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. Ed. 384, BROWN v. WILEY. 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. Approved in Coughlan v. Poulson, 2 McAr. (D. C.) 213, where issues are sent by Orphans' Court to special term and verdict by jury given, motion for new trial on bill of exceptions will be heard at general term in first instance. Distinguished in Ormsby v. Webb, 134 U. S. 54, 57, 58, 64, 33 L. Ed. 809, 810, 812, 10 Sup. Ct. 481, 482, 484, reviewing decision of District Supreme Court, affirming judgment of probate court, admitting will. 4 Wall. 172-174, 18 L. Ed. 334, LOCKE v. NEW ORLEANS. Act simply authorizing the imposition of tax according to previous assessment, is not retrospective. Approved in Town of Mansfield v. Herndon, 134 La. 11, 63 South. 606, ordinance forbidding rebuilding in wood within certain fire limits is not retrospective as to one engaged in rebuilding; Frellsen v. Mahan, 21 La. Ann. 104, holding act imposing tax on value according to last year's assessment, not retrospective; New Orleans v. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co., 35 La. Ann. 681, 685, holding 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. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co., 35 La. Ann. 691, majority holding ordinance placing omitted property upon assessment-roll not within constitutional prohibition. Validity of retrospective rate or tax. Note, 22 E. R. C. 824. Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to such retroactive laws as impose penalties or forfeiture. Approved 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 objectionable; Howell v. Echeveria, 33 La. Ann. 715, holding State has undeniable right to prescribe qualifications for holding office; New Orleans v. New Orleans etc. R. R. 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; Eastman v. Clackamas, 12 Sawy. 624, 32 Fed. 31, holding citizen's right to proceed against municipal corporation for tort protected by Constitution. Ex post facto laws. Note, 37 Am. St. Rep. 584. 4 Wall. 174-176, 18 L. Ed. 387, STURDY v. JACKAWAY. 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. Approved in Sass & Crawford v. Thomas, 6 Ind. Ter. 68, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 260, 89 S. W. 658, fraud in execution of lease may be shown in action for unlawful detainer; Brooke v. Gregg, 89 Md. 236, 43 Atl. 39, holding insufficient plea in ejectment that a case was tried in which plaintiffs in this case were plaintiffs and defendant in this case was defendant, the said case being an action of ejectment to recover same land claimed in declaration herein; 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 South. 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. Title Guarantee etc. 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; dissenting opinion in Gaines v. Hale, 26 Ark. 210, majority refusing to enforce void judgment in ejectment. Distinguished in Hudson v. Iguano Land & Min. Co., 71 W. Va. 407, 76 S. E. 799, failure of plaintiff to prove title in bill to quiet title docs not preclude his defense to bill for accounting for timber and coal taken from land; 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. Conclusiveness of judgment in ejectment. Note, 85 Am. Dec. 208, When judgment against tenant may bind landlord. Note, 95 Am. Where statutes of Arkansas and its judicial decisions make no differences as to conclusiveness of judgments, in real and personal actions, party will be allowed, in Federal court, in action of ejectment, to plead his estoppel according to his right at common law. Approved in Hiller v. Shattuck, 1 Flipp. 275, Fed. Cas. 6504, holding State statute allowing defendant new trial in ejectment binding upon Circuit Court. Historical development of the action of ejectment, discussed. Cited in Brooke v. Gregg, 8 Md. 236, 43 Atl. 39, holding, under code, judgment in ejectment res adjudicata. 4 Wall, 177-181, 18 L. Ed. 381, MISSISSIPPI ETC. R. R. CO. v. ROCK. Supreme Court will not take jurisdiction of case brought from State court unless record shows that matters certified involved Federal question and were necessarily decided by such court, notwithstanding certificate from presiding judge that such matters were drawn in question. Approved in Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 49, 45 L. Ed. 419, 21 Sup. Ct. 259, holding insufficient certificate of State chief justice that upon argument validity of State legislation was questioned as repugnant to Federal Constitution; Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 38, 20 L. Ed. 49, granting motion to dismiss where Federal question appeared only in certificate; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 550, 22 L. Ed. 490, holding assignment that State court decided State statute valid and constitutional insufficient; Brown v. Atwell, 92 U. S. 329, 23 L. Ed. 513, dismissing writ where no question under patent laws was presented and decided by court; Columbia Water Power Co. v. Columbia Electric St. Ry. etc. Co., 172 U. S. 488, 43 L. Ed. 526, 19 Sup. Ct. 252, reviewing case where questions appear in record, but not specially set up; Powell v. Brunswick Co 150 U. S. 439, 37 L. Ed. 1136, 14 Sup. Ct. 168, dismissing writ of error where no Federal question was presented; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 68, 42 L. Ed. 952, 18 Sup. 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. United States Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 485, 27 L. Ed. 798, 2 Sup. Ct. 944, holding case properly authenticated to give court jurisdiction. Record for showing Federal Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review 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. Approved in Adams v. Russell, 229 U. S. 360, 57 L. Ed. 1227, 33 Sup. Ct. 846, power of State officers to grant parole under State indeterminate sentence act is for State court to determine; Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 263, 20 L. Ed. 637, refusing to take jurisdiction where avowed disloyalty of juror sufficient for his discharge. 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. Approved in Home for Incurables v. City of New York, 187 U. S. 157, 158, 47 L. Ed. 118, 119, 23 Sup. Ct. 85, 86, refusing to review State decree where record does not show on its face that Federal right, title, or privilege was claimed in State court; New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 351, 46 L. Ed. 943, 22 Sup. Ct. 696, holding no Federal question arises from forfeiture of charter of corporation for alleged violation of its terms by State decree made after full hearing by all parties in quo warranto proceedings; Gulf & Ship Island R. R. Co. v. Hewes, 183 U. S. 69, 75, 76, 46 L. Ed. 88, 90, 22 Sup. Ct. 27, 29, holding bills averring that tax exemption in railroad charter constitutes contract with State which is violated by subsequent legislation raises Federal question; Risley v. Utica, 179 Fed. 887, termination by city of unreasonable contract for supply of water not authorized or approved by State law did not impair obligation of contract; Allen v. Allen, 97 Fed. 530, 38 C. C. A. 336, holding constitutional provision against impairment of contracts affords no basis for equity suit in Federal court by defeated party in State action to set aside judgment on ground that it impaired contract; Knox v. Exchange Bank, 12 Wall. 383, 20 L. Ed. 415, holding court without jurisdiction, where judgment merely fails to give effect to contract; Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Needles, 113 U. S. 582, 28 L. Ed. 1087, 5 Sup. Ct. 685, limiting inquiry to whether statute depriving corporation of franchises impaired obligation of contract; Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton, 122 U. S. 392, 30 L. Ed. 1060, 7 Sup. Ct. 919, refusing to review decision of State court holding that contract rights were not exclusive; New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 30, 31 L. Ed. 612, 8 Sup. Ct. 748, and Missouri v. Harris, 144 U. S. 211, 36 L. Ed. 409, 12 Sup. Ct. 839, holding court without jurisdiction over decision of State court denying right claimed under contract; St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. v. Todd Co., 142 U. S. 286, 35 L. Ed. 1015, 12 Sup. Ct. 283, dismissing writ where only question involved was extent of exemption clause in charter; Hanford v. Davies, 163 U. S. 278, 41 L. Ed. 159, 16 Sup. Ct. 1053 (affirming, 51 Fed. 259), holding proceeding of probate court, selling property, not within con stitutional prohibition; Saginaw Gas Light v. Saginaw, 28 Fed. 533, holding court taking jurisdiction over case of conflicting grants made by municipal corporation; Denny v. Bennett, 128 U. S. 495, 32 L. Ed. 493, 9 Sup. Ct. 136, holding statutes limiting rights of creditor to enforce claims against property constitutional; Winona etc. Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U. S. 529, 40 L. Ed. 248, 16 Sup. Ct. 84, approving decision of State court, holding exemption clause ineffective when equitable title passed; Canal Company's Case, 83 Md. 626, 35 Atl. 365, holding lien of trustees cannot be impaired by State action; Snell v. Dwight, 121 Mass. 349, holding petition to amend record to show Federal question made too late; State ex rel. Louisiana Imp. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 111 La. 1001, 36 South. 98, arguendo. Distinguished in University v. People, 99 U. S. 320, 25 L. Ed. 388, reviewing decision of State court limiting exemption clause to property in immediate use. Impairment of obligation of contracts by judicial decision. Note, 4 Ann. Cas. 93. Change of decision of State court as impairment of contract. Note, What adjudications of State courts reviewable in Federal Supreme 4 Wall, 182-185, 18 L. Ed. 319, UNITED STATES v. DASHIEL. Loss of public money through theft or robbery and without fault, does not discharge receiver and disburser of it, or his sureties, from obligation on official bond. Approved in Smythe v. United States, 188 U. S. 165, 167, 47 L. Ed. 428, 23 Sup. Ct. 281 (affirming 107 Fed. 378, 46 C. C. A. 354), holding in action against mint superintendent for loss of public moneys he is not entitled to credit where claim was not presented to and disallowed by treasury accounting officers, and affirming 120 Fed. 321; United States v. Fordyce, 122 Fed. 963, holding postmaster liable on bond for stamps stolen, though postoffice building furnished by government; Estate of Ramsay v. People, 197 Ill. 588, 90 Am. St. Rep. 184, 64 N. E. 554, holding warden liable on bond for moneys deposited in bank which failed; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Owens, 86 Minn. 197, 90 N. W. 375, holding court clerk liable for moneys deposited in bank which afterward failed; Maloy v. County Commrs., 10 N. M. 655, 656, 657, 662, 62 Pac. 1109, holding treasurer not liable to county for interest received by him after retirement from office for deposits of public moneys in bank; Van Trees v. Territory, 7 Okl. 363, 54 Pac. 498, fact that county moneys deposited in solvent bank which afterward failed is no defense to action on treasurer's bond; Mecklenburg County v. |