tribution of the "appellate jurisdiction of the national judicial system." McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 35 L. ed. 893, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118. Messrs. James T. Boyd and George A. King and Messrs. Thayer & Rankin and Boyd & Fifield filed a brief for appellants on the merits. Mr. Matthew G. Reynolds argued the cause, and with Solicitor General Richards, filed a brief for appellce. (672] *Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court: The appeal in this case is taken from the decree of May 28, 1900, sustaining the demurrer to, and dismissing the petition of, the appellants, which was filed March 29, 1900. Our jurisdiction of this appeal depends come immaterial, whether the direct appeal could have been maintained or not. The reasoning of these cases would seem to furnish an additional ground for the holding, In Aspen Min. & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, 37 L. ed. 986, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 4, that no appeal lles to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decree entered by the circuit court pursuant to a mandate from the circuit court of appeals; and that the only remedy is by review of the decree of the circuit court of appeals. And also for the decision in Webster v. Daly, 163 U. S. 155, 41 L. ed. 111, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 961, that because an appeal from a decree of a circuit court of the United States which affirms its own prior decree in obedience to a mandate from the circuit court of appeals, and declares that the decree of that court is made the decree of the circuit court, is not an appeal from the circuit court of appeals, but is an appeal from the circuit court, the Supreme Court of the United States has no jurisdiction thereof under the judiciary act of March 3, 1901, § 5, when the case does not fall within one or the other of the classes of cases therein enumerated. But the suing out by the plaintiff of a writ of error from the circuit court of the United States to the Supreme Court for the purpose of presenting a question of jurisdiction does not bar the right of the defendant to bring the case on the merits to the circuit court of appeals, but the cause in the latter court may be continued to await the decision of the Supreme Court upon the question of jurisdiction. Northern P. R. Co. v. Glaspell, 1 C. C. A. 327, 4 U. S. App. 238, 49 Fed. 482. And the mere fact that a writ of error has been sued out of the Supreme Court of the United States to review a judgment of a circuit court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction of the cause does not deprive the circuit court of appeals of its jurisdiction to review an order denying a new trial in such case, claimed under a state statute giving the defeated party in an action for recovery of possession of real property the right to a second trial. Shreve v. Cheesman, 16 C. C. A. 413, 32 U. S. App. 676, 689, 69 Fed. 785. See also United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, 39 L. ed. 87, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 39, infra, II. a. upon certain statutes, which it becomes necessary to consider. By the original act of March 3, 1851 (9 Stat. at L. 631, chap. 41), to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the state of California, a commission of three persons was constituted (§ 1) to settle such claims, whose duty it was (8 8) to decide upon their validity and to certify the same, with their reasons, to the district attorney of the United States. By § 9 an appeal was given to the district court, which was empowered to review the deci sion of the commissioners, and to decide upon the validity of such claim. By § 10 the district court was required, on application of the party against whom judgment was rendered, to grant an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was held in United States v. Fossatt, 21 How. 445, 16 L. ed. 186, that the jurisdiction of only from the nature of the principles invoked, but from the relation to them of the party by whom they are invoked. Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276, 45 L. ed. 527, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 368. a. When jurisdiction is in issue. Only after final judgment in the cause can the Supreme Court of the United States exercise its appellate jurisdiction over a circuit or district court under the act of March 3, 1891, on the ground that the jurisdiction of such court is in issue. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. C61, 35 L. ed. 893, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118. And the use of a certificate to present to the Supreme Court a question of the jurisdiction of a district court in an action arising under the bankruptcy act of July 1, 1898, is subject to the general limitations of the act of Congress of March 3, 1891, under which the trial court cannot, by certificate, send up a question as to its own jurisdiction until after final judg ment. Bardes v. First Nat. Bank, 175 U. S 526, 44 L. ed. 261, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 196. An order of the circuit court remanding a cause to the state court is not a final judgment or decree from which an appeal can be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States to present the question of the jurisdiction of the court below. Joy v. Adelbert College, 146 U. S. 355, 36 L. ed. 1003, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186. The jurisdiction of the district and circult courts of the United States which, when in issue, will warrant direct review by the Supreme Court under the act of March 3, 1891, is a jurisdiction of such courts as Federal courts. Blythe v. Hinckley, 173 U. S. 501, 43 L. ed. 783, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 497. Hence, the Supreme Court of the United States cannot, on this ground, review a decree of the circuit court dismissing a suit on the ground that a judgment of the state court was a bar, and could not be reviewed by that court. Ibid. The jurisdiction of a circuit court is not so in issue within the meaning and intent of the act of March 3, 1891, as to give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to review its decree, because it was contended therein that complainants had not, by their bill, made a case properly cognizable in a court of equity. World's Columbian Exposition V. United States, 6 C. C. A. 58, 18 U. S. App. 42, 56 Fed. 654; Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355, 40 L. ed. 731, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490. II. The designated classes of cases. Questions which can be raised under the 5th section of the judiciary act of 1891, for the purpose of a direct appeal to the Supreme And a decision of the circuit court dismissCourt from a circuit court, must be real and ing a bill on the ground that the remedy was present controversies that are substantial, not at law, and not in equity, does not involve the the board of commissioners extended, not ent conformable to the decree. with like effect, as hereafter provided for appeals in other cases to the circuit court." By § 3 it was enacted "that where a plat and survey have already been approved or corrected by one of the district courts, and an appeal from the decree of approval or correction has already been taken to the The law remained in this condition until Supreme Court of the United States, the 1864, when on July 1 an act was passed (13 said Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction Stat. at L. 332, chap. 194) "to expedite the to hear and determine the appeal. But [673] settlement of titles to lands in the state of where from such decree of approval or corCalifornia," the 2d section of which pro-rection no appeal has been taken to the Suvided "that where proceedings for the cor rection or confirmation of a survey are pend-preme Court, no appeal to that court shall ing it shall be lawful for such dis- be allowed, but an appeal may be taken trict court to proceed and complete its ex- within twelve months after this act shall amination and determination of the matter, take effect, to the circuit court of the United and its decree thereon shall be subject to States for California, and said circuit court appeal to the circuit court of the United shall proceed to fully determine the matStates for the district, in like manner, and 'ter." Jurisdiction of that court as a court of the which was adjudged insufficient that the facts therein set forth are jurisdictional facts. Woodbridge & T. Engineering Co. v. Ritter, 70 Fed. 679. It is the jurisdiction of the court below over the particular case in which the appeal from the decree therein is prosecuted which must be in issue to justify a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Carey v. Houston & T. C. R. Co. 150 U. S. 170, 37 L. ed. 1041, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 63. For this reason the court in this case held that the jurisdiction of the circuit court over a suit to set aside a decree of foreclosure and sale was not so involved as to justify a direct ap So, in United States ex rel. Mudsill Min. Co. ▼. Swan, 13 C. C. A. 77, 31 U. S. App. 112, 65 Fed. 647, the court thought that, whether it was within the power or jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States on its equity side to refuse to enforce, under a state statute, the payment of a money decree by the issue of a writ of garnishment in equity was not such a question of jurisdiction as could be carried direct to the Supreme Court under the 5th sec-peal to the Supreme Court of the United States tion of the court of appeals act. The court said: "There is strong ground for thinking that the first paragraph of that section was intended to apply only to the initial questions of the jurisdiction of a United States district or circuit court, whether in law or equity, over the subject-matter and parties, and not to ques tions whether a court of equity or of law is the proper forum for the working out of rights properly within the particular Federal jurisdiction for adjudication." But the question whether or not jurisdiction has been acquired by a proper service of process is one which involves the jurisdiction of the court within the meaning of that section. Shepard v. Adams, 168 U. S. 618, 42 L. ed. 602, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214. So, the question whether, by the proceedings taken, the circuit court obtained jurisdiction over the defendants was said in United States ex rel. Iron County v. Severens, 18 C. C. A. 314, 37 U. S. App. 622, 71 Fed. 768, to be one which might have been carried for review directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. The question as to the power of a district court, after a decision of the circuit court of appeals in proceedings in admiralty for the limitation of liability denying the right to limit the liability and remanding the cause for further proceedings, to enter personal judgment against the lessees of the vessel, is one as to the jurisdiction of the district court, which may be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Annie Faxon, 31 C. C. A. 325, 59 U. S. App. 421, 87 But the jurisdiction of a circuit court of the United States is not drawn in question, so that a writ of error may be taken direct to the Supreme Court, by the mere denial of the right of the plaintiff to the judgment which has been entered in its favor, nor by the allegation that such judgment is erroneous, nor by the incorrect assertion in the affidavit of defense because the bill alleged the want of jurisdiction of the circuit court to make the decree attacked. And on a subsequent appeal from the cir cult court of appeals in the same case the court reaffirmed its prior holding. Id. 161 U. S. 115, 40 L. ed. 638, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 537. So, a decree of a circuit court, dismissing a petition for habeas corpus which set up the want of jurisdiction of that court in a prior cause in which an injunction had been issued, for violation of which the petitioner was imprisoned, not involving the jurisdiction of the court in the habeas corpus proceedings, was, in Ex parte Lennon, 150 U. S. 393, 37 L. ed. 1120, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 123, held not appealable to the Supreme Court, on the theory that it was a case "in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue" within the meaning of this section. The question involving the jurisdiction of the circuit court must have been in issue and decided against the parties seeking to bring it before the Supreme Court of the United States for determination. Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324, 38 L. ed. 179, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353. Thus, a party whose suit has been dismissed by the United States circuit court for want of jurisdiction has the right to have such judgment reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U. S. 115, 42 L. ed. 682, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293. But an appeal from the circuit court of the United States to the Supreme Court solely for a review of a decision sustaining the jurisdic tion of the circuit court will be dismissed where that court has rendered a decree for the defendant sustaining a demurrer to the bill for want of equity with full reservation of complainant's right to sue and proceed at law, since this decree does not injure the defendant, but sustains its contention, and cannot be reversed at defendant's instance, because put upon the one rather than the other of the grounds which It appears perfectly clear from § 3 that | tion of the entire appellate jurisdiction of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme our national judicial system between the Court was taken away, except as to cases Supreme Court and the circuit court of apwhere an appeal had already been taken. peals. As this case does not fall within any With this exception appeals must be taken of the classes excepted by § 5, it is clear under that act to the circuit court. The that if any appeal will lie at all, it should law remained in that condition until the have been taken to the circuit court of ap-[674] passage of the court of appeals act of peals, and that we have no jurisdiction to March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 826, chap. enforce the execution of this decree by ap517), by the 5th section of which appeals peal from the district court. If the decree can only be taken directly from the district of November 30, 1859, rendered by the discourt to this court in cases where the juris-trict court in pursuance of the mandate of diction of the district court is in issue, in this court, were not a final decree, it beprize cases, criminal cases, constitutional cases, or cases involving the validity or construction of a treaty. As to all other cases, by 6 appeal must be taken to the circuit court of appeals. As we said in McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 35 L. ed. 893, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118, this act provides for the distribuit alleged. New Orleans v. Emsheimer, 181 U. | 8. 153, 45 L. ed. 794, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 584. In the following cases the circuit court of ap peals denied its jurisdiction to review the judgments of circuit or district courts, because the jurisdiction of such courts was thought to be so in issue as to give the Supreme Court of the United States appellate jurisdiction. United States v. Sutton, 2 C. C. A. 115, 47 Fed. 129; The Alliance, 17 C. C. A. 124, 44 U. S. App. 52, 70 Fed. 273; Cabot v. McMaster, 13 C. C. A. 39, 24 U. S. App. 571, 65 Fed. 533; Davis & R. Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Barber, 9 C. C. A. 79, 18 U. S. App. 476, 725, 60 Fed. 465; The Annie Faxon, 31 C. C. A. 325, 59 U. S. App. 421, 87 Fed. 961; Dudley v. Lake County, 43 C. C. A. 184, 103 Fed. 209; Evans-Snider-Buel Co. v. McCaskill, 41 C. C. A. 577, 101 Fed. 658; Excelsior Wooden-Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co. 48 C. C. A. 349, 109 Fed. 497. But because other questions were involved, the circuit court of appeals, though assuming that a jurisdictional question was involved which would have given the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction if invoked, has often upheld its own appellate jurisdiction. Examples of such cases are: Barling v. Bank of British N. A. 1 C. C. A. 510, 7 U. S. App. 194, 50 Fed. 260; Crabtree v. Madden, 4 C. C. A. 408, 12 U. S. App. 159, 54 Fed. 426; American Sugar-Ref. Co. v. Johnson, 9 C. C. A. 110, 13 U. S. App. 681, 60 Fed. 503: Texas & P. R. Co. v. Bloom, 9 C. C. A. 300, 23 U. S. App. 143, 60 Fed. 979; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Meyers, 10 C. C. A. 485, 18 U. S. App. 569, 62 Fed. 367; King v. McLean Asylum of Massachusetts General Hospital, 12 C. C. A. 139, 21 U. S. App. 407, 64 Fed. 325; Green v. Mills, 30 L. R. A. 90, 16 C. C. A. 516, 25 U. S. App. 383, 69 Fed. 852; Rust v. United Waterworks Co. 17 C. C. A. 16, 36 U. S. App. 167, 70 Fed. 129; Coler v. Grainger County, 20 C. C. A. 267, 43 U. S. App. 252, 74 Fed. 16; Beck & P. Lithographing Co. v. Wacker & B. Brewing & Malting Co. 22 C. C. A. 11, 46 U. S. App. 486, 76 Fed. 10; United States Freehold Land & Emigration Co. v. Gallegos, 32 C. C. A. 470, 475, 61 U. S. App. 13, 89 Fed. 769; The Presto, 35 C. C. A. 394, 93 Fed. 522. The respective appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeals in cases in which the jurisdiction of the circuit court is in issue, was considered in United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, 39 L. ed. 87, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 39, and the court laid down the following propositions: "(1) If the jurisdiction of the circuit court is in issue and decided in favor of the defendant, as that disposes of the case, the plaintiff should have the question came final either August 4, 1871, when the modified survey was approved, and an appeal was taken to the circuit court and the appeal dismissed by Mr. Justice Field, July 31, 1874, or upon May 28, 1900, from which the appeal was taken in this case. It is clear that, so far as concerns appeals certified and take his appeal or writ of error directly to this court; (2) if the question of jurisdiction is in issue, and the jurisdiction sustained, and then judgment or decree is rendered in favor of the defendant on the merits, the plaintiff, who has maintained the jurisdiction, must appeal to the circuit court of appeals, where, if the question of jurisdiction arises, the circuit court of appeals may certify it; (3) M the question of jurisdiction is in issue, and the jurisdiction sustained, and judgment on the merits is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, then the defendant can elect either to have the question certified and come directly to this court, or to carry the whole case to the circuit court of appeals, and the question of jurisdiction can be certified by that court; (4) if, in the case last supposed, the plaintiff has ground of complaint in respect of the judgment he has recovered, he may also carry the case to the circuit court of appeals on the merits, and this he may do by way of cross-appeal or writ of error if the defendant has taken the case there, or independ ently, if the defendant has carried the case to this court on the question of jurisdiction alone; and in this instance the circuit court of appeals will suspend a decision upon the merits until the question of jurisdiction has been determined; (5) the same observations are applicable where a plaintiff objects to the jurisdiction, and is, or both parties are, dissatisfied with the judgment on the merits." See also cases cited, supra, I. The power of the Supreme Court in suits in which its appellate jurisdiction is invoked under the act of March 3, 1891, § 5, by reason of the existence of a question as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court over the case, is restricted to the review of that question only. Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324, 38 L. ed. 179, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353; Schunk v. Moline, M. & S. Co. 147 U. S. 500, 37 L. ed. 255, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 416. A determination by a circuit court as to whether the lands in dispute were of a value sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, though made on the evidence without submitting the question to the jury, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court on writ of error to the circuit court in passing on the question whether such court had jurisdiction of the cause. Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U. S. 115, 42 L. ed. 682, 18 Sup Ct. Rep. 293. By the 32d rule of the Supreme Court of the United States as amended cases brought to that court by writ of error or appeal under act of March 3, 1891, § 5, when the only question at issue is that of the jurisdiction of the court be from final decrees, they must be taken under | Grant, £8 U. S. 398, 401, 25 L. ed. 231, 232. laws then in existence, and to the court pro-In that case a writ of error had been sued vided by such laws. To say that a decree out on December 6, 1875, to reverse a judgrendered in 1900 may be appealed to a ment of $2,250 by the supreme court of the court whose jurisdiction to review it was District of Columbia. At that time the aptaken away in 1864 is beyond belief. Even | peal was properly taken to this court, but on if the court of appeals act do not apply to February 25, 1879, Congress passed an act this case, the jurisdiction of this court was limiting writs of error from this court to clearly taken away by the act of 1864, and judgments exceeding the value of $2,500, and transferred to the circuit court of the it was held that the writ of error must be United States for California, except as to dismissed. Said the Chief Justice: "The appeals which had already been taken. If act of 1879 is undoubtedly prospective in its there had been no reservation of pending operation. It does not vacate or annul cases, even such cases would have fallen what has been done under the old law. It within the law. Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. destroys no vested rights. It does not set low, will be advanced on motion and taken on Improv. Co. v. Gibney, 160 U. S. 217, 40 L. ed. printed briefs or arguments in accordance with 401, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272. the prescription of rule 6 in regard to motions to dismiss writs of error or appeals. Aspen Min. & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, 37 L. ed. 986, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 4. A certificate by the circuit court presenting the question of jurisdiction is indispensable to sustain the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States when invoked under the act of March 3, 1891, § 5, on the ground that the case is one in which the question of the jurisdiction of the court below is in issue. Colvin v. Jacksonville, 157 U. S. 368, 39 L. ed. 736, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 634; Moran v. Hagerman, 151 U. S. 329, 38 L. ed. 181, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354; Davis & R. Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Barber, 157 U. S. 673, 39 L. ed. 853, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 719; Ansbro v. United States, 159 U. S. 695, 40 L. ed. 310, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187; Davis v. Geissler, 162 U. S. 290, 40 L. ed. 972, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 796. And the absence of such certificate cannot be helped out by resort to the petition for writ of error or to the assignment of errors. Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324, 38 L. ed. 179, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353. And this question is sufficiently certified to sustain an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States where the record shows the allowance of appeal taken upon the express ground of error in assuming jurisdiction, and in refusing to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, with a prayer that the question of jurisdiction be certified, and the certificate states that a copy of SO much of the record is sent up as is necessary to determine the question of jurisdiction, a part of which record is the opinion in accordance with which the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was denied. Smith v. McKay. 161 U. S. 355, 40 L. ed. 731, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490. And a direct appeal from a circuit court to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that the jurisdiction of the court is in issue may be sustained where the final decree dismissing the bill and the order allowing the appeal therefrom, as well as the distinct and contemporaneous certificate by the court, show that the only question on which the decree was based was that of jurisdiction. Huntington v. Laidley, 176 U. S. 668, 44 L. ed. 630, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526. An assignment of errors filed in a circuit court of the United States under the direction Nor is the use of the word "certified" necesof that court is not the equivalent of a certifi- sary to present the question of the jurisdiction cate of jurisdiction for the purpose of present- of the circuit court on appeal to the Supreme ing that question to the Supreme Court. The Court of the United States, but a plain declaraBayonne, 159 U. S. 687, 40 L. ed. 306, 16 Sup. tion that the single matter sent up by the recCt. Rep. 185. ord is a question of jurisdiction, and a clear, full, and separate statement of the precise ques tion is sufficient. Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168. 39 L. ed. 660, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570. The question of the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States is, however, sufficiently certified to the Supreme Court where the petition for appeal is upon that sole ground, and the court, in the order allowing the appeal, states that the appeal is granted "solely upon the question of jurisdiction," and directs the portions of the record to be certified to the Supreme Court to present that question. Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168, 39 L. ed. 660. 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570. And this question is likewise sufficiently certified to warrant review by the Supreme Court, where the district judge certifies in the bill of exceptions that it was "held that the court did not have jurisdiction of the suit, and ordered the same to be dismissed," and the order allow ing the writ of error certifies in effect that it was allowed "upon the question of jurisdiction," which was the only question involved in the case, for want of which the court dismissed the suit. Re Lehigh Min. & Mfg. Co. 156 U. S. 322, 39 L. ed. 438, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375. The same is true where the record shows that the only matter tried and decided in the circuit court was a demurrer to the plea to the jurisdiction, and the petition upon which the writ of error was allowed asks only for the review of the judgment that the court had no jurisdi.tion of the action. Interior Constr. & The entire absence of the certificate of the question of the jurisdiction is, however, fatal to an appeal from the district or circuit court to the Supreme Court of the United States where the only question of jurisdiction was raised by a demurrer, which alleged that a final decree had been made adjudicating all the issues in the cause, and that the court had no power or jurisdiction to grant the petitioners relief. Van Wagenen v. Sewall, 160 U. S. 369, 40 L ed. 460, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370. The court re garded this demurrer as in substance only a general demurrer to the plea for the want of equity, and said that in any event it could not have been required to have searched the record to ascertain whether the petition was dismissed for the want of equity, or for some other reason, and added that the question of jurisdic tion should plainly and distinctly be certified, or, at least, it should appear so clearly in the decree of the court below that no other question was involved that no further examination of the record would be necessary. The mere allowance of an appeal by a district court of the United States is not the equivalent of a certificate of jurisdiction for the purpose of presenting that question to the Supreme Court. aside any judgment already rendered by up. The repeal of that law does not vacate this court under the jurisdiction conferred or annul an appeal or a writ [of error] alby the Revised Statutes when in force. But ready taken or sued out, but it takes away a party to a suit has no vested right to an our right to hear and determine the cause, appeal or a writ of error from one court to if the matter in dispute is less than the another. Such a privilege once granted present jurisdictional amount. The appeal may be taken away, and if taken away, or the writ remains in full force, but we pending proceedings in the appellate court dismiss the suit because our jurisdiction is stop just where the rescinding act finds gone." them, unless special provision is made to the contrary. The Revised Statutes gave par[675]ties the right to remove their causes to this court by writ of error and appeal, and gave us the authority to re-examine, reverse, or aflirm judgments or decrees thus brought | although the prayer for appeal states that claimant appealed upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to make the said decree, but specified no question of jurisdiction, and asked that a transcript of the record be sent up as if the appeal were on the whole The Bayonne, 159 U. S. 687, 40 L. ed. 306, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185. case. * Nor does the allowance of a writ of error in general terms on a petition asking for a review of all the rulings, judgments, and orders of the court "upon the question of jurisdiction raised in said exceptions, pleas, and demurrers, and the other papers on file in this cause," without defining or indicating any specific question on jurisdiction, present such a definite question of jurisdiction as will supply the want of a formal certificate to sustain the writ of error from the Supreme Court to a district court of the United States under the act of March 3, 1891, § 5. Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499, 40 L. ed. 510, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 397. A sufficient certification of a question of jurisdiction by the circuit court to the Supreme Court of the United States is not made by the statement in an order allowing an appeal from a decision that the special agent of the land office is entitled to his discharge from the custody of the sheriff, that the questions whether the court has jurisdiction to discharge him, or whether it should remand him to the custody of the sheriff to be dealt with by the state court, are certified to the Supreme Court where there Is no intimation that the lower court did more than pass upon the merits of the controversy, and the questions merely implied that the court assumed that it had jurisdiction, either to dispose of the case on its merits, or to remand the case to the state court, and require him to resort to his remedy by writ of error, and that the instruction of the Supreme Court was desired by the court below as to the proper exercise of its discretion. Arkansas v. Schlierholz, 179 U. S. 598, 45 L. ed. 335, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 229. The certificate of jurisdiction by a circuit court of the United States to the Supreme Court for decision must be granted during the term at which the judgment or decree is entered. Colvin v. Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456, 39 L. ed. 1053, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 866. And the rule that permits an amendment of decided and the appeal allowed, where there is Similar cases are by no means infrequent in this court. Thus in Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch, 281, 3 L. ed. 101, it was held that if the law under which a sentence of forfeiture was inflicted expired or were absolutely repealed after an appeal and be b. Prize causes. The provisions of the earlier acts of Congress limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States of appeals from district courts in prize causes were superseded and repealed by the act of March 3, 1891, and jurisdiction of appeals from all final sentences and decrees in prize causes may be taken by the Supreme Court of the United States under the 5th section of that act, without regard to the amount in dispute, and without any certificate of the district judge as to the importance of the particular case. The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 44 L. ed. 320, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 290. A By the act of January 20, 1897, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review convictions in district or circuit courts was restricted to convictions of capital crimes. conviction of murder punishable with death is a conviction of a capital crime within the meaning of this amendment, although the jury are given the power, by the act of January 15, 1897, to qualify the verdict by adding the words "without capital punishment," and by reason of their exercise of that power the punishment actually imposed is imprisonment for life. Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U. S. 304, 44 L. ed. 1078, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 944; Good Shot v. United States, 179 U. S. 87, 45 L. ed. 101, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33. But the Supreme Court of the United States has no jurisdiction of an appeal from a district court in a case in which a capital offense was charged in the indictment, and the accused was convicted of a lesser crime. Davis v. United States, 46 C. C. A. 619, 107 Fed. 753. A criminal case may, however, be taken directly from the circuit court to the Supreme Court of the United States, although it is not a case of conviction of a capital crime, where it involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States. Motes v. United States. 178 U. S. 458, 44 L. ed. 1150, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 993. |