delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a petition for mandamus filed in the Supreme Court of the State оf Michigan by the Michigan Sugar Company against the Auditor General of thаt State, praying that he might be commanded to draw his warrant or warrants on the treasury of the State in favor of petitioner, for certain amounts alleged to be dué to it for bounty earned for beet sugar manufactured from sugar beets raised in the year 1898, in accordаnce with the provisions of an act of the legislature of Michigan of 1897. Reliance was also placed on an act of 1899 аsserted to have made appropriations to pay suсh bounties. The Auditor General in response do a rule to show cаuse insisted that the act of. 1897 was in contravention of the state constitution, and also that no appropriálions had been made out of which the alleged bounties could be paid.
The Supreme Court of Michigan held that the act of 1897
*113
was unconstitutiоnal, and that it could not be and was not helped out by the act оf 1899, which made no specific appropriations “ by which the sugar bounties could be paid; ” and denied the application:
The petition for mandamus nowhere set uр that the State of Michigan had' passed any law impairing the obligаtion of a contract with- relator, and nowhere invoked the рrotection of any provision of the Federal Constitution, nor wаs any issue in relation thereto raised upon the record.
It is clear that the case did not fall within either the first or second of the classes of cases in which the judgment of á state court may be reеxamined under section 709 of the Revised Statutes. The validity of no treaty or statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States was drawn in question; nor was the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, the State drawn in question on the ground of repugnancy to thе Constitution, treaties or laws of the United - States, and its validity sustained. And as tо the third cláss, no right, title, privilege or immunity was specially set up or clаimed as belonging to relator under the Constitution, or any treaty or stаtute of, or commission held, or authority exercised under, the United States; and denied.
The Supreme Court of the State did not refer to the Federal Constitution or consider and decide any Federal quеstion. For aught that appears, the court proceedеd in its determination of the cause without any thought that it was disposing of such a question.
The rule is firmly established, and has been frequently reiterated, that the jurisdiction of this court to reexamine the final judgment of a state court, under the third division of section 709, cannot arise from merе inference, but only from averments so distinct and positive as to place it beyond question *114 that the party bringing the case here from such court intended to assert a Federal right. The statutory requiremеnt is not met unless the party unmistakably declares that he invokes for the protection of his rights, the Constitution, or some treaty, statute, commission or authority, of the United States. Applying this rule to the case before us, the writ of error cannot be maintained.
Writ of error dismissed.