ruling of the court below, that it was a valued policy. Insurance Co. v. Mordecai, 22 How. 112. 16. (Dec., 1863.) Objections to want of proper parties, being matter which should be taken in the court below, a party cannot, in an admiralty proceeding, by the owners of a vessel, to recover damages for a cargo lost on their ship by collision, object here, for the first time, that the owners of the vessel were not the owners of the cargo, and therefore that they cannot sustain the libel. Commander-in-Chief, 1 Wall. 44. 17. (Dec., 1863.) When there is any just suspicion of fraud or forgery, the defence should be made below, and the evidence to support the charge should appear on the record. United States v. Johnson, 1 Wall. 326. 18. (Dec., 1863.) Where no suspicion, from the absence of the usual preliminary documentary evidence, in the archives of a former government, arises as to the genuineness of a Mexican grant produced, the general rule is, that objections to the sufficiency of proof of its execution must be taken in the court below. They cannot be taken in this court for the first time. United States v. Auguisola, 1 Wall. 352. 19. (Dec., 1863.) This court will refuse to consider objections to the documentary evidence of title, produced on the trial of an action of ejectment, unless they are presented in the first instance to the court below, if they are of a kind which might have been there obviated. Houghton v. Jones, 1 Wall. 702. 20. (Dec., 1864.) In a case where the trial has proceeded on merits, and the error has not been pointed out below, judgment will not be reversed, even though the form of action have been wholly misconceived, and to the case made by it, a defence plainly exists. Marine Bank v. Fulton Bank, 2 Wall. 252. 21. (Dec., 1866.) Where none of the evidence offered by a plaintiff is objected to below, and no exception taken to the findings of the court there, objection cannot be made in this court. Railroad Co. v. Lindsay, 4 Wall. 650. 22. (Dec., 1867.) An objection to an amended bill in chancery, because not filed with the leave of the court below (as it is contemplated by rule 45 of the equity rules, that such bills should be), or the objection that a replication is not in a sufficient form, under rule 66 of the same rules, cannot be first made in this court. The objection, if not made below, is waived. Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. 299. 23. (Dec., 1868.) Where a defendant, on suit upon such a note, wishes to rely at any time on usury as a defence, he should raise the question in some form in the court below. If this is not done, the defence cannot be made here. Ewing v. Howard, 7 Wall. 499. 24. (Dec., 1869.) Parties not claiming under the United States, who are allowed to intervene in proceedings of the District Court, to correct surveys of Mexican land grants in California, under the act of June 14, 1860, must claim under cessions of the former Mexican government. The order of the District Court, allowing a party thus claiming to intervene, is a determination that he possesses such interest, derived from that government, as to entitle him to contest the survey; and objection to his intervention, on the ground that he possesses no such interest, cannot be taken for the first time in this court. Alvise v. United States, 8 Wall. 337. 25. (Dec., 1869.) On a writ of error to a state court, no question will be considered here which was not called to the attention of the state court. National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353. 26. (Dec., 1869.) It [this court] will not consider a case upon documents not in the cause below, though filed here by consent, as if returned under a writ of diminution. Hoe v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 501. 27. (Dec., 1869.) An objection of a too general allegation of injury should be made in the court below. It cannot be made here for the first time, and after the case has been heard. below. The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665. 28. (Oct., 1873.) At all events, where, in neither the District nor in the Circuit Court, the libellee has set up an allegation that there were other damages sustained than those which the libellant alleged had been sustained by his vessel, the libellee cannot make a claim in this court for damages which he alleges here, for the first time, have been sustained also by him. The Sapphire, 18 Wall. 51. 29. (Oct., 1874.) Matters not presented to, nor decided by, the court below, are not assignable for error here. Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 533. 30. (Oct., 1874.) The point cannot be first made in this court that no replication has been made to an answer in chancery, and, therefore, that the answer is to be taken as conclusively true in all points. If such a point is meant to be insisted on here, it should have been made in the court below. Fretz v. Stover, 22 Wall. 198. 31. (Oct., 1874.) Semble, that an objection that a devise. is void, because of the alienage of the devisee, cannot first be taken by him, in this court, on a writ of error to the judgment of a Circuit Court, on a special case, although the record discloses the fact of alienage. Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331. 32. (Oct., 1875.) Questions presented by the assignment of error cannot be considered here, unless the record shows that they were brought to the attention of the court below. Walker v. Sauvinet, 2 Otto, 90. 33. (Oct., 1875.) As an objection to the institution of the suit against the defendant in three distinct capacities, even if it would have been valid, was not taken in the court below, at any stage in the case, it cannot be taken here. Kittredge v. Race, 2 Otto, 116. 34. (Oct., 1875.) Where the want of parties does not appear on the face of the bill, the objection must be set up by plea or answer, and cannot be made for the first time in this court. Carey Carey v. Brown, 2 Otto, 171. 35. (Oct., 1876.) An objection of the defendant, that the evidence admitted in the court below tended to prove that he was not solely liable to the plaintiff for one of the items of the account sued upon, cannot be made for the first time in this court. Wheeler v. Sedgwick, 4 Otto, 1. 36. (Oct., 1878.) The objection that the defendants to an amended bill were all necessary parties to a supplemental bill filed in the same cause, cannot be made for the first time in this court. McBurney v. Carson, 9 Otto, 567. 37. (Oct., 1880.) An objection not taken in the court below cannot be considered here. Wilson v. McNamee, 12 Otto, 572. 1. (Feb., 1795.) Where the Supreme Court are equally divided on a question of jurisdiction, though the majority are for reversing the judgment of the court below, a venire facias de novo cannot be awarded. Bingham v. Cabbot, 3 Dall. 41, 42. 2. (Dec., 1868.) Accordingly, this court reversed a judgment, and ordered a venire de novo in a case where, in its opinion, the evidence below tended to prove a ratification and adoption by one person of a contract made by another, which ratification and adoption the defendant maintained that the evidence did prove, or, at least, tend to prove. This court, however, in the reversal, carefully avoided the expression of any opinion as to whether the evidence, which it said tended to prove such ratification and adoption, did or did not actually prove it. Drakely v. Gregg, 8 Wall. 243. 3. (Dec., 1870.) That this court, instead of awarding a venire facias de novo, must, under the twenty-fourth section of the Judiciary Act, as well as by the common-law powers of a court of error, render the judgment which the Circuit Court ought to have rendered on that verdict. Insurance Co. v. Boykin, 12 Wall. 433. 4. Such a judgment was accordingly certified to the Circuit Court, to be there enforced by execution. Ib. 5. (Oct., 1878.) Where an error in the amount recovered is apparent upon the record, and it could not have been remedied by an amendment of the pleadings, this court will, of its own motion, in the interests of justice, direct that it be corrected, and, if necessary, order a new trial or further proceedings for that purpose. Mills v. Scott, 9 Otto, 26. ORDERS. 1. (Dec., 1870.) Although, when a court has no jurisdiction, it is in general irregular to make any order, except to dismiss the suit, that rule does not apply to the action of the court in setting aside such orders as had been made improperly before the want of jurisdiction was discovered, and restoring things to the state in which they were before the improper orders were made. Mail Co. v. Flanders, 12 Wall. 130. PARTIES. DECISIONS 1-41. 1. (Feb., 1800.) The decree of the court below was reversed, although it was on a supplemental suit in equity, from want of a proper description of the parties, to give a federal court jurisdiction. Course v. Stead, 4 Dall. 22. 2. (Feb., 1826.) Where there is a joint judgment against several defendants, and one only sues out the writ of error without joining the others, it is irregular; but if the others refuse to join in it, quære, whether the plaintiff may not have summons and severance. Williams v. Bank of United States, 11 Wheat. 414. 3. (Jan., 1828.) The decree of the Circuit Court directed. two of the defendants, in whom was the legal title to the lot of ground claimed by the plaintiff in the bill, to convey the same, and awarded costs generally against all the defendants. |