upon claims against the United States are reviewed by appeal or writ of error according to the nature of each case. By the Act of September 6, 1916, "No court having power to review a judgment or decree rendered or passed by another shall dismiss a writ of error solely because an appeal should have been taken, or dismiss an appeal solely because a writ of error should have been sued out, but when such mistake or error occurs it shall disregard the same and take the action which would be appropriate if the proper appellate procedure had been followed."7 When the record is brought before it by a writ of error, the court looks into it to see if any error of law was committed by the inferior court. There can be no reversal by the Supreme Court or a Circuit Court of Appeals upon a writ of error for any error of fact.9 Where the evidence is contained in a bill of 6 Chase v. U. S., 155 U. S. 489, 30 L. ed. 234, supra § 97. 7 Ch. 448, § 4, 39 St. at L. 727. Comp. St., § 1649a. See Judicial Code, § 274b added by Act of March 3, 1915, ch. 90, 38 St. at L. 956; Maine Northwestern Development Co. v. Northwestern Commercial Co., C. C. A., 240 Fed. 583; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Syos, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 561; Toyo Kisen Kaisha v. Hartman, C. C. A., 253 Fed. 422, infra, § 705. "This section does not abolish the distinction between writs of error and appeals, but only requires that the party seeking review shall have it in the appropriate way, notwithstanding a mistake in choosing the mode of review." Gauzon v. Compania General, 245 U. S. 86, 89. It has been held by a divided court that it does not authorize the court of review upon an appeal not accompanied by a bill of exceptions to consider exceptions contained in a transcript of the evidence certified by the court below. See Buessel v. U. S., C. C. A., 2nd Ct., 258 Fed. 811. But see the dissenting opinion of Ward, J., Cf. Ana Maria Sugar Co. v. Quinones, C. C. A., 251 Fed. 499. 8 U. S. R. S., § 1011; Wiscart v. Danchy, 3 Dall. 321, 327, 1 L. ed. 619; U. S. v. Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 108, 110, 3 L. ed. 284, 285; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L. ed. 257; Generes v. Campbell, 11 Wall. 193, 20 L. ed. 110; United States v. Dawson, 110 U. S. 569, 25 L. ed. 791; England v. Gebhardt, 112 U. S. 502, 28 L. ed. 811; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670, 28 L. ed. 862; Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658, 38 L. ed. 305 (where the cases are reviewed by Mr. Justice Gray); Elliott v. Toeppner, 187 U. S. 327; Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Campbell & Go Tauco, 205 U. S. 403, 51 L. ed. 857; Cedar Rapids Gas Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 223 U. S. 655, 668, 56 L. ed. 604; Gsell v. Insular Customs Collector, 239 U. S. 93. 9 Paul v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 130 Fed. 951; Lillie v. Dennert, C. C. A., 232 Fed. 104. exceptions, the court may determine whether there was any evidence at all to support the facts essential to the judgment.10 Upon an appeal the appellate court regularly reviews the case upon the evidence taken in the inferior court, and certified to it. 11 To these rules of the English practice the Federal statutes have made certain exceptions. Upon a writ of error there can be no reversal for error in ruling any plea in abatement, such as the plea of the pendency of another suit, other than a plea to the jurisdiction of the court.12 A decision upon a motion to dismiss because by the death of a party the action has abated, affects the jurisdiction and can be reviewed upon a writ of error.13 Upon an appeal from the Court of Claims, the evidence is not included in the findings; and the Supreme Court does not review the decision upon questions of fact.14 10 Ling Su Fan v. U. S., 218 U. S. 302, 54 L. ed. 1049, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1176; Ware v. Wunder Brewing Co. of San Francisco, C. C. A., 160 Fed. 79; Lew Moy v. U. S., C. C. A., 164 Fed. 322; Chin Man Can v. United States, C. C. A., 170 Fed. 187. Where it appears from the face of the patents that extrinsic evidence is not needed to explain the terms of art therein, or to apply the descriptions to the subject matter, and the court is able from mere comparison to comprehend what are the inventions described in each patent, and from such comparison whether one device infringes upon the other, the question of infringement or no infringement is one of law and susceptible of determination on a writ of error. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Cramer, 192 U. S. 265, 48 L. ed. 437; Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. Pressed Steel Car Co., C. C. A., 263 Fed. 883. 11 Re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1, 42, 34 L. ed. 55, 63. 12 U. S. R. S., § 1011, as amended 18 St. at L., ch. 80, p. 318; Piquig not v. Penn. R. Co., 16 How. 104, 14 L. ed. 863; Stephens v. Monongahela Bank, 111 U. S. 197, 28 L. ed. 399. See Cunningham v. Rodgers, C. C. A., 171 Fed. 835. 13 Henderson v. Henshall, 54 Fed. 320, 330; Martin's Adm'r v. B. & O. R. Co., 151 U. S. 673, 703, 38 L. ed. 311, 322. "The proceeding is an action which is commenced by a writ, and the cause of the action is the damage sustained by the parties from the error in the previous judgment, and this damage equally attaches on the survivor in this as in any other action." Lord Ellenborough in Clark v. Rippon, 1 B. & Ald. 586, quoted in Moses v. Wooster, 115 U. S. 285, 29 L. ed. 391, and Martin's Adm'r v. B. & O. R. Co., 151 U. S. 673, 703, 38 L. ed. 311, 322. 14 S. C. Rules on Appeals from Ct. Cl.; supra, §§ 457, 686, 690, infra, § 690; Talbert v. U. S., 155 U. S. 45, 39 L. ed. 64. This rule does not apply to suits in equity brought in the Court of Claims under special statutes. U. S. v. Old Settlers, 148 U. S. 427, 37 L. ed. 509; Harvey v. U. S., 105 U. S. 671, 691, 26 L. ed. 1206, 1213; La Abra S. Min. Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 423, 44 L. ed. 223. Formerly a writ of error could not issue from the Supreme Court of the United States to a judgment of a Territorial Court in a case not tried by a jury, and the review by the Supreme Court of the United States of a judgment of a Territorial Court in this continent in a case not tried by a jury could only be by an appeal. 18 St. at L. 27; Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610, 25 L. ed. 421; Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619, 25 L. ed. 446; Gray v. Howe, 108 U. S. 12, 27 L. ed. 634; Thompson v. Ferry, 180 U. S. 484, 45 L. ed. 633; Armijo v. Armijo, 181 U. S. 558, 45 L. ed. 1000. The rule was otherwise as to the review of judgments of the Supreme Court of the former Territory of Oklahoma. Comstock v. Eagleton, 196 U. S. 99, 49 L. ed. 402; Oklahoma City v. McMaster, 196 U. S. 529, 49 L. ed. 587; National Live Stock Bank of Chicago v. National Bank of Geneseo, 203 U. S. 296, 51 L. ed. 192. In such a case, instead of the evidence at large, a statement of the facts of the case in the nature of a special verdict, with the rulings of the court on the admission or rejection of evidence when excepted to, was required to be made and certified by the court below. The Supreme Court of the United States could then only consider the exceptions to the rul ings on evidence and also whether the decree could be sustained upon the findings, without reference to the weight of evidence or its sufficiency to support the findings. Ibid.; Stur v. Beck, 133 U. S. 541, 33 L. ed. 761; San Pedro & C. D. A. Co. v. U. S., 146 U. S. 120, 36 L. ed. 912; Young v. Amy, 171 U. S. 179, 43 L. ed. 127; Harrison v. Perea, 168 U. S. 311, 42 L. ed. 478; Mammoth Min. Co. v. Salt Lake F. & M. Co., 151 U. S. 447, 38 L. ed. 229; Black v. Jackson, 177 U. S. 349, 44 L. ed. 801; Caffrey v. Oklahoma Territory, 177 U. S. 346, 44 L. ed. 799; Rogers v. U. S., 141 U. S. 548, 35 L. ed. 853; Herrick v. Boquillas L. & C. Co., 200 U. S. 96, 50 L. ed. 388; Eagle Mining Co. v. Hamilton, 218 U. S. 513, 54 L. ed. 113; except in an extraordinary case. Halsell v. Renfrow, 202 U. S. 287, 292, 50 L. ed. 1032; Nielsen v. Steinfeld, 224 U. S. 534, 56 L. ed. 872. This rule did not apply to appeals from the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Dela Rama v. Dela Rama, 201 U. S. 303, 50 L. ed. 765; Philippine Sugar &c. Co. v. Phil. Islands, 247 U. S. 385. A judgment or decree of divorce, De La Rama v. De La Rama, 241 U. S. 154; or an order upon an application for the writ of habeas corpus, Fisher on Behalf of Barcelon v. Baker, 203 U. S. 174, 5 L. ed. 142; Gsell v. Insular Customs Collector, 239 U. S. 93; made by the Supreme Court of the Philippines is reviewable by appeal. Appeals from Porto Rico were formerly subject to the rules similar to those regulating appeals from the continental Territories, 31 Stat. 853; Comp. St., §§ 1215, 3791; Garzot v. De Rubio, 209 U. S. 283, 52 L. ed. 794; Rosaly v. Graham, 227 U. S. 584, 57 L. ed.; Porto Rico v. Emmanuel, 235 U. S. 251; but they are now reviewed in the same manner as appeals from the District Courts of the United States in cases which are appealable. Jud. Code, § 244, 36 St. § 688. Direct review by the Supreme Court of decisions of the Federal courts of the United States. The Judicial Code provides: "Appeals and writs of error may be taken from the district courts, including the United States district court for Hawaii and the United States district court for Porto Rico, direct to the Supreme Court in the following cases: In any case in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue, in which at L. 1157, Elizaburn v. Chaves, 239 U. S. 283, 36 Sup. Ct. 47, 60 L. ed. 290; Ana Maria Sugar Co. v. Quinones, C. C. A., 251 Fed. 499, 503. A judgment restraining the operation of a railroad and directing its removal is reviewable by appeal; Plazuela Sugar Co. v. Pastoriza, C. C. A., 245 Fed. 115. It has been held that judgments of the local courts of the Virgin Islands are reviewable only by appeal, Clen v. Jorgensen, C. C. A., 265 Fed. 120. Judgments and decrees of the Court of the Canal Zone are reviewable by appeal or writ of error in the same manner as those of the District Courts of the United States; Panama R. Co. v. Beckford, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 436. § 688. 11 Jud. Code, § 238, 36 St. at L. 1087, re-enacting in substance 26 St. at L. 827. The words "'in issue" are not confined to a formal issue raised by the findings, but include every case in which a question of jurisdiction is distinctly raised in any form. Shepard v. Adams, 168 U. S. 618, 42 L. ed. 602; Powers v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 169 U. S. 92, 42 L. ed. 673; Board of Trade v. Hammond El. Co., 198 U. S. 424, 49 L. ed. 1111; Kendall v. Am. Automatic Loom Co., 198 U. S. 477, 49 L. ed. 1133. They include a case where the court erroneously held that a question was jurisdictional. U. S. v. N. Y. Steam Fitting Co., 235 U. S. 327, 336. The jurisdiction intended by the statute is the jurisdiction of the court below in the suit wherein the decree appealed from is entered, not its jurisdiction to enter a former decree which the suit, Carey v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 170, 37 L. ed. 1041; or application, Stevirmac Oil & Gas Co. v. Dittmar, 245 U. S. 210; brought up for review sought to set aside. The question of jurisdiction must be one involving the District Court as a Federal court. Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U. S. 225, 233, 48 L. ed. 159, 161; Bache v. Hunt, 193 U. S. 523, 48 L. ed. 774. It must be one of initial jurisdiction. U. S. v. Swan, C. C. A., 65 Fed. 647, 649, per Taft, J. It has been said that it must be either a case where the jurisdiction of the Federal court as a Federal court is put in issue, or, where an issue is raised, whether jurisdiction over the defendant was ever obtained by proper process. Alton Water Co. v. Brown, C. C. A., 166 Fed. 840, 842. The following questions have been held to be jurisdictional and reviewable immediately by the Supreme Court: Whether there exists the necessary citizenship, Mexican Central Ry. Co. v. Eckman, 187 U. S. 429, 47 L. ed. 245; Patch v. Wabash R. Co., 207 U. S. 277, 52 L. ed. 204; or a Federal question, Blackburn v. Portland Gold Min. Co., 175 U. S. 571, 44 L. ed. 276; Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475, 47 L. ed. 909; W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co., C. C. A., 212 Fed. 156. The right to sue to restrain the infringement of a trade-mark or unlawful competition in a case originally brought in the Federal court, Ibid.; or removed there from a State court, Patch v. Wabash R. Co., 207 U. S. 277, 52 L. ed. 204. Whether suit can be brought in a District Court of the United States in a particular district, although the general Federal jurisdiction is not disputed. Davidson Bros. Marble Co. v. U. S., 213 U. S. 10, 53 L. ed. 675; U. S. v. Congress Const 'n. Co., 222 U. S. 199, 56 L. ed. 163; Am. Electric Welding Co. v. Lalance & Grosjean Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 249 Fed. 968; provided that the cause of action arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States; Male v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 240 U. S. 97, 101. When the Federal jurisdiction depends solely upon a difference of citizenship and the objection is founded upon the residence of a party, the right to an immediate review by the Supreme Court is doubtful. Ibid. But see Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co., 234 U. S 369. Whether the value of the matter in dispute was sufficient to give the court of first instance jurisdiction even when that depends upon a question of fact, Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U. S. 115, 42 L. ed. 682; Rogers v. Hennepin County, C. C. A., 220 Fed. 453. Whether a suit was brought by a stockholder by collusion between him and his corporation, for the fraudulent purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Federal court which concerning a controversy, really exists between that corporation and another defendant; Chicago v. Mills, 204 U. S. 321, 51 L. ed. 504. Whether a Federal court, Sheppard v. Adams, 168 U. S. 618, 42 L. ed. 602; U. S. v. N. Y. Steam Fitting Co., 235 U. S. 327; G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Saalfield and Ogilvie, 241 U. S. 22; Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U. S. 128; or a State court, from which the case was removed, Remington v. Central Pac. R. Co., 198 U. S. 95, 49 L. ed. 959; St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. American Cotton Co., C. C. A., 125 Fed. 196; acquired jurisdiction over the defendant by valid service; see Davis v. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 217 U. S. 157, 54 L. ed. 708; Am. Security Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 224 U. S. 491, 56 L. ed. 856; Hays v. Richardson, C. C. A., 121 Fed. 536; or by an attachment, which was not irregular, Davis v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 156 Fed. 775, nor fraudulent, Hays v. Richardson, C. C. A., 121 Fed. 536; or by a general appearance, Davis v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry Co., C. C. A., 156 Fed. 775; Olds v. Herman H. Hettler Lumber Co., C. C. A., 195 Fed. 9 (whether giving a forthcoming bond was a general appearance). Whether a petition for removal was filed in proper time, Powers v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 169 U. S. 92, 42 L. ed. 673. Whether the court of first instance, after a removal, has power to set aside an order of the State court, previously made; Remington v. Central Pac. R. Co., 198 U. S. 95, 49 L. ed. 959. Whether a court of admiralty has jurisdiction of a libel to compel contribution between two joint wrongdoers; The Ira M. |