FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.

1. The clause of the statute of frauds, which requires a memorandum in
writing of "any agreement which is not to be performed within the
space of one year from the making thereof," applies only to agree-
ments which, according to the intention of the parties, as shown by
the terms of their contract, cannot be fully performed within a year;
and not to an agreement which may be fully performed within the
year, although the time of performance is uncertain, and may prob-
ably extend, and may have been expected by the parties to extend,
and does in fact extend, beyond the year. Warner v. Texas & Pacific
Railway Co., 418.

2. An oral agreement between a railroad company and the owner of a
mill, by which it is agreed that, if he will furnish the ties and grade
the ground for a switch opposite his mill, the company will put down
the iron rails and maintain the switch for his benefit for shipping
purposes as long as he needs it, is not within the statute of frauds, as
an agreement not to be performed within a year. Ib.

3. Packet Co. v. Sickles, 5 Wall. 580, doubted. lb.

4. The provisions of the statute of frauds of the State of Texas con-
cerning sales or leases of real estate do not include grants of ease-
ments. Ib.

HABEAS CORPUS.

See JURISDICTION, A, 15, 16.

INDIAN DEPREDATIONS.

See CORPORATION.

INSOLVENCY.

See NATIONAL BANK, 1.

INTEREST.

See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, 1.

JUDGMENT.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 3.

JUDICIAL QUESTION.

See JURISDICTION, A, 3.

JURY.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 21.

JURISDICTION.

A. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME Court.

1. Sections 651 and 697 of the Revised Statutes, relati to certificates of
division in opinion in criminal cases, were repealed by the judiciary
act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, both as to the defendants in criminal
prosecutions, and as to the United States; and certificates in such cases
cannot be granted upon the request either of the defendants or of the
prosecution. Rider v. United States, 163 U. S. 132, on this point
adhered to. United States v. Hewecker, 46.

2. In an action between citizens of different States, brought in the Circuit
Court of the United States, for the violation of an author's common
law right in his unpublished manuscript, and in which the defendant
relies on the Constitution and laws of the United States concerning
copyrights, and, after judgment against him in the Circuit Court,
takes the case by writ of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals, he is
not entitled, as of right, to have its judgment reviewed by this
court under the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 6. Press Publishing
Co. v. Monroe, 105.

3. The laws of California authorize the bringing of an action in its courts
by the board of directors of an irrigation district, to secure a judicial
determination as to the validity of the proceedings of the board con-
cerning a proposed issue of bonds of the district, in advance of their
issue. The Modesto District was duly organized under the laws of
the State, and its directors, having defined the boundaries of the
district, and having determined upon an issue of bonds for the pur-
pose of carrying out the objects for which it was created, as defined
by the laws of the State, commenced proceedings in a court of the
State, seeking a judicial determination of the validity of the bonds
which it proposed to issue. A resident of the district appeared and
filed an answer. After a hearing, in which the defendant contended
that the judgment asked for would be in violation of the Constitution
of the United States, the proceedings resulted in a judgment in favor of
the district. Appeal being taken to the Supreme Court of the State,
it was there adjudged that the proceedings were regular, and the
judgment, with some modifications, was sustained. The case being
brought here by writ of error, it is Held, that a Federal question was
presented by the record, but that the proceeding was only one to
secure evidence; that in the securing of such evidence no right pro-
tected by the Constitution of the United States was invaded; that
the State might determine for itself in what way it would secure
evidence of the regularity of the proceedings of any of its municipal
corporations; and that unless in the course of such proceedings some
constitutional right was denied to the individual, this court could not
interfere on the ground that the evidence might thereafter be used in
some further action in which there might be adversary claims. Tregea
v. Modesto Irrigation District, 179.

4. The complainant in this case sought to compel a number of stock.
holders in a corporation severally to pay their respective alleged
unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock of a corporation, the amounts
to be applied in satisfaction of a judgment in plaintiff's favor. Among
the stockholders so proceeded against were K., C. and A. As to them
the allegations were that each subscribed for fifty shares of the cor-
poration, of the par value of one hundred dollars each; and that each
was liable for five thousand dollars, for which recovery was sought.
Held, that the amount involved for each subscription did not reach
the amount necessary to give this court jurisdiction; that the sub-
scriptions could not be united for that purpose; and that even if they
could, there having been a cross bill in the case, the judgment upon
which must affect rights of parties not before the court, the court
could not take jurisdiction. Wilson v. Kiesel, 248.

5. The printed record in this case is so fragmentary in its nature as to
leave no foundation for the court to even guess that there was a Fed-
eral question in the case, or that it was decided by the state court
against the right set up here by the plaintiffs in error; and, under the
well settled rule that where a case is brought to this court on error or
appeal from a judgment of a state court, unless it appear in the
record that a Federal question was raised in the state court before
entry of final judgment in the case, this court is without jurisdiction,
it must be dismissed. Fowler v. Lamson, 252.

6. Although, as a general rule, an appeal will not lie in a matter of costs
alone, where an appeal is taken on other grounds as well, and not on
the sole ground that costs were wrongfully awarded, this court can
determine whether a Circuit Court, dismissing a suit for want of juris-
diction, can give a decree for costs, including a fee to the defendants'
counsel in the nature of a penalty; and it decides that the decree in
this case was erroneous in that particular. Citizens' Bank v. Can-

7. In an action of ejectment in a state court by a plaintiff claiming real
estate under a patent from the United States for a mining claim, a
ruling by the state court that the statute of limitations did not begin
to run against the claim until the patent had been issued presents no
Federal question. Carothers v. Mayer, 325.

8. So, too, a ruling that matters alleged as an estoppel having taken place
before the time when plaintiffs made their application for a patent,
and notice of such application having been given, all adverse claim-
ants were given an opportunity to contest the applicant's right to a
patent, and that, the patent having been issued, it was too late to base
a defence upon facts existing prior thereto, presents no Federal ques-
tion. Ib.

9. The construction by the Supreme Court of Alabama of §§ 1205, 1206
and 1207 of the code of that State, regulating the subject of fire and
marine insurance within the State by companies not incorporated

therein, is, under the circumstances presented by this case, binding on
this court. Noble v. Mitchell, 367.

10. The decision below upon the question whether there was adequate
proof that the policy in controversy in this case was issued by a for-
eign corporation is not subject to review here on writ of error. Ib.
11. The findings of the Court of Claims in an action at law determine all
matters of fact, like the verdict of a jury; and when the finding does
not disclose the testimony, but only describes its character, and, with-
out questioning its competency, simply declares its insufficiency, this
court is not at liberty to refer to the opinion for the purpose of eking
out, controlling or modifying the scope of the findings. Stone v. United
States, 380.

12. This court has no jurisdiction to review, on writ of error, a judgment
of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in a criminal case,
under § 8 of the act of February 9, 1893, c. 74, 27 Stat. 434. Chap-
man v. United States, 436.

13. The controversy in this case being between the mother and the testa-
mentary guardian of infant children, each claiming the right to their
custody and care, the matter in dispute is of such a nature as to be
incapable of being reduced to any pecuniary standard of value; and
for this, and for the reasons given in Chapman v. United States, ‹nte,
436, it is held that this court has no jurisdiction to review judg
ments of the Court of Appeals under such circumstances. Perrine v.
Slack, 452.

14. As the plaintiff in error did not specially set up or claim in the state
court any right, title, privilege or immunity under the Constitution of
the United States, this court is without jurisdiction to review its final
judgment. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Chicago, 454.
15. An appeal lies to this court from a final order of the Supreme Court
of the Territory of New Mexico, ordering a writ of habeas corpus to
be discharged. Gonzales v. Cunningham, 612.

16. The cases deciding that there is a want of jurisdiction over a similar
judgment rendered in the District of Columbia are reviewed, and it is
held that the legislation in respect of the review of the final orders of
the territorial Supreme Courts on habeas corpus so far differs from that
in respect of the judgments of the courts of the District of Columbia,
that a different rule applies. lb.

B.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1;
PUBLIC LAND, 9.

JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

1. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Circuit Court of the United
States, by joining in one bill against distinct defendants claims, no
one of which reaches the jurisdictional amount. Citizens' Bank v.
Cannon, 319.

2. In proceedings under a bill to enjoin the collection of taxes for a series
of years, where the proof only shows the amount of the assessment for
one year, which is below the jurisdictional amount, it cannot be as-
sumed, in order to confer jurisdiction, that the assessment for each of
the other years was for a like amount. Ib.

3. When a Circuit Court dismisses a bill for want of jurisdiction it is
without power to decree the payment of costs and penalties. Ib.
4. In the absence of parties interested, and without their having an op-
portunity to be heard, a court is without jurisdiction to make an adjudi-
cation affecting them. New Orleans Water Works Co. v. New Orleans,

471.

5. The objection to the jurisdiction in the Circuit Court presented by
filing the demurrer for the special and single purpose of raising it,
would not be waived by answering to the merits upon the demurrer
being overruled. In re Atlantic City Railroad, 633.

6. Since the act of July 13, 1888, c. 866, took effect, the jurisdiction of a
Circuit Court of the United States over an action brought by a citizen
of another State against a national bank established and doing busi-
ness in a State within the circuit, depends upon citizenship alone, and,
if that jurisdiction be invoked on that ground, the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals of the circuit is final, even though another ground
for jurisdiction in the Circuit Court be developed in the course of the
proceedings. Ex parte Jones, 691.

See REMOVAL OF CAUSES.

C. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

It was the intention of Congress, by the language used in the act of
August 23, 1894, c. 307, 28 Stat. 424, 487, to refer to the Court of
Claims simply the ascertainment of the proper person to be paid the
sum which it had already acknowledged to be due to the representa-
tives of the original sufferers from the spoliation, and not that the
decision which the Court of Claims might arrive at should be the sub-
ject of an appeal to this court; and that when such fact had been
ascertained by the Court of Claims, upon evidence sufficient to satisfy
that court, it was to be certified by the court to the Secretary of the
Treasury, and such certificate was to be final and conclusive. United
States v. Gilliat, 42.

See JURISDICTION, A, 11.

D. JURISDICTION OF TERRITORIAL SUPREME COURTS.

1. Section 1852 of the Compiled Laws of New Mexico of 1884 which pro-
vides that "when any justice of the Supreme Court shall be absent
from his district, or shall be in any manner incapacitated from acting
or performing any of his duties of judge or chancellor, in his district,
or from holding court therein, any other justice of the Supreme Court