the matter to a master, Green v. Fisk, 103 U. S. 518, 26 L. ed. 486; see also Perkins v. Fourniquet, 6 How. 206, 12 L. ed. 506; Elder v. McClaskey, C. C. A., 70 Fed. 529; or to commissioners, to proceed to partition, Dangerfield v. Caldwell, C. C. A., 151 Fed. 554. A decree of affirmance which does not tax costs nor specify the sum for which it is rendered, Wheeler v. Harris, 13 Wall. 51, 20 L. ed. 531; The Lucille, 19 Wall. 73, 22 L. ed. 64; but see Fowler v. Hamill, 139 U. S. 549, 35 L. ed. 266; contra of affirmance upon writ of error, Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gentry, 163 U. S. 353, 363, 41 L. ed. 186, 191. An order or decree denying relief except upon the performance of certain conditions, Barker v. Craig, 127 U. S. 213, 22 L. ed. 147; Stratton v. Dewey, C. C. A., 79 Fed. 32; unless it clearly appears that the appellant has refused to comply with the conditions, Tuttle v. Claflin, C. C. A., 66 Fed. 7. An order overruling exceptions to a report of a master dismissing a claim and approving the report is not appealable. Walter Scott & Co. v. Wilson, C. C. A., 115 Fed. 284, 285; per curiam, "It neither determines the appellant's right nor disposes of its suit. It still remains within the power of the court below to set aside that report, to re-refer the case, and to direct further evidence to be taken. A confirmed report, at best, stands in the same relation to a decree as a verdict to a judgment. It may be almost certain that the decree will follow it, but it cannot be enforced until the decree is entered." Kingsbury v. Kingsbury, 20 Mich. 212. A docket entry "Opinion-Decree for complainants, is not a decree and so not appealable till a former decree has been entered thereupon." Herrick v. Cutcheon, C. C. A., 55 Fed. 6. A statement on the records of the court: "Court order: prisoner remanded. Register 2 of Departments 1 to 10, page 249," is not a final judgment nor an order, and is not reviewable. Clarke v. McDade, 165 U. S. 168, 171, 41 L. ed. 673, 674. Where, after certain property had been sold under a trust deed executed to secure three promissory notes to the holder of two of the notes, an action was brought by the holder of the remaining note to set aside the sale, and for an account of the rents collected, and of the amount due upon the notes held by each, and the special term of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia set aside the sale by an order from which an immediate appeal was taken; an order of the general term, reviewing the order below, ratifying and confirming the sale, and remanding the cause to the special term "for further proceedings, was held not to be a final order within the meaning of the statute allowing appeals from that court to the Supreme Court of the United States. Dainese v. Kendall, 119 U. S. 53, 30 L. ed. 305. No appeal can be taken from a decree setting aside one sale and ordering another, Butterfield V. Usher, 91 U. S. 246, 23 L. ed. 318; except by the purchaser, Blossom v. Milwaukee & C. R. Co., 1 Wall. 655, 17 L. ed. 673. See infra, § 697. But see Grant v. Lowe, C. C. A., 89 Fed. 881. Nor from a decree setting aside an assignment and directing a reference to determine the rights of creditors. Talley v. provided that the amount is immediately payable and does not need an accounting for its determination; 40 and an order refusing to dismiss a bill as regards one of two complainants, which alleges that it was joined without its consent,41 are appealable. 41 Brush El. Co. v. El. Improvement Co., C. C. A., 51 Fed. 557. An appeal lies to the Circuit Court of Appeals from an interlocutory decree or order, which grants, or continues, or refuses or dissolves, or refuses to dissolve, an injunction, or appoints a receiver.42 Upon such an appeal the whole bill may be dismissed; 48 but a cross-appeal by the complainant cannot be susCurtain, C. C. A., 58 Fed. 4. Nor from an order discharging a previous order to the marshal to seize property of the defendant. Riddle v. Hudgins, C. C. A., 58 Fed. 490. Nor from a decree directing an account to be taken of rents and proceeds of lands with an option to appellant to purchase them and leave certain other questions to be decided thereafter. Crawford V. Points, 13 How. 11, 14 L. ed. 29. Nor from a decree to take an account upon evidence and report to the court. Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283, 15 L. ed. 668. Nor from a decree that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the highest market value of certain bonds to be ascertained by the court in special term, where the amount has not been ascertained. Follansbee V. Ballard Pav. Co., 154 U. S. 651, and 25 L. ed. 802. Where a decree dismissed a bill with costs, but contained a recital declaring that the patent on which the complainant sued was valid, it was said that the defendant could not appeal from that part of the decree. Corning v. Troy Iron & N. Factory, 15 How. 451, 465, 14 L. ed. 768, 774. 40 Meagher v. Minnesota Threshing Mfg. Co., 145 U. S. 608, 36 L. ed. 834. 42 26 St. at L. 826; 31 St. at L. 660; 34 St. at L. 116; Barnett v. Conklin, C. C. A., 268 Fed. 177; supra, $$ 300, 325. But not an order of the Commissioner of Patents dissolving an interference proceeding. Parker v. Craft, C. C. A., 258 Fed. 988. Nor a decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia upon an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents. Frasch v. Moore, 211 U. S. 1, 53 L. ed. 65. See supra, § 147. Cf. An order denying a stay of proceedings in the same case is not the denial of an injunction. Griesa v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., C. C. A., 165 Fed. 48; Emery v. Central Tr. & Safe Deposit Co., C. C. A., 204 Fed. 966; although an order denying a stay of proceedings in another case be so considered. No appeal was entertained from a decree staying proceedings till the entry of a decree of a State court or the further order of the Federal court, Merriman v. Chicago & E. I. Co., C. C. A., 64 Fed. 535. 43 Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, Re 165 U. S. 518, 41 L. ed. 810. Tampa Suburban R. Co., 168 U. S. 583, 42 L. ed. 589; Harriman v. Northern Securities Co., 196 U. S. tained.44 The Supreme Court of the United States cannot review such an order or decree by an appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals 45 or from the court of first instance,46 although it is entered after a hearing and makes the injunction permanent. provided that it directs an accounting before a master.47 Nor, it has been held, when it retains the case for the purpose of settling any question concerning matters as to which relief is prayed in the complaint that may arise before the expiration of the existing articles of incorporation of the complainant.48 Unless it dismisses the bill.49 But the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in all such cases may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by certiorari,50 and the Circuit Court of Appeals may certify to the Supreme Court any question involved upon such appeal, even one of jurisdiction.51 It has been held that an order which is purely administrative in its nature, such as an order granting leave to sue a receiver, 52 and an order purely incidental to a final judgment or decree. previously entered 53 are not appealable. That no appeal will 641, 49 L. ed. 631; supra, § 300. See Shubert v. Woodward, C. C. A., 167 Fed. 47. 44 Ex parte National Enamelling & Stamping Co., 201 U. S. 156, 50 L. ed. 707. 66 45 Kirwan v. Murphy, 170 U. S. 205, 42 L. ed. 1009; Mitchell Store Building Co. v. Carroll, 232 U. S. 379; Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 247 U. S. 282, where the decisions below were rested on the ground of adequate legal remedy, which might have been made the basis for a final dismissal of the bill." Supra, § 688a. 46 Brown v. Swann, 9 Peters 1, 9 L. ed. 29; McCollum v. Eager, 2 How. 61, 11 L. ed. 179: Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. 650, 12 L. ed. 857; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283, 15 L. ed. 668; Thomas & Co. v. Wooldridge, 23 Wall. 283, 23 L. ed. 135 (an order dissolving an injunction); Hayes v. Fisher, 102 U. S. 121, 26 47 Ibid. 48 Covington v. First Nat. Bank, 185 U. S. 270, 46 L. ed. 906. 49 Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37; supra, § 688. 50 Re Tampa Suburban R. Co., 168 U. S. 583, 42 L. ed. 589 (a receiver); Harriman v. Northern Securities Co., 196 U. S. 641, 49 L. ed. 631; supra, § 689. 51 U. S. v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, 39 L. ed. 87; MeLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 668, 35 L. ed. 893, 895. 52 N. Y. Security & Tr. Co. v. Illinois Transfer R. Co., C. C. A., 104 Fed. 710. Cf. Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., C. C. A., 81 Fed. 254. 53 Callan v. May, 2 Black 541, 17 L. ed. 281. Not appealable are, an order after a judgment or decree lie from an order striking from the files a petition filed without leave at the previous term, although such paper bears the file mark of the clerk.54 Appeals in admiralty are previously considered.55 Where, in pursuance of a special act of Congress, the Court of Claims reopened a case in which judgment had been rendered for the claimant, and, as a part of the original judgment, awarded him a further sum, which had been omitted by mistake, the order adjudging the additional sum was held to be merged in the original judgment, an appeal from which was barred by the lapse of time, and consequently to be not appealable.56 A judgment of the Court of Claims which is purely advisory is not appealable.57 § 696. Value of the matter in dispute upon writs of error and appeals. The final judgments and decrees of the State courts are reviewed by the Supreme Court; the final judgments and decrees of the District Courts, including the District Court of Hawaii, except those in bankruptcy; and of the for possession directing the issue of a writ of habere facias possessionem. Ibid. See Baxter v. Bevil Phillips & Co. et al., 219 Fed. 309. An order granting leave to file a bill of exceptions; Honey v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., C. C. A., 82 Fed. 773. An order of the lower court pending an appeal, directing a reference to ascertain whether a tenant should pay rent to the defendant or to a receiver previously appointed, Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 121 U. S. 118. Appealable, have been held to be: An order confirming a sale. This brings up, however, only rulings subsequent to the order for the sale. Lisman v. Knickerbocker Tr. Co., C. C. A., 211 Fed. 413, 417; infra, § 711f. An order refusing to modify a decree because of a subsequent agreement between the parties, U. S. v. Trogler, C. C. A., 237 Fed. 181; and an order vacating a previous order made on set 56 U. S. v. Grant, 110 U. S. 225, 28 L. ed. 127. 57 Re Sanborn, 148 U. S. 222, 37 L. ed. 429, supra, §§ 686, 688. § 696. 1 Jud. Code, § 237 re-enacting U. S. R. S. § 709; Buel v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312, 5 L. ed. 624; supra, § 693. 2 Jud. Code, §§ 128, 238, re-enacting 26 St. at L. 826, 827, §§ 5, 6; No. Pac. R. Co. v. Amato, 144 U. S. 465, 36 L. ed. 506; S. C., C. C. A., 49 Fed. 881; The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 44 L. ed. 320. 3 30 St. at L. 544, 553, § 25; supra, §§ 669, 688. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, are reviewed, by the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals as the case may be; the interlocutory orders of the District Courts, including the District Court of Hawaii,5 appointing receivers and granting, or continuing, or dissolving, or refusing, or refusing to dissolve injunctions, and the judgments of the District Courts adjudging and refusing to adjudge the defendants bankrupts and granting or denying a discharge, are reviewed. by the Circuit Courts of Appeals; in the respective cases of which these appellate courts have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount involved; except in cases to recover claims against the United States, when the claimant cannot appeal unless his claim exceeds one thousand dollars or has been forfeited to the United States for fraud." The judgments of the District Courts in bankruptcy which allow or reject a claim of five hundred dollars or more are reviewed by the Circuit Courts of Appeals. The final judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeals in all other cases, where the decisions of these courts are not final, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States by appeal or writ of error, as the case may be, where the matter in controversy exceeds one thousand dollars besides costs. The judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeals when final may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by certiorari, irrespective of the amount involved.10 The final judgments and decrees of the District Court for the District of Alaska, or for any division thereof, are reviewed immediately by the Supreme Court of the United States irrespective of the amount involved in cases in which such court has otherwise jurisdiction.1 In all other civil cases in which the amount in 11 4 Jud. Code, § 250, 36 St. at L. 1087. See supra, § 691. 5 Jud. Code, 129, 36 St. at L. 1087, re-enacting 26 St. at L. 828, $ 7; 31 St. at L. 158, § 86; Wright v. MacFarlane & Co., C. C. A., 122 Fed. 770. See $$ 300, 325, supra. 630 St. at L. 544, 553, $25; supra, § 666. 7 Reid v. U. S., 211 U. S. 529, 53 L. ed. 313. 8 30 St. at L. 544, 553, $25; supra, § 666. 9 26 St. at. L. 826, 829, § 6; supra, § 688; San Pedro L. A. & S. L. R. R. Co. v. U. S., 247 U. S. 307, 38 Sup. Ct. 498, 32 L. ed. 1129. 10 Ibid.; supra, § 689. 11 Jud. Code, § 247, 36 St. at L. 1087, see supra, § 691. |