Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-03-29
MEYER VS.. BROWN.
SACRAMENTO BOND SUITS IN TBE
USIrED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Decision of Judge sabin-Action OF the
Supreme Court-Findings Filed
by Judge Finn.

The following decision was rendered
short time since by Judge Sabin, OF the
United States Circuit Court, demanding the
case Of Meyer VS.. Bfown-one of the Sscrs-
mento bond suits-to the Supreme Court of
California:
The motion, on the part of plaintiff, to re-
mand the case to the State Court wss argued
and submitted in December last. 1t was not
without doubt that We then denied the mo-
ton. We were then strongly impressed with
the idea that no question involving a con-
struction of the Constitution or laws Of the
United States necessarily arose, or would
arise, in any of the proceedings CT the case.
The petition for the removal of the case
from the State Court, filed by defendants,
set forth that such question would arise, and
that plaintiffs right of action virtually rested
upou the construction and effect to be
given to Section 10, Article l., of the Con-
stitution of the uited States. This posi-.
ton was earnestly contested and denied
by plaintiffs counsel, who commended that
plaintiffs rights were amply secured
and protected by the Constitution of the
State of California (5ection 16, Article y.
and that he neither sought nor invoked the
aid or protection Of Section 10. Article l, Of
the Constitution Of the aited States, in the
enforcement OF his alleged rights in this
action.
At the time of denying the motion to re-
mand we distinctly announced, that If 1t
should subsequently appear to US, at any
stage of the proceedings IN the case, that no
question involving construction OF the Con-
stitution or laws of the United States neces-
sarily arose, requiring our decision therein,
we should then remand the case.
This action was originally commenced by
plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the State
of California It's 0 ject was, by the man
date of the c .urt, to compel defendants, as
Trustees of the city of Sacramento. to levy
tax for the payment of certain bonds and
coupons of the city and county of Sacrs.
mento. held BY plaintiff, Issued under and by
virtue of an Act of the Legislature of the
State of California, passed April a, 1888.
In 1868 the Legislature passed an Act re-
pealing the Act of April "a, 1885, and pro-
Yiding for new form of government for the
city of Sacramento, and providing also for
the payment of the bonds and coupons of the
city and county of Sacramento then out
standing, issued under the Act OF April a,
1858.
These matters are set forth fully in plain
tiffs affidavit, or complaint.
To this complaint demurrer was inter-
posed by defendants, sud the judgment OF
said Supreme Court was rendered thereon
prior to the removal of the case to this Court.
This Judgment of the Supreme Court, how
ever, was not called to our attention at the
time of argument upon the motion to remand
the case.
Had it been we doubt not, we should then
have remsnded the case, as thst judgment
seems to be decisive upon the only point
raised by defendants counsel, upon which it
is claimed that this Court has jurisdiction.
This judgment of the Supreme Court we
consider decisive and binding upon US, as to
the construction to be placed upon these State
-, ornIoa
conflicts with any provision of the Constltu-
ton or laws of the United States, or any
decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States.
The Judgment of that Court is that the Act
of 1868 did not impair the rights of plaintiff
acquired under the Act of April "a, 1855.
In more recent case, Meyer We. Porter,
a case involving the rights of holders Of bonds
and coupons of the city and county OF Sacra-
mento, issued under said Act of April "a,
1858, the same Court says: In 1868 the
charter Of 1858 was repealed and q new char
ter substituted. The repeal Of the old chart
did not impair the validity of contracts under
its provisions" Now this is the sole and
only ground upon which rests defendants
claim that any Federal question does or can
arise in this case, and upon which they insist
that this Court has any jurisdiction in this
case.
We think these decisions of the Supreme
Court have settled this question in this case
that the judgment of that Court is the law of
the case on that question, and that it cannot
again arise herein, 1t is not claimed by de-
PENDANTS that these Judgments of the Supreme
Court upon this very point are erroneous,
or that they are in conflict with an pro-
vision Of the Constitution or laws of
the United States. No defense in the
case is based upon any provision of the
National Constitution or laws enacted there.
under 1t is ministerial whether the Su-
preme Court rested its judgments upon Sec
ton 10, Article | of the Constitution OF the
State of California, or upon similar pro-
vision in the Constitution of the United
States.
1t is sufficient that those judgments of that
Court are not in conflict with the provision
of the Constitution of the United States in
voked by defendants, and that they settle the
law of this case upon the questions submitted
to the Court for Judgment.
This Court receives cases as they come to it
from the State Courts. We do not go back
and review the action Of the State Courts
upon the questions settled by such Courts
Ii writs of attachment, iDiunctiOn or Sc
ouestration have been issued by the State
Courts in cases prior to their removal full
force and effect is given to these writs in this
Court until vacated or modified by this
Court, or cause shown therefor. The position
taken by defendants IS peculiar.
The plaintiff seeks in this action to en-
force certain rights alleged to have accrued
to him under and by virtue of said Acts of
1858 and 1868
Defendants contend that the Act of 1868
destroyed all rights of plaintiff acquired IN
der the Act Of 1858. insisting, however, that
under Section 10, Article l., of the Cons.itu
ton of the United States, the Legislature
could not, by the Act of 1868, impair such
rights. This is the only ground upon which
the jurisdiction Of this Court is invoked by
defendants.
Now the Supreme Court Of this State in It's
Judgment upon the demurrer in this case, and
in the case Of Meyer va. Porter, has twice
decided that the Act ef 1868 did not impair
the validity of any contracts made under the
Act of 1858.
This would seem to remove all claim of
jurisdiction Of this Court in this case. 1t is
RS a3judicdta as 20 this case. and cannot be
reopened and reconsidered. We think, there
fore, that the case should be remanded, as its
future consideration can involve no question
of Federal nature.
Plaintiff expresses his williHguess-if this
Court has ] lrisiictiOn-that it proceed and
hear aud determine the case.
This however we cannot consider. His
consent cannot confer jurisdiction, and, on
the other hand, we csnnot decline jurisdiction
when lawfully invoked.
On the point urged by plaintiff, that this
was an original proceeding by mandate, and
that therefore this Court had not jurisdiction,
we are of the same opinion as that announced
when the motion to remand was denied. 1t
may be conceded that this Court proceeds by
maudamus only IS auxili Try or in aid Of its
jurisdiction. yet when an action like this is
permitted by State statute, and the case is
commenced 10 q State Court snd removed to
this Court, if it has jurisdiction in other re-
spects it has jurisdiction to hesr and deter
mine the case aud award the writ, if such be
its final judgment. In doing so it is but Civ.
ing effect to the statute Of the State author
izing such proceeding.
Special statutory rights and remedies may
be enforced in the National Courts, where
jurisdiction obtains-ss 10 cases of mechanics'
liens, partition, actions for damages for neg
ligence causing death, and other purely stat
utory actions and rights.
As we are convinced that this Court has
not jurisdiction in this case, it is ordered
that the order heretofore made in this case on
the 20ih day Of December, 1883, denying
plaintiffs motion to remand this case, be set
aside and vacated.