(Mahan v. United States, 14 Wall. 109.) Where it does not find the amount of loss, its judgment will be reversed on account of an insufficient finding. (United States v. Clark, 94 U. S. 73.) Where it sounds all the evidence, but there was no legal evidence to establish such fact, this court must reverse the judgment. (United States v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37.) The Supreme Court cannot give the court of claims any directions as to what finding it shall make. (United States v. Child ["United States v. Adams"], 9 Wall. 661.)

§ 222. Time and manner of appeals from the court of claims.-All appeals from the court of claims shall be taken within ninety days after the judgment is rendered, and shall be allowed under such regulations as the Supreme Court may direct. (Rev. Stats. sec. 708.)

The limitation ceases to run from the time of application for an appeal, and subsequent delays will not prejudice the party. (United States v. Adams, 6 Wall. 101.) Such appeals must be taken within ninety days after the judgment is rendered, but this period is enlarged to six months by section 10 of the act in question. In our judgment, the same right can be exercised by the United States in any case of the prosecution of a claim in the district or circuit courts of the United States under said act. (United States v. Davis, 131 U. S. 40.)

§ 223. Judgments and decrees of A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the validity, or where is drawn in question the validity, of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties,

State courts on writs of error. —

be

or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity; or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set apart or claimed by either party, under such Constitution, treaty, statute, commission or authority,—may re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court upon a writ of error. The writ shall have the same effect as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a court of the United States. The Supreme Court may reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment or decree of such State court, and may, at their discretion, award execution or remand the same to the court from which it was removed by the writ. (Rev. Stats. sec. 709.)

Jurisdiction is not conferred by consent. (Mills v. Brown, 16 Peters, 525.) It is requisite that it should be apparent in the record that one of the questions arose, and that a decision was made thereon. (Crowell v. Randall, 10 Peters, 368.) The allegation that a treaty has been misconstrued, in refusing to sanction a claim, is not sufficient (Chouteau v. Marguerite, 12 Peters, 507), or a decision in accordance with the practice of the State court. (Commercial Bk. v. Rochester, 15 Wall. 639.) It must appear from the record that the act or Constitution was drawn in question (Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311), or the record should show a complete title under the treaty. (Hickie v. Starke, 1 Peters, 94.) It is sufficient if from the facts stated such a question must have arisen (Harris v. Dennie, 3 Peters, 292), and that the act was misconstrued. (Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 41.) The question must appear to have arisen by clear and necessary intendment (Ocean Ins. Co. v. Polleys, 13 Peters,

137), and to have been necessarily involved (Arinstrong v. Treasurer, 16 Peters, 281; Mills v. Brown, 16 Peters, 525), so that the State court could not have given a judgment without deciding it (Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36; affirming R. R. Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177), and that the question was decided in the State court. (Commercial Bk. v. Buckingham, 5 How. 317; Smith v. Hunter, 7 How. 738; Taylor v. Morton, 2 Black, 481; Cockroft v. Vose, 14 Wall. 5.) Neither the argument of counsel nor the opinion of the court below can be looked to for this purpose. (Gibson v. Chouteau, 8 Wall. 314.) It will not be entertained if the judgment may have been given on grounds which that section does not make cause for error (Steines v. Franklin Co., 14 Wall. 15; Kennebec R. R. v. Portland R. R., 14 Wall. 23); as on the construction of a State statute. (Insurance Co. v. The Treasurer, 11 Wall. 204.) It extends to rights protected by the Constitution. (New Orleans v. De Armas, 9 Peters, 224.) Under this section, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court depends upon the question involved, and not upon the citizenship of the parties. (French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S. 524.) The jurisdiction for review of the judgments of State courts given by this section extends to adverse decisions upon rights and titles claimed under commissions held or authority exercised under the United States, as well as to rights claimed under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. (Carson v. Dunham, 121 U. S. 421.) Compare Crescent City etc. Co. v. Butches Union Co., 120 U. S. 141; Provident Sav. Soc. v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635.) This section applies only to a writ of error to review a final judgment or decree on a suit in the highest court of a State. (Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, 129 U. S. 104.) These sections do not cover a criminal case. (Snow v. United States, 118 U. S. 346 ) Section 709 points out the cases in which the judgment or decree of the highest court of a State may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States. (McKenna v. Simpson, 129 U. S. 506.) Jurisdiction under this section does not depend upon the citizenship of the parties, but on the questions involved. (French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S. 524.) The Supreme Court can review such a judgment only when the right, privilege, or immunity claimed under

the Constitution or any treaty or statute of the United States was specially set up or claimed in the State court at the proper time and in the proper way. (Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U. S. 132; Leaper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Baldwin v. State of Kansas, 129 U. S. 52; Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U. S. 132; 32 U. S. 369; Lester v. State, 139 U. S. 462.) This court has jurisdiction to review the decision of a State court upon the question of exemption or immunity from liability under its contract, under the Bankrupt Law. (Logan Co. N. Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67, Where an assignee in bankruptcy claims certain property as belonging to him under the Bankrupt Act, and the State court decides against his title, this court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the State court. (Williams v. Heard, 140 U. S. 529.

Review of State judgment.—Where the case was decided on an independent ground broad enough to maintain the judgment, and not involving a Federal question, this court will dismiss the writ of error without considering the Federal question. (Beatty v. Benton, 135 U. S. 244; Marrow v. Brinkley, 129 U. S. 178; Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554; San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65; Hopkins v. McLure, 133 U. S. 380; Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554.) This principle has since been repeatedly applied as in Jenkins v. Lowenthal, 110 U. S. 222; Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U. S., 20 Wall. 590, 636; McManus v. O'Sullivan, 91 U. S. 578; Brown v. Atwell, 92 U. S. 327; Citizens' Bank v. Board of Liquidation, 98 U. S. 140; Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200; Adams Co. v. Burlington & M. R. Co., 112 U. S. 123; Detroit City Ry. v. Guthard, 114 U. S. 133; New Orleas Water Works Co. v. La. Sugar Ref. Co., 125 U. S. 18; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216, 234; Beaupré v. Noyes, 138 U. S. 397. (Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554). This court has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of the highest court of a State, unless a Federal question has been, either in express terms or by necessary effect, decided by that court against the plaintiff in error. (New Orleans Water Works v. Louisiana Sugar Ref. Co., 125 U. S. 18; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216; Hale v. Akers, 132

U. S. 554; San Francisco City and County v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65; State, Carey v. Andriano, 138 U. S. 497.) Where the defendant, in pleading his discharge under the Bankrupt Law, claimed a right of exemption under a law of Congress. But in order to give jurisdiction, something more is necessary; the judgment of the State court must be against the right claimed. Like rulings were made in Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; Strader v. Baldwin, 9 How. 261; Burke v. Gaines, 19 How. 388; Hale v. Gaines, 22 How. 144; 16 How. 264; Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420; Ryan v. Thomas, 4 Wall. 603. (State, Carey v. Andriano, 138 U. S. 497). To give this court jurisdiction of a writ of error to a State court it must appear affirmatively, not only that a Federal question was presented for decision by the highest court of the State having jurisdiction, but that its decision was necessary to the determination of the cause, and that it was actually decided, or that the judgment as rendered could not have been given without deciding it. (Davis v. State, 139 U. S. 651; Cook Co. v. Calumet & C. Canal & Do. Co., 138 U. S. 635; Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300.) It is essential to the exercise by this court of revisory jurisdiction over the final judgments or decrees of the courts of the States that the writ of error should be allowed either by a justice of this court, or by the proper judge of the State court, after ascertaining by an examination of the record that a question cognizable here was made and decided in the State court, and that such allowance was justified. (Gleason v. Florida, 9 Wall. 779; Butler v. Gage, 138 U. S. 52.)

Constitution and statutes.-Where the construction of the Constitution or statutes of the United States is involved, the decision must be against the title or right set up by the party, and it must appear that his title depended upon the statute. (Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117; Montgomery v. Hernandez, 12 Wheat. 129; Ryan v. Thomas, 4 Wall. 603.) It is not necessary to state in terms upon the record that the law was drawn in question, it is sufficient if it shows that the law must have been misconstrued or the decision could not have been made. (Willson v. Marsh Co., 2 Peters, 245; Furman v. Nichol,