8 cuit Court of Appeals is not final. The questions certified must each consist of a single question of law, which can be answered without a reference to the pleadings or evidence." They must not be questions of mixed law or fact.10 Nor can the whole case be thus sent up for review." A Circuit Court 7 Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gentry (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. R. 422. 8 McHenry v. Alford, 168 U. S. 651; Grover v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435; Del Monte Min. & M. Co. v. Last Chance M. & M. Co., 171 U. S. 55; U. S. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 505; Warner v. New Orleans, 167 U. S. 467; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60. In each of the foregoing cases the certificate was held to be insufficient. So where the certificate stated that as the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals "differs from that of a co-ordinate court, the instruction of the Supreme Court is requested." Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 148 U. S. 266. The fact that one or more of the judges of the Circuit Court of Appeals was disqualified was held to be a sufficient reason for making the certificate. Farmers' & M. State Bank v. Armstrong (C. C. A.), 49 Fed. R. 600. The rules which were formerly in force as to certificates of a division of opinion between the judges holding a Circuit Court under U. S. R. S., $$ 650, 659, 693, govern in most respects the certificates by the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435; U. S. v. Rider, 163 U. S. 132, 139; U. S. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 505. Under these statutes the certificates were held to be sufficient in the following cases: Skillern's Ex'rs v. May's Ex'rs, 6 Cranch, 267; U. S. v. Tyler, 7 Cranch, 285; Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1; U. S. v. Chicago, 7 How. 185; Shelby v. Bacon, 10 How. 56; Havemeyer v. Board of Supervisors, 3 Wall. 294; Veazie v. Wadleigh, 11 Pet. 55; Pelham v. Rose, 9 Wall. 103; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2; Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430; Somerville's Ex'rs v. Hamilton, 4 Wheat. 230; U. S. v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343; U. S. v. Irvine, 98 U. S. 450; U. S. v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508; U. S. v. Hirsch, 100 U. S. 33; U. S. v. Steffens et al., 100 U. S. 2; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; U. S. v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611; U. S. v. Britton, 107 U. S. 655; U. S. v. Curtis, 107 U. S. 671; Bartholomew v. Trustees, 105 U. S. 61; U. S. v. Ambrose, 108 U. S. 336; U. S. v. Gale, 109 U. S. 65; U. S. v. Waddell, 112 U. S. 76; U. S. v. Spiegel, 116 U. S. 270; California Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U. S. 669; Mackin v. U. S., 117 U. S. 348; U. S. v. Kagamer, 118 U. S. 375; U. S. v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407; U. S. v. Northway, 120 U. S. 327; Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U. S. 680; U. S. v. Argona, 120 U. S. 479; U. S. v. Le Bris, 121 U. S. 278; U. S. v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483; Hosford v. Germania F. I. Co., 127 U. S. 399; Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Wickham, 128 U. S. 426; U. S. v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624; U. S. v. Chase, 135 U. S. 255; U. S. v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278; Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U. S. 499, 502; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 220; U. S. v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150; U. S. v. Thomas, 151 U. S. 577, 581. A complete list of the questions which the Supreme Court answered and of those which it declined to answer before March 3, 1901, prepared by Mr. James C. Van Siclen of the New York bar, is contained in a note to § 476 of the second edition of this book. 9 McHenry v. Alford, 168 U. S. 651. 10 Warner v. New Orleans, 167 U. S. 467; Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435. 11 Del Monte Min. & M. Co. v. Last Chance Min. & M. Co., 171 U. S. 55; should not accompany its certificate by a transcript of the record until ordered by the Supreme Court to transmit the same."2 The statement of facts in the certificate must contain only the fundamental facts and not the evidential facts from which the fundamental facts are found.13 A jurisdictional question,1 and a question involving the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States,15 may thus be certified in a case of which the Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction. A certiorari will issue from the Supreme Court under this section of the Evarts act where questions of gravity or importance are involved, or in the interest of uniformity of decision.16 It will usually issue where questions of international importance are involved; " where there is a difference of opinion between different Circuit Courts of Appeals; 18 where there is an important conflict between the decisions of a Circuit Court of Appeals and a State Supreme Court in the same circuit; 19 and where there is a question as to the disqualification of a judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals to sit in the case.20 The writ is issued with great liberality in cases of admiralty, and very rarely in patent cases. The writ may issue in a case which the Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed for an alleged want of jurisdiction.21 The Supreme Court may, but rarely will, order the certification of the record on an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals from an interlocutory order." The Supreme Court cannot issue a certiorari to bring before it a case when it has appellate jurisdiction to review the same by appeal or Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435; Warner v. New Orleans, 167 U. S. 467. 12 Cincinnati H. & D. R. Co. v. McKeen, 149 U. S. 259; Farmers' & M. State Bank v. Armstrong (C. C. A.), 49 Fed. R. 600. 587, 588; U. S. v. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1. 18 Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 148 U. S. 266. 19 Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506. 20 American Constr. Co. v. Jackson 13 Sigafus v. Porter (C. C. A.), 85 ville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co., 148 U. S. Fed. R. 689. 14 U. S. v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109. 15 Am. Sugar Refining Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277. 16 In re Woods, 143 U. S. 202, 206, per Fuller, C. J. Cf. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Osborne, 146 U. S. 354. 17 In re Lau Ow Bew, 141 U. S. 583, 372. 21 Kingman & Co. v. Western Mfg. Co., 170 U. S. 675; American S. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277. 22 American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co., 148 U. S 372, 386. writ of error.23 The Supreme Court may issue a certiorari directing the whole case before the Circuit Court of Appeals to be certified to it for its decision, whether its advice is requested or not. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals upon a former appeal in the same case may thus be reviewed.25 The writ may issue after the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals has been sent to the court of first instance.26 The writ may be issued at any time within a year after the decision which it brings up for review.2 The practice is to submit to the Supreme Court a petition for the writ accompanied by a certified copy of the record below, and to file twenty-five printed copies of the petition. A deposit of twenty-five dollars for the clerk's fees should be made when the papers are filed. An appearance for the petitioner should then be entered; and notice of the application should be given to the respondent or to the attorneys who appeared for him in the Circuit Court of Appeals. They are permitted to submit briefs in opposition to the application. The case is placed upon the appellate docket when the petition is filed; but no oral arguments are allowed unless the writ is granted or a rule to show cause why it should not issue is made. The errors assigned by a party who took a cross-appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, but who filed no petition for the certiorari, will rarely if ever be considered.28 The effect of the writ is ordinarily to suspend all proceedings by the Circuit Court of Appeals and by the trial court in obedience to its mandate; but it has been said that it does not authorize the court of first instance, before a decision of the Supreme Court, to set aside orders previously made in obedience to the mandate before the certiorari was issued.29 Where upon a petition for the writ of certiorari, a rule to show cause is entered, a return made to the rule and full argument had, the court, if there is no dispute as to the facts, may order the return to stand as the return to the writ and decide the case at once.3 23 Lau Ow Bew v. U. S., 144 U. S. 47; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661. 24 Lau Ow Bew v. U. S., 144 U. S. 47. 23 Panama R. Co. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S. 280. But see Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518. 26 The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110. 27 Ibid. 30 28 Hubbard v. Tod, 171 U. S. 474. 29 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Louisville Tr. Co., 78 Fed. R. 659. 30 American S. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277, 283. § 500. Writs of error from the Supreme Court to State courts. The Revised Statutes provide that "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 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 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; and the proceeding upon the reversal shall be the same, except that the Supreme Court may, at their discretion, proceed to a final decision of the case, and award execution, or remand the same to the court from which it was so removed. The Supreme Court may re-affirm, 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." The title § 500. U. S. R. S., § 709. A defense grounded upon an order of a Federal court is a claim of a right or immunity under an authority exercised under the United States. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 151 U. S. 81, 99; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Long Island L. & Tr. Co., 172 U. S. 493. So is a defense based upon a decree of a Federal court. Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. S. 327. But see Avery v. Popper, 179 U. S. 305. As to bankruptcy, see supra, § 495. A writ of error lies to review a judgment of the highest court of a State, denying to the plaintiff in error a right claimed under the rules of navigation established by Federal statutes. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over questions national and international in their nature, arising in an action for a marine tort committed in navigable waters, cannot be restrained by the fact that the plaintiff has elected to pursue a common-law remedy in a State court. Belden v. Chase, 150 U. S. 674, 691. A judgment for the recovery of land against defendants, officers of the army, who claim to hold the same as the property of the United States, may be thus reviewed. or right claimed under the Federal law must be one claimed. by the plaintiff in error, and not the right of a third person only. The validity of a statute is not drawn in question every time that a right claimed under such statute is controverted; nor is the validity of an authority drawn in question every time that an act done by such authority is disputed." "When a writ of error is issued for the revision of the judgment of a State court, in any criminal proceeding where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, or any statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, the defendant, if charged with an offense that is bailable by the laws of such State, shall not be released from custody until a final judgment upon such writ, or until a bond, with sufficient sureties, in a reasonable sum, as ordered and approved by the State court, is given; and if the offense is not so bailable, until a final judgment upon the writ of error.' Where the decision of the State court is in favor of the title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the Federal author Stanley v. Schwalby, 147 U. S. 508. A judgment of a State court against a receiver appointed by a Federal court, who has made no defense, based upon the Constitution or a Federal statute or authority, cannot. Bausman v. Dixon, 173 U. S. 113. But see McNulta v. Lochridge, 141 U. S. 327. See also Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 556. 2 Giles v. Little, 134 U. S. 645, 650; Owings v. Norwood, 5 Cranch, 344; Conde v. York, 168 U. S. 642; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276; Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405. 3 Cook County v. Calumet & C. C. & D. Co., 138 U. S. 635, 653, 654. In Ferry v. King County, 141 U. S. 668, the fact that a State statute and a mortgage made in pursuance thereof refer to certain acts of Congress as prescribing the rule and measure of the rights granted by the State thereunder, does not make the determination of such rights a Federal ques 99 4 tion. "A State may prescribe the |