23. An order of seizure and sale in Louisiana, is substantially a foreclosure of a mortgage in chancery, and can only be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States by appeal, and not by writ of error. 17 Wall. 14, Marin v. Lally.

24. When a right is claimed in a State court, under the constitution or laws of the United States, and the decision of the State court is in favor of such claim, the case cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court on a writ of error. 12 H. 423, Linton v. Stanton.

25. If the record of an action at law in Louisiana (brought up to the Supreme Court by writ of error), contains the evidence and not the bills of exception, and nothing raising any points of law distinct from the evidence, the Supreme Court will simply affirm the judgment of the court below. 2 H. 392, Minor v. Tillotson.

26. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction, where the plaintiff in error claims title under a sale by a marshal of the United States, and the final decision in the State courts is adverse to that title. 6 H. 14, Collier v. Stanborough.

27. A writ of error will lie from the Supreme Court of the United States, to a State court of last resort, for the purpose of determining whether an instrument has been improperly received in evidence in a State court, when its admission has been objected to, on the ground that the stamps affixed to it had not beer cancelled in accordance with the act of congress. 14 Wall. 361, Pugh v. McCormick.

28. The Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that an act of the general assembly of that State was unconstitutional, on the ground that the State debt would thereby be increased, when it already exceeded the constitutional limit twenty-five million dollars; Held: That this decision involved no Federal question, and that no writ of error lay from such a judgment to the Supreme Court of the United States. 15 Wall. 208, Solomons v. Graham.

29. Where, in a case brought up by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, it appeared from the record and from the opinion of the court, that the only question before the court below, related to the interruption of prescription, and that this question was decided exclusively upon the principles of jurisprudence of the State; the writ of error was dismissed on motion, for want of jurisdiction. 16 Wall. 351, Marqueze v. Bloom.

30. A suggestion by counsel that a decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana was rendered, while the State was in rebellion, and its judges therefore incompetent, will not be noticed by the Supreme Court of the United States, when the question as to the competency of the court was not made on the trial, and when the court below did not consider and determine any such question. 6 Wall. 124, Walker v. Villavaso.

31. The assertion, in a petition for a re-hearing filed in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, that the judgment of the court violates a certain provision of the constitution of the United States, is not sufficient to support a writ of error, under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act. 18 H. 192, Heirs of Poydras v. Treasurer of Louisiana.

32. Inasmuch as, by the Louisiana practice, no replication is admitted, it becomes impossible for the plaintiff to spread upon the record of the court any objection which he may be able to urge to defendant's answer, founded upon a law of congress; but where he urges in a petition for a re-hearing, in the Supreme Court of the State, that he mainly relied in the lower court, upon an act of congress, and that the decision of that court was against the validity of the act, and when the decision of the Supreme Court of the State was to the same effect; Held: That the question of the validity of an act of congress was shown to have been raised in the lower court; and that such question appeared sufficiently on the face of the record to give the Supreme Court of the United States jurisdiction. 11 Wall. 493, Stewart v. Hahn.

33. No one but an appellant can be heard in an appellate court, for the reversal of a decree rendered in a subordinate court. Appellees may be heard in support of the decree, but not for a reversal. 12 Wall. 130, Mail Company v. Flanders; 5 Wall. 377, The William Bagaley.

34. Each defendant may sue out a writ of error without joining his codefendants in the writ. 6 P. 172, Cox v. The United States.

35. Error may be shown by a bill of exceptions, or by a demurrer to the declarations, or a material pleading, or it may appear by an agreed statement of facts, if made a part of the record, or in a special verdict, if put in due form; but even when all these are wanting, it is no cause for dismissing the suit, when the writ of error has issued to a circuit court of the United States, because in that case the writ brings up the whole record, and their absence only shows that there is no error in the proceedings; and if there is no error in any part of the record, the prevailing party in the circuit court is entitled to an affirmance of the judgment. But cases brought up by writ of error to a State court, issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act, stand upon a very different footing, as in such a case it must appear on the face of the record, in express terms or by necessary implication, that some one, at least, of the questions described in that section, did arise in the State court, and that the question so appearing in the record was decided in the State court, as required in that section; and if it does not so appear in the record, then the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of the case, and in that event the writ of error must be dismissed; as the court, under those circumstances, has no power either to reverse or affirm the judgment rendered in the State court. 10 Wall. 256, Railroad v. Morgan.

36. A decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in accordance with the law of that State, that all obligations, the consideration of which was Confederate money, are null and void in their inception, and not recoverable in the courts of Louisiana, does not violate any provisions of the Federal constitution. 10 Wall. 537, Bethell v. Demaret.

37. Whenever an error is apparent in the record, the rule is, that it is open to re-examination, whether it be made to appear by bill of exceptions or in any other manner. 16 Wall. 378, Insurance Company v. Piaggio.

38. Where, in a suit pending before it, a State court dissolves an injunction (previously granted by it on an allegation by the mortgagor that the mortgagee had agreed to give him further time) against proceedings to sell mortgaged premises, under a foreclosure already had, and after such dissolution, the effect of which is, of course, to leave in force a final decree of sale, a alien defendant petitions for a removal into the circuit court, under the act of July 27, 1866, "for the removal of causes in certain cases from State courts," and the State court refuses to grant that petition, the defendant not excepting, and the case is afterwards taken to the Supreme Court on an appeal from the decree dissolving the injunction, no jurisdiction exists here to review the judgment of the Supreme Court, under section 709 of the Revised Statutes, and on the ground that a right, title, privilege, or immunity has been claimed under a statute of the United States, and that a decision of the highest court of the State, where a decision could be had, has been against it. The refusal of the State court to grant a removal, under the act of congress, not having been excepted to, and that matter not having been involved in what was before the Supreme Court, its judgment cannot be held to have embraced it, nor, indeed, anything but the matter of the dissolution of the injunction; a matter which involved no federal question. 23 Wall. 417, Fashnacht v. Frank.

39. Where the Supreme Court of a State, on appeal, overruled an exception which had been sustained in the lower court; and, on setting aside the judgment below, remanded the case to be proceeded with according to law; Held: That the judgment of such Supreme Court was not final, and that the writ of error must be dismissed. 91 U. S. (Otto's), 487, Zeller et al. v. Switzer, See No. 9.

40. Where suit was commenced November 16, 1868, for rent claimed to be due August 8, 1865, and where, throughout the whole intervening time the district within which the cause of action, if any arose, was under the control of the Federal authorities, and the defendant could be served there with process; Held: That the decision of the Supreme Court of the State, that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations, is not subject to re-examination in the Supreme Court of the United States. 92 U. S. (Otto's), 111, Harrison v. Myer, executrix.

41. The right of the Supreme Court to enforce a supersedeas on a writ of error exists from the time the party, in whose favor the writ was granted, has complied with all the conditions prescribed in the act of congress to make the writ of error operate as a supersedeas and stay of execution. 10 Wall. 273, Slaughter House Cases.

42. Where the Supreme Court of a State gave judgment for a perpetual injunction against defendants, and they sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, and within ten days gave bond in the sum of ten thousand dollars to supersede the judgment of the State court, a justice of the United States Supreme Court refused, on motion, to require plaintiffs in error to give an additional bond with a larger penalty, although satisfied that the bond already given was not sufficient to cover the fees and emoluments claimed by defendant in error, which would come to the possession of the plaintiff in error, by reason of the supersedeas of the judgment of the State court. 1 Woods, 51, Butchers Association v. Slaughterhouse Company et al.

43. As soon as a writ of error from the United States Court is applied for and allowed, the jurisdiction of that court attaches and supersedes any further action of a justice of that court at chambers. Ib.

44. It seems to be the settled understanding of the courts of the United States, that both appeals and writs of error operate as a supersedeas, without any express order to that effect, if taken within the proper time and with an offer of the requisite security. Ib.

45. If, in the copy of a writ of error, lodged with the clerk of the court for the defendant in error, the return day of the writ is correctly stated, and the record be actually returned and filed in due time, a mere clerical error in the return day in the original writ, is immaterial, and is cured. 1 Woods, 234. United States v. Six Lots of Ground.

46. The allegations contained in the petition for a writ of error do not give the requisite jurisdiction. See COURTS, II. (b), No. 12.

TABLE OF CASES.

THE NUMBERS PRECEDING THE POINTS REFER TO THE VOLUME AND PAGE OF THE REPORT,
THOSE SUCCEEDING TO THE PAGES OF THE DIGEST.

Alden, Johnson v. 15 A. 505......206, 211, 278, | Amis, Featherson & Carpenter v. 15 A.