HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0369 and id is 1 raw text is: Dec. 1871.] STEINES v. FRANKLIN COUNTY. 15
Opinion of the court.
stitution of 1868 was adopted, the plaintiffs in error relied
,upon tnat, to annul the decree which had been rendered.
The Supreme Court affirmed th6 validity of the decree, the
provision in the State constitution relied upon to the con-
trary notwithstanding.
Here, again, no Federal question is presented. What
considerations controlled the judgment of the court s not
disclosed in the record. If it were held, as it well may have
been, that the provision in the Federal Constitution which
forbids any State to pass a law impairing the obligation of
contracts, protects from the operation of the State constitu-
tion slave contracts made prior to its adoption, as the con-
tract here in question was sustained and enforced, still no
question arose of which this court can take cognizance. The
record exhibiting no such question, the motion must prevail.
WRIT DISMISSED.
STEINES V. FRANKLIN COUNTY.
1. The decision of the highest court of a State in granting or refusing to
grant a motion for a rehearing in an equity suit is not re-examinable
in this court ,under any writ of error which the court can issue to re-
view the judgment or decree of a State pourt.
2. Where the record only shows that a particular judgment was given by
the highest State court, no writ under the 25th section lies if the judg.
ment may have been given on grounds which that section does not
make cause for error, as well as upon some ground which it does so
make.
MOTION by Mr. F. A. Dick (Messrs. Crews and Lecher op-
posing) to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of
Missouri; taken on an assumption that the case came within
the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, pp. 5, 6.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.
Jurisdiction may be exercised by this courf in three classes
of cases where a final judgment or decree in any suit in the](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0369&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)