ruff, 26 Fed. 195, and Kessinger v. Hinkhouse, 27 Fed. 886, 887, holding such question is sufficient to give jurisdiction to Federal court on removal.

Supreme Court, on error to State court, will consider only questions raised below, p. 135.

Miscellaneous.— Cited also in In re Burdick, 162 Ill. 52, 44 N. E. 414, and dissenting opinion, 162 Ill. 77, 44 N. E. 422; Cory v. Carter, 18 Ind. 361, 17 Am. Rep. 763, and State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 458, but not in point.

18 Wall. 141-151, 21 L. 824, SYKES v. CHADWICK.

Dower is a valuable right, absolute in wife, release of which is good consideration for payment of money to her separate use, pp. 145, 146.

Cited and principle applied in Lackett v. Rumbaugh, 45 Fed. 36. holding partnership property transferred on such consideration is exempt from firm debts; Gruver v. Walkup, 55 Neb. 546, 75 N. W. 1092, holding wife may accept note and mortgage on land free from dower claims; Holmes v. Winchester, 133 Mass. 141, and Beals v. Storm, 26 N. J. Eq. 375, holding money so secured not attachable by husband's creditors; Strayer v. Long, 86 Va. 561, 10 S. E. 575, holding release will support post-nuptial settlement as against husband's creditors; Allen v. Perry, 56 Wis. 188, 14 N. W. 7, holding release of homestead rights is good consideration. Cited also in discussion obiter in Holter v. Wassweiler, 19 Mont. 174, 47 Pac. 808, and In re Alexander, 53 N. J. Eq. 99, 30 Atl. 818, collecting cases; Davis v. Davis, 25 Gratt. 590. See also note in 31 Am. Rep. 445.

Husband and wife.- Statute of District of Columbia construed, and held to allow wife to sue alone, joint obligor with husband on note given for release of dower, p. 148.

Cited in Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 417, holding wife may bequeath property under such act; Friedlander v. Johnson, 2 Woods, 678, F C. 5,117, holding husband may secure indebtedness to wife by note or pledge; Messer v. Smyth, 58 N. H. 300, holding wife may mortgage land to secure note given by her. Cited also obiter in Bowles v, Field, 83 Fed. 887.

Distinguished in Richards v. Bellingham Bay L. Co., 47 Fed. 855, under territorial statute.

Dower. Although wife may in fact have no dower rights under certain circumstances, if release is deemed necessary to sell property, note given therefor is valid, p. 149.

Cited in Dexter v. Ohlander, 89 Ala. 270, 7 So. 116, holding relinquishment of supposed rights in lease consideration for note; Nichols v. Nichols, 136 Mass. 258, holding divorce obtained later by hus band is not failure of consideration.

Distinguished in Wilson v. Ott, 173 Pa. St. 260, 51 Am. St. Rep. 770, 34 Atl. 26, holding equity will relieve mortgagor from mistake as to title to property.

Miscellaneous.

Cited also in Hiscock v. Jaycox, 12 Nat. Bank.

Reg. 509, 12 Fed. Cas. 214, but not in point.

Equity.

18 Wall. 151-155, 21 L. 775, BATESVILLE INST. v. KAUFFMAN. Assignees of claim against third persons, having parted with interest, are not necessary parties to bill by their assignees to enforce it, p. 154.

Cited and followed in Scott v. Ludington, 14 W. Va. 393, a similar case.

Assignment of debt carries with it assignment of judgment or mortgage securing it, p. 154.

Cited and followed in Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 207, 208, 23 L. 831, 832, holding assignee of note secured by mortgage may sue simultaneously in law and equity; Wall v. Bissell, 125 U. S. 392, 31 L. 777, 8 S. Ct. 984, Commonwealth v. Reading Sav. Bank, 137 Mass. 443, and Barnes v. Boardman, 149 Mass. 114, 21 N. E. 309, 3 L. R. A. 788, and n., both holding assignment of mortgage carried legal title to property; Smith v. Lang, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 686, 22 S. W. 198, holding assignment of note carried judgment as collateral.

Trusts. Although, on death of trustee, equity court may appoint successor, it need not do so, but may enforce trust through its own agency, p. 154.

Cited in Tuttle v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 19 Mont. 18, 47 Pac. 205, sustaining appointment by court. Cited in discussion, obiter, in dissenting opinion in Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 528, 26 L. 210, and Garrett v. Memphis, 5 Fed. 867.

Limitation of actions.- Existence of Civil War operated to suspend statute of limitations in rebellious States, p. 155.

Cited and followed in Ross v. Jones, 22 Wall. 587, 22 L. 733, holding war suspended bar against suit on note; Randolph v. Ward, 29 Ark. 245, holding limitation on judgment liens suspended; Ahnert v. Zaum, 40 Wis. 629, holding statute barring ejectment arrested by war. Cited in discussion obiter in Mercantile Trust Co. v. St. Louis, etc., Ry., 69 Fed. 196, collecting cases.

Miscellaneous. Cited also in Smith v. Ford, 48 Wis. 145, 2 N. W. 151, but not in point.

18 Wall. 156-162, 21 L. 860, DAY v. MICOU.

War.- Under confiscation act, 1862, only life estate of person whose land was seized was subject to condemnation and sale, p. 160. The following citing cases affirm the rule, and apply it to facts essentially similar to those in principal case; Ex parte Lange, 18

Wall. 177, 21 L. 879, Conrad v. Waples, 96 U. S. 285, 24 L. 722, Brugere v. Slidell, 154 U. S. 598, 21 L. 862, 14 S. Ct. 1197, Davies v. Slidell, 154 U. S. 626, 23 L. 871, 14 S. Ct. 1200, Newby v. Brownlee, 23 Fed. 321, and Slidell v. Germania Nat. Bank, 27 La. Ann. 355. Cited in discussion obiter in Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U. S. 555, 36 L. 815, 12 S. Ct. 871, and Burbank v. Harris, 30 La. Ann. 491. And see note, 29 Am. Rep. 97.

Explained in Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U. S. 211, 23 L. 477, holding rule protected heirs alone. Distinguished in Kirk v. Lewis, 4 Woods, 101, 9 Fed. 646, under prior act, holding fee passed by sale. War.-Decree condemning fee, under confiscation act, 1862, passed only life estate of offending person, p. 160.

Cited, arguendo, in Foltz v. St. Louis, etc., Ry., 60 Fed. 321, 19 U. 8. App. 576, Suitterlin v. Conn., etc., Ins. Co., 90 Ill. 489.

Judicial sales.- Condemnation in proceedings in rem does not, except in admiralty and revenue cases, exclude claims to other interests in the property, p. 162.

Cited in Dulin v. McCaw, 39 W. Va. 729, 20 S. E. 684, ruling similarly as to goods attached.

Mortgage.

Foreclosure is proceeding in rem, p. 162.

Cited and principle applied in Martin v. Pond, 30 Fed. 18, holding mortgagor may be summoned by publication. Cited, arguendo, in Deck v. Whitman, 96 Fed. 889.

War.- Property sold under confiscation act, 1862, passed subject to mortgages previously executed thereon, p. 162.

Cited in Claims of Marcuard, 20 Wall. 115, 22 L. 328, holding liens on land not displaced by condemnation; Avegno v. Schmidt, 113 U. S. 297, 302, 28 L. 977, 978, 5 S. Ct. 488, 491, ruling similarly as to mortgages; Chapman v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 85 N. Y. 451, under facts similar to those in principal case; Shields v. Schiff, 124 U. S. 354, 356, 31 L. 447, 8 S. Ct. 512, and Avegno v. Schmidt, 35 La. Ann. 589, and Shields v. Schiff, 36 La. Ann. 648, all holding mortgagee may proceed against mortgagor as if latter had not been divested of title; Risley v. Phenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 332, 334, 38 Am. Rep. 429, 430, holding confiscation of deposits did not defeat claims thereon. Cited in discussion obiter in United States v. Dunnington, 146 U. S. 346, 36 L. 999, 13 S. Ct. 81. See also note in 38 Am. Rep. 434.

Miscellaneous. Cited also in Semmes v. United States, 91 U. S. 27, 23 L. 196, but not in point.

18 Wall. 163-205, 21 L. 872, EX PARTE LANGE.

Supreme Court may issue writs of habeas corpus and certiorari to determine legality of imprisonment under judgment of inferior Federal court, p. 166.

Cited and principle applied as follows: Ex parte Siebold, 100 B. S. 375, 25 L. 719, holding writ may issue to discharge prisoner held under unconstitutional law, although court has not jurisdiction to hear appeal; Ex parte Rowland, 104 U. S. 612, 26 L. 864, Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 719, 28 L. 1119, 5 S. Ct. 726, In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 486, 31 L. 223, 8 S. Ct. 172, In re Dill, 32 Kan. 683, 5 Pac. 43, Ex parte O'Brien, 127 Mo. 491, 30 S. W. 161, and Miskmins v. Shaver, Wyo. ད 58 Pac. 415, 417, all discharging prisoners committed for contempt by court lacking authority; Ex parte Hung Hang, 108 U. 8. 553, 27 L. 812, 2 S. Ct. 864, holding writ is incident of appellate jurisdiction alone; Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 253, 29 L. 872. 6 8. Ct. 741, holding it discretionary with court to issue writ or await appeal where prisoner under indictment from State court; In re Snow, 120 U. S. 286, 30 L. 663, 7 S. Ct. 562, ordering issuance of writ where want of jurisdiction of court to punish appeared on record; Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 14, 30 L. 853, 7 S. Ct. 788, discharging prisoner held on void indictment; Hans Nielson, Petr., 131 U. S. 182, 184, 33 L. 120, 9 S. Ct. 674, In re Wong Yung Quy, 6 Sawy. 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 47 Fed. 718, 719, 720, 721, Ex parte Rosenblatt, 19 Nev. 442, 3 Am. St. Rep. 903, 14 Pac. 299, and Ex parte Rollins, 80 Va. 316, all discharging prisoners held under void statute; In re Mills, 135 U. S. 270, 34 L. 110, 10 S. Ct. 764, ordering discharge of prisoner confined in State prison under sentence of Federal court; In re Stupp, 12 Blatchf. 507, 519, F. C. 13,563, issuing writ to determine legality of detention for extradition; Ex parte Kenyon, 5 Dill. 389, F. C. 7,720, issuing writ to determine whether prisoner held in violation of Federal Constitution or law; Ex parte Bridges, 2 Woods, 430, F. C. 1,862, holding person imprisoned in State prison for perjury before Federal officer is entitled to writ; Ex parte Houghton, 7 Fed. 664, S. C., 8 Fed. 903, discharging prisoner held by State court for counterfeiting; Ex parte Farley, 40 Fed. 68, holding court may inquire into proceedings sufficiently to determine jurisdiction; Campbell v. Waite, 88 Fed. 107, 59 U. S. App. 743, holding Federal officer arrested for act done under authority may be released by writ to State court; People v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 572, 19 Am. Rep. 220, holding prisoner entitled to release on expiration of legal term of sentence; In re McCain, 9 S. Dak. 60, 68 N. W. 165, commitment for refusal to obey writ of mandamus issued without authority is void; McLendon v. State, 92 Tenn. 524. 22 S. W. 201, 21 L. R. A. 740, and n., where order of arrest void on face; Ex parte Dixon, 1 Utah, 194, discharging prisoner held under void government; Ex parte Degener, 30 Tex. App. 575, 576, 17 S. W. 1114, issuing writ where court had no power to commit for contempt; In re Crow, 60 Wis. 360, 19 N. W. 717, holding court may issue writ to determine whether term has expired. Cited also in discussion obiter in the following: In re Coy, 127 U. S. 733, 31 Fed. 795, Ex parte Terry, 128 U. 8. 305, 32 L. 409, 9 S. Ct. 79, S. C.,

reprinted in 13 Sawy. 463, Electoral College Case, 1 Hughes, 587 F. C. 4,336, Kamp v. Kamp, 59 N. Y. 218, and Milliken v. City Counell, 54 Tex. 392. See also note, 26 Am. Dec. 44.

Distinguished in Stalker, Petr., 167 Mass. 12, 44 N. E. 1068, holding habeas corpus will not issue to correct erroneous sentence.

Habeas corpus will not issue to review judgments in criminal cases, p. 166.

Cited and followed in Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 23, 23 L. 788. refusing to consider whether offense for which prisoner held is punishable; Ex parte Curtis, 106 U. S. 375, 27 L. 236, 1 S. Ct. 386, denying writ where court had jurisdiction under valid law; Ex parte Carll, 106 U. S. 522, 27 L. 288, 1 S. Ct. 535, In re Thompson, 9 Mont. 889, 23 Pac. 934, and Ex parte Marx, 86 Va. 44, 9 S. E. 477, all holding writ will not issue to determine sufficiency of evidence; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 653, 28 L. 274, 4 S. Ct. 153, holding errors of law not reviewable in proceedings on writ; Ex parte Crouch, 112 U. S. 180, 28 L. 691, 5 S. Ct. 97, holding writ will not issue to prevent future errors on part of court; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 421, 29 L. 90, 5 S. Ct. 937, refusing to discharge prisoner for defect in commitment; In re Frederick, 149 U. S. 75, 76, 37 L. 656, 13 S. Ct. 795. holding writ issues only where sentence of conviction void; Ex parte Ulrich, 43 Fed. 663, refusing writ to determine whether State court denied right claimed under Federal laws; In re King, 51 Fed. 435. holding habeas corpus will not issue because of misconduct of jury: King v. M'Lean Asylum, 64 Fed. 347, 21 U. S. App. 481, 26 L. R. A. 792, denying jurisdiction to issue writ to determine custody of insane person, legality being unquestioned; In re Rowe, 77 Fed. 166, 40 U. S. App. 516, refusing writ to determine sufficiency of indictment; Sennott's case, 146 Mass. 493, 4 Am. St. Rep. 345, 16 N. E. 450, holding erroneous commitment can be corrected only on error; State v. Sheriff of Hennepin Co., 24 Minn. 92, refusing to review action of court in discharging jury; Matter of Brittain, 93 N. C. 588, refusing writ where record showed jurisdiction; Ex parte Bond, 9 S. C. 82, 30 Am. Rep. 22, holding prisoner given excessive sentence not entitled to writ; State v. Noyes, 87 Wis. 343, 41 Am. St. Rep. 46, 58 N. W. 387, 27 L. R. A. 786, and n., holding only jurisdictional defects warrant release by writ; In re McDonald, 4 Wyo. 162, 33 Pac. 22, holding failure to state term can only be corrected on error; dissenting opinion in In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 77, 34 L. 76, 10 S. Ct. 673, majority asserting power to issue writ to determine whether imprisonment contrary to Federal laws, and to hear testimony and argument. Cited, arguendo, in Ex parte Joyce, 13 Fed. Cas. 1176, and Ex parte Barnett, 51 Ark. 217, 10 S. W. 493.

Certiorari was used in this case as auxiliary to habeas corpus to bring up record, p. 166.

Cited and precedent followed in Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 343, 25 L. 678, issuing writs to determine authority of court to hold