137), and to have been necessarily involved (Armstrong v. Treasurer, 16 Peters, 281; Mills v. Brown, 16 Peters, 525), so that the State court could not have given a judgment without deciding it (Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36; affirming R. R. Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177), and that the question was decided in the State court. (Commercial Bk. v. Buckingham, 5 How. 317; Smith v. Hunter, 7 How. 738; Taylor v. Morton, 2 Black, 481; Cockroft v. Vose, 14 Wall. 5.) Neither the argument of counsel nor the opinion of the court below can be looked to for this purpose. (Gibson v. Chouteau, 8 Wall. 314.) It will not be entertained if the judgment may have been given on grounds which that section does not make cause for error (Steines v. Franklin Co., 14 Wall. 15; Kennebec R. R. v. Portland R. R., 14 Wall. 23); as on the construction of a State statute. (Insurance Co. v. The Treasurer, 11 Wall. 204.) It extends to rights protected by the Constitution. (New Orleans v. De Armas, 9 Peters, 224.) Under this section, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court depends upon the question involved, and not upon the citizenship of the parties. (French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S. 524.) The jurisdiction for review of the judgments of State courts given by this section extends to adverse decisions upon rights and titles claimed under commissions held or authority exercised under the United States, as well as to rights claimed under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. (Carson v. Dunham, 121 U. S. 421.) Compare Crescent City etc. Co. v. Butches Union Co., 120 U. S. 141; Provident Sav. Soc. v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635.) This section applies only to a writ of error to review a final judgment or decree on a suit in the highest court of a State. (Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, 129 U. S. 104.) These sections do not cover a criminal case. (Snow v. United States, 118 U. S. 346 ) Section 709 points out the cases in which the judgment or decree of the highest court of a State may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States. (McKenna v. Simpson, 129 U. S. 506.) Jurisdiction under this section does not depend upon the citizenship of the parties, but on the questions involved. (French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S. 524.) The Supreme Court can review such a judgment only when the right, privilege, or immunity claimed under

· Constitution or any treaty or statute of the United tes was specially set up or claimed in the State court the proper time and in the proper way. (Chappell v. adshaw, 128 U. S. 132; Leaper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462; es v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Baldwin v. State of Kan129 U. S. 52; Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U. S. 132; U. S. 369; Lester v. State, 139 U. S. 462.) This court s jurisdiction to review the decision of a State court on the question of exemption or immunity from liability ler its contract, under the Bankrupt Law. (Logan Co. Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67,) Where an assignee bankruptcy claims certain property as belonging to him der the Bankrupt Act, and the State court decides inst his title, this court has jurisdiction to review the cision of the State court. (Williams v. Heard, 140 U. 529.

Review of State judgment.-Where the case was deed on an independent ground broad enough to maintain judgment, and not involving a Federal question, this art will dismiss the writ of error without considering e Federal question. (Beatty v. Benton, 135 U. S. 244; rrow v. Brinkley, 129 U. S. 178; Hale v. Akers, 132 S. 554; San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65; Hopkins McLure, 133 U. S. 380; Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554.) is principle has since been repeatedly applied as in kins v. Lowenthal, 110 U. S. 222; Murdock v. City of emphis, 87 U. S., 20 Wall. 590, 636; McManus v. O'Sulan, 91 U. S. 578; Brown v. Atwell, 92 U. S. 327; Citis' Bank v. Board of Liquidation, 98 U. S. 140; outeau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200; Adams Co. v. Burgton & M. R. Co., 112 U. S. 123; Detroit City Ry. v. thard, 114 U. S. 133; New Orleans Water Works Co. La. Sugar Ref. Co., 125 U. S. 18; De Saussure v. illard, 127 U. S. 216, 234; Beaupré v. Noyes, 138 U. S. 7. (Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554). This court has no isdiction to review a judgment of the highest court of State, unless a Federal question has been, either in press terms or by necessary effect, decided by that irt against the plaintiff in error. (New Orleans Water orks v. Louisiana Sugar Ref. Co., 125 U. S. 18; De ussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216; Hale v. Akers, 132

U. S. 554; San Francisco City and County v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65; State, Carey v. Andriano, 138 U. S. 497.) Where the defendant, in pleading his discharge under the Bankrupt Law, claimed a right of exemption under a law of Congress. But in order to give jurisdiction, something more is necessary; the judgment of the State court must be against the right claimed. Like rulings were made in Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; Strader v. Baldwin, 9 How. 261; Burke v. Gaines, 19 How. 388; Hale v. Gaines, 22 How. 144; 16 How. 264; Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420; Ryan v. Thomas, 4 Wall. 603. (State, Carey v. Andriano, 138 U. S. 497). To give this court jurisdiction of a writ of error to a State court it must appear affirmatively, not only that a Federal question was presented for decision by the highest court of the State having jurisdiction, but that its decision was necessary to the determination of the cause, and that it was actually decided, or that the judgment as rendered could not have been given without deciding it. (Davis v. State, 139 U. S. 651; Cook Co. v. Calumet & C. Canal & Do. Co., 138 U. S. 635; Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300.) It is essential to the exercise by this court of revisory jurisdiction over the final judgments or decrees of the courts of the States that the writ of error should be allowed either by a justice of this court, or by the proper judge of the State court, after ascertaining by an examination of the record that a question cognizable here was made and decided in the State court, and that such allowance was justified. (Gleason v. Florida, 9 Wall. 779; Butler v. Gage, 138 U. S. 52.)

Constitution and statutes.-Where the construction of the Constitution or statutes of the United States is involved, the decision must be against the title or right set up by the party, and it must appear that his title depended upon the statute. (Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117; Montgomery v. Hernandez, 12 Wheat. 129; Ryan v. Thomas, 4 Wall. 603.) It is not necessary to state in terms upon the record that the law was drawn in question, it is sufficient if it shows that the law must have been misconstrued or the decision could not have been made. (Willson v. Marsh Co., 2 Peters, 245; Furman v. Nichol,

all. 44). If the repugnancy of a statute of a State to Constitution of the United States was drawn into stion, or if that question was applicable to the case, court has jurisdiction of the cause, although the record ald not in terms state a misconstruction of the Constion of the United States, or that the repugnancy of the ute of a State to any part of that Constitution was wn into question. (Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Peters, - Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Peters, 280.) When the sion is against the right claimed under the Constituor laws of the United States, a writ of error will lie ring the judgment of the State court before this court re-examination and revision. (Ablemar v. Booth, 21 w. 506.) The statute must be specially set up by the y, and the decision must be against the claim (Montery v. Hernandez, 12 Wheat. 129); but the point must aised and decided against the party applying for the t in the State court to which the writ is directed. rney v. Towle, 1 Black. 350.) The point must be disetly raised in the court below (Hoyt v. Sheldon, 1 ck, 518), and shown by the record (R. R. Co. v. Rock, Wall. 177), which must be properly authenticated. perton v. Ballard, 14 Wall. 238.) Nothing out of the ord can be taken into consideration. (Walker v. Valaso, 6 Wall. 124). A certificate of the presiding jusis not conclusive to show that a Federal question was sed in the case (Caperton v. Boyer, 14 Wall. 216), nor record of the judge who tries the case at nisi prius. glee v. Coolidge, 2 Wheat. 363.) Where the decision nade on settled pre-existing rules of general jurispruace the case cannot be brought here for review (Bank West Tennessee v. Citizens' Bk. 14 Wall. 9; Palmer Marston, 14 Wall. 10; Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 Wall, 661), nor if decided lusively upon the principles of the jurisprudence the State. (Marqueze v. Bloom, 16 Wall. 351). The isdiction is maintainable if the case shows that Federal estions were involved, though it also appears that ere were other defenses, if these defenses afford no legal swer to the suit (Maguire v. Tyler, 8 Wall. 651), even ough the case may have been disposed of generally by e court on other grounds (Minnesota v. Bachelder, 1

Wall. 109); but if the State court has rested its judgment on some point in the case not within the purview of this section, and that point is broad enough to sustain the judgment, then, although the ruling of the State court might be reversed on the point of Federal cognizance, this court will not entertain jurisdiction of the case. (Rector v. Ashley, 6 Wall. 142.) A decision on the ground that complainant's remedy on a legal title was at law and not in equity and not revisable. (Tyler v. Maguire, 17 Wall. 284.) If the court is the highest which may consider the question, the right of review exists, although it be not the highest court in the State (Downham v. Alexandria, 9 Wall. 659; Miller v. Joseph, 17 Wall. 655), and though the case be decided on an equal division. (Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672.) In order to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction under this section, because of the denial by a State court of any title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of the United States, it must appear on the record that it was duly set up, that the decision was adverse, and was made in the highest court of the State. (Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 132; French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S. 524). Jurisdiction under this section, for the review of the decision of the highest court of a State, is not dependent upon the citizenship of the parties. The court looks only to the questions involved. (French v. Hopkins, 124 U. S. 524.) If a Federal question is fairly presented by the record, and its decision is necessary to the determination of the case, a judgment which rejects the claim, but avoids all reference to it, is as much against the right, within the meaning of this section, as if it had been specifically referred to, and the right directly refused. But if a decision of such a question is rendered unnecessary by the view which the court properly takes of the rest of the case, within the scope of the pleadings, the judgment is not open to review in the Supreme Court. (Chapman v. Goodnow, 123 U. S. 540; citing, Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200; Adams Co. v. Railroad Co., 112 U. S. 123. And see Phillips v. Mound City Assoc., 124 U. S. 605; Brooks v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216; Kreiger v. Shelby R. District, 125 U. S. 39.)