Summary

Edward Douglass White Zadig v. Baldwin — Opinion of the Court

The record clearly establishes that at the trial the validity of the constitutional provision referred to was assumed, and that the sole contention was whether or not the dealings between the parties, as shown by the evidence, were of the character prohibited by the state constitution. At the close of the testimony for the plaintiff, the defendants moved for a nonsuit, upon the single ground 'that it has not been shown that there was any transaction in margins between the parties, such as is inhibited by the constitution.
Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White Zadig v. Baldwin — Opinion of the Court

But, manifestly, the matters referred to form no part of the record, and are not adequate to create a federal question when no such question was necessarily decided below; and the record does not disclose that such issues were set up or claimed in any proper manner in the courts of the state. Pim v. St. Louis, 165 U.S. 273, 17 Sup. Ct. 322; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature