District Court.- Where District Court sits as Circuit Court, writ of error will lie from original judgment to Supreme Court; aliter where it sits as District Court, p. 448.

2 Pet. 449-480, 7 L. 481, WESTON v. CITY COUNCIL OF CHARLESTON.

Words and phrases - Suit.- Where a right is litigated between parties in a court of justice, the proceeding by which the decision of the court is sought is a suit, p. 464.

Cited with approval in Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 645, 9 L. 1229, dissenting opinion, arguendo, "suit" and "case," synonymous; Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 566, 10 L. 592, dissenting opinion, arguendo, application for writ of habeas corpus is a suit; State v. Jennings, 56 Wis. 120, 14 N. W. 30, and State v. Supervisors, 67 Wis. 276, 30 N. W. 361, holding mandamus proceeding a civil action; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 112, 18 L. 293, holding application for habeas corpus, a 66 cause;" In re Sloan, 5 N. Mex. 611, 25 Pac. 937, and Taylor v. New York, 82 N. Y. 25, mandamus proceeding is a suit; Rowan v. Shepard, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 254, 255, and Case of Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 585, 21 L. 922, approving definition, supra; Mineral Range Ry. Co. v. Detroit, etc., Copper Co., 25 Fed. 520; United States v. Inlots, 26 Fed. Cas. 487, and Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 375, 23 L. 452, condemnation proceeding is a suit; Appleton v. Turnbull, 84 Me. 76, 24 Atl. 593, also a bill in equity by a judgment creditor of a corporation; State v. Oil Co., 42 W. Va. 95, 24 S. E. 693, a proceeding reviewing tax assessment, involving validity of tax law; State v. Newell, 13 Mont. 305 34 Pac. 29, habeas corpus proceeding is a “special proceeding in the nature of an action," reviewing authorities; United States v. Moore, 11 Fed. 251, criminal proceeding is a suit; McCullough v. Large, 20 Fed. 310, as also a rule to show cause why one should not be punished for contempt; Lackawanna Coal Co. v. Bates, 56 Fed. 740, and execution proceeding against stockholder after return nulla bona against corporation; In re Ditch, 69 Fed. 166, also a statutory proceeding for establishing drains; Mooney v. Manufacturing Co., 72 Fed. 36, 34 U. S. App. 581, garnishment proceeding against foreign corporation; Stinson v. St. P. R. Co., 20 Minn. 494, querying whether condemnation proceeding is a suit. Cited casually in Clark v. Sohier, 1 Wood. & M. 372, F. C. 2,835, stating definition ut supra; and cited in note, 12 Am. Rep. 551.

Denied in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 624, 10 L. 625, concurring opinion, arguendo, application for writ of habeas corpus is not a suit; Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 611, 612, 10 L. 617, 618, dissenting opinion, arguendo, application for writ of mandamus is not a suit; In re Chicago, 64 Fed. 898, assessment proceedings for municipal Improvement are not a suit, even where conducted in court under Judicial forms, collecting cases. Distinguished in New Orleans, etc.,

R. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 144, 26 L. 99, dissenting opinion, arguendo, defense arising under laws of United States is not a "suit arising under laws of United States; " Upshur Co. v. Rich, 135 U. S. 474, 34 L. 199, 10 S. Ct. 653, holding appeal to a County Court acting as a board of commissioners without judicial powers is not 8 suit."

66

"Suit "

- Prohibition.- A proceeding to obtain a writ of prohibition is a suit, p. 464.

Cited in In re Sloan, 5 N. Mex. 611, 25 Pac. 937, ruling similarly as to proceeding for injunction against election officers. Cited without particular application, in Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 174, 29 L. 603, 6 S. Ct. 573, discussing prohibition generally.

Final judgment.- A judgment refusing a writ of prohibition is a final judgment, and appealable, p. 464.

Supreme Court has jurisdiction upon error to Supreme Court of a State where it has sustained State law attacked as a violation of Constitution of United States, p. 464.

Cited and rule applied in Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 93 U. S. 121, 23 L. 826, entertaining error to State court sustaining validity of statute claimed to be in violation of constitutional provision forbidding impairing obligation of contracts; Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. S. 418, 26 L. 188, ruling similarly on error to State court, where statute was upheld which was claimed to be void as in furtherance of the ordinance of secession. Cited casually in Pratt v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black, 273, 17 L. 207, discussing jurisdiction on error to Circuit courts; and in Saginaw Gaslight Co. v. Saginaw, 28 Fed. 533, Citizens' Street Ry. Co. v. City Ry. Co., 56 Fed. 750, and City Ry. Co. v. Citizens' Street R. R. Co., 166 U. S. 563, 41 L. 1116, 17 S. Ct. 655, discussing jurisdiction of Circuit Court where impairment of obligation of contract is involved; Hammond v. People, 32 Ill. 465, dissenting opinion, arguendo, writ of error lies to State Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceeding. Cited in 91 Am. Dec. 197, in very full note on writs of error to State courts.

Final judgment is one which determines the particular cause, pp. 464, 465.

Cited approvingly in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 563, 10 L. 591, dissenting opinion, arguendo, judgment refusing discharge on habeas corpus is a final judgment; and in Hammond v. People, 32 Ill. 470, dissenting opinion, arguing similarly; Antrim's Case, 1 Fed. Cas. 1066, proceeding may be final and yet not conclusive elsewhere as to the right in question; Belt v. Davis, 1 Cal. 138, a judgment vacating another judgment in another court for fraud is final; Bassick Mining Co. v. Schoolfield, 15 Colo. 380, 24 Pac. 1051, and a decree settling amount of liens and ordering sale of property; State v. Logan, 1 Nev. 514, an order discharging defendant and exonerating his ball;

Swain v. Savage, 77 N. W. 363, as to judgment declaring writ of replevin to have been unauthorized; Lalande v. McDonald, 2 Idaho, 287, 13 Pac. 348, a judgment of nonsuit; Allen v. Savannah, 9 Ga. 293, collecting cases and approving definition ut supra; International Bank v. Jenkins, 104 Ill. 150, or a judgment of appellate court, which leaves nothing to be done but to carry that judgment into effect. Cited in 60 Am. Dec. 428, in exhaustive note on final judgments. Cited also in note, 83 Am. Dec. 292.

Distinguished in Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y. 47, holding order punishing for contempt not final if conditional.

Power of congress to borrow money is free and unburdened, pp. 465, 466.

Cited, without particular application, in Griswold v. Hepburn, 2 Duv. 46; and in Van Husan v. Kanouse, 13 Mich. 309, Shollenberger v. Brinton, 52 Pa. St. 66, and Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 499, 538, discussing validity of legal tender act.

Taxation.-Where right to impose a tax exists, it is a right which, in its nature, acknowledges no limits, p. 466.

Cited in Fifield v. Close, 15 Mich. 508, and Jones v. Keep, 19 Wis. 876, holding unconstitutional a provision of stamp act taxing process in State courts; Davis v. Richardson, 45 Miss. 503, 7 Am. Rep. 733, holding similarly as to provision requiring documents used as evidence to be stamped.

Distinguished in Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa, 49, 1 Am. Rep. 230, holding purpose of tax must be public; Jones v. Keep, 19 Wis. 381, dissenting opinion, arguendo, statute of United States taxing process in State courts is constitutional.

Taxation.-A State may not use the power of taxation on the means employed by the government of the Union in pursuance of the Constitution, p. 467.

Cited and rule applied in Dobbins v. Erie Co, 16 Pet. 449, 10 L 1027, holding unconstitutional a State law taxing "office" held under government of United States; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 47, 18 L. 748, holding void a State law taxing passengers as interference with right of United States to transport troops throughout the Union; Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 38, 21 L. 794, dissenting opinion, arguendo, railroad constructed as aid to government operations is not subject to State taxation; Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. California, 162 U. S. 148, 149, 40 L. 922, 923, 16 S. Ct. 787, 788, dissenting opinion, reviewing authorities and arguing similarly; Andrews v. Auditor, 28 Gratt. 121, 123, State may not tax government buildings; in the following: Barker v. Bank, 59 N. H. 311, National Exchange Bank v. Boylen, 26 W. Va. 557, 53 Am. Rep. 115, and Farmers', etc., Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 34, 23 L. 199, holding national banks not affected by State usury laws; National Bank v.

Fisher, 45 Kan. 729, 26 Pac. 483, National, etc., Bank v. Mobile, 02 Ala. 292, 34 Am. Rep. 18, People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 543, 25 L. 706, State v. Haight, 31 N. J. L. 402, Pittsburg v. Bank, 55 Pa. St. 49, Hubbard v. Supervisors, 23 Iowa, 144, and First National Bank of Albia v. Council, 86 Iowa, 37, 52 N. W. 336, all holding State may tax national bank only to extent actually permitted by congress; Talbott v. Silver Bow Co., 139 U. S. 440, 445, 35 L. 210, 212, 11 S. Ct. 595, 597, and Salt Lake, etc., Bank v. Golding, 2 Utah, 5, 7, holding similarly as to territories; City Bank v. City of Paducah, 2 Flipp, 66, F. C. 2,743, enjoining tax discriminating against national bank in taxing shares; Sapylton v. Thaggard, 91 Fed. 95, State may not tax bank chartered by congress, except upon its real property; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 156, 158, 29 L. 847, 6 S. Ot. 673, 674, State may not tax lands purchased by United States at delinquent tax sale and held under statute of United States; United States v. Weise, 2 Wall. Jr. 74, F. C. 16,659, State may not tax real estate owned by United States within its territory; In re Sheffield, 64 Fed. 835, nor patent rights; Grether v. Wright, 75 Fed. 753, 754, 43 U. S. App. 770, nor bonds of the District of Columbia; People v. Hoffman, 37 N. Y. 15, 16, nor bonds of United States; Wood v. Stockwell, 55 Me. 83, arguing by analogy State may not interfere with regulation of interstate commerce; Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Carland, 5 Mont. 188, 3 Pac. 156, holding State law taxing railway lands exempted from taxation by act of congress is void; Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 571, denying power of State to restrict immigration. Cited obiter in West River Bridge v. Dix, 6 How. 548, 12 L. 552, discussing impairment of obligation of contract by exercise of eminent domain; Day v. Buffinton, 3 Cliff. 388, F. C. 3,675, arguendo, congress may not tax salary of Federal judge as income; Railroad Tax Case, 8 Sawy. 250, 13 Fed. 732, discussing property rights under fourteenth amendment; Wood v. Drake, 70 Fed. 883, arguendo, Federal courts alone have jurisdiction of action against marshal for act done by him as such. Cited in thorough note on taxation of United States property, 33 Am. St. Rep. 402.

Distinguished in Passenger Cases, 7 How. 538, 12 L. 809, arguing State has power of taxation of all property within its limits not specially exempted; Thomson v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 9 Wall. 589, 19 L. 798, holding State has power to tax railroad constructed by ald of congress under its postal and military powers; Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 34, 21 L. 792, and People v. Railroad Co., 43 Cal. 427, holding similarly; dissenting opinion, Pollock v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 157 U. S. 646 (39 L. 842, 15 S. Ct. 714, erroneously cite 8 Pet. 591), under facts.

Sovereignty of a State extends to everything which exists by its own authority or is introduced by its permission, p. 467.

Cited approvingly in Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 409, 14 L. 994, dissenting opinion, reviewing authorities and, arguendo,

State has power to increase tax on State bank over amount stipulated in charter; State v. Fullerton, 7 Rob. (La.) 216, State may tax passengers for benefit of charity hospital; Harrison v. Willis, 7 Heisk. 42, 19 Am. Rep. 608, holding State may tax litigation; Wheeling, etc., Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 279, 25 L. 414, sustaining right of State to tax vessel as personal property at place of principal office of owner; State v. Charleston, 5 Rich. L. 570, State may exempt bank from taxation; Southern Express Co. ▼. Hood, 15 Rich. L. 75, 94 Am. Dec. 141, may tax express company in proportion to gross receipts; Battle v. Mobile, 9 Ala. 237, 44 Am. Dec. 440, State may tax coasting vessel owned by resident; Tonnage Tax Cases, 62 Pa. St. 298, 1 Am. Rep. 410, sustaining validity of State tax based on tonnage; Osborne v. Mobile, 44 Ala. 499, or railway whose business extends without its limits; Jones v. Page, 44 Ala. 658, or occupations; Burlington, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hayne, 19 Iowa, 139, or railroad lands, title to which is in railroad; Debolt v. Trust Co., 1 Ohio St. 584, 589, State legislature may not surrender power of State to tax; Campaign Co. Bank v. Smith, 7 Ohio St. 55, State may tax capital invested in its own bonds; Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 123, 20 L. 125, congress may not tax salary of State judicial officer; State v. Garton, 32 Ind. 4, 2 Am. Rep. 317, nor official bond of State officer; Webb v. Burlington, 28 Vt. 192, holding State may tax stocks of other States owned by resident; Eyre v. Jacob, 14 Gratt. 427, 73 Am. Dec. 370, and Schoolfield v. Lynchburg, 78 Va. 370, holding State may tax collateral inheritances. Cited casually in In re Strawbridge, 39 Ala. 387, 388, discussing authority of State to subject its citizens to military service; Norris v. Doniphan, 4 Met. (Ky.) 431, discussing relations of State and Federal government; Nashua Sav. Bank v. Nashua, 46 N. H. 404, dissenting opinion, arguing State may tax shares of stock in savings bank; Wills v. Allison, 4 Heisk. 392, discussing contracts to pay in particular kind of money.

Distinguished in State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall. 224, 20 L. 377, holding State has no authority to levy tax on vessels in proportion to tonnage; Manhattan Co. v. Blake, 148 U. S. 426, 37 L. 509, 13 S. Ct. 645, sustaining Federal tax falling indirectly upon deposits of State government in private bank; Sweatt v. Railroad Co., 3 Cliff. 352, F. C. 13,684, 5 Bank. Reg. 248, holding congress has power to enact that railroads created by a State shall be liable to the provisions of the bankruptcy act; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 42 Conn. 451, arguendo, State may not tax moneys of citizen loaned without its territory.

Taxation.-State law taxing stock of United States is unconstitutional, p. 469.

Affirmed in Bank of Commerce v. New York City, 2 Black, 629, 631, 633, 17 L. 454, 455, and Banks v. The Mayor, 7 Wall. 24, 19 L. 50. Approved in Van Allen v. The Assessors, 3 Wall. 591, 596, 18