Case Name: CHOUTEAU & Another v. GIBSON
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1884-03-31
Citations: 111 U.S. 200
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHOUTEAU & Another v. GIBSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 200–201

Head Matter:
CHOUTEAU & Another v. GIBSON.
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI.
Submitted March 10th, 1884.
Decided March 31st, 1884.
Jurisdiction'.
In order to give this court jurisdiction in error of a State court it must appear affirmatively on the face of the record, not only that the federal question was raised and presented to the highest court of the State for decision, but that it was decided, or that its decision was necessary to the judgment or decree rendered in the case.
This was a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Mr. John W. Noble and Mr. C. Gibson for appellee in support of the motion.
Mr. Thomas T. Gantt for Julia Maffitt, appellant, opposing.
Mr. S. T. Glover and Mr. J. R. Shepley for Charles P. Chouteau, appellant, opposing.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court. From the beginning it has been held that to give us jurisdiction in this class of cases it must appear affirmatively on the face of'the record, not only that a federal question was raised and presented to the highest court of the State for decision, but that it was decided, or that its decision was necessary to the judgment or decree rendered in the case. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 636.
'" The present record shows that Chouteau and Maffit began this suiVagainst Gibson in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, t<5 obtain a conveyance of certain lands, which they claimed that he held in trust for them. Among other defences, Gibson set up a judgment in his favor in a suit brought by him against Chouteau and Maffit to recover the possession of the lands, iii which,'as he alleged, the identical matters presented in- this -.case were' directly passed upon and adjudicated between the- parties. Tt is conceded that the State Supreme Court ip. deciding the case sustained this defence, and rendered the decree now here for review in favor of Gibson on that ground alone, without considering any of the other questions involved. Chouteau v. Gibson, 76 Missouri, 38.
Such being the case, it is clear we have no jurisdiction. The legal effect of the judgment set up in bar is a question of general law as to which the decision of the State court is not reviewable here. The federal questions, if any there Avere in the case, lay behind this defence, and could not be reached until it was out of the Avay. The question presented by the defence was not Avhether a federal right had been properly denied by a. former judgment^but Avhether the right had been once judicially determined 'so as to become res judicata betAveen the parties. Whether an equitable title could be set up in bar of the action at law brought by Gibson, the holder of the legal title, to recover possession^ is .a question of State laAV upon which the judgment of the State court is conclusive. The'same is true of - the questioií Avhether the pleadings in the former action Avere such as to present thé equitably defence in proper, form for final adjudication. The court below has decided that the pleadings Avere sufficient; that the equitable defence,.could be made, and that the judgment in that action in favor of Gibson was, in its legal effect, a judgment that Chouteau and Maffit had no title to the land in controversy. Consequently that judgment Avas a bar to this action, and precluded the cotirt below as Avell as this court from reopening the original litigation and considering again the questions that Avere put at rest betAveen the parties by the decision in their former suit. It is apparent, therefore, that no federal question Avhich there may have been .in the case Avas decided by the State court,, and that the decision of such a question Avas not necessary to the final decree rendered. Without determining whether, if the former judgment had not been a bar to the action, there were questions in the case that.might have given us jurisdiction, Ave grant the motion to dismiss. Dismissed.