Argument for Appellants.

195 U.S.

The short form decision of Judge Truax had the same effect as a general verdict, as such it is not conclusive as to facts not proved or considered. Bomeisler v. Forster, 154 N. Y. 236; Dickenson v. Hayes, 31 Connecticut, 423; Hungerford's Appeal, 41 Connecticut, 327; Sawyer v. Woodbury, 7 Gray, 499; Hooker v. Hubbard, 102 Massachusetts, 245; Foster v. The Richard Busteed, 100 Massachusetts, 411; Young v. Pritchard, 75 Maine, 518; Ward v. Boyce, 152 N. Y. 203; Hibshman v. Dubleban, 4 Watts, 190; Forcey's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 515; Woodgate y. Flect, 44 N. Y. 13; People v. Johnson, 38 N. Y. 63.

The success of the colleges in excluding all consideration of the releases by Judge Truax estops them now from asserting that the question of the releases is res judicata. Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 414, 443. This is estoppel by conduct. Bigelow, 5th ed., 54; Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U. S. 389; Davis v. Cromwell, 68 Fed. Rep. 525. The issue as to the releases was decided only by the General Term or Appellate Division upon exceptions to a general decision. This is by a court unknown to the Constitution for the trial of causes. See the powers of the Appellate Division, Benedict v. Arnoux, 154 N. Y. 726; Snyder v. Seaman, 157 N. Y. 452; Story on Const. § 1761; Elliott's App. Pro. §§ 16, 17. This makes the plea of res judicata bad on its face. 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. 103; Emmott v. Mitchell, 14 Sim. 432.

The decision of Judge Truax did not show that this issue was decided. Bomeisler v. Forster, 154 N. Y. 237; Galle v. Tode, 148 N. Y. 277.

The issue must be same or the question is not res judicata. So in will cases. Gaines v. Hennen, 24 How. 553; Burt v. Steinburger, 4 Cowen, 563. No power exists in the appellate courts to find facts not found by the trial court. A judgment affirmed on facts not found by the trial court is not due process of law. Truesdale v. Burke, 145 N. Y. 616, 617; Smith v. Platt, 96 N. Y. 637, Rodgers v. Clement, 162 N. Y. 427; Iselin v. Starin, 144 N. Y. 460; Thomas v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 99 N. Y. 250; Ehrichs v. De Mill, 75 N. Y. 370; Whitehead v.

195 U.S.

Argument for Appellees.

Kennedy, 69 N. Y. 462; Foot v. Etna Life Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 578; Griffin v. Maynard, 17 N. Y. 28.

Mr. Elihu Root, with whom Mr. James L. Bishop, Mr. William Forse Scott, Mr. William Ford Upson, Mr. John McL. Nash, Mr. C. N. Bovee, Mr. Thomas H. Hubbard, Mr. Stewart L. Woodford, Mr. Horace Russell, Mr. Henry L. Stimson, Mr. Alfred W. Kiddle, Mr. Seth Sprague Terry, Mr. George G. Reynolds, Mr. Henry B. Twombly, Mr. Haley Fiske and Mr. Henry Stoddard were on the brief, for various colleges, appellees.

Mr. John E. Parsons for appellees, Bulkley and Vaughan, and Mr. C. N. Bovee for appellees, Ritch and Marietta College, submitted a separate brief.

Mr. Thomas H. Hubbard submitted a separate brief for appellee, President and Trustees of Bowdoin College.

This court is without jurisdiction on direct appeal. 26 Stat. 826.

The jurisdiction of the court below was not in issue or if it was it was decided in appellants' favor. United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109; Anglo-Am. Prov. Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U. S. 376. No question of jurisdiction was certified to this court. Filhiol v. Torney, 194 U. S. 356.

The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court as to its Federal jurisdiction was not in issue, but the question was merely one as to the equity powers of the court. Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U. S. 225; Bache v. Hunt, 193 U. S. 523; Blythe v. Hinckley, 173 U. S. 501, 506; Huntington v. Laidley, 176 U. S. 668, 679. And see Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499; Van Wagenen v. Sewell, 160 U. S. 369, as necessity for certification of question.

The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was not in issue in the court below. The decision of the court did not rest upon the ground that the Circuit Court as a Federal court did not have

jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause; on the contrary, the court assumed jurisdiction in giving effect to the judgment of the state court in Amherst v. Ritch. The Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, 26 U. S. Stat. c. 826; Mex. Cent. Railway Co. v. Eckman, 187 U. S. 429; O'Niel v. United States, 190 U. S. 36; Blythe v. Hinckley, 173 U. S. 501; Bache v. Hunt, 193 U. S. 523; United States v. Rider, 163 U. S. 132; Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355; Blythe v. Blythe, 172 U. S. 644; Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U. S. 225; Huntington v. Laidley, 176 U. S. 668; Arkansas v. Schlierholz, 179 U. S. 598; Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 177; Cosmopolitan Mining Co. v. Walsh, 193 U. S. 460; Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359; Filhiol v. Torney, 194 U. S. 356; Barney v. New York, 193 U. S. 430; West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258. See Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499; Van Waggenen v. Sewell, 160 U. S. 369, as to necessity for certificate.

This suit is not one which involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States, within the meaning of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, authorizing the taking of appeals or writs of error in such cases from District or Circuit Courts of the United States direct to the Supreme Court. Cosmopolitan Mining Company v. Walsh, 193 U. S. 460; Treat Mfg. Co. v. Standard S. & I. Co., 157 U. S. 674; Sloan v. United States, 193 U. S. 614, 620; Lambert v. Barett, 157 U. S. 697; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103; Weber v. Rogan, 188 U. S. 10; Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S. 586; Carey v. Houston & Tex. Cent. R. R. Co., 150 U. S. 170; N. O. Water Works Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336; Forsyth v. Vehemeyer, 177 U. S. 177; Iowa Cent. R. R. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 389.

The mere assertion by plaintiffs of constitutional questions, or that they have been deprived of their property without due process of law, does not establish jurisdiction. Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U. S. 561, 576, and cases cited; Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336; St. Joseph & G. I. R. R.

195 U.S.

Argument for Appellees.

Co. v. Steele, 167 U. S. 659; West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 178 U. S. 239; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276.

The United States Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to set aside a will admitted to probate and establish another and a different will as a testamentary act. Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 439, 459; Fouvergne v. City of New Orleans, 18 How. 470; Langdon v. Goddard, 2 Story, 267; Wahl v. Franz, 100 Fed. Rep. 680; Tarver v. Tarver, 9 Peters, 174; Re Aspinwall Estate, 83 Fed. Rep. 851; Reed v. Reed, 31 Fed. Rep. 49; Copeland v. Bruning, 72 Fed. Rep. 5; In re Cilley, 58 Fed. Rep. 977; Oakley v. Taylor, 64. Fed. Rep. 245; In re Frazer, Fed. Cas. 5068, vol. 9; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485; Carrou v. O'Callagan, 125 Fed. Rep. 657; Richardson v. Green, 61 Fed. Rep. 423; Cilley v. Patton, 62 Fed. Rep. 498; Kirby v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 106 Fed. Rep. 551; Byers v. Macauley, 149 U. S. 608; In re Foley, 80 Fed. Rep. 949; The Hammburg, 119 U. S. 199.

If the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to probate a will is dependent upon the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the State of New York to grant such relief, such jurisdiction does not exist in the state courts. Anderson v. Anderson, 112 N. Y. 104; Delabarre v. McAlpin, 71 App. Div. 591; Post v. Mason, 91 N. Y. 539.

The right, title and interest of the appellants are res adjudicata in respect to the fund constituting the residuary estate, by virtue of the proceedings and decree in the suit of the trustees of Amherst College v. Ritch et al.

The decree in that case is an estoppel of record on the appellants to bring the present actions, and is conclusive not only as to the matters litigated, but also upon those which might have been litigated in that action. This concludes any question which might be raised by the appellants as to a will of 1878, or a will of 1880, or any testamentary papers of Fayerweather, other than the will and codicils of 1884, which were the subject of adjudication in that case.

That case was properly adjudicated. There is no lack of

Argument for Appellees.

195 U.S.

due process of law in the appellate courts supplying a finding not made by the trial court where the evidence warrants it and is submitted on bill and exceptions as was done. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $ 1022; Laws, 1894, ch. 688; Laws, 1895, ch. 946; First National Bank v. Chalmers, 144 N. Y. 432; Osborn v. Green, 161 N. Y. 353; Ogden v. Alexander, 140 N. Y. 356; Marvin v. Brewster Iron Co., 55 N. Y. 538, 547; Newman v. Frost, 52 N. Y. 422; Hays v. Miller, 70 N. Y. 112; Meyer v. Lathrop, 73 N. Y. 315, 321; Sheldon v. Sherman, 42 N. Y. 484, 489; Grant v. Morse, 22 N. Y. 323; Rider v. Powell, 28 N. Y. 310; Oberlander v. Spies, 45 N. Y. 175; Page v. Met. El. R., 10 Misc. 134; Milleneaux v. Terwilliger, 50 Hun, 526; Harding v. Elliott, 91 Hun, 502; Benedict v. Arnoux, 7 App. Div. 1; Ross v. Caywood, 16 App. Div. 591; Edson v. Bartow, 154 N. Y. 199. While the General Term could not reverse and render absolute judgment for appellant it can affirm on a case and exceptions upon facts not specifically stated in a general concise decision. Johnstone v. O'Connor, 21 App. Div. 77; aff'd 162 N. Y. 639; Keegan v. Smith, 60 App. Div. 168; Gardner v. N. Y. Mutual Sav. & L. Assn., 67 App. Div. 141; Multz v. Price, 91 App. Div. 116; Bomeisler v. Forster, 154 N. Y. 229, 236; People v. Barker, 152 N. Y. 431; Health Dept. v. Weeks, 22 App. Div. 110; Viele v. R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 184; Smith v. Coe, 29 N. Y. 666.

The Court of Appeals having declared that the General Term had jurisdiction to affirm a judgment upon the facts appearing in the evidence which had not been passed upon by the Court at Special Term, the Federal courts are conclusively bound by the law thus settled and announced. Sioux City T. B. W. Co. v. Trust Co. of N. A., 173 U. S. 99; M., K. & T. R. Co. v. McCann, 174 U. S. 580; Morley v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 162.

A general finding is as conclusive upon all matters of fact as the verdict of a jury. Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670; Lehnen v. Dickson, 48 U. S. 71; McDoyle v. McCormick, 121 Fed. Rep. 61; Hughes v. Livingston, 104 Fed. Rep. 306;