Argument against the Motion. were foreclosed were violated, disregarded and overridden, the pleadings in the suit were contradicted, and, as appears from the face of this so-called record and decree, over five million dollars were directed to be paid, not due in any event, and over twenty-one million dollars of debt directed to be paid years before it matured. The bill herein was aimed at the jurisdiction of the court below to do this. The appellees joined issue with us on this question of jurisdiction by denying that there was want of power in the court to do what it did do. A bill of review, or a bill in the nature of a bill of review, whose object is to arrest or reverse judicial proceedings for an abuse of judicial power or for defects therein and want of conformity to law by the court in taking such proceedings, or for want of jurisdiction in the court to entertain and carry on proceedings appearing on the face of them to be attacked, puts in issue the grounds of attack made upon such proceedings set up in the bill of review, or bill in the nature of a bill of review; such a bill is a continuation of the proceedings attacked. Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S. 1; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276; Dewey v. West Fairmont Coal Co., 123 U. S. 329; Johnson v. Christian, 125 U. S. 642; Pacific Railroad v. Missouri Pacific Railway, 111 U. S. 505. Such a bill is essentially a writ of error, as its object is to procure an examination and alteration or reversal of the decree made upon the former bill. It may be brought for errors of law appearing upon the face of the decree. It is ground for a bill of review that the decree was not warranted by the allegations in the bill. Goodhue v. Churchman, 1 Barb. Ch. 596. For the purpose of examining all errors of law on the face of the decree, the bills, answers, and other proceedings are as much a part of the record before the court as the decree itself, for it is only by comparison with the former that the correctness of the latter can be ascertained. Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303; Hollingsworth v. McDonald, 2 H. & J. 230; Webb v. Pell, 3 Paige, 368; Whiting v. Bank of the United States. 13 Pet. 6. And as, in a proceeding to review Argument against the Motion. a judgment for error of law, when the judgment is reversed an appeal from such judgment of reversal lies, Keepfer v. Force, 86 Indiana, 81, so an appeal from a judgment on a bill of review will lie wherever an appeal in the original case which it is sought to have reviewed will lie. Klebar v. Corydon, 80 Indiana, 95. III. The appellants contend, and, as we claim, the record shows, that they have been deprived of their property without due process of law. The decree attacked was placed upon file by the unlawful consent of the directors of the defendant railway company, and in violation of their trust. The directors had no power or jurisdiction to change the terms of the mortgages involved in the foreclosure proceedings, either by consenting to a decree of foreclosure or by any other action of the board collectively or individually. The record shows that the entire procedure resulting in this so-called decree was nonjudicial and without due process of law, and the application of the Constitution is directly involved in this appeal, as appears from the record certified to this court. IV. There was no jurisdiction in the court below to precipitate the payments of the contracts of the defendant company in advance of their maturity on the ground of the insolvency of the said company. V. The case has been properly certified to this court and the issue of jurisdiction duly certified. The form of the certificate in this case is the one, we are advised, that has been adopted in the various Circuits in transmitting records to this court under the act of 1891, including cases where the appeal or writ of error is taken to bring up the questions of jurisdiction. The appeal having been taken and allowed, it becomes the duty of the court below, through its clerk, to certify the record, and by the act of 1891, the court is required only to certify the record showing the issue of jurisdiction. When, therefore, that record is sent to this court with the certificate attached, presumably the court has followed the directions of the act, and has certified what was deemed necessary to review the decision upon the issue of jurisdiction. VOL. CL-12 Argument against the Motion. In the case of McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, cited upon the appellee's brief, the record was certified in the form the record is in this case. In that case it appears also that counsel especially requested the court to make a specific certificate certifying the question of the jurisdiction involved for review by this court. That was denied, and then a writ of error was sued out in the ordinary way, and the record certified as in this case. The assignment of errors presented to the learned trial judge below, upon which the application for the allowance of this appeal was made, sets forth that the issue of jurisdiction, as well as the application of the Constitution of the United States, was sought to be reviewed by this court on the appeal intended to be taken, and the appeal was allowed by the trial judge, and, as part of the record, the assignment of errors was certified by him through the clerk of the court. But the improper certification of the record - assuming there be an imperfection - presents no reason for dismissing the appeal. The right to appeal to this court under section 5 of the act of 1891 is absolute where the jurisdiction of the court is in issue, or in any case that involves the application of the Constitution of the United States. The right being absolute, and the appeal having been taken and allowed, it cannot be dismissed because the clerk or court below has not properly certified the record. If the record is not complete, or if the certificate be not in proper form, the remedy is to correct the record or certificate, not to dismiss an appeal which has been properly taken, and to which the appellant is entitled as a matter of right. United States v. Adams, 6 Wall. 101. VI. The assertion of appellees that an appeal is now pending in the Circuit Court of Appeals is no ground for dismissing an appeal properly taken to this court. Appellant's counsel have inquired of every Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States to learn the practice under the circumstances involved in this case, and find no uniform rule yet established in respect of it. It is respectfully submitted, therefore, that, under any view that may be taken of the case, the appeal herein ought not to be dismissed on this ground. Opinion of the Court. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. Oral argument is not allowed on motions to dismiss appeals or writs of error, and we perceive no reason for making an exception to the general rule in the case before us. On motion to dismiss or affirm it is only necessary to print so much of the record as will enable the court to act understandingly without reference to the transcript. Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578. Appellees have printed the original and amended bills; the answers and replications; the opinion of the circuit judge in disposing of the case; the final decree; the two appeals and proceedings thereon; and the assignments of errors in both courts. This was quite sufficient for the purposes of the motion. The Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, in distributing the appellate jurisdiction of the national judicial system between the Supreme Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals therein established, designated the classes of cases in respect of which each of these courts was to have final jurisdiction, (the judgments of the latter being subject to the supervisory power of this court through the writ of certiorari as provided,) and the act has uniformly been so construed and applied as to promote its general and manifest purpose of lessening the burden of litigation in this court. The fifth section of the act specifies six classes of cases in which appeals or writs of error may be taken directly to this court, of which we are only concerned with the first and fourth, which include those cases "in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue; in such cases the question of jurisdiction alone shall be certified to the Supreme Court from the court below for decision;" and "any case that involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States." In order to bring this appeal within the first of these classes, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court must have been in issue in this case, and, as appeals or writs of error lie here only from final judgments or decrees, must have been decided against appellants; and the question of jurisdiction must have Opinion of the Court. been certified. We do not now say that the absence of a formal certificate would be fatal, but it is required by the statute, and its absence might have controlling weight where the alleged issue is not distinctly defined. This record contains no such certificate, nor was it applied for, nor does it appear that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was in issue. Appellants by filing their bill invoked the jurisdiction of the court below over the entire case, the defendants did not contest that jurisdiction, and the court adjudicated accordingly. This is conceded, but it is contended that the question of jurisdiction was in issue because the bill attacked the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court over the foreclosure suit, or its jurisdiction to make the decree of foreclosure and sale of May 4, 1888, passed in that suit. But the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1891, does not authorize a direct appeal to this court in a suit upon a question involving the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court over another suit previously determined in the same court. It is the jurisdiction of the court below over the particular case in which the appeal from the decree therein is prosecuted, that, being in issue and decided against the party raising it and duly certified, justifies such appeal directly to this court. This suit to impeach the decree of May 4, 1888, and to prevent the consummation of the alleged plan of reorganization, was a separate and distinct case, so far as this inquiry is concerned, from the suit to foreclose the mortgages on the railroad property; and no question of jurisdiction over the foreclosure suit or the rendition of the decree passed therein can be availed of to sustain the present appeal from the decree in this proceeding. The collusion and fraud charged in the institution and conduct of the prior litigation, and in the procurement of the decree against the railway company, and in the other transactions in respect of which relief was sought against the defendants, seem to form the gravamen of the case; but whether the bill be treated as a bill of review, an original bill of the same nature, or an original bill on the ground of fraud, it was a distinct proceeding in which the moving parties were shifted, and the fact that it put in issue the jurisdiction in the proceed |