was the older or prior location; and that this could only be determined by an application of sections 2322 and 2336 of the Bevised Statutes.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gillis v. Stinchfield. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Supreme Court Jurisdiction The Supreme Court will not review a state court judgment on a federal question unless the federal question was specifically raised or a federal right, title, privilege, or immunity was set up or claimed in the pleadings, during trial, or in the specifications of error below.
  2. Civil Procedure — Independent State Grounds Where a state court's judgment rests upon an independent and adequate non-federal ground broad enough to sustain the judgment, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review the case, even if a federal question was considered and decided by the state courts.
The Chief Justice:

Neither in the pleadings nor in the proceedings during the trial, nor in the specifications of error below, was any Federal question specifically raised, nor was any right, title, privilege, or immunity of a Federal náture set up or claimed. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180. It is, howevér, contended that the record shows that a Federal question arose in the case, as considered by both the Superior and the Supreme Courts, and was decided adversely to plain-, tiffs in error, namely, that Gillis had the right to follow what was known as the Rice vein, which had its apex on the Carrington mine, upon its dip, beneath the surface of the 'Pine Tree mine, and to appropriate to his own use the gold found *660 in that vein at the point of its intersection with the so-called West vein, which had its apex on the Pine Tree mine, because the Carrington mine was the older or prior location; and that this could only be determined by an application of sections 2322 and 2336 of the Bevised Statutes. But the decision of the Supreme Court was clearly based upon the estoppel deemed by that court to operate against plaintiffs in. error upon general principles of law and the statute of California in respect of such a conveyance as that to Stinchfield, irrespective of any Federal question. And this was an independent ground broad enough to maintain the judgment. The writ of error must, therefore, be dismissed. EusUs v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Rutland Railroad Co. v. -Central Vermont Railroad Co., 159 U. S. 630.

Writ of error dismissed.