delivered the opinion of the. court.
This is аn action for damage caused by the melting on a hot day of fusible sprinkler heads in an automatic sprinklеr put up in the plaintiffs building by the defendant for protection against fire. The complaint alleges, diversity of citizenship, . negligence on the part of the defendant, injury to goods of two tenants in the' building, suits by or in thé right of the tenants аgainst the plaintiff, which the plaintiff notified the defendant .to. defend, the recovery of judgments, one of which was affirmed by the Supreme Court" of Michigan, Peerless Manufacturing Co. v. Bagley, 126 Michigan, 225, and payment of the same by the plaintiff,' who seeks to recover the sums paid, interest, and the costs of defense. The answer denies many of the material allegations, and relies'upon the terms of the written-contract under which the work wás done, alleging the same to have been performed and the :work accepted. -The contract required- the material tо be first class, and all work specified to be done iñ a thorough and workmanlike manner, and in conformity with the Imрroved Risks Commission standard for automatic sprinkler installations. It also contained this clause: “It is explicitly undеrstood and agreed that no obligations other than herein set forth and made a part of this proposal and acceptance shall be binding Upon either party.” The case was sent, to a- referee, and he found that the obligations of the agreement were fulfilled, that contrary to rulings asked by the plaintiff thе Michigan judgment did not determine that the defendant was negligent, or bind it, and-that the defendant was entitled to judgment. Upоn the referee’s findings the complaint was dismissed on the merits by the;Circuit Court, and the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 150 Fed. Rep. 284.
The first question that arises is whether this court has.juris- ' diction, and upon that we are of opinion that the plaintiff’s argument fails. When the jurisdiction below depends entirely upon diversity of citizenship, the judgment оf the Circuit Court
*479
of Appeals is final, by the. express terms of the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 6. 26 Stat. 826, 828. This, of course, is not denied, but it is said that this section does not exclude a resort to this court when the complaint also invokes the application of the Constitution of the United States.
Spreckels Sugar Refining Co.
v.
McClain,
Failing the foregoing argument, it is contended that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court did not depend entirely on the diverse citizenship of the parties. In other words, it is contended that the complaint sufficiently invoked Art. IV, § 1, of the Constitution' by alleging thе Michigan judgment, and the fact that in those cases it was averred and adjudged that one of the sprinkler” heаds was negligently and improperly, made of such material as to fuse' at too low a temperature, аnd that the' sprinkler and pipes were negligently and improperly eiected and placed. But in the complaint there is no intimation, direct' or indirect, of a reliance upon the Constitution. On the con
*480
trary, insteаd of simply setting forth the defendant’s contract, the suits, notice to the defendant to defend, and the judgments, and thus аt least implying that for some reason those judgments were supposéd to establish the defendant’s liability, it is most elaborately alleged, seemingly as issuable- matter,, that the de- - fendant was negligent in its work and did not do what it had agiеed to perform. The judgments seem on the face of the complaint to be referred to primarily, if hоt solely, as fixing the amount of the plaintiff’s claim. See further
Provident Savings Life Assurance Co.
v.
Ford,
But if. the .plaintiff had set forth in so many words that he ' came into court relying upon full faith and credit being given to the Michigan judgment under the Constitution, still, on the face of the сomplaint, it would have been obvious that the Constitution was not the basis of his claim, as it is.obvio.us, on reading the оpinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, that full faith and credit to'the Michigan judgment has not been denied. The'dеfendant was no party to that 'judgment, and there is' nothing in the Constitution to give it any' force as against strangers. If the judgment binds the defendant it is not by its own operation, eyen with the Constitution behind' it, but by an estoppel arising out of the defеndant’s contract with the plaintiff and the notice to defend. The ground of decision in-both courts bglow .was that thеre was no such estoppel, the duty and responsibility of the defendant-being limited.by the words that we have quotеd from the contract, excluding any obligation other than those set forth. The decision, in other words, turned wholly оn the construction of the contract as excluding a liability over in the event that happened. Even if wrоng, it did not deiiy the Michigan judgments their full effect, but denied the preliminary relation between the defendant and the party to them, without which the defendant remained a stranger to them, in spite of the notice to defend. .
- Writ of error dismissed.