Lawler v. Walker

by James Moore Wayne

United States Supreme Court

55 U.S. 149

Lawler  v.  Walker

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.

As the case was decided upon the point of jurisdiction, it will be necessary to state only so much of it as to show what the question was which came before this court. See 18 Ohio Rep. 151.

James H. Walker and John Walker, partners in trade, under the name of J. H. and J. Walker, brought a writ against the plaintiffs in error in the Hamilton Court of Common Pleas, in Ohio. The action was brought to recover $2,000 from the plaintiffs in error, as directors, stockholders, or otherwise interested in an association known as the Cincinnati and Whitewater Canal Company. The evidence upon the trial was, that the plaintiffs had become the holders of a large amount of such notes as the following:

No. 18667. 1

D. 1

The Cincinnati & Whitewater Canal Co. promise to pay one dollar to R. McCurdy, or order, twelve months after date, for value received, at their office, Cincinnati, 9th Nov. 1840.

SAM. E. FOOTE, Sec'y.

J. BONSALL Pres't.

No. 1. Indorsed 'R. McCurdy.'

The court charged the jury as follows:--

That, if the paper was issued under the directions or orders of the defendants, and intended to circulate as currency, they would be liable in this action, whether issued for the individual benefit of the defendants or for the benefit of the Cincinnati and Whitewater Canal Company; that if the company had issued notes not intended to circulate as a currency, as bank paper generally does, in the ordinary form, but merely to pay off their creditors, the defendants would not be liable; that if the defendants, in issuing said notes, acted merely as directors of the Cincinnati and Whitewater Canal Company, and within the limits of their corporate powers, they would not be personally liable; but that said charter of said company did not authorize the issuing of notes designed or calculated to circulate as money, and therefore would not protect the defendants, if the jury should be satisfied that they issued such notes; that although, in ordinary cases, where notes are made payable to order, it may be necessary for a plaintiff to prove the indorsement, yet, if the jury find, in this case, that these notes were issued and intended to circulate as a currency, it is not necessary to prove the handwriting of the indorser, and the mere fact of the plaintiffs having the notes in their possession is prim a facie evidence of ownership.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, for $3,452.10.

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Court of Hamilton County, and gave the following certificate:

In this cause, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas having been affirmed, it is now certified that this is the highest court of law in the State of Ohio, in which a decision of this suit could be had; and that there is drawn in question the validity of statutes of the State of Ohio, in which it is claimed by plaintiffs in error, those statutes are in violation of the Constitution of the United States; and which statutes have been held valid and binding by this court, notwithstanding such objections. And this certificate is ordered to be made part of the record.

The defendants brought the case up to this court.

It was argued upon printed briefs by Messrs. Fox, Walker, and Grosbeck for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Chase, with whom was Mr. Rockwell, for the defendants in error.

The question of jurisdiction was thus stated by one of the counsel for the plaintiffs in error, Mr. Walker.

This case comes before this court under that clause of the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, (1 U.S. Stat. at Large, 85,) which authorizes a writ of error to a State court in the case of 'a final judgment in any suit in the highest court of law of a State in which the decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of a State, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and the decision is in favor of such its validity.'This state of fact appears on the face of the record. The validity of the statute of Ohio, of March 18, 1839, 'further to amend the act entitled 'an act to prohibit the issuing and circulating of unauthorized bank paper," (Swan's Stat. 140,) was drawn in question. It was drawn in question upon the ground that it was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, because it impaired the obligation of the contract made by the State of Ohio with the Whitewater Canal Company, in the act incorporating the latter; and the decision of the State court-the highest court of law in the State in which the decision could be had-was in favor of the validity of that statute.

The case therefore arises where this court may entertain jurisdiction. Commonwealth Bank of Kentucky v. Griffith, 14 Peters, 56.

On the other hand, the counsel for the defendant in error contended that this court has no jurisdiction. It is not a case in which was drawn in question the validity of a statute of a State, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and in which the decision was in favor of such its validity.

1. The case is within the decision of the court in the case Commercial Bank v. Buckingham, 5 Howard, 317.

The defendants below did not claim that the acts of Ohio were unconstitutional; their claim was that those statutes imposed a penalty for their violation, and that thus the action was barred in four years under the general statute of limitation of the State. The Supreme Court of Ohio decided otherwise; and as they claim erroneously, and they now claim on account of that erroneous decision to give this court jurisdiction.

2. It does not appear from the record that the question was raised at the trial as to the constitutionalty of the Ohio statutes of 1816 and 1839.

Nothing of the kind is shown, or to be inferred, from the pleadings in the case.

From the bill of exceptions it appears that the plaintiffs in error excepted, on three grounds, to the admission of testimony and claimed the charge of the Judge to the jury on nine points but no one of them has any reference to, nor in any manne involves this question.

The charge itself presents no such question; no reference whatever is made to any such question in the assignments of errors in the Court of Common Pleas or Supreme Court of Ohio.

The only thing on the record, showing that the constitutional validity of any law was in question, is found in the certificate ordered by the court to be entered on the record, (p. 19,) 'that there is drawn in question the validity of statutes of the State of Ohio,' &c., without saying what statutes, or on what ground the decision was made, or in what manner statutes of Ohio were connected with the subject-matter of the case before the court; nor is there any thing in any part of the record showing that these statutes of 1816 and 1839 were in question, nor any reference made to them.

Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes