such course may be productive of inconvenience. Watts v. Waddle, 6 Pet. 389–402, 8 L. ed. 443.

Where it is apparent upon the record that the trial court was without jurisdiction the Supreme Court may not consider objections made to its jurisdiction to review, but must dismiss for the lack of the trial court's jurisdiction. Mattingly v. The Northwestern, etc., Co., 158 U. S. 53–57, 39 L. ed. 895.

Although the averment of citizenship in the complaint is insufficient, the whole record may be looked to in the appellate court for the purpose of curing a defective averment of diverse citizenship, and if the requisite citizenship is anywhere expressly averred in the record, or facts are therein stated which in legal intendment constitute such allegation, that is sufficient. Sun Printing & Pub. Assn. v. Edwards, 194 U. S. 377-382, 48 L. ed. 1030, Oct. T., 1903.

Although by sec. 6 of the Act of Mar. 3, 1891 (sec. 241, Judicial Code), the right of appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals in cases not therein made final was limited to causes in which the amount in controversy exceeds $1,000, Held, the bill need not state that a certain amount is in controversy, but the fact may appear by affidavit after the appeal is taken to the Supreme Court. United States v. Trans-Missouri, etc., Assn., 166 U. S. 290-310, 41 L. ed. 1017, Oct. T., 1896.

The amount in controversy may be made to appear after the appeal is taken in any manner other than by the record that establishes it to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court. Ib.

It may appear by a stipulation between the parties, though not controlling. Ib. 310.

Where the record fails to show the amount in controversy the defect may be supplied by affidavits. Parker v. Morrill, 106 U. S. 1, 27 L. ed. 73.

Generally speaking, the joinder in one suit of several plaintiffs or defendants who might have sued or been sued in separate actions does not enlarge the appellate jurisdiction. When property is claimed by several persons suing together the test is whether they claim under one common right, the adverse party having no interest in its distribution, or claim it under separate and distinct rights, each of which is contested by the adverse party. Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27-30, 30 L. ed. 1085, Oct. T., 1886.

When two persons are sued, or two parcels of property are sought to be recovered or charged by one person in one suit, the test is whether the defendants' alleged liability to the plaintiff, or claim to the property, is joint, or several. Ib. 30.

Where the object of the suit is to apply property worth more, to the

payment of a debt for less than the jurisdictional amount, it is the amount of the debt and not the value of the property that determines the jurisdiction. Ib. 29.

When several persons join in one suit to assert several and distinct interests and those interests alone are in dispute the amount of the interests of each is the limit of appellate jurisdiction. Ib.

Where an appeal had been allowed after a contest as to the value of the matter in dispute and there was in the record evidence to sustain the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, held the appeal would not be dismissed because the estimates adopted by the court below might have been too high, unless there was such a decided preponderance of evidence against jurisdiction as to make it the duty of the court to dismiss the appeal. Gage v. Pumpelly, 108 U. S. 164, 27 L. ed. 668.

The Supreme Court accepts the findings of the trial court upon questions of fact. Ocean S. Nav. Co. v. Aitken, 196 U. S. 589, 49 L. ed. 610.

Except in very clear cases. United States v. Clark, 200 U. S. 601– 608, 50 L. ed. 616.

That the appeal bond runs not only to the party against whom the decree was rendered but also to other parties defendant as to whom the suit was dismissed does not affect its validity, or the integrity of the appeal. Hill v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 129 U. S. 170-175, 32 L. ed. 653.

Though the record contains no evidence of the jurisdiction of the trial court arising out of the citizenship of the parties, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and will review a decree rendered in an equity suit which is ancillary to a suit between the same parties on the law side of the court below, since the trial court's jurisdiction is apparent. Johnson v. Christian, 125 U. S. 642, 31 L. ed. 820.

From a final decree against it complainant took an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and thereafter a second appeal to the Supreme Court, both appeals being taken within six months from the entry of the decree.

The appeal in the Circuit Court of Appeals went to a decree and not being final under sec. 6 of the Act of 1891 an appeal was allowed to the Supreme Court. That court finding that the jurisdiction of the trial court rested solely on the ground that the cause of action arose under the Constitution of the United States and therefore that the appeal lay direct to that court reversed the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals for want of jurisdiction in that court, and proceeded to determine the cause on the direct appeal. Held, it was not the intention of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act that a party should have two appeals on the merits. Union & Planters Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 74, 47 L. ed. 712.

Appeals under sec. 25b of the Bankruptcy Act of May 27, 1905, are required by paragraph 2 of General Orders in Bankruptcy 36 to be taken within 30 days after the judgment or decree. The limitation of time for appeal has the same effect as if contained in the statute. The allowance of an appeal on certificate by a Justice of the Supreme Court cannot operate as an adjudication that it is taken in time. Comboy v. First Natl. Bank, 203 U. S. 141-144, 51 L. ed. 128.

A petition for rehearing filed after the time for appeal has expired cannot reinvest a right of appeal. Ib.

Where an opinion of a State court is by law required to be filed and spread on the records and it is made part of the transcript, it is examinable by the Supreme Court to determine whether a Federal question is involved in the decision. Gross v. United States Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477–486, 27 L. ed. 798, Oct. T., 1882.

If the State court proceeds to judgment in a cause, notwithstanding an application for removal, its ruling in retaining the case will be reviewable in the Supreme Court after final judgment under sec. 709, Rev Stats. Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430-432, 29 L. ed. 963, Oct. T., 1885.

If the Circuit Court and the State court go to judgment respectively, each judgment is open to revision in the appropriate mode. Meyer v. Delaware R. Const. Co. (Removal Cases), 100 U. S. 457-475, 25 L. ed. 600, Oct. T., 1879.

A general statement in the record that the decision of a State court is against the constitutional rights of a party, or against the Fourteenth Amendment, or that it is without due process of law, particularly when these objections appear only in specifications of error, will not raise a Federal question within sec. 709, Rev. Stats. (U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 575). Clarke v. McDade, 165 U. S. 168-172, 41 L. ed. 674, Oct. T., 1896.

The bare averment of a Federal question is not sufficient. There must at least be color of ground for such averment. New Orleans v. New Orleans W. Co., 142 U. S. 79-87, 35 L. ed. 946, Oct. T., 1891.

To give the Supreme Court jurisdiction under sec. 709, Rev. Stats. (U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 575), to review the judgment of a State court because of its denial of a right, etc., under the United States Constitution, or law or treaty, it must appear on the record that such right, title, privilege, or immunity was specifically set up or claimed at the proper time and in the proper way. Leeper v. State of Texas, 139 U.S. 462-467, 35 L. ed. 227, Oct. T., 1890.

Where no opinion was delivered by the highest court of a State, but a certificate of the chief justice states that the validity of a State law was drawn in question in that court upon the ground of its impairment of a contract relied on by the plaintiff in error, and that the decision of the highest court of the State was in favor of the validity of such legislation, such certificate may be resorted to to show that a Federal question otherwise appearing in the record to have been raised, was actually passed upon. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hewes, 183 U. S. 6668, 46 L. ed. 88, Oct. T., 1901.

Such certificate is insufficient to give jurisdiction where the record fails to show that a Federal question was properly raised. Ib. 69.

The opinion of the trial court which is required by sec. 2 of Rule 8 to be annexed to and transmitted with the record cannot be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the evidence or the facts found below on which the judgment is based, but the Supreme Court may look into such opinion to ascertain whether either party in the court below claimed in proper form that a state law upon which some of the issues depended was in contravention to the Constitution of the United States. Loeb v. Trustees, etc., 179 U. S. 472–483, 45 L. ed. 287.

While a right under a Federal statute may not have been set up in the complaint in a State court as where it is not an original right, but a right available in rebuttal of a defense made, where it appears by the record to have been insisted upon in argument, and it appears in the opinion required by the rules to be sent up with the record that it was considered by the court and ruled against the party relying upon it, such party may have a writ of error to the highest State court to review its judgment. San Jose L. & W. Co. v. San Jose Ranch Co., 189 U. S. 177-180, 47 L. ed. 768. Noting the earlier cases in which a different rule was announced.

It is too late to raise a Federal question for the first time in a petition for a rehearing in a State court of last resort after its final judgment. If however the State court actually entertains the petition and decides the Federal question and this appears by the record the requirement of sec. 709, Rev. Stats., U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 575, is complied with. McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 53 L. ed. 270.

Where a Federal question is for the first time raised in a petition for a rehearing in the highest court of a State, if that court refuses the rehearing and dismisses the petition without passing upon the Federal question the judgment is not reviewable in the Supreme Court; but if the State court entertains the petition and decides the Federal question raised against the contention of the plaintiff in error, the decision is reviewable though first presented in the motion for rehearing. Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589–592, 45 L. ed. 1918, Oct. T., 1900.

A certificate of the Chief Justice of a State court of last resort, never made the order of the court, nor a part of the record, that the court in denying a rehearing did decide the Federal question raised in the petition for rehearing cannot confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to review the final judgment. Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Co., 228 U. S. 326.

A recital of the presiding judge of a state court of last resort that the court orders it to be certified and made a part of the record in the case that a Federal question raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing was considered and decided adversely, though nothing else is contained in the record indicating that a Federal question was raised and decided, will be treated as incorporating into the record such proof of the existence of a Federal question as is required by sec. 709, Rev. Stats., U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 575. Ib.

An order of the Circuit Court remanding a cause to the State court cannot be reviewed by any direct proceeding for that purpose. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 567–582, 40 L. ed 542, Oct. T., 1895.

The power of the Supreme Court to afford a remedy by mandamus when a cause removed from a State court is improperly remanded was taken away by the Act of Mar. 3, 1887. Ex parte Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451-454, 34 L. ed. 740, Oct. T., 1890.

If a case be removed to the Circuit Court and a motion to remand be denied, then after final judgment the action of the Circuit Court in refusing to remand may be reviewed in the Supreme Court on error or appeal. Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571-590, 33 L. ed. 469, Oct. T., 1889.

The settled decisions of the highest State courts upon the construction of their own constitution and laws are conclusive in the Supreme Court in cases involving any question re-examinable under sec. 25 of the Judiciary Act (sec. 237, Judicial Code). Providence Savings Institution v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 611, 18 L. ed. 912.

If the highest judicial tribunal of a State adopts new views as to the proper construction of a statute of such State and reverses its former decisions, the Supreme Court will follow the latest settled adjudication. Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 67 U. S. 599, 17 L. ed. 262.

The construction given to a statute of a State by the highest judicial tribunal of such State is regarded by the courts of the United States as a part of the statute, and as binding as the text. Such construction is a rule of decision under the 34th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. L. 73. Ib.