Opinion of the Court.

had a right to sue upon said instrument, dated May 29, 1873, [being a power of attorney from William H. to Charles W. Colehour;] that said deed dated May 1, 1879, was and is valid as against said assignee in bankruptcy and against said Roby as purchaser from said assignee, and gives said Charles W. Colehour the right to defend the first three above-entitled cases against said Roby and to prosecute the fourth against said Roby, and to claim and enforce all rights of partner, trustee and co-tenant against said assignee in bankruptcy of said Roby and against said Roby as purchaser from such assignee."

Has this court jurisdiction to review the decree in these consolidated causes under the statute, (Rev. Stat. § 709,) providing that "a final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a State where any title, right, privilege or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, or any

authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set up or claimed by either party, under such Constitution, . or authority, may be reexamined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court upon a writ of error?"

This question is a close one. But although it does not appear from the opinion of the court of original jurisdiction, or the opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois, that either court formally passed upon any question of a Federal nature, the necessary effect of the decree was to determine, adversely to Roby, the rights and immunities claimed by him, in the pleadings and proof, under the proceedings in bankruptcy to which reference has been made. We must not be understood as holding that the certificate from the Chief Justice of the latter court is, in itself, and without reference to the record sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court to reëxamine the judgment below. Our jurisdiction being invoked upon the ground that a right or immunity, specially set up and claimed. under the Constitution or authority of the United States, has been denied by the judgment sought to be reviewed, it must appear from the record of the case either that the right, so set up and claimed, was expressly denied, or that such was the

Opinion of the Court.

necessary effect in law of the judgment. Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36, 38; Brown v. Atwell, Administrator, 92 U. S. 327, 329; Gross v. United States Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477, 485; Felix v. Scharnweber, 125 U. S. 54, 59. The present case may be held to come within this rule. In view of the certificate by the Chief Justice of the state court, the office of which, as said in Parmelee v. Lawrence, was, as respects the Federal question, "to make more certain and specific what is too general and indefinite in the record," we are not disposed to construe the pleadings so strictly as to hold that they did not sufficiently set up and claim the Federal rights which that certificate states were claimed by Roby, but were withheld, and were intended to be withheld, from him by the court below.

While the motion to dismiss must, therefore, be overruled, yet, as there was color for it, we must inquire whether the questions on which jurisdiction depends are such as, in the language of our rule (6), not to need further argument. We are of opinion that they are of that class. When Charles W. Colehour was adjudged a bankrupt he does not appear to have held any interest in the lands now in controversy. The answer of Roby distinctly states that he, Charles W. Colehour, in 1876, for a sufficient and valuable consideration, conveyed all his interest to W. H. Colehour, and had no interest in said lands at the date of his petition in bankruptcy filed in 1878. The decree is evidently based, so far as Charles W. Colehour is concerned, upon the deed to him by William H. Colehour, executed in 1879, although the respective interests of the parties were established with reference to the declaration of trust made in October, 1873. There is, consequently, no ground upon which to rest the contention that Charles W. Colehour had any interest or right in the lands that passed to his assignee in bankruptcy.

Equally without force is the contention that the adjudication of Roby to be a bankrupt, followed by his conveyance to his assignee in bankruptcy, and his purchase from such assignee, had any effect upon the rights of William H. Colehour or Charles W. Colehour. The respective interests of

Opinion of the Court.

Roby and the Colehours in the lands, at the date of Roby's bankruptcy, could have been determined in a suit or proceeding to which they and Roby's assignee in bankruptcy were parties, so that the purchaser at the assignee's sale would have acquired a title discharged from any claim upon them by either of the Colehours. But it does not appear that any such suit was brought or that the conflicting interests of the parties were determined as between them, or either of them, and Roby's assignee in bankruptcy. Roby's claim is that his purchase of the lands from his assignee in bankruptcy, the legal title to which was in him, of record, discharged him from all obligation to recognize any claim, upon the part of either of the Colehours, arising out of the relations existing between them and him prior to his bankruptcy. If, at the time of filing his petition in bankruptcy, he was bound by his relations to the Colehours, although holding the legal title, to account to them for their portions of the lands, as defined in any previous declaration of trust to which he was a party or to which he assented, or by which he was bound, he was not discharged from that obligation by merely purchasing the lands from his assignee in bankruptcy. It does not appear that any issue was framed and determined in the bankruptcy court as between him or his assignee and the Colehours. The conveyance to his assignee passed to the latter only such interest as he, in fact, had, and when he bought from the assignee he purchased only such as he could rightfully have conveyed, originally, to his assignee. If, before he went into bankruptcy, the Colehours had any interest in the lands, which they could assert, as between themselves and him, he could not, by simply purchasing it from his assignee, acquire an absolute title, freed from their claim. We are of opinion that the proceedings in bankruptcy against Roby, and the purchase from his assignee, did not defeat the claims now asserted by the Colehours in these lands, and which were recognized by the decree below.

Whether such relations, in fact, existed between the Colehours and Roby as prevented him, consistently with those relations, from purchasing the lands for himself, in other

VOL. CXLVI-11

Statement of the Case.

words, whether he was the attorney of the Colehours when he acquired the legal title, or whether, upon principles of equity, Roby should be deemed to have acquired the title for them and himself, subject to the declaration of trust referred to in the pleadings and decree, are not questions of a Federal nature. The decree below, in respect to those matters, is not subject to reëxamination by this court. The Federal questions having been decided correctly, and those questions being such as not to need any further argument beyond that presented in the briefs of counsel, the decree in each of the cases must be

Affirmed.

MORLEY v. LAKE SHORE AND MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

No. 1. Argued October 14, 17, 1892. - Decided November 14, 1892.

The Court of Appeals of the State of New York having held that a judgment obtained before the passage of the act of the Legislature of that State of June 20, 1879, reducing the rate of interest, (Sess. Laws 1879, 598, c. 538,) is not a "contract or obligation" excepted from its operation under the provisions of § 1, this court accepts that construction as binding here.

The provision in § 10 of Art. 1, of the Constitution of the United States that no State shall' pass any " "law impairing the obligation of contracts," does not forbid a State from legislating, within its discretion, to reduce the rate of interest upon judgments previously obtained in its courts; as the judgment creditor has no contract whatever in that respect with the judgment debtor, and as the former's right to receive, and the latter's obligation to pay exists only as to such an amount of interest as the State chooses to prescribe as a penalty or liquidated damages for the nonpayment of the judgment.

A state statute reducing the rate of interest upon all judgments obtained within the courts of the State does not, when applied to one obtained previous to its passage, deprive the judgment creditor of his property without due process of law, in violation of the provisions of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

THIS case was first argued on the 23d and 24th days of October, 1888, at October term, 1888. Mr. Lucien Birds

Opinion of the Court.

eye for plaintiff in error. Mr. E. S. Rapallo for defendant in error. On the 29th of the same month it was ordered for reargument.

It was ordered continued at that term, and also at October terms 1889, 1890 and 1891. At the present term it was argued on the 14th and 17th days of October. The case then made is stated in the opinion.

Mr. William Ford Upson (with whom was Mr. William Forse Scott on the brief) and Mr. George Hoadly for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edward S. Rapallo for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

John S. Prouty, of the city and State of New York, was a holder and owner of certain preferred and guaranteed stock of the Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Railroad Company. This stock was issued in the city of New York, in the year 1857, and the guaranteed dividends and interest were to be there paid. Subsequently, it being alleged that the said company was in arrears of dividends and interest due Mr. Prouty as holder and owner of its stock, an action was commenced by him in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for the city and county of New York, special term, upon the equity side, to compel the said company specifically to perform its contract and agreement with him. During the pendency of the action, evidence was produced tending to show that, after the commencement of the same, the said company was, with various other companies, merged or consolidated into the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, the present defendant in error. Upon this evidence the consolidated company was permitted to be brought in as defendant by supplemental complaint. In pursuance of this complaint, after a trial at special term, the Supreme Court, on motion, decreed that the railroad company should specifically perform all and every act and acts necessary and proper for