Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong
150 U.S. 85
SCOTUS
1893
Check Treatment
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

In view of the provisions of section 5198 of the Eevised Statutes, as corrected by the act of February 18, 1875, 18 Stat. 316, 320, c. 80; the proviso of the fourth section of the act of July 12, 1882, 22 Stat. 162, 163, c. 290, and the decision *88 of this court in First National Bank of Charlotte v. Morgan, 132 U. S. 141, counsel properly limited his assignment of errors to the matters specified, and does not now seek to rest the jurisdiction of the court upon any other ground than may be involved therein. And it is not contended that the writ of error can be maintained except upon the theory that the decision of the state court was against some title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed by plaintiff in error under the statutes of the United States. But by the requirements to the exercise of our jurisdiction of section 709 of the Revised Statutes, the title, right, privilege, or immunity thus relied on must be specially set up or claimed in the state court at the proper time and in the proper way. The decision must be against the title, right, privilege, or immunity so set up or claimed. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Brooks v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394; Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U. S. 132; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Southern Pacific Co., 137 U. S. 48.

The errors assigned are in substance that the complaint or petition was fatally defective, in that it contained' no averment negativing the exception of section 5197 of the Revised Statutes, under which national banks might charge the rate of interest permitted to banks of issue organized under state laws; in that it contained no allegation of the rate of interest allowed in any case by such state laws; in that the supposed causes of action were alleged to have accrued by force of section 5198 of the Revised Statutes, whereas they accrued, if at all, under and by.forcé of sections 5197 and 5198 taken together; in that there was a fatal variance between the allegations of the complaint and the requirements of said sections; and in that there was no allegation in either of the counts that the indebtedness of plaintiff below had been paid; and in support of these alleged errors many considerations were urged in argument here, in respect of which, however, counsel observed that “none of the considerations herein presented to the court against the sufficiency of the complaint or petition of the plaintiff below were called to the attention of the Supreme Court of Nebraska.”

Yet it is urged that the bank had contended at every stage *89 of the litigation that the trial court had no power to proceed to judgment against it under sections 5197 and 5198, because of the want of averment in the petition of facts essential to give such jurisdiction, and hence that the bank must be held to have specially set up or claimed the title, right, privilege, and immunity under said sections to be exempt from liability to the plaintiff below for any matter or thing alleged in his complaint. But we are unable to accede to tkis view. Th® case was necessarily tried in accordance with the procedure and practice prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure of Nebraska. That provided a form of action to be called a civil action, and to be commenced by the filing of a petition and the issue of summons thereon; what the petition must contain ; that the pleadings should be liberally construed; that redundant matter might be stricken out and the allegations of a pleading required to be made definite and certain by amendment when necessary ; that neither presumptions of law nor matters of which judicial notice is taken need be stated in the pleading; that amendments in furtherance of justice might .be made before or after judgment; that the court should disregard errors or defects in the pleadings or proceedings not affecting the substantial rights of the adverse party, and that by reason of such error or defect no judgment should be- reversed or affected ; for the assignment of grounds for a' new trial, including that the verdict, report, or decision was not sustained by sufficient evidence, or was contrary to law, and for error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to. (§§ 2; 62; 92; 121; 125; 136; 144; 145; 314 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Nebraska.)

The questions raised upon the pleadings were disposed o.f by the Supreme Court in accordance with these provisions and the jurisprudence of the State in that regard, and there is nothing whatever to indicate that in passing upon the technical sufficiency of the complaint its attention was invited to the proposition that by its judgment thereon it might be depriving the defendant below of some title, right, privilege, or immunity arising in virtue of the sections under which the liability accrued.

*90 ' It is true that the jurisdiction of the trial court was objected to, but that was on the confessedly untenable ground that the courts of the United States had exclusive jurisdiction in this class of cases, and therefore that the state courts had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, but no such contention as that before us was suggested.

This being so, without intending in any degree to intimate that the determination by the state courts that the petition was sufficient might have presented a question revisable by this court, we must direct the writ of error to be

Dismissed.

Me. Justice Brown did not sit in tíiis case, and took no part in its decision.