Hedges, 218 U. S. 264, 54 L. ed. 1039; or of a suit for salvage of a boat in a drydock, The Steamship Jefferson, 215 U. S. 130, 54 L. ed. 125; or, of a proceeding in admiralty for a limitation of the liability of a ship-owner, after final disposition of all points affecting the right of the petitioners to a limita. tion of their liability to enter a decree in personam against them for damages caused to some of the intervenors, The Annie Faxon, C. C. A., 87 Fed. 961; or it has been held the right to grant costs upon the dismissal of a libel for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter; The Ada, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 50, 51. Whether a Federal court has jurisdiction of a suit against an interstate carrier before action by the Interstate Commerce Commission upon the subject. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., C. C. A., 192 Fed. 475. But see Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., C. C. A., 183 Fed. 929. The following questions are not jurisdictional nor reviewable immediately by the Supreme Court. Whether a cause of action is barred by lapse of time, either because of a statutory limitation, or by a limitation contained in an order requiring claims to be presented within a specified period, Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Saunders, 151 U. S. 105, 38 L. ed. 90; or by laches, Laidlaw v. Oregon & Nav. Co., C. C. A., 81 Fed. 876; in equity or admiralty irrespective of any statutory limitation. Whether a bill states a case of equitable cognizance, Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355, 40 L. ed. 731; Bien v. Robinson, 208 U. S. 423, 426, 52 L. ed. 556, 557; Geneva Furniture Co. v. Karpen, 238 U. S.

254; Chapman v. Atlantic Trust Co., C. C. A., 119 Fed. 257; World's Columbian Exposition v. U. S., C. C. A., 56 Fed. 654; Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355; U. S. v. Swan, C. C. A., 65 Fed. 647; Ferguson v. Omaha & S. W. R. Co., C. C. A., 227 Fed. 513, or any cause of action at law or in equity, Re Garrosi, C. C. A., 229 Fed. 363. Whether an indictment charges a crime against the United States, Lamar v. U. S., 240 U. S. 60. Whether the facts show a case of admiralty jurisdiction, Hazelwood Dock Co. v. Palmer, C. C. A., 228 Fed. 325; or a right to recover under a Federal statute such as the Employers' Liability Act, Farrugia v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, 233 U. S. 352, when the initial pleading contains sufficient averments to support the jurisdiction in these respects. Whether a suit or proceeding was properly dismissed for reasons of comity or because it affected land not within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Davis v. Anderson-Tully Co., C. C. A., 252 Fed. 681. Whether the right to deny allegations of the jurisdictional facts has been waived. Drake v. Tennessee, A. & T. R. Co., C. C. A., 268 Fed. 248. Whether a District Court has jurisdiction to enforce the decree of another sovereignty when the requisite diversity of citizenship exists. Fore River Shipbuilding Co. v. Hagg, 219 U. S. 175. Whether there is res adjudicata, Van Wagenen v. Sewall, 160 U. S. 369, 40 L. ed. 460; Blythe v. Hinckley, 173 U. S. 501, 43 L. ed. 783; or a subsequent decision between the same parties making the controversy moot, Male v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 240 U. S. 97. Whether a stock

holder's bill complies with the Equity Rules. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28, 34, 45 L. ed. 410, 412; Venner v. Great Nor-. thern Ry. Co., 209 U. S. 24, 52 L. ed. 666. Perhaps whether, although nominally against an individual, a suit is in reality against a State, Illinois Central R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28, 38, 45 L. ed. 410. Whether an indispensable party has been omitted. Bogart v. So. Pac. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 137, 57 L. ed.

--

Whether a declaration in an action against carriers for reparation is sufficient without an averment of previous action by the Interstate Commerce Commission. R. J. Darnell v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 225 U. S. 243, 56 L. ed. 1072; A. J. Phillips Co. v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., C. C. A., 195 Fed. 12. Whether a foreign executor was subject to suit in a State court from which the suit has been removed; Courtney v. Pradt, 196 U. S. 89, 49 L. ed. 398. Whether the State court had jurisdiction of a controversy which has been properly removed, provided the defendant was duly served. Kansas City Northwestern R. R. Co. v. Zimmerman, 210 U. S. 336, 52 L. ed. 1084. In habeas corpus proceedings, whether the court whose commitment it is sought to review had jurisdiction. Childers v. McClaughry, 216 U. S. 139. Whether a party to a suit has been properly served with notice of an application at the foot of a decree. Bache v. Hunt, 193 U. S. 523, 48 L. ed. 774. Whether a court of equity, in proceedings not founded upon a Federal statute, has power to proceed by a summary application, instead of by a plenary suit; Schweer v. Brown, 195 U. S.

171, 49 L. ed. 144; Bien v. Robinson, 208 U. S. 423, 427, 52 L. ed. 556. Whether a court of equity has ancillary jurisdiction of an application in relation to matters in a suit that has been pending before it, Alton Water Co. v. Brown, C. C. A., 166 Fed. 840. Whether a Federal court, sitting in equity, can issue a writ to enforce a decree, without a new proceeding upon its common law side. U. S. v. Swan, C. C. A., 65 Fed. 647. Whether an appearance by a defendant corporation was lawfully made, when the right of an intervenor to raise the objection was denied by the court below. Keatley v. Furey, 226 U. S. 399, 57 L. ed. -. Whether the pendency of a previous suit in a State Court deprives a Federal court of power to interfere with the property or subject matter, Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U. S. 225, 48 L. ed. 159; Bache v. Hunt, 193 U. S. 523, 48 L. ed. 774; Railroad Commission v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 225 U. S. 272, 56 L. ed. 1087. Attleborough Nat. Bank v. N. W. Mfg. Co., 28 Fed. 113; Central Dist. Printing & Telegraph Co. v. Farmers' & Producers' Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 59. See Blythe v. Hinckley, 173 U. S. 501, 43 L. ed. 783; Huntington v. Laidley, 176 U. S. 668, 44 L. ed. 630; supra, §52; infra, § 693; Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168, 39 L. ed. 660, has been overruled. Whether the decree or judgment of a State court could be reviewed collaterally because of its erroneous decision of certain constitutional questions. Blythe v. Hinckley, 173 U. S. 501, 43 L. ed. 783. Whether goods the subject of an action in were seized within the terri

rem

torial jurisdiction of a District Court; U. S. v. Larkin, 208 U. S. 333, 52 L. ed. 517. Whether a person belongs to the class who are not subject to involuntary bankruptcy; Denver First Nat. Bank v. Klug, 186 U. S. 202, 46 L. ed. 1127; supra, §§ 616, 617, 666, 669. Whether a petition sets forth an act of bankruptcy. Exploration Mercantilet Co. v. Pacific H. & S. Co., C. C. A., 177 Fed. 825. Whether a Court of Bankruptcy can proceed summarily against a party charged with holding property of the bankrupt; Schweer v. Brown, 195 U. S. 171, 49 L. ed. 144; supra, §§ 608, 635, 666, 669. Whether a Court of Bankruptcy has power to administer property which is claimed to be exempt; Lucius v. CawthonColeman Co., 196 U. S. 149, 49 L. ed. 425.

The right to review by the Supreme Court in such cases depends upon the existence of a question of jurisdiction, and no other question in the case will be reviewed by that tribunal; Passavant v. U. S., 148 U. S. 214, 37 L. ed. 426; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 35 L. ed. 893; Schunk v. M. & S. Co., 147 U. S. 500, 37 L. ed. 255; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 234 U. S. 369: except in a habeas corpus proceeding, when the Supreme Court will review all the merits of the application below. U. S. R. S., § 761; Storti v. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 138, 143, 46 L. ed. 120, 124; supra, § 467. When the unsuccessful party wishes to have the judgment or decree reviewed upon jurisdictional grounds and other grounds as well, he cannot appeal to both the Supreme Court and the Circuit Court

of Appeals. Columbus Const. Co. v. Crane Co., 174 U. S. 600, 43 L. ed. 1102; U. S. v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, 113, 39 L. ed. 87, 89. Where two such appeals or writs of error are taken by the same party, after the decision of the former on the merits the second will be dismissed; Columbus Const. Co. v. Crane Co., 174 U. S. 600, 43 L. ed. 1102; but see Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359, 362, 41 L. ed. 745, 746; Pullman P. C. Co. v. Central Tr. Co., 171 U. S. 138, 43 L. ed. 108; s. c., 39 U. S. App. 307; unless the proceedings in the Circuit Court of Appeals are absolutely void; U. S. v. Larkin, 208 U. S. 333, 52 L. ed. 517; but such an appeal by one defendant is not affected by an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals by another; Stillman v. Combe, 197 U. S. 436, 49 L. ed. 822. A prior writ of error, U. S. v. Larkin, 208 U. S. 333, 52 L. ed. 517; Davis v. C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 217 U. S. 157, 54 L. ed. 708; or appeal, Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282, 46 L. ed. 910; seeking review by the Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been dismissed by such court, is no bar to a writ of error from the Supreme Court to review a question of jurisdiction which was duly raised. The deci sion of a District Court upon the mandate of a Circuit Court of Ap peals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon the question of jurisdiction. Brown v. Alton Water Co., 222 U. S. 325, 56 L. ed. 221. The issue of a writ of error from the Supreme Court to review a judgment of the Circuit Court for want of jurisdiction does not prevent the Circuit Court of Appeals from issuing a writ of error to review an or

der subsequent to the judgment denying a new trial claimed under a State statute. Shreve v. Cheesman, C. C. A., 69 Fed. 785. Cf. No. Pac. R. Co. v. Glaspell, C. C. A., 49 Fed. 482. Chief Justice Fuller said: "Giving the act a reasonable construction, taken as a whole, we conclude: (1) If the jurisdiction of the Circuit [now District] Court is in issue and decided in favor of the defendant, as that disposes of the case, the plaintiff should have the question certified and take his appeal or writ of error directly to this court (2) If the question of jurisdiction is in issue and the jurisdiction sustained, and then judgment or decree rendered in favor of the defendant on the merits, the plaintiff, who has maintained the jurisdiction, must appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, where, if the question of jurisdiction arises, the Circuit Court of Appeals may certify it. (3) If the question of jurisdiction is in issue and the jurisdiction sustained, and judgment on the merits is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, then the defendant can elect either to have the question certified and come directly to this court, or to carry the whole case to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the question of jurisdiction can be certified by that court. (4) If in the case last supposed the plaintiff has ground of complaint in respect of the judgment he has recovered, he may also carry the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals on the merits, and this he may do by way of cross-appeal or writ of error if the defendant

has taken the case there, or independently, if the defendant has carried the case to this court on the question of jurisdiction alone, and in this instance the Circuit Court of Appeals will suspend a decision upon the merits until the question of jurisdiction has been determined. (5) The same observations are applicable where a plaintiff objects to the jurisdiction and is, or both parties are, dissatisfied with the judgment on the merits.'' U. S. v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, 114, 115, 39 L. ed. 87, 90. Where the Supreme Court has jurisdiction upon other grounds, it may reverse the judg ment because of a lack of jurisdiction in the court of first instance, although no such objection was raised below. Perez v. Fernandez, 202 U. S. 80, 100, 50 L. ed. 942, 949.

2 It is the proper practice to procure a formal certificate from the court of first instance stating that a question of jurisdiction is in issue, Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324, 38 L. ed. 179; Carey v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 170, 179, 37 L. ed. 1041, 1043; Moran v. Hagerman, 151 U. S. 329, 38 L. ed. 181; Colvin v. Jacksonville, 157 U. S. 368, 39 L. ed. 736; Chappell v. U. S., 160 U. S. 499, 40 L. ed. 510; Lutcher v. U. S., 157 U. S. 427, 39 L. ed. 759; The Bayonne, 159 U. S. 687, 40 L. ed. 306; Van Wagenen v. Sewell, 160 U. S. 369, 40 L. ed. 400; Davis v. Geissler, 162 U. S. 290, 40 L. ed. 972; Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359, 41 L. ed. 745; Apapas v. U. S., 233 U. S. 587. The District Judge may sign the

certificate, even in a case decided by the Circuit Judge. Huntington

v. Laidley, 176 U. S. 668, 677, 44 L. ed. 630, 634. If the certificate was duly given, the appeal may be taken and perfected, like other appeals, within two years. HerndonCarter Co. v. James N. Norris, Son & Co., 224 U. S. 496, 56 L. ed. 857. But such a formal certificate is not indispensable, where the record shows a plain declaration by the court that the single matter sent up for decision is a question of jurisdiction. Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168, 177, 39 L. ed. 660, 663; Interior C. & I. Co. v. Gibney, 160 U. S. 217, 40 L. ed. 401; Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355, 40 L. ed. 731; Re Lehigh Min. & Mfg. Co., 156 U. S. 322, 39 L. ed. 438; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148, 43 L. ed. 399; Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282, 46 L. ed. 910; Petri v. F. E. Creelman Lumber Co., 199 U. S. 487, 50 L. ed. 281; U. S. v. Larkin, 208 U. S. 333, 52 L. ed. 517; The Steamship Jefferson, 215 U. S. 130, 54 L. ed. 125; Davis v. C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 217 U. S. 157, 54 L. ed. 708; Herndon-Carter Co. V. James N. Norris, Son & Co., 224 U. S. 496, 56 L. ed. 857; McAllister v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 243 U. S. 302. Thus, where the petition for the allowance of the writ of error or appeal asks for a review of the judgment or decree upon a single question of jurisdiction, which is clearly specified therein or in the order granting the application, the question of jurisdiction is certified with sufficient formality, Ibid. The certificate may be made in the bill of exceptions. Re Lehigh Min. & Mfg. Co., 156 U. S.

322, 39 L. ed. 438; but not when other errors are assigned and there is no certificate. Filhiol v. Torney, 194 U. S. 356, 48 L. ed. 1014. See The Bayonne, 159 U. S. 687, 40 L. ed. 306; Chappell v. U. S., 160· U. S. 499, 40 L. ed. 510. In case there is doubt as to whether the question is jurisdictional, the form of the decree must be taken to express the meaning of the judge. The Ira M. Hedges, 218 U. S. 264, 270, 54 L. ed. 1039. A statement of the nature of the question in the certificate is not indispensable, provided that it appears elsewhere in the record, Chicago v. Mills, 204 U. S. 321, 51 L. ed. 504; and it seems that the opinion may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining this. Chicago v. Mills, 204 U. S. 321, 51 L. ed. 504. Where the grounds assigned in a demurrer were want of jurisdiction in the court as a Federal court, and also want of jurisdiction as a court of equity; it was held that a decree sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction must be construed to refer to the want of

Federal jurisdiction. Crawford v. McCarthy, C. C. A., 148 Fed. 198. A certificate stating the whole case and propounding a question which requires an analysis of the facts, Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435, 40 L. ed. 1030; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 42 L. ed. 77; Del Monte M. Co. v. Last Chance M. Co., 171 U. S. 55, 92, 43 L. ed. 72, 87; Sioux City, O'N. & W. Ry. Co. v. Manhattan Tr. Co., 172 U. S. 642, 43 L. ed. 1187; U. S. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 505, 513, 42 L. ed. 559, 561; but see Re Lehigh Min. & Mfg. Co., 156 U. S. 322, 39 L. ed. 438; and the allowance of a prayer