15. (Oct., 1877.) Where it can see that no harm resulted to the appellant, this court will not reverse a decree on account of an immaterial departure from the technical rules of proceeding. Allis v. Insurance Co., 7 Otto, 144. 16. (Oct., 1878.) Where it is apparent from the record that the challenge of a petit juror, if it had been made by the United States for favor, should have been sustained, the judgment against the prisoner will not be reversed, simply because the challenge was in form for cause. Reynolds v. United States, 8 Otto, 145. 17. (Oct., 1878.) Where some of the first-mortgage bondholders were permitted to intervene as parties to prosecute, for the protection of their several interests, an appeal from the decree for a sale of the property, and the appeal not having been made a supersedeas, the decree was executed, they cannot object to orders made prior to the decree, nor assign for error any part of it which is not injurious to their interests. Sage v. Central Railroad Co., 9 Otto, 335. 18. (Oct., 1878.) A judgment will not be reversed for error in excluding testimony which is cumulative only, if it is apparent that, if received, it would not affect the result. Cannon v. Pratt, 9 Otto, 619. 19. (Oct., 1878.) Where the charge to the jury, taken as a whole, fully and fairly submits the law of the case, the judgment will not be reversed because passages extracted therefrom and read apart from their connection need qualification. Evanston v. Gunn, 9 Otto, 660. 20. (Oct., 1879.) The admission of immaterial and irrelevant evidence, which it is manifest could not have affected injuriously the case of the plaintiff in error, does not entitle him to a reversal of the judgment. Mining Co. v. Taylor, 10 Otto, 37. 21. (Oct., 1879.) Where it appears that no injury resulted to the plaintiff in error, a judgment will not be reversed merely because the court, at the trial, permitted a witness, on his cross-examination, to be interrogated as to matters pertinent to the issue, but about which he had not testified in chief. Wills v. Russell, 10 Otto, 621. SECTION 701. MANDATE. DECISIONS 1-7. 1. (Jan., 1838.) When the Supreme Court have executed their power in a case before them, and their final decree or judgment requires some further act to be done, it cannot issue an execution, but will send a special mandate to the court below to award it. Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488. 2. After a mandate, no rehearing will be granted; and on a subsequent appeal, nothing is brought up but the proceeding subsequent to the mandate. lb. 3. (Jan., 1839.) The mandate issued by the Supreme Court, in a case decided by the court, is to be interpreted according to the subject-matter; and it is in no manner to cause injustice. Story v. Livingston, 13 Pet. 359. 4. (Jan., 1840.) The mandate of the Supreme Court, to the Circuit Court, must be its guide in executing the judg ment or decree on which it issued. The mandate is the judgment of the Supreme Court transmitted to the Circuit Court; and where the direction contained in it is precise and unambiguous, it is the duty of the Circuit Court to carry it into execution, and not to look elsewhere for authority to change its meaning. But when the Circuit Court are referred to testimony to ascertain the amount to be decreed, and are authorized to take more evidence on the point, it may sometimes happen that there will be some uncertainty and ambiguity in the mandate; and in such a case the court below have unquestionably the right to resort to the opinion of the Supreme Court, delivered at the time of the decree, in order to assist them in expounding it. West v. Brashear, 14 Pet. 51. 5. (Jan., 1841.) To ascertain the true intention of the decree and mandate of this court, the decree of the court below and of this court must be taken into consideration. Mitchel v. United States, 15 Pet. 52. 6. (Jan., 1844.) Upon Upon a petition so to alter a former mandate of this court as to direct lands in Florida, which had not been offered for sale under the President's proclamation, to be included within a survey, as well as those lands which had been so offered, Held, that this court has no power to grant the relief prayed. Ex parte Sibbald, 2 How. 455. - 7. (Dec., 1857.) A plea to the jurisdiction comes too late after a mandate has gone down from this court to the court below. Whyte v. Gibbes, 20 How. 541. Writs of Error and Appeals from Territorial Courts. SEC. 702. The final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of any territory, except the Territory of Washington, in cases where the value of the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, to be ascertained by the oath of either party, or of other competent witnesses, exceeds one thousand dollars, may be reviewed and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court, upon writ of error or appeal, in the same manner and under the same regulations as the final judgments and decrees of a Circuit Court. In the Territory of Washing on the value of the matter in dispute must exceed two thousand dollars, exclusive of costs. And any final judgment or decree of the Supreme Court of said territory in any cause [when] the Constitution or a statute or treaty of the United States is brought in question may be reviewed in like manner. [See ss. 1909, 1911.] 7 April, 1874, c. 80, v. 18, p. 27. 26 June, 1876, c. 147, v. 19, p. 62. 27 Feb., 1877, c. 169, v. 19, p. 241. Utah, 9 Sept., 1850, c. 51, s. 9, v. 9, p. 455. New Mexico, 9 Sept., 1850, c. 49, s. 10, v. 9. p. 449. Arizona, 24 Feb., 1863, c. 56, s. 2, v. 12, p. 665. 12, p. 811. 13, p. 88. Wyoming, 25 July, 1868, c. 235, s. 9, v. 15, p. 180. SECTION 702. WRITS OF ERROR AND APPEALS FROM TERRITORIAL COURTS. DECISIONS 1-24. 1. (Feb., 1808.) An appeal lies from the District Court of the United States for the Territory of Orleans to this court. Morgan v. Callender, 4 Cranch, 269. 2. (Jan., 1833.) A mandamus was issued by the Superior Court of Appeals of the Eastern Middle District of Florida, directed to the register and receiver of the Western land. district of Florida, commanding them to permit the entry and purchase of certain lands. From this proceeding the register and receiver appealed to this court. The appeal was dismissed; the proceeding at mandamus being at common law, and therefore the removal to this court should have been by writ of error. Ward & Call v. Gregory, 7 Pet. 633. 3. (Jan., 1842.) The acts of Congress, relating to judicial proceedings in the Territory of Florida, give the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, in cases of equity, of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and prize or no prize; but cases at law are to be brought up by writ of error, as provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789. It has always been held that a case at law cannot, under the act of 1803, be brought to the Supreme Court by appeal. Parish v. Ellis, 16 Pet. 451. 4. (Jan., 1847.) Under the acts of 1789 and 1792, the clerk of the Circuit Court where the judgment was rendered may issue a writ of error, and a judge of that court may sign the citation and approve the bond. Sheppard v. Wilson, 5 How. 210. 5. The act of 1838, providing that writs of error and appeals from the final decision of the Supreme Court of the territory shall be allowed in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States, gives to the clerk of the territorial court the power to issue the writ of error, and to a judge of that court the power to sign the citation and approve the bond. Ib. 6. Where a writ of error was allowed, the citation signed, and the bond approved by the chief justice of the territorial court of Iowa, it was a sufficient compliance with the statutes. of the United States. Ib. 7. (Jan., 1850.) The act of May 31, 1844 (5 Stat. at Large, 658), gives jurisdiction to this court in revenue cases, without regard to amount, only where the judgment is rendered in a Circuit Court of the United States. Therefore, where the case was brought from the Court of Appeals for the Territory of Florida, and the amount in controversy did not exceed $1,000, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. United States v. Carr, 8 How. 1. 8. (Dec., 1851.) The treaty of 1819, between the United States and Spain, contains the following stipulation, viz. : "The United States shall cause satisfaction to be made for the injuries, if any, which by process of law shall be established to have been suffered by the Spanish officers and individual Spanish inhabitants by the late operations of the American army in Florida.” Congress, by two acts, passed in 1823 and 1834 (3 Stat. at Large, 768, and 6 Stat. at Large, 569), directed the judge of the territorial court of Florida to receive, examine, and adjudge all cases of claims for losses, and report his decisions, if in favor of the claimants, together with the evidence upon which they were founded, to the Secretary of the Treasury, who, on being satisfied that the same was just and equitable, within the provisions of the treaty, should pay the amount thereof; and by an act of 1849 (9 Stat. at Large, 788), Congress directed the judge of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida to receive and |