lies, under section 709 of the Revised Statutes, to the inferior court, and not to the highest one. Gregory v. Me Veigh, 23 Wall. 294.

331. A federal question exists when — in a suit by a person who seeks to recover property, on the ground that a judgment and execution on it, by a court of the United States, interpreting a statute of the United States, has deprived him of the property, in violation of the first principles of law - the defendant sets up a title under that judgment and execution, and the decision is against the title so set up. Ib.

332. (Oct., 1874.) Where a complainant, alleging himself to be a bona fide purchaser, and setting out a case in the highest state court for equitable relief against a sale to other parties, which an owner of land had undertaken to make, alleged that the party in making such second sale had violated an act of Congress, which made such sale void, and that the purchaser knew this; and alleged also that the sale was made through fraud and imposition on the vendor, with a prayer that the purchaser at such second sale might be held a trustee for the complainant, if, in such case, the court, holding that there was no fraud and no trust proved, dismiss the bill in consequence of that want of proof, and, consequently, for want of equitable jurisdiction, the fact that it says, "The most that can be said is that the transaction was in violation of an act of Congress; but that would not give a Court of Chancery jurisdiction to hold the second purchaser a trustee, and make him accountable as such," does not show that there has been drawn in question the construction of a statute of the United States, and that the decision has been against the title or right set up or claimed by the complainant, under such statute. The case rested on the fact of a trust proved, and on the extent of the state court's equitable jurisdiction, matters not the subject of review under section 709 of the Revised Statutes, the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The case, which was between the same persons

as those mentioned in Smith v. Adsit (16 Wall. 185), held to be distinguishable from that one. Smith v. Adsit, 23 Wall. 368.

333. (Oct., 1874.) Where, in a suit pending before it, a state court dissolves an injunction (previously granted by it, on an allegation by the mortgagor that the mortgagee had agreed to give him further time) against proceeding to sell mortgaged premises under a foreclosure already had, and after such dissolution the effect of which is, of course, to leave in force a final decree of sale- an alien defendant petitions for a removal into the Circuit Court, under the act of July 27, 1866, "for the removal of causes in certain cases from state courts," and the state court refuses to grant that petition, the defendant not excepting, and the case is afterwards taken to the Supreme Court, on an appeal from the decree dissolving the injunction, no jurisdiction exists here to review the judgment of the Supreme Court [of the state], under section 709 of the Revised Statutes, and on the ground that a right, title, privilege, or immunity has been claimed. under a statute of the United States, and that a decision of the highest court of the state, where a decision could be had, has been against it. The refusal of the state court to grant a removal, under the act of Congress, not having been excepted to, and that matter not having been involved in what was before the Supreme Court [of the state], its judgment cannot be held to have embraced it, nor indeed anything but the matter of the dissolution of the injunction, a matter which involved no federal question. Fashnacht v. Frank, 23 Wall 410.

234. (Oct., 1875.) The judgment of the Supreme Court of a state reversing that of a Court of Common Pleas, and remanding the cause for "further proceedings according to law, is not final; nor can the judgment subsequently rendered by the inferior court be re-examined here. Me Comb v. Knox County, 1 Otto, 1.

335. (Oct., 1875.) This court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of a state court against a right and a title under a statute of the United States, unless such right and title be specially set up and claimed by the party for himself, and not for a third person under whom he does not claim. Long v. Converse, 1 Otto, 105.

336. So far as it relates to the above point, section 709 of the Revised Statutes, which authorizes this court in certain cases to re-examine, upon a writ of error, the judgment or decree of a state court, does not differ from the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Ib.

337. Former decisions of this court upon said twenty-fifth section cited and examined. Ib.

338. (Oct., 1875.) Where the Supreme Court of California reversed the judgment of an inferior court, and directed a modification thereof as to the amount of damages, but without permitting further proceedings below, if the defendants consented to the modification and the record shows that such consent was given, Held, that the judg ment of the Supreme Court [of the state] is final within the meaning of the act of Congress, and that the writ of error was properly directed to that court. Atherton v. Fowler, 1 Otto, 143.

339. As the appellate jurisdiction of this court over the state courts is confined to a re-examination of the final judg ment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a state in which the decision of a suit could be had, the writ of error sued out here should be sent only to such court; unless the latter, after pronouncing a judgment, sends its record and judgment, in accordance with the laws and practice of the state, to the inferior court, where they thereafter remain. In such case the writ may be sent, either directly to the latter court, or to the highest court, in order that through its instrumentality the record may be obtained from the inferior court having it in custody or under control. Ib.

340. (Oct., 1875.) Where, in a state court, both parties to a suit for the recovery of the possession of lands claimed under a common grantor, whose title under the United States was admitted, and where the controversy extended only to the rights which they had severally acquired under it, Held, that, as no federal question arose, this court has no jurisdiction. Romie v. Casanova, 1 Otto, 379.

341. (Oct., 1875.) This court has no jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment of a state court where a federal question was not in fact passed upon, and where a decision of it was rendered unnecessary, in the view which the court below took of the case. McManus v. O'Sullivan, 1 Otto, 578.

342. (Oct., 1875.) This court has no jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment or decree of a state court, unless it appears from the record that a federal question presented to that court was in fact decided, or that the decision was necessarily involved in the judgment or decree as rendered. Bolling v. Lersner, 1 Otto, 594.

343. (Oct., 1875.) The petition for the allowance of a writ of error forms no part of the record of the court below; and this court has no jurisdiction to determine a federal question presented in such petition, but not disclosed by the record sent here from the state court. Warfield v. Chaffee, 1 Otto, 690.

344. (Oct., 1875.) The question whether, under the Bankrupt Act, the District Court had authority to make the order, and the decision of the highest state court adverse to that authority, are sufficient to sustain the federal jurisdiction. O'Brien v. Weld, 2 Otto, 81.

345. (Oct., 1875.) Where suit was commenced, Nov. 16, 1868, for rent claimed to be due up to Aug. 8, 1865, and where, throughout the whole intervening time, the district within which the cause of action, if any arose, was under the control of the federal authorities, and the defendant could be served there with process, Held, that the decision of the

Supreme Court of the state, that the suit was barred by the Statute of Limitations, is not subject to re-examination here. Harrison v. Myer, 2 Otto, 111.

346. (Oct., 1875.). This court has no jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment of a state court in a case where the pleadings and the instructions asked for and refused present questions as to the effect, under the general public law, of a sectional civil war, upon the contract which was the subject of the suit; and when it was not contended that that law, as applicable to the case, had been modified or suspended by the Constitution, laws, treaties, or executive proclamations of the United States. N. Y. L. Insurance Co. v. Hendren, 2

Otto, 286.

347. (Oct., 1875.) The decision of the highest state court. in which such decision could be had, adverse to a right under an act of Congress, set up in a chancery suit, or in any other case, where all the evidence becomes a part of the record in that court, the same record being brought here, can be re-examined upon the law and the facts as far as may be necessary to determine the validity of that right. In a common-law action, where the facts are passed upon by a jury, or by a state court, or by a referee to whom they have been submitted by waiving a jury, where the finding.is by the state law conclusive, this court has the same inability to review those facts as it has in a case coming from a Circuit Court of the United States. Bridge Co. v. K. P. Railroad Co., 2 Otto, 315.

348. (Oct., 1875.) To give this court jurisdiction over the judgment of a state court, it must appear that the decision of a federal question presented to that court was necessary to the determination of the cause, and that it was actually decided; or that, without deciding it, the judgment as rendered could not have been given. Brown v. Atwell, 2 Otto, 327.

349. (Oct., 1875.) Where, in ejectment for a part of the