No particular form of words or phrases in which a claim of federal rights must be as serted in the state court has ever been de dared necessary by the supreme court, but it is sufficient if it appears from the record that such rights were specially set up or claimed there in such a way as to bring the subject to the attention of the state court ; Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Paper Co., 172 U. S. 66, 19 Sup. Ct. 97, 43 L. Ed. 364 ; as where the constitutionality of a state statute is directly attacked in the answer ; Minne apolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53, 24 Sup. Ct. 396, 48 L. Ed. 614. The fed eral question must be distinctly raised in the state court, and a mere claim, which amounts to no more than a vague and inferential sug gestion that a right under the constitution of the United States had been denied, is not sufficient ; Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258, 28 Sup. Ct. 487, 52 L. Ed. 782 ; and it is too late to raise it for the first time in the peti tion for writ of error to the state court, or in the assignment of errors in the supreme court; id.; Montana v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291, 27 Sup. Ct. 281, 51 L. Ed: 490; Mailers v. Trust Co., 216 U. S. 613, 30 Sup. Ct. 438, 54 L. Ed. 638; so also in a petition for rehear ing in the state court of last resort, unless (and it must so appear) that court actually entertains the motion and passes upon the federal question; Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589, 21 Sup. Ct. 730, 45 L. Ed. 1015 ; Leigh v. Green, 193 U. S. 79, 24 Sup. Ct. 390; 48 L. Ed. 623; McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 29 Sup. Ct. 146, 53 L. Ed. 269; Forbes v. State Gouncil of Virginia, 216 U.
S. 396, 30 Sup. Ct. 295, 54 L. Ed. 534; but it is sufficient if this appears in a motion for a new trial and in an assigment of error in the state supremp court ; San Jose Land & Water Co. v. Ranch Co., 189 U. S. 177, 23 Sup. Ct. 487, 47 L. Ed. 765, where also it ap peared from the opinion of the court that a federal question was raised. Such question, not raised by the pleadings, cannot be avail ed of on a motion to dismiss; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28, 21 Sup. Ct. 251, 45 L. Ed. 410. The federal question is rais ed in time when the plaintiff in error, de fendant below, after filing the general issue, moves to amend, claiming rights under the XIVth amendment, and at the trial asks an instruction based thereon ; National Mut. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. 193 U. S. 635, 24 Sup. Ct. 532, 48 L Ed. 823.
One who relies upon a federal right must specially set it up, and the certificate of the presiding judge of the state court may make more certain and specific what is too general and indefinite in the record, but cannot give jurisdiction where there is nothing in the record by way of a federal question; Louis ville & N. R. Co. v. Smith Co., 204 U. S. 551, 27 Sup. Ct. 401, 51 L. Ed. 612 ; but such cer tificate that a federal question was raised, though insufficient to give jurisdiction, may be resorted to, in the absence of an opinion, to show that a federal question, which is otherwise raised in the record, was actually passed upon by the court ; Gulf & S. I. R.
Co. v. Hewes, 183 U. S. 66, 22 Sup. Ct. 26, 46 L. Ed. 86.
Notwithstanding the claim that a federal question was set up in the state court, if it appears to the supreme court to • have no foundation or substance, there is no juris diction; New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336, 22 Sup. Ct. 691, 46 L. Ed. 936.
Where a federal question is raised in the state courts, the party who brings the case to the supreme court cannot raise there an other question which was not raised below ; Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127, 21 Sup. Ct. 71, 45 L. Ed. 119.
In an action in a state court for taxes, where a federal question was not set up in defense until after judgment and reversal by the supreme court of the state, and a new trial was had below in which the ques tion was raised, it was held too late ; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 1, 21 Sup. Ct. 240, 45 L. Ed. 395.
"Whenever the highest court of a state, by any form of decision, affirms or denies the validity of a judgment of an inferior court, over which it by law can exercise ap pellate authority, the jurisdiction of this court to review such decision, if it involve a federal question will upon a proper proceed ing attach. . . . And when this court has once acquired jurisdiction, it may send its process, in the enforcement of its judgment, to the appellate court of the state, or to the inferior court whOse judgment is reversed ;" Williams v. Bruffy, 102 U. S. 248, 26 L. Ed. 135.
The court will not disturb the judgment of a state court resting on federal and non federal grounds if the latter are sufficient to sustain the decision; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 29 Sup. Ct. 33, 53 L. Ed. 81; McQuade v. Trenton, 172 U. S. 636, 19 Sup. Ct. 292, 43 L. Ed. 581; White v. Leovy, 174 U. S. 91, 19 Sup. Ct. 604, 43 L. Ed. 907; Harrison v. Morton, 171 U. S. 38, 18 Sup. Ct. 742, 43 L. Ed. 63; Hammond v. Ins. Co., 150 U. S. 633, 14 Sup. Ct. 236, 37 L. Ed. 1206; nor where the decision is upon non-federal ground sufficient to sustain it ; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 29 Sup. Ct. 227, 53 L. Ed. 431 ; nor will it review the final judgment of the highest court of a state, even if it denied some title of right, privilege, or immunity of the un successful party, unless it appear from the record that such right, privilege or immuni ty "was specially set up or claimed" in the state court by force of the constitution or some treaty, statute, commission or authori ty of the United States; and in order to com ply with the condition that the right invoked must have been specially set up or claimed it must appear that such claim was made unmistakably ; Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchofe, 169 U. S. 111, 18 Sup. Ct. 260, 42 L. Ed. 677; F. G. Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648, 17 Sup. Ct. 709, 41 L. Ed. 1149; Capital Nat. Bank v. Bank, 172 U. S. 425, 19 Sup. Ct. 202, 43 L. Ed. 502.