delivered the opinion of the court.
There was no Federаl question presented to the court belоw by the plaintiff in error, so far as appеars frorñ the record. There is no statute of a State in question here. ■
But it is insisted that there was an authority under the State of Louisiana exercised in the case drawn in question, and which was repugnant to thе Constitution, and the deсision in favor of its validity, аnd that is,-the Supreme Court of the State were acting under the authority of the State at the time its decision was rendered.
There arе two answers to this .ground: 1st. Thаt'the authority conferred on a court tо hear and determinе cases in’ a State, is not the kind of authority rеferred to in the 25th seсtion, otherwise every judgment of the Supremе Court of a State would be re-examinablе under the section; аnd 2d. The decision of the court was not repugnant to the Constitution. It simply held that the promissоry notes, together with the mortgage in question, were,nullities, on the ground thаt the' “ Confederatе currency,” which cоnstituted the consideration, was illegal according to the law of the State at the timе the contract was entered in'tq.
As no Federal question appears in ihe record the motion to dismiss must be ■
Granted.