against the United States, which appears on its face to have been rendered "pro forma for the purpose of an appeal to the supreme court," for less than the required amount, where the irregularity has been objected to by the government and the opinion shows that the judgment was against the unanimous opinion of the judges, and that they will not consider it a precedent for a like decision in any other case, although the decision would affect a class of cases, and the question involved is novel. Furthermore, the only judgments of the court of claims against the government, over which the supreme court has jurisdiction on appeal, are those for money found due from the government to the petitioner. But although under

rules regulating appeals from the court of claims the evidence is not to be brought up,8 yet it has been decided that when the court of claims sends to the supreme court as part of its finding of fact on any particular point all the evidence on which that fact was found, and it there appears that there was no legal evidence to support it, the supreme court must reverse the judgment if the fact so found is essential thereto.9

Appeals from Territorial Courts.

106. In General.-The act of Congress known as the Territorial Practice Act, providing for appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court of the United States over territorial courts (Act of April 7, 1874, c. 80; 6 Fed. St. Ann. 2d ed. 153), has no application to the Philippine Islands. 10 Review under this section must be exercised by writ of error in case of trial by jury 11 and in all other cases by appeal.12 The judgment must also be a final one.18 The statement of facts contemplated by the statute which is required to be certified is one to be made by the supreme court of the territory from whose judgment the appeal is taken, although findings of fact of the trial court when adopted by the territorial supreme court may serve

12. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610, 25 U. S. (L. ed.) 421; United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 105 U. S. 263, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 1021; Story v. Black, 119 U. S. 235, 7 S. Ct. 176, 30 U. S. (L. ed.) 341; Idaho, etc., Land Imp. Co. v. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 509, 10 S. Ct. 177, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 433; Gregory Consol. Min. Co. v. Starr, 141 U. S. 222, 11 S. Ct. 914, 35 U. S. (L. ed.) 715; Cameron v. United States, 148 U. S. 301, 13 S. Ct. 595, 37 U. S. (L. ed.) 459.

13. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 12 S. Ct. 118, 35 U. S. (L. ed.) 893.

the purpose.14 If the judgment of the trial court is reversed by the supreme court of the territory because the evidence does not sustain the findings, other findings must then be made before the case can be put into condition for hearing in the supreme court of the United States.15 And on an appeal from the supreme court of a territory the United States supreme court cannot review conflicting evidence; its authority being limited to the question whether the facts found support the judgment,16 and to reviewing errors in the admission or rejection of testimony when exceptions have been duly taken to the action of the court in that particular.17 And in the absence of

14. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610, 25 U. S. (L. ed.) 421; Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619, 25 U. S. (L. ed.) 446; Davis v. Fredericks, 104 U. S. 618, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 849; Haws v. Victoria Copper Min. Co., 160 U. S. 303, 16 S. Ct. 282, 42 U. S. (L. ed.) 436; Apache County v. Barth, 177 U. S. 538, 20 S. Ct. 718, 44 U. S. (L. ed.) 878; Montezuma Canal Co. v. Smithville Canal Co., 218 U. S. 371, 31 S. Ct. 67, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 1074; Eagle Min., etc., Co. v. Hamilton, 218 U. S. 513, 31 S. Ct. 27, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 1131.

15. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610, 25 U. S. (L. ed.) 421. See Gray v. Howe, 108 U. S. 12, 1 S. Ct. 136, 27 U. S. (L. ed.) 634.

18 S. Ct. 135, 42 U. S. (L. ed.) 484; Holloway v. Dunham, 170 U. S. 615, 18 S. Ct. 784, 42 U. S. (L. ed.) 1165; Young v. Amy, 171 U. S. 179, 18 S. Ct. 802, 43 U. S. (L. ed.) 27; Naeglin v. De Cordoba, 171 U. S. 638, 19 S. Ct. 35, 43 U. S. (L. ed.) 315; Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 162, 20 S. Ct. 58, 44 U. S. (L. ed.) 115; Apache County v. Barth, 177 U. S. 538, 20 S. Ct. 718, 44 U. S. (L. ed.) 878; Thompson v. Ferry, 180 U. S. 484, 21 S. Ct. 453, 45 U. S. (L. ed.) 633; De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U. S. 303, 26 S. Ct. 485, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 765; Crowe v. Trickey, 204 U. S. 228, 27 S. Ct. 275, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 454; Shawnee Compress Co. v. Anderson, 209 U. S. 423, 28 S. Ct. 572, 52 U. S. (L. ed.) 865; Eagle Min., etc., Co. v. Hamilton, 218 U. S. 513, 31 S. Ct. 27, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 1131; Citizens Nat. Bank v. Davisson, 229 U. S. 212, 33 S. Ct. 625, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 1153, Ann. Cas. 1915A 272.

16. Neslin v. Wells, 104 U. S. 428, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 802; Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 1018; Eilers v. Boatman, 111 U. S. 356, 4 S. Ct. 432, 28 U. S. (L. ed.) 454; Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617, 8 S. Ct. 261, 31 U. S. (L. ed.) 277; Idaho, etc., Imp. Co. v. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 509, 10 S. Ct. 177, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 433; The Tacoma, 144 U. S. 371, 12 S. Ct. 711, 36 U. S. (L. ed.) 469; San Pedro, etc., Co. v. United States, 146 U. S. 120, 13 S. Ct. 94, 36 U. S. (L. ed.) 911; Mammoth Min. Co. v. Salt Lake Foundry, etc., Co., 151 U. S. 447, 14 S. Ct. 384, 38 U. S. (L. ed.) 229; Haws v. Victoria Copper Min. Co., 160 U. S. 303, 16 S. Ct. 282, 40 U. S. (L. ed.) 436; Salina Stock Co. v. Salina Creek Irrigation Co., 163 U. S. 109, 16 S. Ct. 1036, 41 U. S. (L. ed.) 90; Grayson v. Lynch, 163 U. S. 468, 16 S. Ct. 1064, 41 U. S. (L ed) 230; Karrick v. Hannaman, 168 U. S. 328. L. ed.) 1131.

17. San Pedro, etc., Co. v. United States, 146 U. S. 120, 13 S. Ct. 94, 36 U. S. (L. ed.) 912; Salina Stock Co. v. Salina Creek Irrigation Co., 163 U. S. 109, 16 S. Ct. 1036, 41 U. S. (L. ed.) 90; Grayson v. Lynch, 163 U. S. 468, 16 S. Ct. 1064, 41 U. S. (L. ed.) 230; Young v. Amy, 171 U. S. 179, 18 S. Ct. 802, 43 U. S. (L. ed.) 127; Apache County v. Barth, 177 U. S. 538, 20 S. Ct. 718, 44 U. S. (L. ed.) 878; De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U. S. 303, 26 S. Ct. 485, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 765; Crowe v. Trickey, 204 U. S. 228, 27 S. Ct. 275, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 454; Eagle Min. etc., Co. v. Hamilton, 218 U. S. 513, 31 S. Ct. 27, 54 U. S.

any findings by the supreme court of a territory, and of anything in the nature of a bill of exceptions, there is nothing on which to base a reversal of the judgment in the case on appeal to the supreme court of the United States, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed. 18 Under this provision the supreme court has jurisdiction to review a judgment of the supreme court of a territory in which is drawn in question the authority of the territory under its organic act to extend its taxing power over a reservation created by act of Congress, within its limits.19

107. Effect of Admission of Territory to Statehood.-Where a judgment has been rendered by the supreme court of a territory, and the record after the admission of the territory as a state has been certified by the supreme court of the state, the United States supreme court may take jurisdiction by writ of error if the subject matter is properly within its jurisdiction.20 But where a petition for the rehearing of a cause was pending in the supreme court of a territory at the time of its admission as a state into the Union, which was thereby transferred to the supreme court of the state, the supreme court of the United States has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the state court where no federal question was involved.1

108. District Court for Alaska.-Appeals direct to the supreme court are in certain cases allowed by the Judicial Code from judgments and decrees of the district court for the district of Alaska (Judicial Code, § 247; 5 Fed. St. Ann. 2d ed. 905). This jurisdiction, however, to review because of a constitutional question exists only when such question is actually raised in the trial court, and in general is confined to the cases or instances specified in the provision. The judgment must also be a final one.3

109. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.-Jurisdiction. to review by writ of error or appeal in certain enumerated cases final judgments or decrees of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia is conferred by the Judicial Code. (Judicial Code, § 250; 5 Fed. St. Ann. 2d ed. 913). Under this provision the judgment or decree must in order to give the appellate jurisdiction be a final

18. Armijo v. Armijo, 181 U. S. 558, 21 S. Ct. 707, 45 U. S. (L. ed.) 1000.

19. Maricopa, etc., R. Co. v. Arizona, 156 U. S. 347, 15 S. Ct. 391, 39 U. S. (L. ed.) 447.

20. Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437, 13 U. S. (L. ed.) 761.

1. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Holmes, 155 U. S. 137, 15 S. Ct. 28, 39 U. S. (L. ed.) 99; Van Dyke v. Cordova

Copper Co., 234 U. S. 188, 34 S. Ct. 884, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 1273.

2. Itow v. United States, 233 U. S. 581, 34 S. Ct. 699, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 1102.

3. See Pacific Steam Whaling Co. v. United States, 187 U. S. 447, 23 S. Ct. 154, 47 U. S. (L. ed.) 253; Pacifie Coast Steamship Co. v. United States, 187 U. S. 454, 23 S. Ct. 157, 47 U. S. (L. ed.) 256.

one. So judgment of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, affirming the decision of the commissioner of patents and directing that its own decision be certified to the commissioner, as required by law, is not final for the purpose of a writ of error from the federal supreme court. The term "any law of the United States," referred to in this provision, embraces only laws of the United States of general operation and does not include acts of Congress which are local in their application to the District of Columbia. The duty therefore arises in each case where the right to appeal is invoked to ascertain whether the case substantially involves the construction of a law in the appealable sense. The supreme court may also refuse to exercise its jurisdiction where the ground of appeal is frivolous and without merit, or is a mere pretext put forward in order to open other questions that otherwise could not be taken to the supreme court. This power to review does not extend to criminal cases.10 In some cases, however, power is given by the Judicial Code to require by "certiorari or otherwise" a case to be certified to the supreme court for its review and determination. (Judicial Code, § 251; 5 Fed. St. Ann. 2d ed. 917.) The jurisdiction thus conferred has been exercised in several instances,11 as where there were involved the serious and important questions of the validity. as well as the interpretation and effect of an act of Congress conferring on justices of the peace in the District of Columbia jurisdiction in civil

4. See Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 13 S. Ct. 582, 37 U. S. (L. ed.) 438.

5. Frasch v. Moore, 211 U. S. 1, 29 S. Ct. 6, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 65; Johnson v. Mueser, 212 U. S. 283, 29 S. Ct. 390, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 514; Atkins v. Moore, 212 U. S. 285, 29 S. Ct. 390, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 515.

6. American Security, etc., Co. v. District of Columbia, 224 U. S. 491, 32 S. Ct. 553, 56 U. S. (L. ed.) 856; McGowan v. Parish, 228 U. S. 312, 33 S. Ct. 521, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 849; District of Columbia v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 232 U. S. 716, 34 S. Ct. 331, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 812; Washington, etc., R. Co, v. Downey, 236 U. S. 190, 35 S. Ct. 406, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 533; United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Product Co., 238 U. S. 140, 35 S. Ct. 828, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 1238.

7. McGowan v. Parish, 228 U. S. 312, 33 S. Ct. 521, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 849.

598, 34 S. Ct. 449, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 748; United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Product Co., 238 U. S. 140, 35 S. Ct. 828, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 1238.

9. United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Product Co., 238 U. S. 140, 35 S. Ct. 828, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 1238.

10. Chapman v. United States, 164 U. S. 436, 17 S. Ct. 76, 41 U. S. (L. ed.) 504; Sinclair v. District of Columbia, 192 U. S. 16, 24 S. Ct. 212, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 322; Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, 34 S. Ct. 693, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 1115, Ann. Cas. 1915D 1044; United States v. Ewing, 237 U. S. 197, 35 S. Ct. 571, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 913. See also Cross v. United States, 145 U. S. 571, 12 S. Ct. 842, 36 U. S. (L. ed.) 821; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 13 S. Ct. 22, 36 U. S. (L. ed.) 896.

11. See Roberts v. United States, 176 U. S. 221, 20 S. Ct. 376, 44 U. S. (L. ed.) 443; Crozier v. Fried Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, 224 U. S. 290, 32 8. United States v. Lane. 232 U. S. S. Ct. 488, 56 U. S. (L. ed.) 771.

13

actions,12 and the sufficiency of the publication of notice of condemnation proceedings, under a statute requiring notice of publication; also in the case of a judgment reversing the judgment of the supreme court of the district directing the entry of a judgment of fine or imprisonment in proceedings for the punishment of criminal contempts,14 and in the case of a judgment affirming a conviction of murder,15 or affirming a judgment sustaining a demurrer to quash an indictment because not returned within the time required,16 or affirming a conviction in the supreme court of the District of Columbia of conspiring to defraud the United States.17

110. Hawaii and Porto Rico.-The Judicial Code permits writs of error and appeals from the final judgments and decrees of the supreme courts of the territories of Hawaii and Porto Rico under the same conditions as they may be taken from the judgments and decrees of the highest court of a state. (Judicial Code, § 246; 5 Fed. St. Ann. 2d ed. 900.) 18 The issuance of the writ of certiorari by the supreme court of the United States to such territorial courts is also authorized in certain cases by the same section, and the jurisdiction of the supreme court in such cases is to be measured by its power to review judgments of state courts. 19 It can be invoked only by a party having a personal interest in the litigation,20 and can be exercised only where a real and substantive federal question is involved,1 and in the case of final judgments or decrees. And the

12. Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1, 19 S. Ct. 580, 43 U. S. (L. ed.) 873.

13. Neuman v. Lynchburg Invest. Corp., 236 U. S. 692, 35 S. Ct. 477, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 792.

14. Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, 34 S. Ct. 693, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 1115, Ann. Cas. 1915D 1044.

15. Johnson v. United States, 225 U. S. 405, 32 S. Ct. 837, 56 U. S. (L. ed.)

1142.

16. United States v. Cadarr, 197 U. S. 475, 25 S. Ct. 487, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 842, 3 Ann. Cas. 1057.

17. Hyde v. United States, 225 U. S. 347, 32 S. Ct. 793, 56 U. S. (L. ed.) 1114, Ann. Cas. 1914A 614.

18. See Spreckels v. Brown, 212 U. S. 208, 29 S. Ct. 256, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 476; Herbert v. Bicknell, 233 U. S. 70, 34 S. Ct. 562, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 854; Hapai v. Brown, 239 U. S. 502, 36 S. Ct. 201, 60 U. S. (L. ed.) 407.

47 U. S. (L. ed.) 190; Cotton v. Hawaii, 211 U. S. 162, 29 S. Ct. 85, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 131; Toyota v. Hawaii, 226 U. S. 184, 33 S. Ct. 47, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 180.

20. McCandless v. Pratt, 211 U. S. 437, 29 S. Ct. 144, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 271.

1. Equitable L. Assur. Soc. V. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 23 S. Ct. 123, 47 U. S. (L. ed.) 190; Paraiso v. United States, 207 U. S. 368, 28 S. Ct. 127, 52 U. S. (L. ed.) 249; Notley v. Brown, 208 U. S. 429, 28 S. Ct. 385, 52 U. S. (L. ed.) 559; Honolulu Rapid Transit, etc., Co. v. Wilder, 211 U. S. 144, 29 S. Ct. 46, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 124; Toyota v. Hawaii, 226 U. S. 184, 33 S. Ct. 47, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 180 and note; Kalanianaole v. Smithies, 226 U. S. 462, 33 S. Ct. 169, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 303.

2. Cotton v. Hawaii, 211 U. S. 162, 29 S. Ct. 85, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 131; Hutchins v. Pierce, 211 U. S. 429, 29 123, S. Ct. 122, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 267.

19. Equitable L. Assur. Soc. V. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 23 S. Ct.