Supreme Court. of the matter in dispute upon the writ of error in the supreme court of the United States, is the sum claimed as damages in the declaration. Cook et al. v. Woodrow, 5 Cranch, 13; 2 Cond. Rep. 173. 203. The supreme court, on appeal from the circuit court, is, with respect to facts, limited to the statement made in the court below. Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cranch, 1; 1 Cond. Rep. 229. 204. The supreme court has not jurisdiction to issue a mandamus to a register of a land office of the United States, commanding him to enter the application of a party for certain tracts of land, according to the seventh section of the act of May 10th, 1800, ch. 209, which mandamus had been refused by the supreme court of the state of Ohio, upon the submission by the register to the jurisdiction of that court, being the highest court of law or equity in that state. M'Cluny v. Silliman, 2 Wheat. 369; 4 Cond. Rep. 162. 205. A writ of error will lie from the supreme court upon the judgment of a circuit court awarding a peremptory mandamus to restore to office; but this can only be when the matter in controversy is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the court; and as nothing is in controversy but the office, its value must be ascertained by the salary. The Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelwright, 7 Wheat. 534; 5 Cond. Rep. 334. 206. If the record shows that the inferior court had not jurisdiction of the case, the supreme court will not, on reversal of the judgment, award a venire de novo. Bingham v. Čabot, 3 Dall. 19; 1 Cond. Rep. 13. General Principles. zance of any cause not regularly brought before it. Dewhurst v. Coulthard, 3 Dall. 409; 1 Cond Rep. 189. 213. The supreme court has power to grant the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. E parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75; 2 Cond. Rep. 33. 214. It is no ground of reversal that the court below omitted to give directions to the jury upon any points of law which might arise in the cause, where it was not requested by either party at the trial. It is sufficient that the court has given no erroneous directions. Pennock et al. v. Dialogue, 2 Peters, 16. 215. The supreme court of the United States has not jurisdiction by habeas corpus or otherwise, in a case of a criminal prosecution instituted in a circuit court of the United States, for the purpose of examining the judgment and proceedings of that court in such cases. Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 3 Peters, 193. 216. The power of the supreme court to award writs of habeas corpus is conferred expressly on the court by the fourteenth section of the judiciary act, and has been repeatedly exercised. No doubt exists respecting the power. No law of the United States prescribes the cases in which this great writ shall be issued, nor the power of the court over the party brought up by it. The term used in the constitution is one which is well understood; and the judicial act authorizes the court, and all the courts of the United States, and the judges thereof, to issue the writ "for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commitment." Ibid. 201. 217. The supreme court has power to issue a United States, commanding the court to sign a bill of exceptions in a case tried before such court. Ex parte Crane and another, 5 Peters, 190. 207. The general powers vested in the supreme court prescribe the adoption of that prac-mandamus directed to a circuit court of the tice in equity and admiralty cases, which is founded on the custom and usage of courts of equity and admiralty cases, constituted on similar principles: but it is still authorized to make such deviations as are necessary to adapt its process and rules to the peculiar circumstances of the country, subject to the interposition, alteration and control of the legislature. Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 320; 1 Cond. Rep. 141. 208. The supreme court has jurisdiction under the constitution and laws of the United States to bail a person committed for trial on a criminal charge by a district judge. The United States v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17. 209. A final judgment of the supreme court is conclusive upon the rights which it decides, and no statute has provided any process by which it can reverse its own judgments. Hunter's Lessee v. Martin, 1 Wheat. 304; 3 Cond. Rep. 575. 210. If a cause has been remanded from the supreme court to a state court, and the state court decline or refuse to carry into effect the mandate of the supreme court, the supreme court will proceed to a final decision of the cause, and itself award execution thereon. Ibid. 218. The judiciary act, section 13, enacts that the supreme court shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding offices under the authority of the United States. A mandamus to an officer is said to be the exercise of original jurisdiction; but a mandamus to an inferior court of the United States is in the nature of appellate jurisdiction. A bill of exceptions is the mode of placing the law of the case on a record, which is to be brought before the supreme court by writ of error. Ibid. 219. That a mandamus to sign a bill of exceptions is "warranted by the principles and usages of law," is, we think, satisfactorily proved by the fact that it is given in England by statute; for the writ given by the statute of Westminster the second, is so in fact, and is so termed in the books. The judiciary act speaks of usages of law generally, not of common law. In England it is awarded by the chancellor, but in the United States it is conferred expressly on the supreme court; which exercises both common law and chancery powers, is invested with appellate 212. The supreme court will not take cogni-power, and exercises extensive control over all VOL. I.-40 211. The jurisdiction of the supreme court of the United States is pointed out by the constitution; but the distribution of the powers of the inferior courts is regulated and governed by the laws by which they are constituted. Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine's C. C. R. 453. Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. the courts of the United States. We cannot perceive a reason why the single case of a refusal of an inferior court to sign a bill of exceptions, and thus to place the law of the case on the record, should be withdrawn from that general power to issue writs of mandamus to inferior courts, which is conferred by statute. Ibid. 220. The judicial act confers expressly the power of general superintendence of inferior courts on the supreme court. No other tribunal exists by which it can be exercised. Ibid. 221. The supreme court will not exercise any control over the proceedings of an inferior court of the United States, in allowing or refusing to allow amendments in the pleadings in cases depending in those courts; but every party in such courts has a right to the judgment of the supreme court, in a suit brought in those courts, provided the matter in dispute exceeds the value of two thousand dollars. Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Peters, 634. States. The Cherokee Nation v. The State of 228. The third article of the constitution of the United States describes the extent of the judicial power. The second section closes an enumeration of the cases to which it extends, with "controversies between a state and the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects." A subsequent clause of the same section gives the supreme court original jurisdiction in all cases in which a state shall be a party-the state of Georgia may then certainly be sued in the supreme court. Ibid. 229. This bill, filed on behalf of the Cherokees, seeks to restrain a state from the forcible exercise of legislative power over a neighbouring people asserting their independence; their right to which the state denies. On several of the matters alleged in the bill; for example, on the laws making it criminal to exercise the usual power of self-government in their own country, 222. As the jurisdiction of the supreme court by the Cherokee nation; the supreme court canis appellate, it must be shown to the court that not interpose, at least in the form in which those the court has the power to award a habeas cor-matters are presented. That part of the bill pus, before one will be granted. Ex parte Milburn, 9 Peters, 704. 223. The onus probandi of the amount in controversy, to establish the jurisdiction in a case brought before the supreme court by writ of error, is upon the party seeking to obtain a revision of the case. He must prove that the value exceeds two thousand dollars exclusive of costs. In this case, the matter in question was the ownership of one negro woman and two children, who are slaves, and it is not supposed their value can be equal to that sum. The writ of error was dismissed. Hagan v. Foison, 9 Peters, 160. 224. Where the penalty of a bond is more than sufficient to confer jurisdiction, but the amount really due is below it, the supreme court will not entertain the suit. United States v. M'Dowell, 4 Cranch, 316; 2 Cond. Rep. 122. 225. The supreme court has jurisdiction where one party claims under a grant from the state of New Hampshire, and the other under a grant from the state of Vermont, although at the time of the first grant Vermont was part of New Hampshire. Town of Pawlet v. Clarke et al., 9 Cranch, 292; 3 Cond. Rep. 408. 2. Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 226. The second section of the third article of the constitution, giving original jurisdiction to the supreme court, in cases affecting consuls, does not prevent the legislature from vesting a concurrent jurisdiction in favour of courts. United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297. 227. The supreme court of the United States have not jurisdiction in the matter of a bill filed by the Cherokee nation of Indians, against the state of Georgia, praying for an injunction to prevent the execution of certain laws passed by the legislature of Georgia, relative to lands within the boundaries of the lands of the Cherokee nation; the Cherokee nation not being "a foreign state," in the sense in which the term "foreign state" is used in the constitution of the United which respects the land occupied by the Indians, and pray's the aid of the court to protect their possessions, may be more doubtful. The mere question of right might perhaps be decided by the supreme court, in a proper case, with proper parties. But the court is asked to do more than decide on the title. The bill requires the court to control the legislature of Georgia, and to restrain the exertion of its physical force. The propriety of such an interposition by the court may well be questioned. It savours too much of the exercise of political power, to be within the proper province of the judicial department. Ibid. 230. Congress has passed no act for the special purpose of prescribing the mode of proceeding in suits instituted against a state, or in any suit in which the supreme court is to exercise the original jurisdiction_conferred by the constitution. State of New Jersey v. The State of New York, 5 Peters, 284. 231. It has been settled, on great deliberation, that the supreme court may exercise its original jurisdiction in suits against a state, under the authority conferred by the constitution and existing acts of congress. The rule respecting the process, the persons on whom it is to be served, and the time of service, is fixed. The course of the court, after due service of process, has also been prescribed. Ibid. 232. In a suit in the supreme court, instituted by a state against another state of the Union, the service of the process of the court on the governor and attorney-general of the state, sixty days before the return day of the process, is sufficient service. Ibid. 233. At a very early period in our judicial history, suits were instituted in the supreme court against states, and the questions concerning its jurisdiction and mode of proceeding were necessarily considered. Ibid. 234. An injunction was refused by the supreme court, on a motion for an injunction to prevent the execution of certain acts of the legis Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. lature of the state of Georgia, in the territory of the Cherokee nation of Indians, on behalf of the Cherokee nation; they claiming to proceed in the supreme court of the United States as a foreign state against the state of Georgia; under the provision of the constitution of the United States, which gives to the court jurisdiction in controversies in which a state of the United States, or the citizens thereof, and a foreign state, citizens or subjects thereof, are parties. The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 5 Peters, 1. 241. An indictment under the 27th section of the act of April 30, 1790, ch. 36, for a violation of the laws of nations, by offering violence to the person of a foreign minister, is not "a case affecting ambassadors or other public ministers ;" of which cases, by the constitution of the United States, the supreme court has original jurisdiction. The United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467; | 6 Cond. Rep. 394. 242. The states composing the United States, in their highest sovereign capacity, in the convention of the people thereof, on whom, by the 235. Where the words of the constitution con- revolution, the prerogative of the crown, and the fer only appellate jurisdiction on the supreme transcendent power of the parliament of Engcourt, original jurisdiction is most certainly not land, devolved, in a plenitude unimpaired by any given; but where the words admit of appellate act, and controllable by no authority, adopted the jurisdiction, the power to take cognizance of the constitution, by which they respectively made suit originally, does not necessarily negative the to the United States a grant of judicial power power to decide upon it on appeal, if it may over controversies between two or more states. originate in a different court. Cohens v. The By the constitution it was ordained that this juState of Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; 5 Cond. Rep. 90. dicial power, in cases where a state was a party, 236. In every case to which the judicial power should be exercised by the supreme court as one extends, and in which original jurisdiction is not of original jurisdiction. The states waived their expressly given, that judicial power shall be exemption from judicial power, as sovereigns by exercised in the appellate, and only in the ap-original and inherent right, by their own grant, pellate form. The original jurisdiction of the supreme court cannot be enlarged, but its appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in every case, cognizable under the third article of the constitution of the United States, in the courts of the United States, in which original jurisdiction can be exercised. Ibid. and over themselves in such cases; but which they would not grant to any inferior tribunal. The State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachusetts, 12 Peters. 243. The proceeding by a state against a state to settle a question of boundary, is by bill to be quieted as to the boundary of the disputed territory. Ibid. 244. The supreme court has a right to jurisdiction where a bill has been filed for the adjustment and settlement of the boundary line between two states; the object of the bill not being to disturb the title to property, granted by the state holding possession within the disputed territory. Ibid. 237. In those cases in which original jurisdiction is given to the supreme court, the judicial power cannot be exercised in its appellate form. In every other case the jurisdiction is to be exercised in the original or appellate form, or both, as the wisdom of congress may direct. With the exception of those cases in which original jurisdiction is given to the supreme court, there is none to which the judicial power extends 245. The words of the constitution relative from which the original jurisdiction of the infe- to the original jurisdiction of the supreme court, rior courts is excluded by the constitution. Os-" controversies between two or more states," born et al. v. The Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738; 5 Cond. Rep. 741. 238. The constitution establishes the supreme court, and defines its jurisdiction. It enumerates cases in which jurisdiction is original and exclusive, and then defines that which is appellate; but it does not intimate that in any such case the power cannot be exercised in its original form, by courts of original jurisdiction. Ibid. 239. If a state cannot sue at law for a right of sovereignty and jurisdiction, yet it seems that it might file a bill in equity against the state, contesting its claims in the supreme court of the United States, praying to be quieted as to the boundary of the disputed territories; and the court, in order to effectuate justice, might appoint commissioners to ascertain and report those boundaries. New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1; 1 Cond. Rep. 203. 240. The authority given by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to the supreme court, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, is not warranted by the constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; 1 Cond. Rep. 267. | "all controversies of a civil nature where a state is a party," are broad, comprehensive terms; by no obvious meaning or necessary implication excluding those which relate to the title, boundary, jurisdiction or sovereignty of a state. The judi ciary act makes certain exceptions, which apply only to cases of private persons, and cannot embrace a case of a state against a state. Ibid. 246. The original jurisdiction of the supreme court extends to the settlement of questions of boundary between two or more states, in suits instituted in that court by a state against a state. Ibid. 247. A bill was filed by the state of Rhode Island against the state of Massachusetts, for the purpose of a settlement of boundary between the two states. The state of Massachusetts appeared, and filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the supreme court. The court, after the argument of a motion to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction, sustained the proceedings, and decided that the court had jurisdiction of the case. motion was then made, by the counsel for the state of Massachusetts, for leave to withdraw the plea filed in the case, and also to withdraw A Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 254. No writ of error lies to the supreme court to reverse the judgment of a circuit court, in a civil action carried from the district court to the circuit court, by writ of error. The United States v. Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 108; 2 Cond. Rep. 434. the appearance. By the court:-The practice | 3. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. must be well settled that in suits against a state, if the state shall refuse or neglect to appear upon due service of process, no coercive measures will be taken to compel appearance; but the complainant or plaintiff will be allowed to proceed ex parte. If, upon this view of the case, the counsel of the state of Massachusetts shall elect to withdraw the appearance heretofore entered, leave will be accordingly given. Ibid. 248. The constitution declares that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases of law and equity arising under it-the laws of the United States, and treaties made or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, or other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." The constitution certainly contemplates these as three distinct classes of cases; and if they are distinct, the grant of jurisdiction over one of them does not confer jurisdiction over either of the other two. The discrimination made between them in the constitution is conclusive against their identity. The American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Peters, 545. 249. The constitution, article 3, sec. 2, provides that "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction." A case which belongs to the jurisdiction of the supreme court, on account of the interest which a state has in the controversy, must be a case in which a state is, either nominally or substantially, a party. Fowler et al. v. Lindsey et al., 3 Dall. 411. 250. It is not sufficient that a state may be consequentially affected; for, in such a case (as where the grants of different states are brought into litigation), the circuit court has clearly a jurisdiction. Ibid. 251. A controversy relative to soil or jurisdiction between two states, occurring in a suit between two individuals, to which neither of the states is a party, is not a case within the original jurisdiction of the supreme court. If, in such a case, either of the two states have the right of soil, they may contest it at any time in this court, notwithstanding a decision in the suit between the individuals. And though the states may have parted with the right of soil, still the right of jurisdiction is unimpaired. Ibid. 252. A state, not being a party to an ejectment brought in the circuit court by private individuals, nor interested in its decision, is not entitled to an injunction from this court, on a general claim of soil and jurisdiction involved in the private suit. The State of New York v. The State of Connecticut, 4 Dall. 3. 253. Although a mandamus may be directed to other courts in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this court, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper, such as a commission to a public officer, is in effect the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and therefore belongs not to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 174. 255. The constitution provides, art. 3, sec. 2, "that in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases” (within the judicial power of the United States) "the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make." Unless congress has provided a rule to regulate the proceedings of the supreme court, as to its appellate jurisdiction, the court cannot exercise that jurisdiction; and if a rule is provided by congress, the court cannot depart from it. Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321; 1 Cond. Rep. 144. 256. The appellate jurisdiction of the court may be exercised in all other cases than those in which it has original jurisdiction, and there is nothing in the constitution to restrain its exercise over state tribunals in the enumerated cases. Ibid. 257. An appeal, in a criminal case, does not lie to the supreme court from the circuit court of the District of Columbia. United States v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159; 1 Cond. Rep. 480. 258. But when the opinions of the circuit court judges differ, except in the District of Columbia, the point may be certified to the supreme court. Ibid. 259. The supreme court has jurisdiction, in cases of appeals from the orphans' court, through the circuit court for the county of Washington, by virtue of the act of congress of February 14th, 1804; and by the act of congress subsequently passed, the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, must exceed the value of one thousand dollars, in order to entitle the party to an appeal. Nicholls et al. v. Hodges' Ex'rs, 1 Peters, 562. 260. In those cases in which original jurisdiction is given to the supreme court, the judicial power of the United States cannot be exercised in its appellate form. Osborn v. The Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738; 5 Cond. Rep. 741. 261. In an action of ejectment between two citizens of a state for lands in the state, if the defendant set up an outstanding title in a British subject, which he contends is protected by the treaty of 1794, and that, therefore, the title is out of the plaintiff; and the highest court of law or equity of the state decide against the title thus set up, it is not a case in which a writ of error lies to the supreme court, under the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 25. Owings v. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, 344; 2 Cond. Rep. 275. 262. The words of the judiciary act must be restrained by the constitution, which (art. 3, sec. 2) extends the judicial power to all cases in law Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. and equity, arising "under treaties" made under the authority of the United States. This is not a case arising under the treaty, and whether the outstanding title be an obstacle to the plaintiff's recovery, is a question exclusively for the decision of the state court. Ibid. 263. But the supreme court has jurisdiction where the treaty is drawn in question, whether incidentally or directly. Wherever a right grows out of, or is protected by a treaty, it is sanctioned against all the laws and judicial decisions of the states; and whoever may have this right, is to be protected. Ibid. a writ of error from a state court, to declare a state law void on account of its collision with a state constitution: it not being a case embraced in the judiciary act, which gives the power to the supreme court to issue a writ of error to the highest judicial tribunal of the state. Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Peters, 280. 271. Maryland. A writ of error lies from the supreme court of the United States to the highest court of a state, in a case where the question is whether a confiscation under a law of the state was complete, before the treaty of peace with Great Britain. Smith v. The State of Maryland, 6 Cranch, 286; 2 Cond. Rep. 377. 264. The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court extends to a final judgment or decree in 272. No writ of error lies to the highest court any suit in the highest court of law or equity of of law or equity of a state court, under the a state, where is drawn in question the validity twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, of a treaty, or statute, or an authority exercised unless there is something apparent on the record under the United States, and the decision is bringing the case within the appellate jurisdic against their validity; or where is drawn in question of the supremne court. Inglee v. Coolidge, 2 tion the validity of a statute of, or an authority Wheat. 363; 4 Cond. Rep. 155. exercised under any state, on the ground of their 273. Under the twenty-fifth section of the jubeing repugnant to the constitution, treaties, or diciary act of 1789, ch. 20, giving an appellate laws of the United States, and the decision is in jurisdiction to the supreme count of the United favour of such, their validity; or of the consti- States, from the final judgment or decree of the tution, or of a treaty or statute of, or a commis- highest court of law or equity of a state, the writ sion held under the United States, and the de- of error may be directed to any court in which cision is against the title, right, privilege, or ex- the record and judgment on which it is to act emption specially set up or claimed by either may be found; and if the record has been reparty, under such clause of the constitution, mitted by the highest court, &c., to another treaty, statute, or commission. Martin v. Hun-court of the state, it may be brought by the writ ter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; 3 Cond. Rep. 575. 265. Although the claims of a state may be ultimately affected by the decision of a cause, yet if the state be not necessarily a defendant, the courts of the United States must take jurisdiction. United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; 2 Cond. Rep. 202. 266. The supreme court has no jurisdiction upon a writ of error to a state court, under the twenty-fifth section of the act of 1789, if the decision of the state court be in favour of the privilege claimed under the act of congress. Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; 1 Cond. Rep. 524. of error from that court. Gelston et al. v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; 4 Cond. Rep. 244. 274. By a rule of the supreme court, the return of a copy of the record of the proper state court, under the seal of that court, annexed to the writ of error, is a sufficient compliance with the mandate of the writ. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; 3 Cond. Rep. 575. 275. A case may be brought to the supreme court of the United States, from the highest court of law or equity in a state, under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20, by a writ of error issued by the clerk of a circuit court in the form prescribed under 267. An appeal or writ of error lies from the the ninth section of the act of May 8, 1792, ch. judgment of the circuit court of the District of 137; and it is not necessary that in such case Columbia to the supreme court, in cases where the writ itself should state that it issued upon a the Bank of Alexandria was plaintiff, and the final judgment, or that the court to which it is judgments below are in its favour; notwithstand-issued, is the highest court to which a decision ing the clause in the charter of the bank to the contrary. Young v. The Bank of Alexandria, 4 Cranch, 384; 2 Cond. Rep. 150. 268. An appeal lies to the supreme court from the sentence of the circuit court of the District of Columbia, affirming the sentence of the orphans' court of Alexandria county, which dismissed the petition to revoke the probate of a will. Carter's Heirs v. Cutting and Wife, 8 Cranch, 251; 3 Cond. Rep. 108. 269. The supreme court has no appellate jurisdiction confided to it in criminal cases by the laws of the United States; and it cannot revise the judgments of the circuit courts by writ of error, in any case where a party has been convicted of a public offence. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; 5 Cond. Rep. 225. of the suit could be had. Buel et al. v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312; 5 Cond. Rep. 455. 276. Where a cause is brought to the supreme court, by writ of error or appeal from the highest court of law or equity in a state, under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20, upon the ground that the validity of a statute of the United States was drawn in question, and that the decision of the state court was against its validity, &c.; or, that the validity of the statute of the state was drawn in question, as repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the decision was in favour of its validity; it must appear by the record, that the validity of the act of congress, or the constitutionality of the state law, was drawn in question. Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311; 4 Cond. 270. The supreme court has no authority on | Rep. 465. 40# 3 K |