Messenger v. Mason

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is insisted, on the part of the defendant in error, that an examination of the record, will show that there is no Federal question in the case of which this court can take cognizance.

In the-case of Maxwell v. Newbold et al. ‡ it was held the objection that “the charge of the court, the verdict of the jury, and the judgment below are each against, and in eonfiiet'with the Constitution and laws of the United States,” was not sufficiently specific to raise a question within the provisions of this section. The Chief Justice in delivering the opinion of the court observes, that “ the clause in the Constitution and the law of Congress should have been specified by the plaintiffs in error in the State court, in order *510 that this court might see .what was the right claimed by them, and whether it was denied by the decision of the State court.” This court had previously held, in Lawler v. Walker and others * that the statement in a certificate of the State court that there was drawn in question the validity of statutes of 'Ohio, without saying what statutes, was too indefinite, and that the statutés complained of in the case should have been specified. These decisions were reaffirmed in Hoyt v. Shelden. † It is quite clear, upon these authorities, that the constitutional objection taken in the present case is too general to be'noticed on a writ of error under this 25th section.

As to the effect of the certificate from the court below, see Commercial Bank v. Buckingham, ‡ Lawler v. Walker, § and Porter v. Foley. ||

One difficulty in bringing the case within this 25th section is, that it makes no provision for the re-examination of a judgment in a State court which upholds the validity of a statute of a Territory in contravention of the Constitution. It applies only to the case where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or authority exercised under, any State. The circumstance, therefore, that the court below held the statute of the Territory providing for partition of lands among tenants in common, valid, is of no importance in the ease. ¶

It has been urged on the argument, however, in view of the certificate of the court, that a right set up under the Ordinance of 1787, by the defendants at the trial, had been denied them, and that the construction of a law of Congress had thus been drawn in question.

Although the organic law of the Territory of Iowa did incorporate into its system of laws, indirectly, many of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787, by extending to its inhabitants- the rights and privileges theretofore secured to •the Territory of Wisconsin by, its organic law, among which were those found in the ordinance, yet the sam'e section *511 that conferred these rights and privileges upon the Territory of. Iowa provided that they should be subject to be altered, modified, or repealed by the governor and legislative assembly of the said Territory. If, therefore, anything is found in this act of partition in conflict with these provisions, to that extent they must be regarded as altered or modified, which' affords a complete answer to the ground relied upon under the ordinance.

Motion granted.