If the original sum in controversy is large enough to give the court jurisdiction, it is not taken away by a subsequent reduction of that sum below the amount requisite, by any act of the adverse party. Cooke v. United States, 2 Wall., 218.

Criminal cases-jurisdiction limited. -The judgment of the inferior court is final în criminal cases, and no appeal or writ of error lies. United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall., 297; United States v. Moore, 3 Cr., 159; Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wh., 38; Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., 193.

Jurisdiction not conferred by consent.-The Supreme Court will not, even on request of the counsel of both parties on error, in a case in which it has not jurisdiction to affirm or reverse a judgment of the court below, examine into the questions in the case and decide upon them. The acts of congress carefully restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Mills v. Brown, 16 Pet., 525; Railway Company v. Ramsey, 22 Wall., 322; The Lucy, 8 Id., 307; The Nonesuch, 9 Id., 504; Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Id., 553. But parties may admit the existence of facts which show jurisdiction. Railroad Co. v. Ramsey, supra.

SEC. 692. Appeals in equity and admiralty cases.An appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme Court from all final decrees of any circuit court, or of any district court acting as a circuit court, in cases of equity, and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of [five] thousand dollars, and the Supreme Court is required to receive, hear, and determine such appeals.

3 Mar., 1803, c. 40, s. 2, v. 2, p. 244; 30 June, 1864, c. 174, s. 13, v. 13, p. 310; 16 Feb., 1875, c. 77, s. 3, v. 18, p. 316; 1 Mar., 1875, c. 114, s. 5, v. 18, p. 337; § 3, act Feb. 16, 1875.

Jurisdiction depends upon the constitution and acts of congress. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court depends upon the Constitution and the acts of congress; if these do not confer it, consent cannot give it, and the courts cannot exercise it. The Lucy, 8 Wall., 307; Washington County v. Durant, 7 Id., 694; The Alicia, 7 Id., 571; Ballance v. Forsyth, 21 How., 389; The Nonesuch, 9 Wall., 504.

An appeal cannot be taken in the name of a steamboat or partnership. An inanimate object has no legal capactity to prosecute legal proceedings in the federal courts. In proceedings in rem, a claimant becomes a party to the proceedings, and may take an appeal or writ of error. Steamboat Burns, 9 Wall., 237. Assignees in bankruptcy may be substituted as appellants in a case. Hendon v. Howard, 9 Id., 664.

Nor can an appeal be taken by a copartnership name, but all the parties appealing must be named in the petition and process by which the appeal or

writ of error is effected; and no amendment in this respect will be allowed. The Protector, 11 Wall., 82; Deneale v. Stump, 8 Pet., 526; Wilson v. Life & Fire Ins. Co., 12 Id., 140; Smyth v. Pevine & Co., 12 How., 327; Darenport v. Fletcher, 16 Id., 142; Owings v. Kincannon, 7 Pet., 399; Porter v. Foley, 21 How., 393; Hodge v. Williams, 22 Id., 87. But see, post, § 1005.

All the parties must join that have a joint interest in order that the court may be enabled to give a proper judgment in the case. Id.

But where the appeal bond and citation contained only the names of the original defendants in the court below, and they having died, the names of their administrators had been substituted on appeal it was held that the acknowledgment of service by the attorney of the defendants, signing his name and adding, "counsel for the defendants in this cause in the circuit court for the United States for Virginia," was a waiver of the irregularity in the citation, and that a new bond might be filed. Bigler v. Waller, 12. Wall., 142.

Cases at law can only be brought to the Supreme Court by writ of error, and not by appeal. Sarchet v. United States, 12 Pet., 143. In case of dower, Parish v. Ellis, 16 Id., 451; United States v. Goodwin, 7 Cr., 108, 287.

Appeals in equity cases-amount in controversy.-Appeals to the Supreme Court are now allowed from final decrees of the circuit courts where the sum in dispute exceeds $5,000, exclusive of costs. This sum has reference to the matter in dispute at the date of the decree below, the same as in cases of writs of error at law, and are limited to the sum then in controversy, of which the decree or judgment usually furnishes the better evidence. Bank of the United States v. Daniel, 12 Pet., 32. A motion to set aside a decree in the Supreme Court, and remand the cause, upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, will not be sustained, nor will affidavits of newly discovered testimony be received. The Supreme Court must reverse or affirm the case as it appears of record. Russell v. Southard, 12 How., 139. See case in admiralty, where the amount in controversy of only two of five libelants exceeded $2,000; a motion to dismiss was denied. The Rio Grand, 19 Wall., 178. See, also, Rich v. Lambert, 12 How., 347; Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet., 143.

Nuisance.-A public nuisance may be abated on a bill in equity, brought by a private party who has sustained special damage, and it is not necessary to show that the plaintiff's damage amounts to the sum necessary to give the federal courts jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is tested by the value of the object to be gained by the bill, and that object is the removal of the nuisance. Mississippi, etc., R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485.

Constitutional limitation.-Article 3, Sec. 2, of the Constitution, declares that the Supreme Court "shall have appellate jurisdiction with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the congress shall make," and the court cannot exercise that jurisdiction unelss congress has provided a rule to regulate the proceedings of the court, and it cannot depart from the regulations when made. Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall., 321; United States

v. More, 3 Cr., 173; Durousseau v. United States, 6 Id., 308; Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wh., 395; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Id., 738.

Under the judiciary act the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction of a suit brought by a State against one of its citizens in the State courts where the defense rests on the denial of the validity of a statute of a State, and a State court decides in favor of its validity, though the suit might have been originally brought in the Supreme Court. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wh., 419; McCulloch v. Same, 4 Id., 316. See, post, § 709.

Decrees must be final.-Where a decree was made in admiralty that a sum of money was due, but the amount was unascertained, and no order was made for its payment, on appeal it was held that the decree was not a final one from which an appeal could be taken, and that the defect could not be cured by amendment in the Supreme Court. Montgomery v. Anderson, 21 How., 386.

The court will not answer an abstract question of law so certified to it,' but sufficient facts must be set forth to show the bearing of the question on the rights of parties. Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall., 294; De Groot v. United States, 5 Id., 419; Ex parte McCardle, 6 Id., 318; Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet., 368. See, post, § 693.

66

An order of seizure and sale called, in Louisiana, executory process," made by a judge at chambers upon non-payment of a mortgage, and where the mortgage imports a confession of judgment, is in substance a foreclosure and sale, and a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. Marin v. Lalley, 17 Wall., 14; Ray v. Law, 3 Cr., 180; Whiting v. Bank of United States, 13 Pet., 15; Bronson v. Railroad Co., 2 Black, 524.

A decree that certain deeds should be set aside as fraudulent and void; that certain lands and slaves should be delivered up to the complainant, etc.; that the master should take an account of the profits of the lands and slaves, and of certain money and notes; and the decree further provided, that so much of said bill as contains or relates to certain matters, be referred to the master for a report "is retained for further decree in the premises, and so much of said bill as is not now, nor has been heretofore adjudged and decreed upon, and which is not above retained for the purposes aforesaid, be dismissed without prejudice, and that said defendants do pay costs," etc., was held to be a final decree within the meaning of the acts of congress. Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How., 201. See, also, Whiting. Bank of United States, 13 Pet., 15; Michaud v. Girod, 4 How., 503.

So, where a decree decided the right to property in controversy, and directed it to be delivered by the defendant to the complainant by transfer, and entitled the complainant to have the decree carried into immediate execution, but leaving accounts to be adjusted in pursuance of the decree settling the question of ownership, this was held to be such a final decree as was appealable to the Supreme Court. Thomson v. Dean, 7 Wall., 342. But, see Beebe v. Russell, 19 How., 284; The Palmyra, 10 Wh., 502; Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How., 653.

Time of perfecting appeal and mode.-An appeal must bring to the Supreme Court a transcript of the record before the expiration of the term to which it is returnable, or it will not be a valid appeal. It must be filed before the end of the term next succeeding the allowance of the appeal or the issuance of the writ, in case of writ of error, or the court has no jurisdiction. Edmundson v. Bloomshire, 7 Wall., 306; Steamer Virginia v. West, 19 How., 182; Mesa v. United States, 2 Black, 721; United States v. Gomez, 1 Wall., 690; Castro v. United States, 3 Id., 46; United States v. Hodge, 3 How., 534; United States v. Villabolos, 6 Id., 90; United States v. Curry, Id., 112; Insurance Co. v. Mordecai, 21 Id., 200.

The filing of a petition for an appeal, ten days after the entry of a decree, in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, unaccompanied by the allowance of the appeal by the court, does not bring the case up to the Supreme Court. Barrel v. Transportation Co., 3 Wall., 424.

What cannot be appealed.—The action of an inferior court as to the terms on which it will allow a complainant to amend a bill in equity, to which it has sustained a demurrer, is a matter within the discretion of the court and not open to examination on appeal. Sheets v. Selden, 7 Wall., 416.

Merely interlocutory orders are not such final judgments or decrees as may be appealed from; such as orders to pay money into court, or directing property to be delivered to a receiver, or property held in trust to be delivered to a new trustee appointed by the court. Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How., 201.

And a decree awarding a patentee a permanent injunction, and for an account of the gains and profits, and that the cause be referred to a master to take and state the amount and report to the court, is not a final decree within the meaning of the acts of congress, allowing appeals. Humiston v. Stamthorp, 2 Wall., 106; Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How., 650; The Palmyra, 10 Wh., 502.

A decision relating to the adjustment of priorities and conflicting interests in a bankrupt's estate in the assignee's hands, arising on a motion before a register, and taken on appeal to the circuit court, which reversed the decision of the district court below, was held to be only the exercise of the superintending and revisory jurisdiction under the bankrupt act, and not appealable. Hall v. Allen, 12 Wall., 452; Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Id., 65; Mead v. Thompson, 15 Id., 635. See, also, in case of a decree reversing a decree for the foreclosure of a mortgage in the court below, and remanding the case to such inferior court, where it was held not a final decree, Moore v. Robins, 18 Wall., 588; Brown v. Union Bank, 4 How., 465; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 Id., 51; Tracy v. Holcomb, 24 Id., 426;

So, a case in admiralty, appealed from the district to the circuit court, vacates the decree of the former, and the latter proceeds in all respects as though no trial had been had below, and a new decree is made; and an order of the circuit court, merely affirming the decree of the district court, is not such a decree as the circuit court should render, and not a final decree, from which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court. The Lucilla, 19 Wall., 73. So, a decree upon a motion to dissolve an injunction, in a chancery

cause, where the bill is not finally disposed of, is not such a final decree as can be re-examined in the Supreme Court. Verden v. Coleman, 18 How., 86; McCollum v. Eager, 2 Id., 61; Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wh., 448. But. an appeal lies from the final decree of the circuit court confirming a sale made by its order. Sage v. Railroad Co., 96 U. S., 712; Blossom v. Railroad Co., 1 Wall., 655; Butterfield v. Usher, 91 U. S., 246.

Right to dismiss the appeal, and practice an appeal.—An appellant has a right to have his appeal dismissed notwithstanding it is resisted by the other side. Latham's Appeal, 9 Wall., 145.

If an appeal has been docketed and dismissed under a rule of court at a prior term of the court, the same case cannot be redocketed without a new appeal. Rogers v. Law, 21 How., 526.

Unless allowed in open court during the term at which the decree was rendered, an appeal will be dismissed, if no citation has been issued and the appellee does not appear. Vensant v. Gaslight Co., 99 U. S., 213.

An appeal from the decree of the circuit court entered in exact accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court, will be dismissed with costs, on motion of the appellee. Stewart v. Salomon, 97 U. S., 361.

SEC. 693. Review of decision of circuit court on certificate of divisions of opinion.-Any final judgment or decree, in any civil suit or proceeding before a circuit court which was held, at the time, by a circuit justice and a circuit judge or a district judge, or by the circuit judge and a district judge, wherein the said judges certify as provided by law, that their opinions were opposed upon any question which occurred on the trial or hearing of the said suit or proceeding, may be reviewed and affirmed or reversed or modified by the Supreme Court, on writ of error or appeal, according to the nature of the case, and subject to the provisions of law applicable to other writs of error or appeals in regard to bail and supersedeas. [See § 652.]

1 June, 1872, c. 255, s. 1, v. 17, p. 196; 16 Feb. 1875, c. 77, v. 18, p. 315. When the division arises subsequent to the decision.—The Supreme Court will not take cognizance of a question on which the opinions of the judges below are opposed, where the division arises upon a proceeding subsequent to the decision of the cause by them; as where the judges differ concerning the amount of a bond for security to be given by the party applying for a writ of error. Devereaux v. Marr, 12 Wh., 212; Bank of U. S. v. Green, 6 Pet., 26; United States v. Daniel, 6 Wh, 548. Nor where the division is on a motion for a new trial. United States v. Daniel, 6 Wh., 542. Nor on a certificate of division of opinion in a case where the district