488; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat., 431; Corning v. Troy Iron & Nail Factory, 15 How.,451; Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S., 498 [XXIV., 260]; The Lady Pike, 96 U. S., 461 [XXIV., 672]. The district court sitting as a prize court, had full jurisdiction to award costs and damages on restitution. 1 Kent, Com., 354; The Appollon, 9 Wheat., 362; The Lively, 1 Gall., 315; The Glen, Blatchf. Pr. Cas., 375; The Sybil, Blatchf. Pr. Cas., 615; The Siren, 7 Wall., 152 [74 U. S., XIX., 129], and cases cited on p. 161 [133]. The United States, having invoked the jurisdiction, has waived all objection to the adjudication on the subject of damages as an incident of the main cause, and such adjudication is final and conclusive. R. I. v. Mass., 12 Pet., 657; Bangs v. Duckinfield, 18 N. Y., 592. "When a sovereign State or her representatives are brought into the forum of litigation, neither she nor they can assert any right or immunity as incident to her political sovereignty." Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall., 203, 232 [83 U. S., XXI., 447, 457]. The Sovereign cannot be sued in his own courts without his consent. U. S. v. Clarke, 8 Pet., 444; The Siren (supra). But this prerogative may be waived. The Siren (supra). In the cases of The Labuan, Blatchf. Prize Cas., 165; The Sybil, Blatchf. Prize Cas., 615, the decrees were made against the United States and the captors, and Congress by passing the several Acts directing payment of the several amounts awarded by the decrees, approved and adopted the adjudications of the court. See, Acts, July, 7 and 8, 1870, ch. 220, 231, 16 Stat. at L., 47; also, ch. 219, Id., directing payment in the case of The Flying Scud, pursuant to decree of U. S. District Court in Louisiana. It is the settled law of prize that the captured vessel must be despatched promptly to some convenient port for libeling. Rob. Adm. & Prize, 446; Upton, Prize Courts, 246; Phillim. Int. Law, sec. 449; The Lively, 1 Gall., 310. The measure of damages is stated by Mr. In case of a recapture, the owners may recover damages for seizure without grounds. Miller v. The Resolution, 2 U. S. (2 Dall.), 19; Hollingsworth v. The Betsey, 2 Pet. Adm., 330; The Leucade, Sparks, 175; The Odessa, Sparks, 210; British Consul v. The John L. Thompson, Bee, 144; The Ostsee, Spinks, 175; The Nemesis, Edw. Adm., 50; The Hoppet, Edw. Adm., 369; The Mercurius, 1 C. Rob., 80. Where the captors consented to restitution, demurrage for the time of detention was allowed. The Corier Maritimo, 1 C. Rob., 241; The Zee Star, 4 C. Rob., 71; The St. Juan Baptista, 5 C. Rob., 36. Demurrage and interest allowed. Talbot v. Janson, 3 U. S. (3 Dall.), 133; The Lively, 1 Gall., 322. Demurrage is given for unjustifiable delay by the captors in proceeding to adjudication; but no allowance is made for loss of profits. Cases last cited; Maley v. Shattuck, 7 U. S. (3 Cranch), 458; The Corier Maritimo, 1 C. Rob., 241; The Lacheman, 5 C. Rob., 152. Where the property has been sold and no account of sales rendered, the damages are the prime cost and ten per cent profit. Where there is an account of sales, that is generally the basis of the decree. The Lucy, 3 C. Rob., 208; The Narcissus, 4 C. Rob., 17; The Lively, 1 Gall., 322; The Empire State, 2 Ben., 179; The Catherine v. Dickinson, 38 U. S., XV., 233. The captors are substituted for the owners and Justice Nelson, in Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How., 101, p. 111: The principle *** in adopting the freight which the vessel was in the act of earning as a just measure of compensation in the case, is one of general application. It looks to the capacity of the vessel to earn freight for the benefit of the owner, and consequent loss sustained while deprived of her service." This is the settled rule in cases of collision in both the admiralty and civil courts. The Gazelle, 2 Wm. Rob., 279; The Glaucus, 1 Low., 366; Vantine v. The Lake, 2 Wall., Jr., 52; The Narragansett, Olcott, 388; The Rhode Island, Olcott, 523; The M. M. Caleb, 10 Blatchf., 467; The Stormless, 1 Low., 153; Trans. Co. v. Steamboat Co., 51 N. Y., 369; Mailler v. Exp. Prop. Line, 61 N. Y., 312. Complete indemnity can only be given by compensation for the loss of earnings as well as the value of the vessel. Allen v. Fox, 51 N. Y., 562; Star of India, L. R., 1 Prob. Div., 466; Dermott v. Jones, 2 Wall., 1 [69 U. S., XVII., 762]. Government charters of vessels in time of war, form an exceptional kind of employment and service, for which special rates are always permitted. and have been upheld by the courts. Sturgis v. Steamboat Co., 35 N. Y., 251; S. C., 62 Ñ. Y., 625; Howland v. Coffin, 47 Barb., 653. Even in actions ex contractu, the loss of profits. is included in the computation of damage. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch., 341; R. R. Co. v. Howard, 13 How., 307. The award was properly made for the entire period from the seizure to June 20, 1863, the date of the decree of restitution. The order of the prize court, of August 22, 1862, permitting the delivery of the vessel to the navy department for government use, does not vary or affect the right of the claimants to the whole award. Captured property is under control of the court and its officers until the final adjudication and disposal of it by the court. The Memphis, Blatchf. Pr. Cas., 202; The Ella Warley, Blatchf. Pr. Cas., 207. This power of a prize court to permit delivery of the prize to the Government for use pending are liable for freight of the cargo, and in case of restitution the neutral carrier is entitled to freight where the capture prevented the vessel from earning the same. The Frances, 12 U. S. (8 Cranch), 418; The Société, 13 U. S. (9 Cranch), 209; The Antonia Johanna, 14 U. S. (1 Wheat.), 159; The Commercen, 14 U. S. (1 Wheat.), 382; S. C., 2 Gall., 264; The Ann Green, 1 Gall., 294; The Copenhagen, 1 C. Rob., 289; but not if the property was ultimately bound to the same market where the captors carry the ship; (The Vrow Henrica, 4 C. Rob., 243; The Ann Green,1 Gall., 294); nor where the ship is carrying contraband; (The Commercen, 14 U. S. (1 Wheat.), 382; S. C., 2 Gall., 264; The Mercurius,1 C. Rob.,80; The Sarah Christina, 1 C. Rob., 237); nor where the carrier is guilty of fraudulent suppression or spoilation of papers; (The Commercen, 14 U. S. (1 Wheat.), 382; S. C., 2 Gall. 264); nor where he is engaged in the coasting or colonial trade of the enemy. The Immanuel, 2 C. Rob., 186; The Minerva, 3 C. Rob., 34; The Anna Catharina, 4 C. Rob., 107. Full freight will be decreed, although only part of the goods are saved, if the loss is owing to the negligence of the prize master. The Der Mohr, 3 C. Rob., 129. The captor takes the prize cum onere and in ordinary cases freight is a privileged lien. The Bremen Fluge, 4 C. Rob., 90; The Vrow Henrica, 4 C. Rob., 347. adjudication, is exercised for the protection of all parties in interest. 2 Wheat App. p. 17; Smart v. Wolfe, 3 T. R, 323; The Herkimer, Stew., 128; S. C., 2 Hall, Am. L. J., 133. The jurisdiction cannot be affected by any change in the local situation of the property after capture, but wherever it may be found, or its proceeds, the court will follow it with its process. porting troops, stores or other things, as the said party of the second part may direct. And the said party of the second part doth agree, for and in consideration of the faithful performance of the above duty, that the said party of the first part shall receive the sum of $200 for each and every day the said boat may be kept in service, said steam ferry-boat to be kept stanch, sound and strong, and her machinery in good running order and condition, by the said party of the first part. It is understood by the parties to this agree be confiscated to the United States, then this contract shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. Hudson v. Guestier, 4 Cranch, 293; Home v. Camden, 2 H. Bl., 533; Cambden v. Home, 4 T. R., 383; Willis v. Commissioners of Prize, 5ment that in case the said steam ferry-boat shall East, 22; The Noysomhed, 7 Ves., 593; The Brig Louis, 5 C. Rob., 147; The Two Friends, 1 C. Rob., 271; The Eliza, 1 Acton, 336; Smart v. Wolfe, 3 T. R., 323; The Pomona, 1 Dod., 25; Le Caux v. Eden, 2 Doug., 594; Goss v. Withers, 2 Burr., 683; The Flad Oyen, 1 C. Rob., 135; The Santa Cruz, 1 C. Rob., 50; The Fanny and Elmira, 1 Edw. Ad., 117; The Ceylon, 1 Dod., 105. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court: The facts to be considered on this appeal are as follows: The steamer Nuestra Señora de Regla was built in New York for the claimant, a railroad company in Cuba, created by the laws of Spain. She was delivered to an agent of the claimant on the 6th of November, 1861, and sailed for Havana in command of a Spanish master. She was a sidewheel steamer of about three hundred tons burthen, built to run on a ferry between Havana and a terminus of the railroad company's railroad. On her way down the coast she went into Port Royal, and while there the quartermaster of the United States at that post offered to purchase her for the use of the Government. The master declined to sell, as he had no authority. She was then, on the 29th of November, seized by order of Gen. Thomas W. Sherman, in command of the United States forces. In communicating the fact of the seizure to the Adjutant-General of the Army, on the 2d of December, the General said; "If this steamer I have seized is confiscated, she should be left here. She is just the thing we want, and admirably adapted for these waters and our purpose. She is new and exactly such a boat as they have at the Jersey City Ferry in N. Y. Will carry 1,000 men, and will draw not over six or seven feet.' No judicial proceedings were instituted for her condemnation, but at some time before December 16th, the following charter-party was entered into: "Articles of agreement made this- day of December, 1861, betweencaptain of the steam ferry-boat Nuestra Señora de Regla, for and on behalf of the owners of the said ferryboat, of the first part, and Captain Rufus Saxton, as assistant quartermaster in the United States Army, for and on behalf of the United States of America, of the second part witnesseth: That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the payment hereinafter promised to be well and truly made by the said party of the second part, hath chartered to the United States the steam ferry-boat Nuestra Señora de Regla, with all her tackle, apparel, furniture and machinery, to be used for trans It is furthermore understood by the parties to this agreement that the said steam ferry-boat is not to be run outside of the bar of Port Royal, but at any and all points on the rivers and creeks that connect with Broad River. This contract to commence on the 16th day of December, 1861, and continue in force ten days, after which each party has a right to cancel the same. In witness whereof the undersigned have hereunto affixed their hands and seals, at Hilton Head, S. C., the day and date first above written. (S'd) Ygnacio A. Reynals, [L. S. L. S. Capt. U. S. Army Chief Quartermaster E.C.” The testimony shows that $200 a day was a fair price for the use of the vessel at that place at that time. One witness, competent to judge, testified to that effect, and no attempt was made by the United States to contradict him. The vessel was kept in the possession or under the control of the quartermaster until the 29th of January, when she was in form delivered to the flag officer of the navy in command at that station. She was, however, kept in constant use by the Government as a transport, in the way contemplated by the charter, from the 16th of December until about the 1st of March, when she was sent to New York. No judicial proceedings were begun against her until the 9th of June, when a libel of information in prize was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York by the United States, in behalf of themselves and of the naval captors in interest. She was attached on the same day by the marshal, and the usual monition was issued and served. The owner filed a claim, on the 9th of July. No further proceedings were had until the 22d of August, when the following order was entered: "On reading and filing a notice of motion and a verified copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, stating that the Navy Department desires to obtain possession of the steamer Nuestra Señora de Regla; and on hearing Mr. E. Delafield Smith, United States district attor ney, in support of the motion, and Mr. W. R. Beebe proctor for the claimants, in opposition thereto, it is hereby ordered that the said steamer Nuestra Señora de Regla be appraised by Benjamin F. Delano, United States naval constructor, and Benjamin F. Garvin, chief engineer, both now stationed at the navy yard, New York, and John Inglis; that such appraisement be filed with all convenient speed with the clerk of this court; that thereafter said steamer be delivered The letter of the Secretary of the Navy referred to in this order is as follows: "Navy Department, August 11th, 1862. Sir: The department will take the steamer Nuestra Señora de Regla at the appraisement of twenty-five thousand dollars. It desires early information, if practicable, as to the appraisement in the case of The Anne, The Stettin, and The Memphis. I avail myself of this occasion to offer to you assurances of my very high consideration. J. C. Bancroft Davis, Acting Secretary of State." On the 2d of June following, the cause was referred to one of the commissioners of the court to ascertain the amount of damages the claimant had sustained by the seizure and detention of the vessel. The commissioner made his report on the 20th of May, 1871, fixing the damages for the detention at the rate of $200 a day from November 29, 1861, to June 20, 1863, the date of the decree for restoration, with interest at six per cent per annum, amounting to $167,370.66, and allowing for the expenses and services of an agent remaining with and attending to the vessel $5,680; for counsel fee in defending the proceedings, $5,000, and for the value of the vessel at the date she should have been restored, with interest added, $36,833.331, or a total of $214,884. Exceptions were taken to this report by the United States, but they were overruled and a decree rendered for the full amount allowed by the master, with interest added. I am, resp'y your ob't s'v't, Gideon Welles." The vessel was valued by two of the appraisers at $28,000 and by the third at $30,000, and immediately delivered to the Navy Department, although the certificate of deposit provided for was never filed. The cause was heard on the 20th June, 1863, and a decree entered directing that the vessel be restored to the owner, but reserving all questions of costs and damages result-court, where, at the October Term, 1872, it was ing from the capture, for future hearing and determination. On the 15th of October, 1863, the following entry was made in the cause: From that decree an appeal was taken to this decided "That the vessel was not lawful prize of war or subject of capture, and the corporation which owned her is, doubtless, entitled to fair indemnity for the losses sustained by the seizure and employment of the vessel; but it may be well doubted whether it is not more proper "It having been mutually agreed between the counsel for the respective parties that the said vessel, in the above decision, was immediately taken into the possession and use of the Unitedly a subject of diplomatic adjustment than deStates under a charter-party, and delivered them thereunder, and so remained without molestation from the claimants. On motion of the counsel for the vessel and with the assent of the United States Attorney, it is ordered by the court that further proceedings and litigation be stayed in the above cause, to the end that all questions of damages reserved in the decision of the court in the Term of June last, may be considered and adjusted by the Government of the United States in the application, and with the concurrence of the Government of Spain. Samuel R. Betts." On the 20th of May, 1870, the following letter was addressed to the Spanish Minister in Washington by the Secretary of State: "Department of State, Washington, May 20, 1870. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 5th instant in relation to the Spanish steamer Nuestra Señora de Regla, and the claim which arose in consequence of her seizure by the United States authorities in 1861. The District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, after deciding that the claimants were entitled to restitution of the vessel, made an order suspending proceedings, to the end that the question of damages might be considered and adjusted by the Government on the application and with the concurrence of that of Spain. Without referring to the reasons which have so long delayed any arrangement between the two Governments, I have now to say that it will be most satisfactory to the Government that the parties interested should apply to the court, which still retains jurisdiction of the case, to obtain such further relief as justice may demand, and in the mode which that tribunal shall deem most proper and convenient. 108 U. S. U. S., Book 27. termination by the courts." It was also said in the opinion, "The decree of the district court included the sum of $5,000 for counsel fees. We think that the amount was greatly excessive, and the allowance for counsel fees wholly unwarranted." For the errors thus indicated the decree was reversed. The Nuestra Señora de Regla, 17 Wall., 31 [84 U. S., XXI., 597]. The case was then remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion. On the 22d of July, 1873, after the mandate was filed, a second reference was made to the commissioner "To assess the damages of the claimant of the vessel sustained by him in consequence of the seizure and detention of the vessel, and that on such reference all the proofs already taken in the cause or before the referee be used together with such other proofs as may be put in by either party." Under this reference, the commissioner again Interest at 6 per cent to date of For value of vessel, ascertained to be $113,600 81,698 30,000 21,549 5,680 $252,527 To this report exceptions were filed on behalf of the United States, but they were overruled by the court and a decree entered March 8, 1879, 42 665 for the amount found due, with interest from the date of the report, or in all, $308,932.38. From that decree, this appeal was taken. That the steamer was not lawful prize or the subject of capture was expressly decided on the former appeal. It was also impliedly settled that the capture was without probable cause, for it was said the owner was undoubtedly entitled to a fair indemnity for the losses sustained, the only difficulty being as to the amount. These questions are, therefore, no longer open. Clark v. Keith [ante, 302], decided at the present Term; Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S., 499 [XXIV., 260]. questions of damages growing out of the capt ure judicially settled according to the rules applicable to private persons in like cases. It is objected, however, that the Executive Department of the Government had no power, in the absence of express legislative authority, to make such a submission. It was the duty of the United States, under the law of Nations, to bring all captured vessels into a prize court for adjudication. If that had not been done in this instance, the Spanish Government would have had just cause of complaint, and could have demanded reparation for the wrongs that had been done one of its subjects. The execuThe first of the remaining questions to be tive department had the right to bring the suit. considered is, whether a decree can be en- In that suit it had been determined that the capttered against the United States for damages. ure was unlawful. Necessarily, therefore, the As the capture was made by the army, or by question of damages to the owner of the captthe army and navy operating together, it in- ured vessel arose. Since, without the consent ured exclusively to the benefit of the United of the United States, no judgment for damages States. There is no distribution of prize money could be rendered against them in the pending in such a case. U. S. v. Steam Vessels of War suit that could be enforced by execution, the [ante, 286], decided at this Term; The Siren, Spanish Government had the right to assume 13 Wall., 394 [80 U. S., XX., 506]. The United the prosecution of the claim, and it did. NecStates were, therefore, in legal effect the cap-essarily the negotiations on the part of the tors, and they came voluntarily into court to United States under this claim were conducted secure for themselves the benefit of what had by the Executive. After long delay no agreebeen done. They deliberately adopted the acts ment was reached, and as a last resort for endof the military and naval officers as their own, ing the controversy, it was determined to refer and came, as captors, to condemn their prize. the whole matter to the court for judicial inOffers to purchase the vessel were made and quiry and determination. We see no reason declined before she was seized, and soon after why this might not be done in such a case. It the seizure she was chartered and put into act- is true, any judgment that may be rendered canual use without any attempt at securing an ad- not be judicially enforced, but the questions to judication. It is evident, also, that the capture be settled are judicial in their character, and must have been the subject of diplomatic cor- are incidents to the suit which the United States respondence between the Government of Spain were required to bring to enforce their rights and the United States before the vessel was as captors. It is too late now to insist that the brought in for adjudication, because on the 6th case is not one of prize, because in the libel it of May, 1862, after the vessel got to New York, is expressly alleged that the vessel was captured and before the libel was filed, Mr. Seward, the as lawful prize, and condemnation was asked then Secretary of State, wrote the district attor- on that account. When, therefore, the United ney for the Southern District of New York, as States, through the Executive of the Nation, follows: waived their right to exemption from suit, and asked the prize court to complete the adjudication of a cause which was rightfully begun in that jurisdiction, we think the Government is bound by the submission, and that it is the duty of the court to proceed to the final deter mination of all the questions legitimately involved. "Sir: Noticing the arrival at New York of the Spanish steamer Nuestra Señora de la Regla which was seized at Port Royal by General Sherman for an alleged illegal breach of neutrality, I now transmit the papers found on board of her, and an abstract of them which I caused to be prepared and which you may find useful." Although the libel was filed on the 9th of June, 1862, and the claim was promptly put in, the adjudication was not had until June of the following year, when all further proceedings were stayed with the consent of both parties, to await an adjustment of damages by the two Governments. Nothing further was done until nearly seven years afterwards, when the Secretary of State informed the Spanish Government of the wish of the United States that the parties interested should apply to the court, which still retained jurisdiction, for such relief as justice demanded, and in the mode that tribunal should deem most proper and convenient. Thereupon, on motion of the claimant, and with the consent of the United States district attorney, the reference was ordered to ascertain the damages. Under these circumstance we cannot but think the United States have voluntarily submitted themselves to the court at the instance of the Spanish Government, and with the consent of the claimant, for the purpose of having the The next inquiry is as to the amount of damages. The duty of a captor is to institute judicial proceedings for the condemnation of his prize without unnecessary delay, and if he fails in this the court may, in case of restitution, decree demurrage against him as damages. This rule is well settled. [Slocum v. Mayberry] 2 Wheat., 1; The Appollon, 9 Wheat., 377; The Lively, 1 Gall., 315; The Corier Maratimo, 1 C. Rob., 287. Upon the facts in this case there can be no doubt of the propriety of such an allowance for the extraordinary detention of the vessel before she was delivered up for adjudication, especially since she was detained for the express purpose of use by the United States. And as to the amount of the allowance, there is no opportunity for discussion. The United States were willing and actually contracted to pay $200 a day for her use if she was not in fact lawful prize, and that is shown to have been a reasonable price for her charter at the time. She was seized on the 29th of November, and it is fair 2. Where the case was disposed of in the state Submitted Jan. 29, 1883. Decided Mar. 12,1883. of Louisiana. On motion to dismiss or affirm. to assume that if due diligence had been used she might have been surrendered for adjudication by the 16th of December, when her charter began to run. She was not actually surrendered until the 9th of June, a delay of 175 days beyond what was necessary. It is not disputed that her value at that time was $30,000. She cost when built $50,000, and was new when captured. As she has never been restored under the order to that effect, there can be no doubt of the liability of the United States for her value, when at their request she was delivered into their possession This action was brought in a State District by the court. It is not a matter of any impor- Court, by Henrietta Davidson and others, detance that the certificate of deposit in the Treas-fendants in error, to perpetually enjoin the ury, of the amount of her appraised value, was not filed. By taking the vessel on the terms imposed by the court, the United States impliedly agreed to restore her in as good condition as she was when taken or pay her value in money. By the surrender of the vessel for adjudication the United States relieved themselves from any further liability for damages in the way of demurrage, and became bound for the vessel instead. The allowance for demurrage includes reasonable compensation for the pay and expenses of an agent to look after the interests of the owners up to the time of the delivery of the vessel to the Navy Department by the court. After that, no agent was necessary. From that time, the case stood as though a sale had been made and the proceeds paid into the registry of the court. Our conclusion is that damages should be allowed as follows: For unnecessary and unusual delay in proceeding to adjudication, 175 days at $200, For value of vessel, In all, $35,000 30,000 $65,000 To which add interest, at the rate of six per cent per annum, from the time of the order of restitution, June 20, 1863, until the decree. The decree of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to enter another decree in accordance with this opinion. True copy. Test: City of New Orleans from executing a certain judgment of the Supreme Court of the State, Matter of Draining Commissioners, 27 La. Ann., 21, which had been affirmed by this court. Davidson v. New Orleans, XXIV., 616, on the ground that the drainage of certain swamplands, the assessment for which was the basis of said judgment, had been abandoned. The present plaintiffs in error intervened as the holders of a large amount of drainage warrants, on the ground that the injunction sought would impair the value of said warrants and the obligation of the contract under certain Acts of the General Assembly of the State authorizing their issue. The judgment of the district court was in favor of the petitioners, the injunction being granted on the ground above stated. This judg ment having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, 34 La. Ann., 170, the interveners sued out this writ of error. Mr. B. R. Forman, for defendants in error, in support of motion. Mr. Henry C. Miller, for plaintiffs in error, contra. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court: The record shows that the defendants in error sought to enjoin the collection of a judgment against their property to enforce an assessment under the drainage laws of Louisiana: 1, because under the operation of the laws authorizing the judgment, nothing more remained to be paid thereon; and, 2, because the judgment had, in terms, been released and discharged by certain Acts of the General AssemIn-bly of the State, passed in 1877 and 1878. If the case was decided below on the first of these grounds, no federal question is involved. James H. McKenney, Clerk, Sup. Court, U. S. JOHN CROSSLEY & SONS (Limited), terveners, Plffs. in Err., v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND HENRI ETTA DAVIDSON, Testamentary Exrx. of the Succession of JOHN DAVIDSON, ET AL. (See S. C., Reporter's ed., 105, 106.) It was settled long ago that, in cases coming to this court from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the opinion of the court below, as set out in the record, may be referred to, if necessary, to determine whether the judgment is one we have authority to review. Armstrong v. Treasurer of Athens Co., 16 Pet., 285; Almonester v. Opinion, when determines character of suit- Kenton, 9 How., 9; R. R. Co. v. Marshall, 12 federal question. 1. In cases coming to this court from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the opinion of the court below, as set out in the record, may be referred to, if nec essary, to determine whether the judgment is one which this court has authority to review. NOTE-Jurisdiction of U. S. Supreme Court where federal question arises, or where is drawn in question statute, treaty or Constitution of U. S. See, note to Matthews v. Zane, 8 U. S. (4 Cranch), 382; note to Martin v. Hunter, 14 U. S. (Wheat.), 304; and note to Williams v. Norris, 25 U. S. (12 Wheat.), 117. How., 167; Cousin v. Labatut, 19 How., 207 [60 U. S., XV., 604]; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall., 633 [87 U. S., XXII., 443]. From the statement of the case and the opinion found in this record, it is manifest the decision was placed entirely on the ground that the judgment was not collectible under the law as it stood before the Acts of 1876 and 1877 were passed. Consequently, the case was disposed of before the federal question presented by the pleadings was reached, and that question was not and |