8 Wall. 44). If the repugnancy of a statute of a State to the Constitution of the United States was drawn into question, or if that question was applicable to the case, this court has jurisdiction of the cause, although the record should not in terms state a misconstruction of the Constitution of the United States, or that the repugnancy of the statute of a State to any part of that Constitution was drawn into question. (Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Peters, 380; Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Peters, 280.) When the decision is against the right claimed under the Constitution or laws of the United States, a writ of error will lie to bring the judgment of the State court before this court for re-examination and revision. (AblemaĽ v. Booth, 21 How. 506.) The statute must be specially set up by the party, and the decision must be against the claim (Montgomery v. Hernandez, 12 Wheat. 129); but the point must be raised and decided against the party applying for the writ in the State court to which the writ is directed. (Farney v. Towle, 1 Black. 350.) The point must be distinctly raised in the court below (Hoyt v. Sheldon, 1 Black, 518), and shown by the record (R. R. Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177), which must be properly authenticated. (Caperton v. Ballard, 14 Wall. 238.) Nothing out of the record can be taken into consideration. (Walker v. Vallavaso, 6 Wall. 124). A certificate of the presiding justice is not conclusive to show that a Federal question was raised in the case (Caperton v. Boyer, 14 Wall. 216), nor the record of the judge who tries the case at nisi prius. (Inglee v. Coolidge, 2 Wheat. 363.) Where the decision is made on settled pre-existing rules of general jurisprudence the case cannot be brought here for review (Bank of West Tennessee v. Citizens' Bk. 14 Wall. 9; Palmer v. Marston, 14 Wall. 10; Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 12; Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 Wall, 661), nor if decided exclusively upon the principles of the jurisprudence of the State. (Marqueze v. Bloom, 16 Wall. 351). The jurisdiction is maintainable if the case shows that Federal questions were involved, though it also appears that there were other defenses, if these defenses afford no legal answer to the suit (Maguire v. Tyler, 8 Wall. 651), even though the case may have been disposed of generally by the court on other grounds (Minnesota v. Bachelder, 1

Wall. 109); but if the State court has rested its judgment on some point in the case not within the purview of this section, and that point is broad enough to sustain the judgment, then, although the ruling of the State court might be reversed on the point of Federal cognizance, this court will not entertain jurisdiction of the case. (Rector v. Ashley, 6 Wall. 142.) A decision on the ground that complainant's remedy on a legal title was at law and not in equity and not revisable. (Tyler v. Maguire, 17 Wall. 284.) If the court is the highest which may consider the question, the right of review exists, although it be not the highest court in the State (Downham v. Alexandria, 9 Wall. 659; Miller v. Joseph, 17 Wall. 655), and though the case be decided on an equal division. (Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672.) În order to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction under this section, because of the denial by a State court of any title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of the United States, it must appear on the record_that it was duly set up, that the decision was adverse, and was made in the highest court of the State. (Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 132; French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S. 524). Jurisdiction under this section, for the review of the decision of the highest court of a State, is not dependent upon the citizenship of the parties. The court looks only to the questions involved. (French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S. 524.) If a Federal question is fairly presented by the record, and its decision is necessary to the determination of the case, a judgment which rejects the claim, but avoids all reference to it, is as much against the right, within the meaning of this section, as if it had been specifically referred to, and the right directly refused. But if a decision of such a question is rendered unnecessary by the view which the court properly takes of the rest of the case, within the scope of the pleadings, the judgment is not open to review in the Supreme Court. (Chapman v. Goodnow, 123 U. S. 540; citing, Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200; Adams Co. v. Railroad Co., 112 U. S. 123. And see Phillips v. Mound City Assoc., 124 U. S. 605; Brooks v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216; Kreiger v. Shelby R. District, 125 U. S. 39.)

Under treaty.-(Owings v. Norwood, 5 Cranch, 344; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Moreland v. Page, 20 How. 522; Boggs v. Mining Co., 3 Wall. 304; Maguire v. Tyler, 8 Wall. 650.) Right and title to lands. (Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; Matthews v. Zane, 4 Cranch, 382; McCluny v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598; Buel v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312; Fulton v. McAffee, 16 Peters, 149; City of Mobile v. Eslava, 16 Peters, 234; Crowell v. Randell, 16 Peters, 368; Chouteau v. Eckhardt, 2 How. 644; McDonogh v. Millandon, 3 How. 693; Walker v. Taylor, 5 How. 64; Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343; Kennedy v. Hunt, 7 How. 586; Neilson v. Lagow, 7 How. 772; Almonester v. Kenton, 9 How. 1; Barbarie v. Eslava, 9 How. 421; Henderson v. Tennessee, 10 How. 311; Lessieur v. Price, 12 How. 59.) The decision of the supreme court of Louisiana against a right asserted under a treaty presents a question for jurisdiction of this court. (Burthe v. Denis, 133 U. S. 514.) This section is section 25 of the Judiciary Act, reproduced, somewhat enlarged. (Burthe v. Denis, 133 U. S. 514. See Weston v. Charleston, 2 Peters, 449.)

Personal rights.-Right to freedom. (Chouteau v. Marguerite, 12 Peters, 507; Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 82.) To writ of habeas corpus. (Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Peters, 540.) To religious liberty. (Permoli v. First Municipality, 3 How. 589.)

In criminal cases.- Where a party under indictment for violation of a State law pleads a license from the United States, and decision of State court is against the license, the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction. (McGuire v. Com., 3 Wall. 382.) The reversal of a judgment in a criminal case by State supreme court ordering new trial is not a "final judgment." (Rankin v. State, 11 Wall. 380.) Tax repugnant to United States Constitution. (Weston v. Charleston, 2 Peters, 449.) Consideration of a contract. (Craig v. Missouri, 4 Peters, 410.) Not on a State law only. (McBride v. Hoey, 11 Peters, 167; Commercial Bk. v. Buckingham, 5 How. 317; Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343; Congden v. Goodman, 2 Black, 574; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Michigan S. R. R., 19 How. 379; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84; Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527; Medberry v. Ohio, 24 How. 413; Porter v. Fo

ley, 24 How. 415; Attorney-General v. Meeting House, 1 Black, 262; Austin v. The Alderman, 7 Wall. 694; Worthy v. The Commissioners, 9 Wall. 611.) To give jurisdiction the judgment must give effect to some State statute or constitution which impairs the obligation of a contract. (Knox v. Exchange Bk., 12 Wall. 379; see People v. Central R. R., 12 Wall. 455; Railroad Co. v. McClure, 10 Wall. 511; Railroads v. Richmond, 15 Wall. 3.) Contract to pay in gold. (Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 Wall. 687.) In legal tenders. (Dooley v. Smith, 13 Wall. 604.) State decision against execution by United States marshal. (Clements v. Berry, 14 How. 398; Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334; Sharpe v. Doyle, 102 U. S. 686.) Against validity of an entry of land allowed by United States officers. (Lytel v. Arkansas, 22 How. 193.) Title to land. (Bell v. Hearne, 19 How. 252; Burke v. Gaines, 19 How. 388; Wynn v. Morris, 20 How.3; Berthold v. McDonald, 23 How. 334; Langfear v. Hunley, 4 Wall. 205; Carpenter v. Williams, 9 Wall. 785,) Authority of United States marshal. (Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334.) In insolvency. (Carpo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. 610.) In bankruptcy. (Strader v. Baldwin, 9 How. 261; Calcote v. Stanton, 18 How. 243.) Mexican treaty. (Gill v. Oliver, 11 How. 529.) If the State refuses to carry into effect the mandate of the Supreme Court, the latter will proceed to a final decision and award execution (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304), and may send its process to either the appellate or the inferior court of a State. (Williams v. Bruffy, 102 U. S. 248.) The power to review does not cxtend to statutes passed by territorial legislatures. (Miners' Bk. v. Iowa, 12 How. 1; Messenger v. Mason, 10 Wall. 507.) Questions of evidence. (Mackey v. Dillon, 4 How. 421; White v. Wright, 22 How. 19; Dupasseur v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. 132; Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; Moore v. Mississippi, 21 Wall. 636; Atherton Ex. v. Fowler, 3 Cen. L. J. 60; Long v. Converse, 8 Chic. L. N. 121; S. C., 13 Alb. L. J. 118.

Practice.—Remedy by writ of error. (Verden v. Coleman, 22 How. 192; Webster v. Reed, 11 How. 437.) Right of. (Twichell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321.)

Waiver of right. (Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172.) When operates as supersedeas. (O'Dowd v. Russell, 14 Wall. 402; Review Hamilton Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632; Tarver v. Keach, 15 Wall. 67; The Victory, 6 Wall. 382.) Remanding cause for further proceedings. (Winn v. Jackson, 12 Wheat. 135; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 How. 51.) Dismissal. (Christ Church v. Philadelphia, 20 How. 26; Millinger v. Hartupee, 6 Wall. 258; Gleason v. Florida, 9 Wall. 779; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 14 Wall, 26; Hurley v. Street, 14 Wall. 85; Pennywit v. Eaton, 15 Wall. 380.) For defect of parties. (Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 8.) Interlocutory decree. (Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420.) Final judgment, what is. (Weston v. Charleston, 2 Peters, 449; Olney v. Arnold, 3 Dall. 308.) Adverse party. (Poydras de la Lande v. Treasurer, 17 How. 1.) Writ, to what court issued. (Miller v. Joseph, 17 Wall. 655.) When jurisdiction does not attach. (Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585; Day v. Gallup, 2 Wall. 97.)

§ 224. Precedence of writs of error to State courts in criminal cases.-Cases on writ of error, to revise the judgment of a State court in any criminal cases, shall have precedence on the docket of the Supreme Court of all cases to which the government of the United States is not a party, excepting only such cases as the court, in its discretion, may decide to be of public importance. (Rev. Stats. sec. 710.)

The following matter is taken from CHAPTER ELEVEN, SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION. It appears to be, if not repealed, at least, superseded by the new law creating the Circuit Courts of Appeals.

§ 691. Judgments in circuit court on writ of error. -18 U. S. Stats. 316; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 136. (Repealed, 26 U. S. Stats, 829, sec. 1

In general.-An appeal removes a cause entirely, subjecting law and fact to a review and retrial, and a writ of error removes for re-examination nothing but the law. (Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321; U. S. v. Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 108.) An action at law in the circuit court can be taken up only by writ of error (The Charles Carter, 4 Dall. 22; Sarchet v. U. S., 12 Peters, 143; Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530; Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, 12 How.

FED. PROC.-44.