Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/133/380
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:00:34+00:00

Document:
HOPKINS et al. v. MCLURE et al.
Wm. E. Earle, for plaintiffs in error.
John J. Hemphill, for defendants in error.
On the 9th of July, 1876, George W. Melton died, intestate and insolvent, in South Carolina, leaving surviving him his widow, Margaret A. Melton, and three infant children. John J. McLure was appointed administrator of his estate, and commenced an action in the circuit court of Chester county, S. C., in July, 1877, to marshal the assets of the estate, to have the real property of the deceased sold in aid of assets, and to have the creditors of the estate establish their demands. The creditors were called in, and numerous claims were established, among them, a note under seal to R. G. Ratchford & Co., bearing date February 22, 1859; a note under seal to Dr. A. P. Wylie, bearing date May 3, 1872; a note under seal to Samuel D. Melton, bearing date February 1, 1871; a bond secured by a mortgage on real estate to one Duvall, sheriff, dated June 4, 1875, which had been transferred to one Kerr, as clerk of the court of Fairfield county, S. C., and a bond secured by a mortgage on real estate to Hopkins, Dwight & Co., dated May 19, 1876. The widow and the infant children, and various creditors of the deceased, were made defendants. The case was referred to a special referee, who reported that the assets of the estate could not exceed $11,000; that the amount due on the mortgage to Duvall, sheriff, was $1,087.35, and the amount due on the mortgage to Hopkins, Dwight & Co. was $30,748.44; and that there were debts on sealed notes and specialties, dated prior to November 25, 1873, amounting to $7,005.04, and debts on simple contracts amounting to $36,415.98, the total of the three classes of debts being $75,256.81. The special referee reported that, after the payment of the costs, the assets were applicable first to the satisfaction of the bond and mortgage to Duvall, sheriff, and next to the bond and mortgage to Hopkins, Dwight & Co. Exceptions were filed by various creditors to the report of the referee, and the case was heard by the circuit court.
After a consideration of these cases, the circuit court reached the conclusion, in the present case, that the mortgages in question came under the operation of the decision in Piester v. Piester, and were not preferred claims as mortgages. The decree of that court was that, the lien of the mortgages having been exhausted, they were no longer preferred claims, and that the debts they were given to secure could only be proved and take rank against the assets in the hands of the administrator according to the nature of the instrument evidencing the debt, and the statute relating thereto. Exceptions were filed to the decree, and the case was heard on appeal by the supreme court of the state, which, in April, 1886, affirmed the decree of the circuit court. 24 S. C. 559. The point was taken by the appellants in the supreme court of South Carolina that the case of Piester v. Piester could not be applied to their cases, for the reason that so to apply it would impair the obligation of contracts or divest vested rights because, at the time of the making of the contract of Hopkins, Dwight & Co., the law, as then declared by the case of Edwards v. Sanders, required that the balances due on the two debts should be ranked as mortgages, and as such be entitled to priority over specialty debts; and that the decision in Piester v. Piester could not divest rights which became vested at the time the intestate died, under the law as it was then declared to be. But the supreme court said that the construction placed on the provisions of the act of 1789 by the decision in Piester v. Piester was the same as that laid down in Tunno v. Happoldt and Kinard v. Young; that the law stood unquestioned down to the time of the decision in Edwards v. Sanders; that that decision did not seem to have been followed in a single instance; that, from what was said in Piester v. Piester, it would seem never to have been satisfactory to the profession; that at the first opportunity it was overruled; and that in the mean time the legislature, by the act of 1878, had shown its dissatisfaction with the construction adopted in the case of Edwards v. Sanders. On the question whether the decision in Piester v. Piester effected such a change in the law as would forbid its application to the case under consideration, because it would impair the obligation of a contract, or divest rights vested under the law, as declared n Edwards v. Sanders, the supreme court said that, as the proper construction of the statute had been settled for a long series of years, by decisions of both of the courts of final resort in the state, in accordance with the view declared in Piester v. Piester, it would be going very far to say that a single isolated decision, never recognized or followed in any subsequent case, and never recommending itself to the approval of the profession, should be regarded as having the effect of changing the law. 'On the contrary,' says the court, 'whatever may be the opinions of individuals as to its correctness, it must be regarded as an erroneous declaration of what was the law, and as only the law of the particular case in which it was made.
The members of the firm of Hopkins, Dwight & Co., as successors of the former members of that firm, and the trustee of that firm and of Mrs. Melton and her infant children, have brought a writ of error to review the decree of the supreme court affirming that of the circuit court; and the defendants in error now move to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground of a want of jurisdiction in this court. It is contended on the part of the plaintiffs in error that the decision of the court below was based upon the application of the act of 1878 as a valid act, affecting the contract of the plaintiffs in error, and impairing its obligation. But the validity of that statute was not drawn in question, and the supreme court did not pass upon it. The decree of that court does not rest upon that statute, but upon independent grounds. The decision rests upon a ground broad enough to cover the entire case, without considering the statute. It rests upon the ground that the law of South Carolina, under the act of 1789, was such as it had always been held to be in Tunno v. Happoldt, Kinard v. Young, and Piester v. Piester, and that the law as so declared had always been the law, and was not varied or changed by anything decided in Edwards v. Sanders. That being so we must hold that no federal question is presented by the record. This view is in accordance with the decisions of this court in Kreiger v. Railroad Co., 125 U. S. 39, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 752; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1053; and Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554, ante, 171; the ruling in which cases is that, where the supreme court of a state decides a federal question in rendering a judgment, and also decides against the plaintiff in error on an independent ground, not involving a federal question, and broad enough to maintain the judgment, the writ of error will be dismissed without considering the federal question. The writ of error is dismissed.
HENDERSON BRIDGE CO. v. CITY OF HENDERSON.
MILLER et al. v. ANDERSON et al.
HOWAT et al. v. STATE OF KANSAS. (two cases).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.