Statement of the Case. things, averred as follows: Further answering, defendant admits that by the act of the legislature of Louisiana No. 35, of 1877, the various acts organizing the Metropolitan police board were repealed; but all the provision for the payment of said Metropolitan police was the levy of the Metropolitan police taxes authorized by law, and said taxes had already been levied far in excess of taxes that should have been imposed, and the repealing legislation did not interfere in any manner with the levy and application of said taxes, to the extent that they could be collected, to the payment of the legal obligations of said Metropolitan police board, and with this statement and a reference to said repealing act this defendant denies the allegation in the bill that, by such repealing legislation, no provision was made for the liquidation of the affairs of said board or payment of its debts.' "This defendant again affirms that said repealing act did not interfere in any manner with the means of payment of all lawful obligations of said board nor with the right of those who had made lawful contracts that is, to the extent authorized by law with said board; and this defendant again refers to the illegal and void apportionments of said board, and to the alleged contracts made by it, far in excess of the means applicable to the support of the Metropolitan police, and far in excess of their power, and denies to be true that said repealing act was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or "impaired the obligation of the contracts of said board with its officers and employés, who had contracted with and rendered services to said board upon the faith of said provisions of law for the enforced payment and collection of the sums due to it from the several cities and parishes within said district," and denies that said act was null and void in any respect or to any extent.' "Said answer also averred that the city was liable to said board only for such police taxes as she collected, and that she had fully accounted for all such collections, and denies that she is now making any such collections and that any such taxes are collectible. "Issue being joined, the case was referred to a master to Statement of the Case. take an account of the amounts due by the defendants to said board, and of its outstanding liabilities. He reported as due by the city of New Orleans on account of its apportionments a balance of $241,106.54 and an indebtedness of the board incurred on account of said city and still unpaid amounting to $123,963.06, besides interest thereon. Small amounts were found due by the other defendants and also by the board on their account. "Prior to the decree a number of creditors of the board, some of whom were citizens of Louisiana, with leave of court intervened in the suit, made proof of their claims before the master, claimed the benefit of the decree, and prayed to be permitted to share in the distribution. "Of the amount of claims proved before the master and covered by the decree the complainant, an alien, holds $5777.78; an alien intervenor holds $815.78; intervenors who are citizens of Louisiana hold $81,100.51, and intervenors whose citizenship does not appear hold $30,302.16. Other claims, amounting to $13,363.21, were proved before the master by persons whose citizenship does not appear and who have not intervened. "And it appearing that complainant and intervenors were assignees of the certificates, warrants, and claims, of which they made proof before the master, and that their assignors were citizens of Louisiana, and there being no averment in the bill that the assignors might have sued thereon in the Circuit Court if no transfer thereof had been made, the city of New Orleans moved to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction in said court. "The motion was denied and a final decree made requiring the defendants to pay their virile shares of the indebtedness of the board as reported by the master. From such decree an appeal was taken to this court, and the case came on to be heard upon the errors assigned; whereupon, the court desiring the instruction of the honorable the Supreme Court of the United States for the proper decision of the questions arising herein touching the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, it is hereby ordered that the following questions and propositions VOL. CLIII-27 Statement of the Case. of law be certified to said Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of section 6, of the act entitled 'An act to establish Circuit Courts of Appeals and define and regulate in certain cases the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States and for other purposes,' approved March 3, 1891, to wit: "First. Does the case made by the bill alleging that the board of police has been abolished and left without successor or legal representative and no provision has been made for the application of its assets to the payment of its debts and the answer herein, constitute a suit in equity arising under the Constitution of the United States and within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana without regard to the diverse citizenship of the parties? "Second. The warrants and the certificates held by the complainant having been issued for services rendered and supplies furnished under contract with the board of Metropolitan police when the laws required said warrants and certificates to be received by the defendants in payment of all licenses, taxes, and other dues, and all such laws having been repealed by the legislature of Louisiana without making other provision for the redemption of said warrants and certificates, was this an impairment of the obligation of the contract in relation to such warrants and certificates within the meaning of article 1, section 10, of the Constitution of the United States? "Third. Do the pleadings show a suit to recover the contents of choses in action within the meaning of the Judiciary Act of 1887 and 1888, so as to preclude the complainant, as assignee, from suing in the Circuit Court of the United States. to establish a fund out of which he, in common with other creditors of the late Metropolitan police board, may be paid pro rata upon their claims? "Fourth. Considering all the allegations in the bill of complaint and the provisions in the constitution and laws of Louisiana respecting the Metropolitan police board and the Metropolitan police warrants and certificates and the redemp Statement of the Case. tion and payment of said certificates, does the case show a liability on the part of the city of New Orleans to contribute to a fund for the payment of said warrants and certificates beyond its liability for taxes assessed and collected in pursuance of the apportionments made?" The Circuit Court of Appeals "further ordered that the bill of complaint and the demurrer and answer of the city of New Orleans thereto be made a part of the transcript certifying the aforesaid questions, together with the following sample copies of the warrants, certificates, pay-rolls and assignments forming the basis of complainant's demand, to wit: "Warrant Filed with and Part of Assignment. "(Copy.) "Central department, Metropolitan police. "NEW ORLEANS, May 18th, 1874. "Treasurer of the board Metropolitan police : "Pay to the order of James Reilly, fifty dollars. "By order of the board. "NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 13, 1876. "This is to certify that the board of Metropolitan police is indebted to P. Moran, No. 22, first precinct, in the sum of seventy-three dollars, for salary for account of the month. of December, 1875. "(Signed) L. T. MURDOCK, "Treasurer Board Metropolitan Police. "The amount due as per this certificate will not be paid unless the certificate is delivered to the treasurer of the board." Then followed form of pay-rolls, the one given being ap Argument for Appellees. proved January 5, 1877, for forty-nine hundred and seventysix dollars, and the bill, demurrer, and answer, which were set forth at length. Mr. William A. Maury, Mr. Henry C. Miller, and Mr. E. A. O'Sullivan for the city of New Orleans. Mr. J. D. Rouse and Mr. William Grant for appellees. I. As to the first question It seems to us that the bill and demurrer fully and fairly submitted to the Circuit Court whether the repealing statute and said act 49 of 1880 had not relieved the city of all liability to pay the balance of the apportionments due the police. board, except as provided in said act 49. The issue was decisive of the case, and the court was bound to decide it one way or the other at the outset. Whether a suit in the Circuit Court is one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States for the purpose of original jurisdiction is determined by the questions involved. "If from them it appears that some right, privilege, or immunity, on which the recovery depends, will be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or sustained by the opposite construction, then the case is one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States." Cooke v. Avery, 147 U. S. 375. The bill in this case sets forth the claims of complainant and the enactment of the state laws impairing his rights, and the reason for coming into the Circuit Court for the relief prayed. The response of the defendant admits all the facts. alleged, but asserts as matter of law that the assets of the debtor corporation have been withdrawn from his reach by the repealing act, and that his right of relief is now limited to the remedy provided for in act 49 of 1880. These issues are to be tested and decided by the Constitution of the United States. Whether the repealing law and the act 49 of 1880 did or did not impair complainant's contract, is the question presented for decision. It is a Federal question which gave jurisdiction to the Circuit Court, no matter how it might be |