20240325Appellants Reply Briefs.pdf

Electronically Filed
3/25/2024 7:56 PM
Idaho Supreme Court
Melanie Gagnepain,Clerk of the Court
By:Brad Thies,Clerk
Idaho Supreme Court of Appeals
Sherry Cole
V
Rocky Mountain Power, IPUC
Reply requested by court: 51148-2023
From Idaho Public Utilities Commission Tribunal PAC-E-2023-12, Final decision made August
22.2023
Attorney for Respondent PacifiCorp d/b/a Sherry Cole
Rocky Mountain Power Company Appellant Pro Se
Joseph Dallas,senior Attorney Rocky Mountain Power, 350 S. 12th W.414
825 NE Multnomah, STE 2000,Portland, OR 97232 Saint Anthony,Idaho 83445
Attorney for respondent IPUC
Raul Labrador,Idaho AG
Michael Duval ISB# 11714,
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W, Chinden Blvd.
Building 8, Suite 201-A,Boise Idaho 83704
.........................................:................................................._........_........_....................................._..._..........-........................................................................................................................................................................:..............................................................................
1 Page

Table of contents
Table of Authorities pg 3
Rely to court pg 4-5
enclosure of case cited Claflin V Houseman pgs 6-17
Certificate of Service 18
................................._....._....................................._..........._.........................................................................................................................................................................................._.............................................._..............................................................................
2I.Page

Table of Authorities
Abelman v Booth 62 U.S. 21 How. 506 506 (1858)
Chaflin v Houseman, 93 US 130(1876)pgl-3
US Constitutional Amendments 5th and 14th
... .......... ........ ............. ....... ............... ......... .......... ......... ..... .......... ........ . ........ . ......... .. .... ...........................
3 Wage

Reply to court on both defendants briefs
Comes now Sherry Cole, the appellant to bring a jurisdictional challenge of the Idaho Supreme
Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter, I have asserted on numerous occasions that my
United States Constitutional rights of due process of law(see 5th. and 14th. amendments), were
violated, when Rocky Mountain Power(RMP)took back, an already refunded amount,to my
account, Without due process of law.
This as you are aware, was the result of a billing error caused by crossing of meters between 2
of RMP customers on that bank, by Rocky Mountain Power(RMP)for extended period of time.
As you well know RMP admitted the meters were indeed crossed from RMP's letter dated
January 25,2023. Where RMP let the appellant know that the issue was investigated and was.
fixed on 01,13,2023 by personnel from RMP.
Subsequently RMP on bill dated 02,28,2023 removed the previously refunded monetary credit
from my account without any due process of law, as applicable verbage of the 5th and 14th US
Constitutional amendments.
This is the reason I challenged IPUCs jurisdiction over case resolution when they are an
administrative agency and not a true court of the United States.
Finally upon further examination I, the appellant, assert that the Idaho "State" Supreme Court
also lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter, as this case at bar has a United States
Constitutional outcome, regardless of verdict.
I have enclosed United States Supreme Court case Chaflin v Houseman, 93 US 130(1876)pgl-3
with highlight of section#12 of"opinion by Justice Bradley". In section 11 of the opinion it
...................................._.._...............................................................___....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..........................................:...... .....
4 Rage

states every citizen of the state is a subject of two distinct sovereignties, having concurrent
jurisdiction in the State, as to place and persons though DISTINCT as to subject matter. In
section 12 of the opinion it states a case "Abelman v Booth" Chief Justice Taney stated that State
Courts had no power to revise actions of Federal Courts, nor the Federal the State except where
the Federal Constitution is involved. " see Judiciary act 1789"
Re ectfully
Sherry ole Pro Se
Appellant
......... ....... ....... . ...... ............................ .... ..... ........ .. ..... ......... ...... ......... .. ...........
5 Page

LII > U.S. Supreme Court > CLAFLIN v. HOUSEMAN, ASSIGNEE.
CLAFLIN Y. HOUSEMAN, ASSIGNEE.
Supreme Court
93 U.S. 130
23 L.Ed. 833
CLAFLIN
V.
HOUSEMAN, ASSIGNEE.
October Term, 1876
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
This action was brought in May, 1872, in the New York Supreme Court, county
of Kings, by Julius Houseman, as assignee in bankruptcy of Comstock and
Young, against Horace B. Claflin, under the thirty-fifth section of the Bankrupt
Act, to recover the sum of $1,935.57, with interest, being the amount
collected by Claflin on a judgment against the bankrupts, recovered within
four months before the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy. The
ground of the action, as stated in the complaint, was that they (the bankrupts)
suffered the judgment to be taken by default, with intent to give Claflin a
preference over their other creditors, at a time when they were insolvent, and
when he knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that they were insolvent,
and that the judgment was obtained in fraud of the bankrupt law. The
defendant demurred to the complaint, assigning as cause, first, that the court
had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action; secondly, that the complaint
did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Judgment was
rendered for the plaintiff on the thirteenth day of January, 1873, and was
subsequently affirmed both by the general term of the Supreme Court and by

the Court of Appeals. This judgment is brought here by writ of error, under the
second section of the act of Feb. 5, 1867 (14 Stat. 385).
.............................................
Argued by Mr. William Henry Arnoux for the plaintiff in error.
Where Congress has an exclusive right to legislate, the Federal courts have an
exclusive power to adjudicate. United States v. Ames, 1 W. & M. 76; United
States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 261; United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason, 91; Osborn V.
U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 818.
Where a State cannot legislate, its courts cannot adjudicate. United States v.
Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; Rose v. Hinely,
4 Cranch, 241; McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 McLean,,191; Stearns v. United
States, 2 Paine, 311; Shearman v. Bingham, 7 N. B. R. 490.
The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is exclusive in all cases
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Const. U.
S., art. 3, sects. 1, 2; 2 Story on Const., sect. 1754; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,
supra; Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C. 232; Griffin v. Domingues, 2 Duer,
576; Mannhardt v. Joderstron, 1 Binn, 138; Commonwealth v. Kostaff, 5 Serg.
& R. 545; Davis v. Packard, 7 Pet. 276; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1.
The Bankrupt Act of March 2, 1867, by a just construction of its terms, confers
exclusive jurisdiction upon the district and circuit courts of the United States. .
Goodall v. Tuttle, 7 N. B. R. 193; In re Alexander, 3 id. 6; Shearman v.
Bingham, 7 id. 490; Ex parte Christy, 3 How. 292; Mitchell v. Great Milling
Works Co., 2 Story, 656; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 621; McLean v. Lafayette
Bank, 3 McLean, 190; Moore v. Jones, 23 Vt. 746.
The right of an assignee to bring suits for the collection of the assets of a
bankrupt is a new right conferred upon him by an act of Congress. Cook v.
Whipple, 55 N. Y. 150. Therefore the remedy afforded by the statute is
exclusive. Dudley v. Mayhew, 3 N. Y. 15; Jordan Plank Road v. Morley, 23 id.
554; Thurber v. Blanck, 50 id. 80; Hollister v. Hollister Bank, 2 Keyes, 248;
Almy v. Harris, 5 Johns. 175; Rex v. Robinson, 2 Burr. 799.
The fact that an assignee in bankruptcy is dependent upon the national
tribunals, and independent of those of the States, is conclusive against the
jurisdiction of the latter, over statutory actions brought by him as an officer
appointed under the laws of the United States. The State courts can neither
interfere with, or interrupt, the exercise of the authority with which he is
clothed, nor aid in enforcing it. McKim v. Voorhies, 7 Cranch, 279; Slocum v.
Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1; McClung v. Silliman, 6 id. 598; United States v. Barney,
3 Hall's L. J. 128; United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; McNutt v. Bland, 2

How. 17; Hopkins v. Stockton, 2 Watts & S. 163.
The United States and the States are distinct and independent autonomies in
their sovereign capacity, and their laws are foreign to each other, except in
their surrendered powers. Ohio L. & T. Co. v. DeBolt, 16 How. 428; Buckner v.
Finley, 2 Pet. 590; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 id. 520. Therefore the State
courts have no jurisdiction over an action brought by a person acting in a
representative capacity, who 6 Barb. 429; Parsons v. Lyman, 20 N. Y. 103;
Williams v. Storrs, 6 Johns. Ch. 353; Doolittle v. Lewis, 7 id. 45; Vroom v. Van
Horn, 10 Paige, 549; Morrell v. Dickey, 1 Johns. Ch. 153; Brown v. Brown, 1
Barb. Ch. 189; Petersen v. Chemical Bank, 32 N. Y. 21; Matter of Estate of
Butler, 38 id: 400; Mosselman v. Caen, 34 Barb. 66; Abraham v. Plestero, 3
Wend. 538; Willetts v. Waite, 25 N. Y. 577; Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cranch, 299;
Johnson v. Hunt, 23 Wend. 87; Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 340; Peale v.
Phipps, 14 How. 368; Orr v. Amory, 11 Mass. 25; Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. B. F. Lee for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
1
The point principally relied on by the plaintiff in error is, that an assignee in
bankruptcy cannot sue in the State courts.
2
It is argued that the cause of action arises purely and solely out of the
provisions of an act of Congress, and can only be prosecuted in the courts of
the United States, the State courts having no jurisdiction over the subject. It
is but recently settled that the several district and circuit courts of the United
States have jurisdiction, under the bankrupt law, of causes arising out of
proceedings in bankruptcy pending in other districts. There had been much
doubt on the subject, but it was finally settled at the last term of this court in
favor of the jurisdiction. Lathrop, Assignee, v. Drake et al., 91 U. S. 516. Had
......................................................
the decision been otherwise, as for a long period was generally supposed to be
the law, assignees in bankruptcy, if the position of the plaintiff in error is
correct, would have been utterly without remedy to collect the assets of the
bankrupt in districts other than that in which the bankruptcy proceedings were
pending. Neither the State courts nor the Federal courts could have
entertained jurisdiction. The Revised Statutes, whether inadvertently or not,
have made the jurisdiction of the United States courts exclusive in 'all matters
and proceedings in bankruptcy.' Sect. 711. Whether this regulation will or will
not affect the cognizance of plenary actions and suits, it is not necessary now

to determine. At all events, the question of such cognizance must be met in
this case; and, being important in the principles involved, would require much
deliberate consideration, had it not been already in effect decided by the
court.
3
In the opinion of the court, in Lathrop, Assignee, v. Drake et al., it was taken
for granted, and stated, that the State courts had jurisdiction (p. 518); but as
the question was not directly involved in that case, it was more fully
considered in Eyster v. Gaff ebal., 91 U. S. 521, and it was there decided that
..................
a State court is not deprived of jurisdiction of a case by the bankruptcy of the
defendant, but may proceed to judgment without noticing the bankruptcy
proceedings, if the assignee does not cause his appearance to be entered, or
proceed against him if he does appear. If there were any thing in the
Constitution to incapacitate the State courts from taking cognizance of causes
after the bankruptcy of the parties, as the constitutional argument of the
plaintiff in error supposes, the proceedings in bankruptcy would ipso facto
determine them. But on this subject, in Eyster v. Gaff et al., the court say: 'It
is a mistake to suppose that the bankrupt law avoids, of its own force, all
judicial proceedings in the State or other courts the instant one of the parties
is adjudged a bankrupt. There is nothing in the act which sanctions such a
proposition.' Again: 'The debtor of a bankrupt, or the man who contests the
right to real or personal property with him, loses none of those rights by the
bankruptcy of his adversary. The same courts remain open to him in such
contests, and the statute has not divested those courts of jurisdiction in such
actions. If it has, for certain classes of actions, conferred a jurisdiction for the
benefit of the assignee in the circuit and district courts of the United States, it
is concurrent with, and does not divest that of, the State courts.' pp. 525, 526.
4
The same conclusion has been reached in other courts, both Federal and
State, which hold that the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the
United States courts of actions and suits in which a bankrupt or his assignee is
a party. See Samson v. Burton, 4 Bank. Reg. 1; Payson v. Dietz, 8 id. 193;
Gilbert v. Priest, 8 id. 159; Stevens v. Mechanics' Savings Bank, 101 Mass.
109; Cook v. Whipple, 55 N. Y. 150; Brown v. Hall, 7 Bush, 66; Mays v. Man.
Nat. Bank, 64 Penn. 74. There are contrary cases, it is true, as Brigham v.
Claflin, 31 Wis. 607, Voorhees v. Frisbie, 25 Mich. 476, and others; but we
think that the former cases are founded on the better reason.
5

The assignee, by the fourteenth section of the Bankrupt Act (Rev. Stat: sect.
5046), becomes invested with all the bankrupt's rights of action for property,
and actions arising from contract, or the unlawful.taking or detention of or
injury to property, and a right to sue for the same. The actions which lie in
such cases are common-law actions, ejectment, trespass, trover, assumpsit,
debt, &c., or suits in equity. Of these actions and suits the State courts have
cognizance. Why should not an assignee have power to bring them in those
courts, as well as other persons? Aliens and foreign corporations may bring
them. The assignee simply derives his title through a law of.the United States.
Should not that title be respected by the State courts?
6
The case is exactly the same as that of the Bank of the United States. The first
bank, chartered in 1791, had capacity given it 'to sue and be sued . . in
courts of record, or any other place whatsoever.' It was held, in The Bank v.
Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61, that this did not authorize the bank to sue in the
courts of the United States, without showing proper citizenship of the parties
in different States. The bank was obliged to sue in the State courts. And yet
here was a right arising under a law of the United States, as much so as can
be affirmed of a case of an assignee in bankruptcy. The second bank of the
United States had express capacity 'to sue and be sued in all State courts
having competent jurisdiction, and in any Circuit Court of the United States.'
In the case of Osborn v. The Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 815, it was objected that
Congress had not authority to enable the bank to sue in the Federal courts
merely because of its being created by an act of Congress. But the court held
otherwise, and sustained its right to sue therein. No question was made of its
right to sue in the State courts.
7
Under the bankrupt law of 1841, with substantially the same provisions on this
subject as the present law, it was held that the assignee could sue in the State
courts. Ex parte Christie, 3 How. 318, 319; Nugent v. Boyd, id. 426; Wood V.
Jenkins, 10 Met. 583.
8
Other analogous cases have occurred, and the same result has been reached;
the general principle being, that, where jurisdiction may be conferred on the
United States courts, it may be made exclusive where not so by the
Constitution itself; but, if exclusive jurisdiction be neither express nor implied,
the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction whenever, by their own
constitution, they are competent to take it. Thus, the United States itself may

sue in the State courts, and often does so. If this may be done, surely,.on the
principle that the greater includes the less, an officer or corporation created by
United States authority may be enabled. to sue in such courts. Nothing in the
Constitution, fairly considered, forbids it.
9
The general question, whether State courts can exercise concurrent
jurisdiction with the Federal courts in cases arising under the Constitution,
laws, and treaties of the United States, has been elaborately discussed, both
on the bench and in published treatises,-sometimes with a leaning in one
direction and sometimes in the other,—but the result of these discussions has,
in our judgment, been, as seen in the above cases, to affirm the jurisdiction,
where it is not excluded by express provision, or by incompatibility in its
exercise arising from the nature of the particular case.
10
When we consider the structure and true relations of the Federal and State
governments, there is really no just foundation for excluding the State courts
from all such jurisdiction.
11
The laws of the United States are laws in the several States, and just as much
binding on the citizens and courts thereof as the State laws are. The United
States is not a foreign sovereignty as regards the several States, but is a
concurrent, and, within its jurisdiction, paramount sovereignty. Every citizen of
a State is a subject of two distinct sovereignties, having concurrent jurisdiction
in the State,—concurrent as to place and persons, though distinct as to
subject-matter. Legal or equitable rights, acquired under either system of
laws, may be enforced in any court of either sovereignty competent to hear
and determine such kind of rights and not restrained by its constitution in the
exercise of such jurisdiction. Thus, a legal or equitable right acquired under
State laws, may be prosecuted in the State courts, and also, if the parties
reside in different"States, in the Federal courts. So rights, whether legal or
equitable, acquired under the laws of the United States, may be prosecuted in
the United States courts, or in the State courts, competent to decide rights of
the like character and class; subject, however, to this qualification, that where
a right arises under a law of the United States, Congress may, if it see fit, give
to the Federal courts exclusive jurisdiction. See remarks of Mr. Justice Field, in
The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 429, and Story, J., in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1
Wheat. 334; and of Mr. Justice Swayne, in Ex parte McNeil, 13 Wall. 236. This
jurisdiction is sometimes exclusive by express enactment and sometimes by

implication. If an act of Congress gives a penalty to a party aggrieved, without
specifying a remedy for its enforcement, there is no reason why it should not
be enforced, if not provided otherwise by some act of Congress, by a proper
action in a State court. The fact that a State court derives its existence and
functions from the State laws is no reason why it should not afford relief;
because it is subject also to the laws of the United States, and is just as much
bound to recognize these as .operative within the State as it is to recognize the
State laws. The two together form one system of jurisprudence, which
constitute the law of the land for the State; and the courts of the two
jurisdictions are not foreign to each other, nor to be treated by each other as
such, but as courts of the same country, having jurisdiction partly different
and partly concurrent. The disposition to regard the laws of the United States
as emanating from a foreign jurisdiction is founded on erroneous views of the
nature and relations of the State and Federal governments. It is often the
cause or the consequence of an unjustifiable jealousy of the United States
government, which has been the occasion of disastrous evils to the country.
12
�It true; ,the;;soyereignties are distinct; andneith`eff can rntrfee , lthe
r
proper jurisdiction, of tl�e other, �s uuas�so cle`ar�y `sh17
oiru f by Chief'Yu�tr�e"-Taney,
din the case of Ablernan r . Booth, 21 Hbw, �6, atad hen'cre Mate'cbutts
have nth power to ire�is :the action of the Federal courts, nr t he Fed� ra�l'th�e
stater except`where the' Federalpnstitut�on; or laws.+ = i'nuoli� But this is
no reason why the State courts should not be open for the prosecution of
rights growing out of the laws of the United States, to which their jurisdiction
is competent, and not denied.
13
A reference to some of the discussions, to which the subject under
consideration has given rise, may not be out of place on this occasion.
14
It was fully examined in the eighty-second number of 'The Federalist,' by
Alexander Hamilton, with his usual analytical power and far-seeing genius;
and hardly an argument or a suggestion has been made since which he did not
anticipate. After showing that exclusive delegation of authority to the Federal
government can arise only in one of three ways,—either by express grant of
exclusive authority over a particular subject; or by a simple grant of authority,
with a subsequent prohibition thereof to the States; or, lastly, where an
authority granted to the Union would be utterly incompatible with a similar
authority in the States,—he says, that these principles may also apply to the
i

judiciary as well as the legislative power. Hence, he infers that the State courts
will retain the jurisdiction they then had, unless taken away in one of the
enumerated modes. But, as their previous jurisdiction could not be possibility
extend to cases which might grow out of and be peculiar to the new
constitution, he considered that, as to such cases, Congress might give the
Federal courts sole jurisdiction. 'I hold,' says he, 'that the State courts will be
divested of no part of their primitive jurisdiction, further than may relate to an
appeal; and I am even of opinion, that in every case in which they were not
expressly excluded by the future acts of the national legislature, they will, of
course, take cognizance of the causes to which those acts may give birth. This
I infer from the nature of judiciary power, and from the general genius of the
system. The judiciary power of every government looks beyond its own local
or municipal laws, and, in civil cases, lays hold of all subjects of litigation
between parties within its jurisdiction, though the causes of dispute are
relative to the laws of the most distant part of the globe. . . . When, in
addition to this, we consider the State governments and the national
government, as they truly are, in the light of kindred systems, and as parts of
ONE WHOLE, the inference seems to be conclusive, that the State courts
would have concurrent jurisdiction in all cases arising under the laws of the
Union, where it was not expressly prohibited.' These views seem to have been
shared by the first Congress in drawing up the Judiciary Act of Sept. 24, 1789;
for, in distributing jurisdiction among the various courts created by that act,
there is a constant exercise of the authority to include or exclude the State
courts therefrom; and where no direction is given on the subject, it was
assumed, in our early judicial history, that the State courts retained their
usual jurisdiction concurrently with the Federal courts invested with
jurisdiction in like cases.
15
Thus, by the Judiciary Act, exclusive cognizance was given to the circuit and
district courts of the United States of all crimes and offences cognizable under
the authority of the United States; and the same to the district courts, of all
civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, of all seizures on water
under the laws of impost, navigation, or trade of the United States, and of all
seizures on land for penalties and forfeitures incurred under said laws.
Concurrent jurisdiction with the State courts was given to the district and
circuit courts of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the
law of nations or a treaty of the United States, and of all writs at common law
where the United States are plaintiffs; the same to the circuit courts, where
the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought and a

citizen of another State, where an alien is a party, &c. Here, no distinction is
made between those branches of jurisdiction in respect to which the
Constitution uses the expression 'all cases,' and those in respect to which the
term 'all' is omitted. Some have supposed that wherever the Constitution
declares that the judicial power shall extend to 'all cases,'—as, all cases in law
and equity arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United
States; all cases affecting ambassadors, &c.,—the jurisdiction of the Federal
courts is necessarily exclusive; but that where the power is simply extended
'to controversies' of a certain class,—as, 'controversies to which the United
States is a party,' &c.,—the jurisdiction of the Federal courts is not necessarily
exclusive. But no such distinction seems to have been recognized by Congress,
as already seen in the Judiciary Act; and subsequent acts show the same
thing. Thus, the first patent law for securing to inventors their discoveries and
inventions, which was passed in 1793, gave treble damages for an
infringement, to be recovered in an action on the case founded on the statute
in the Circuit Court of the United States, 'or any other court having competent
jurisdiction,' meaning, of course, the State courts. The subsequent acts on the
same subject were couched in such terms with regard to the jurisdiction of the
circuit courts as to imply that it was exclusive of the State courts; and now it
is expressly made so. See Patent Acts of 1800, 1819, 1836, 1870, and Rev.
Stat. U. S., sect. 711; Parsons v. Barnard, 7 Johns. 144; Dudley v. Mayhew, 3
Comst. 14; Elmer v. Pennel, 40 Me. 434.
16
So with regard to naturalization,—a subject necessarily within the exclusive
regulation of Congress,—the first act on the subject, passed in 1790, and all
the subsequent acts, give plenary jurisdiction to the State courts. The
language of the act of 1790 is, 'any common-law court of record in any one of
the States,' &c. 1 Stat. 103. The act of 1802 designates 'the Supreme,
.........................I..............................
Superior, District, or Circuit Court of some one of the States, or of the
territorial districts of the United States, or a circuit or district court of the
United States.' 2 Stat. 153.
..............................................
17
So, by acts passed in 1806 and 1808, jurisdiction was given to the county
courts along the northern frontier, of suits for fines, penalties, and forfeitures
under the revenue laws of the United States. 2 Stat. 354, 489. And by act of
.............................. .......
March 3, 1815, cognizance was given to State and county courts, generally, of
suits for taxes, duties, fines, penalties, and forfeitures arising under the laws
imposing direct taxes and internal duties. 3 Stat. 244.
_...:....................._........

18
These instances show the prevalent opinion which existed, that the State
courts were competent to have jurisdiction in cases arising wholly under the
laws of the United States; and whether they possessed it or not, in a particular
case, was a matter of construction of the acts relating thereto. It is true that
the State courts have, in certain instances, declined to exercise the jurisdiction
conferred upon them; but this does not militate against the weight of the
general argument. See United States v. Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4. See, especially,
the able dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Platt, id. 11.
19
It was, indeed, intimated by Mr. Justice Story, obiter dictum, in delivering the
opinion of the court in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 334-337, that the
State courts could not take direct cognizance of cases arising under the
Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, as no such jurisdiction
existed before the Constitution was adopted. This is true as to jurisdiction
depending on United States authority; but the same jurisdiction existed (at
least to a certain extent) under the authority of the States. Inventors had
grants of exclusive right to their inventions before the Constitution was
adopted, and the State courts had jurisdiction thereof. The change of authority
creating the right did not change the nature of the right itself. The assertion,
therefore, that no such jurisdiction previously existed, must be taken with
important limitations, and did not have much influence with the court when a
proper case arose for its adjudication. Houston v. Moore, decided in 1820, 5
Wheat. 1, was such a case. Congress, in 1795, had passed an act for
organizing and calling forth the militia, which prescribed the punishment to be
inflicted on delinquents, making them liable to pay a certain fine, to be
determined and adjudged by a court-martial, without specifying what court-
martial. The legislature of Pennsylvania also passed a militia law, providing for
the organization, training, and calling out the militia, and establishing courts-
martial for the trial of delinquents. The law ini'many respects exactly
corresponded with that of the United States, and, as far as it covered the
same ground, was for that reason held to be inoperative and void. Houston, a
delinquent under the United States law, was tried by a State court-martial;
and it was decided that the court had jurisdiction of the offence, having been
constituted, in fact, to enforce the laws of the United States which the State
legislature had reenacted. But the decision (which was delivered by Mr. Justice
Washington) was based upon the general principle that the State court had
jurisdiction of the offence, irrespective of the authority, State or Federal, which
created it. Not that Congress could confer jurisdiction upon the State courts,

but that these courts might exercise jurisdiction on cases authorized by the
laws of the State, and not prohibited by the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Federal courts. Justices Story and Johnson dissented; and, perhaps, the court
went further, in that case, than it would now. The act of Congress having
instituted courts-martial, as well as provided a complete code for the
organization and calling forth of the militia, the entire law of Pennsylvania on
the same subject might well have been regarded as void. Be this as it may, it
was only a question of construction; and the court conceded that Congress
had the power to make the jurisdiction of its own courts exclusive.
20
In Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 415, Chief Justice Marshall demonstrates the
necessity of an appellate power in the Federal judiciary to revise the decisions
of State courts in cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United
States, in order that the constitutional grant of judicial power, extending it to
all such cases, may have full effect. He says, 'The propriety of intrusting the
construction of the Constitution and laws, made in pursuance thereof, to the
judiciary of the Union, has not, we believe, as yet, been drawn in question. It
seems to be a corollary from this political axiom, that the Federal courts
should either possess exclusive jurisdiction in such cases, or a power to revise
the judgment rendered in them by the State tribunals. If the Federal and State
courts have concurrent jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution,
laws, and treaties of the United States, and if a case of this description
brought in a State court cannot be removed before judgment, nor revised
after judgment, then the construction of the Constitution, laws,.and treaties of
the United States is not confided particularly to their judicial department, but
is confided equally to that department and to the State courts, however they
may be constituted.'
21
See the subject further discussed in 1 Kent's Com. 395, &c., Sergeant on the
Const. 268; 2 Story on the Const., sect. 1748, &c.; 1 Curtis's Com., sects.
119, 134, &c.
22
The case of Teal v. Felton was a suit brought in the State court of New York
against a postmaster for neglect of duty to deliver a newspaper under the
postal laws of the United States. The action was sustained by both the
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of New York, and their decision was
affirmed by this court. 1 Comst. 537; 12 How. 292. We do not see why this
case is not decisive of the very question under consideration.

23
Without discussing the subject further, it is sufficient to say, that we hold that
the assignee in bankruptcy, under the Bankrupt Act of 1867, as it stood before
the revision, had authority to bring a suit in the State courts, wherever those
courts were invested with appropriate jurisdiction, suited to the nature of the
case.
24
Judgment affirmed.
CCO ! Transformed by Public.Resour.. ce.Orq
.. ........................................
.... .. ........... .. .. ... ........ ............. ................................................................................................................................
e! Supreme Court Toolbox
about
• Supreme Court collection
® liibulletin previews
• subscribe
........ .. _..... . ... ......... ....... .. .............................. ...........................
......_.......... ...... .. ..... ................ .._... ....... ...
ACCESSIBILITY
ABOUT LII
CONTACT US

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the Oday of c/ ,20 , I served true and
accurate copies of the foregoing document on the following persons, either by deposit in
the U.S. Mail, addressed as follows and with the correct first-class postage affixed
thereto, or be deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox, or by hand-delivery, as
indicated below.
Name: Michael Duval
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivery
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ J By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[ ] Electronic submission via Icourt portal file and serve
[ ] email
Name: Joseph Dallas
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivery
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[k] Electronic submission via Icourt portal file and serve
[ ] email
Name: Raul Labrador
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivery
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[ ] Electronic submission via Icourt portal file and serve
[u] email
Name: Idaho Supreme Court
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivery
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[x] Electronic submission via Icourt portal file and serve
[ ] email
Sherry Co vro
Se Appelant