Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/168/131/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:55:52+00:00

Document:
The contention of plaintiff in error is that the first section of the Act of April 4, 1868, is invalid, because in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it deprives him of due process of law and denies him the equal protection of the laws.
on the face of the record before the decision below can be reexamined here. Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Co., 163 U. S. 63, 163 U. S. 70.
The record in this case discloses no attempt to question the validity of the particular statute in the state courts as in contravention of the federal Constitution unless in the points requested to be given in the trial court and the refusal to give them, for even if it could be held that such question was raised on the application for reargument, nearly a year after the judgment of the common pleas was affirmed by the supreme court, the suggestion came too late. Texas & Pacific Railway v. Southern Pacific Company, 137 U. S. 48; Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580; Pim v. St. Louis, 165 U. S. 273.
We have no jurisdiction on a writ of error to a state court to declare a state law void on account of its collision with a state constitution, and it was long ago held that where it was objected in the state courts that an act of the state was "unconstitutional and void," the objection was properly construed in those courts as raising the question whether the state legislature had the power, under the state constitution, to pass the act, and not as having reference to any repugnance to the Constitution of the United States. Porter v. Foley, 24 How. 415.
"have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness,"
"that all courts shall be open, and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by the due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay."
Const.Penn. 1790, Art. IX, §§ 1, 11; Const.Penn. 1838, Art. IX, §§ 1, 11; Const.Penn. 1873, Art. I, §§ 1, 11.
The presumption as to point two is that it referred to the state constitution, and this was made certain by point three, which quotes from that instrument.
that the state supreme court assumed that it was dealing under the assignments of error only with the state constitution, as was also the fact in Kirby v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 76 Penn.St. 506, where the question of the constitutionality of the first section of the act in question was directly passed upon and the section sustained.
We agree with counsel in the statement, made on the application for reargument, in respect of a review of this judgment by this Court, because thereby the state supreme court had decided in favor of the validity of the act when drawn in question as repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, that "the judgment is not in shape for such a review."

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