Opinion of the Court. as to the true meaning of such public acts, as interpreted by the courts of the State of Illinois. Mr. S. T. Glover and Mr. J. R. Shepley for the defendants in error. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the facts in the language cited above, he continued: In our opinion this is not a suit arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, within the meaning of that term as used in the removal act. If the courts of Missouri gave a wrong construction to the laws of Illinois in the judg ment set up as an estoppel, that error cannot be corrected by means of a transfer of this suit from the State court to the Circuit Court of the United States. So long as the judgment stands, it cannot be impeached collaterally in the courts of the United States any more than in those of the State, by showing that if due effect had been given to the laws it would have been the other way. If it has the effect of an estoppel, as is claimed, it will continue to have that effect until reversed or set aside in some appropriate form of proceeding instituted directly for that purpose. The courts of the United States must give it the same effect as a judgment that it has in the courts of the State. Whether as a judgment it operates as an estoppel does not depend on the Constitution or laws of the United States. The correct decision of this question of estoppel, therefore, does not depend on the construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States, but on the effect of a judgment under the laws of Missouri. The public acts of Illinois are in no way involved. If full faith and credit were not given to them by the Missouri court, in the judgment which has been rendered, that may entitle the railroad company to a review of the judgment here on a writ of error, but in no other way can this or any other court of the United States invalidate that judgment on account of such mistakes, if any were in fact made. Another ground taken in support of the jurisdiction of the Opinion of the Court. circuit court upon the removal is, if we understand the argument of the counsel for the plaintiff in error, that the laws of Illinois, rightly construed, prohibit such a contract as it is alleged has been made, and as the Missouri court decided the other way when the former judgment was rendered, a transfer may be made so as to avoid a like error in this suit. The question thus presented is not what faith and credit must be given the public acts of Illinois in Missouri, but what the public acts of Illinois, when rightly interpreted, mean. That does not depend on the Constitution or laws of the United States, but on the Constitution and laws of the State alone. It is not even alleged in the petition for removal, or claimed in argument, that the courts of Illinois have as yet actually given the statutes in question any such construction as it is contended they should have. The most that can be insisted upon from all the allegations is, that on account of what has been done in other cases, the railroad company expects, when an opportunity occurs, the courts of Illinois will decide that the laws of that State gave the company no power to bind itself in the way the Missouri court has determined it did. So that the position of the railroad company on this application seems to be, that, while the questions arising on the effect of the public acts are apparently open in the courts of Illinois, and nothing has been done which, even on the principles of comity, can bind the courts of Missouri, a suit pending in a Missouri court may be removed to a court of the United States, because the Missouri court, on a former occasion, construed a public law of Illinois, which is involved, differently from what it should have done. To allow a removal upon such grounds would be to say that a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States whenever the public acts of one State are to be construed in an action pending in a court of another State. Clearly this is not so. Even if it be true, as is contended by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, that a suit can be removed as soon as a federal question becomes involved, it is sufficient to say that in this case such a question has not arisen. Until the Missouri court fails, in this suit, to give full faith and credit to the public acts of Illinois, no case has arisen to which the jurisdic Statement of Facts. tion of the courts of the United States can attach, and then only for the correction of the errors that have been committed. It is not enough that in other cases decisions have been made. which, if followed in this, will be erroneous. Until the error has actually been committed in this case, a federal question has not become involved. The presumption in all cases is that the courts of the States will do what the Constitution and laws of the United States require, and removals cannot be effected to the courts of the United States because of fear that they will not. The order remanding the cause is affirmed. ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAIL- APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE Decided January 29th, 1883. Appeal-Equity-Final Decree-Supplemental Order. 1. A decree is final, for the purposes of appeal, when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits, and leaves nothing to be done but enforce by execution what has been determined. 2. Matters relating to the administration of the cause, and accounts to be settled in accordance with the principles fixed by the decree are incidents of the main litigation which may be settled by supplemental order after final decree. Motion to dismiss an appeal. The facts necessary for understanding the merits of the motion are stated thus by the court. The Southern Express Company, an express carrier, filed its bill in equity against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to enjoin the railway company from interfering with or disturbing the express company in the enjoyment of the facilities it then had for the transaction of its express business over the railway company's railroad, so long as the Statement of Facts. express company conformed to the regulations of the railway company and paid all lawful charges for the business. A preliminary injunction was asked for, and, in this connection, the bill prayed that if any dispute or disagreement should arise between the parties during the pendency of the suit, upon the question of compensation to be paid for transportation, the express company might be permitted to bring the same before the court for decision by way of an interlocutory application. On the filing of the bill the preliminary injunction was granted, which was afterwards modified in some particulars affecting the compensation to be paid and the mode of doing the business. On the 25th of March, 1882, the court entered a decree containing the following provisions : "V. That it is the duty of the defendant to carry the express matter of the plaintiff's company, and the messengers or agents in charge thereof, at a just and reasonable rate of compensation, and that such rate of compensation is to be found and established as a unit, and is to include as well the transportation of such messengers or agents as of the express matter in their custody and under their control. "X.-Whereas it is alleged by complainant that since the commencement of this suit and the service of the preliminary order of injunction herein, the defendant has, in violation of said injunction and of the rights of complainant, made unjust discriminations against complainant, and has charged complainant unjust and unreasonable rates for carrying express matter, therefore it is ordered that complainant have leave hereafter to apply for an investigation of these and similar allegations, and for such order with respect thereto as the facts, when ascertained, may justify, and for the appointment of a master to take proof and report thereon. "XI.-That the defendant, its officers, agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under their authority, be, and they hereby are, permanently and perpetually enjoined and restrained from interfering with or disturbing in any manner the enjoyment by the plaintiff of the facilities provided for in this decree, to be accorded to it by the said defendant upon its lines of railway, or such as have been heretofore accorded to it for the Statement of Facts. transaction of the business of the plaintiff and of the express business of the public confided to its care, and from interfering with any of the express matter or messengers of the plaintiff, and from excluding or ejecting any of its express matter or messengers from the depots, trains, cars, or lines of the said defendant as the same are by this decree directed to be permitted to be enjoyed and occupied by the said plaintiff, and from refusing to receive and transport in like manner as the said defendant is now transporting, or as it may hereafter transport for itself or for any other express company over its lines of railway, the express matter and messengers of the said plaintiff, and from interfering with or disturbing the business of the said plaintiff in any manner whatsoever, the said plaintiff paying for the services performed for it by the defendant monthly, as herein prescribed, at a rate not exceeding fifty per centum more than its prescribed rates for the transportation of ordinary freight, and not exceeding the rate at which it may itself transport express matter on its own account or for any other express or other corporation, or for private individuals, reserving to either party a right, at any time hereafter, to apply to this court, according to the rules in equity proceedings, for a modification of this decree as to the measure of compensation herein prescribed. "It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the defend-ant pay the costs to be taxed herein, and that an execution or a fee bill issue therefor." On the 29th of March, the railway company prayed an appeal, which was allowed, and on the 15th of May perfected by the approval of the necessary bond. During the same term of the court, but after the appeal bond was accepted and approved, the express company moved the court to grant it the benefit of a reference authorized by sections V. and X. of the decree, and a master was appointed to inquire into and report on the matters alleged. The cause having been duly docketed here, the express company moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the decree appealed from was not a final decree. Mr. John F. Dillon and Mr. Wager Swayne filed a brief for the railroad company, citing Ray v. Law, 1 Cranch C. C. 349; |