the jury, or what are the other evidences of title connected with it. M'Arthur v. Potter, 1 Pet. 626.

7. (Jan., 1829.) The record contains, embodied in the bill of exceptions, the whole of the testimony and evidence offered at the trial of the cause, by each party, in support of the issue. It is very voluminous, and as no exception was taken to its competency or sufficiency, either generally or for any particular purpose; it is not properly before this court for consideration, and forms an expensive and unnecessary burthen upon the record. This court has had occasion, in many cases, to express its regret on account of irregular proceedings of this nature. There was not the slightest necessity of putting any portion of the evidence in this case upon the record, since the opinion of the court, delivered to the jury, presented a general principle of law; and the application of the evidence to it was left to the jury. Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1.

8. (Jan., 1831.) The clerk of the Union Circuit Court, certifies that certain documents were read in evidence, and among them a patent under which F. claimed, issued by the Governor of Kentucky, founded on rights derived from the laws of Virginia. This court cannot notice this patent; it cannot be considered a part of the record. Fisher v. Cockerell, 5 Pet. 248.

9. In cases at common law, the course of the court has been uniform not to consider any paper as part of the record, which is not made so by the pleadings, or by some opinion of the court referring to it. This rule is common to all courts exercising appellate jurisdiction, according to the course of the common law. The appellate court cannot know what evidence was given to the jury, unless it is spread on the record in proper legal manner. The unauthorized certificate of the clerk, that any document was read, or any evidence given to the jury, cannot make that document or that evidence a part of the record, so as to bring it to the cognizance

of this court. The court cannot perceive from the record in the ejectment cause that the plaintiff in error claimed under a title derived from the laws of Virginia. It therefore cannot judicially know that this suit was not a contest between two citizens claiming entirely under the laws of the State of Kentucky. When the record of the Union Circuit Court was transferred to the Court of Appeals, the course of that court requires that the appellant or the plaintiff in error shall assign the errors on which he means to rely. The assignment in that court contains the first intimation that the title was derived from Virginia, and that the plaintiff in error relied on the compact between those States. But this assignment does not introduce the error into the record, or in any manner alter it. The Court of Appeals was not confined to the inquiry whether the error assigned was valid in point of law. The preliminary inquiry was whether it existed in the record. If, upon examining the record, that court could not discover that the plaintiff had asserted any right or interest in land derived from the laws of Virginia, the question whether the occupying claimants' law had violated the compact between the states could not arise. Ib.

10. In the view which has been taken of the record by the court it does not show that the compact with Virginia was involved in the case. Consequently, the question whether the act for the benefit of occupying claimants was valid does not appear to have arisen; and nothing is shown on the record which can give jurisdiction to this court. Ib.

11. A review of the cases of Harris v. Dennie, 3 Pet. 292; Craig and others v. The State of Missouri, 4 Pet. 410; Owing v. Norwood, 5 Cranch, 344, 2 Pet. Cond. Rep. 275; Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 312. Ib.

12. (Jan., 1832.) Motion to dismiss a writ of error to "the court for the correction of errors in the State of New York." The case went up to that court upon a writ of error to the Supreme Court of New York, and in the court for the

correction of errors, the plaintiff in error assigned for error, that he was, at the time of the commencement of the suit, and continued to be, Consul-General, in the United States, of the King of Saxony, and so being Consul-General he ought to have been impleaded in some District Court of the United States, and that the Supreme Court of New York had not jurisdiction of the case. The defendants answered that in the record of the proceedings of the Supreme Court it nowhere appears that the plaintiff in error was ever Consul of Saxony. The record states that the Court for the Correction of Errors, having fully understood the causes assigned for error, and inspected the record, did order and adjudge that the judgment of the Supreme Court should be affirmed. Affidavits of the proceedings in the highest court in the State of New York, and the opinion of the chancellor, assigning his reasons for affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court, were laid before the court. "Whatever took place in the state court, which forms no part of the record sent up to this court, must be entirely laid out of view. This is the established course of the court. The question before this court is, whether the judgment was correct, not whether the ground on which that judgment was given was correct. Packard, 6 Pet. 41.

Davis v.

13. (Jan., 1832.) A writ of error was issued to "the judges of the Superior Court of the County of Gwinnett in the State of Georgia," commanding them to send to the Supreme Court of the United States, the record and proceedings in the said Superior Court of the County of Gwinnett, between the State of Georgia, plaintiff, and Samuel A. Worcester, defendant, on an indictment in that court. The record of the court of Gwinnett was returned, certified by the clerk of the court, and was also authenticated by the seal of the court. It was returned with, and annexed to, a writ of error issued in regular form, the citation being signed by one of the associate justices of the Supreme Court, and served on the

Governor and Attorney-General of the State, more than thirty days before the commencement of the term to which the writ of error was returnable.

BY THE COURT. — The Judicial Act, so far as it prescribes the mode of proceeding, appears to have been literally pursued. In February, 1797, a rule was made on this subject, in the following words: "It is ordered by the court, that the clerk of the court to which any writ of error shall be directed, may make return of the same by transmitting a true copy of the record, and of all proceedings in the same, under his hand and the seal of the court."

This has been done. But the signature of the judge has not been added to that of the clerk. The law does not reWorcester v. Georgia,

quire it. The rule does not require it. 6 Pet. 515.

14. (Jan., 1839.) The certificate of the clerk of the court, that a motion was made for a new trial, and reasons and certain papers filed, on which the motion was founded, which are on the files of the court, is not a part of the record; nor do the reasons on the files of the court become a part of the record by such certificate. Reed v. Marsh, 13 Pet. 153.

15. (Jan., 1839.) The rules of the Supreme Court require that the clerk of the Circuit Court to which any writ of error shall be directed, may make return of the same, by annexing a true copy of the record, and of all the proceedings in the cause, under his hand and the seal of the court. The court will not, according to the thirty-first rule, hear any cause without a complete copy of the record having been brought up. Keene v. Whittaker, 13 Pet. 459.

16. (Jan, 1846.) This court can notice a material and incurable defect in the pleadings and verdict, as they are represented in the record to have existed in the court below, although such defect is not noticed in the bill of exceptions, nor suggested by the counsel in argument here.

Davis, 4 How. 131.

Garland v.

17. (Dec 1850.) A motion on the part of the defendants in error, for a rule upon the plaintiff in error, to file a copy of the record, overruled. Boyd v. Scott, 11 How. 292.

18. (Dec., 1853.) The Circuit Court having instructed the jury, that in its opinion, under the written proofs and law of the case, the plea of prescription must prevail, and the written proofs not being in the record, this court cannot test the accuracy of its conclusion. Anderson v. Bock, 15 How. 323.

19. (Dec., 1855.) Where the record contains only an agreed statement of facts, it is not in conformity with the eleventh and thirty-first rules of this court; and the case will be dismissed. Curtis v. Petitpain, 18 How. 109.

20. (Dec., 1855.) Where the clerk of the Supreme Court of a state neglects or refuses to make a return to a writ of error, issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, this court will lay a rule upon him to make return on or before the first day of the next term, or show cause why such return has not been made in conformity to law. United States v. Booth, 18 How. 476.

21. (Dec., 1856.) In Louisiana, all the evidence taken in the court below goes up to the Supreme Court, which decides questions of fact as well as of law. In the absence of bills. of exceptions, setting forth the points of law decided in the case, this court must look to the opinion of the state court (made a part of the record by law), in order to see whether or not any question has been decided there, which would give this court appellate jurisdiction under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. Cousin v. Blanc, 19 How. 202.

22. (Dec., 1856.) Upon a writ of error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the transcript of the record of all the proceedings in the case is brought before this court, and is open to its inspection and revision. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393.

23. (Dec., 1857.) Where there is a bill of exceptions, the