under protest, and where the recovery was for a less sum than $2,000. Mason v. Gamble, 21 How. 390.

3. Such a case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Ib.

Cases on Account of Deprivation of Rights of Citizens, or under the Constitution.

Fourth. Any final judgment at law or final decree in equity of any Circuit Court, or of any District Court acting as a Circuit Court, in any case brought on account of the deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.

9 April, 1866, c. 31, ss. 1, 3, v. 14, p. 27.

31 May, 1870, c. 114, ss. 16, 18, v. 16, p. 144. 20 April, 1871, c. 22, ss. 1, 2, v. 17, p. 13.

1. (Dec., 1872.) Where the Circuit Court of the United States proceeds to exercise jurisdiction, under the twenty-third section of the act of 31st May, 1870, entitled "An Act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in the several states of this Union, and for other purposes," an appeal will lie to this court from its final decree. Ex Ex parte Warmouth, 17 Wall. 64.

2. This court has no power to issue the writ of prohibition in such a cause until such appeal is taken. Ib.

Suits for Injuries by Conspirators against Civil Rights.

Fifth. Any final judgment of a Circuit Court, or of any District Court acting as a Circuit Court, in any civil action brought by any person, on account of injury to his person or property, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section nineteen hundred and eighty, Title "CIVIL RIGHTS."

9 April, 1866, c. 31, s. 10, v. 14, p. 29. 20 April, 1871, c. 22, s. 2, v. 17, p. 13.

Cases tried by the Circuit Court without the Intervention of

a Jury.

SEC. 700. When an issue of fact, in any civil cause in a Circuit Court, is tried and determined by the court without the intervention of a jury, according to section six hundred and forty-nine, the rulings of the court, in the progress of the trial of the cause, if excepted to at the time, and duly presented by a bill of exceptions, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court, upon a writ of error, or upon appeal; and when the finding is special, the review may extend to the determination of the sufficiency of the facts found to support the judgment. [See s. 649.]

24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 22, v. 1, p. 84. 3 March, 1803, c. 40, s. 2, v. 2, p. 244. 3 March, 1865, c. 86, s. 4, v.

13,

p.

501.

SECTION 700. TRIAL WITHOUT JURY. - DECISIONS 1-71.

1. (Jan., 1839.) A case cannot be brought by a writ of error from a Circuit Court of the United States, upon an agreed statement of fact. Keene v. Whittaker, 13 Pet. 459.

2. (Jan., 1844.) The distinction between writs of error and appeals cannot be overthrown by an agreement of counsel, in the court below, that all the evidence in the cause shall be introduced and considered as a statement of facts. Minor v. Tillotson, 2 How. 392.

3. (Dec., 1850.) The practice of bringing cases up to this court upon an agreed state of facts has been sanctioned, and is now pronounced to be correct. Simpson v. B. & S. Railroad Co., 10 How. 329.

4. (Dec., 1854.) Where a jury is waived, and questions of law and fact decided by the court, in Louisiana, the rules of the state appellate court require that the whole evidence should be put into the record. But where a case is brought up to this court by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for Louisiana, the rules of this court only require that so much of the evidence should be inserted as is

necessary to explain the legal questions decided by the court. Arthurs v. Hart, 17 How. 6.

5. Consequently, the mere fact that some of the evidence given below is omitted from the record is not of itself sufficient to prevent this court from examining the questions of law presented by the record. Ib.

6. The rule stated, according to which the appellate court should review the legal questions involved in the final judgment of the court below, which has decided both law and fact; and the mode pointed out by which counsel should separate the two classes of questions. Ib.

7. (Dec., 1855.) A statute passed by the State of Illinois on 3d March, 1845, permits matters both of fact and law to be tried by the court, if both parties agree. Graham v. Bayne,

18 How. 60.

8

Where a case was tried in the Circuit Court of the United States, in which both parties agreed that matters of and fact should be submitted to the court, and it was

law

brought to this court upon a bill of exceptions which contained all the evidence, this court will remand the case to the Circuit Court with directions to award a venire de novo.

9.

Ib.

A bill of exceptions must present questions of law. Where there is no dispute about the facts, counsel may agree case stated, in the nature of a special verdict. But to send the whole evidence up is not the same thing as agreeing upon the facts. Ib.

on a

10. Even if a special verdict be ambiguous or imperfect, if it find but the evidence of facts, and not the facts themselves, or find but parts of the facts in issue, and is silent as to others, it is a mis-trial, and the court of error must award a venire de novo. They can render no judgment on an imperfect verdict or case stated. Ib.

11. (Dec., 1855.)

Where a trial by jury is waived in the court below, and there is no special verdict or agreed statement of facts, or bill of exception upon a point of law, this

court cannot review the judgment of the court below. Guild v. Frontin, 18 How. 135.

12. But having jurisdiction of the cause, and no error appearing upon the face of the record, the judgment will be affirmed. Ib.

13. (Dec., 1857.) Where the judge files the statement of facts after the trial, nune pro tune, it is reasonable to presume that he had been requested to do so at the trial. McGavock v. Woodlief, 20 How. 221.

14. (Dec., 1857.) Where there is no dispute in regard to the facts, and consequently no necessity for any ruling of the court in admitting or rejecting evidence, the case may be brought before an appellate court by a special verdict or an agreed statement of facts. Suydam v. Williamson, 20 How. 428.

15. But in such a case the previous rulings of the court upon questions of evidence do not come before the appellate court, unless brought up by a bill of exceptions. Ib.

16. (Dec., 1858.) The agreement of parties cannot authorize this court to revise a judgment of an inferior court in any other mode of proceeding than that which the law prescribes; nor can the laws of a state, regulating the proceedings of its own courts, authorize a District or Circuit Court sitting in the state to depart from the modes of proceeding and rules prescribed by the acts of Congress. Kelsey v. Forsyth, 21 How. 85.

17. Therefore, where the parties to an ejectment suit agreed to waive a trial by jury, and that both matters of law and of fact should be submitted to the decision of the court, and then a bill of exceptions was brought up to this court to all the rulings and decisions of the court below, this court cannot look into errors of fact or errors of law alleged to have been committed in such an irregular proceeding; and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed. Ib.

18. (Dec., 1858.) This court has heretofore decided, in

several cases, that, in order to bring the questions of law before this court by writ of error, the facts must be found, in the court below, by a jury, by a general or special verdict, or must be agreed upon in a case stated. Campbell v. Boyreau, 21 How. 223.

19. And also, that where the parties agree that the court shall decide questions both of law and fact, none of the questions decided, either of fact or law, can be reviewed by this court on a writ of error. 1b.

20. The practice in Louisiana is an exception to this general rule, as that practice is sanctioned by the act of Congress which requires the courts of the United States to conform to the practice of the state courts. Ib.

21. (Dec., 1863.) Although this court will give judgment, on error, upon an agreed statement of facts or case stated, if it be signed by counsel and spread upon the record at large, as part thereof, yet it will not do so, except upon that which is professionally and properly known as a case stated; that is to say, upon a case which states facts simply, not one which presents, instead of facts, evidence from which facts may or may not be inferred. Burr v. Des Moines R. & N. Co., 1 Wall. 99.

22. ... Where counsel on both sides erroneously supposed that they had brought up a case stated, when, in fact, they brought up nothing but a mass of evidence, and where they erroneously supposed, also, that they would oban opinion and judgment of this court on the case as, by common consent, they presented it, the court benignantly dismissed it only; dismissed it only; so leaving the parties at liberty to put the case, if they could, by agreement below, in a shape where it could be here reviewed.

tain

sion was with costs.

an

Ib.

But the dismis

23. (Dec., 186.3.) This court cannot give judgment as on agreed statement of facts or case stated, except where

facts, and facts only, are stated. If there be question as to