VII. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURT. § 1262. Habeas corpus.- Circuit courts have no power to re-examine a decision of the district court in a proceeding under the habeas corpus act. Seavey v. Seymour, 3 Cliff., 441. See supra, IV. 3. § 1263. Patents. The circuit court has appellate jurisdiction, by writ of error, over the district court in proceedings therein to annul a patent under the tenth section of the patent act. Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Mason, 162. § 1264. Decisions of state courts.-The circuit courts of the United States have no power to review or revise the decision of a state court, but must give it full faith and credit. Amory v. Amory, 3 Biss., 270. $1265. Forfeiture.- The power of the circuit court to review a judgment or decree of distribution among various claimants of the informer's share in a forfeiture, after condemnation and sale of the forfeited property, and that the claimants are, in such sense, parties to the proceeding, that they may invoke the exercise of that jurisdiction, is established by the authorities. Wheaton v. United States,* 8 Blatch., 474. § 1266. From consular court.— An appeal lies from the consular court of Shanghai, China, to the circuit court of the district for California, where the amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, exceeds $2,500. The Ping-On v. Blethen, 11 Fed. R., 610. § 1267. Amount involved.—The circuit court has jurisdiction on a writ of error to the district court, where the action was on an official bond for $1,000 penalty, the declaration containing no breach, showing a smaller sum than $50 to be due. Postmaster-General v. Cross, 4 Wash., 327. § 1268. In an action for an assault and battery on the high seas, the damages must be stated in the libel at a sum exceeding $50, to authorize an appeal to the circuit court. Jenks v. Lewis, 3 Mason, 503. * 1269. On a libel in rem for subtraction of wages, the owner appeared and contested the suit, and a decree was entered for a sum exceeding $50. The vessel was sold under order of court, and the proceeds amounted to less than $50, after paying costs and charges. Held, that as the decree in rem in such a case would bind the claimant in a suit in personam founded on the decree, the wages were the matter in dispute, and the claimant was entitled to an appeal. The Enterprise,* 2 Curt., 317. § 1270. Where a creditor resists the discharge of a bankrupt, quære, whether there is an "amount in controversy " sufficient to sustain an appeal. Ruddick v. Billings, Woolw., 330. § 1271. An appeal is given from the decree of the district court, when it is final, and the matter in dispute exceeds the value of $50. The appellant must have both points in his favor. In this case a petition was filed by a part owner of a vessel, asking a sale of the vessel, or that the court would take her from the possession of the other party, and permit the petitioner to send her to sea. The petition was dismissed, and a further order was made, preventing the respondent from taking the vessel to sea without giving bail. The petitioners were allowed an appeal. Davis v. The Seneca,* Gilp., 34. § 1272. No appeal lies from the district court, except in cases where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of $50. Shirley v. Titus,* 1 Sumn., 447. § 1273. Where a libel in the district court claimed $300 damages, and a decree was rendered for $40, in which the libelant acquiesced, it was held that the respondent could not appeal to the circuit court, as the amount in controversy was reduced by the libelant's acquiescence to less than $50. Greigg v. Reade, Crabbe, 65. § 1274. Amendments.- A seaman sued the master to recover $30.95, a balance alleged to be due as wages, and also to recover damages for an assault. The amount of damages claimed for the assault was not specified. The libel was dismissed, on the ground that the two claims could not be united in the same libel, and the libelant appealed. A motion was made to dismiss the appeal, because it did not appear that the amount in controversy was sufficient to give jurisdiction. The libelant moved to amend his libel, by laying the damages for the assault at $300; and attention was also called to the deposition of a witness, in which the witness said that he would not have run the risk of the blow given to the libelant for $100. TANEY, C. J., rendered the following opinion: "The amendment cannot be made. If the court had jurisdiction of the case, that is, if enough appeared in the record to show that the circuit court had a right to review the decision of the district court in this case, there is no doubt the court would have the power to allow any amendment necessary to bring the justice of the case fairly and fully to trial. But this court has no authority, by law, to review the decree of the district court, unless the matter in controversy amounts to $50; the record does not show that it amounts to this sum; and the object of the amendment is to change the record, in order to give the court jurisdiction in a case where, according to the record before them, they have not jurisdiction; the court think this cannot be done. If the case showed that the appeal was legally in this court, then having jurisdiction over it, the court could permit the pleadings to be so amended as to enable the court to da justice between the parties; but we cannot acquire jurisdiction by altering the record which has come to us from the district court. "The deposition of the witness does not show the amount of damages claimed by the libelant, and it is the daim of the libelant, and the answer of the respondent denying the claim, that make the controversy, and ascertain the amount in dispute. Where property is in dispute, and the value of it is not averred, and does not appear in the record, parol testimony has been received in the supreme court, upon appeal, to show its value, and to show the jurisdiction of the court; and so, too, as to the value of an office, where the right to the office is the matter in controversy. But where the controversy relates merely to the amount of money which one party is entitled to recover from the other, the record must show the amount in dispute, in order to give jurisdiction to the appellate court; and the amount in dispute is shown by the claim made by one, and the denial made by the other. The damages might in fact have amounted to $100, and yet, if the libelant claimed but $10 as his damages, $10 would be all that was in controversy." Agnew v. Dorman, Taney, 386. VIII. TIME WITHIN WHICH APPEALS AND WRITS OF ERROR MUST BE BROUGHT. SUMMARY- No time fixed, §§ 1275-1277.- Dismissal; second appeal within the five years, § 1276.- Appeal not perfected in time, §§ 1278, 1285.— Decree not suspended by motion for rehearing, § 1279.- Writ of error not brought until filed, § 1280.- Error to state court, § 1281.- Computed from date of final decree, § 1282.- Parties intervening and perfecting an appeal, § 1283.- Transcript to be filed at term succeeding allowance of appeal, § 1284.Entry nunc pro tunc, §§ 1286, 1287.— Appeals in admiralty, §§ 1288, 1290, 1291.- Decree entered after adjournment, § 1289.— Decree cannot be opened at subsequent term, § 1292.— Appeal from district court, § 1293.- Error coram nobis, § 1294. § 1275. Where the right of appeal is given, but no time is fixed, the time within which the appeal must be taken is governed by the law applicable to other cases. United States v. De Pacheco, S$ 1295-1297. § 1276. If the appellant fails to file the transcript within the time required by the rules, the appellee may docket and dismiss; but in such case the appellant may take another appeal within the five years. Ibid. See §§ 1345, 1352. § 1277. Where an act of congress authorizes an appeal, without further directions, the provisions of the acts of 1789 and 1803, as to the time of taking and returning the appeal, and the service and return of a citation, must be complied with. Castro v. United States, S$ 1298-1301. § 1278. A decree was entered in 1859, and an appeal was taken in 1864, in court, in the presence of the opposing counsel, but no citation was issued, and the appeal was not returned to the next term of the court. In May, 1865, a citation was issued and served, and was returned with the record to the term next ensuing. Held, that the supreme court had no jurisdiction. Ibid. § 1279. An appeal taken more than five years from the rendition of the decree is too late; the decree is not suspended by a motion for a rehearing filed after the term, or more than forty-two days after entering judgment, the time allowed by $ 987 of the Revised Statutes within which to file a motion for a new trial. Cambuston v. United States. §§ 1302, 1303. § 1280. A writ of error is not brought, in the legal meaning of the term, until it is filed in the court which rendered the judgment; and if not so filed within five years after the judgment is rendered, it will be barred. Brooks v. Norris, §§ 1304, 1305. § 1281. A writ of error to a state court is barred if not brought within two years after the judgment complained of is rendered. Cummings v. Jones, § 1306. § 1282. Where the court makes an order settling the terms of a final decree, and on a subsequent day enters and signs a formal decree, as of the date of the order, the time within which an appeal must be taken must be computed from the date of the final decree, and not from the entry of the order. Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, §§ 1307, 1308. See § 1337. 1283. Where an appeal is allowed but not perfected, and subsequently other persons are permitted to become parties and perfect the appeal, in determining whether the transcript was filed in time, the time must be computed from the original allowance of the appeal. The prayer for an appeal and the order allowing it constitute a valid appeal; a bond is not essen tial, but may be given with effect at any time while the appeal is alive. The recital in a citation that an appeal was allowed at a certain time does not prove that it was then allowed. Edmonson v. Bloomshire, §§ 1309-1312. See § 1351. § 1284. Cases reviewed and approved to the effect that the court has no jurisdiction unless the transcript is filed during the term next succeeding the allowance of an appeal. Ibid. § 1285. Decree rendered on June 13, 1861; appeal prayed at June term, 1865, and allowed nunc pro tunc, as of June 13, 1861. Held, that there was nothing in the record warranting the order; and as there was no citation, and the record was not filed at the next term, the appeal was dismissed. Garrison v. Cass County, § 1313. § 1286. Where an appeal is asked for in time, but not entered, the entry may be made nunc pro tune; and where the delay is caused by the fault of the clerk in not entering the prayer for the appeal, the appeal will not be dismissed because the transcript was not filed in due time. United States v. Vigil, §§ 1314-1317. See §§ 1338, 1351. § 1287. A decree was entered on August 2, 1879, and on August 1, 1881, the circuit judge approved a bond and signed a citation. The bond was filed on the same day, and the citation was served on the 18th of August. On October 8th, the circuit judge entered an order allowing the appeal nunc pro tunc as of August 1st. Held, that the appeal was in time; that an appeal was allowed by taking the security and signing the citation, and that the order of October 8th was not necessary. Brandies v. Cochrane, § 1318. § 1288. Appeals in admiralty are to be taken at the term at which the decree is rendered; but it seems that the district court may regulate the practice by rule. The New England, § 1319-1323. See § 1340. § 1289. Where the decree was not entered up until the morning after the adjournment, it seems that it was then within the power of the judge either to grant a rehearing or to allow an appeal. Ibid. § 1290. Appeals in admiralty are to be taken to the term of the circuit court next after the term of the district court at which the decree is rendered. Section 635 of the Revised Statutes does not extend the time to one year. The Oriental, §§ 1324-1330. See § 1347. § 1291. The right to appeal from a decree of the district court is lost, if the appeal be not taken to the term of the circuit court held next after the making of the decree. United States v. The Glamorgan, §§ 1331-1333. § 1292. A final decree of the district court cannot be opened at a subsequent term so as thereby to confer a new right of appeal, or revive a right lost by lapse of time. (Power of courts over their final decrees considered.) Ibid. § 1293. In the absence of a provision by congress, an appeal from the district court must be taken in open court, before the adjournment of the court sine die, unless further time is allowed. A uniform course of practice is equivalent to a rule of court, and must be considered as directory to the parties. Norton v. Rich, § 1334. § 1294. The limitation of five years within which a writ of error must be brought under section 22 of the judiciary act does not apply to writs of error coram nobis. Strode v. The Stafford Justices, §§ 1335, 1336. See § 1346. [NOTES.- See §§ 1337-1350.] UNITED STATES v. DE PACHECO. (20 Howard, 261-264. 1857.) APPEAL from U. S. District Court, Northern District of California. STATEMENT OF FACTS.- A motion has been made to docket and dismiss this case. It appears by a certified copy of the record in the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, that a decree was passed by that court on the 22d of September, 1856, confirming the title of Pacheco to certain lands therein mentioned. No appeal was taken by the United States at the term at which the decree was made, but an appeal was entered at the next succeeding term, in March, 1857. Pacheco by his counsel now moves to docket and dismiss the case upon two grounds: 1st. Because the appeal was not taken at the term at which the decree was rendered; and 2d. If the appeal might legally be taken at the succeeding term, yet no transcript of the record was filed here within the first six days of the present term of this court. § 1295. Where the time for an appeal is not fixed, it is governed by the general law. The first question raised by the motion depends upon the construction of the act of congress of March 3, 1851, which authorizes an appeal to this court in cases of this description. The act gives the right in general terms to the party against whom the judgment is rendered, and does not limit the time within which the appeal shall be made, nor refer to any particular act of congress by which the time shall be regulated. It must therefore be governed by the judiciary acts of 1789 and 1803, which regulate writs of error and appeals to this court from inferior tribunals. And by these acts the party may take his appeal at any time within five years after the passing of the decree by the inferior court. The appeal in question was therefore made in time; and this motion cannot be maintained on that ground. 81296. Where appellant fails to file transcript in time, appellee may docket and dismiss. (a) The second reason assigned in support of the motion depends upon the sixtythird rule of this court. Under this rule, the appellee in a case from California is entitled to have the case docketed and dismissed, if the transcript of the record is not filed in this court within the first six days of the term next ensuing such appeal, provided the decree of the court below was rendered sixty days before the commencement of the said term of this court. As we have already said, the decree was rendered in September, 1856, and the appeal taken in March, 1857. Consequently it was the duty of the appellant in this case to file a transcript of the record within the first six days of the present term. This was not done. And it appears that no transcript of the record has yet been filed by the appellant. The appellee is therefore entitled to have the case docketed and dismissed under the rules above mentioned. It is true he has not filed the certificate mentioned in the rule, but has filed a full transcript of the record. But the transcript shows all of the facts which the clerk by the rule is required to certify; and it has always been held by the court to be equivalent to the certificate which the rule prescribes. $ 1297. Where an appeal is dismissed because not filed in time, the party may take another appeal within the five years. (b) It is proper, however, to add, in order to prevent mistake on this subject, that the only effect of docketing and dismissing a case under this rule is to enable the party to proceed to execute his judgment in the court below. It removes the bar to further proceedings in that court, which the appeal created, and does nothing more. And after the case has been docketed and dismissed, the party against whom the decree was rendered may still, at any time within five years from the date of the decree, take a new appeal in the inferior court, and if he files the transcript of the record in this court within the first six days of the term next ensuing his appeal, the appeal will be valid, and the case as fully before this court, for examination and revision, as if it had been brought here at the first term. The act of congress authorizes the appeal at any time within five years, and the period allowed by law cannot be shortened by any rule or practice of a court. Nor was it intended to be diminished by the rules in ques (a) Appeals and writs of error must be filed and docketed within the first six days of the term, or the appellee may docket and dismiss; but if less than thirty days intervene between the entry of judgment or decree and the sitting of the court, then the filing and entry must be made within thirty days from the commencement of the term. The time will not be extended because the clerk had other duties which prevented his furnishing the transcript in time. Sturgess v. Harrold,* 18 How., 40; United States v. Fremont,* 18 How., 30; United States v. Boisdore,* 7 How., 658. (b) Same ruling in Steamer Virginia v. West, 19 How., 182. tion. And when an appeal is taken in the court below, if the appellee desires a speedy and final decision of the controversy, it is in his power to bring the case up to the next succeeding term of this court. Indeed, it sometimes happens, under this rule, that the court permits the transcript of the record to be filed by the appellant, and the case docketed for argument, at the same term at which it had previously been docketed and dismissed on the motion of the appellee. And where the appellant satisfies the court that the omission to file the transcript within the first six days was not owing to any fault or negligence on his part, the court has always allowed him to file it at the same term, and docket the appeal for trial, without putting him to the expense and delay of another appeal. It follows, from what we have said, that although the case before us must be docketed and dismissed, yet this will not prevent the United States from filing a transcript at the present term, and docketing the case for argument, if they can show that the delay has not arisen from any fault or negligence on their part. And if they fail to do so, they may yet take another appeal at any time within five years, and bring here the decree of the district court for examination and revision. And if the appellee, after the case is docketed and dismissed, proceeds upon the decree of the district court, and obtains a patent for the land, his title will still be subject to the decision of this court, if the government shall hereafter bring up the case within the time limited by law. We have deemed it proper on this occasion to enter into this full explanation of the rule of court referred to, on account of the multitude of appeals which must unavoidably come up from the district courts of California, and which, in some shape or other, may be brought before this court upon motions to dismiss. CASTRO v. UNITED STATES. (3 Wallace, 46-51. 1865.) APPEAL from U. S. District Court, Northern District of California. STATEMENT OF FACTS.- Under the act of March 3, 1851, for the settlement of private land claims in California, a decree was entered November 23, 1859, and an appeal therefrom to the supreme court was dismissed. Another appeal was taken November 11, 1864, in the presence of the district attorney in court, but the appeal was not returned and docketed at the next term of the court, and no citation was issued until May, 1865. Service of the citation then issued was acknowledged, the record was filed at the next term of the court, and counsel made an arrangement, subject to the approval of the attorney-general, to submit the cause on printed briefs. Motion to dismiss. § 1298. An appeal must be authorized by some act of congress, and must be brought in substantial conformity with legislative directions. Opinion by CHASE, C. J. We have no jurisdiction of this appeal, unless it has been allowed by some act of congress, and has been brought in substantial conformity with the legislative directions. The appellate jurisdiction of this court is, indeed, derived from the constitution; but by the express terms of the constitutional grant, it is subjected to such exceptions and to such regulations as congress may make. In the judiciary act of 1789, and in many acts since, congress has provided for its exercise in such cases and classes of cases, and under such regulations, as seemed to the legislative wisdom convenient and appropriate. The court has always regarded appeals in other cases as excepted from the grant of appellate power, and has always felt itself bound to give effect to the regulations by which |