Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/88715/dewey-vs-des-moines
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:27:48+00:00

Document:
v. Hoboken Company, 1 Wall. 116, 68 U. S. 143 . In the case at bar, no claim was made in the state court that the assessment upon the lots was invalid as in violation of any provision of the federal Constitution.
Nor does the record herein show by clear and necessary intendment that the federal question must have been directly involved, so that the state court could not have given judgment without deciding it. In such case, it has been held that the federal question sufficiently appears. Green Bay &c.; Company v. Patten Paper Company, 172 U. S. 58 , 172 U. S. 68 , and cases cited. In substance, the validity of the statute or the right under the Constitution must have been drawn in question. Powell v. Brunswick County, 150 U. S. 433 ; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180 . The latest decision to this effect is Capital National Bank of Lincoln v. First National Bank of Cadiz, 172 U. S. 425 .
Although no particular form of words is necessary to be sued in order that the federal question may be said to be involved within the meaning of the cases on this subject, there yet must be something in the case before the state court which at least would call its attention to the federal question as one that was relied on by the party, and then, if the decision of the court, while not noticing the question, was such that the judgment was, by its necessary effect, a denial of the right claimed or referred to, it would be sufficient. It must appear from the record that the right set up or claimed was denied by the judgment or that such was its necessary effect in law. Roby v. Colehour, 146 U. S. 153 , 146 U. S. 159 ; Chicago, Burlington &c.; Railroad v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 , 166 U. S. 231 ; Green Bay &c.; Company v. Patten Paper Company, and Capital National Bank of Lincoln v. First Nat. Bank of Cadiz, supra.
The principle which renders void a statute providing for the personal liability of a nonresident to pay a tax of this nature is the same which prevents a state from taking jurisdiction through its courts, by virtue of any statute, over a nonresident not served with process within the state, to enforce a mere personal liability, and where no property of the nonresident has been seized or brought under the control of the court. This principle has been frequently decided in this Court. One of the leading cases is Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 , and many other cases therein cited. Mexican Central Railway v. Pinkney, 149 U. S. 194 , 149 U. S. 209 .

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