-

SUPERSEDEAS — Effect — Liability of Sureties on Bond. At common law a supersedeas, in order to stay proceedings on execution, must come before levy, otherwise the sheriff may sell on a writ of vend. ex. Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 618.

2. Section 1007, Rev. Sts., which, as amended by the act of February 18, 1875 (18 Sts. 316), provides that, where a writ of error may operate as a supersedeas, execution shall not issue until the expiration of ten days after the rendition of the judgment, has reference only to the judgments of the federal courts. Doyle v. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 50; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201.

3. The sureties on a supersedeas bond given upon the removal of a case, by writ of error, from the district to the circuit court become liable on the affirmance of the judgment, although no execution is taken out against the principal. Babbitt v. Finn, 101 U. S. 7.

4. Nor is their liability affected by the fact that another supersedeas bond was given to remove the case from the circuit court to the supreme court. Ib.

Appeal-When taken for Purposes of Supersedeas

· Not Evidence. DOCUMENTARY, 50. Right of Judges to hold Circuit Court. See CONSTITUTION, 3.

Rule in Admiralty authorizing Proceedings in Rem in Certain Cases - Power to make. - PRACTICE, 12.

See ADMIRALTY

State Laws as Rules of Decision.

See FEDERAL COURTS

RULES OF DECISION.

STATE LAWS,

State Laws - Court has no Power to declare

void as in conflict with State Constitution. See ERROR TO STATE COURT IN GENERAL, 6.

Jurisdiction Origin Limits between States.

See pl. 1-8.

Appellate Jurisdiction — In general

--

Limits Jurisdiction as affected by Consent Matter in Controversy.

See pl. 9-31.

As depend

Land Cases.

See pl. 55-59.

trict of Columbia

preme Court.

See pl. 60-73.

Circuit Court - Su

Appellate Jurisdiction to Court of Claims. See pl. 74-78.

Appellate Jurisdiction to Territorial Courts. See pl. 79-91.

1.

9.

-

Appellate Jurisdiction In general Origin Limits Jurisdiction as affected by Consent Matter in Controversy.] The dcscription in the judiciary act of 1789 (1 Sts. 73), of the appellate power of the supreme court is to be construed as a denial of such appellate power as it does not comprehend; but it is not necessary that the appellate jurisdiction should be expressly given by an act of congress; it is enough if an intent to allow it can be ascertained. Durousseau v. United States, 6 Cranch, 307.

243.

2. Congress cannot confer original jurisdiction on the supreme court. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137.

3. Where the supreme court has original jurisdiction under the constitution, as, e. g., of a suit between two states, its exercise does not depend on the existence of any act of congress regulating the mode thereof. Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66.

4. The supreme court has jurisdiction of a suit in equity, brought by one state against another, to determine a question of disputed boundary. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657.

5. It has original jurisdiction of controversies between states concerning their boundaries, although the decision thereof may affect the territorial limits of the political jurisdiction and Sovereignty of the parties. Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wal. 39.

6. Its original equity jurisdiction extends to a suit by a state for the abatement of a nuisance caused by the erection of a bridge, to the obstruction of the navigation of a river flowing out of the state, the state having constructed and owning canals and railways connecting with the river, from which it derives tolls; and it makes no difference that the bridge is in another state. [TANEY, C. J., and DANIEL, J., dissenting.] Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518.

7. Membership of a state in a private corporation does not give the supreme court original jurisdiction of a suit to which the corporation is a party. United States Bank v. Planters' Bank, VOL. II.-22

10. The supreme court cannot, through an order of transfer from the circuit court, acquire

peal from the district court, although the transfer is expressly authorized by statute. There is no existing decree over which an appellate jurisdiction may be exercised, aud such a provision is to be regarded as an attempt inadvertently made to confer a jurisdiction withheld by the constitution. The Alicia, 7 Wal. 571.

11. Although appellate jurisdiction is conferred on the supreme court by the constitution, it is conferred subject to such exceptions as congress may make; and an act affirming such jurisdiction is construed as a negation of jurisdiction in all cases not expressly described, and a repeal of such act, as a denial of it in those cases also. Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wal. 506. And see Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wal. 85.

12. Congress has power, pending an appeal in the supreme court, to repeal the statute under which the court has appellate jurisdiction of the case, and if the power be exercised, the appeal falls. Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wal. 506. And see Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429; Merchants' Insurance Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wal. 541.

13. Except as provided by statute, the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court, based on the value of the subject-matter of the suit, does not attach because the question involved is one of federal law. Adams v. Crittenden, 106 U. S. 576.

14. The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, provided for by Rev. Sts. § 2326, where the right to a patent for mineral lands is contested, may be reviewed by the supreme court in a case otherwise proper. Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350.

15. Although the supreme court derives its

ations other than the pecuniary value of the office. De Krafft v. Barney, 2 Black, 704.

16. Parties, therefore, cannot by agreement authorize the supreme court to exercise appellate jurisdiction where it is not given by the law. The Lucy, 8 Wal. 307.

28. Nor to review the judgment of a circuit court on a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 103. But see Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wal. 318; Ex parte Royall, 112 U. S. 181. pl. 41, 42, infra.

18. Thus, the parties cannot by agreement give the supreme court jurisdiction of an appeal from a decree of the circuit court affirming a decree of the district court which was not final, and from which, therefore, no appeal could lie. Montgomery v. Anderson, 21 How. 386.

19. Nor of an appeal in a case which should be brought up by writ of error or a certificate of division. United States v. Emholt, 105 U. S.

414.

20. Nor can they bring a case within the jurisdiction by mere agreement without writ of error or appeal. Washington County v. Durant, 7 Wal. 694.

21. Nor, where the pleadings distinctly show that the value of the matter in controversy is less than the jurisdictional sum, can the parties confer jurisdiction by stipulation that judgment shall be entered for more than that sum, if that court shall consider the plaintiff entitled to recover at all. Webster v. Buffalo Insurance Co.,

110 U. S. 386.

22. The supreme court will not take cognizance of an action brought up on an agreed case. Dewhurst v. Coulthard, 3 Dal. 409.

23. Nor of a cause transferred by consent of parties from a circuit court, where it is pending on appeal. The Nonesuch, 9 Wal. 504.

24. Under Rev. Sts. § 692, which provides for an appeal from all final decrees, an appeal lies to the supreme court from a decree of the circuit court rendered by consent. Pacific Railroad Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289.

25. Where the jurisdiction of the supreme court is limited by the amount in controversy, the matter in dispute must be money, or some right the value of which, in money, can be calculated and ascertained. Ritchie v. Mauro, 2 Pet. 243; Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 103; Pratt v. Fitzhugh 1 Black, 271; De Krafft v. Barney, 2 Black, 701; Youngstown First National Bank v. Hughes, 106 U. S. 523.

26. Thus, it can have none in case of a claim to the guardianship of children, although the value of their estate is more than the jurisdictional sum. The matter in dispute is the value of the office, and the office has no value except as it affords compensation to be earned. Ritchie v. Mauro, 2 Pet. 243.

30. Nor can it review on error, at suit of an attorney, a decision as to the removal of the seat of government of a territory, the other parties to the controversy being government officials, but not appearing in their official capacity, and not claiming any personal interest, but only stating that, if a removal is had, the United States will be put to an expense of three thousand dollars. The attorney's interest in such removal cannot be measured in money. It is not in any sense property. Potts v. Chumasero, 92 U. S. 358.

31. The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court as depending on the matter in dispute, considered on all the authorities. Hilton v. Dickin son. 108 U. S. 165.

32.

In

Appellate Jurisdiction to Circuit Court-In general — In Criminal Cases Habeas Corpus Cases To review Supervisory Proceedings in Bankruptcy · As depending on the Amount in Dispute.] Error does not lie to the supreme court to review the judgment of a circuit court in a civil action which has been taken to the circuit court from a district court by writ of error. United States v. Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 108; United States v. Gordon, Id. 287; United States v. Barber, 2 Wheat. 395; Sarchet v. United States, 12 Pet. 143. Now otherwise by act of July 4, 1843, § 3 (5 Sts. 393).

33. Although now otherwise by the act of March 3, 1863 (12 Sts. 760), allowing appeals in prize causes from the district to the supreme court, a case carried by appeal from a district court to a circuit court before the passage of that act was held to be properly in the supreme court on appeal from the circuit court. Admiral, 3 Wal. 603.

The

34. In prize causes the supreme court has an appellate jurisdiction only, and will not allow a new claim to be interposed on appeal, but will remand the cause, that it may be presented below. The Harrison, 1 Wheat. 298.

35. The supreme court has jurisdiction to review a decision of a circuit court in a proceeding on a private claim to land in California, transferred to it under the act of July 1, 1864 (13 Sts. 333), such a proceeding being in the nature of a proceeding in equity. [GRIER, MILLER, and FIELD, JJ.,

36. An appeal lies to the supreme court from a decree in admiralty of a provisional court established by order of the president in a southern state during the rebellion, as from a decree of the circuit court, congress having directed that decrees of the provisional court, proper under ordinary circumstances to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, should be transferred to the circuit court and have effect as if originally rendered therein. The decree, for the purposes of appeal, is the decree of the circuit court. The Grapeshot, 9 Wal. 129.

37. The act of May 26, 1824 (4 Sts. 62), to regulate the practice of the federal courts in Louisiana, does not give the supreme court power to re-examine the facts of a case at law which has been tried by a jury. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433.

38. The supreme court has no appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, except where the judges certify a division of opinion on some matter arising on the trial. Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 503; Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193.

39. Thus, a proceeding for contempt, independent of and separate from the suit out of which it grows, cannot be re-examined by the supreme court on appeal. New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 Wal. 387. 40. Nor on writ of error. 102 U. S. 121.

Hayes v. Fischer,

41. Under the act of February 5, 1867 (14 Sts. 385), in amendment of the judiciary act, an appeal lies to the supreme court from a judg ment in habeas corpus rendered by a circuit court in the exercise of original jurisdiction. Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wal. 318. But see pl. 42, infra.

42. The supreme court cannot, on appeal, review the proceedings of the circuit court on habeas corpus. While the right of appeal was given by the act of February 5, 1867 (14 Sts. 385), it was taken away by the act of March 27, 1868 (15 Sts. 44). Whatever jurisdiction the supreme court has in such a case it acquires through its own writ of habeas corpus, and, until that is issued, it has no power to proceed. Ex parte Royall, 112 U. S. 181.

43. No appeal lies to the supreme court from a decree of a circuit court rendered in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction conferred by the bankrupt act of March 2. 1867, § 2 (14 Sts. 518). Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wal. 65; Hall v. Allen, 12 Wal. 452; Mead v. Thompson, 15 Wal. 635; Coit v. Robinson, 19 Wal. 274; Sandusky v. Indianapolis First National Bank, 23 Wal. 289; Conro v. Crane 91 U. S. 441; Milner v. Meek, 95 U. S. 252; Nimick v. Coleman, 95 U. S. 266.

44. And it makes no difference that the case was brought from the district court by writ of

45. But where a case, really a case in equity within the meaning of section 8 of the act, is brought to the circuit court by petition under section 2, giving that court general supervision of cases arising under that act, and a decision is made in favor of the petitioner reversing the decree of the district court, the supreme court on appeal will reverse the decree and remand the suit with directions to dismiss it. The supervisory jurisdiction does not attach in such a case. Stickney v. Wilt, 23 Wal. 150.

46. The jurisdiction of the supreme court for the review of the decisions of the circuit courts was not affected by the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Sts. 470), giving the circuit courts cognizance of suits arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, where the matter in dispute exceeds five hundred dollars. To give the right of review, five thousand dollars must be involved. Whitsitt v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 770.

47. Section 17 of the patent act of July 4, 1836 (5 Sts. 124), allowing writs of error and appeals where the courts "deem it reasonable" to allow them, without regard to the sum in controversy, does not extend to suits in equity to set aside an assignment of a patent. Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How. 99.

48. Jurisdiction in error cannot be had thereunder to review a question of costs to an amount less than two thousand dollars, costs in patent causes depending on the same laws which govern in other cases. Sizer v. Many, 16 How. 98.

49. The supreme court has no appellate jurisdiction of a suit to enforce a contract for the use of a patented invention, where the sum in controversy is not up to the ordinary jurisdictional requirement. Brown v. Shannon, 20 How. 55.

50. The right of appeal without regard to the sum in controversy in questions arising under federal laws granting to authors or inventors exclusive rights, which was conferred by the act of February 18, 1861 (12 Sts. 130), applies to controversies between a patentee and an alleged infringer, as well as to controversies between rival patentees; and the act of July 20, 1870 (16 Sts. 207), does not vary that right. Philip v. Nock, 13 Wal. 185.

51. The act of May 31, 1844 (5 Sts. 658), authorizing a writ of error without regard to the amount in controversy, is limited to suits brought by the government for violation of the revenue laws, and does not extend to suits against a collector for duties imposed and paid in excess of what the law justifies. Mason v. Gamble, 21 How. 390.

52. And it applies only where the judgment is rendered in a circuit court, and not in cases from a territorial court of appeals. United States v. Carr, 8 How. 1.