The petition,

and discriminating against it, on the ground that it employed engi-
neers who were not members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers. An injunction was issued, and a few days later the
Lake Shore applied for an order of attachment against some of its
employés who had refused to haul cars and perform service for them,
thus hindering them from complying with the order of the court in
respect to the Toledo and Ann Arbor Company. A rule to show
cause was issued, and such proceedings had thereunder that one of
the employés was adjudged guilty of contempt, was fined, and was
ordered to be committed until payment of the fine. This employé
applied to the Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus.
after setting the facts forth, claimed that the Circuit Court had no
jurisdiction of the cause in which the original order of injunction
had been issued, for reasons stated, and further, that it had no juris-
diction of the petitioner's person, because he was no party to that
suit, and had not been served with process. The application was
denied and the petition dismissed, from which judgment the peti-
tioner appealed to this court. Held, (1) That while the general right
of appeal from the judgments of Circuit Courts on habeas corpus
directly to this court is taken away by the act of March 3, 1891, 26
Stat. 826, c. 517, nevertheless, that right still exists in the cases
designated in section 5 of that act; (2) That the jurisdiction of the
Circuit Court over the petition for habeas corpus was not in issue,
and was not decided adversely to the petitioner, and this appeal
therefore did not come within the first of the classes named in sec-
tion 5 of the act of 1891; (3) That the construction or application
of the Constitution was not involved, in the sense of the statute, and
that the petition did not proceed on that theory, but on the ground
of want of jurisdiction in the prior case over the subject-matter, and
in this case over the person of the petitioner; (4) That the appeal
must be dismissed. In re Lennon, 393.

17. Findings of fact in an action brought to recover duties on importations
paid under protest, which do not show what the collector charged the
plaintiff, nor sufficiently describe the articles imported, and a record
which fails to show under what provisions of the tariff act the parties
claimed respectively, leave this court unable to direct judgment for
either party. In such case the opinion of the court below cannot
be resorted to to help the findings out. Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 417.
18. This court must determine for itself whether it has jurisdiction under
Rev. Stat. § 709, to review the judgment of a state court; and the
certificate of the presiding judge of the State that a state of case
exists for the interposition of this court cannot, of itself, confer juris-
diction upon it to reexamine a judgment of that court. Powell v.
Brunswick County, 433.

19. It is essential to the maintenance of the jurisdiction over the judg
ment of the state court, upon the ground of erroneous decision as to

the validity of a state statute or a right under the Constitution of the
United States, that it should appear from the record that the validity
of such statute was drawn in question, as repugnant to the Constitu-
tion, and that the decision sustained its validity, or that the right was
specially set up or claimed, and denied. Ib.

20. It is well settled that the construction put upon a state statute by the
highest court of the. State will generally be followed by this court,
unless it conflicts with the Constitution or a Federal statute, or a gen-
eral rule of commercial law. Ib.

21. Applying these rules, it was held that the construction put by the
Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia in Taylor v. Super-
visors, 86 Virginia, 506, upon the provision in the charter of the Atlan-
tie and Danville Railway Company considered in this suit, leaves no
Federal question for this court. Ib.

22. When, in a suit in equity for the infringement of letters patent, the
court below makes an interlocutory decree in plaintiff's favor, and
then entertains a motion for a rehearing and receives affidavits in
support of it, and denies the motion, this court does not feel itself at
liberty to consider those affidavits. Giles v. Heysinger, 627.

23. The court follows Hammond v. Johnston, 142 U. S. 73, on a substan-
tially similar state of facts, and holds that the ruling of the state
court was broad enough to maintain the judgment, without consider-
ing the Federal question. Hammond v. Connecticut Mutual Life
Insurance Co., 633.

24. The appellate jurisdiction of this court over questions national and
international in their nature, arising in an action for a maritime tort
committed upon navigable waters and within admiralty jurisdiction,
cannot be restrained by the mere fact that the party plaintiff has
elected to pursue his common law remedy in a state court. Belden v.
Chase, 674.

B. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL.

When the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court is invoked solely on the ground
of diverse citizenship, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals
is final, although another ground for jurisdiction in the Circuit Court
may be developed in the course of subsequent proceedings in the case.
Colorado Central Mining Co. v. Turck, 138.

C. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS.

1. When the original jurisdiction of a Circuit Court of the United States
is invoked upon the sole ground that the determination of the suit
depends upon some question of a Federal nature, it must appear, at

VOL. CL-47

the outset, from the pleadings, that the suit is one of that character,
of which the Circuit Court could properly take cognizance at the time
its jurisdiction is invoked. Colorado Central Mining Co. v. Turck, 138.
2. A bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States in Tennes-
see, by a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ken-
tucky, against another company described as a corporation organized
under the laws of that State and having its principal office in the dis-
trict in which the suit was brought, and against five individuals, citi-
zens of a county within that district, prayed "that the parties named
as defendants be made such," and for a reconveyance and an account
of property of the plaintiff, alleged to have been fraudulently caused
by the individual defendants to be conveyed to the defendant corpora-
tion, and to have been wasted and injured by all the defendants.
The individual defendants demurred for want of jurisdiction. The
plaintiff thereupon, by leave of court, filed an amended bill, which
"refers to the original bill and its prayer, and makes the same a part
hereof, as if set out herein in hæc verba;" and further alleged that
the individual defendants, in pursuance of their fraudulent scheme,
pretended to procure from the State of Kentucky a charter under the
name of the company "which is the same corporation mentioned in
the original bill," and caused the plaintiff's property to be conveyed
"to said pretended corporation," but this company was never lawfully
organized, and the individual defendants controlled it and were doing
business as a partnership under its name; and prayed that the parties
defendants to the original bill be made defendants to this amended
bill, and that the individual defendants be made defendants as part-
ners under the name of the company, and be made to account per-
sonally and individually. Held, that this company, as a corporation
of Kentucky, was a party defendant to the amended bill of the plain-
tiff, likewise a Kentucky corporation; and that the amended bill must
therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Empire Transporta-
tion Co. v. Empire Mining Co., 159.

3. The jurisdiction of Federal courts, sitting as courts of equity, cannot
be enlarged or diminished by state legislation. Mississippi Mills v.
Cohn, 202.

4. Whether such a court has jurisdiction in equity over a particular case,
will be determined by inquiring whether by the principles of common
law and equity, as distinguished and defined in this country and in
the mother country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of
the United States, the relief sought in the bill was one obtainable in a
court of law, or one which only a court of equity was fully competent
to give. Ib.

5. A creditors' bill, to subject property of the debtor fraudulently standing
in the name of a third party to the payment of judgments against the
debtor, is within the jurisdiction of a Federal court, sitting as a court
of equity, although, in the courts of the State in which the Federal

court sits, state legislation may have given the creditor a remedy at
law. Ib.

6. N. and S., being citizens of Louisiana, obtained a judgment in a court
of the State against C., also a citizen of Louisiana, which they assigned
to W. and L., citizens of Missouri. The assignees thereupon brought
suit against C. in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western
District of Louisiana, putting the jurisdiction on the ground of diverse
citizenship. Held, that under the provisions of § 1 of the act of
March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, c. 137, which statute was in force when
the suit was commenced, it could not be maintained. Ib.

7. In the act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1, as corrected by the act of August
13, 1888, c. 866, giving the Circuit Courts of the United States original
jurisdiction, "concurrent with the courts of the several States," of all
suits of a civil nature, in which the matter in dispute exceeds $2000 in
amount or value, " arising under the Constitution or laws of the United
States" or in which there is "a controversy between citizens of a State
and foreign States, citizens or subjects," the provision that "no civil
suit shall be brought against any person by any original process or
proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabi-
tant," is inapplicable to an alien or a foreign corporation sued here,
and especially in a suit for the infringement of a patent right; and
such a person or corporation may be sued by a citizen of a State of
the Union in any district in which valid service can be made upon the
defendant. In re Hohorst, 653.

D. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. The term "high seas," as used in the provision in Rev. Stat. § 5346,
that "every person who, upon the high seas, or in any arm of the sea,
or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay, within the admiralty juris-
diction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any partic-
ular State, on board any vessel belonging in whole or part to the
United States, or any citizen thereof, with a dangerous weapon, or
with intent to perpetrate any felony, commits an assault upon another
shall be punished," etc., is applicable to the open, unenclosed waters
of the Great Lakes, between which the Detroit River is a connecting
stream. United States v. Rodgers, 249.

2. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction, under that section of
the Revised Statutes, to try a person for an assault with a dangerous
weapon, committed on a vessel belonging to a citizen of the United
States, when such vessel is in the Detroit River, out of the jurisdiction
of any particular State, and within the territorial limits of the Domin-
ion of Canada. Ib.

3. The limitation of jurisdiction by the qualification that the offences
punishable are committed on vessels in any arm of the sea, or in any

river, haven, creek, basin, or bay "without the jurisdiction of any par-
ticular State," which means without the jurisdiction of any State of
the Union, does not apply to vessels on the "high seas" of the lakes,
but only to vessels on the waters designated as connecting with them;
and so far as vessels on those seas are concerned, there is no limitation
named to the authority of the United States. Ib.

4. A District Court of the United States has jurisdiction over an action to
recover a penalty imposed for a violation of the act of February 26,
1885, 23 Stat. 332, c. 164, "to prohibit the importation and migration
of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor
in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia."
Lees v. United States, 476.

5. As a District Court of the United States has jurisdiction under Rev. Stat.
§ 563, of all suits to recover forfeitures incurred under any law of the
United States, including forfeitures of a bail bond, the question whether
the forfeiture should be enforced by scire facias under Rev. Stat. § 716,
or by proceedings under a law of the State in which the court is held,
goes only to the remedy and not to the jurisdiction, and the action of
the District Court is binding in a collateral proceeding. Insley v.
United States, 512.

E. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

The Court of Claims was not estopped by the recitals in the act of January
17, 1887, 24 Stat. 358, c. 21, referring this case to it, from considering
the question of the title of the claimants to the property whose value
is sought to be recovered. Kinkead v. United States, 483.

LACHES.

See MANDAMUS, 3;

PATENT FOR INVENTION, 12, (3);
SALARY, 2.

LEASE.

See CONTRACT, 4;

RAILROAD, 2.

LIEN.

See CORPORATION, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

MARSHAL.

See FEES, 1.

MANDAMUS.

1. This court cannot, by writ of mandamus, compel a court below to
decide a matter before it in a particular way. In re Parsons, 150.