R. Co. v. New Whatcom, 172 U. S. 314, 19 Sup. Ct, 205, 43 L. Ed. 460.
Whether executors in one state of a tes tator there domiciled are bound by the de cree of the court of another state against an administrator c. t. a. in a case submitted to arbitration before the testator's death under the full faith and credit clause is a federal question; Brown v. Fletcher's Estate, 210 U.
S. 82, 28 Sup. Ct. 702, 52 L. Ed. 966; it was held that they were not bound. Such question also exists where the state court expressly decides adversely to the contention of the plaintiff in error, that a United States statute does not preclude others from assert ing rights against him but does preclude him from asserting rights against them ; Ham mond v. Whittredge, 204 U. S. 538, 27 Sup. Ct. 396, 51 L. Ed. 606; and where not only the scope and applicability of the doctrine of subrogation is involved, but also the extent to which a common carrier is protected by the laws of the United States in paying cus toms duties on goods in transit over its own lines ; Wabash R. Co. v. Pearce, 192 U. S. 179, 24 Sup. Ct. 231, 48 L. Ed. 397.
Where state court refuses to give effect to a judgment of a federal court which ad judicates that one of the parties has a con tract within the protection of the federal constitution, it denies a right secured by the judgment of the federal court upon matters wherein its decision is final ; Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U. S. 499, 24 Sup. Ct. 154, 48 L. Ed. 276.
It has been held that there was no federal question in cases involving questions of prop erty rights established by the Ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest Territory ; Menard v. Aspasia, 5 Pet. 505, 8 L. Ed. 207; an action for damages for con spiracy to disbar an attorney from the state courts, his right to practice in the federal courts not being affected thereby; Green v. Elbert, 63 Fed. 308, 11 C. C. A. 207; an ac tion to recover possession of an office from which plaintiff has been ejected after his title was established by election, except when the sole question as to title to office arises out of the denial to citizens of a right to vote on account of race, etc.; Johnson v.
Jumel, 3 Woods, 69, Fed. Cas. No. 7,392; a creditor's bill to enforce the collection of an admiralty judgment in the district court ; Winter v. Swinburne, 8 Fed. 49; whether the objectionable part of a state local option law having been separated, the rest may stand alone; Ex parte Kinnebrew, 35 Fed. 52 ; the liability for an assessment for the improve ment of a street before the complainant be.
came owner of abutting property ; Murdock v. City of Cincinnati, 44 Fed. 726; the arrest by order of the President of a person not sub ject to military law is not warranted by law so far as to give federal courts jurisdiction of a case arising thereupon ; Clark v. Storrs, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 563; the question who is en titled to the alluvion caused by the recession of the Mississippi river ; Sweringen v. St. Louis, 185 U. S. 38, 22 Sup. Ct. 569, 46 L. Ed. 795; an action for personal injuries in which it was sought to draw in question the ques tion of the constitutionality of the act of congress incorporating the defendant ; North ern Pac. R. Co. v. Amato, 144 U. S. 465, 12 Sup. Ct. 740, 36 L. Ed. 506; where the only question is the construction of a charter or contract and subsequent statutes, which might' have been, but were not, relied on as impairing its obligation ; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 41, 21 Sup. Ct. 256,45 L. Ed. 415. The mere construction of a state statute does not itself present a federal ques tion, nor is there one where the constitution ality of a state statute is admitted and only its applicability to the fact is denied; Knop v. Coke Co., 211 U. S. 485, 29 Sup. Ct. 188, 53 L. Ed. 294; nor when a state statute was assailed in the state court as invalid under the constitution of the state, upon grounds that might have been urged as to its valid ity under the United States constitution, where the latter objection was first stated on taking the writ of error; Osborne v. Clark, 204 U. S. 565, 27 Sup. Ct. 319, 51 L. Ed. 619.