Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/186/304/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:01:30+00:00

Document:
There was no dispute as to the facts out of which this controversy arose. The right of the plaintiff to recover under his contract with the state is not for this Court to determine unless the record discloses that he has been deprived of some title, right, privilege or immunity secured to him by the Constitution of the United States, which was specially set up or claimed in the state court.
The decision by the Supreme Court of the Nebraska that the Pawnee Reservation lands in that state were public lands within the meaning of the twelfth section of the Enabling Act did not bring into question the validity of that section, and there is nothing on which to rest a right to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
In May, 1897, in the District Court of Lancaster County, State of Nebraska, Thomas P. Kennard brought an action against the State of Nebraska seeking to recover the sum of $13,521.99, being fifty percentum of a certain sum paid by the United States to the State of Nebraska, and which plaintiff alleged had been so paid by reason of his services, as a duly appointed agent of the state in procuring the allowance of the claim of the state. The petition further stated that, in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the state, the governor had contracted with the plaintiff to promote the claim of the state, and had agreed that plaintiff was to receive fifty percent of the amount recovered. It also alleged that, by a resolution of the legislature, he was authorized to prosecute his claim in the courts of the State of Nebraska.
The cause was put at issue, and came to trial, a jury being waived, and on March 11, 1898, upon the pleading and evidence, the court found for the plaintiff the sum of $13,521.99, and entered judgment accordingly. The cause was taken to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, where, on October 5, 1898, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, State v. Kennard, 56 Neb. 254, and again, on February 9, 1899, upon a rehearing, the same conclusion was reached. A writ of error was allowed, January 17, 1901, and cause brought to this Court.
States, and five percent of the value of all such as had been donated by the United States to railroads."
of the legislature, then brought this suit to recover one-half of that sum. He had judgment in the district court for Lancaster County, and the state brought the same here for review, and the judgment of the district court was reversed. We based our judgment of reversal of this judgment upon the proposition that the lands of the 'Pawnee Indian Reservation' were public lands within the meaning of section 12 of the Enabling Act, and that the only money collected by Mr. Kennard was the five percent of the proceeds of the sale made of these lands by the United States, and, by the terms of his contract, he was not to have any compensation for collecting these moneys."
Upon this statement of the facts, does this Court have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska?
There was no dispute as to the facts out of which the controversy arose. The right of the plaintiff to recover under his contract with the state is not for us to determine unless the record discloses that he has been deprived of some title, right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the Constitution of the United States and unless it appears that such title, right, privilege, or immunity was specially set up or claimed in the state court. Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648; Water Power Co. v. Street Ry. Co., 172 U. S. 475.
"that in the rendition of the judgment by the supreme court of the state, there was drawn in question the construction of the statutes of the United States with reference to the lands of the Pawnee Indian reservation located in the State of Nebraska, and the act of Congress authorizing the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union, passed April, 1864, 13 Stat. 47, and that the decision of said supreme court was against the plaintiff in error in such construction,"
given by the said supreme court, and without such decision and construction the said judgment could not have been given."
And it is now contended that the plaintiff's right to recover was defeated solely by the construction the state court placed upon the congressional acts, and that thus a federal question appears in the record, giving this Court power to review the decision of the state court.
But the validity of the acts of Congress referred to was not drawn in question by the facts of this controversy. Our jurisdiction to review the judgment of the state court rests upon section 709 of the Revised Statutes. It has often been held that the validity of a statute or treaty of the United States is not "drawn in question" within the meaning of section 709 every time rights claimed under a statute or treaty are controverted, nor is the validity of an authority every time an act done by such authority is disputed. Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210; Cook County v. Calumet &c. Canal Company, 138 U. S. 635, 138 U. S. 653; Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U. S. 408; Blackburn v. Portland Mining Company, 175 U. S. 571; Florida Central Railroad Company v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321, 176 U. S. 328; Water Power Company v. Street Railway Company, 172 U. S. 488.

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