Opinion of the Court.

settled. The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution, according to the mandate. They cannot vary it or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it upon any matter decided on appeal for error appar ent; or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded. If the special mandate, directed by the twenty-fourth section, (of the judiciary act,) is not obeyed or executed, then the general power given to all courts of the United States to issue any writs which are necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law, by the fourteenth section of the judiciary act, fairly arises, and a mandamus or other appropriate writs will go," although an appeal will also sometimes lie. Perkins v. Fourniquet, 14 How. 328, 330; Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 440, 443. See also Boyce's Executors v. Grundy, 9 Pet. 275; Ex parte Dubuque & Pacifc Railroad, 1 Wall. 69; Durant v. Essex Co., 101 U. S. 555; In re Washington & Georgetown R. R. Co., 140 U. S. 91; City Bank v. Hunter, 152 U. S. 512; In re City National Bank, 153 U. S. 246; In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247; In re Potts, 166 U. S. 263.

It is equally well settled, however, that such writ, as a general rule, lies only where there is no other adequate remedy and that it cannot be availed of as a writ of error. In re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451; In re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14, 26; Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U. S. 794; Ex parte Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 108 U. S. 566; In re Atlantic City R. R., 164 U. S. 633. The inferior court is justified in considering and deciding any question left open by the mandate and opinion of this court, and its decision upon such matter can only be reviewed upon a new appeal to the proper court; In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247, 256, and the opinion of this court may be consulted to ascertain exactly what was decided and settled. West v. Brashear, 14 Pet. 51; Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S. 498; Gaines v. Rugg, 148 U. S. 228, 238, 244; Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247, 256.

The libel in this case was for a collision between the Cone

Opinion of the Court.

maugh and the New York. The only questions decided were as to the respective faults of the two vessels, and the claim of the underwriters upon the Conemaugh's cargo, that they were entitled to a recovery to the full amount of their damages against the New York, notwithstanding the Conemaugh was also in fault for the collision. This claim was sustained, and directions given to enter a decree in conformity to the opinion of this court. Such decree was entered, dividing the damages between the two vessels, and awarding to the underwriters of the cargo a full recovery against the New York. It may be true that the decree holds the New York liable for seventy-six per cent of the entire damages and not fifty per cent, but this results from the fact that she was primarily held for the entire value of the cargo. The equal division applied only to the vessels, and upon the other hand if petitioner be entitled to the recoupment claimed, it would, apparently, result in an affirmative decree in its favor. But no question of recouping one half of such damages to the cargo from the moiety of damages awarded the Conemaugh was made by counsel or passed upon by this court. It is now insisted that, under the cases of The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540, and The Albert Dumois, 177 U. S. 240, this should have been done. This may be so; but it is an entirely new question, quite unaffected by the case of The New York, and if the court erred in refusing to allow such recoupment, the remedy is by appeal and not by mandamus. Perhaps a mandamus might lie to review the allowance of interest, but that may also be considered on appeal.

No disobedience of the mandate having been shown, the petition must be

Denied.

Statement of the Case.

WHEELER v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CON

NECTICUT.

No. 534. Submitted May 14, 1900.- Decided May 28, 1900.

Under a statute of Connecticut, a contract was entered into between the city of Bridgeport and a railroad company providing that the city should pay one sixth of the expense of abolishing grade crossings, and also of increasing the tracks of the company from two to four. Defendants, whose lands were sought to be condemned for this purpose, objected upon the ground that the agreement of the city to pay one sixth of the expense of increasing the number of tracks was a practical donation by the city to the railroad company in violation of the state constitution, and was also a taking of their property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Held, that the Supreme Court of the State having decided that the right to condemn the land did not depend upon the obligation of the city to pay a part of the expenses, and that the defendants could not prevent a condemnation by showing that the company might not afterwards obtain a reimbursement from the city, and also that the defendants, not alleging that they were taxpayers or specially interested, were not in any position to question the validity of the proceedings, it followed that their property was not taken without due process of law.

THIS was a motion to dismiss the writ of error, and in default thereof to affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

The case originated in an application by the railroad company to the judge of the Superior Court to appoint appraisers to estimate the damages that might arise to the plaintiff in error from the taking of certain real estate in the city of Bridgeport, for the purpose of carrying out an agreement between the railroad company and the city of Bridgeport for the abolition of grade crossings. This agreement, which was entered into under the provisions of an act of the General Assembly, "providing for the abolition of grade crossings in Bridgeport," provided the manner, plans, method and time in VOL. CLXXVII-21

Opinion of the Court.

which the grade crossings should be abolished, and the proportion of the cost thereof to be borne by the city of Bridgeport and the railroad company-the proportion of such cost to be paid by the city being one sixth and that by the railroad company five sixths, provided the total cost to be paid by the city should not exceed the sum of four hundred thousand dollars.

A demurrer to the application of the railroad company having been overruled, and a special defence in the answer having been stricken out as irrelevant and impertinent, an order was made appointing the appraisers. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Errors, which affirmed the judgment of the judge of the Superior Court, and defendant sued out this writ of error, which defendant in error moves to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, or to affirm, upon the ground that the question upon which the jurisdiction depends is frivolous.

Mr. William D. Bishop, Jr., for the motion.

Mr. Robert E. DeForest and Mr. George P. Carroll opposing.

MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiffs assign as error that, in view of the fact that, by the agreement between the city and the railroad company, it was provided that the city should pay one sixth of the entire cost of the land required for the construction of a four-track road, as well as of all damages resulting from the changes of grade, there would be a reimbursement to the company for expenses in doing work and acquiring land not necessary or germane to the work of eliminating crossings at grade of the two present main tracks over the highways; and that, under these circumstances, the condemnation of defendants' property will be in furtherance of a scheme, whereby the city of Bridgeport will contribute and donate to such company the credit, money and property of the city, and of its property owners and taxpayers, in aid of the railroad company, contrary to the provisions of the twenty-fifth amendment to the constitution of

Opinion of the Court.

the State of Connecticut, and the taking and condemnation of said Wheeler and Howes' said property will be a taking thereof without due process of law, etc.

1. We cannot say that there is no Federal question in this case. In their demurrer to the application of the railroad company, plaintiffs in error relied upon the unconstitutionality of this special act of the Connecticut legislature as contravening the twenty-fifth amendment to the constitution of the State, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The amendment to the state constitution provides as follows: "That no County, City, Town, Borough, or other municipality, shall ever subscribe to the capital stock of any railroad corporation, or become a purchaser of the bonds, or make donation to, or loan its credit, directly or indirectly, in aid of any such corporation."

The claim was, not that it was unconstitutional for the city of Bridgeport to pay for a part of the work for grade crossing elimination, but that the pay for work for the benefit of the company, in the construction of a four-track road, which was not necessary or germane to the work of grade crossing elimination, would be contrary to the above amendment to the state constitution; and therefore that, as the land of Wheeler and Howes was to be taken to carry out a part of the project, to be paid for in part by the city, not necessary or germane to the work of grade crossing elimination, their property would be taken without due process of law. The substance of the defence seems to have been that the land was not taken solely for the purpose of abolishing grade crossings, but also for the purpose of laying two extra tracks, and making the road through the city of Bridgeport a four-track road instead of an ordinary double track. It seems that the railroad company had laid a complete four-track road all the way from New York to New Haven, except in that section which lay in the city of Bridgeport-a distance of more than four miles, and crossing at grade twenty-four streets, some of them the most frequented in the whole city. There is no doubt that the special act did authorize an increase in the number of tracks, and there was some reason for saying that in requiring the city to pay one sixth of