Indians are too indefinite to allow them to be made the subject of a
set-off. United States v. Blackfeather, 180.

2. The United States having undertaken by Article VII of the Treaty of
August 8, 1831, with the Shawnees to "expose to public sale to the
highest bidder" the lands ceded to them by the Shawnees, and having
disposed of a large part of the same at private sale, were thereby guilty
of a violation of trust; and as all public lands of the United States
were, by the act of April 24, 1820, c. 51, 3 Stat. 566, made open to
entry and sale at $1.25 an acre, the measure of damages for the viola-
tion is the difference between the amounts realized, and the statutory
price. Ib.

3. Under the provisions of said treaty the Shawnees were entitled to inter-
est on such damages as an annuity. Ib.

4. The United States is not responsible to the Shawnees for moneys paid
under a treaty to guardians of orphans of the tribe, appointed by the
tribal council, who had embezzled the money when so paid. Ib.

5. Whether the Shawnees are entitled to recover in these proceedings
money embezzled by an Indian superintendent, quære. Ib.

6. There was no error in the action of the court below ordering a percent-
age allowance to counsel. lb.

7. The Cherokees and the Delawares having, on the 8th day of April,
1867, in pursuance of the provisions of the treaty of July 19, 1866, 14
Stat. 799, between the United States and the Cherokee Nation, entered
into a contract, whereby it was agreed that, on the fulfilment by the
Delawares of the stipulations on their part contained in said contract,
all the members of that tribe, registered as provided in said contract,
should become members of the Cherokee Nation, with the same rights
and immunities and the same participation (and no other) in the
national funds as native Cherokees, except as otherwise provided in
the contract, the so registered Delawares were, on such fulfilment of
their stipulations, thereby incorporated into the Cherokee Nation,
and, as members and citizens thereof, were entitled to equal rights in
the lands of that Nation and their proceeds. Cherokee Nation v.
Journeycake, 196.

8. A stipulation on the part of the Cherokees in an agreement made by
them with the Shawnees under authority of the act of October 1, 1890,
c. 1249, 26 Stat. 636, that the Shawnees in consideration of certain
payments by them, etc., "shall be incorporated into and ever after
remain a part of the Cherokee Nation on equal terms in every respect
and with all the privileges and immunities of native citizens of said
Cherokee Nation," secured to the Shawnees equal rights with the
Cherokees in that which was the common property of the Cherokee
Nation, namely, the reservation and the outlet as well as all profits
and proceeds thereof. Cherokee Nation v. Blackfeather, 218.

INSOLVENT DEBTOR.

See LOCAL LAW.

INSURANCE.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7.

JUDGMENT.

See EQUITY, 1.

JURISDICTION.

A. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

1. A finding of fact by the Court of Claims, where there is nothing in the
other findings or elsewhere in the record which authorizes this court to
go behind that finding and conclude that there was error in respect
thereof, will not be reviewed here. Talbert v. United States, 45.
2. The questions that, the title of some of the parties to the land being in
dispute, such titles must be settled before partition could be made;
that the interests of several of the defendants were adverse to each
other; and that as some of these defendants were citizens of the same
State, it would raise controversies beyond the jurisdiction of the Cir-
cuit Court to decide, not having been certified to this court, are not
passed upon. Greeley v. Lowe, 58.

3. The provisions in the act of March 3, 1891, c. 539, 26 Stat. 854, “to es-
tablish a court of private land claims and to provide for the settlement
of private land claims in certain States and Territories," authorizing
this court to amend the proceedings of the court below, and to cause
additional testimony to be taken, are not mandatory, but only em-
power the court to direct further proofs, and to amend the record, if
in its judgment the case demands its interposition to that effect.
United States v. Coe, 76.

4. The judicial action of all inferior courts established by Congress may,
in accordance with the Constitution, be subjected to the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ib.

5. An appeal lies to this court from a judgment of the Court of Private
Land Claims over property in the Territories. Ib.

6. The rule reiterated that where a judgment or decree is joint, all the
parties against whom it is rendered must join in the writ of error or
appeal, unless there be summons and severance or the equivalent.
Sipperley v. Smith, 86.

7. Rulings not specifically excepted to below are not reviewable here. Allis
v. United States, 117.

8. This court has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of the Supreme
Court of the State of Washington, denying a petition for a rehearing
which had been presented to the Supreme Court of the Territory of
Washington touching a cause therein decided, and had been trans-
ferred to the Supreme Court of the State under the provisions of the
act of February 22, 1889, c. 180, 25 Stat. 676, admitting that State to
the Union. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Holmes, 137.

9. This court is not called upon to consider errors assigned by an appellee

who has taken no appeal from the judgment below. United States v. Blackfeather, 180.

10. Final judgments of Circuit Courts of the United States in actions of assumpsit can only be revised in this court on writ of error. Deland v. Platte County, 221.

11. In this court, acting under its appellate jurisdiction, whatever was matter of fact in a state court, whose judgment or decree is under review, is matter of fact here. Lloyd v. Matthews, 222.

12. Whenever a court of one State is required to ascertain what effect a public act of another State has in that other State, the law must be proved as a fact.

Ib.

13. When in the courts of a State the validity of a statute of another State is not drawn in question, but only its construction, no Federal question arises. Ib.

14. The decision by the highest court of the State of Kentucky that the laws of the State of Ohio permit an insolvent debtor to prefer a creditor, which was made in a case in which the assignee of the insolvent, a party to the suit contesting the preference, failed to plead the construction given the Ohio statutes by the courts of Ohio, or to introduce the printed books of cases adjudged in the State of Ohio, or to prove the common law of that State by the parol evidence of persons learned in that law, or to put in evidence the laws of that State as printed under the authority thereof, or a certified copy thereof, raises no Federal question. Ib.

15. Judgments in a District or Circuit Court of the United States in cases brought under the act of March 3, 1887, c. 359, 24 Stat. 505, are not required to be brought here for revision by appeal only, but may be brought by writ of error; but they will be reëxamined here only when the record contains a specific finding of facts with the conclusions of law thereon. Chase v. United States, 489.

16. A judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah against the tax collector of a municipal corporation for fifty dollars, the value of property levied on by him for unpaid municipal taxes, rendered on the ground that a municipal corporation, which is a small village but has extensive limits, cannot tax farming lands for municipal purposes lying within the corporate limits but outside of the platted portion of the city and so far removed from the settled portion thereof that the owner would receive no benefits from the municipal government, does not draw in question the validity of the organic law of the Territory or the scope of the authority to legislate conferred upon the territorial legislature by Congress; and as the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, does not exceed the sum of five thousand dollars, nor involve the validity of a patent, or copyright, or of a treaty, this court is without jurisdiction to review it. Linford v. Ellison, 503.

17. A writ of error will not go from this court to an order of a judge of a Circuit Court of a State, made at chambers, remanding a prisoner in a habeas corpus proceeding. McKnight v. James, 685.

See HABEAS CORPUS, 3.

C.

B. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.

See PRACTICE.

JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

1. A suit in equity for the partition of land, wherein the plaintiff avers that he is seized as tenant in common of an estate in fee simple, and is in actual possession of the land described, and, after setting forth the interests of the other tenants in common, and alleging that no remedy at law exists to enable him to obtain his share of said lands in kind, or of the proceeds if sold, and that he is wholly without remedy except in chancery, prays for the partition of the land, and the segregation of his own share from that of the others, and incidentally that certain deeds may be construed and, if invalid, may be cancelled, and that he may recover his advances for taxes and expenses, is clearly a bill to enforce a claim and settle the title to real estate; and as such is a suit covered by § 8 of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, 472, of which the Circuit Court of the district where the land lies may properly assume jurisdiction. Greeley v. Lowe, 58.

2. Where the laws of a State give a remedy in equity, that remedy will be enforced in Federal courts in the State, if it does not infringe upon the constitutional right of the parties to a trial by jury. Ib. 3. A Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction to hear and determine, on appeal from the Board of General Appraisers, the questions of law and of fact involved in a decision of that Board sustaining the action of a collector of customs in exacting a charge for gauging molasses under the provisions of Rev. Stat. § 3023. United States v. Jahn, 109.

4. When the transcript of the record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of a suit, where jurisdiction depends upon citizenship, and counsel, upon their attention being called to the matter, furnish nothing of record to supply the defect, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of the plaintiff in error, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 393.

5. The Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas has jurisdiction of a suit in equity, brought by a citizen of Ohio against a citizen of Illinois, to remove a cloud from the title to real estate situated in that district. Dick v. Foraker, 404.

6. Without the statutory notice required by the Arkansas statute of March 12, 1881, No. 39, in proceedings for the fixing of tax liens for unpaid taxes upon lands in the State, and the sale of the lands for the nonpayment thereof, the court can take no jurisdiction, and all proceedings therein are void; and the fact that the State appeared in such a suit where that notice had not been given, did not give the court jurisdiction, or render the sale valid. Ib.

7. Under the Judiciary Acts of the United States, a suit taken between a State and a citizen or corporation of another State is not a suit between citizens of different States; and the Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction of it, unless it arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 482.

8. A Circuit Court has jurisdiction of a suit brought in the name of the State in which the circuit is situated, on the relation of a citizen of another State, to enforce the obligations of a bond given by citizens of the State in which the suit is brought for the faithful performance of his duties by a municipal officer of that State. Indiana ex rel. Stanton v. Glover, 513.

D. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. When a District Court has general jurisdiction in admiralty over the subject-matter and over the parties, it should be allowed to proceed to decision; and if it commits error in entertaining a claimant's contention against the charterers in the same suit with the libel against the ship, the error may be corrected on appeal. In re N. Y. & Porto Rico Steamship Co., Petitioner, 523.

E. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

1. The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction of a claim against the government for a mere tort. Schillinger v. United States, 163.

2. The owner of letters patent for an invention, who sets up in the Court of Claims that a contractor with the United States has made use of the patented invention in the execution of his contract without compensation to the claimant, and against his protest, whereby there was a wrongful appropriation of the patent by the United States for their sole use and benefit, and that a right has accrued to him to recover of the United States the damages thus done to him, to be measured by the saving or profit made by the United States, thereby sets up a claim sounding in tort, of which the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction. Ib.

3. When a contractor with the United States, in the execution of his contract, uses any patented tool, machine, or process, and the government accepts the work done under such contract, quære, whether it can be said to have appropriated and be in possession of any property of the patentee in such a sense that the patentee may waive the tort and sue as on an implied promise. Ib.

4. The act of March 3, 1883, c. 111, 22 Stat. 804, authorizing the Court of Claims to hear and determine the claims of the successors and representatives of Sterling T. Austin, deceased, for cotton alleged to have been taken from him in Louisiana by the authorities of the United States in 1863, 1864, and 1865, "any statute of limitation to the contrary notwithstanding, provided, however, that it be shown to the satis

VOL. CLV-46