Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Crossley v. City of New Orleans 108 U.S. 105

← Cases

Crossley v. City of New Orleans

108 U.S. 105 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1883-03-12 English

Delivered by Waite C.J.

Contents

Majority — Waite C.J.

p. 105
CROSSLEY & Another v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS & Another.

Syllabus

IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA.-MOTION TO DISMISS.
Decided March 12th, 1883.
Louisiana — Practice.
The record shows that the cause presented .two. questions in .the court below ; one not federal, the othér'federal. The opinion of the court below shows that the cause was jleeided there on the first point only : Held, That in cases coming from the Supremé Court of Louisiana the opinion of the court,'as ' presented by the record, maybé examined to determine whether the judgment can be reviewed.
Mr. B. R. Formam, for defendants in. error, moving to dismiss. .
Mr. Henry C. Miller for plaintiffs,- resisting.

delivered the opinion of the .court.

The record shows that the defendants’in error sought to enjoin the collection, of a judgment against their property to enforce an assessment under the drainage lays of Louisiana f 1, because under the operation of the laws authorizing the judgment nothing more remained to be paid thereon; and, 2, because the judgment had, in terms, been released and discharged by certain acts of the’ general assembly of the State, passed in 1811 and 1818. If the case was decided below on -the first of these grounds, no federal question is involved.

It was settled long ago that, in cases coming to this court from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the opinion of the court below, as set out in the record; may be referred to, if necessary, to determine whether the judgment is one we have authority to review. Armstrong v. Treasurer of Athens Co., 16 Pet. 281 ; Almonester v. Kenton, 9 How. 1 ; Grand Gulf R. R. and Banking Co. v. Marshall, 12 How. 165 ; Cousin v. La batut, 19 How. 202 ; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 . From the statement of the case and the opinion found in this record, it is manifest the decision was placed entirely on the

p. 106
ground that the judgment was not collectible under the law as it stood before the acts of 1876 and 1877 were'passed. Consequently the case was disposed of before the federal question presented by the pleadings was reached, and that question was not and need not have been decided. Under these circumstances we have no jurisdiction, and the

Motion to dismiss is granted

Cases cited