upon which said Circuit Court shall give priority to and proceed to hear and determine the questions of law and fact involved in such decision, respecting the classification of such merchandise and the rate of duty imposed thereon under such classification, and the decision of such court shall be final, and the proper collector, or person acting as such, shall liquidate the entry accordingly." No appeal lies from the decision of the § 502. 126 St. at L, ch. 407, § 15, p. 131. See Louisville Pub. W. Co. v. Collector, 49 Fed. R. 561, cited supra, § 497. Under this act the following rules have been adopted by the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York: "RULE I. Where, in any case, the return of the Board of General Appraisers does not contain, as required by section 15 of the Act of June 1, 1890, a certified statement of some particular fact or facts involved in the case, before any order will be granted by this court for a further or additional return by said board, the applicant must make it appear to the satisfaction of the court (by affidavit or otherwise) either that there was evidence before the board bearing on said issue or issues of fact, or that the applicant at the time of filing his protest, or subsequently, and before the decision by the board, offered to sustain his contention as to such facts by proof. "RULE II. No order for an additional or further return will be made, where it is made to appear that the protestant had reasonable notice to appear before said Board of General Appraisers and show cause why the decision of the collector should not be affirmed, and after such notice, without proper excuse, he failed to appear in person or by attorney, and he offered no evidence in support of his contentions as presented in his protest, and no such evidence is found in the record and papers in the case, and none was taken by the board. “RULE III. When an order is made upon the Board of General Appraisers to return to the Circuit Court the record and the evidence taken by them, together with a certified statement of the facts involved in the case and their decisions thereon, the service of the order upon the board shall be accompanied by a copy of the statement of the errors of law and fact complained of, filed in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court on the application for the order. "RULE IV. When an order is made under section 15 of the Act of June 1, 1890, for the taking and returning of further evidence on the application of the Secretary of the Treasury, the collector of the port, or the importer, owner, consignee, or agent, such order shall be understood to embrace further evidence to be offered by the party adverse to the one making the application. "RULE V. The General Appraiser, to whom, as an officer of the court, it is referred to take and return further evidence, shall assign a day and place for the hearing, and give to the party who made the application a summons for the adverse party to attend at the day and place so appointed. The summons shall be served on the adverse party or his counsel such time previous to the day appointed as the General Appraiser may deem reasonable and may direct. But if no direction is made, the time of service shall not be less Board of General Appraisers ascertaining and fixing the dutiable value of goods when the board has acted regularly and without fraud or other misunderstanding.2 "On any final judgment in a consular court of China or Japan, where the matter in dispute exceeds five hundred dol than two days where the parties reside in the city or town where the hearing is to take place; and not less than ten days where the adverse party or his counsel does not reside in such city or town. "RULE VI. No testimony shall be taken by the General Appraiser except such as shall be relevant to the questions raised in the statement of the errors of law and fact complained of, filed on the application for the order to return the record. "RULE VII. The parties shall proceed from day to day with the examination of their witnesses before the General Appraiser, unless he shall adjourn for good cause; and the examination of each witness shall proceed from day to day until it is completed; and after his examination is closed, he shall not be again examined to the same facts without the consent of the adverse party, unless the General Appraiser otherwise direct. “RULE VIII. The General Appraiser shall require the moving party to exhaust his testimony before the introduction of testimony by the adverse party; and after each party closes he shall not introduce further testimony except in rebuttal of new facts presented by the adverse party. “RULE IX. When one of the parties does not attend at the time and place appointed, the General Appraiser shall be at liberty to proceed ex parte. "RULE X. The General Appraiser may decline to take any testimony which may in his opinion be unneces sarily cumulative subject to review by the court, on special application. "RULE XI. On the examination of a witness before the General Appraiser, if any interrogatory to the witness, or any part of his testimony, is objected to as improper or irrelevant, the General Appraiser shall decide upon the objection. If he decides against the objection he shall note the objection and his decision thereon, and proceed to take down the testimony; but if he decides that the objection is well taken, the testimony shall not be taken down unless it is insisted on by the party against whom the decision is made. If the taking down of the testimony in opposition to his decision is insisted on, such fact shall be noted, and the testimony shall be taken; and in that case the party making the objection may, at the hearing, move to have the objectionable testimony expunged. "RULE XII. In cases where no provision is made by law, or by these rules, the proceedings before the General Appraiser in cases not provided for by law, or by the written rules of the court, shall be according to the customary practice of this court, as it has heretofore existed. "RULE XIII. Upon the completion of the record on application for review of the decisions of the Board of United States General Appraisers, under section 15 of the Act of June 10, 1890, either party may notice the case for trial by serving upon the adverse party or his attorney, at least fourteen days before the time appointed for hearing, a notice of 2 Passavant v. U. S., 148 U. S. 214. lars, and does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, an appeal shall be allowed to the minister in such country, as the case may be. But the appellant shall comply with the conditions established by general regulations. And the ministers are hereby authorized and required to receive, hear, and determine such appeals."" "On any final judgment in any consular court of China or Japan, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, an appeal shall be allowed to the Circuit Court for the District of California, trial for the first Monday of any month (except the months of July, August, and September)." The return has been compared to a master's report. In re Van Blankensteyn, 56 Fed. R. 474. In a case where the only fact certified by the appraisers was that "silk is the component material of chief value," it was held that the return should be sent back for a further statement. Judge Lacombe then said: "Had the board also certified that the articles were correctly described in the invoice or entry, or in the appraisers' return, there might be sufficient; but, as it is, there is nothing to show what the articles really are." In re Dieckerhoff, 45 Fed. R. 235. In a case where the return stated that "all the facts involved in said case, so far as ascertained by the board, are fully stated in [a certain opinion] and decision annexed thereto; and in such opinion it was stated, that inasmuch as some of the questions raised by protest were "understood to be now pending in the United States courts, [they] do not deem it advisable to enter into the merits of the same, but affirmed the [collector's] assessment of dues; " a further return was ordered. In re Blumlein, 45 Fed. R. 236; In re Downing, 45 Fed. R. 412. See also U. S. v. Klingenberg, 153 U. S. 93; U. S. v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109; U. S. v. Lies, 170 U. S. 628; Earnshaw v. U. S., 146 U. S. 60; Apgar v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R. 332; Marine v. Lyon (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R. 992; U. S. v. Davis (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 147; In re Marquand, 57 Fed. R. 189; U. S. v. Rosenwald (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. 323; White v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. 251; U. S. v. Lies, 74 Fed. R. 546; U. S. v. Kenworthy (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 904; "Zante Currants," 73 Fed. R. 183; Sang Lung v. Jackson, 85 Fed. R. 502; Foster v. Vocke, 60 Fed. R. 745; In re Chase, 50 Fed. R. 695; In re Wyman, 45 Fed. R. 469; In re Sternbach, 44 Fed. R. 413; In re Sherman, 49 Fed. R. 224; s. c. sub nom. In re Collector of Customs (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 276; In re Kursheedt Mfg. Co., 49 Fed. R. 633; s. c., 54 Fed. R. 159; In re Muser, 49 Fed. R. 831; In re Crowly, 50 Fed. R. 465; s. c. (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 283; In re Bache, 54 Fed. R. 371; s. c., U. S. v. Bache (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. 762; Mexican Onyx & Tr. Co. v. U. S., 66 Fed. R. 732; In re Buffalo Natural Fuel Co., 73 Fed. R. 191; s. c., U. S. v. Buffalo N. G. F. Co. (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R. 110; Stern v. U. S., 77 Fed. R. 607; Lesser v. U. S., 89 Fed. R. 197; U. S. v. Hahn, 91 Fed. R. 755; Morris E. & A. Ex. Co. v. U. S., 94 Fed. R. 643. 3 U. S. R. S., § 4092. It has been held that the statutes creating these consular courts and giving them civil and criminal jurisdiction are constitutional. In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453. and upon such appeal a transcript of the libel, bill, answer, depositions, and all other proceedings in the cause, shall be transmitted to the Circuit Court, and no new evidence shall be received on the hearing of the appeal; and the appeal shall be subject to the rules, regulations, and restrictions prescribed in law for writs of error from District Courts to Circuit Courts."4 "On any final judgment of the minister to China, or to Japan, given in the exercise of original jurisdiction, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars, an appeal shall be allowed to the Circuit Court, as provided in the preceding section."5 "When any final judgment of the minister to 'China, or to Japan, is given in the exercise of original or of appellate criminal jurisdiction, the person charged with the crime or offense, if he considers the judgment erroneous in point of law, may appeal therefrom to the Circuit Court for the District of California; but such appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings unless the minister certifies that there is probable cause to grant the same, when the stay shall be such as the interests of justice may require." "The Circuit Court for the District of California is authorized and required to receive, hear, and determine the appeals provided for in this title, and its decisions shall be final."7 The Evarts Act provides that no appeal, whether by writ of error or otherwise, shall hereafter be taken or allowed from any District Court to the existing Circuit Courts, and no appellate jurisdiction shall hereafter be exercised or allowed by said existing Circuit Courts. The Circuit Courts still retain their general supervisory jurisdiction over causes and questions arising in the District Courts in bankruptcy, under the Act of 1867; but their appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy has been transferred to the Circuit Courts of Appeal.10 4 U. S. R. S., § 4093; The Ping-On v. Blethen, 11 Fed. R. 607; s. C., 7 Sawyer, 483; The Spark v. Lee Choi Chum, 1 Sawyer, 713. 5 U. S. R. S., § 4094. U. S. R. S., § 4095. 7 U. S. R. S., § 4096. 8 26 St. at L. 517, § 4. The former appellate jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts is described in § 479 of the second edition of this book. 9 In re Starr, 56 Fed. R. 142. 10 Duff v. Carrier (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 433. § 503. Judgments, orders, and decrees which may be reviewed by writs of error or appeals.-An interlocutory order or decree granting or continuing an injunction in equity or appointing a receiver in a District or Circuit Court, in a case in which an appeal from a final judgment may be taken, under the provisions of the Evarts Act, to the Circuit Court of Appeals, may be reviewed by such Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal, provided the appeal be taken within thirty days from the entry of such order or decree. Otherwise, neither the Circuit Court of Appeals, nor the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction to review by writ of error or appeal any order, judgment, or decree which is not final.2 A judgment, or decree, to be final for the purpose of an appeal, must terminate the litigation, so that on affirmance by the court of review, the court below will have nothing to do but to execute the order, judgment, or decree which it has already ordered.3 2 McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661; Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 141 U. S. 690. 3 Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U.S. 3; Grant v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 106 U. S. 429; St. L, L. M. & S. R. Co. v. So. Ex. Co., 108 U. S. 24; Ex parte Norton, 108 U. S. 237; Winthrop I. Co. v. Meeker, 109 U. S. 180; Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U. S. 127. § 503. 126 St. at L. 828, § 7; 31 St. complaint in an action at common at L. 660; supra, § 238, 501. law under the Code practice. Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's P. Car Co., 139 U. S. 24, 39. A writ of error will not issue to a judgment of the highest court of a State remanding a suit to an inferior State court for a new trial, Johnson v. Keith, 117 U. S. 199; or for other proceedings in equity. Winn v. Jackson, 12 Wheat. 135: Mayberry v. Thompson, 5 How. 121; Holcombe v. McCusick, 20 How. 552; Rankin v. State, 11 Wall. 380; St. Clair Co. v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628; Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653; McComb v. Knox Co., 91 U. S. 1; Zeller v. Switzer, 91 U. S. 487; Baker v. White, 92 U. S. 176; Davis v. Crouch, 94 U. S. 514; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3: Johnson v. Keith, 117 U. S. 199; Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167; Rice v. Sanger, 144 U. S. 197; Brown v. Marion Nat. Bank, 146 U. S. 619; Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374. By the law of Louisiana and the rule adopted there by the District Court of the United States, a judgment without The following judgments and orders at law have been held not final, and consequently not reviewable: A writ of error will not issue to a judgment of voluntary nonsuit, Evans v. Phillips, 4 Wheat. 73; although the judge below refused to reinstate the cause after the nonsuit, U. S. v. Evans, 5 Cranch, 280; Welch v. Mandeville, 7 Cranch, 152; but a writ of error will issue to a judgment entered upon an order directing an involuntary nonsuit, Elmore v. Grymes, 1 Peters, 469; Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's P. Car Co., 139 U. S. 24, 39; or dismissing the |