Dissenting Opinion: Harlan, J.

missed the action, or directed a verdict to be rendered in his favor. But even if it erred in this respect, the judgment was not void. Its error, if any there was, could have been corrected in an appellate court. The affirmance of the judgment by the highest court of the state is to be taken as conclusive that no error was committed by the inferior state court in respect to any matter put in issue, or which was embraced by the issue tried. So if Williams failed to prove, under his plea of not guilty, that he was a Confederate soldier, and that his taking the cattle was an act of legitimate warfare, it was not in the power of the State, by an amendment of its constitution, and after a final judgment against him, to give a new trial. In legal effect, that is what was done.

According to the doctrines announced by the court, if the present and similar suits in West Virginia had been decided adversely to the several defendants therein, and such decisions had been affirmed by the highest court of that State, it would be consistent with "due process of law" for the people of that State to make a further amendment of their constitution, and give the unsuccessful litigants still another opportunity to retry the very questions of law and fact determined against them in previous actions. And so on, indefinitely, until the alleged trespasser obtained a decision in his favor. I had supposed that a final judgment, and the right of the party in whose behalf it was rendered to have the benefit of it, rested upon a firmer basis than the popular will, expressed either in a constitutional amendment or in a legislative enactment.

Without considering whether the judgment obtained by Freeland is not "a contract of the highest nature, being established by the sentence of a court of judicature,” (2 Bl. 465 ; Taylor v. Root, 4 Keyes, 335, 344,) I place my dissent from the opinion and judgment in this case upon the ground that the state court, in the action of trespass, had jurisdiction as to person and subject matter, and that the constitutional amendment of 1872 taking from Freeland, upon the identical grounds involved in that action, the benefit of his judgment against the defendant, after it had been affirmed in the highest court of the State, deprived the former of his property without due process of law.

Cases not Otherwise Reported.

CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,

AT OCTOBER TERM, 1888, NOT OTHERWISE REPORTED, INCLUDING CASES DISMISSED IN VACATION PURSUANT TO RULE 28.

No. 103. ADAMS v. HATCH. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. December 4, 1888: Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the 10th rule. Mr. W. G. Griffith for appellant. Mr. F. P. Pritchard for appellee.

No. 509. ADAMS v. TOWN OF LANSING. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. January 4, 1889: Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. Clarence A. Seward in behalf of counsel. Mr. James R. Cox for plaintiff in error. Mr. Francis Kernan for defendant in error.

No. 78. AMBROSE V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PILOTS. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. May 19, 1888: Dismissed pursuant to the 28th rule. Mr. Coles Morris and Mr. Michael H. Cardozo for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Wm. Allen Butler for defendant in error.

No. 741. AMERICAN DIAMOND ROCK BORING COMPANY V. SHELDON et al. No. 742. SAME v. RUTLAND MARBLE COMPANY. No. 957. SAME v. GILSON et al. No. 958. SAME v. SUTHERLAND FALLS MARBLE COMPANY. No. 959. SAME v. SHERMAN et al. No. 960. SAME V. HAWLEY et al. No. 961. FLINT et al. No. 962. SAME V. KELLEY. No. 963. HOLLISTER. No. 964. SAME V. FREEDLEY et al. SAME v. COLUMBIAN MARBLE COMPANY. No. 966.

SAME V.

SAME v.

No. 965.

SAME V.

Cases not Otherwise Reported.

CUTTER MARBLE COMPANY. Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Vermont. December 20, 1888: Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the 10th rule. Mr. E. G. Thompson for appellants. Mr. E. T. Rice for appellees.

No. 146. AMERICAN DIAMOND DRILL COMPANY v. SULLIVAN MACHINE COMPANY. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. December 20, 1888: Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the 16th rule, on motion of Mr. E. T. Rice of counsel for appellee. Mr. E. G. Thompson for appellant. Mr. E. T. Rice for appellee.

No. 228. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF NASHVILLE V. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF NASHVILLE. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee. March 29, 1889: Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the 10th rule. Mr. Edward Baxter for appellant. No appearance for appellees.

No. 9. AMERICAN RAILWAY IMPROVEMENT COMPANY V. CARPENTER. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. April 22, 1889: Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. William A. Mc Kenney in behalf of counsel. Mr. W. W. Howe for plaintiff Mr. A. H. Leonard for defendants in error.

in error.

No. 1125. ARBUCKLE V. QUIGLEY. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. March 18, 1889: Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff in error pursuant to a stipulation of counsel. Mr. T. B. Turley and Mr. Luke E. Wright for plaintiff in error. Mr. Isham G. Harris for defendant in

error.

No. 289. ARNSON et al. v. MERRITT. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New

Cases not Otherwise Reported.

York. March 5, 1889: Dismissed on motion of Mr. Edwin B. Smith for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Attorney General for defendant in error.

No. 1179. ARTHUR'S EXECUTORS v. RICHARD AND BOAS. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. January 28, 1889: Judgment affirmed, with costs, and interest, by a divided court. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Stephen G. Clarke for defendants

in error.

No. 216. BALDWIN v. MARYE. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia. March 19, 1889: Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. William L. Royall for plaintiff in error. Mr. R. A. Ayers for defendant in error.

No. 1166. BALTIMORE AND POTOMAC RAILROAD COMPANY V. CROWN. No. 1167. SAME v. KNIGHT. No. 1168. SAME V. ANDERSON. No. 1169. SAME v. ROWLAND. No. 1170. SAME v. STROEBEL. No. 1171. SAME V. NEITZY. No. 1172. SAME v. RICHARDS. Error to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. April 17, 1889: Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of the decision of this court in the case of Baltimore and Potomac Railroad v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210, on motion of Mr. S. S. Henkle for defendants in error, as per stipulation. Mr. Enoch Totten for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Samuel Maddox and Mr. S. S. Henkle for defendants in error.

No. 1174. BALTIMORE AND POTOMAC RAILROAD COMPANY V. KENT. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. April 1, 1889: Dismissed, per stipulation, on motion of Mr. William A. McKenney in behalf of counsel for appellant. Mr. Enoch Totten for appellant. Mr. Linden Kent for appellees.