Approved in Illinois, etc., R. R. v. Decatur, 147 U. S. 204, 37 L. 137, 13 S. Ct. 296, holding act incorporating railroad company did not exempt it from municipal taxation.

Taxation.- Special assessments on swamp lands for their reclamation is a State tax within the law exempting such lands from taxation, p. 157.

Cited and followed in English v. Oliver, 28 Ark. 324, holding “all State taxes" include special as well as general taxes.

4 Wall. 158-163, 18 L. 354, UNITED STATES v. HOFFMAN.

Prohibition.- Writ of prohibition is one which commands a person not to do a certain thing. It calls for no affirmative act, but merely suspends all action. If the thing is done a writ of prohibition cannot undo it, p. 161.

Cited and relied upon in Sherlock v. Jacksonville, 17 Fla. 96, denying writ where matter complained of was beyond jurisdiction of court; State v. Potts, 50 La. Ann. 111, 23 So. 98, holding petition for writ too late after judgment on appeal; Dayton v. Paine, 13 Minn. 495, 496, denying writ where property was already sold; Morse v. Burckhartt, 87 Mo. 539, 540, holding writ will not issue after judgment rendered and court adjourned; Brooks v. Warren, 5 Utah, 90, 12 Pac. 659, refusing writ where party was already in possession of disputed premises; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 72, 24 L. 374, denying petition for writ on ground that wharfage claims are cognizable in admiralty; Mayor v. Grayson, 104 Ga. 109, 30 S. E. 695, holding upon merits order allowing writ should have been revoked; dissenting opinion in Gresham v. Ewell, 85 Va. 8, 6 S. E. 703, majority restraining enforcement of void judgment. See valuable note discussing this subject in 12 Am. Dec. 609.

Distinguished in People v. House, 4 Utah, 380, 10 Pac. 842, and Hein v. Smith, 13 W. Va. 370, allowing writ to restrain justice from issuing execution on voidable judgment.

Prohibition. Where court has already disposed of case and nothing remains that it can do, prohibition will not issue, even though case was disposed of after service on the judge of the order to show cause, and other cases of like nature were pending, p. 162.

Cited and followed in Sherlock v. Jacksonville, 17 Fla. 97, denying writ where matter complained of had passed beyond jurisdiction of court; Merriam v. Ross, 136 Mo. 271, 272, 41 S. W. 1043, refusing writ to adjudge the validity of receiverships; State v. Laughlin. 7 Mo. App. 531, refusing to issue writ to court constitutionally empowered to determine question.

Prohibition.- Writ of prohibition issued could not by its own force restrain a judge in other cases than the one complained of.

but could affect his action only so far as he might respect the principle on which the court acted in issuing the writ, p. 162.

Prohibition will not issue where its issue is not justified, for the purpose of establishing a principle to govern other cases, p. 162.

4 Wall. 163-165, 18 L. 319, WALKER v. UNITED STATES.

Appeal and error.- Where defendant appeals from Circuit Court, jurisdictional value is measured by amount of judgment, while in case of plaintiff, it is measured by amount of claim. Where jurisdictional value thus measured does not exceed $2,000, writ of error will be dismissed, p. 164.

Cited and principle followed in Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 695, 24 L. 541, dismissing writ sued out by defendant where plaintiff recovered exactly $5,000; Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 276, 29 L. 379, 6 S. Ct. 43, dismissing writ where several judgments against heirs did not exceed $5,000; Decker v. Williams, 73 Fed. 311, collecting cases and dismissing appeal taken by defendant where judgment of justice court less than $200; Richmond v. Brummie, 52 Kan. 248, 34 Pac. 784, dismissing appeal of defendant where judgment less than $100, though plaintiff demanded more; Draper v. Clark, 59 Ohio St. 339, 52 N. E. 833, dismissing writ prosecuted by defendant, where plaintiff claimed $2,000, but recovered $225; Harman v. Lynchburg, 33 Gratt. 40, holding writ proper where declaration shows claim for $675. Approved in United States v. Watkinds, 7 Sawy. 90, 6 Fed. 157, holding punishment inflicted did not change nature of offense.

Distinguished in Dashiell v. Slingerland, 60 Cal. 657, allowing appeal by defendant from judgment against him for less than jurisdictional amount. Construed in Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 173, 27 L. 690, 2 S. Ct. 429, reviewing cases and dismissing writ where difference between amount recovered and amount demanded does not exceed $2,500; Batchelder v. Richardson, 75 Va. 837, dismissing writ where difference between amount acknowledged and amount claimed is $235.

Appeal and error.- Writ of error to Circuit Court will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the judgment appealed from merely equals but does not exceed the sum of $2,000, p. 165.

Cited and followed in D. R. Martin, 91 U. S. 366, 23 L. 440, dismissing writ of error where judgment appealed from involved $500; Western, etc., Co. v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 567, 23 L. 978, and District v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 228, 32 L. 922, 9 S. Ct. 509, both dismissing writ, where amount exclusive of interest was $5,000; Withers v. Hopkins, etc., Bank, 104 Ga. 94, 30 S. E. 768, holding suit removable where title vested without payment of $2,200, claimed by defendant; Ex parte Sweeney, 126 Ind. 589, 27 N. E. 129, holding where amount

less than $1,000, jurisdiction will not attach by adding interest; Cin. cinnati, etc., R. R. v. Grames, 135 Ind. 45, 33 N. E. 896, refusing to reinstate cause where amount exclusive of interest less than $1,000. Approved in Payne v. Davis, 2 Mont. 381, holding practice act limiting jurisdiction of Supreme Court inconsistent with organic act.

Distinguished in United States v. Shaw, 39 Fed. 434, 3 L. R. A. 233, holding jurisdictional limit not applicable to suits where United States plaintiff or petitioner.

4 Wall. 165-172, 18 L. 384, BROWN v. WILEY.

Courts.-Act of 1863, establishing Supreme Court of District of Columbia, did not give Supreme Court jurisdiction to examine any decision of District Supreme Court, which could not have been examined in like case in District Circuit Court, pp. 171, 172.

Appeal and error.- Order of District Supreme Court certifying the finding of jury upon certain issues of fact sent to it by Orphans' Court, is not a final appealable judgment; neither is the overruling by all judges in General Term of a motion for new trial based on exceptions to instructions given to jury by single judge in Special Term such a final order, judgment or decree, pp. 171, 172.

Distinguished in Ormsby v. Webb, 134 U. S. 54, 57, 58, 64, 33 L. 809, 810, 812, 10 S. Ct. 481, 482, 484, collecting cases and reviewing decision of District Supreme Court, affirming judgment of Probate Court, admitting will.

4 Wall. 172-174, 18 L. 334, LOCKE v. NEW ORLEANS.

Constitutional law. An act simply authorizing the imposition of a tax according to previous assessment, is not retrospective, p. 173. Cited and followed in Frellsen v. Mahan, 21 La. Ann. 104, holding act imposing tax on value according to last year's assessment, not trospective; New Orleans v. Railroad Co., 35 La. Ann. 681, 685, olding city ordinance ordering omitted property placed on rolls and assessed, not retroactive; Litson v. Smith, 68 Mo. App. 403, holding subsequent act, giving inhabitants of a school district right to annex, not retrospective.

Distinguished in dissenting opinion in New Orleans v. Railroad Co., 35 La. Ann. 691, majority holding ordinance placing omitted property upon assessment-roll not within constitutional prohibition.

Constitutional law.- Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to such retroactive laws as impose penalties or forfeiture, p. 173.

Cited and followed in Cantini v. Tillman, 54 Fed. 973, holding act to prohibit sale of intoxicating liquors not ex post facto; In Matter of Mechanics' Society, 31 La. Ann. 631, holding act reviving charter and estopping State from enforcing penalties not objection

able; Howell v. Echeveria, 33 La. Ann. 715, holding State has undeniable right to prescribe qualifications for holding office; New Orleans v. Railroad Co., 35 La. Ann. 682, holding ordinance placing omitted property upon assessment-rolls not within constitutional prohibition; Commonwealth v. Brown, 121 Mass. 79, holding act waiving irregularities in grand jury valid as to future indictments. Approved in Eastman v. Clackamas, 12 Sawy. 624, 32 Fed. 31, holding citizen's right to proceed against municipal corporation for tort protected by Constitution. See valuable note discussing this subject in 37 Am. St. Rep. 584.

4 Wall. 174-176, 18 L. 387, STURDY v. JACKAWAY.

Judgments.- Final judgment in ejectment, where title was subject of controversy, rendered in suit by real litigants in their own names and describing land accurately, is a valid bar to like action subsequently, between same parties for same premises, involving same title, pp. 175, 176.

Cited and followed in Hayner v. Stanly, 8 Sawy. 219, 13 Fed. 221, holding adjudication of title in former action of ejectment conclusive in subsequent; Elizabethport Cordage Co. v. Whitlock, 37 Fla. 224, 20 So. 266, holding subsequent action barred as to titles held at time of prior action; Oetgen v. Ross, 54 Ill. 82, holding judgment in ejectment establishing title derived under probate decree conclusive in subsequent action; Doyle v. Hallam, 21 Minn. 516, holding judgment by default in ejectment bar to subsequent action; Barrell v. Guarantee Co., 27 Or. 83, 39 Pac. 994, holding judgment for possession of real property conclusively determines estate of defeated party; Finney v. Boyd, 26 Wis. 370, holding, in action upon tax deed, judgment prevents subsequent grantees from maintaining ejectment. Approved in dissenting opinion in Gaines v. Hale, 26 Ark. 210, majority refusing to enforce void judgment in ejectment. See valuable notes discussing this subject in 85 Am. Dec. 209, and 95 Am. Dec. 473.

Distinguished in Dawson v. Parham, 55 Ark. 293, holding adverse judgment to establish legal title not barring subsequent action in equity. Denied in Kimmel v. Benna, 70 Mo. 67, holding judgment in ejectment no bar to second action between same parties.

Courts.- Where statutes of Arkansas and its judicial decisions make no differences as to conclusiveness of judgments, in real and personal actions, a party will be allowed, in Federal court, in action of ejectment, to plead his estoppel according to his right at common law, p. 176.

Cited and followed in Hiller v. Shattuck, 1 Flipp. 275, F. C. 6,504, holding State statute allowing defendant new trial in ejectment binding upon Circuit Court.

Ejectment. Historical development of the action of ejectment, discussed, p. 176.

Cited generally in Brooke v. Gregg, 8 Md. 236, 43 Atl. 39, holdingunder code, judgment in ejectment res adjudicata. See note in 85 Am. Dec. 208.

4 Wall. 177-181, 18 L. 381, RAILROAD CO. v. ROCK.

Courts. Supreme Court will not take jurisdiction of a case brought from State court unless record shows that matters certified involved a Federal question and were necessarily decided by such court, notwithstanding certificate from presiding judge that such matters were drawn in question, p. 180.

Cited and followed in Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 38, 20 L. 49, granting motion to dismiss where Federal question appeared only in certificate; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 550, 22 L. 490, holding assignment that State court decided State statute valid and constitutional insufficient; Brown v. Atwell, 92 U. S. 329, 23 L. 513, dismissing writ where no question under patent laws was presented and decided by court; Columbia, etc., Co. v. Columbia, etc., Co., 172 U. S. 488, 19 S. Ct. 252, reviewing case where questions appear in record, but not specially set up. Approved in Powell v. Brunswick Co., 150 U. S. 439, 37 L. 1136, 14 S. Ct. 168, dismissing writ of error where no Federal question was presented; Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 68, 42 L. 952, 18 S. Ct. 517, denying motion where Federal question presented in both trial and Supreme Court; Martin v. Cole, 38 Iowa, 155, refusing to certify question to Supreme Court first raised on petition for rehearing.

Distinguished in Gross v. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 485, 27 L. 798, 2 S. Ct. 944, holding case properly authenticated to give court jurisdiction.

Courts. Supreme Court will not take jurisdiction on error to State court, where it appears from record that State court might have based its decision upon a ground not involving a Federal question, p. 181.

Followed in Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 263, 20 L. 637, refusing to take jurisdiction where avowed disloyalty of juror sufficient for his discharge.

Courts. To give Supreme Court jurisdiction over decision of State court on ground such decision impairs obligation of contract, such obligation must be impaired by State Constitution or some State law. Supreme Court will not take jurisdiction on ground that State court decided a contract void which it might have held valid, p. 181. Cited and followed in Knox v. Exchange Bank, 12 Wall. 383, 20 L. 415, holding court without jurisdiction, where judgment merely fails to give effect to contract; Chicago L. Ins. Co. v. Needles, 113