100
3. A court cannot, in an action at law, consistent-
ly with the constitutional right of trial by jury,sub-
mit a part of the facts to the jury and itself deter-
mine the remainder,without a waiver by the defend-
ants of a verdict by the jury.

Hodges v. Easton,

| 8. The jurisdiction of this court, to review the
judgments of the inferior courts of the United States
169 in criminal cases by habeas corpus, is limited to the
4. Where the answers by a jury to specific ques- question of the power of the court to try or to com-
tions of fact are not sufficient to sustain a judgment mit the prisoner for the act of which he has been
it must be reversed, although the court granted convicted.
it "upon the special verdict and facts conceded or
not disputed on the trial."

Idem,

169

5. Trial by jury is a fundamental guaranty of the
rights and liberties of the people; consequently,
every reasonable presumption should be indulged
against its waiver.

Idem,

169

Ex Parte Curtis,
Ex Parte Carll,

232
288

9. Aecree to be final, so as to give this court ju-
risdiction on appeal, must terminate the litigation
of the parties on the merits of the case, so that, if
there should be an affirmance here, the court below
would have nothing to do but to execute the decree
it had already rendered.

Grant v. Phonix Ins. Co.,
Bostwick v. Brinckerhoff,
Winthrop Iron Co. v.. Meeker,

237

73

898

St. L.Iron M.& S.R. R.Co.v. South. Exp. Co.,638
Ex Parte Norton,

709
10. The amount in controversy to determine the
jurisdiction of this court is the sum actually in dis-
pute in that particular cause without regard to the
possible collateral effect of the judgment in another
suit between the same or other parties.
Elgin v. Marshall,

New Jersey Zine Co. v. Trotter,
Opelika Cily v. Daniel,

249

828

873

11. This court has no jurisdiction to review a judg-
ment for a sum not in exce s'of $5,000, recovered
upon coupons, although it may operate as an estop-
pel in an action on bonds for a much larger sum.
Elgin v. Marshall,

249

12. To give this court jurisdiction in cases depend-
ent on the amount in controversy, the matter in
dispute must be money, or some right, the value of
which can be calculated and ascertained in money.
Youngstown Bank v. Hughes,
268

13. Affidavits can only be used to furnish evidence
of value not appearing on the face of the record
when the nature of the matter in dispute is such as
to admit of an estimate of its value in money.
268
14. This court can review the decree of a State
Court only where the party claiming a federal right
denied thereby, claims it for himself and not for a
third person in whose title he has an interest.

572
23. Although the maker and payee of a negotiable
note secured by a mortgage are citizens of the same
State, an indorsee of the note living in another State
may, since the Act of 1875, foreclose the mortgage
in the U. S. Circuit Court.

Tredway v. Sanger,

582
24. Federal Courts have no jurisdiction of a suit to
restrain the collection of wharfage, on the ground
that it was intended as a duty on tonnage. The in-
tent is not traversable and the wharfage rates are
to be determined by State law.

Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg,

584
25. Where the clerk certifies the transcript sent up
to be a true, full and perfect copy from the record
of all the proceedings in the suit, this is sufficient
for the purpose of jurisdiction.

Mo. Kan. & Tex. R. R. Co. v. Dinsmore, 640
26. When the United States waives its right to ex-
emption from suit, and asks a prize court to com-
plete the adjudication of a cause, begun before it,
the Government is bound by the submission and the
court has jurisdiction to proceed to the final deter-
mination of all the questions legitimately involved.
U. S. v. The Nuestra Señora De Regla,
27. In cases from the Supreme Court of Louisiana,
the opinion of the court below may be referred to,
to determine whether the judgment is one this court
has authority to review.

Crossley v. City of New Orleans,

665

667

28. Where the case was disposed of in the State
Court before the federal question presented by the
pleadings was reached, and its decision was placed
on other grounds, this court has no jurisdiction.
Idem,
667
29. An appeal allowed, after a contest as to the
value of the matter in dispute, will not be dismissed
because this court may be of the opinion that pos-
sibly the estimates acted upon below were too nigh,
if there is no decided preponderance of evidence
against jurisdiction.

Gage v. Pumpelly,

rects.

closure and obtain a conveyance of the mortgaged
property, a decree is final for the purpose of an ap-
peal which settles every question in dispute between
the parties, and leaves nothing to be done but to
complete the sale under the proceedings for fore-
closure, and hand over the surplus as the decree di-
Ex Parte Norton,
709
37. Where, in a libel against a vessel for a collision
$27,000 damages is claimed, but a stipulation for
$2,100 as the appraised value of the vessel is given,
upon appeal from a dismissal of the libel by the Cir-
cuit Court, this court has no jurisdiction, as the sum
or value in dispute does not exceed $5,000, as re-
quired by the Act of 1875.

Starin v. The Jessie Williamson,

730

38. A decree against the vessel for $27,000 would
not establish the liability of the claimant of the ve-
sel to respond for that amount in personam, unless
he was the owner of the vessel at the time of the
collision, and that fact must appear by the record,
to authorize this court to consider the $27,000 as the
value of the matter in dispute on said appeal.
Idem,

730

39. The District Court of the United States for
the District of New Jersey has jurisdiction of a suit
in admiralty, in personam, against a New York cor-
poration, where it acquires such jurisdiction by the
seizure, under process of attachment, of a vessel
belonging to such corporation, when such vessel is
afloat in the Kill van Kull, between Staten Island
and New Jersey, at the end of the dock at Bayonne,
New Jersey, at a place at least 300 feet below low-
water mark and is fastened to said dock by means
of a line running from the vessel and attached to
spiles on the dock.

Ex Parte Devoe Mfg. Co.,

764

40. A vessel so situated is within the territorial
limits of the State of New Jersey and of the District
of New Jersey, and is not within the territorial
limits of the State of New York nor of the Eastern
District of New York.

Ex Parte Baltimore & O. R. R. Co.,
42. Where several judgment plaintiffs united in
an application to the Circuit Court for a man/lamUS
to compel payment of a judgment against a town,
on its bonds, two judgments in favor of one credit-
or, the aggregate amount of which including inter-
668 est to the time the mandamus was awarded, exceeds
$5,000, are sufficient in amount to give this court
jurisdiction of the case.
820

30. Where a bill is filed to reform a contract charg-
ing a party with the payment of an incumbrance of
$9,000, and the decree denies the relief, the amount
in controversy on appeal is $9,000.

688
33. This court has jurisdiction of a writ of error,
or appeal, by a plaintiff below, when he sues for as
much as or more than our jurisdiction requires and
recovers nothing, or recovers only a sum which, be-
ing deducted from the amount or value sued for,
leaves a sum equal to or more than our jurisdictional
limit, for which he failed to get a judgment or de-

cree.

Hawley v. Fairbanks,

43. In a civil suit or proceeding, this court has no
jurisdiction of a question certified on division of
opinion, unless there has been a final judgment in
the Circuit Court, but, if it is a criminal proceed-
ing, it has, before judgment.

Ex Parte Tom Tong.

826

44. In an action of trespass for entering on lands
and digging up and carrying away a quantity of
ore, in which there were counts in the declaration
quare clausum fregit, and de bonis asportatis, and
neither party set up title, and the plaintiff recovers
judgment for less than $5,000, this court has no
jurisdiction on writ of error.

New Jersey Zinc Company v. Trotter, 828
45. In a suit on coupons for more than $5,000, if
the plaintiff discontinues as to part, so as to recover
judgment for less than that sum, this court has no
jurisdiction to review the judgment.

46. Where the question involved was one of gen-
Idem,
688 eral jurisdiction and not of local law, and a party in
34. This court has jurisdiction of a writ of error or interest discontinued a suit brought in the court of
appeal by a defendant, when the recovery against another State by its trustee, and had another
him is as much in amount or value as is required to trustee appointed in its own State for the express
bring a case here, and when, having pleaded a set-purpose of bringing suit in a Federal Court, no ob-
off or counterclaim for enough to give this court jection thereby arises under the Act of 1875, to the
jurisdiction, he is defeated upon his plea wholly, or jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
recovers only an amount which being deducted
from his claim as pleaded, leaves enough to give us
jurisdiction, which has not been allowed.

17. The law of the place governs as to the formal-
ities necessary to the transfer of real property,
whether testamentary or inter vivos.

Robertson v. Pickrell,

1049
18. The transactions between Young and the
United States concerning the site of the City of
Washington were equivalent to a conveyance by
him to the United States in fee simple, of all his
land described, and a conveyance back by the
United States to him of a certain square, leaving in
the United States in fee simple the strip of land des-
ignated as Water Street.

Potomac Steamboat Co. v. U. P. Steam. Co.,
1070
19. The United States held its title to the land over
which such street was laid out, for its own use and
not in trust for any person or for any purpose, and
it is immaterial that the ground laid out as a street
had not been used as such for a long period of time.
Idem,
1070

1. A contract between a Construction Co. and a
Railroad Co. that certain rails and other materials
shall be used in the construction of a railroad in
Illinois, and that until fully paid for the seller shall
have a lien thereon and constructive possession of
them, is not a waiver of a statutory lien in favor of
the seller.

C.& A.R.R.Co.v. Union Rolling Mill Co., 1081
2. An agreement for the extension of credit by re-
ceiving a note of the party, or the independent se-
curity of a third person, falling due at a day beyond
the period within which a lien must be asserted, is
no waiver of the lien, when the note of security has
not been given.

1. The Statute of Limitations does not begin to
run against a trustee, until the trust is executed or
disclaimed by clear and unequivocal acts or words
brought to the notice or knowledge of the parties in
interest or until there has been an adverse holding.
Bacon v. Rives,

69

9. The exemptions from the operation of statutes
of limitation to infants and married women rest
upon express language in those statutes, zing
them time after majority, or after cessation of ov-
erture, to assert their rights.

Vance v. Vance,

808

10. In the absence of a contrary statutory rule, a
defendant who desires to avail himself of a statute
of limitations as a defense, must raise the question
either in pleading or on the trial or before judg-

ment.

11. Where the declaration shows that the claim is
barred by the Statute of Limitations, but that de
fense was not taken in the court below, this court
defense to be set up.
on reversal will not remand the case to allow that
900
12. The limitation laws of the State in which the
cause of action arose, or in which the suit was
brought, do not apply to an action to recover du-
ties illegally exacted.

Idem,

13. A special tinding of the court for defen Tant
on a plea of the Statute of Limitations is sufficient,
although it does not find the contract by which the
suit was brought, nor fix the date when the cause of
action accrued.

Meath v. Miss. Comrs.,

930

811
2. Where, in 1863 or 1864, a party in Texas re-final judgment subject to review here on a writ of
2. A writ of mandamus cannot issue to review a
ceived money to invest there for others in Virginia,
and kept them, up to 1875, in ignorance as to what he error. Mandamus cannot be used to perform the
had done with it, neglecting to answer their letters of office of a writ of error.
inquiry, the Statute of Limitations does not bar a
bill for an accounting.