Where the questions raised are frivolous and without merit, assumption of jurisdiction by the supreme court will not be justified by the mere assertion of a federal right ; Ameri can R. Co. -v. Castro, 204 U. S. 453, 27 Sup. Ct. 466, 51 L. Ed. 564 ; Deming v. Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, 33 Sup. Ct. 80, 57 L. Ed. 140 ; Gring v. Ives, 222 U. S. 365, 32 Sup. Ct. 167, 56 L. Ed. 235 ; nor by the mere fact that a constitutional question is alleged in order to secure a direct appeal from the lower federal court ; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101.
A merely colorable claim under a federal statute, or the necessity of referring to a federal statute to explain a contract or local law, does not give federal jurisdiction ; St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. R. Co., 68 Fed. 2, 15 C. C. A. 167; such a question cannot be raised in the supreme court if it did not arise below, and where no federal question is oth erwise raised, and the only provision of the constitution referred to in the assignment of errors in the state court has no application, an averment of its violation creates no real federal question ; Winous Point Shooting Club v. Caspersen, 193 U. S. 189, 24 Sup. Ct. 431, 48 L. Ed. 675 ; there is no original ju risdiction in the federal court in an action arising out of a contract or dealings of par ties, although on the trial questions may arise respecting the construction of a law of the United States ; Dowell v. Griswold, 5 Sawy. 39, Fed. Cas. No. 4041.
A circuit court has jurisdiction without re gard to the citizenship of the parties ; Fischer v. Neil, 6 Fed. 89 ; Crescent City Live Stock, Landing & Slaughter House Co. v. Slaughter House Co., 12 Fed. 225 ; Sawyer v. Parish of Concordia, 12 Fed. 754 ; where the federal questions raised by the bill are not merely colorable but are raised in good faith and not in a fraudulent attempt to give jurisdiction to the circuit court, that court has jurisdiction and can decide the case on local or state questions only, and it will not lose its jurisdiction of the case by omitting to decide the federal questions or deciding them adversely to the party claim ing their benefit ; Siler v. R. Co., 213 U. 8.
175, 29 Sup. Ct. 451, 53 L. Ed. 753.
A federal court should not, unless plainly required so to do by the constitution, assume a duty the exercise of which might lead to a miscarriage of justice prejudicial to the in terest of a state; Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 28 Sup. Ct. 714, 52 L. Ed. 1113.
Where judgment was given on a general demurrer entered for the defendant, and a motion was made to set aside the judgment on the ground that the ordinance of the state upon which it rested was unconstitutional as in conflict with the XIVth Amendment, the constitutional question so raised was set up in time and the supreme court had jurisdic tion ; Meyer v. Richmond, 172 U. S. 82, 93, 19 Sup. Ct. 106, 43 L. Ed. 374 ; where the cases are reviewed.
The jurisdiction of the supreme court in cases brought up by writ of error to a state court does not extend to questions of fact or of local laws, which are merely preliminary to or the possible basis of a federal question ; Telluride Power Transmission Co. v. Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 639, 20 Sup. Ct. 245, 44 L. Ed. 305. Where rights based on a judgment obtained in one state are asserted in the courts of an other under the full faith and credit clause, the power exists in the latter courts to look back. of the judgment and ascertain whether the claim which had entered into it was one susceptible of being enforced in another state ; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 457, 21 L. Ed. 897 ; and where such rights are in due time asserted, the power to decide whether the federal question was raised was rightly disposed of in the court below exists in and involves the exercise of jurisdiction of the supreme court; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14, 23 Sup. Ct. 237, 47 L. Ed. 366. When the question of the validity of a state stat ute, with reference to the federal constitu tion, has been first raised in a federal court, that court has a right to decide it to the ex clusion of all other courts ; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 764.
See UNITED STATES COURTS.