75. (Oct., 1874.) When, under the act of March 3, 1865, authorizing the parties to submit their case to the court for trial, without the intervention of a jury, there have been no exceptions to rulings in the course of the trial, and the court has found the facts specially, and given judgment on them, the only question which this court can pass upon is the sufficiency of the facts found to support the judgment. Any propositions of law stated by the court as having been held by it, in entering its judgment, are not open to exception. Jennisons v. Leonard, 21 Wall. 302.

76. (Oct., 1874.) Nor, unless the bill of exceptions show what revenue stamp was on the bonds, will this court, on an objection which assumes that one of a certain value was on them, decide whether a sufficient one was or was not there. Chambers County v. Clews, 21 Wall. 317.

77. (Oct., 1875.) Where the court below rendered judgment upon a finding, and at the next term, in the absence of any special circumstances in the case, and without the consent of parties, or any previous order on the subject, allowed and signed a bill of exceptions, and directed it to be filed as of the date of the trial, Held, that the bill, although returned with the record, cannot be considered here as a part thereof: Muller v. Ehlers, 1 Otto, 249.

78. (Oct., 1876.) If one of a series of propositions presented to a court, as one request for a charge to the jury, is unsound, an exception to a refusal to charge the entire series cannot be maintained. Beaver v. Taylor, 3 Otto, 46.

79. An exception to the entire charge of the court, or, in gross, to a series of propositions therein contained, cannot be sustained, if any portion thus excepted to is sound. Ib.

80. An exception to such portions of a charge as are variant from the requests made by a party, not pointing out the variances, cannot be sustained. Ib.

81. (Oct., 1876.) This court can only review so much of the instructions of the court below as was made the subject

of an exception. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 3 Otto, 393.

82. (Oct., 1876.) Writs of error from this court to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia are governed by the same rules and regulations as are those to the Circuit Courts. When, therefore, the record shows that an exception was taken and reserved at the trial, it is not necessary that the bill of exceptions be drawn out in form, and signed or sealed by the judge, before the jury retires; but it may be so signed or sealed at a later period; and, when filed nunc pro tune, brings the case within the settled practice of courts of error. Stanton v. Embrey, 3 Otto, 548.

83. (Oct., 1876.) Alleged errors, not presented by a bill of exceptions, nor otherwise apparent on the face of the record, are not the proper subjects of re-examination by an appellate tribunal. Storm v. United States, 4 Otto, 76.

84. (Oct., 1876.) A bill of exceptions cannot be taken on the trial of a feigned issue directed by a court of equity; or, if taken, can only be used on a motion for a new trial made to that court. Johnson v. Harmon, 4 Otto, 371.

85. (Oct., 1877.) This court must have before it a bill of exceptions, or what is equivalent thereto, upon which the final judgment of the court below was reviewed, or it will not examine into any alleged errors, except such as are otherwise apparent on the face of the record. Kerr v. Clampitt, 5 Otto, 188.

86. (Oct., 1877.) The court condemns as irregular, proceedings whereby the defendant, in two separate suits, in the former of which judgment had been rendered before the latter had gone to trial, was permitted to file bills of exception purporting to be applicable to each case, and, without consolidating them, remove them to this court by one writ of error. Brown v. Spofford, 5 Otto, 474.

87. (Oct., 1877.) A paper incorporated in the record, and certified to be a part thereof by the court below, if it has all

the requisites of a bill of exceptions, will be considered here as such, although it be otherwise entitled. Herbert v. Butler, 7 Otto, 319.

83. (Oct., 1878.) Exceptions to the charge of the court which are in general terms, and do not clearly and specifically point out the objectionable part of it, cannot be sustained as a ground for reversing the judgment. Railroad Co. v. Varnell, 8 Otto, 479.

89. (Oct., 1879.) Where a party moving for a new trial assigns as reasons therefor that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, and that the court erred in giving certain instructions and refusing others, Held, that, as he did not at the time except to the ruling of the court in regard to the instructions, they cannot be reviewed by the appellate court, although they were incorporated in the bill of exceptions allowed on the refusal of the court of original jurisdiction to grant a new trial. Railway Co. v. Twombly, 10 Otto, 78.

90. The Supreme Court of the Territory of Colorado, therefore, properly held that such a bill of exceptions only presented for review the refusal of the District Court, on the motion for a new trial, to set aside the verdict on the ground that it was not sustained by the evidence. Such a question cannot be re-examined here on a writ of error.

Ib.

91. (Oct., 1879.) When error is assigned upon the instructions given and those refused, the bill of exceptions must set forth so much of the evidence as tends to prove the facts, out of which the question is raised, to which the instructions apply. Worthington v. Mason, 11 Otto, 149.

92. Where, therefore, the bill of exceptions embodies only the instructions given and those refused, this court will not reverse the judgment. Ib.

93. (Oct., 1879.) Harmon v. Johnson (94 U. S. 371) reaffirmed. Watt v. Starke, 11 Otto, 247.

94. (Oct., 1879.) Where the bill of exceptions does not show what answer was made to a question put to a witness,

error cannot be assigned upon the question. Lovell v. Davis, 11 Otto, 541.

95. (Oct., 1880.) Exceptions reserved at the trial of the cause may, within such time thereafter during the term as the judge shall deem reasonable, be reduced to form and presented to him for signature, and they are not waived by suing out a writ of error before his signature is obtained. Hunnicut v. Peyton, 12 Otto, 333.

96. Where, under such circumstances, bills of exceptions are signed during the term, it is not necessary, to render them effective, that they be antedated, or ordered to be filed nunc pro tunc, as of a time during the trial. Ib.

All process of this court shall be in the name of the President of the United States.

When process at common law or in equity shall issue against a state, the same shall be served on the governor, or chief executive magistrate, and attorney-general of such state.

Process of subpoena, issuing out of this court, in any suit in equity, shall be served on the defendant sixty days before the return-day of the said process; and if the defendant, on such service of the subpœna, shall not appear at the return-day contained therein, the complainant shall be at liberty to proceed ex parte.

1. (Feb., 1790.) Ordered, That the seal of the court shall be the arms of the United States, engraved on a piece of steel of the size of a dollar, with these words in the margin: The seal of the Supreme Court of the United States." 2 Dall. 399.

2. Ordered, That (unless, and until, it shall be otherwise provided by law) all process of this court shall be in the name. of "the President of the United States." Ib.

3. (Aug., 1796.) Ordered, That when process at common、 law or in equity shall issue against a state, the same shall be served upon the governor, or chief executive magistrate, and the attorney-general of such state. Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 320.

4. (Aug., 1799.) In a suit in equity a subpoena must be served sixty days before its return. New York v. Connecticut,

4 Dall. 8.

5. (Jan., 1830.) The subpoena issued on the filing of a bill, in which the State of New Jersey was complainant, and the State of New York was defendant, was served upon the Governor and Attorney-General of New York, sixty days before the return-day, the day of the service and return inclusive. A second subpoena issued, which was served on the Governor of New York only, the Attorney-General being absent. There was no appearance by the State of New York. BY THE COURT: This is not like the case of several defendants, where a service on one might be good, though not on another. Here the service prescribed by the rule is to be on the Governor and on the Attorney-General. A service on one is not sufficient to entitle the court to proceed. New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461.

6. Upon an application by the counsel for the State of New Jersey, that a day might be assigned to argue the question of the jurisdiction of this court to proceed in the case, the court said they had no difficulty in assigning a day. It might be as well to give notice to the State of New York, as they might employ counsel in the interim. If, indeed, the argument should be merely er parte, the court could not feel bound by its decision, if the State of New York desired to have the question again argued. Ib.

7. A notice was given by the solicitors for the State of New Jersey to the Governor of the State of New York, dated the 12th of January, 1830, stating that a bill had been filed on the equity side of the Supreme Court, by the State of New