Beaupre v. Noyes

delivered the opinion of the court.

The contention of the plaintiffs in error is, that by the statutes of the Territory of Montana, above quoted, the alleged assignment by Young to Winchester Avas conclusively fraudulent as to them, for the want of the immediate delivery, followed by an actual and continued change of possession, of the goods assigned; that their right to so treat the assignment, although such right was specially set up and claimed, was denied; and that, consequently, they were denied a right arising under an authority exercised under the United States. Whether the state court so interpreted the Territorial statute as to deny such right to the plaintiffs in error, we need not inquire, for it proceeded, in part, upon another and distinct-ground, not involving any federal question, and sufficient, in-itself, to maintain the judgment, Avithout reference to that question. That ground is, that there w&s evidence tending tq *402 show .that, the defendants acquiesced in and assented to all that was done, and waived any irregularity in the mode in which the assignee conducted the business; and that the question whether the defendants so acquiesced and assented with knowledge of all the facts and thereby waived their right' to treat the assignment as fraudulent, wras properly submitted to the jury. The state court evidently intended to hold that, even if the assignment was originally fraudulent, as against' the creditors, by reason of Young remaining in the store as clerk for Winchester, and assisting the latter in carrying on the business, it was competent for the plaintiffs in error to waive the fraud and treat the assignment as valid for all the purposes specified in' it. That view does not involve a federal question. Whether sound or not, we do not inquire. It is broad enough, in itself, to support the final judgment, without reference to the. federal question, and for that reason the judgment must be

Affirmed.

Beaupré v. Noyes. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. No. 159 argued and submitted with No. 160, January-28, 1891. Mb. Justice Hablan delivered the opinion of the court. This case is the same case, in respect to the issues and facts as the above case. It is a writ of error to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State affirming the order of the court of original jurisdiction refusing a new trial in the above action. This writ was sued out upon the theory that the denial of a new trial might be regarded as a final judgment of the state court within the meaning of the act of Congress. But, clearly, this court has no jurisdiction to review such an order. The writ of.error in case 159 must, therefore, be

Dismissed.