2.

pon the record except such question of jurisdicon; such writ of error or appeal shall be taken nd allowed under the same provisions of law as pply to other writs of error or appeals, except as rovided in the next following section. Sec. hat in cases of judgments or decrees mentioned in e first section of this act, and heretofore rendered, here the period of limitation for taking writs of ror or appeals in other cases has not expired, apeals or writs of error may be sued out at any time ithin one year after the passage of this act. Approved Feb. 25, 1889; 25 U. S. Stats. 693.) § 213. Judgment or decree on review. -The Supreme Court may affirm, modify, or reerse any judgment, decree, or order of a circuit urt, or district court acting as a circuit court, or a district court in prize causes, lawfully brought -fore it for review, or may direct such judgment, cree, or order to be rendered, or such further proedings to be had by the inferior court as the jusce of the case may require. The Supreme Court all not issue execution in a cause removed before from such courts, but shall send a special mante to the inferior court to award execution there. (Rev. Stats. sec. 701.)

Review.-The judgment of the circuit court upon a a to the jurisdiction will not be reviewed upon petition mandamus. (Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U. S. 794.) On affirmance. The circuit court has no power to dify a decree which has been affirmed. (Chaires v. U. 3 How. 611; Southard v. Russell, 16 How. 547.) So on rmance of a decree dismissing the bill. (Durant v. sex Co., 102 U. S. 555.) Persons not parties to a dee of distribution, who appear after decree affirmed, may m their share therein. (Ex parte Howard, 9 Wall. 175.)

On reversal. If the judgment be reversed and judgment for defendant be entered, the circuit court cannot grant a new trial (Ex parte Dubuque & Pac. R. 1 Wall. 69); and if reversed with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff in error, judgment should be enforced with costs. (McKnight v. Craig, Cranch, 183.) On a special finding before the court without a jury, the circuit court on reversal may proceed to try other issues. (Ex parte French, 91 U. S. 423.) If no supersedeas has been obtained, a reversal will not vacate a sale under a decree. (South Fork Canal Co. v. Gordon, 2 Abb. U. S. 479.) A reversal which directs restitution of money must be obeyed as far as practicable by the distributees. (Ex parte Morris, 9 Wall. 605.)

Proceedings after mandate.-Where the mandate requires only the execution of the decree, the circuit court is bound thereby, although the jurisdiction is not alleged in the pleadings (Skillern v. May, 6 Cranch, 267); but where the mandate is uncertain and ambiguous, it has a right to resort to the opinion delivered at the time to assist in expounding it. (West v. Brashear. 14 Peters, 51.) The inferior court is bound by the decree of the Supreme Court, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate. (Sibbald v. United States, 12 Peters, 488; West v. Brashear, 14 Peters, 51.) When the direction in the mandate is precise and unambiguous, it is the duty of the circuit court to carry it into execution. (West v. Brashear, 14 Peters, 51.) On demurrer overruled by the Supreme Court, the party will not be permitted to file other demurrers after the remand. (Hitchcock v. Galveston, 3 Woods, 269.) The allowance of a supplemental answer after mandate is in the discretion of the court. (Williams v. Gibbs, 20 How. 535.) So the claimant in collusion may amend his answer after return of mandate. (The Pennsylvania, 12 Blatchf. 67.) A party cannot file new pleadings if the rights of the parties are finally determined. (Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U. S. 361.) The mandate in case of a vessel released on stipulation in the district court operates without any appeal to the Supreme Court. (The Lady Pike, 96 U. S. 461; see Ex parte Sawyer, 21 Wall. 235.) Attachment cannot be issued for refusal

to obey the original judgment awarding a mandamus, but an alias writ will be issued. (United States v. Kendall, 5 Cranch. 385.) Costs may be taxed after receipt of mandate, and be entered nunc pro tunc. (Sizer v. Many, 16 How. 98.)

§ 214. Writs of error and appeals from Territorial courts.-No appeal or writ of error shall hereafter be allowed from any judgment or decree in any suit at law or in equity in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, or in the supreme court of any of the Territories of the United States, unless the matter in dispute shall exceed the sum of five thousand dollars.1 This section shall not apply to any case wherein is involved the validity of any patent or copyright, or in which is drawn in question the validity of any treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States; but in all such cases an appeal or writ of error may be brought without regard to the sum or value in dispute."

1 Approved March 3, 1885; 23 U. S. Stats. 355, sec. 1, superseding Rev. Stats. sec. 702.

2 Id., sec. 2.

In general.-The final judgments of the supreme court of Washington Territory in criminal cases can be reviewed only when the Constitution or a statute or treaty s drawn in question. (Watts v. Wash. Ter., 91 U. S. 580.) If the criminal escapes and is not within the conrol of the court either actually or constructively, this court will refuse to hear the case unless he submits to he jurisdiction of the court below. (Smith v. U. S., 94 J. S. 97.) If the supreme court of the Territory correctly eversed the decree of the district court, its decree will be ffirmed. (U. S. v. Hart, Wall. 770.) In order that he Supreme Court may take jurisdiction it must appear n the record that the question was raised and decided in he lower court. (Lownsdale v. Parrish, 21 How. 290.) Vhere the question relates merely to the counting of the

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;

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

§ 215. Utah Territory. A writ of error om the Supreme Court of the United States to e supreme court of the Territory shall lie in minal cases where the accused shall have been tenced to capital punishment or convicted of gamy or polygamy. (18 U. S. Stats. 254; 1 Sup. ev. Stats. 108.)

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