votes for the removal of a county seat, the value of the interest cannot be computed. (Potts v. Chumascro, 92 U. S. 358.) A case in equity may be taken up by appeal, although it was removed into the supreme court of the Territory by writ of error. (Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. 118.) The amount required to appeal from the supreme court of Wyoming is one thousand dollars, and this also in cases where the United States are appellants. (U. S. v. U. P. R. Co., 105 U. S. 263.) A proceeding for allotment of dower in a law action cannot be taken by appeal, although not carried on according to the forms of the common law. (Parrish v. Ellis, 16 Peters. 151.) A mortgagor may appeal alone from a decree directing a foreclosure, and subsequent lien-holders need not join. (Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. 118.) If neither party had any interest in the property in dispute, no appeal can be taken. (Lownsdale v. Parrish, 21 How. 290.)

Jurisdictional amount.-The jurisdictional amount, which by sections 702 and 1911 of Revised Statutes, was required to be over $2,000 for the Territory of Washington; and by sections 702 and 1909, over $1,000 for every other territory; and by section 705, as amended by section 4 of the Act of February 25, 1879 (20 Stat. at L. 321), over $2,500 for the District of Columbia. In all these prior statutes (sections 702, 705, 1909, 1911) and the Act of 1879, it was said that this court was to review the judgments and decrees "in the same manner and under the same regulations" provided as to the final judgments and decrees of a circuit court. These prior provisions are not repealed; and no jurisdiction ever existed in this court to review by writ of error or appeal the judgment of a circuit court in a criminal case. (Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, 129 U. S. 104.)

Writ of error. -No writ of error lies from a Territorial court to the Supreme Court unless some Act of Congress provides therefor (Clarke v. Bazadone, 1 Cranch, 212), and the action of a Territorial court refusing to set aside a judgment by default is not reviewable. McAllister v. Kuhn, 96 U. S. 87; see Kerr v. Clampitt, 95 U. S. 188. A writ of error does not lie to an order refusing a motion for a new trial (Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 21 How. 176;

Sparrow v. Strong, 4 Wall. 584); nor to a judgment reversing a judgment with instructions to award a venire facias de novo. (Brown v. Union Bank, 4 How. 465.) A writ of error to an order setting aside a return to an execution will not lie. (Wells v. McGregor, 18 Wall. 188.) A judgment sustaining a demurrer or a judgment affirming such decision is not final if it awards a procedendo. (Holcomb v. McCusick, 20 How. 552; Miners' Bank v. U. S., 5 How. 213.) A writ of error in an attachment suit will not bring up for review upon points necessary to sustain the attachment (Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176); nor will it lie when the only dispute is a counter-claim, if the amount is less than one thousand dollars (Nagle v. Rutledge, 100 U. S. 675); but in a suit on a contract for the sale of a mining claim, if the property and the rent combined exceed one thousand dollars, a writ of error will lie. (Stinson v. Dousman, 20 How. 461; see Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. 97.)

§ 215. Utah Territory.-A writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to the supreme court of the Territory shall lie in criminal cases where the accused shall have been sentenced to capital punishment or convicted of bigamy or polygamy. (18 U. S. Stats. 254; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 108.)

Utah. A writ of error lies to the supreme court of the Territory of Utah, where defendant has been convicted of bigamy or polygamy, or sentenced to death for any crime. (Wiggins v. People, 93 U. S. 465; Walker v. Utah Terr., 99 U. S. 130.) A judgment will not be reversed merely because a challenge for favor was sustained; but if there is error in the form of the judgment, it may be reversed and the case remanded for correction. (Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145.) Where a district court in the Territory of Utah refuses to issue a writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from its order and judgment of refusal. (In re Snow, 120 U. S. 274.)

$ 216. Territorial courts-Procedure on appeal.—That the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States over the judgments and decrees of said territorial courts in cases of trial by jury shall be exercised by writ of error, and in all other cases by appeal, according to such rules and regulations as to form and modes of proceeding as the said Supreme Court have prescribed or may hereafter prescribe; provided, that on appeal, instead of the evidence at large, a statement of the facts of the case in the nature of a special verdict, and also the rulings of the court on the admission or rejection of evidence when excepted to, shall be made and certified by the court below, and transmitted to the Supreme Court, together with the transcript of the proceedings and judgment or decree; but no appellate proceedings in said Supreme Court, heretofore taken upon any such judgment or decree, shall be invalidated by reason of being instituted by writ of error or by appeal; and provided further, that the appellate court may make any order in any case heretofore appealed, which may be necessary to save the rights of the parties; and that this act shall not apply to cases now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States where the record has already been filed. (18 U. S. Stats. 27; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 12.)

Note. To entitle to an appeal, the case must be one tried by a jury. (Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619.) If the territorial supreme court affirms the judgment, it adopts the findings as its own for the purpose of an appeal (Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619); but if it reverses the judgment, it should make other findings, so that the case may be taken on appeal. (Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610.)

$217. When a Territory becomes a State after judgment or decree in territorial court. -In all cases where the judgment or decree of any court of a Territory might be reviewed by the Supreme Court on writ of error or appeal, such writ of error or appeal may be taken, within the time and in the manner provided by law, notwithstanding such Territory has, after such judgment or decree, been admitted as a State; and the Supreme Court shall direct the mandate to such court as the nature of the writ of error or appeal requires. (Rev. Stats. sec. 703.)

It rests with Congress to declare how the judgments of territorial courts shall be carried into execution, or reviewed upon appeal or writ of error (Hunt v. Palao, 4 How. 589; Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235); but concurrent legislation, State and Federal, is necessary in respect to cases pending in the Supreme Court for review to enable the Supreme Court to send down the mandate for further proceedings in the proper tribunal. (Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235.) After a Territory has been admitted as a State, no writ of error or appeal lies from the Territorial court without the aid of some act of Congress. (Hunt v. Palao, 4 How. 589; Shephard v. Wilson, 5 How. 210; McNulty v. Batty, 10 How. 72; Preston v. Bracken, 10 How. 81. See Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160.)

§ 218. Judgments and decrees of dis

trict courts in cases transferred from Territorial courts. The judgments or decrees of any district court, in cases transferred to it from the superior court of any Territory, upon the admission of such Territory as a State, under sections five hundred and sixty-seven and five hundred and sixty-eight, may be reviewed and reversed or affirmed upon writs of error sued out of, or appeals taken to, the Supreme

Court, in the same manner as if such judg ments or decrees had been rendered in said su

perior court of such Territory. And the mandates and all writs necessary to the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases shall be directed to such district court, which shall cause the same to be duly executed and obeyed. (Rev. Stats. sec. 704. See sections 567 and 569.)

§ 219. Judgments and decrees of supreme court of District of Columbia. The final judgment or decree of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, in any case where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the value of twenty-five hundred dollars, may be re-examined and revised or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon writ of error or appeal, in the same manner and under the same regulations as are provided in cases of writs of error on judgments or appeals from decrees rendered in a circuit court. (Rev. Stats. sec. 705.)

The amount was increased from one thousand to twenty-five hundred dollars by Act of Feb. 25, 1879. (20 U. S. Stats. 320; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 419.)

Writs of error.-A writ of error lies to a judgment entered on an agreed statement (U. S. v. Eliason, 16 Peters, 291); or to a judgment awarding a peremptory mandamus to restore a party to office (Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelwright, 7 Wheat. 534); or a judgment removing a party from office (U. S. v. Addison, 22 How. 174); or to a judg ment for condemnation of land (Railroad Co. v. Church, 18 Wall. 62); or to a judgment quashing an inquisition of damages (Custiss v. Georgetown & A. Turnpike Co., 6 Cranch, 233; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Trustees, 91 U. S. 127); or to a judgment in favor of defendant on a demurrrer