14. (Jan., 1837.) On the trial of a cause in the Circuit Court of the district of Maine, upon certain questions which arose in the progress of the trial, the judges of the court were divided in opinion, and the questions were, at the request of the plaintiff, certified to the Supreme Court to January term, 1835. In December, 1836, the plaintiff filed in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court of Maine a notice to the defendant that he had discontinued the suit in the Circuit Court, and that as soon as the Supreme Court should meet at Washington the same disposition would be made of it there, and that the costs would be paid when made up. A copy of this notice was given to the counsel of the defendants. The plaintiff's counsel asked the court for leave to discontinue the cause, and the discontinuance was allowed. Veazie v. Wadleigh, 11 Pet. 55.

15. (Jan., 1838.) Where a case is certified from a Circuit. Court of the United States, the judges of the Circuit Court having differed in opinion upon questions of law which arose on the trial of the cause, the Supreme Court cannot be called upon to express an opinion on the whole facts of the case, instead of, upon particular points of law growing out of the Adams v. Jones, 12 Pet. 207.

same.

16. (Jan., 1838.) The intention of Congress in passing the act authorizing a division of opinion of the judges of the Circuit Courts of the United States to be certified to the Supreme Court was, that a division of the judges of the Circuit Court, upon à single and material point in the progress of the cause, should be certified to the Supreme Court for its opinion, and not the whole cause. Where a certificate of division brings up the whole cause, it would be, if the court should decide it, in effect, the exercise of original rather than appellate jurisdiction. White v. Turk, 12 Pet. 238.

17. The case of United States v. Bailey (9 Pet. 267) cited and approved. Ib.

18. (Jan., 1843.) Upon questions adjourned from the

District to the Circuit Court, under the "Act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States," the district judge cannot sit as a member of the Circuit Court, and, consequently, the points adjourned cannot be brought before this court by a certificate of division. Nelson v. Carland, 1 How. 265.

19. Nor will an appeal or writ of error lie from the deci sion of the Circuit Court, and it is conclusive upon the district judge. Ib.

20. (Jan., 1848.)

Where it is evident from the record that the whole case has been sent up to this court upon a certificate of division in opinion, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Nesmith v. Sheldon, 6 How. 41.

21. (Jan., 1819.) Although the motion under argument in the Circuit Court was addressed to its discretion, yet if the questions which arose, and upon which the judges differ, involved the right of the matter, this court will entertain those questions. United States v. City of Chicago, 7 How. 185.

22. So also where the questions are several in number, and so material as to decide the whole case, this court will not dismiss them, provided they appear to have arisen at one time, at one stage of the cause, and to have involved little beyond one point. Ib.

23. (Jan., 1849.) Where an appeal from a Circuit Court, sitting in chancery, is brought up to this court upon a certificate of division in opinion, and the certificate states that the court was not able to agree in opinion, one of the judges being of opinion that a decree should be rendered for the complainants, and the other that a decree should be rendered for the defendants, this was not such a distinct statement of the point or points upon which the judges differed as would give this court jurisdiction. Sadler v. Hoover, 7 How. 646.

24. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Ib.

25. (Jan., 1850.) The following question, sent up to this

court upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court, viz.: "Whether, according to the true construction of the Woodworth patent, as amended, the machines made or used by the defendant at the time of filing the bill, or either of them simply, do or do not infringe the said amended letters-patent?" is a question of fact over which this court has no jurisdiction. Wilson v. Barnum, 8 How. 258.

26. The jurisdiction given to it by statute, in certified cases, only extends to points of law. Ib.

27. (Jan., 1850.) When a cause is brought before this court, on a division in opinion by the judges of the Circuit Court, the points certified only are before it. The cause should remain on the docket of the Circuit Court, and at their discretion may be prosecuted. Kennedy v. Georgia State Bank, 8 How. 586.

28. (Dec., 1850.) Where it appears that the whole case has been certified pro forma, in order to take the opinion of this court, without any actual division of opinion in the Circuit Court, the practice is irregular, and the case must be remanded to the Circuit Court, to be proceeded in according to law. Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54.

29. The decision of this court in the case of Nesmith and Others v. Sheldon (6 How. 41) affirmed. Ib.

30. (Dec., 1855.) Where questions are certified up to this court, in consequence of a division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court, they must be questions of law and not questions of fact; not such as involve or imply conclusions of judgment by the judges upon the weight or effect of testimony or facts adduced in the cause. Dennistoun v. Stewart, 18 How. 565.

31. The questions must also be distinctly and particularly stated with reference to that part of the case upon which such questions shall have arisen. Ib.

32. The points stated must be single, and must not bring up the whole case for decision. Ib.

33. (Dec., 1855.) Where questions are certified up to this court, in consequence of a division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court, which questions involve the consequences of fraud by an agent of a company, and no facts are set forth showing the connection of the agent with the company, the questions are too general and abstract for this court to answer. The cause must therefore be dismissed. Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 18 How. 577. 34. (Dec., 1856.) Where a question was certified from the Circuit Court to this court, viz. whether a certain letter, written by the cashier of a bank, without the knowledge of the directory, though copied at the time of its date in the letterbook of the bank, was a legal and valid act of authority, and the record afforded no evidence relevant to the acts and authority of the cashier, or to the practice of the bank in ratifying or rejecting similar acts, this court cannot answer the question, and the case must be remanded to the Circuit Court, to be tried in the usual manner. United States v. City Bank, 19 How. 385.

35. (Dec., 1860.) The Circuit Court certified that they had divided in opinion upon a question whether a party had a right to proceed summarily on motion to vacate a decree in that court.

The question certified is merely one of practice to be governed by the rules prescribed by this court, and the established principles and usages of a Chancery Court. And even if a summary proceeding on motion might have been a legitimate mode of proceeding, yet the court, in its discretion, had a right to refuse, and to order a plenary proceeding by bill and answer. The exercise of such a discretionary power by the court below cannot be revised in this court upon appeal, or certificate of division, and this court therefore decline expressing any opinion on the question certified. Wiggins v. Gray, 24 How. 303.

36. (Dec., 1861.) In a case where the judges of the Cir

cuit Court have divided in opinion upon several questions, one of them being whether the court has jurisdiction, the question of jurisdiction must be determined before any opinion can be expressed on the others. Silliman v. H. R. Bridge Co., 1 Black, 582.

37. Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove an averment in the pleadings is a question of fact, and cannot, therefore, be brought into this court upon a certificate of division. Ib.

38. (Dec., 1862.) The power of the Supreme Court of the United States to revise the proceedings of a Circuit Court, in a case brought up on a certificate of division, is strictly confined to the questions stated in the certificate. Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430. 39. (Dec., 1864.) agree in parts of a

Where the circuit and district judge case, and dispose of them by decree finally, but are unable to agree as to others, and certify as to them a division of opinion, both parts of the case may be brought to the Supreme Court at once, and heard on the same record. Brobst v. Brobst, 2 Wall. 96.

40. (Dec., 1865.) Under the act of April 29, 1802 (s. 6), providing "that whenever any question shall occur before a Circuit Court, upon which the opinions of the judges shall be opposed, the point upon which the disagreement shall happen shall... be certified. . . to the Supreme Court, and shall by the said court be finally decided," — the court will not even by consent of parties take jurisdiction, unless the certificate of division present, in a precise form, a point of law, upon a part of the case, settled and stated. Hence, where the record stated certain facts, and with this statement presented the testimony of numerous witnesses, which was directed to the establishment of others, the whole case being, in fact, brought up with a purpose, apparently, that this court should decide both fact and law, and the question certified was, whether in point of law, upon the facts as stated