Time and Manner of Appeals from the Court of Claims. SEC. 708. All appeals from the Court of Claims shall be taken within ninety days after the judgment is rendered, and shall be allowed under such regulations as the Supreme Court may direct. 3 March, 1863, c. 92, ss. 5, 11, v. 12, pp. 766, 767. 25 June, 1868, c. 71, s. 1, v. 15, p. 75. Judgments and Decrees of State Courts on Writ of Error. SEC. 709. A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a state in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or any authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of or an 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 is 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, may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court upon a writ of error. The writ shall have the same effect as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a court of the United States; [and the proceeding upon the reversal shall be the same, except that the Supreme Court may at their discretion proceed to a final decision of the case, and award execution, or remand the same to the court from which it was so removed.] [See s. 1017.] The Supreme Court may [reaffirm], reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment or decree of such state court, and may at their discretion award execution, or remand the same to the court from which it was removed by the writ. 24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 25, v. 1, p. 85. 5 Feb., 1867, c. 28, s. 2, V. 14, p. 386. 18 Feb., 1875, c. 80, v. 18, p. 318. SECTION 709. WRIT OF ERROR TO STATE COURTS. 1. (Aug., 1796.) BY THE COURT: We are clearly of opinion that the Superior Court of Rhode Island, on whose judgment this writ of error is brought, is the highest court of law of that State, within the meaning of the twenty-fifth section of the judicial act. The General Assembly might set aside, but they could not make, a decision. Olney v. Arnold, 3 Dall. 308, 318. 2. (Feb., 1797.) A judgment of the High Court of Appeals of Maryland being reversed, and the judgment of the General Court affirmed, the mandate for execution must issue to the latter; and the plaintiff in error is entitled to costs in both those courts, as well as in the Supreme Court. Clerke v. Harwood, 3 Dall. 342, 343. 3. (Feb., 1806.) This court has not jurisdiction upon at writ of error to a state court, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, if the decision of the state court be in favor of the privilege claimed under an act of Congress. Gordon v. Caldeleugh, 3 Cranch, 268. 4. (Feb., 1808.) If two citizens of the same state, in a suit in a court of their state, claim title under the same act of Congress, this court has an appellate jurisdiction to revise and correct the judgment of that court in such case. Matthews v. Zane, 4 Cranch, 382. 5. (Feb., 1809.) In an action of ejectment between two citizens of Maryland, for a tract of land in Maryland, if the defendant set up an outstanding title in a British subject, which he contends is protected by the treaty, and, therefore, the title is of the plaintiff, and the highest state court in Maryland decides against the title thus set up, it is not a case in which a writ of error can lie to the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not "a case arising under a treaty." Owings v. Norwood, 5 Cranch, 344. 6. (Feb., 1810.) A writ of error lies to the highest court of a state, in a case where the question is whether a confiscation, under the law of the State, was complete before the treaty of peace with Great Britain. Smith v. Maryland, 6 Cranch, 286. 7. (Feb., 1816.) The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States extends to a final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of law or equity of a state, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304. 8. Such judgment, &c., may be re-examined by writ of error, in the same manner as if rendered in a Circuit Court. Ib. 9. If the cause has been once remanded before, and the state court decline or refuse to carry into effect the mandate of the Supreme Court thereon, this court will proceed to a final decision of the same, and award execution thereon. Ib. 10. (Feb., 1817.) No writ of error lies to the highest court of law or equity of a state, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, unless there is something apparent on the record bringing the case within the appellate jurisdiction of this court. Inglee v. Coolidge, 2 Wheat. 363. 11. The report of the judge who tries the cause at nisi prius, containing a statement of the facts, is not to be considered as a part of the record; the judgment being rendered upon a general verdict, and the report being mere matter in pais, to regulate the discretion of the court as to the propriety of granting a new trial, the writ of error, in such a case, will be dismissed. Ib. 12. (Feb., 1818.) Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, s. 25, giving appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States from the final judgment or decree of the highest court of law or equity of a state, in certain cases, the writ of error may be directed to any court in which the record and judgment on which it is to act may be found; and if the record has been remitted by the highest court, &c., to another court of the state, it may be brought by the writ of error from that court. Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246. 13. (Feb., 1818.) The court has no jurisdiction under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, unless the judgment or decree of the state court be a final judgment or decree. A judgment reversing that of an inferior court, and awarding a venire facias de novo, is not a final judgment. Houston v. Moore, 3 Wheat. 433. 14. (Feb., 1819.) Where a cause is brought to this court by writ of error or appeal from the highest court of law or equity of a state, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, upon the ground that the validity of a statute of the United States was drawn in question, and that the decision of the state court was against its validity, &c., or that the validity of a statute of the state was drawn in question, as repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and the decision was in favor of its validity, — it must appear from the record that the act of Congress or the constitutionality of the state law was drawn in question. Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311. 15. But it is not required that the record should, in terms, state a misconstruction of the act of Congress, or that it was drawn into question. It is sufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the cause that the record should show that an act of Congress was applicable to the case. Ib. 16. (Feb., 1821.) This court has, constitutionally, appellate jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, s. 25, from the final judgment or decree of the highest court of law or equity of a state, having jurisdiction of the subjectmatter of the suit, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty, or statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an 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 is in favor of such, their validity; or of the Constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or exemption, specially set up or claimed, by either party, under such clause of the Constitution, treaty, statute, or commission. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264. 17. (Feb., 1821.) A decree of the highest court of equity of a state, affirming the decretal order of an inferior court of equity of the same state, refusing to dissolve an injunction granted on the filing of the bill, is not a final decree within. the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, from which an appeal lies to this court. Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448. 18. (Feb., 1822.) Where a party claiming title to lands under an act of Congress brought a bill for a conveyance, and stated several equitable circumstances in aid of his title, and the state court where the suit was brought having dismissed the bill, and the cause being brought to this court by appeal, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, upon the ground of an alleged misconstruction of the act of Congress by the state court, Held, that this court could not take into consideration any distinct equity arising out of the contracts or transactions of the parties, and creating a new and independent title, but was confined to an examination of the plaintiff's title as depending upon the construction of the act of Congress. Matthews v. Zane, 7 Wheat. 164. 19. (Feb., 1823.) This court has authority to declare a state law unconstitutional, upon the ground of its impairing the obligation of a compact between different states of the Union. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 2. 20. (Feb., 1823.) The appellate jurisdiction of this court, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, may be exercised by a writ of error issued by the clerk of a Circuit Court, under the seal of that court, in the form |