« PrejšnjaNaprej »
ordered to Sarria to hold the payments on the mortgage or pay the same into the treasury, to abide the order of the court.
The registrar refused to comply, assigning as a reason that the encumbrance had been assigned to third parties and that the mortgage law did not justify such an order. Subsequent proceedings resulted in the final decree of the military court deciding the merits of the controversy in favor of Sixto. The decision of November 29, 1895, was also notified to Sarria, and on May 4, 1896, the entry of the court discloses:
“On May 4, 1896, appeared Mr. Laureano Sarria y Gonzalez and stated: that, having received notice that the installment of the mortgage had been transferred to Mr. Antonio Roig, who has recorded said transfer in the registry of property, and supposing that he will proceed to collect the same judicially, he did the previous installment, he is unable to accept the notification, and he will appear before the audiencia in the premises.”
Over the objection of the plaintiff in error, Sarria was permitted to testify that he paid the installment to Roig by order of the audienca. But the plaintiff in error was not a party to such proceeding, if it had been legally proved, and of course could not be concluded by it. On being notified that the order of June 2, 1894, was in full force, requiring him to hold the funds, while Sarria says he is unable to accept the notification, he declares he will appear before the audiencia in the premises. Instead of so doing, unless the appearance in the Roig case can be so considered, he made application in the court of first instance for a release of the deposited installment in order to pay it to Roig, and that court made the order, although it had been notified of the decision of the audiencia of November 29, 1895. This order could have no effect on the rights of the plaintiff in error, nor can it protect Sarria, who acted in the face of knowledge of the decision of the higher court instead of appearing in that court at the suit of Sixto, and having the rights of Roig and the contesting heirs determined. We conclude that the plaintiff in error had the right to recover his share of the third and fourth installments,
notwithstanding the alleged transfers and payments to Roig, and the alleged decree of the audiencia in the proceeding to which Sixto was not a party. For error in the court's charge as to the second, third and fourth
installments, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FULLERTON v. TEXAS.
ERROR TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF
No. 112. Argued December 16, 1904.-Decided January 9, 1905.
It is too late to raise a Federal question by petition for rehearing in the
Supreme Court of a State after that court has pronounced its final decision unless it appears that the court entertained the petition and dis
posed of the question. The certificate of the presiding judge of the Supreme Court of the State, made
after the decision, to the effect that a Federal question was considered and decided adversely to plaintiff in error, cannot in itself confer jurisdiction on this court; and on the face of this record and from the opinions the reasonable inference is that the application for rehearing may have been denied in the mere exercise of discretion, or the alleged constitutional question was not passed on in terms because not suggested until too late. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. William W. Griffin, with whom Mr. A. D. Englesman was on the brief, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. C. K. Bell, Attorney General of the State of Texas, appeared for defendant in error but did not make any argument or file any brief.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.
Fullerton was charged by information with unlawfully conducting, carrying on and transacting the business of dealing in futures in cotton, grain, etc.; and unlawfully keeping a bucket shop, so called, "where future contracts were then and
there bought and sold with no intention of an actual bona fide delivery of the articles and things so bought and sold." He was found guilty as charged, and sentenced to a fine of two hundred dollars and imprisonment for thirty days. The case was carried to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, and judgment affirmed. The court in its opinion stated the contention to be that the evidence did not show a violation of the statute, namely, Art. 377 of the Penal Code; and held on a consideration of the facts that Fullerton had clearly brought himself within and violated the statute. 75 S. W. Rep. 534. Fullerton thereupon moved for a rehearing, which motion was overruled. This application for rehearing assigned, among other grounds, that the statute as construed by the court was in violation of the Constitution of the United States, vesting in Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States. In overruling the motion, the court delivered a second opinion on the question of the sufficiency of the indictment, which was attacked, not in the motion for rehearing, but in an additional brief presented after the submission of that motion. The court, however, held the indictment good and, after stating that “the motion for rehearing was mainly devoted to an attack on the original opinion wherein the evidence was held sufficient,” adhered to that opinion. 75 S. W. Rep. 535. No reference to the Constitution of the United States was made by the court, nor does the record disclose any such reference, except in the petition for rehearing as before stated.
We have repeatedly ruled that it is too late to raise a Federal question by a petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court of a State after that court has pronounced its final decision, although if the state court entertains the petition and disposes of the Federal question, that will be sufficient. Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589. In that case it was observed: “Had that court declined to pass upon the Federal questions and dismissed the petition without considering them, we certainly would not undertake to revise their action." Some weeks after the denial of the motion for a rehearing,
this writ of error was allowed by the presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, who certified that on that motion it was contended “that under the evidence in the cause plaintiff in error was engaged in interstate commerce and commerce between different States within the meaning of article one, section eight, of the Constitution of the United States, and that the statutes of the State of Texas could not make such matters and transactions an offense, and that to do so would violate said constitutional provision.” And further “that said contention was duly considered by us and decided adversely to plaintiff in error."
But on the face of the record proper and from the opinions, the reasonable inference is that the court may have denied the application in the mere exercise of its discretion, or declined to pass on the alleged constitutional question, in terms, because it was suggested too late, and nothing is more firmly established than that such a certificate cannot in itself confer jurisdiction on this court. Henkel v. Cincinnati, 177 U. S. 170; Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Company, 163 U. S. 63.
Writ of error dismissed.
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY v.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
No. 111. Argued December 16, 1904.-Decided January 9, 1905.
Where the highest court of the State holds that a statute fixing the liability
of common carriers applies to shipments made to points without the
State, this court must accept that construction of the statute
vision of the Federal Constitution.
of the duty of tracing the freight and informing the shipper, in writing, when, where, how and by which carrier the freight was lost, damaged or destroyed, and of giving the names of the parties and their official position, if any, by whom the truth of the facts set out in the information can be established, is, when applied to interstate commerce, a violation of the
commerce clause of the Federal Constitution; and $8 2317, 2318 of the Code of Georgia of 1895, imposing such a duty on common carriers is void as to shipments made from points in Georgia to other States. Richmond & Alleghany R. R. Co. v. Tobacco Company, 169 U. S. 311 distinguished.
The plaintiff in error brings this case here to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia, affirming a judgment of the trial court, in favor of the defendants in error, for the damages sustained by them on the shipment of certain grapes, as hereinafter more particularly stated. (First reported, 113 Georgia, 514, and again on appeal from judgment on second trial, 116 Georgia, 863.)
The trial court gave judgment for the shippers of the grapes, who were plaintiffs below, for the amount of the difference between the market price of the grapes as shipped in good order and the amount they actually received for the same in their damaged condition, being the sum of $434.55. The action was commenced in the Pike County Court, in the State of Georgia, and the petition averred that on July 31, 1897, the petitioners shipped a carload of grapes from Barnesville, Georgia, consigned to Rocco Brothers, Omaha, Nebraska, by way of the Central of Georgia Railway Company. The freight was to be conveyed by more than two common carriers, the initial carrier being the Central of Georgia Railway Company, and the freight was shipped under a contract of shipment in which it was provided that the responsibility of each carrier should cease upon delivery to the next “in good order.” The grapes were greatly damaged on the route between Barnesville and Omaha, and the damage resulted from the negligence of the common carriers on the route. The petitioners applied to the plaintiff in error, the initial carrier on the route, and served it with an application in writing August 20, 1897, in which they requested that the railway company should trace the freight and inform the petitioners, in writing, when, how and by which carrier the freight was damaged, and also that the company should furnish the petitioners the names of the parties and their official position, if any, by whom the truth of the facts set forth in the