States any questions or propositions of law concerning which it desires the instruction of that court for its proper decision; and thereupon the Supreme Court may either give its instruction on the questions and propositions certified to it, which shall be binding upon the Circuit Court of Appeals in such case, or it may require that the whole record and cause be sent up to it for its consideration,—and thereupon shall decide the whole matter in controversy in the same manner as if it had been brought there for review by writ of error or appeal."1 Another section of the Judicial Code gives similar power of certification to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.2 The following rule regulates the practice under this act : "Where under section 239 of the act entitled 'An act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary,' approved March 3, 1911, chapter 231, a Circuit Court of Appeals shall certify to this court a question or proposition of law, concerning which it desires the instruction of this court for its proper decision, the certificate shall contain a proper statement of the facts on which such question or proposition of law arises. If application is thereupon made to this court that the whole record and cause may be sent up to it for its consideration, the party making such application shall, as a part thereof, furnish this court with a certified copy of the whole of said record." It has been held: that a Circuit Court of Appeals will only certify a question to the Supreme Court for instruction upon its own motion; that it will not permit a party to move for such a certificate before the argument, nor grant such a motion. after its decision; that the certificate cannot be made unless § 689f. 1 Jud. Code. § 239, 36 St. at L. 1087. This applies to cases originally arising in the District Court of Alaska. Ibid, § 134. 2 Ibid, § 234. 3 S. C. Rule 37; 248 U. S. 528. 4 Ibid; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Pope, C. C. A., 74 Fed. 1; Cella v. Brown, C. C. A., 144 Fed. 742. 5 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Pope, C. C. A., 74 Fed. 1. 6 Andrews v. Nat. Foundry & P. Works, C. C. A., 36 L.R.A. 153, 77 Fed. 774; Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage, C. C. A., 2nd Ct., 218 Fed. 547, 559. In Exporters of Manufacturers' Products v. Butterworth-Judson Co., in which the author was counsel, such a certificate was granted by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, A. D. 1921, after an opinion deciding the case had been filed and after the denial by the Supreme Court of a motion made against the a quorum of the court is present; 7 nor, in a case where the decision of the District or Circuit Court of Appeals is not final. The certificate should not be made unless the Circuit Court of Appeals has grave doubt upon the question.10 The questions certified must each consist of a single question of law, which can be answered without a reference to the 11 author's advice for leave to file a petition for the writ of mandamus to compel the Circuit Court of Ap peals to overrule its decision. 7 Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. McKean, 149 U. S. 259, 37 L. ed. 725. 8 U. S. ex. rel. Arant v. Lane, 245 U. S. 166. This was criticized by Charles V. Moore, esq., in Law Notes, March, 1918, p. 225. 9 Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gentry, C. C. A., 57 Fed. 422. U. 10 German Ins. Co. v. Hearne,. C. C. A., 118 Fed. 134; Cella v. Brown, C. C. A., 144 Fed. 742. A conflict of decisions between other Circuit Courts of Appeal is a sufficient reason for making the certificate. S. v. Woo Jan, C. C. A., 250 Fed. 595. The fact that one or more of the judges of the Circuit Court of Appeals was disqualified was held to be a sufficient reason. Farmers' & M. State Bank v. Armstrong, C. C. A., 49 Fed. 600. 11 McHenry v. Alford, 168 U. S. 651, 42 L. ed. 614; Grover v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435, 40 L. ed. 1030; Del Monte Min. & M, Co. v. Last Chance M. & M. Co., 171 U. S. 55, 43 L. ed. 72; U. S. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 505, 42 L. ed. 559; Warner v. New Orleans, 167 U. S. 467, 42 L. ed. 239; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 42 L. ed. 77; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 51 L. ed. 875. In each of the foregoing cases the cer tificate was held to be insufficient. So where the certificate stated that as the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals "differs from that of a co-ordinate court, the instruction of the Supreme Court is requested." Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 148 U. S. 266, 37 L. ed. 445. In Quinlan v. Green County, 205 U. S. 410, 51 L. ed. 860, the court refused to answer the following question, which was certified to it: 1st. Do the facts found. by the Circuit Court conclude or estop the county from denying liability to the plaintiff upon the bonds and coupons in suit, by reason of noncompliances with the terms and conditions imposed by the favorable vote of the county authorizing a subscription to the stock of the Cumberland and Ohio Railroad Company and the issuance of bonds in payment therefor?" but answered in the affirmative to a second question, which was as follows: "2d. Assuming the facts to be as found was a bona fide purchaser, before maturity of these bonds and coupons for value, entitled to assume in his purchase that Green County had before their issuance been 'fully and completely exonerated from the payment of the capital stock subscribed for by the County Court of said county for and in behalf of said county to the Elizabethtown and Tennessee Railroad Company?'" Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Arctic Iron Co., 248 U. S. 178. Eleven questions certified by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit as reported in full in 261 Fed. 15, 25, were not answered because improper. For questions in a criminal case which were recently answered see Gouled v. U. S., 255 U. S. 298, s. c., in C. C. A., 264 Fed. 839, quoted in full in § 487b, note 14, supra. See also U. S. v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55. Where an answer to one or more of the questions will dispose of the case the Supreme Court ordinarily will not answer the others, U. S. v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472. Where none of the questions apply to the facts set forth in the certificate they will not be answered, Seim v. Hurd, 232 U. S. 420. It is insufficient to state what is alleged and denied by the parties in their pleading and that there was evidence pending to establish the facts as claimed, Ricaud v. Am. Metal Co., 246 U. S. 34; or to describe the facts as "assumed.'' Ibid. The rules which were formerly in force as to certificates of a division of opinion between the judges holding a Circuit Court under U. S. R. S., §§ 650, 659, 693, govern in most respects the certificates by the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435, 40 L. ed. 1030; U. S. v. Rider, 163 U. S. 132, 139, 41 L. ed. 101, 104; U. S. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 505, 42 L. ed. 559. Under these statutes the certificates were held to be sufficient in the following cases: Skillern's Ex'rs v. May's Ex'rs, 6 Cranch, 267, 3 L. ed. 220; U. S. v. Tyler, 7 Cranch, 285, 3 L. ed. 344; Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 253; U. S. v. Chicago, 7 How. 185, 12 L. ed. 660; Shelby v. Bacon, 10 How. 56, 13 L. ed. 326; Havemeyer v. Board of Supervisors, 3 Wall. 294, 18 L. ed. 38; Veazie v. Wadleigh, 11 Pet. 55, 9 L. ed. 630; Pelham v. Rose, 9 Wall 103, 19 L. ed. 602; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L. ed. 281; Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430, 17 L. ed. 319; Somerville's Ex'rs v. Hamilton, 4 Wheat. 230, 4 L. ed. 558; U. S. v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343, 25 L. ed. 180; U. S. v. Irvine, 98 U. S. 450, 25 L. ed. 193; U. S. v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508, 25 L. ed. 482; U. S. v. Hirsch, 100 U. S. 33, 25 L. ed. 539; U. S. v. Steffens, 100 U. S. 82, 25 L. ed. 550; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 25 L. ed. 648; U. S. v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611, 26 L. ed. 1135; U. S. v. Britton, 107 U. S. 655, 27 L. ed. 520; U. S. v. Curtis, 107 U. S. 671, 27 L. ed. 534; Bartholow v. Trustees, 105 U. S. 6, 26 L. ed. 937; U. S. v. Ambrose, 108 U. S. 336, 27 L. ed. 746; U. S. v. Gale, 109 U. S. 65, 27 L. ed. 857; U. S. v. Waddell, 112 U. S. 76, 28 L. ed. 673; U. S. v. Spiegel, 116 U. S. 270, 29 L. ed. 664; California Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U. S. 609, 28 L. ed. 1106; Mackin v. U. S., 117 U. S. 348. 29 L. ed. 909; U. S. v. Kagamer, 118 U. S. 375, 30 L. ed. 228; U. S. v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 30 L. ed. 425; U. S. v. Northway, 120 U. S. 327, 30 L. ed. 664; Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U. S. 680, 30 L. ed. 523; U. S. v. Argona, 120 U. S. 479; 30 L. ed. 728; U. S. v. Le Bris, 121 U. S. 278, 30 L. ed. 946; U. S. v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, 31 L. ed. 516; Hosford v. Germania Fire I. Co., 127 U. S. 399, 32 L. ed. 196; Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Wickham, 128 U. S. 426, 32 L. ed. 503; U. S. v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624, 33 L. ed. 1080; U. pleadings or evidence.12 They must not be questions of mixed law or fact.18 Nor can the whole case be thus sent up for review.14 A Circuit Court of Appeals should not accompany its certificate by a transcript of the record until ordered by the Supreme Court to transmit the same.15 The statement of facts in the certificate must contain only the fundamental facts and not the evidential facts from which the fundamental facts are found.16 A jurisdictional question,17 and a question involving the construction or application of the Constitution of the United. S. v. Chase, 135 U. S. 255, 34 L. ed. 117; U. S. v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, 35 L. ed. 190; Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U. S. 499, 502, 36 L. ed. 1059, 1060; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 220, L. ed. 376, 377; U. S. v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150, 8 L. ed. 640; U. S. v. Thomas, 151 U. S. 577, 581, 38 L. ed. 276, 277. A complete list of the questions which the Supreme Court answered and of those which it declined to answer before March 3, 1901, prepared by Mr. Justice James C. Van Siclen of the N. Y. Supreme Court when a student in the writer's office is contained in a note to § 476 of the second edition of this book. For cases where the certificates were held to be sufficient, see Hertz v. Woodman, 218 U. S. 205, 54 L. ed. Helwig v. U. S., 188 U. S. 605, 47 L. ed. 614; U. S. v. Pridgeon, 153 U. S. 48, 38 L. ed. 631; U. S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 49 L. ed. 1040. 12 Dillon v. Strathearn Steamship Co., 248 U. S. 182. Facts supplied by judicial notice may cure an omission in this respect, Ricaud v. Am. Metal Co., 246 U. S. 304. In a case where the facts were not in dispute, the Supreme Court answered the question certified although this was not sufficiently precise or spe cific. Boston Store v. Am. Graphophone Co., 246 U. S. 8, 38 Sup. Ct. 257, 62 L. ed. 551. 18 McHenry v. Alford, 168 U. S. 651, 42 L. ed. 614; U. S. v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55; Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Arctic Iron Co., 248 U. S. 178. 14 Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 42 L. ed. 77; Warner v. New Orleans, 167 U. S. 467, 42 L. ed. 239; Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435, 40 L. ed. 1030; Delmonte Min. & M. Co. v. Last Chance Min. & M. Co., 171 U. S. 55, 43 L. ed. 72; Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435, 40 L. ed. 1030; Warner v. New Orleans, 167 U. S. 467, 42 L. ed. 239; Emsheimer v. New Orleans, 186 U. S. 33, 46 L. ed. 1042; Felsenheld v. U. S., 186 U. S. 126, 46 L. ed. 1085; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 51 L. ed. 875; German Ins. Co. v. Hearne, C. C. A., 118 Fed. 134. 15 Cincinnati H. & D. R. Co. v. McKeen, 149 U. S. 259, 37 L. ed. 725; Farmers' & M. State Bank v. Armstrong, C. C. A., 49 Fed. 600. 16 Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. V. Arctic Iron Co., 248 U. S. 178; Sigafus v. Porter, C. C. A., 85 Fed. 689. 17 U. S. v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, 39 L. ed. 87; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 668, 35 L. ed. 893, 895. States, 18 may thus be certified in a case of which the Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction.19 The act of February 11, 1903, provides: that where the judges of the Circuit Court sitting in a suit in equity, brought under the monopoly law or the interstate commerce laws, are divided in opinion, "the case shall be certified to the Supreme Court for review in like manner as if taken there by appeal as hereinafter provided." 20 It has been held that the whole case cannot thus be certified, at least before final judgment.21 § 690. Review of decisions of Court of Claims. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review by appeal, on behalf of the United States, all final judgments of the Court of Claims adverse to the United States; by appeal, on behalf of the plaintiff, all judgments of the Court of Claims in any case where the amount in controversy exceeds three thousand dollars, or his claim has been forfeited to the United States for fraud.1 Where the United States has taken an appeal from a decision of the Court of Claims against them, the claimant may take a crossappeal from so much of the judgment as disallowed part of his claim, although the sum of the items disallowed does not exceed $3,000.2 No appeal lies to the Supreme Court from the findings 18 Am. Sugar Refining Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277, 45 L. ed. 859. 19 The Circuit Court of Appeals has no power to ask instructions upon an issue which it has no right to decide; but where the case was already pending in the Supreme Court upon a writ of error therefrom to the District Court the Supreme Court treated the whole controversy between the parties as in substance pending there on a cross writ to the District Court obtained by the defendant in error, which had taken out the writ from the Circuit Court of Appeals. Billings v. U. S., 232 U. S. 261, 277. 20 Act of Feb 'y 11, 1903, 32 St. at L. 823, 10 Fed. St. Ann. 199, Comp. St. Supp. 622, Pierce Fed. Code, $7696. This cannot be done until the final decree or judgment has been entered below. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 215 U. S. 216, 54 L. ed. 164. It has been held that when there is a division of opinion concerning an order upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court below is not required to make such a certificate. Southern Pac. T. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 166 Fed. 134. 21 Baltimore & Ohio P. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 215 U. S. 216, 54 L. ed. 164. § 690. 1 Jud. Code, § 242, 36 St. at L. 1087; U. S. R. S., § 707; supra, § 686. 2 U. S. v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273, 289, 33 L. ed. 625, 631. |