FEDERAL QUESTION. A term•used to designate a case of which the federal court has jurisdiction because it requires a con struction of the constitution or some law of the United States or of a treaty made un der its authority. Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U. S. 190, 5 Sup. Ct. 407, 28 L. Ed. 908.
The existence or non-existence of a federal question determines the original jurisdiction in many cases of the district court, now the only federal court of first instance, and the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court in cases from the state courts.
The judiciary act of March 3, 1887, as amended Aug. 13, 1888, conferred jurisdiction upon the federal courts in "cases arising under the constitution or laws of the United States," or, as commonly expressed by the profession, in cases involving a "federal question"; In re Sievers, 91 Fed. 366. And the same jurisdiction is conferred by the Judicial Code of March 3, 1911, in section 24 as to the district court, and, in section 237 as to cases taken to the supreme court from the state courts; U. S. Comp. Laws p. 135.
If, from the questions involved in a case, It appears that some title, right, privilege, or immunity, on which the recovery depends, will be defeated by one construction of the constitution, or of a law or treaty of the United States, or sustained by the opposite construction, the case will be one arising under the constitution or laws of the, United States, and involves a federal question; Stalin v. New York, 115 U. S. 257, 6 Sup. 'Ct. 28, 29 L. Ed. 388 ; Provident Say. Life Assur. Society v. Ford, I14 U. S. 641, 5 Sup. Ct. 1104, 29 L. Ed. 261; Kansas P. R. Co. y.
R. Co., 112 U. S. 416, 5 Sup. Ct. 208, 28 L. Ed. 794; Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 462, 4 Sup. Ct. 437, 28 L. Ed. 482. Where it does not appear from the record that a federal question was actually presented or in any way relied on before final judgment below, the supreme court is without jurisdiction ; Simmerman v. Nebraska, 116 U. S. 54, 6 Sup. Ct. 333, 29 L. Ed. 535; as it must appear on the record that it was raised and decided, or that its decision was necessary to the judg ment or decree rendered; Detroit City R.
Co. v. Guthard, 114 U. S. 133, 5 Sup. Ct. 811, 29 L. Ed. 118; McManus v. O'Sullivan, 91 U.
S. 578, 23 L. Ed. 390; Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200, 4 Sup. Ct. 340, 28 L. Ed. 400; Harrison v. Morton, 171 U. S. 38, 18 Sup. Ct. 742, 43 L. Ed. 63. See Kaukauna Water Pow er Co. v. Canal Co., 142. U. S. 254, 12 Sup. Ct. 173, 35 L. Ed. 1004.
Whether there is a federal question must be determined by the record alone ; Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 311, 4 L. Ed. 578; Davidson v. Starcher, 154 U. S. 566, 14 Sup. Ct. 1200, 19 L. Ed. 52 ; Goodenough Horse Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Horse-Shoe Co., U. S. 635, 14 Sup. Ct. 1180, 24 L. Ed. 368; where it must appear by the plaintiff's pleading; Spencer v. Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526, 24 Sup. Ct. 174, 48 L. Ed. 287; Bankers' Mut. Casual ty Co. v. R. Co., 192 U. S. 371, 24 Sup. Ct. 325, 48 L. Ed. 484; and the supreme court cannot indulge in presumptions to supply omissions from the record ; Downham v. Alexandria, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 173, 19 L. Ed. 929 ; nor can it resort to judicial knowledge to raise controversies not presented by the record; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, 23 Sup. Ct. 375, 47 L. Ed. 480 ; nor can the court resort to forced inferences and conjectural reasonings, or possible or even probable suppositions of the points raised in and decided by the state courts; Ocean Ins. Co. v. Polleys, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 157, 10 L. Ed. 105 ; nor is it bound to search the statutes to find one violating the obligation of a con tract, when none is set up in pleadings or opinion; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 41, 21 •Sup. Ct. 256, 45 L Ed. 415.
Where the record discloses that no author ity was cited or argument advanced in sup port of an alleged constitutional objection and the decision was based upon other than legal grounds the decision of the state court will not be reversed; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 25 Sup. Ct. 176, 49 L. Ed. 394.