ruptcy could obtain a writ of error to review a judgment of a State court in an action brought by him to recover assets.14 The term "suit" as used in this statute applies to any proceeding in a court of justice in which a person pursues the remedy which the law affords him; 15 and includes an application for a writ of mandamus, 16 prohibition,17 or habeas corpus.18 The amount of the matter in dispute in the State court is immaterial to the right of review by the Supreme Court of the United States.19 § 692a. Determination whether Federal question was decided. The opinion of the State court, if properly authenticated, may be examined to see what questions were decided, but it is not conclusive. When it appears that the decision below was adverse to the plaintiff in error upon two independent grounds, one of which is not a Federal question, the Supreme Court will dismiss the writ of error. Where there is a Federal question, way v. Seegers, 207 U. S. 73, 52 L. ed. 108. 14 Rector v. City Deposit Bank Co., 200 U. S. 405, 50 L. ed. 527; supra, § 669. 15 Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 7 L. ed. 481; Aldrich v. Aetna Co., 8 Wall. 491, 19 L. ed. 473. 16 Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672, 26 L. ed. 271; McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 36 L. ed. 868; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 57, 42 L. ed. 948; Am. Express Co. v. Michigan, 155 U. S. 404, 44 L. ed. 823. 17 Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 7 L. ed. 481. 18 Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487, 29 L. ed. 458. But see the opinion of Thompson, J., in Holmes V. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 586, 10 L. ed. 578, 601. The writ was dismissed when brought to review the order of a judge in such a case. McKnight v. James, 155 U. S. 685, 39 L. ed. 310; Clarke v. McDade, 165 U. S. 168, 41 L. ed. 673. 19 Buel v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312, 5 L. ed. 624. § 692a. 1 Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 22 L. ed. 429; Gross v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477, 27 L. ed. 795; Adams County v. B. & Mo. R. Co., 112 U. S. 123, 129, 28 L. ed. 678, 680; Philadelphia F. Ass'n v. New York, 119 U. S. 110, 116, 30 L. ed. 342, 345; Walter A. Wood Co. v. Skinner, 139 U. S. 293, 295, 25 L. ed. 193, 194. Even where the State practice requires that the syllabus be prepared by the Judge who writes the opinion. Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576. 2 Corn Products Refg. Co. v. Eddy, 249 U. S. 427. 3 Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361, 370, 37 L. ed. 1111, 1113; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 556, 40 L. ed. 536; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 22 L. ed. 429; Adams County v. B. & M. R. R. Co., 112 U. S. 123, 28 L. ed. 678; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216, 32 L. ed. 126; Hopkins v. but the decision may have been on another independent ground, and on which ground the judgment was based does not appear, then, if the independent ground was clearly invalid and insuffi McLure, 133 U. S. 380, 33 L. ed. 660; Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554, 3 L. ed. 442; Blount v. Walker, 134 U. S. 607, 33 L. ed. 1036; Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300, 34 L. ed. 83; Beaupré v. Noyes, 138 U. S. 397, 34 L. ed. 991; Hammond v. Johnston, 142 U. S. 73, 35 L. ed. 941; Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Com'rs, 146 U. S. 646, 36 L. ed. 1119; Seeberger v. McCormick, 175 U. S. 274, 44 L. ed. 161; Giles v. Teasley, 193 U. S. 146, 48 L. ed. 655; Allen v. Arguimbau, 198 U. S. 149, 49 L. ed. 990; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93, 52 L. ed. 118; Adams v. Russell, 229 U. S. 353; Holden Land and Live Stock Co. v. Inter-State Trading Co., 233 U. S. 536; New Orleans & N. E. R. R. Co. v. National Rice Milling Co., 234 U. S. 80; Mellon Co. v. McCafferty, 239 U. S. 134; Municipal Securities Corp. v. Kansas City, 246 U. S. 63, 38 Sup. Ct. 224, 62 L. ed. 579; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255; Farson, Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268; Withnell v. Ruecking Const. Co., 249 U. S. 63, 39 Sup. Ct. 200, 63 L. ed. 479. Where the State court held that the plaintiff in error was estopped from raising the constitutional question, the writ of error was dismissed. Eustis V. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361, 37 L. ed. 1111; Pierce v. Somerset Ry. Co., 171 U. S. 641, 43 L. ed. 316; Rutland R. Co. v. Central Vt. R. Co., 159 U. S. 630, 40 L. ed. 284; Moran v. Horsky, 178 U. S. 205, 44 L. ed. 1038; Pittsburgh & L. A. I. Co. v. Cleveland Min. Co., 178 U. S. 270, 279, 44 L. ed. 1065, 1068; Beals v. Cone, 188 U. S. 184, 47 L. ed. 435; Schaefer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 516, 47 L. ed. 570; contra. Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 248 U. S. 67. It was so held as to rulings that the payment of a tax was voluntary and not under duress. Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 468, 56 L. ed. 510. That the appeal to the highest State court was taken too late. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. McDonald, 214 U. S. 191, 53 L. ed. 963. Where the application was denied for laches. Preston v. City of Chicago, 226 U. S. 447, 57 L. ed.; and because it was prematurely made. Petrie v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, 248 U. S. 155, 39 Sup. Ct. 25, 63 L. ed. 178. The Supreme Court refused to review a decision of a State court which denied a motion to punish a party for a contempt. Newport Light Co. v. Newport, 151 U. S. 527, 38 L. ed. 259. A decision that the complainant has no right to sue because the act of which complaint is made, is a public and not a private wrong was considered to be the denial of a Federal right. Bowe v. Scott, 233 U. S. 658. Where it is claimed that the obligation of a contract has been impaired by a State law, the Supreme Court of the United States may pass upon the question whether any contract was made. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 486, 38 L. ed. 793; and upon the construction of the contract, and will then exercise its independent cient to sustain the judgment, the Supreme Court will take jurisdiction of the case, because when put to inference as to what points the State court decided, it ought not to assume that judgment. Butz v. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575; Columbia Water Power Co. v. Columbia El. Ry., L. & P. Co., 172 U. S. 475, 43 L. ed. 521; Citizen's Savings Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 636; Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Behrman, 235 U. S. 146; Long Sault Dev. Co. v. Call, 242 U. S. 272. But if the question is doubtful it will incline to agree with the construction given by the State court. Board of Liquidation v. Louisiana, 179 U. S. 622. It will conform to the settled construction which the highest courts of the State gave to the State statutes at the time when the alleged obligation was incurred. Taylor v. Ypsilanti, 105 U. S. 60; Ennis Water Works v. City of Ennis, 233 U. S. 652; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State of Oklahoma, 250 U. S. 111; New Orleans Water Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U. S. 18, 38, 31 L. ed. 607, 614, per Gray, J.: "When the State court decides against a right claimed under a contract, and there was no law subsequent to the contract this court clearly has no jurisdiction. When the existence and construction of a contract are undisputed, and the State court upholds a subsequent law on the ground that it did not impair the obligation of the admitted contract, it is equally clear that this court has jurisdiction."' See Detroit United Ry. v. Michigan, 242 U. S. 239. "When the State court holds that there was a contract conferring certain rights, and that a subsequent law did not impair those rights, this court has jurisdiction to consider the true construction of the supposed contract, and, if it is of opinion that it did not confer the right affirmed by the State court, and therefore its obligation was not impaired by the subsequent law, may, on that ground, affirm the judgment. When the State court upholds the subsequent law on the ground that the contract did not confer the right claimed, this court may inquire whether the supposed contract did give the right, because, if it did, the subsequent law cannot be upheld." But see Missouri & Kansas Interurban Ry. Co. v. City of Olathe, 222 U. S. 187, 56 L. ed. 156. In McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102, 43 L. ed. 382, the plaintiff in error claimed that certain legislation subsequent to his contract impaired the obligation of the same. The State Court of Appeals, without expressly passing upon the validity of such legislation, gave substantial effect thereto by holding that the original contract was void and could not be enforced. The Supreme Court of the United States took jurisdiction and reversed the judgment. But see the dissenting opinion of Peckham, J., and Powell v. Brunswick County, 150 U. S. 433, 37 L. ed. 1134; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 41 L. ed. 132; St. Paul & M. M. Ry. Co. v. Todd County, 142 U. S. 282, 35 L. ed. 1014. The omission of the State court to refer to a statute which the plaintiff in error asserts has. impaired his rights does not prevent the Supreme Court from con 4 the judgment was based upon grounds clearly untenable; but where a defense resting on local statutes is distinctly made, the Supreme Court will not, in order to reach a Federal question, resort to critical conjecture as to the action of the State court in the disposition of such defense. When the Supreme Court is of the opinion that the Federal question was erroneously decided, it will still affirm the judgment, if it appears that on another ground, even if such ground were not considered by the State court, the decision was correct. A decision of a question of fact by a jury will not be thus reviewed. In a case tried before a judge without a jury the findings of fact are usually followed; but not where it appears to be without sup sidering such statute, if it was an essential, although an unmentioned, element of the decision. Carondelet Canal Co. v. Louisiana, 233 U. S. 362; Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Behrman, 235 U. S. 164. It has been said that there is a distinction between a statute which has the effect of violating or repudiating a contract and one that impairs the obligation thereof. Hays v. Port of Seattle, 251 U. S. 233. 4 Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257, 20 L. ed. 635; Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300, 307, 34 L. ed. 683, 686; St. Louis Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. McWhirter, 229 U. S. 265; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642: Northwestern Laundry v. Des Moines, 239 U. S. 486; Crew Levick Co. v. Commonwealth of Pa., 245 U. S. 292; Am. Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 250 U. S. 2, 39 Sup. Ct. 431, 63 L. ed. 810. 5 Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300, 207, 34 L. ed. 683, 686; Cuyahoga Power Co. v. North'n Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300. 6 Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 636, 22 L. ed. 429, 444. See Walter A. Wood Co. v. Skinner, 139 U. S. 293, 295, 35 L. ed. 193, 194; Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175; BiMetallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization of Colorado, 239 U. S. 441. 7 Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658, 38 L. ed. 305; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 242, 41 L. ed. 979, 986. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company v. West, 232 U. S. 682; Cornell Steamboat Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co., 233 U. S. 593; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Donaldson, 246 U. S. 121, 38 Sup. Ct. 230, 62 L. ed. 616. 8 Willoughby v. Chicago, 235 U. S. 45; Jones National Bank V. Yates, 240 U. S. 541; Donohue v. Vosper, 243 U. S. 59 (Adverse possession); King v. Putnam Investment Co., 248 U. S. 23; Pure Oil Co. v. State of Minnesota, 248 U. S. 158, 39 Sup. Ct. 35, 63 L. ed. 180; Gillis v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 249 U. S. 515, 39 Sup. Ct. 355, 63 L. ed. 738. In a suit against a railroad company to recover an undercharge, where the tariffs filed are not included in the record, the findings of the State port from the evidence, and the court may examine the evidence in order to determine whether what purports to be a finding of fact is in reality a decision upon a question of Federal law.10 It may review a ruling upon the admission 11 or exclusion 12 of evidence. § 692b. Raising Federal question in State court. Except possibly under extraordinary circumstances, a writ of error will not issue to review the judgment of a State court unless the Federal question was raised in the State tribunals. When it is desired to secure the right to review the decision of a State court in the Supreme Court of the United States, it is the safer practice to make it appear distinctly on the record, by a statement either in the pleadings, or as the ground for an objection to the admission of evidence, or in support of an offer of evidence, court are usually conclusive. Louis. & Nash. R. R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 95. Whether a shipment was at a given time interstate is a question of fact. Southern Pac. Co. v. State of Arizona, 249 U. S. 472. 9 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. State of North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585; Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert, 239 U. S. 560. The State court cannot, by omitting to pass upon basic questions of fact, deprive a litigant of the benefit of a Federal right properly asserted. Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601; Carlson v. Curtiss, 234 U. S. 103; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. City of Newport, 247 U. S. 464, 38 Sup. Ct. 566, 62 L. ed. 1215. 10 Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids, 223 U. S. 655, 668, 56 L. ed. 594, 604; Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. Albers Comm. Co., 223 U. S. 573, 56 L. ed. 556; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. State of North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585; Norfolk and Western Railway Company v. Conley, Attorney General of the State of West Virginia, 236 U. S. 605; Stewart Mining Company v. Ontario Mining Company, 237 U. 11 Apapas v. U. S., 233 U. S. 587; Graham v. Gill, 233 U. S. 643. 12 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Glenn, 239 U. S. 388; McGinis v. California, 247 U. S. 91. § 692b. 1 Citizens' Bank of Michigan City v. Opperman, 249 U. S. 448, 39 Sup. Ct. 330, 63 L. ed. 701; Southern Pac. Co. v. State of Arizona, 249 U. S. 472; Jett Bros. Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1. It will not consider an independent constitutional question which appears upon the facts, but was not raised below. Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193, 43 L. ed. 665; Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127, 45 L. ed. 119. But see Hedrick v. Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 167 U. S. 673, 677, 42 L. ed. 320, 321; Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 46 L. ed. 1058; Jenkins v. Neff, 186 U. S. 230, 235, 46 L. ed. 1140, 1142. See infra, § 711g. 2 See Hays v. Port of Seattle, 251 U. S. 233, 237. An averment that by reason of a contract with the |