peals Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, where the
indictment was dismissed as not sustained by the statute and
also as bad on principles of general law, this court can only review
the decision so far as it is based on the invalidity or construction
of the statute, it cannot consider questions of general law. (United
States v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370.) United States v. Stevenson, 190.
3. On certificate under § 1 of act of February 11, 1903-When case may
not be certified.
Under § 1 of the expediting act of February 11, 1903, c. 544, 32 Stat.
823, the case, although turning only on a point of law cannot
be certified to this court, in absence of any judgment, opinion,
decision, or order determinative of the case below. Baltimore &
Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 216; Southern Pacific
Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 226.
4. Direct review under § 5, Court of Appeals Act of 1897.
Whether defendant was subject to service of process at the place
where served is one of the jurisdictional questions which may
be brought directly to this court under §5 of the Court of Ap-
peals Act as amended January 20, 1897, c. 68, 29 Stat. 492.
(Remington v. Central Pacific Railroad Co., 198 U. S. 95.) Me-
chanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 437.
5. Under 5 of the act of 1891-When jurisdiction of court as Federal
court involved.
Where the case is dismissed because the character of the action is one
cognizable exclusively by a court of admiralty and the jurisdic-
tion is challenged because the situation of the vessel and the
character of the services rendered afforded no jurisdiction in
admiralty, the jurisdiction of the court as a Federal court is
involved and the case is one cognizable by this court under § 5
of the act of 1891. The Steamship Jefferson, 130.
6. On appeal from District Court sitting in admiralty-Sufficiency of
certificate.
Where the District Court has allowed an appeal, but has not certified
that the question of jurisdiction alone was involved, as required
by 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, if it ap-
pears from the face of the record, irrespective of recitals in the
order, that the cause was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the
question of jurisdiction, if it is of such a character as to sustain
the appeal, is sufficiently certified. (United States v. Larkin,
208 U. S. 333.) Ib.
7. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.-Involution of Federal question.
Where the effect of the judgment of the state court is to deny the
defense that a statute of a Territory is a bar to the action, a
claim of Federal right is denied and this court has jurisdiction
under 709, Rev. Stat., to review the judgment. (Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Sowers, 213 U. S. 55.) El Paso &
Northeastern Ry. Co. v. Gutierrez, 87.
8. Under 709, Rev. Stat.-Involution of Federal question.
Where in the state court plaintiff in error set up the invalidity of a
deed under the provisions of an act of Congress and judgment
could not be rendered against him without sustaining the deed
this court has jurisdiction under § 709, Rev. Stat. (Anderson
v. Carkins, 135 U. S. 483; Nutt v. Knut, 200 U. S. 12.) Sylvester
v. Washington, 80.
9. Under 709, Rev. Stat.-Involution of Federal right-Objection to
assessment of national bank shares.
Where the validity of the local statute under which national bank
shares are assessed was not drawn in question, but the only ob-
jection in the state court was that the assessment was in excess
of actual value, exorbitant, unjust and not in proportion with
other like property, no Federal right was set up or denied and
this court has no jurisdiction to review the judgment under
§ 709, Rev. Stat. First National Bank v. Estherville, 341.
10. Involution of Federal question; construction of Federal statute.
This court has jurisdiction of this case; for, even if the requisite
amount is not involved, the meaning and effect of a provision
of the Philippine Organic Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stats.
691, is involved. Reavis v. Fianza, 16.
11. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.-When construction of law of United States
involved.
Where plaintiff bases his bill on the contention that under the town-
site law, § 2387, Rev. Stat., the ascertainment of boundaries by
official survey is a condition subsequent upon which the vesting
of the equitable rights of the occupant depends, the construction
of a law of the United States is involved, and, if passed on ad-
versely by the state court, this court has jurisdiction under § 709,
Rev. Stat., to review the judgment. Scully v. Squier, 144.
12. Federal question involved by claim of want of full credit by state
court of judgment of Federal court.
The claim of plaintiff in error that proper and full credit was not
given to a judgment in the Federal court, if seasonably made,
raises a Federal question and if the decision of the state court
is in effect against such claim this court has jurisdiction. Virginia-
Carolina Chemical Co. v. Kirven, 252.
13. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.-Judgment resting on non-Federal grounds.
Where the judgment of the state court rests on non-Federal grounds
broad enough to sustain it this court cannot review it under
§ 709, Rev. Stat. Kansas City Star Co. v. Julian, 589.
14. Appeal from Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for want of juris-
diction. North Carolina Mining Co. v. Westfeldt, 586.
15. Writ of error to Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Helvetia-Swiss Fire Ins. Co. v. Brandenstein, 588.
16. Writs of error to Circuit Courts of the United States dismissed for
want of final judgment. Pfaelzer v. Bach Fur Co., 584; Remick
& Co. v. Stern, 585.
17. Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States dismissed for want
of jurisdiction. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.,
587.
18. Writs of error to highest courts of States dismissed for want of juris-
diction. Mackenzie v. Mackenzie, 582; Strong v. Gassert, 583;
Barker v. Butte Consolidated Mining Co., 584; Thomas v. Iowa,
591; Huston v. Haskell, 592; Berger v. Tracy, 594.
19. To review judgment of state court based on contract clause of Con-
stitution.
This court has not jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court
based on the contract clause of the Constitution unless the alleged
impairment was by subsequent legislation which has been upheld
or given effect by the judgment sought to be reviewed. (Bacon v.
Texas, 163 U. S. 207.) Hubert v. New Orleans, 170.
20. Writ of error to review judgment of a state court dismissed for want
of jurisdiction without opinion on authority of previous decisions.
Mills v. Johnson, 590.
A certificate in which there was no opinion, judgment or order of the
court below dismissed on authority of Baltimore & Ohio R. R.
Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., ante, p. 216. United States v. Termi-
nal Railroad Assn., 595.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 2;
B. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. Of suit by shippers to enjoin railroad from putting tariff schedule
into effect.
A suit brought by shippers to enjoin a railroad company from putting
a tariff schedule into effect on the ground that it violates rights
secured by the act to regulate commerce is a case arising under
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the juris-
diction of the Circuit Court over the person of the defendant must
be determined accordingly. Macon Grocery Co. v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. R. Co., 501.
2. Of case arising under Constitution and laws of United States; resi-
dence of defendant in district essential.
Under the jurisdictional act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, as
amended by the act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat. 552, cor-
rected by the act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433, the
Circuit Court in the district of which the defendant is not an
inhabitant has not jurisdiction of a case arising under the Con-
stitution and laws of the United States, even though diverse
citizenship exist, the plaintiff resides in the district, and the cause
be one alone cognizable in a Federal court. Ib.
3. Status of case as one arising under laws of United States.
While the construction of the act of Congress under which a patent
issued and what rights passed under the patent present Federal
questions which give the Circuit Court jurisdiction of the case
as one arising under the laws of the United States, if prior de-
cisions have so defined such rights that they are removed from
controversy, jurisdiction does not exist in the absence of diverse
citizenship. McGilvra v. Ross, 70.
C. OF FEDERAL COURTS GENERALLY.
In administration of state laws.
When administering state laws and determining rights accruing
thereunder, the jurisdiction of the Federal court is an independ-
ent one, coördinate and concurrent with, and not subordinate
to, the jurisdiction of the state courts. Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal
Co., 349.
See COURTS, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 1, 2, 3.
E. ADMIRALTY.
See ADMIRALTY.
F. PROBATE.
See COURTS, 2, 3, 4.
G. STATE COURTS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7.
H. OVER INDIANS.
See INDIANS, 2, 3, 5, 6.
Appellate; determination of case by inferior court implied-What amounts
to original jurisdiction.
Appellate jurisdiction implies the determination of the case by an
inferior court, and the transfer of the case to the appellate court
without such determination amounts to giving the appellate
court original jurisdiction. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Inter-
state Com. Com., 216.
LABOR AND MATERIAL LAW.
See PUBLIC WORKS.
1. Philippine Islands; validity of grant of public land.
In this case the grant involved was made without authority by sub-
ordinate officials, was void ab initio, and conveyed no title to the
original grantee or those holding under him. Tiglao v. Insular
Government, 410.
2. Prescription-Notice of imperfections in title chargeable to grantee.
A man cannot take advantage of his ignorance of the law, and where
|