Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/162/339/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:10:45+00:00

Document:
When the highest court of a state, upon a first appeal, decides a federal question against the appellant and remands the case for further proceedings according to law, and upon further hearing the inferior court of the state renders final judgment against him, he cannot have that judgment reviewed by this Court by writ of error without first appealing from it to the highest court of the state, although that court declines upon a second appeal to reconsider any question of law decided upon the first appeal.
This was an action similar to that of Great Western Telegraph Company v. Purdy, ante, 162 U. S. 329, and was brought October 8, 1888, in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, in the State of Wisconsin, by the same plaintiff against George Burnham and prosecuted against his executors to recover the amount of an assessment alleged to be due under a contract of subscription in the same form as in that case, and under the decree of the Circuit Court of Cook County in the State of Illinois therein stated.
The complaint did not state the law of Illinois nor set forth the decree of assessment in full, but alleged, among other things that by that decree an assessment of thirty-five percent a share was laid upon all stockholders who had not paid in full, and that some stockholders, including the defendant, had paid ten dollars, or forty percent, on each share, and many stockholders had never paid more than fifty cents, or two percent, on a share.
A demurrer to the complaint upon the ground, among others, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was filed by the defendant and overruled by the court.
"We do not intend to express any definite opinion as to the real effect of the decree of the Illinois court, or as to how far it concludes the rights of shareholders who were not parties to that proceeding. Those questions are not now necessarily before us, and may be postponed until they arise. We confine our decision to the objection that the complaint shows an unlawful and illegal call or assessment upon Mr. Burnham which should not be enforced."
"that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because it does not appear upon the face of the said complaint that a valid or legal assessment was made upon the stockholders, and that the said assessment appears by the said complaint to be unequal and unjust,"
and entered final judgment for the defendant, with costs. The plaintiff thereupon sued out this writ of error.
This Court has no jurisdiction, upon writ of error, to review a judgment of a state court unless it was a final judgment by the highest court of the state in which a decision in the suit could be had and against a right set up under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Rev.Stat. § 709.
The order of the inferior court of Wisconsin overruling the defendant's demurrer with leave to answer over was clearly not a final judgment under the Judiciary Act of the United States, although it was reviewable on appeal in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin under the statutes and practice of the state.
not a final judgment disposing of the whole case, but only reversed the order of the inferior court overruling the demurrer and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings.
The subsequent judgment of the inferior court sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action cannot be reviewed by this Court because, although that was a final judgment against the plaintiff in error setting up a right under the Constitution and laws of the United States, it was not a final judgment in the highest court of the state in which a decision in the suit could be had.
on that account the act of the common pleas. As such, it was, when rendered, open to review by the supreme court, and for that reason is not the final judgment of the highest court in the state in which a decision in the suit could be had. Rev.Stat. § 709. The writ is dismissed."
See also Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3; Rice v. Sanger, 144 U. S. 197; Rutland Railroad v. Central Vermont Railroad, 159 U. S. 630, 159 U. S. 638; Sanford Co., Petitioner, 160 U. S. 247.
In the case at bar, it was argued in support of the jurisdiction of this Court that if an appeal had been taken from the final judgment of the inferior court to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, that court, according to its uniform course of decisions, would have affirmed the judgment upon the ground that its decision upon the first appeal was conclusive; that this Court, according to the decision in Northern Pacific Railroad v. Ellis, 144 U. S. 458, would not take jurisdiction of a writ of error to review a judgment based upon that ground only, and consequently that a writ of error from this Court to the inferior court was the only way in which the decision of that court, refusing full faith and credit to the judicial proceeding in Illinois, could be reviewed by this Court.
If all this were so, there would be strong ground for sustaining the present writ of error. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge v. Wheeling Bridge, 138 U. S. 287, 138 U. S. 290; Luxton v. North River Bridge, 147 U. S. 337, 147 U. S. 342. But the argument is based upon a misconception of the decisions supposed to support it.
enable an appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently, which would be impossible if a question once considered and decided by it were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal. Washington Bridge v. Stewart, 3 How. 413, 425; Roberts v. Cooper, 20 How. 467, 61 U. S. 481; Clark v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567; Sanford Co., Petitioner, 160 U. S. 247, 160 U. S. 259.
to the settled law of the state, be reviewed by the inferior court, or even by the supreme court of the state, save upon motion for rehearing. 80 Wis. 459, 465. The only right under the laws of the United States suggested or considered at any stage of the proceedings in the courts of the state was the claim that the decree of the circuit court of the United States, rendered after the decision of the supreme court of the state upon the first appeal, estopped Ellis to deny the validity of the conveyance from the county to the railroad company. The only decision made by the supreme court of the state upon that claim was that the invalidity of that conveyance had been finally adjudged, for the purposes of the suit, by its former decision, and therefore the decree of the circuit court of the United States should not be permitted to be pleaded by supplemental answer, in the nature of a plea puis darrein continuance. This Court, in dismissing the writ of error to the supreme court of the state, dealt with no other question, 144 U.S. 144 U. S. 458, and never considered the right of the railroad company, merely by virtue of its charter from the United States, to take land by such a conveyance until that subject was brought into judgment upon the subsequent appeal from the decree of the circuit court of the United States. Roberts v. Northern Pacific Railroad, 158 U. S. 1, 158 U. S. 25-27.
There is nothing in the decisions above cited or in any other decision of this Court which countenances the position that in Wisconsin or in any other state, when the highest court of the state, upon a first appeal, decides a federal question against the appellant and remands the case to be inferior court not merely to carry the judgment into execution, but for further proceedings according to law, and upon further hearing the inferior court renders final judgment against him, he can have that judgment reviewed by this Court by writ of error without first appealing from it to the highest court of the state, or at least, where such is the practice, presenting a petition to that court for leave to appeal. Fisher v. Perkins, 122 U. S. 522.
above cited, the final judgment of the inferior court of the state may have been the necessary result of the previous decision by the Supreme Court of the questions presented for its determination, but it was nonetheless on that account a judgment of the inferior court. As such, it was, when rendered, open to review by the supreme court upon a new appeal, and, for that reason, was not the final judgment of the highest court of the state in which a decision in the suit could be had.

References: v. 
 § 709
 § 709
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.