The mere construction by a state court of a statute of another state and its operation elsewhere, without questioning its validity, does not necessarily involve a federal ques tion pr deny to the statute full faith and credit in order to give jurisdiction for a re view by the States supreme court ; Allen v. Alleghany Co., 196 U. S. 463, 25 Sup. Ct. 311, 49 L. Ed. 551; nor does a mere con test over a 'state office depending for its solution exclusively upon the application of the constitution of the state or the construc tion of a state law ; Elder v. Colorado ex rel. Badgley, 204 U. S. 85, 27 Sup. Ct. 223, 51 L Ed. 381, where it was said that the fact that a state court has considered a federal question may serve to elucidate whether a federal issue properly arises, but that doc trine has no application where the contro versy is inherently not federal and is in capable of presenting a federal question.
A quo warranto to forfeit the charter of a corporation for an abuse of its privileges in volves no federal question ; New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336, 22 Sup. Ct. 691, 46 L. Ed. 936.
The amount of benefits resulting from an improvement and assessed under a state stat ute which the United States supreme court has declared to be constitutional, is a ques tion of fact and a decision of the board making the assessment raises no federal question; Hibben v. Smith, 191 U. S. 310, 24 Sup. Ct. 88, 48 L. Ed. 195 ; and there is none in a suit for damages for the loss of a reg istered mail package wherein the plaintiff relied on the general law of negligence; Bankers' Mut. Casualty Co. v. Ry. Co., 192 U. S. 371, 24 Sup. Ct. 325, 48 L. Ed. 484.
Where the state court has construed a state statute so as to bring it into harmony with the federal and state constitutions, there is no power given to the supreme court to view the decision on the ground that the state court exercised legislative power in construing the statute in that manner and thereby violated that amendment ; London er v. City & County of Denver, 210 U. S. 373, 28 Sup. Ct. 708, 52 L. Ed. 1103 ; and the con struction of a state statute as to whether a (contract is created by it and whether the statute is constitutional under the state con stitution, is not, in the absence of any claim that the contract, if any, has been impaired by subsequent state action, a federal question ; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 210 U. S. 187, 28 Sup. Ct. 650, 52 L. Ed. 1016.
The right of the accused under the Missouri law to an endorsement of the names of wit nesses against him on the indictment is not a common-law right, but rests on the state statute, and whether the provision is com plied with is not a federal question ; Bar rington v. Missouri, 205 U. S. 483, 27 Sup. Ct. 582, 51 L. Ed. 890.
The federal courts cannot, on habeas cor pus, inquire into the truth of an allegation presenting mixed questions of law and fact in the indictment on which the demand for the petitioner's interstate extradition is bas ed; and quore whether it may inquire wheth er such indictment was or was not found in good faith ; Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 28 Sup. Ct. 714, 52 L. Ed. 1113.
Where the plaintiff claims on no federal right, a defence that the transaction was pro hibited by federal law does not make a case of federal jurisdiction ; Williams v. Bank, 216 U. S. 582, 30 Sup. Ct. 441, 54 L. Ed. 625 ; nor does the fact that the court of one state construes a statute of another raise a fed eral question ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mel ton, 218 U. S. 36, 30 Sup. Ct. 676, 54 L. Ed. 921; nor does one arise in an action against a receiver of a state corporation simply be cause he was appointed by a federal court ; Gableman v. Ry. Co., 179 U. S. 335, 21 Sup. Ct. 171, 45 L. Ed. 220, where the subject of actions against receivers appointed by those courts is considered at large.
A federal question may have been so ex plicitly decided as to afford no basis for a writ of error from the supreme court to a state court ; Leonard v. R. Co., 198 U. S. 416, 25 Sup. Ct. 750, 49 L. Ed. 1108 ; and the question must be a real and not a fictitious federal question ; Millingar v. Hartupee, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 258, 18 L. Ed. 829; New Or leans v. Water Works Co., 142 U. S. 79, 12 Sup. Ct. 142, 35 L. Ed. 943; Hamblin v. Land Co., 147 U. S. 531, 13 Sup. Ct. 353, 37 L. Ed. 267 ; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Chicago, 176 U. S. 646, 20 Sup. Ct. 509, 44 L. Ed. 622 ; State of Iowa v. Rood, 187 U. S. 87, 23 Sup. Ct. 49, 47 L. Ed. 86 ; Sawyer V. Piper, 189 U. S. 154, 23 Sup. Ct. 633, 47 L. Ed. 757, where the only federal question alleged was that the refusal of the state court to permit the filing of a supplementary answer in a foreclosure suit, was taking a property without due process of Taw and a denial of the equal protection of the laws ; as the trial court had not abused its discretion no real federal question was in volved.