gauge, although a previous gauge may have shown a greater amount.
Ib.

3. The execution of an exportation bond, under the internal revenue laws,
is only evidence of an intention to export; and it is open to doubt
whether the actual exportation can be considered as beginning until
the merchandise leaves the port of exportation for the foreign coun-
try. Ib.

JUDGMENT.

1. Where a court, having complete jurisdiction of the case, has pronounced
a decree upon a certain issue, that issue cannot be retried in a collat-
eral action between the same parties, even although the evidence upon
which the case was heard be sent up with the record. Franklin County
v. German Savings Bank, 93.

2. Where the judgment in a former action is upon demurrer to the declara-
tion, the estoppel extends only to the exact point raised by the plead-
ings or decided, and does not operate as a bar to a second suit for
other breaches of the same covenants, although if the judgment be
upon pleadings and proofs, the estoppel extends not only to what was
decided, but to all that was necessarily involved in the issue. Wig
gins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co., 396.

See EQUITY, 1;

LOCAL LAW, 2.

JUDICIAL NOTICE.

See PUBLIC LAND, 1.

JURISDICTION.

A. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. In an action of ejectment in a state court in Missouri, both parties
claimed under the New Madrid act, February 17, 1815, 3 Stat. 211,
c. 45. In 1818 one Hammond entered on the premises, and occupied
it until about 1825, claiming title from one Hunot, whose claim,
under a Spanish grant, was confirmed by Congress, April 29, 1816,
3 Stat. 328, c. 159. The plaintiffs claimed as heirs of Hammond. The
defendant claimed under an execution sale on a judgment obtained
in a state court against Hammond in 1823, under which possession had
been taken and maintained. This was fortified by a patent issued, in
1849, to Hunot, or his legal representatives. At the trial of the action
in the state court, it was held that, although the legal title to the tract
in dispute was in the United States at the time of the sale under the
execution, yet Hammond had an equitable interest in it, which was
subject to sale under execution, and that, under the statutes of Mis-
souri, the sheriff's deed passed all his interest in the premises to the
purchaser. Some Federal questions were also raised and decided
adversely to the plaintiffs. Judgment being rendered for the defend-

ant, the plaintiffs sued out this writ of error. Hela that this ruling
of the state court involved no Federal question, and was broad enough
to maintain the judgment, without considering the Federal questions
raised, and that the writ of error must, therefore, be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. Hammond v. Johnston, 73.

2. If it appear in a case, brought here in error from a state court, that the
decision of the state court was made upon rules of general jurispru-
dence, or that the case was disposed of there on other grounds,
broad enough in themselves to sustain the judgment without consider-
ing the Federal question, and that such question was not necessarily
involved, the jurisdiction of this court will not attach. New Orleans
v. New Orleans Water Works Co., 79.

3. Before this court can be asked to determine whether a statute has im-
paired the obligation of a contract, it must be made to appear that
there was a legal contract, subject to impairment, and some ground to
believe that it had been impaired. lb.

4. This court is bound by the finding of a jury in an action at law, properly
submitted to them, on conflicting evidence. Hall v. Cordell, 116.

5. The plaintiff and the defendant in an action of ejectment in a state
court in Colorado both claimed title under a valid entry of the original
site of the city of Denver made by the probate judge under the town
site act of May 23, 1844, 5 Stat. 657, c. 17, as extended to Arapahoe
County in Colorado by the act of May 28, 1864, 13 Stat. 94, c.
99. The deed under which the defendant claims was executed by
the probate judge and delivered several years before that executed
and delivered by his successor to the plaintiff. The elder deed
was assailed as defective by reasor of failure in the performance by
the grantee of some of the requirements of a territorial statute pre-
scribing rules for the execution of the trust arising under the act of
Congress. The Supreme Court of the State held that the elder deed,
being regular on its face, and purporting to have been executed in
pursuance of authority, was not open to attack in a collateral proceed-
ing for defects or omissions in the initiatory proceedings. Held, that
this decision proceeded upon the proper construction of a territorial law,
without regard to any right, title or privilege of the plaintiff under an
act of Congress, and that the writ of error must be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction. Chever v. Horner, 122.

6. This court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from a Circuit Court taken

September 19, 1891, from a decree entered July 7, 1890, in a case
where the jurisdiction of that court depended upon the diverse citizen-
ship of the parties. Wauton v. De Wolf, 138.

7. This court follows the adjudications of the highest court of a State in
the construction of the statutes of that State. McElvaine v. Brush, 155.
8. If the adjudication of a Federal question is necessarily involved in the
disposition of a case by a state court, it is not necessary that it should
appear affirmatively in the record, or in the opinion of that court, that

such a question was raised and decided. Kaukauna Water Power Co.
v. Green Bay and Miss. Canal Co., 254.

9. A decision of the Supreme Court of a State, sustaining as valid a statu-
tory contract of the State exempting the property of a railway com-
pany from taxation, but deciding that a certain class of property did
not come within the terms of the exemption, is not an impairment of
the contract by a law of the State, and is not subject to review in error
here. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. Todd County,

282.

10. The Northern Pacific Railroad Company sold to a purchaser a tract
included in the original grant to it which had never been patented,
and on which the costs of survey had never been paid. The tract was
sold for non-payment of taxes while Dakota was a Territory, and the
purchaser paid therefor. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held
that the land was not taxable when the tax was levied and assessed,
and that nothing passed by the sale. The purchaser brought this
action in the state court of North Dakota to recover back the pur-
chase-money paid at the tax sale. A judgment in plaintiff's favor was
reversed by the Supreme Court of the State, no question being made
as to the regularity of the tax sale and proceedings. Held, that, the
exemption of the land from taxation having been recognized by the
state court, no Federal question was involved, and the writ of error
must be dismissed. Tyler v. Cass County, 288.

11. There being no brief filed for defendant in error, and no argument

made in his behalf, the court confines its consideration of a case
brought up from a state court to the decision of the questions raised by
the counsel for plaintiff in error, without considering the case in a y
other aspect. Kennedy v. McKee, 606.

12. The plaintiff below sued in assumpsit to recover from the defendant

company the sum of $2898.18. The first count was for money had
and received to the plaintiff's use, being money paid by the United
States for the pilotage, hire and service of a steam vessel. The claim
under this count was, that a contract had been made with the plaintiff
by which he was to prosecute the claim and receive to his own use
whatever he might get for it. Such claims being unassignable under
Rev. Stat. § 3477, the company received the money and set up in
defence as against the first count (1), that it never made the contract,
and (2), that the assignment was illegal. The second count was for
money due and owing plaintiff, for work and labor in the prosecution
of the claim. The jury returned a verdict for less than the sum
claimed, without specifying under which count the damages were
assessed. The Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of Delaware
affirmed the judgment on the ground that it had no power to review
the finding on a question of fact, and the finding on the second count
being in plaintiff's favor there was no error in the rendition of the
judgment by the court below on such a finding. Held, that the only

Federal question raised in the case at the trial was not necessarily
involved in the trial of the issue under the second count, and that, as
the judgment could be sustained under that count, this court was with-
out jurisdiction. Delaware & Philadelphia Navigation Co. v. Reybold,
636.

13. Even if a Federal question was raised in the state court, yet, if the
case was decided on grounds broad enough, in themselves, to sustain
the judgment without reference to the Federal question, this court will
not entertain jurisdiction. Ib.

14. In considering the amount necessary for the jurisdiction of this court
on a writ of error, not only is the amount of the judgment against the
plaintiff in error to be regarded, but, in addition, the amount of a
counter claim which he would have recovered, if his contention setting
it up had been sustained. Clark v. Sidway, 682.

See PRACTICE, 1, 4 to 7;

WRIT OF ERROR.

B. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

See EQUITY, 3;

NATIONAL BANK, 2.

LACHES.

1. When a person, whose equity of redemption in mortgaged real estate is
foreclosed, rests inactive for eleven years, with full knowledge of the
foreclosure, and of the purchaser's rights claimed under it, and of his
own rights, and with nothing to hinder the assertion of the latter, and
then files a bill in equity to have the foreclosure proceedings declared
void for want of proper service of process upon him, this court will, at
least, construe the language of the returns so as to sustain the legality
of the service, if that can reasonably be done, even if it should not
regard it as too late to set up such a claim. Martin v. Gray, 236.
2. It appearing that the United States is only a nominal party, whose aid
is sought to destroy the title of the Navigation Company and its
grantees, in order to enable settlers to protect their titles, initiated by
settlement and occupancy, the court holds the case of United States v.
Beebe, 127 U. S. 338, to be applicable, where it was held that when a
suit is brought in the name of the United States to enforce the
rights of individuals, and no interest of the government is involved,
the defence of laches and limitations will be sustained, as though the
government were out of the case. United States v. Des Moines Navi-
gation & Railway Co., 510.

See BANKRUPT, 1;

RIPARIAN OWNER, 3.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

As between landlord and tenant, or one in temporary possession of lands
under any agreement whatever for the use of the same, the law is
extremely indulgent to the latter with respect to the fixtures annexed
for a purpose connected with such temporary possession. Wiggins
Ferry Co. v. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co., 396.

See RAILROAD, 2 (1), (5).

LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

The knowledge and good faith of a legislature are not open to question,
but the presumption is conclusive that it acted with full knowledge
and in good faith; and in this case the circumstances surrounding the
transaction not only preclude the idea of misconduct or ignorance on
the part of the legislature, but it is clear that the Navigation Com-
pany was a bona fide purchaser, within the meaning of the resolution
of 1861, and intended to be a beneficiary thereunder. United States v.
Des Moines Navigation & Railway Co., 510.

LEX LOCI.

See CONTRACT, 2.

LIMITATION, STATUTES OF.

See LACHES, 2;

TRUST, 3.

LOCAL LAW.

1. When land in Florida assessed for taxation is neither assessed to the
owner or occupant, nor to an unknown owner, and also by an official or
accurate description sufficient to impart notice to the owner, the title
of the purchaser at a sale made for non-payment of the tax so assessed
is not protected by the provision in the statutes of Florida limiting the
right of action of the former owner, to recover the possession of the
lands sold, to one year after the recording of the tax deed; but the sale
and the deed are nullities within the decisions of the Supreme Court
of Florida. Bird v. Benlisa, 664.

2. When a railroad company initiates proceedings in Illinois to acquire land
for its road, and a defendant appears and claims ownership of the tract,
and no denial is made to this claim, and only evidence as to the amount
of compensation is presented for the consideration of the jury, and the
jury awards a sum as such amount, the judgment should either direct
the payment of this sum to such owner, or the deposit of the same with
the county treasurer for his benefit. Convers v. Atchison, Topeka §
Sante Fe Railroad Co., 671.