titioner. March 8, 1920. Motion for leave toent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the file a petition for a writ of prohibition herein United States Circuit Court of Appeals for denied.

(252 U. S. 576)

No. 697. John P. GALBRAITH, petitioner, v. John VALLELY, trustee, etc. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 670. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted.

(252 U. S. 576)

No. 712. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, petitioner, V. Addie SPEIGHT. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see Speight v. Western Union Tel. Co., 100 S. E. 351. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina granted.

(252 U. S. 576)

No. 746. Henry KRICHMAN, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 263 Fed. 538. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.

(252 U. S. 577)

No. 678. The CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. O. C. SWAIM. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see Swain v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 170 N. W. 296, 174 N. W. 384. Messrs. J. G. Gamble and Fred W. Sargent, both of Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Harriet B. Evans, and C. H. Howell, C. H. Elgin, and M. M. Howell, all of Centerville, Iowa, for defendant in error. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa denied.

(252 U. S. 577)

No. 682. J. B. POLLARD, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 336.

Mr. William Hawley Atwell, of Dallas, Tex.,

for petitioner. Mr. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 577)

No. 686. Ada GRIFFITH, petitioner, v. The. UNITED STATES of America. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 159. Mr. Benjamin C. Bachrach, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Mr. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 578)

the First Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 578)

No. 703. Rome LANE, on behair of himself and others, petitioner, v. The EQUITABLE TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 918. Messrs. Wells H. Blodgett and Clifford B. Allen, both of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Messrs. George Welwood Murray and Lawrence Greer, both of New York City, and Theodore Rassieur, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 578)

No. 704. Maria Eloisa ROCHA, petitioner, v. Emilia TUASON y Patino et al. March 8, 1920. Mr. W. A. Kincaid, of Manila, P. I., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands denied.

(252 U. S. 578)

No. 711. HUDSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, petitioner, v. J. ARON & COMPANY (Inc.) et al. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see The St. Paul, 262 Fed. 1021. Mr. Stuart G. Gibboney, of New York City, for appellant. Messrs. Charles R. Hickox and T. Catesby Jones, both of New York City, for J. Aron & Co. Mr. George H. Mitchell, of New York City, for Hamilton-Beers Corporation. tion for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Peti

(252 U. S. 579)

No. 718. CAMP BIRD, Limited, petitioner, v. Frank W. HOWBERT, as collector of internal revenue, etc. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 114. Messrs. William Story, Jr., of Ouray, Colo., and William V. Hodges, of Denver, Colo., for petitioner. Mr. Alex C. King, Sol. Gen., of Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 579)

No. 721. The PHILLIPS COMPANY, petitioner, v. Byron F. EVERITT, trustee, etc. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 341. Messrs. William L. Carpenter, of Detroit, Mich., Thomas H. Gill, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Thomas G. Long, of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner. Messrs. Clarence A. Lightner and Walter E. Oxtoby, both of Detroit, Mich., for defendant. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 579)

No. 722. Alfred R. SWANN, petitioner, v. W. W. AUSTELL, executor, etc., et al. March

No. 701. Frederick M. KILMER, trustee for Alice F. Kilmer, petitioner, v. Charles H. KEITH, trustee, etc. March 8, 1920. For opinion below, see Keith v. Kilmer, 261 Fed. 733. Messrs. Samuel D. Elmore and Elbridge 8, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 465. R. Anderson, both of Boston, Mass., for peti- Messrs. Daniel W. Rountree and Clifford L. Antioner. Messrs. Lee M. Friedman and Percy derson, both of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner. A. Atherton, both of Boston, Mass., for respond- ( Messrs. Jack J. Spalding and Chas. T. Hop(40 Sup.Ct.) kins, both of Atlanta, Ga., for respondents. Order. Application for leave to file bill grantplaintiff in error. N. P. Bryan, of Jacksonville, | plaintiff in error. Motion to retax costs in this Fla., for defendant in error. Dismissed, on case denied. motion of Mr. Solicitor General King for the plaintiff in error.

(252 U. S. 568)

No. 312. John M. TANANEVICZ, plaintiff in error, v. The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. March 15, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. For opinion below, see People v. Tananevicz, 285 Ill. 376, 120 Ν. Ε. 766. Mr. Emory J. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Edward J. Brundage, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 334, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240, 241, 36 Sup. Ct. 274, 60 L. Ed. 622; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701; (2) Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544; United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Produce Co., 238 U. S. 140, 142, 35 Sup. Ct. 828, 59 L. Ed. 1238; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184, 39 Sup. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. 550; (3) section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, с. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stats. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).

(252 U. S. 580)

No. 709. Walter F. BRITTON, trustee, etc., petitioner, v. UNION INVESTMENT COMPANY. March 15, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 111. Messrs. Kay Todd, Walter Fosnes and Charles W. Sterling, all of St. Paul, Minn. (Mr. Harrison L. Schmitt, of Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Wm. A. Lancaster, David F. Simpson, and R. G. Patton, all of Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Ap

peals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 581)

No. 725. Walter M. REEDER et al., petitioners, v. The UNITED STATES of America. March 15, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 36. Mr. John W. Scothorn, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioners. Mr. R. P. Stewart, Assistant Attorney General, and W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

(252 U. S. 581)

No. 739. ATCHAFALAYA LAND COMPANY, petitioner, v. Paul CAPDEVIELLE, auditor, et al. March 15, 1920. For opinion below, see State ex rel. Board of Com'rs of Atchafalaya Basin Levee Dist. v. Capdeville, 83 South. 421. Messrs. George Janvier, of New Orleans, La., Burke & Smith, Walter J. Burke, Ventress J. Smith and F. E. Delahoussaye, all of New Iberia, La., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court

No. 328. KANSAS CITY, plaintiff in error, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI et al. March 15, 1920. See, also, 250 U. S. 652, 40 Sup. Ct. 54, 63 L. Ed. 1190. Mr. Matthew A. Fyke, of Kansas City, Mo., for I of the State of Louisiana denied.

(252 U. S. 364)
COLLINS V. MILLER, U. S. Marshal.
CARLISLE, British Consul General, v.
COLLINS.

(40 Sup.Ct.)

8. APPEAL AND ERROR76(1)-JUDGMENT
TO BE APPEALABLE TO FEDERAL SUPREME
COURT MUST BE FINAL AS TO ALL MATTERS
INVOLVED.

A judgment to be appealable to federal Supreme Court should be final, not only as to all (Argued Dec. 9, 1919. Decided March 29, 1920.) parties, but as to the whole subject-matter and

Nos. 350 and 351.

1. COURTS385(6)-QUESTIONS AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF TREATY REVIEWABLE BY SUPREME COURT ON DIRECT APPEAL.

Questions as to the construction of a treaty are reviewable by the Supreme Court on direct appeal from District Court, under Judicial Code, §238 (Comp. St. § 1215).

2. APPEAL AND ERROR

66-DIRECT APPEAL

OR WRIT OF ERROR LIES TO FEDERAL SUPREME
COURT ONLY FROM FINAL JUDGMENT.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction on direct writ of error and appeal under Judicial Code, § 238 (Comp. St. § 1215), as under other sections, only from final judgments.

3. HABEAS CORPUS 113(3) - JURISDICTION

OF DIRECT APPEAL IN HABEAS CORPUS PRO-
CEEDINGS LIMITED TO FINAL JUDGMENTS.

The rule that final judgments only are reviewable by direct appeal under Judicial Code, § 238 (Comp. St. § 1215), applies to habeas corpus proceedings.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR 23-FEDERAL SU-
PREME COURT MUST DETERMINE QUESTION AS
TO FINALITY OF JUDGMENT ON ITS OWN Mо-
TION.

When the question whether the judgment appealed from is a final one suggests itself to the Supreme Court, it must be answered, though not raised by either party.

5. HABEAS CORPUS 113 (3) JUDGMENT ON HAREAS CORPUS TO REVIEW EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS NOT FINAL.

Where, in a habeas corpus proceeding to review extradition proceedings instituted on three separate affidavits, the court denied or rather

dismissed the writ as to the commitment on one of the affidavits, but granted the writ as to the commitments on the other affidavits, remanded the case for further hearing before the judge making the commitments, and remanded the petitioner to the house of detention to await further proceedings on such affidavits, the judgment was not final, so as to support an appeal, as the writ had not been disposed of so far as concerned the detention on two of the affidavits.

6. EXTRADITION 17-PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMITTING MAGISTRATE NOT REVIEWABLE

BY APPEAL.

Proceedings before a committing magistrate in international extradition are not subject to correction by appeal.

7. HABEAS CORPUS 30 (1) -ERRORS NOT OBDINARILY CORRECTIBLE.

It is ordinarily beyond the scope of the review afforded by a writ of habeas corpus to correct error in the proceedings.

all the causes of action involved.

9. HABEAS CORPUS 113 (4) - MARSHAL IS PROPER PARTY TO APPEAL FROM DECISION IN PETITIONER'S FAVOR.

Where a person, committed in extradition proceedings instituted on affidavits filed by the British consul general, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, the United States marshal holding him in custody, and not the consul general, is the proper party to appeal from a decision in the petitioner's favor.

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Habeas corpus and certiorari by Charles Glen Collins against Frank M. Miller, United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Missouri. From a judgment denying the application for habeas corpus in part, and granting the writs in part, the petitioner and Tom F. Carlisle, British Consul General, bring separate appeals. Appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

365

*Messrs. J. Zach Spearing, of New Orleans, La., and Guion Miller and J. Kemp Bartlett, both of Baltimore, Md., for petitioner.

Messrs. Charles Fox and Donelson Caffery, of New Orleans, La., for marshal and consul general.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

[1-4] These are appeals from a single judgment entered by the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana on a petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari. The relator had been arrested on extradition proceedings. Each party asks to have reviewed the construction given below to provisions of our treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed August 9, 1842 (8 Stat. 572, 576), and of the supplementary treaty proclaimed April 22, 1901 (32 Stat. 1864). The questions presented are therefore of a character which may be reviewed upon direct appeal under section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215) Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 33 Sup. Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. 1274, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 397. But this court has jurisdiction on writ of error and appeal under that section, as under others, only from final judgments. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 12 Sup. Ct. 118, 35 L. Ed. 893; Heike v. United States, 217 U. S. 423, 30 Sup. Ot. 539, 54 L. Ed. 821. And the rule applies to habeas corpus proceedings. Hark

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

rader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148, 162, 19 Sup.er with a copy of the record in all the proCt. 119, 43 L. Ed. 399. The fundamental ques- ceedings was transmitted to the Secretary of

366

tion whether the judgment appealed from *is a final one within the meaning of the rule has suggested itself to the court; and it must be answered, although it was not raised by either party. Defiance Water Co. v. Defiance, 191 U. S. 184, 194, 24 Sup. Ct. 63, 48 L. Ed. 140. In order to answer the question it is necessary to describe the proceedings before the committing magistrate as well as those in the District Court on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In October and November, 1918, the British consul general at New Orleans filed with the Honorable Rufus E. Foster, District Judge of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, three separate affidavits, each charging that Charles Glen Collins, who was then within the jurisdiction of that court, had committed at Bombay, India, the crime therein described as obtaining property under false pretenses, and that he stood charged therewith in the Chief Presidency Magistrate's Court at Bombay, and asking that he be committed as a fugitive from justice for the purpose of having him returned to India for trial. Warrants of arrest issued, and Collins moved, as to each affidavit, to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, contending that the transactions in question were commercial dealings in which he had merely failed to pay debts incurred. Hearings, entitled "In the Matter of Extradition Proceed ings of Charles Glen Collins," were had before Judge Foster, at which the consul general and Collins appeared by counsel. Evidence in support of each of the three affidavits was introduced by the consul general. Then Collins, who was sworn at his request, admitted his identity and that he had been present in India at the times each of the alleged crimes were committed. As to one of the charges, that of obtaining a pearl button from Mohamed Alli Zaimel ali Raza, he was allowed to testify further. But he was not permitted to testify as to matters concerning the other two which had been consolidated. And he

State.

This petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari was filed by Collins, in said District Court, on January 8, 1919. It set forth the proceedings before Judge Foster on the three affidavits, and alleged that his detention was illegal and in violation of rights secured to him by the treaty; among other reasons because he was refused permission to introduce evidence as above mentioned. District Judge Grubb ordered that the writs issue; and the marshal made return setting forth in substance the facts above recited. The case was heard before Judge Grubb on February 21, 1919, the record before Judge Foster being introduced. On the same day Judge Grubb, without delivering an opinion, entered an order which declared that "relator's application for habeas corpus is denied" so far as concerned the charge of obtaining the pearl button from Mohamed Alli Zaimel ali Raza, and that "the writs of habeas corpus are granted" so far as the detention was based on the other two charges, but that the relator be remanded to the House of Detention to await further proceedings in said last two named affidavits.

"And it is further ordered that, as to the said two affidavits last mentioned, this cause be and

368

is hereby re*manded to the Honorable Rufus E. Foster, judge, to the end that relator be given the opportunity of introducing such evidence as he might offer at a preliminary examination under the law of Louisiana.

Neither party took any action in respect to such further proceedings before Judge Foster. On March 3, 1919, Collins petitioned for leave to appeal, contending that he should have been discharged on all three affidavits and his appeal was allowed. This is case No. 350 on the docket of this court. Later the British consul general petitioned for leave to appeal on the ground that Collins' application should have been definitely denied also as to the commitment on the other two affidavits. His appeal, being No. 351 on the

was not permitted to introduce other witness- docket of this court, was allowed March 28,

es in defense of any of the three *affidavits. [5-7] First. Was the judgment appealed After the hearings were concluded Judge Fos- from a final one? A single petition for a ter made two orders or judgments signed by writ of habeas corpus thus sets forth detenhim as Judge of said United States District tion of the relator on three separate affidaCourt and entitled in said court. In these vits. As to the commitment on one of these, orders he found, as to each of the affidavits, the judgment entered by Judge Grubb directthat he deemed the evidence sufficient to sus- ed that the writ be "denied." Such denial, tain the charge under the law and the treaty, or more appropriately dismissal, of the writ and as to each he ordered Collins recommit- would obviously have been a final judgment, ted to the House of Detention in the custody if it had stood alone. McNamara v. Henkel, of the United States marshal for that district 226 U. S. 520, 523, 33 Sup. Ot. 146, 57 L. Ed. to await the order of the President of the 330. But the judgment appealed from dealt United States. The two proceedings (which also with the detention on the other two affiincluded the three affidavits) were then con- davits. It declared that "the writs of habeas solidated. Under date of November 27, 1918, corpus are granted" as to the commitments a certificate setting forth his findings togeth-on the other two affidavits, and ordered that