Matthews v. Zane

Matthews v. Zane. Appellate jurisdiction. If two citizens of the same state, in a suit in a court of their state, claim title under the same act of congress, this court has an appellate jurisdiction to revise and correct the judgment of that court in such case. Error to the state court of the state of Ohio, under the 25th section of the judiciary act. (1 U. S. Stat. 85.) The plaintiff in error claimed title to land in the state of Ohio, under the act of congress, passed in 1800, and the decision of the state court was against him. The defendant in error also claimed title to the same land, under the same act of congress. The question was, whether in such a case this court had an appellate jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a state court. * Harper, for the defendant in error, contended, that the reason of bestowing upon this court the power of revising the decisions of the state courts, upon points arising under the laws of the United States, was merely to maintain the authority of the laws of the United States, against the encroachments of the state authorities. But that it was not intended to give this court the power to revise the decision of a state court, in a controversy between two of her own citizens, claiming under the same act of congress ; for whether the one or the other recovered, the authority of the laws of the United States was equally supported. The power was given merely to prevent the laws of the United States from being frittered away by state jealousies and state powers. P. B. Key, contra, contended, that the intention was to give a uniform construction to the laws of the United States; and that whenever a state court of the highest grade shall have given a false construction to an act of congress, to the prejudice of a right claimed under such act of congress, this court is empowered .to correct the decision; and that it is altogether immaterial, whether both parties are citizens of the same state, or whether both claim under the same act of congress. [MAJORITY — Marshall, Ch. J.,] The Court at first hesitated as to the jurisdiction, but upon consultation together and deliberation— Marshall, Ch. J., declared it to be the opinion of a majority of the judges, that this court has jurisdiction. That the third article of the constitution of the United States, when considered in connection with the statute, will give it a more extensive construction than it might otherwise receive. It is supposed, that the act intends to give this court the power of rendering uniform the construction of the laws of the United States, and the decisions upon rights or titles, claimed under those laws.