197. Review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT 193. Review by the Supreme Court of decisions in the cases over which it exercises appellate jurisdiction is had by means of writ of error or appeal, and by certain other methods provided by statute in certain cases. Only final judgments or decrees can be made the subject of review by writ of error or appeal. The appellate courts of the United States of general interest are the Supreme Court and the circuit courts of appeals, and the jurisdiction respectively vested in them has been discussed in the two preceding chapters. It is now necessary to consider the method of invoking that jurisdiction, and bringing and trying cases before them. The Supreme Court The courts to which the right of review of the Supreme Court extends are, in the first place, the district courts. The time of taking an appeal from these courts is prescribed by section 1008 of the Revised Statutes.1 It must be within two years after the entry of the judgment, decree, or order which it is desired to review. 1 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 715. It is not every decree or order which can be made the subject of review. Were this not so, there might be an endless number of appeals in any one case; and hence it is a principle, subject to but few exceptions, to be hereafter named, that only final judgments or decrees can be made the subject of appellate review. Thus the case is finally ended in the lower court, and the process of review brings before the appellate court, once and for all, the entire case. The question what constitutes a final judgment is a matter of little difficulty in a common-law proceeding. It is a matter of great difficulty in an equity proceeding. The flexible character of equity causes and the infinite variety of equity decrees render it difficult to define exactly what constitutes a final decree or order in any equity case. The general principle is that a decree is final if it settles the principles of the cause, and leaves only ministerial acts by which its decision is to be carried out; but, although it may settle the main issue in a cause, it is not final if anything is left to the lower court involving the exercise of judicial power, rather than ministerial. On this subject the Supreme Court has said: "Probably no question of equity practice has been the subject of more frequent discussion in this court than the finality of decrees. It has usually arisen upon appeals taken from the decrees claimed to be interlocutory, but it has occasionally happened that the power of a court to set aside such a decree at a subsequent term has been the subject of dispute. The cases, it must be conceded, are not altogether harmonious. Upon one hand, it is clear that a decree is final, though the case be referred to a master to execute the decree by a sale of property or otherwise, as in the case of the foreclosure of a mortgage. If, however, the decree of foreclosure and sale leaves the amount due upon the debt to be determined, and the property to be sold ascertained and defined, it is not final. A like result follows if it merely determines the validity of the mortgage, and, HUGHES FED.PR.(2D ED.)—35 without ordering sale, directs the case to stand continued for further decree upon the coming in of the master's report. "It is equally well settled that a decree in admiralty determining the question of liability for a collision or other tort, or in equity establishing the validity of a patent, and referring the case to a master to compute and report the damages, is interlocutory merely. "It may be said, in general, that if the court make a decree fixing the rights and liabilities of the parties, and thereupon refer the case to a master for a ministerial purpose only, and no further proceedings in court are contemplated, the decree is final; but if it refer the case to him as a subordinate court, and for a judicial purpose, as to state an account between the parties, upon which a further decree is to be entered, the decree is not final. But even if an account be ordered taken, if such accounting be not. asked for in the bill, and be ordered simply in execution of the decree, and such decree be final as to all matters within the pleadings, it will still be regarded as final.” 2 Even if the appeal from the district or circuit court is on a jurisdictional question only, and by certificate, it can still be taken only after a final decree is entered in the cause.3 2 MCGOURKEY v. TOLEDO & O. R. CO., 146 U. S. 536, 13 Sup. Ct. 170, 36 L. Ed. 1079. See, also, Keystone Manganese & Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91, 10 Sup. Ct. 32, 33 L. Ed. 275; Guarantee Co. of North America v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co., 173 U. S. 582, 19 Sup. Ct. 551, 43 L. Ed. 818; Montgomery v. Anderson, 21 How. 386, 16 L. Ed. 160; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bray, 225 U. S. 205, 32 Sup. Ct. 620, 56 L. Ed. 1055. See "Appeal and Error," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 70, 71; Cent. Dig. §§ 386-401. 3 Bardes v. First Nat. Bank, 175 U. S. 526, 20 Sup. Ct. 196, 44 L. Ed. 261; Bowker v. U. S., 186 U. S. 135, 22 Sup. Ct. 802, 46 L. Ed. 1090. See "Admiralty," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 103; "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 382. SAME-WRIT OF ERROR 194. The review is by writ of error in cases of a commonlaw nature, civil or criminal, which are triable by a jury. By this method, only errors of law which have been embodied in the record in the manner usual in common-law cases can be reviewed. The writ of error is a writ of the appellate court to the trial court for the purpose of bringing up the record for review. Notice of appeal or the issuance of a writ of error is given to the parties by citation. Bond satisfactory to the judge issuing the writ or allowing the appeal must be given as a condition of the appeal. The seventh amendment of the Constitution provides: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Pursuant to this constitutional provision, section 1011 of the Revised Statutes provides: "There shall be no reversal in the Supreme Court or in a circuit court upon a writ of error, for error in ruling any plea in abatement, other than a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, or for any error in fact." Under these provisions, the writ of error performs the office of bringing up for review simply questions of law in cases of common-law nature which are triable by jury. 4 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 715. This section applies only to cases brought up from the inferior federal courts, not to cases brought up from the state courts. Buck Stove & Range Co. v. Vickers, 226 U. S. 205, 33 Sup. Ct. 41, 57 L. Ed. The question what cases are covered by this constitutional amendment has been discussed at length in a recent decision of the Supreme Court. It says: "It must therefore be taken as established, by virtue of the seventh amendment of the Constitution, that either party to an action at law (as distinguished from suits in equity or in admiralty) in a court of the United States, where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars, has the right to a trial by jury; that, when a trial by jury has been had in an action at law in a court either of the United States or of a state, the facts there tried and decided cannot be re-examined in any court of the United States otherwise than according to the rules of the common law of England; that, by the rules of that law, no other mode of re-examination is allowed than upon a new trial, either granted by the court in which the first trial was had, or to which the record was returnable, or ordered by any appellate court for error in law; and therefore that, unless a new trial has been granted in one of these two ways, facts once tried by a jury cannot be tried anew, by a jury or otherwise, in any court of the United States. "Trial by jury, in the primary and usual sense of the term at the common law and in the American Constitutions, is not merely a trial by a jury of twelve men before an officer vested with authority to cause them to be summoned and impaneled, to administer oaths to them and to the constable in charge, and to enter judgment and issue execution on their verdict; but it is a trial by a jury of twelve men in the presence and under the superintendence of a judge empowered to instruct them on the law and to advise them on the facts, and (except on acquittal of a criminal charge) to set aside their verdict if, in his opinion, it is against the law or the evidence." " 5 CAPITAL TRACTION CO. v. HOF, 174 U. S. 1, 13, 19 Sup. Ct. 580, 43 L. Ed. 873. See “Jury," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 9; Cent. Dig. |