Opinion of the Court.

the receiver of a national bank was a party defendant in the state courts, contested the issues on a general denial, and set up no claim of a right under Federal statutes withdrawing the case from the application of general law, this court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgment of the highest court of the State resting thereon; and, certainly, an officer of the Circuit Court stands on no higher ground than an officer of the United States.

Defendant did not deny that he was amenable to suit in the state courts; he did not claim immunity as receiver from suit without previous leave of the Circuit Court, and could not have done so in view of the act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat. 552; all the questions involved were questions of general law, including the inquiry whether one person holding the office of receiver could be held responsible for the acts of his predecessor in the same office; and the judgment specifically prescribed that the "said amount and judgment is payable out of the funds held by said Bausman, as receiver of said company, which come into the hands of said receiver and are held by him as receiver, and funds belonging to the receivership which are applicable for that purpose which may hereafter come into the receiver's hands, or under direction of the court appointing such receiver."

Section three of the act of March 3, 1887, provides that: "Every receiver or manager of any property appointed by any court of the United States may be sued in respect of any act or transaction of his in carrying on the business connected with such property, without the previous leave of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed; but such suit shall be subject to the general equity jurisdiction of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed, so far as the same shall be necessary to the ends of justice." It is not denied that this action was prosecuted and this judgment rendered in accordance therewith.

The writ of error is

Dismissed.

Statement of the Case.

MULLEN v. WESTERN UNION BEEF COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

No. 153. Argued and submitted January 18, 1899. -Decided February 20, 1899.

On the facts stated by the court in its opinion, it declines to hold that it affirmatively appears from the record that a decision could not have been had in the Supreme Court of the State, which is the highest court in the State; and this being so, it holds that the writ of error must be dismissed.

THIS was an action brought by Mullen and McPhee against the Western Union Beef Company, in the district court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, to recover damages for loss of stock occasioned by the communication from cattle of defendant to cattle of plaintiffs of the disease known as splenetic or Texas fever, by the importation into Colorado of a herd of Texas cattle, in June, 1891, and suffering them to go at large, in violation of the quarantine rules, regulations and orders of the United States Department of Agriculture, in accordance with the act of Congress approved May 29, 1884, c. 60, entitled "An act for the establishment of a Bureau of Animal Industry, etc.," 23 Stat. 31; and the act approved July 14, 1890, c. 707, 26 Stat. 287; and in violation of the quarantine rules and regulations of the State of Colorado. The trial resulted in a verdict for defendant, on which judgment was entered. Plaintiffs sued out a writ of error from the Court of Appeals of the State of Colorado and the judgment was affirmed, whereupon the present writ of error was allowed.

The Court of Appeals held that the question of violation by defendant of the quarantine rules and regulations of the State need not be considered because "upon sufficient evidence, it was settled by the jury in defendant's favor;" that no question of negligence generally in the shipment and management of the cattle is presented by the record;" and that the theory on which the case had been tried below and was argued in that court was that "if the loss of the plaintiffs'

66

Statement of the Case.

cattle was in consequence of disease communicated by the cattle of the defendant, its liability depends upon its acts with reference to rules and regulations which it was legally bound to observe."

The regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture were as follows:

"Regulations Concerning Cattle Transportation.
"UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 5, 1891. "To the managers and agents of railroad and transportation companies of the United States, stockmen and others:

"In accordance with section 7 of the act of Congress approved May 29, 1884, entitled 'An act for the establishment of a Bureau of Animal Industry, to prevent the exportation of diseased cattle and to provide means for the suppression and extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia and other contagious diseases among domestic animals,' and of the act of Congress approved July 14, 1890, making appropriation for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, you are notified that a contagious and infectious disease known as splenetic or southern fever exists among cattle in the following-described area of the United States: . . . From the 15th day of February to the 1st day of December, 1891, no cattle are to be transported from said area to any portion of the United States north or west of the above-described linė, except in accordance with the following regulations."

[Here followed a series of stringent rules concerning the method to be pursued in transporting cattle from the infected districts.]

"UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 23, 1891.

"Notice is hereby given that cattle which have been at least ninety days in the area of country hereinafter described

Statement of the Case.

may be moved from said area by rail into the States of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana for grazing purposes, in accordance with the regulations made by said States for the admission of southern cattle thereto.

"Provided:

"1. That cattle from said area shall go into said States only for slaughter or grazing, and shall on no account be shipped from said States into any other State or Territory of the United States before the 1st day of December, 1891.

"2. That such cattle shall not be allowed in pens or on trails or ranges that are to be occupied or crossed by cattle going to the eastern markets before December 1, 1891, and that these two classes shall not be allowed to come in contact.

"3. That all cars which have carried cattle from said area shall, upon unloading, at once be cleaned and disinfected in the manner provided by the regulations of this department of February 5, 1891.

"4. That the state authorities of the States of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana agree to enforce these provisions."

The court, after stating that the territory described in both orders included that from which the defendant's cattle were shipped, said: “It is the rules relating to the isolation of cattle moved from infected districts, and more particularly the second proviso of the second order, which were clained to have been violated by the defendant."

And it was then ruled that the regulations were not binding, as it was not shown that the State had agreed to them; that they were not authorized by the statute; that "the second provision undertakes to regulate the duties in relation to them [the cattle], of the persons by whom they might be removed after their arrival in the State, and it is upon this provision that plaintiffs' reliance is chiefly placed. After becoming domiciled within the State their management would be regulated by its laws and not by the act of Congress. Any violation of the Federal law in connection with the cattle would consist in their removal. The disposition of them after

Opinion of the Court.

wards was not within the scope of the statute." 9 Colorado, 497. 49 Pac. Rep. 425.

Mr. T. B. Stuart for plaintiffs in error. ley filed briefs for the same.

Mr. W. C. Kings

Mr. C. S. Thomas and Mr. W. II. Bryant for defendant in error submitted on their brief, on which was also Mr. H. H. Lee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the

court.

We are met on the threshold by the objection that the writ of error runs to the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and cannot be maintained, because that is not the judgment of the highest court of the State in which a decision could be had.

The Supreme Court of Colorado is the highest court of the State, and the Court of Appeals is an intermediate court, created by an act approved April 6, 1891, (Sess. Laws, Col. 1891, 118,) of which the following are sections:

"SECTION 1. No writ of error from, or appeal to, the Supreme Court shall lie to review the final judgment of any inferior court, unless the judgment, or in replevin, the value found exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs. Provided, this limitation shall not apply where the matter in controversy relates to a franchise or freehold, nor where the construction of a provision of the Constitution of the State or of the United States is necessary to the determination of a case. Provided, further, that the foregoing limitation shall not apply to writs of error to county courts."

"SECTION 4. That the said court shall have jurisdiction · "First-- To review the final judgments of inferior courts of record in all civil cases and in all criminal cases not capital. "Second-It shall have final jurisdiction, subject to the limitations stated in subdivision 3 of this section, where the judgment, or in replevin the value found is two thousand five hundred dollars, or less, exclusive of costs.