Court may require, by certiorari or otherwise, any such case to be certified to it "for its review and determination, with the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried by appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court." 23 The Supreme Court of the United States is "invested with appellate jurisdiction of controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings from the courts of bankruptcy " from which it has appellate jurisdiction in other cases. "The Supreme Court of the United States shall exercise a like jurisdiction from courts of bankruptcy not within any organized circuit of the United States and from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia." 24 "From any final decision of a court of appeals, allowing or rejecting a claim under this act, an appeal may be had under such rules and within such time as may be prescribed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the following cases and no other: 1. Where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of two thousand dollars, and the question involved is one which might have been taken on appeal or writ of error from the highest court of a State to the Supreme Court of the United States; or 2. Where some justice of the Supreme Court of the United States shall certify that in his opinion the determination of the question or questions involved in the allowance or rejection of such claims is essential to a uniform construction of this act throughout the United States." 25 The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review by appeal, on behalf of the United States, all final judgments of the Court of Claims adverse to the United States; by appeal, on behalf of the plaintiff, all judgments of the Court of Claims in any case where the amount in controversy exceeds three thousand dollars, or his claim has been forfeited to the United States for fraud; and upon the appeal of either party all decisions 23 Ibid. 24 30 St. at L. 544, 553, § 24. 25 Bardes v. Hammond First Nat. Bank, 175 U. S. 526; 30 St. at L. 544, 553, § 25. 26 U. S. R. S., § 707. Where the United States has taken an appeal from a decision of the Court of Claims against them, the claimant may take a cross-appeal from so much of the judgment as disallowed part of his claim, although the sum of the items disallowed does not exceed $3,000. U. S. v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273, 289. No appeal lies to the Supreme Court from the findings and decisions of the Court of Claims upon a claim sent thereto by the head of a department for investigation, in pursuance of an act of Congress, which does not make the decisions of the court binding upon the of the Court of Private Land Claims which confirm or reject a claim in whole or in part." The Supreme Court of the United States may review by writ of error all final judgments, and by appeal all final decrees, of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in any case where the value of the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of five thousand dollars; and irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute in any case wherein is involved "the validity of any patent or copyright, or case in which is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or a statute, or of an authority exercised under the United States." 28 department: In re Sanborn, 148 U. S. 222. Cf. Talbert v. U. S., 155 U. S. 45. But see U. S. v. Jones, 119 U. S. 477. For cases where the Supreme Court refused to look into the facts, see McClure v. U. S., 116 U. S. 145; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 116 U. S. 154. validity of a treaty, statute or authority exercised under the United States is not in question, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of appeals from orders, decrees or judgments of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia upon applications for writs of habeas corpus, 27 26 St. at L. 854; U. S. v. Coe, 155 Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82; not U. S. 76; sur i, § 472. 28 27 St. at L. 436; 23 St. at L. 443; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210; District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 227; In re Heath, 144 U. S. 92; Clayton v. Utah, 132 U. S. 632, 637: "It will be observed that this second section of the statute, while it is based upon the general principle which is found in the act of Congress allowing writs of error from this court to the highest courts of a State, namely, to protect parties against the exercise of an unlawful power on the part of the State authorities, does not use the language which is found in that act, that to give this court jurisdiction the decision of the State court must be against the right or power set up by the party under the laws of the United States." See Idaho & O. Land Imp. Co. v. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 509; supra, § 477; infra, § 500. Where the validity of a patent or copyright is not involved, and the even where the right to the custody of a child is involved, Perrine v. Slack, 164 U. S. 452; nor in criminal cases where the punishment is capital, Cross v. U. S., 145 U. S. 571; Chapman v. U. S., 164 U. S., 436; In re Heath, 144 U. S. 92; nor in suits against the Commissioner of Patents to compel the issue of a patent, since such a suit does not involve the validity of a patent, and the value of the right sought to be enforced is incapable of a pecuniary valuation. Durham v. Seymour, 161 U. S. 235. See infra, § 504. The validity of an authority exercised under the United States is not drawn in question by defending a suit brought by the Government for the abatement of a fence upon public land. Cameron v. U. S., 146 U. S. 533. The phrase "validity of a statute," when used in the Acts of Congress which confer jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Supreme Courts The Supreme Court of the United States has the same jurisdiction over the Supreme Courts of the continental Territories 29 that it has over the Circuit Courts of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has also jurisdiction to review the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Courts of the continental Territories which are not subject to review by the Circuit Courts of Appeals; that is, in cases not founded on citizenship nor arising under the patent, revenue or criminal laws, nor in admiralty; and in which is involved the validity of a copyright, or the validity of a treaty of a statute, or of an authority exercised under the United States is drawn in question; also in any case in which a Circuit Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction as aforesaid, wherein the value of the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds five thousand dollars; 30 and perhaps also in cases of applications for the writ of habeas corpus.31 of the District and the Territories, refers to the power of Congress to pass the particular statute at all, and not to mere judicial construction. Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210, 226, per Fuller, C. J.; District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 227. The validity of a statute is not drawn in question every time rights claimed under such statute are controverted; nor is the validity of an authority, every time an act done by such authority is disputed. Cook County v. Calumet & C. C. & D. Co., 138 U. S. 635, 653, per Fuller, C. J. It seems that the authority exercised in the case appealed, by the court from which the appeal is taken, is not the authority intended by the act. Snow v. U. S., 118 U. S. 346, 347. The validity of an authority is not drawn in question unless such validity is primarily denied, and the denial made the subject of direct inquiry. Cook County v. Calumet & C. C. & D. Co., 138 U. S. 635, 653. The validity of the authority of an officer to audit an account is not drawn in question by an application for a mandamus to compel him to allow a credit which he rejected. U. S. v. Lynch, 137 U. S. 280. The validity of an authority is drawn in question when the right to hold an office is disputed. Clough v. Curtis, 134 U. S. 361, 370. The Supreme Court of the United States, where the value of the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $5,000, may review the judgments of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia which affirm or modify the settlement of accounts by the Orphans Court, Kennedy v. Sinnott, 179 U. S. 606; and which affirm judg ments admitting wills to probate. Ormsby v. Webb, 134 U. S. 47. It seems that the Supreme Court may review by a writ of error to the judgment of the trial court in the District of Columbia, and perhaps in a Territory, a conviction of a capital crime. 25 St. at L. 655, § 6; Cross v. U. S., 145 U. S. 571,576, 577, 578. 29 26 St. at L. 905, § 15. 30 23 St. at L. 443; Shute v. Keyser, 149 U. S. 649; Aztec Mining Co. v. Ripley, 151 U. S. 79; Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 162 166. 31 Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 162, The Supreme Court has jurisdiction of appeals from the United States courts in the Indian Territory "in all citizenship cases, and in all cases between either of the Five Civilized Tribes and the United States involving the constitutionality or validity of any legislation for the citizenship, or the allotment of lands in the Indian Territory, under the rules and regulations governing appeals to said courts in other cases." 32 "Writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico and the District Court of the United States shall be allowed and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner and under the same regulations and in the same cases as from the Supreme Courts of the Territories of the United States; and such writs of error and appeal shall be allowed in all cases where the Constitution of the United States or a treaty thereof or an act of Congress is brought in question, and the right claimed is denied." 33 166; Gonzales v. Cunningham, 164 180 U. S. 253. Such judgments and U. S. 612. 32 Such appeals must be taken "within sixty days from final judgment; but in no such case shall the work of the commission to the Five Civilized Tribes be enjoined or sus pended by any proceeding in, or order of, any court, or of any judge, until after final judgment in the Supreme Court of the United States. In case of appeals, as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Supreme Court to advance such cases on the docket and dispose of the same as early as possible." 30 St. at L. 591. See Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 481; Brown v. U. S., 171 U. S. 635. The Supreme Court of the United States has no other jurisdiction to review by appeal or writ of error the judg ments or decrees of the United States courts in the Indian Territory, not even in capital cases. Brown v. U. S., 171 U. S. 631. Nor where the constitutionality of an act of Congress is in question. Ansley v. Ainsworth, decrees are reviewed by the Court of "The laws of the United States as relating to appeals, writs of error, removal of causes, and other matters and proceedings as between the courts of the United States and the courts of the several States, shall "The Supreme Court has also jurisdiction to review by writ of error all final judgments and decrees in any suit in the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where has been drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision has been against their validity; or where has been drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or authority exercised under, any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision has been in favor of their validity; or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set up or claimed by either party, under such Constitution, treaty, statute, commission, or authority." The Supreme Court of the United States has power to exercise jurisdiction in its nature appellate by means of the writs of prohibition, certiorari, mandamus,and habeas corpus,as previously described. 35 $498. Review by Supreme Court of questions of jurisdiction. The statute provides: "That appeals or writs of error may be taken from District Courts or from the existing Circuit Courts direct to the Supreme Court in the following cases: In any case in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue; in such cases the question of jurisdiction alone shall be certified to the Supreme Court from the court below for decision."1 The words "at issue" are not confined to a formal issue raised by the findings, but include every case in which a question of jurisdiction is distinctly raised in any form. The jurisdiction intended by the statute is the jurisdiction of the court below in the suit wherein the decree appealed from is entered, not its jurisdiction to render a former decree, which the suit wherein. the appeal is taken seeks to set aside. The questions whether a cause of action is barred by lapse of time, either because of a govern in such matters and proceed- § 498. 126 St. at L. 827, § 5. 2 Shepard v. Adams, 168 U. S. 618; Powers v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 169 U. S. 92. 3 Carey v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 172. |