cannot enter into the computation. W. U. Telegraph Co. v. Rogers, 3 Otto, 565.

39. (Oct., 1877.) In a suit in the Circuit Court, where the defendant pleaded neither a set-off nor a counter-claim, the plaintiff remitted so much of a verdict in his favor as was in excess of $5,000, and took judgment for the remainder "in coin." The defendant sued out a writ of error. Held, that the amount in controversy, whether payable in coin or any other kind of money, is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. Thompson v. Butler, 5 Otto, 694.

40. (Oct., 1877.) The amount of the judgment below against a defendant, in an action for money, is prima facie the measure of the jurisdiction of this court in his behalf. Troy v. Evans, 7 Otto, 1.

41. This prima facie case continues until the contrary is shown; and if jurisdiction is invoked because of the collateral effect a judgment may have in another action, it must appear that the judgment conclusively settles the rights of the parties in a matter actually in dispute, the sum or value of which exceeds $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Ib.

42. (Oct., 1878.) A writ of error sued out upon a judgment on a money demand, will be dismissed where it affirmatively appears from the record, taken as a whole, that the amount actually in dispute is not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. Gray v. Blanchard, 7 Otto, 564.

43. (Oct., 1879.) Where, by an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, the plaintiff's claim was admitted by the defendant, except the sum of $3,134.20,Held, that that sum was the amount actually in dispute, and although judgment was rendered below for the entire claim, being more than $5,000, the writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Tintsman v. National Bank, 10 Otto, 6.

44. (Oct., 1879.) Where, in replevin, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for a portion of the property

delivered under the writ, and in favor of the defendant for a return of the residue, or its value, the same not being $5,000, and the plaintiff sued out a writ of error to this court,

Held, that the writ must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pierce v. Wade, 10 Otto, 444.

45. NOTE. In Pierce v. Tough, error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, submitted by the same counsel as was the preceding case, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE remarked that, as the judgment was for $2,000 only, the case was, in all material respects, like that of Pierce v. Wade (supra, p. 444), and that, for the reason there stated, the writ would be dismissed.

SECTION 691.

MISCELLANEOUS. DECISIONS, 1-72.

1. (Feb., 1799.) The court will not take cognizance of a cause which is not brought before them by regular process. Dewhurst v. Coulthard, 3 Dall. 409, 410.

2. (Feb., 1807.) This court deems it proper to declare that it disclaims all jurisdiction not given by the Constitution, or by the laws of the United States. Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 93.

3. (Feb., 1807.) Courts which originate in the common law, possess a jurisdiction which must be regulated by the common law, until some statute shall change their established principles; but courts which are created by written law, and whose jurisdiction is defined by written law, cannot transcend that jurisdiction. Ib.

4. (Feb., 1808.) It is incumbent upon the plaintiff in error to show that this court has jurisdiction of the case. United States v. Brig Union, 4 Cranch, 215.

5. (Feb., 1810.) The appellate powers of the Supreme Court of the United States are given by the Constitution; but they are limited and regulated by the Judicial Act, and other acts passed by Congress on the subject. Durousseau v. United States, 6 Cranch, 307.

6. (Feb., 1810.) This court has appellate jurisdiction of the decisions in the District Courts of Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Orleans, even in causes properly cognizable by the District Courts of the United States. Durousseau v. United States, 6 Cranch, 308.

7. (Feb., 1815.) This court has jurisdiction, where one party claims land under a grant from the State of New Hampshire, and the other under a grant from the State of Vermont, although at the time of the first grant Vermont was part of New Hampshire. Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292.

8. (Feb., 1821.) It is no objection to the exercise of this appellate jurisdiction, that one of the parties is a state and the other a citizen of that state. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264.

9. (Feb., 1826.) Although a judge may refuse to declare the law to the jury, on a hypothetical question not warranted by the testimony in the cause, yet, if he proceeds to state the law, and states it erroneously, his opinion may be revised in the court above; and if it can have had any influence on the jury, their verdict will be set aside. Etting v. Bank of United States, 11 Wheat. 59.

10. (Jan., 1828.) The allowance and refusal of amendments in the pleadings; the granting and refusing new trials; and most of the other incidental orders, made in the progress of a cause, before trial, are matters so peculiarly addressed to the sound discretion of the courts of original jurisdiction, as to be fit for their decision only, under their own rules and modes of practice. This court has always declined interfering in such cases. Wright v. Hollingsworth, 1 Pet. 165. 11. (Jan., 1833.) This court will not exercise any control over the proceedings of an inferior court of the United States, in allowing or refusing to allow amendments in the pleadings, in cases depending in those courts; but every party in such courts has a right to the judgment of this court in a suit

brought in those courts, provided the matter in dispute exceeds the value of $2,000. Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634.

12. (Jan., 1839.) The Supreme Court can have no control over the appointment or removal of a Clerk of the District Court, or entertain any inquiry into the grounds of the removal. If the judge is chargeable with any abuse of his power, the Supreme Court is not the tribunal to which he is answerable. Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230.

13. (Jan., 1844.) After all, the question of amendment. was a question of discretion in the court below, upon its own review of the facts. This court has no right or authority, upon a writ of error, to examine the question: it belonged appropriately and exclusively to the court below. Matheson v. Grant, 2 How. 264,

14. (Jan., 1848.) The continuance of a cause, or the refusal to continue it, rests in the sound discretion of the court in which the motion is made, and cannot be reviewed by writ of error. This, also, has been long settled. Sims v. Hundley, 6 How. 1.

15. (Jan., 1849.) The question whether or not a majority of those persons entitled to suffrage, voted to adopt a constitution, cannot be settled in a judicial proceeding. Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 2.

16. (Jan., 1850.) Where land was sold under an execution, and the money arising therefrom about to be distributed amongst creditors by order of the Circuit Court, a controversy between the creditors, as to the priority of their respective judgments, cannot be brought to this court, either by appeal or writ of error. Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530.

17. An appeal to this court is given in chancery cases alone. Ib.

18. Nor is the case a proper one for a writ of error. Such a writ cannot be sued out by persons who are not parties to the record, in a matter arising after execution, by strangers to the judgment and proceedings, and where the error assigned

is in an order of the court disposing of certain funds in their possession, accidentally connected with the record. Ib.

19. The creditors should have filed their bill in equity, or stated an issue in due legal form, with proper parties, setting forth the merits of their respective claims, in order to lay the foundation for an appeal or writ of error to this court. Ib.

20. (Jan., 1850.) Although the state in which the judgment was given allowed appeals, by statute, in similar cases arising in the courts of the state, yet it does not follow from the adoption of the forms of process in execution that the courts of the United States adopted the modes of reviewing the decisions of inferior courts. Ib.

21. (Dec., 1850.) The ordinance of 1787 cannot confer jurisdiction upon this court. It was itself superseded by the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, which placed all the States of the Union upon a perfect equality, which they would not be if the ordinance continued to be in force after its adoption. Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 82.

22. (Dec., 1850.) . . . The errors being patent upon the records, the judgment is open to revision in this court, without any motion in arrest of judgment being made, or exception taken in the court below. Bennett v. Butterworth, 11 How. 669.

23. (Dec., 1853.) Where the debtor alleged that process of attachment had been laid in his hands as garnishee, attaching the debt which he owed to the creditor in question; and moved the court to stay execution until the rights of the parties could be settled in the state court, which had issued the attachment, and the court refused so to do, this refusal is not the subject of review by this court. The motion was addressed to the discretion of the court below, which will take care that no injustice shall be done to any party. Early v. Rogers, 16 How. 599.

24. (Dec., 1855.) Where different parties claimed a fund in the hands of the marshal, which had arisen from sales un