Case ID: us_91/html/0690-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Waite", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Warfield v. Chaffe et al.
    The-petition for the allowance of a writ of error forms no part of the record of the court helow; and this court has no jurisdiction to determine a Federal question presented in such petition, hut not disclosed by the record sent here ' from the State court.
    On motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.
    
      ■ Messrs. Durant and Sornor • for the defendant in error, in support, of the motion.
    
      
      Mr. W. J. Q. Baker for the plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.
   Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

■ This action was commenced in the Fourteenth District Court in and for the Parish of Ouachita, La., to recover the amount due upon a note made by'Mrs. Warfielá, the plaintiff in error, to W. J. Q. Baker, and by him indorsed to the plajntiffs below, — John Chaffe & Brother,-: — and also to enforce-a vendor’s privilege. Judgment was asked for the amount- claimed to be due upon the note, and also for “ fifteen dollars costs of stamping.” Attached to the petition was á copy of the note, bearing date May 3, 1867; below which was the following: “ Original act duly stamped and cancelled by collector of Third District of Louisiana, this third day of September, 1872.' — F. A.'Hall,-. D’y. Recorder.”

Mrs. Warfield answered the petition; and, among other, defences, she insisted that there were not any revenue-stamps on .the note when it went mto the hands of the plaintiffs, and1 that they had no authority to put stamps upon it.,- She thus, by the pleadings, tendered an issue of fact.

The principal contest between the parties was as-to the. plaintiffs’ title to the note; and W. J. Q. Baker was permitted . to intervene in his own behalf, and to insist that he was the owner. 1

At the trial in the District Court, no question as to the stamping of the note appears to have been presented or decided: certainly no testimony was offered on either side in respect to it. All the testimony in the' case appears, to be incorporated in the record. Judgment having been given' against Mrs. Warfield and Baker in the District Court, they each appealed to the Supreme Court, where the judgment was affirmed in July, 1874. In- the opinion of the court, which comes here as part of the record, the only reference to the question of stamps which appears is as follows:‘ “ The objection that the note was not stamped, not having been made when it was received-in evidence, cannot now be considered.”

In the petition presented to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of tbe State for tbe allowance of tbis writ, it is stated, for tbe-first time in the case, that tbe defendant, Mrs. Warfield, claimed tbe privilege, right, and immunity of being relieved ■and exempted from all liability on tbe note or obligation .sued on, under tbe laws of tbe United States requiring such- instruments to be stamped to give them validity at tbe time tbe instrument sued upon was executed; and tbe decision of the Supreme Court of the State denied tbe claim.

Tbe record sent here from tbe Supreme Court does not disclose any such claim. The petition for tbe allowance ' of tbe writ in this court is not part of tbe record of tbe court below. We act only upon that record; and that does not show that any Federal question was either presented by the pleadings or upon tbe trial in-the District Court,, or decided by tbe Supreme Court. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.