Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Home for Incurables v. City of New York

Home for Incurables v. City of N.Y., 187 U.S. 155 (1902)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1902-12-01
Topic: litigation

Mr. Justice HaRlan, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff insists here that the State court, by its final judgment, refused to recognize certain rights belonging to it under the Constitution of the United States. But it does not appear on the face of the record that he set up or claimed any such right .until the case reached this court. In Parmelee v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Home for Incurables v. City of New York. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 22 opinions

Headnotes

Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Supreme Court Jurisdiction — Federal Question Raised in State Court When the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is invoked on the ground that a state court judgment denied a right, title, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution, it must appear that the federal right was specially set up or claimed in the state court. 187 U.S. 155 (citing Rev. Stat. § 709)
Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Supreme Court Jurisdiction — Record and Certificates The Supreme Court cannot acquire jurisdiction to review a final judgment of a state's highest court based on a certificate of that court's chief judge, not made while the case was before it or under its control, stating that the party seeking review raised federal questions in the state court; such a certificate is insufficient in itself to confer jurisdiction or to authorize review of federal questions that do not appear in any form in the record. 187 U.S. 155
Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Supreme Court Jurisdiction — Certificates While a certificate by a state court may be entitled to great respect, and its office is to make more certain and specific what is too general and indefinite in the record, it cannot supply the absence from the record of any showing that a federal question was brought to the attention of the state court. 187 U.S. 155

HOME FOR INCURABLESv. CITY OF NEW YORK,187 U.S. 155(1902)

HOME FOR INCURABLESv. CITY OF NEW YORK.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

No. 86.

Argued and submitted November 12, 1902.

Decided December 1, 1902.

If the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States is invoked on the ground that the judgment of the State court has denied a right, title, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, it should appear that such right, title, privilege or immunity was specially set up or claimed in the State court. This court cannot acquire jurisdiction to review the final judgment of the highest court of the State by reason of a certificate of the Chief Justice of the State court, not made while the case was before it or under its control, stating that the party seeking the intervention of this court raised Federal questions before the State court. While it has been said in some cases that such a certificate is entitled to great respect, and in other cases that its office is to make that more certain and specific which is too general and indefinite in the record, the certificate is insufficient in itself to give jurisdiction or to authorize this court to determine Federal questions that do not appear in any form from the record to have been brought to the attention of the State court.

THE plaintiff in error, the Home for Incurables, filed its

petition in the Supreme Court for the city and county of New

York, alleging that at the date of the confirmation of a certain

assessment for a sewer in East 184th Street from Vanderbilt

Avenue west to Washington Avenue, etc., it was the owner of

certain lots affected thereby in ward number one, block number

3064, the twenty-fourth ward of the city of New York;

That on the 22d of January, 1900, that assessment was

confirmed by operation of law and the title thereof duly entered,

with date of entry and of confirmation, in the record of titles

of assessments confirmed, whereby such assessment became a lien

upon such lots; and,

That the assessment, together with an interest certificate

certified by the Comptroller of the city of New York to the Board

of Assessors, was irregular, excessive and voidable, for reasons

set forth in the petition.

Page 156

The petition alleged among other things that "so much of the

act of the Legislature of the State of New York, known as section

868 of the New York City Consolidation Act of 1882, as purports

to authorize and direct the making of such interest certificate

and the assessment of the amount thereof herein, is in violation

of the Constitution of the State of New York in that said portion

of said act authorizes the taking of private property without

just compensation, and said portion of said act purports to

authorize an unlawful exercise of the power of taxation."

The petitioner prayed that the assessment be vacated or

reduced, and that the lien or liens created thereby or by any

subsequent proceeding be cancelled and discharged or reduced so

far as the same affected the above lots.

The case was heard upon the stipulation of facts in the

Supreme Court and the relief asked by the petitioner was denied.

Upon appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court the

action of the court of original jurisdiction was confirmed. The

case was then carried to the Court of Appeals of the State, and

the judgment of the lower court was affirmed.

Upon writ of error to this court, it has been assigned for

error that the judgment of the state court was in violation of

the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of

the United States; also, that the judgment deprived the Home of

the equal protection of the law and of its property without due

process of law.

The record contains a certificate by the Chief Judge of the

Court of Appeals of New York to the effect that in this

proceeding the Home for Incurables claimed in the courts of the

State that "the imposition of all or a part of the assessment on

its land as set forth in the record herein was in violation of

the statutes and Constitution of the State of New York and of the

provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States, and constituted a taking of property without due

process of law; that the respondent in this proceeding contended

that the said assessment was neither in whole nor in part in

violation of the statutes and Constitution of the State of New

York or of the Constitution of the United States, and also

Page 157

that the said Home for Incurables had no remedy by petition to

correct any errors in the said assessment; that this court

decided that the said Home for Incurables did have a remedy by

petition in the manner and form of the proceeding adopted by it

to correct any errors in the said assessment, but that the

assessment complained of was valid and without error as to each

and every part thereof."

Mr. John M. Perryfor plaintiff in error.Mr. George L. Sterlingfor defendant in error.Mr. GeorgeL. RivesandMr. Theodore Connolywere with him on the brief.

Mr. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff insists here that the State court, by its final judgment, refused to recognize certain rights belonging to it under the Constitution of the United States. But it does not appear on the face of the record that he set up or claimed any such right until the case reached this court. InParmeleev.Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36, 38, this court — following the previous cases ofLawlerv.Walker, 14 How. 149, 152, andRailroadCompanyv.Rock, 4 Wall. 177 — said it was essential to our jurisdiction in reexamining the judgment of the State court that the alleged conflict between the State law and the Constitution of the United States "appear in the pleadings of the suit, or from the evidence in the course of the trial, in the instructions asked for, or from exceptions taken to the rulings of the court," or "it must be that such a question was necessarily involved in the decision, and that the State court would not have given a judgment without deciding it." Later cases in this court have expressed the additional thought that if the highest court of the State assumes that the record sufficiently presents a question of Federal right and decides against the party claiming such right, we will look no further, and will proceed to a consideration of that question, unless the decision is made to rest, in part, upon some ground of local law, sufficient enough in itselfPage 158to sustain the judgment, independently of any question of Federal right.

In the case before us, the Home for Incurables has not brought upon the record the fact that it asserted, in the State court, any Federal right whatever. It is entirely consistent with the record that the Home did not, at any time pending the case in the State court, set up or claim any such right. If our jurisdiction is invoked on the ground that the judgment of the State court has denied a right, title, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, it is essential, under existing statutes, that such right, title, privilege or immunity shall have been specially set up or claimed in the State court. Rev. Stat. § 709;Armstrongv.Treasurer of Athens Co., 16 Pet. 281, 285;Railroad Companyv.Rock, 4 Wall. 177, 180;Powellv.Brunswick Co.,150 U.S. 433,439;Robyv.Colehour,146 U.S. 153,159;Oxley Stave Co. v.Butler Co.,166 U.S. 648,654;Levyv.Superior Court of San Francisco,167 U.S. 175,177.

It is true that the transcript contains the certificate of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of New York, not appearing to have been by order of that court while the case was before it or under its control, which states that the Home did make in that court, the Federal questions now pressed upon our consideration. But that certificate is not properly a part of the record. While we have said in some cases that such a certificate is entitled to great respect, and, in other cases, that its office is to make that more certain and specific which is too general and indefinite in the record, it is insufficient in itself to give us jurisdiction, or to authorize us to determine Federal questions that do not appear, in any form, from the record, to have been brought to the attention of the State court.Powellv.Brunswick Co.,150 U.S. 433,439;Newport Light Co. v.Newport,151 U.S. 527,537;Yazoo Mississippi Railroad Co. v.Adams,180 U.S. 41,47;Felixv.Scharnweber,125 U.S. 54,59.

Having no jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment below, the writ of error must beDismissed.Page 159