The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-07-24

INTERESTING DECISION.-ln the United
States Supreme Court, on Thursday last, ac-
cording to report in the New York World,
was decided IN interesting case from Vir-
ginia. The case was that Of "The New
York Life Insurance Company, plaintiff in
error, Us. Henrietta Henderson, defendant
in error, to the Supreme Court Of Appeals
OF the State OF Virginia." And the point
in the case was the condition or state OF war
as affecting cQntracts-that is, do the Fede-
raj statutes allowing writs OF error or ap-
peal from the State courts apply to all cases
wherein questions Of this sort are raised
The court decided as follows:
This record does not show that any Fed.
eral question was decided or necessarily in
volyod in the judgment rendered by the
court below. The pleadings, us well rs the
instructions asked and refused, present
questions Of general law alone. The court
was asked to decide as to the effect, under
the general public law, OF Il state OF Sec
tional civil war upon the contract Of life
insurance, which was the subject OF the
action. 1t was not contended, SO far as we
can discover, that the general laws OF war,
as recognized by the Jaw OF nations, appli-
cable to this case, were In any respect modi-
fed or suspended by the Constitution, laws,
treaties, or executive procamations OF the
United States. This distinguishes the
present case from that Of Matthews Us.
McStea, OF which we took jurisdc-
ton go WALL, G40), and decided the pre-
sent term. In that case the question was
presented whether the Presidents procla-
nation OF April 10, 1861, did not suspend,
for the time being, the operation Of that
principle in the law OF war which prohibited
commercial intercourse in time OF war be-
tween the adhcrents Of the two contending
powers. Hero there is nothing OF the kind.
Our jurisdiction over the decisions OF the
State courts is limited. 1t is not derived
from the citizenship of the parties, but the
questions involved and decided. 1t must
appear in the record or we cannot proceed.
We act upon questions actually presented to
the court below, not upon such us might
have been presented OF brought into the
case, but were not.
The case, therefore, having been pre-
scented to the court below for decision upon
principles OF general law alone, and it no.
where appearing that the Constitution,
laws, treaties, or executive proclamations
. OF the United States were necessarily in
volved in the decision, we have no iurisdic-
ton. We have often so decided. Bethel
Us. Demaret, 10 Wall, 5S7; Delmas Us. In
surance Company, ID Wall, G6G; Tarver Us.
Reach, 10 Wall, Ct; Rockhold Us. Rock
hold, decided at the present term.) The
motion to dismiss the writ for want OF iuris-
diction is granted. The Chief Justice de-
Iiyered the opinion.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY dissented. He
thought that as the case came within the pur-
view Of the Federal laws prohibiting inter
course between the two sections the court
had jurisdiction.
1t is easy to see that this decision can be
!" thanked" without any difficulty. A sharp
lawyer will have no trouble in so preparing
his case as that the Supreme Court OF the
United States would have and take iurisdic-
ton, Notwithstanding this decision.