§ 495. Review by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States is "invested with appellate jurisdiction of controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings from the courts of bankruptcy from which they have appellate jurisdiction in other cases. The Supreme Court of the United States shall exercise a like jurisdiction from courts of bankruptcy not within any organized circuit of the United States and from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia." 1 "From any final decision of a Court of Appeals, allowing or rejecting a claim under this act, an appeal may be had under such rules and within such time as may be prescribed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the following cases and no other: 1. Where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of two thousand dollars, and the question involved is one which might have been taken on appeal or writ of error from the highest court of a State to the Supreme Court of the United States; or 2. Where some justice of the Supreme Court of the United States shall certify that in his opinion the determination of the question or questions involved in the allowance or rejection of such claim is essential to a uniform construction of this act throughout the United States."2 "Controversies may be certified to the Supreme Court of the United States from other courts of the United States, and the former court may exercise jurisdiction thereof and issue writs of certiorari pursuant to the provisions of the United States laws now in force or such as may be hereafter enacted." The Supreme Court cannot review a decision of a District or Circuit Court upon a certificate that there is a question of jurisdiction, until after final judgment.* § 495. 130 St. at L. 544, 553, 554, $24. 230 St. at L. 544, 554, § 25. infra, SS 497, 498, 499. 3 Ibid. the United States upon a certificate of jurisdiction until after the bankSee rupt's discharge. See Leggett v. Allen, 110 U. S. 741; Ingersoll v. Bonroe, 154 U. S. 645. But where a claimant or the trustee proceeds by an original bill in equity filed in a District or Circuit Court of the United States, the Supreme Court may review the final decree in that suit upon a certificate that there is a question of jurisdiction. In re Jacobs (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R. 539. 4 Bardes v. Hawarden Nat. Bank, 175 U. S. 526; infra, § 498. It seems that for the purposes of a review in this method, the different applications in bankruptcy are all treated as parts of the same proceeding, and that there can be no review of any of them by the Supreme Court of "A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity; or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty, or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set up or claimed, by either party, under such Constitution, treaty, statute, commission, or authority, may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court upon a writ of error. The writ shall have the same effect as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a court of the United States. The Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment or decree of such State court, and may at their discretion award execution, or remand the same to the court from which it was removed by the writ."5 Under this statute the Supreme Court may review the final judgments or decrees of a State court which refuse to give proper effect to a discharge in bankruptcy; which refuse to give proper effect to the statute of limitations as to suits against trustees; and which refuse to give proper effect to an order for a sale in bankruptcy; but not of a judgment or decree which erroneously gives too great effect to a discharge; nor of a refusal to open a decree so as to allow a defendant to plead a discharge.10 It seems that the time within which a 8 'U. S. R. S., § 709; infra, § 500. 6 Dimock v. Revere Copper Co., 117 U. S. 559; Forsyth v. Vehmeyer, 177 U. S. 177; Palmer v. Hussey, 119 U. S. 96. See Winchester v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 450. 7 Traer v. Clews, 115 U. S. 528. 8 Factors' & Tr. Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 111 U. S. 738; New Orleans S. F. & L. Co. v. Delamore, 114 U. S. 501. 9 Linton v. Stanton, 12 How. 423. 10 Wolf v. Stix, 96 U. S. 991. But see Winchester v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 450. See also Van Norden v. Benner, 131 U. S. cxlv; Scott v. Kelly, 22 Wall. 57; Boatmen's Sav. Bank v. State Sav. Ass'n, 114 U. S. 265. Under the act of 1867 it was held that the Supreme Court might review in certain cases the decision of a State writ of error to a judgment or decree of a State court may be obtained from the Supreme Court of the United States or an appeal taken thereto from a District or Circuit Court of the United States, or from the Supreme Court of a Territory, or of the District of Columbia, is two years from the entry of the same, in bankruptcy as in other cases; " but where the appeal is taken solely because a question of jurisdiction was at issue in a case in a Circuit or District Court, such question must be certified at the term at which the judgment or decree was entered.12 court against an assignee in bankruptcy who claimed title to certain property. Williams v. Heard, 140 U. S. 529. But see McKenna v. Simpson, 129 U. S. 506. 11 U. S. R. S., § 1008; infra, § 506. 12 26 St. at L 827; infra, § 497; Colvin v. City of Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456; The Bayonne, 159 U. S. 687; infra, § 498. CHAPTER XXXIII. WRITS OF ERROR AND APPEALS. § 496. Writs of error and appeals in general.- A writ of error is the appropriate proceeding for the review of the judg ment of a court of law. An appeal is the appropriate proceeding for the review of the decree of a court of equity or admiralty. A final order upon an application for a mandamus;1 a final order or judgment in a proceeding for a seizure and forfeiture of land, or personal property; a judgment in an action upon a promissory note; a judgment in an action for the allotment of dower, although the ancient common-law procedure in such an action has been abrogated by the laws of the State;" a judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, affirming a final order of the Supreme Court of that District which admitted to probate and record a certain writing as a last will and testament, after the verdict of a jury, or after a trial without a jury; a judgment upon an intervention by third opposition under sections 395 to 400 of the Louisiana Code of Practice, by a person claiming that property seized on execution is exempt from seizure and sale; a judgment in a criminal case; an order punishing a person for contempt of an order in a case at law or in equity;1o and a judgment after a trial by jury of the issues raised upon a petition of intervention founded upon a legal cause of action," can be 9 § 496. 1 Ward v. Gregory, 7 Pet. 633; Muhlenberg County v. Dyer (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R. 634. 8 9 Bucklin v. U. S., 159 U. S. 680. 10 Gould v. Sessions (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. 163. But see Nassau El. R. 2 Armstrong's Foundry v. U. S., 6 Co. v. Sprague El. R. & M. Co. (C. C. Wall. 766. 3 U. S. v. Emholt, 105 U. S. 414. 5 Parish v. Ellis, 16 Pet. 451. A.), 95 Fed. R. 415; supra, § 344. Upon an appeal from the final decree there may be a review of so much of the order as imposes a fine to indemnify a party injured by the contempt. Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, 26. 11 Rouse v. Hornsby (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. 219, 222; Texas & Pac. Ry. reviewed only by writ of error and not by appeal. No appeal can be taken from the final order or decree of a State court, although the proceeding was equitable in its nature.12 Final orders, judgments, and decrees of State courts can only be reviewed by writ of error.13 A final order or decree in a suit or proceeding, which in its essential nature is the foreclosure of a mortgage; a proceeding to enforce a mechanic's lien by a sale of the property subject thereto, and a personal judgment for the deficiency, under a statute providing that the practice shall be in like manner and with like effect as in actions for the foreclosure of mortgages; 15 a judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirming a final settlement by the Orphans Court of an account of an executrix; 16 and an order of a District or Circuit Court of the United States upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus," can be reviewed only by an appeal and not by a writ of error. The decisions of the District and Circuit Courts in suits upon claims against the United States are reviewed by appeal or writ of error according to the nature of each case. 18 When the record is brought before it by a writ of error, the court looks into it to see if any error of law was committed by the inferior court. There can be no reversal upon a writ of error for any error in fact.19 Upon an appeal the appellate court regularly reviews the case upon the evidence taken in the inferior court, and certified to it.20 To these rules of the English practice the Federal statutes have made certain exceptions. Upon a writ of error there can be no reversal for error in ruling any plea in abatement, such Co. v. Bloom's Adm'r, 164 U. S. 636, 643: Thompson v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 93 Fed. R. 384. 12 U. S. R. S., § 709; Verden v. Coleman, 22 How. 192; infra, § 500. 13 U. S. R. S., § 709; Verden v. Coleman, 22 How. 192; infra, § 500. 14 Marin v. Lalley, 17 Wall. 14; Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. 118. 15 Idaho & O. L. L. Co. v. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 509. 16 Kenaday v. Sinnott, 179 U. S. 606, 17 In re Morrissey, 137 U. S. 157, 158; In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1, 42; Rice v. Ames, 180 U. S. 371. 18 Chase v. U. S., 155 U. S. 489; supra, § 36. 19 Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321, 327; U. S. v. Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 108, 110; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Generes v. Campbell, 11 Wall. 193. 20 In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1, 42. |