ence to any repugnance to the Constitution of the United States, is
properly construed. Ib.

5. The report of this case in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shows
that it assumed that it was dealing, under the assignments of error,
only with the state constitution. Ib.

6. An examination of the record discloses that none of the complainants,
save one, was assessed with a sufficient amount of taxes, to enable him
to bring the case here on appeal, and accordingly, under the doctrine
of Russell v. Stansell, 105 U. S. 303, and Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S.
27, the appeal is dismissed as to such parties. Ogden City v. Arm-
strong, 224.

7. The findings of fact in an appeal from the Supreme Court of a Terri-
tory are conclusive upon this court, whose jurisdiction on such appeal,
apart from exceptions duly taken to rulings on the admission or rejec-
tion of evidence, is limited to determining whether the findings of
fact support the judgment. Harrison v. Perea, 311.

8. A case may be said to involve the construction or application of the
Constitution of the United States when a title, right, privilege or im-
munity is claimed under that instrument; but a definite issue in re-
spect to the possession of the right must be distinctly deducible from
the record, before the judgment of the court below can be revised on
the ground of error in the disposal of such a claim by its decision.
Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co., 430.

9. The same rule being applicable in respect of the validity or construc-
tion of a treaty, some right, title, privilege or immunity, dependent on
the treaty, must be so set up or claimed as to require the Circuit Court
to pass on the question of validity or construction in disposing of the
right asserted. Ib.

10. In respect of the plaintiffs' case as stated in their complaint, the Cir-
cuit Court decided no question as to the application or construction
of the Constitution, or the validity or construction of the treaty,
and this court is without jurisdiction to review the action of that
court. Ib.

11. That which has been decided on one appeal or writ of error, cannot be
reexamined on a second appeal or writ of error, brought in the same
suit. Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 451.

12. Whenever a case comes from the highest court of a State for review,
and, by statute or settled practice in that State the opinion of the
court is a part of the record, this court may examine such opinion for
the purpose of ascertaining the grounds of the judgment. Ib.
13. Although the judgment and the mandate in a given case in this court
express its decision, it may examine the opinion for the purpose of
determining what matters were considered, upon what grounds the
judgment was entered, and what has become settled, for the future
disposition of the case. Ib.

14. In the former decision of this case, 95 U. S. 391, the decree was re-

versed on the ground that the bill, as it stood, was technically a bill
of review; but it was further decided that certain matters then in
issue were sufficiently and effectually determined by the proofs al-
ready in, and the reversal did not throw open the case for additional
proofs upon such matters. Ib.

15. The questions propounded in the certificate in this case do not present
distinct points or propositions of law, clearly stated, so that each can
be distinctly answered, without regard to the other issues of law in-
volved, and they obviously bring the whole case up for consideration;
and as to answer them would require this court to consider the several
matters thus pressed upon its attention, to pass upon questions of law
not specifically propounded, and to dispose of the whole case, it is
held, referring to previous decisions, that the certificate is insufficient
under the statute. United States v. Union Pacific Railway Co., 505.
16. A writ of certiorari, such as is asked for in this case, will be refused
when there is a plain and adequate remedy, by appeal or otherwise.
In re Tampa Suburban Railroad Co., 583.

17. Where, as in this case, an order is made by a Circuit Court, appointing
a receiver, and granting an injunction against interfering with his
management of the property confided to him, an appeal may be taken
to the Circuit Court of Appeals, carrying up the entire order. Ib.
18. In order to give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of a
state court against a title or right set up or claimed under a statute
of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, that title or
right must be a title or right of the plaintiff in error and not of a
third person only; and the statute or authority must be directly in
issue. In this case the controversy was merely as to which of the
claimants had the superior equity in the fund; the statute was only
collaterally involved; and plaintiffs in error asserted no right to the
money based upon it. Conde v. York, 642.

19. The ruling in United States v. Union Pacific Railroad, 168 U. S. 505,
that each question certified to this court from a Circuit Court of
Appeals had to be a distinct point or proposition of law, clearly
stated, so that it could be distinctly answered without regard to the
other issues of law in the case; to be a question of law only and not
a question of fact, or of mixed law and fact, and hence could not in-
volve or imply a conclusion or judgment upon the weight or effect of
testimony or facts adduced in the case, and could not embrace the
whole case, even where its decision turned upon matter of law only,
and even though it was split up in the form of questions," is affirmed
and followed; and, being applied to the questions certified in this case,
makes it necessary for the court to decline to answer the first, second
and sixth questions. McHenry v. Alford, 651.

20. This action was brought and prosecuted to final judgment in the state
courts of Louisiana. Its object was to recover land in New Orleans
which had been sold for nonpayment of taxes and had passed from the

purchaser at the tax sale by sundry mesne conveyances to the defend-
ant. The grounds on which it was sought to avoid the sale were
alleged defects in the statement of the name and of the sex of the
owner in the advertisements of sale. The judgment of the trial court
was in favor of the defendant, and that judgment was affirmed by the
Supreme Court of the State. Touching the objections made to the
proceedings the latter court said: "The act of 1884 makes the deed con-
clusive of the sufficiency of the assessment of the property sold under
it. The question of the competency of this legislation in this respect
has been before this court on repeated occasions. The argument now
addressed to us against the constitutionality and interpretation of the
act must be viewed as directed against a series of decisions of this
court. To those decisions we must adhere." It was claimed in argu-
ment here that though no Federal question was directly raised in the
trial in the state court, one was necessarily involved in the decision.
Held, that this court had no jurisdiction to review the decision of the
Supreme Court of the State. Castillo v. McConnico, 674.
21. The complainants in their bill predicated their right to relief upon the
averment that certain ordinances adopted by the municipal authori-
ties of Austin, and an act of the legislature of Texas referred to in
their bill impaired the obligations of a contract which the bill alleged
had been entered into with the complainants by the city of Austin,
and that both the law of the State and the city ordinances were in
contravention of the Constitution of the United States. Held, that
these allegations plainly brought the case within the provision in the
act of March 3, 1861, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, conferring upon this court
jurisdiction to review by direct appeal any final judgment rendered
by a Circuit Court in any case in which the constitution or a law of
a State is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the
United States. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Austin, 685.
See PRACTICE, 2, 5.

B. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL.

An interlocutory order appointing a receiver is not appealable from the
Circuit Court of the United States to the Circuit Court of Appeals,
and does not become so by the incorporation into it of a direction
to the defendant, his agents and employés, to turn over and deliver to
the receiver the property in his or their hands. Highland Avenue §
Belt Railroad Co. v. Columbia Equipment Co., 627.

C. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS.

1. Hernandez was in command of a revolutionary army in Venezuela
when an engagement took place with the government forces which
resulted in the defeat of the latter, and the occupation of Bolivar by

the former. Underhill was living in Bolivar, where he had con-
structed a waterworks system for the city under a contract with the
government, and carried on a machinery repair business. He applied
for a passport to leave the city, which was refused by Hernandez with
a view to coerce him to operate his waterworks and his repair works
for the benefit of the community and the revolutionary forces. Sub-
sequently a passport was given him. The revolutionary government
under which Hernandez was acting was recognized by the United
States as the legitimate government of Venezuela. Subsequently
Underhill sued Hernandez in the Circuit Court for the Second Circuit
to recover damages caused by the refusal to grant the passport, for
alleged confinement of him to his own house, and for alleged assaults
and affronts by Hernandez's soldiers. Judgment being rendered for
defendant the case was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, where
the judgment was affirmed, the court holding "that the acts of the
defendant were the acts of Venezuela, and as such are not properly
the subject of adjudication in the courts of another government.”
Held that the Circuit Court of Appeals was justified in that conclu-
sion. Underhill v. Hernandez, 250.

2. Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every
other sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in
judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its
own territory. Ib.

3. By denying the application in this case for a certiorari, the Court must
not be understood as intimating an opinion that a Circuit Judge has
power to grant injunctions, appoint receivers, or enter orders or de-
crees, in invitum, outside of his circuit. In re Tampa Suburban Rail-
road Co., 583.

4. In a trial before a state court for murder charged to have been com-
mitted within the State, it is for the state court to decide whether the
question of whether the evidence tended to show that the accused was
guilty of murder only in the second degree shall or shall not be
submitted to the jury, and its decision is not subject to revision
in the Circuit Court of the United States, nor here. Crossley v. Cali-
fornia, 640.

See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 9;
PATENT FOR INVENTION;

PRACTICE, 6.

D. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS.

1. A District Court of the United States has jurisdiction of a libel of a
vessel for seamen's wages, which accrued while the vessel was in the
custody of a receiver appointed by a state court upon the foreclosure
of a mortgage upon the property of a railroad company, owner of the
vessel, the vessel having been sold and passed into the purchaser's

hands, and the receiver discharged when the warrant of arrest was
served. The Resolute, 437.

2. The remedy against the decree of the District Court was an appeal to
the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Ib.

3. These cases are affirmed as to the jurisdiction of the District Court on
the authority of The Resolute, ante, 437. The William M. Hoag, 443.

E. JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS.

While the derailment of a train carrying the mails of the United States is
a crime which may be punished through the courts of the United
States under the provisious of the statutes in that behalf, the death of
the engineer thereof, produced thereby, is a crime against the laws of
the State in which the derailment takes place, for which the person
causing it may be proceeded against in the state court through an in-
dictment for murder. Crossley v. California, 640.

F. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA.

See RAILROAD, 10, 12.

LACHES.

The reason upon which the rule that the mere assertion of a claim, unac-
companied by any act to give effect to the asserted right, cannot avail
to keep alive a right which would otherwise be precluded because of
laches, is based not alone upon the lapse of time during which the
neglect to enforce the right has existed, but upon the change of con-
dition which may have arisen during the period in which there has
been neglect; and when a court of equity finds that the position of the
parties has so changed that equitable relief cannot be afforded without
doing injustice, or that the intervening rights of third persons may be
destroyed or seriously impaired, it will not exert its equitable powers
in order to save one from the consequences of his own neglect. The
facts in this case bring it within that rule. Penn Mutual Life Insur-
ance Co. v. Austin, 685.

LOTTERY.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7.

MASTER AND SERVANT.'

Where the business of a mining corporation is under the control of a gen-
eral manager, and is divided into three departments of which the
mining department is one, each with a superintendent under the gen-
eral manager, and in the mining department are several gangs of work-