NOTES ON THE UNITED STATES REPORTS. XIV WALLACE. 14 Wall. 1-5, 20 L. Ed. 821, UNITED STATES v. CRUSELL. It will be presumed that government officials have performed their duties. Approved in McQueen v. Flasdick-Black Land etc. Co., 135 La. 707, 65 South. 903, holding where preamble in patent describes applicants as "legal representative" of entryman, and grant is made to applicant, presumption is that registrar discharged his duty and that applicant was transferee of entryman; National Accident Society v. Spiro, 94 Fed. 751, 37 C. C. A. 388, holding it will be presumed in favor of validity of certificate of deputy clerk of Federal court, that clerk was absent; Globe Ins. Co. v. Gerisch, 163 Ill. 629, 54 Am. St. Rep. 489, 45 N. E. 565, as authority for holding a presumption cannot be based on a presumption. Presumption as basis of presumption. Note, 10 Ann. Cas. 1096, 1097. Judgment of Court of Claims, giving loyal owner the proceeds of cotton seized under abandoned property act, affirmed, the court indulging presumption, in absence of proof, that money had been regularly paid into the treasury. Approved in Sac & Fox Indians v. Sac & Fox Indians, 220 U. S. 488, 55 L. Ed. 555, 31 Sup. Ct. 473, holding petitioning Sac and Fox Indians had no claim for shares of appropriation, as they had not rejoined tribe within one year. Distinguished in United States v. Ross, 92 U. S. 284, 285, 23 L. Ed. 709, holding claimant must show his ownership, that property captured was sold and money was paid into treasury. Miscellaneous. Cited in United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 271, 25 L. Ed. 324. (743) 14 Wall. 5-9, 20 L. Ed. 875, COCKROFT v. VOSE. Not cited. 14 Wall. 9-10, 20 L. Ed. 514, WEST TENNESSEE BANK v. CITIZENS’ BANK OF LOUISIANA. No appeal lies to Supreme Court from decision of highest State court, based on its settled pre-existing rules of general jurisprudence, although rules have been embodied in State Constitution, and if decision had been on Constitution alone, writ of error would lie. Approved in Palmer v. Marston, 14 Wall. 12, 20 L. Ed. 827; Kreiger v. Shelby Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 46, 31 L. Ed. 678, 8 Sup. Ct. 756, and New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U. S. 33, 34, 36, 39, 31 L. Ed. 613, 614, 615, 8 Sup. Ct. 749, 751, 752, all holding Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of error to State court, on ground obligation of contract has been impaired, unless some State legislative act is involved; Winona etc. Ry. Co. v. Plainview, 143 U. S. 393, 36 L. Ed. 200, 12 Sup. Ct. 538, holding Supreme Court, without jurisdiction over State decision, when question as to State statute, impairing obligation of contract, was raised for first time in that court. Distinguished in Delmas v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 666, 20 L. Ed. 759, holding decision of State court, expressly based on a constitutional provision and not on general ground of public policy, is reviewable in Supreme Court. 14 Wall. 10-12, 20 L. Ed. 826, PALMER v. MARSTON. Supreme Court has no power to review a decision of the highest State court in cause where claim is not made under State law or Constitution, and resisted as being repugnant to Federal Constitution or laws. Approved in New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 35, 31 L. Ed. 614, 8 Sup. Ct. 750, holding provision in Federal Constitution, which declares States shall pass no laws impairing obligation of contracts, is aimed at legislative power, not at decisions of courts; Kreiger v. Shelby Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 46, 31 L. Ed. 678, 8 Sup. Ct. 756, following rule.. Distinguished in Delmas v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 666, 668, 20 L. Ed. 759, where decision in State court was based on provision in State Constitution, held to be repugnant to Federal Constitution. Time and manner of raising and deciding questions in State court to obtain review in Federal Supreme Court. Note, 63 L. R. A. 47. 14 Wall. 12-15, 20 L. Ed. 827, SEVIER v. HASKELL. Necessary jurisdictional facts on error from Supreme to State court stated. Approved in Delmas v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 666, 20 L. Ed. 759, Home Ins. Co. v. City Council of Augusta, 93 U. S. 121, 23 L. Ed. 826, Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. S. 418, 26 L. Ed. 188, and Jacoway v. Denton, 154 U. S. 584, 20 L. Ed. 645, 14 Sup. Ct. 1170, all following rule. Time and manner of raising and deciding questions in State court to obtain review in Federal Supreme Court. Note, 63 L. R. A. 53. What adjudications of State courts reviewable in Federal Supreme Court. Note, 62 L. R. A. 540. 14 Wall. 15-23, 20 L. Ed, 846, STEINES v. FRANKLIN COUNTY. To give Supreme Court jurisdiction on error to State court, it must appear in record that some one of questions stated in twenty-fifth section of Judiciary Act arose and was applied by State court in disposing of controversy. Approved in Caperton v. Bowyer, 14 Wall. 237, 20 L. Ed. 885, a Federal question cannot be assumed to have been raised and passed on in State court in order to give jurisdiction to Supreme Court; New Orleans Water-Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 29, 38, 31 L. Ed. 611, 614, 8 Sup. Ct. 747, 752, holding Supreme Court without jurisdiction where it appears judgment in State court may have been based on ground independent of statute said to be repugnant to Federal Constitution. Time and manner of raising and deciding questions in State court to obtain review in Federal Supreme Court. Note, 63 L. R. A. 40. What record must show as to presentation and decision of Federal question in State court to confer jurisdiction on Federal Supreme Court. Note, 63 L. R. A. 476. Motion for rehearing is addressed to discretion of trial court, and is not subject to review on appeal. Approved in Morgan v. Benedum, 157 Fed. 234, 84 C. C. A. 675, holding appeal will not lie from petition for rehearing of judgment allowing or rejecting claim; dissenting opinion in United States v. Jenkins, 176 Fed. 682, 20 Ann. Cas. 1255, 100 C. C. A. 224, holding application to Federal court for remission of penalty fixed in judgment may be entertained after term; dissenting opinion in Hendryx v. Perkins, 114 Fed. 823, 52 C. C. A. 435, majority reviewing, on appeal, decree granting or denying bill to vacate decree on ground of fraud; Buffington v. Harvey, 95 U. S. 100, 24 L. Ed. 382, Boesch v. Graff, 133 U. S. 699, 33 L. Ed. 788, 10 Sup. Ct. 379, and Grame v. Mutual Ins. Co., 154 U. S. 676, 26 L. Ed. 740, 14 Sup. Ct. 1193, petition for rehearing, filed in court below after judgment and denied, is no part of record to be returned to Supreme Court with writ of error for review of judgment; Bondholders v. Toledo etc. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 169, 10 C. C. A. 319, M'Leod v. New Albany, 66 Fed. 382, 13 C. C. A. 525, and Pittsburg Wire Co. v. Roberts, 71 Fed. 711, 18 C. C. A. 302, all holding no appeal lies from ruling of court refusing to permit defendant to take further proofs, after proofs in rebuttal have been closed; Galloway v. Dunnington, 10 Lea, 218, and Winchester v. Winchester, 121'Mass. 130, both arguendo. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of writ of error under twenty-fifth section of Judiciary Act, if judgment of State court may have been given on grounds which the section does not make cause for error, as well as upon some ground which it does so make. Approved in Kennebec Ry. Co. v. Portland Ry. Co., 14 Wall. 26, 20 L. Ed. 851, following rule. Writ of error-Judgments of State courts reviewable by United What adjudications of State courts reviewable in Federal Supreme 14 Wall. 23-26, 20 L. Ed. 850, KENNEBEC ETC. R. R. CO. v. PORTLAND ETC. R. R. CO. Supreme Court will not entertain jurisdiction of case on error to State court, when judgment or decree below may be sustained on grounds distinct from any involving Federal questions. Approved in Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. City of Olathe, 222 U. S. 190, 56 L. Ed. 158, 32 Sup. Ct. 47, New Orleans Water-Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 37, 38, 31 L. Ed. 614, 8 Sup. Ct. 751, 752, and Kreiger v. Shelby Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 46, 31 L. Ed. 678, 8 Sup. Ct. 756, all following rule. Record for showing Federal Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review Time and manner of raising and deciding questions in State court Corporate taxation as affected by contract clause in Federal Constitution. Note, 60 L. R. A. 41. 14 Wall. 26-28, 20 L. Ed. 792, BARTEMEYER v. IOWA. Writ of error to State Supreme Court, composed of chief justice and several associates, must be signed by chief justice or by justice of Federal Supreme Court. |