it is repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States. And when the decision is against a title, right, privilege or immunity specially claimed under the Constitution, statutes or treaties of the United States, or exercised under the commission or authority of the United States.

The right to examine such questions is by writ of error only, which brings up questions of law and not of fact. The writ will lie in a proper case no matter how small the amount involved. There must have been a final judgment or decree of the highest court of a State in which the case was cognizable.3 A judgment or decree is not final while any judicial question remains to be determined.*

The writ of error brings the record of the state court before the Supreme Court. This includes the pleadings and the judgment in an action at law together with the bill of exceptions if there be one, and the pleadings, the evidence and the decree in an equity case.5 The Supreme Court may also look at the opinion of the state court where by the local practice it is made part of the record.

It must appear that the federal question was presented to the state court, and if either party claimed a right, title, privilege or immunity under the United States or the Constitution, laws or treaties thereof, this must have been specifically set up.8 The attention of the state court must have been

1 Curtis, Jurisdiction U. S. Courts, 2d ed. 68; Egan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188. 2 Curtis, Jurisdiction U. S. Courts, 2d ed. 42; Foster, Fed. Pract. 2d ed. $ 477.

3 Great Western Tel. Co. v. Burnham, 162 U. S. 339; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207; Clark v. Kansas City, 172 U. S. 334.

* Curtis, Jurisdiction U. S. Courts, 2d ed. 29, 93; Foster, Fed. Pract. 2d ed. § 480; California Bk. v. Stateler, 171 U. S. 447.

7 Zadig v. Baldwin, 166 U. S. 485; California Bk. v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362; Columbia Water Power Co. v. Street Ry. Co., 172 U. S. 475.

Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Chicago, 164 U. S. 454; Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648; Levy v. Superior Court, 167 U. S. 175; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 169 U. S. 103; Backus r. Fort Street Co., 169 U. S. 557; C. B. & Q. R. R. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 57; Kipley v. Illinois, 170 U. S. 182; Green Bay Co. v. Patten Paper

5 Curtis, Jurisdiction U. S. Courts, Co., 172 U. S. 58; Pittsburgh, &c.

2d ed. 33.

Ry. v. Loan & Trust Co., 172 U. S.

6 Thompson v. Maxwell Land Co., 493. 168 U. S. 451.

directed to the question in time for the court to consider it before rendering its decision. It is not sufficient to set up such a question in a motion for a new trial or a petition for a rehearing, except in a statutory proceeding where there was no provision for an answer and the defendant could not make this defence before, but the points may be made in the course of the trial.1

The decision of the state court will not be reviewed if it can be supported on some other ground though a federal question were passed on,5 nor unless there was an adverse decision on the federal question. The judgment of the state court will be affirmed unless the federal question was decided erroneously. It must appear that a question arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States was directly involved; it is not sufficient that the decision touched it collaterally. If there are several questions of a federal nature, but only one was considered in the state court, the Supreme Court will not consider the others." The writ of error must be allowed by the chief justice of the state court, or by a justice of the Supreme Court.10

Under the Act of 1867," a jurisdiction similar to that of paragraph b was vested in the circuit courts. It related in terms only to questions arising in the district courts when sitting as courts of bankruptcy. Paragraph b, however, covers similar

ground, and will give the circuit court of appeals power only over matters of law arising in bankruptcy cases.1 In §§ 23, 24, and 25, "bankruptcy proceedings" means matters which involve merely questions of the administration of a bankrupt law. They are contrasted with "controversies" arising in bankruptcy. 'Controversies" means actions between trustees and persons claiming adversely to them. The latter are cognizable by the circuit courts in certain instances, while the former are intrusted entirely to the district courts.2 Paragraph b, therefore, relates only to the power of the circuit courts of appeal over questions of law arising in bankruptcy proceedings in the district courts.3

Under the former law it was held that the circuit court need not exercise this jurisdiction if the necessity of the case did not seem to demand it. This decision is not binding now, because the language of the Act of 1867 was permissive, while that of the Act of 1898 is mandatory.

Paragraph b allows the correction of errors of law in a summary way, and no questions of fact can be passed on. Appeals are allowed in certain bankruptcy matters by § 25, and then the whole case is before the court. It may be difficult to determine whether a question is a bankruptcy proceeding which can be reviewed summarily by the circuit court of appeals or not. An adjudication of bankruptcy is undoubtedly such a question; though if the adjudication be after a trial by jury, there can be no review of it in this way, because it would be unconstitutional. Objections to the proof of a debt constitute a bankruptcy question reviewable

1 Re Rouse, 91 Fed. Rep. 96, 1 N. B. ick v. Coleman, 95 U. S. 266; Cleveland N. 75. Ins. Co. v. Globe Co., 98 U. S. 366; Merchant's Bank . Slagle, 106 U. S. 558; Leggett v. Allen, 110 U. S. 741.

2 See § 486.

3 Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall. 65; Hall v. Allen, 12 Wall. 452; Mead v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 635; Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258; Coit v. Robinson, 19 Wall. 274; Bank v. Cooper, 20 Wall. 171; Stickney v. Wilt, 23 Wall. 150; Sandusky v. Nat. Bank, 23 Wall 289; Conro v. Crane, 94 U. S. 441 ; Hill v. Thompson, 94 U. S. 322; Nim

Bank v. Cooper, 20 Wall. 171. 5 Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall. 65; Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258; Sandusky v. Bank, 23 Wall. 289; Hill v. Thompson, 94 U. S. 322; Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Globe Co., 98 U. S. 366. 6 Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258.

3

by the higher court. So also the discharge of a bankrupt,2 a sale of property by the trustee, an exception to the report of trustees appointed to settle up the bankrupt's affairs in a proceeding like a composition scheme, or a decision on the allowance of a claim having priority. But suits by the trustee against a lien claimant,5 or to recover land, or money collected by an agent of the bankrupt, are controversies between the trustees and adverse claimants which cannot be reviewed by the circuit courts of appeal in the exercise of their supervisory jurisdiction.

§ 488. Act of 1898. SEC. 25. APPEALS AND WRITS OF ERROR.-a. That appeals, as in equity cases, may be taken in bankruptcy proceedings from the courts of bankruptcy to the circuit court of appeals of the United States, and to the supreme court of the Territories, in the following cases, to wit, (1) from a judgment adjudging or refusing to adjudge the defendant a bankrupt; (2) from a judgment granting or denying a discharge; and (3) from a judgment allowing or rejecting a debt or claim of five hundred dollars or over. Such appeal shall be taken within ten days after the judg ment appealed from has been rendered, and may be heard and determined by the appellate court in term or vacation, as the case may be.

b. 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

1 Hall v. Allen, 12 Wall. 452; Bank v. Cooper, 20 Wall. 171; Leggett v. Allen, 110 U. S. 741.

4 Re Rouse, 91 Fed. Rep. 96, 1 N. B. N. 75.

5 Marshall v. Knox, 16 Wall. 551.

2 Mead v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 635; Stickney v. Wilt, 23 Wall. 150.

Coit v. Robinson, 19 Wall. 274.

8 Nimick v. Coleman, 95 U. S. 266;

Merchant's Bank v. Slagle, 106 U. S.

6 Milner v. Meek, 95 U. S. 252.

7 Smith v. Mason, 14 Wall. 419.

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.

c. Trustees shall not be required to give bond when they take appeals or sue out writs of error.

d. 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 phrase "bankruptcy proceedings" is used here as in § 23 in distinction to controversies arising out of the settlement by the trustee of the estate of the bankrupt. This is made evident by the enumeration of the cases in which appeals are granted, all of which are strictly connected with the powers of the bankrupt court.

The district court has authority also to settle controversies arising out of the estates, such as suits between trustees and adverse claimants if the defendant consents to be sued in the district court. (See § 23.)

An appeal was allowed from the district to the circuit court, by § 8 of the Act of 1867, from the allowance or rejection of a

1 14 Stats. 520, R. S. § 4980.