Opinion of the Court. this being overruled, further because, on the pleadings, plaintiff and defendant both resided in the Northern District of Texas, which was also denied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $7500, which, at the suggestion of the court, plaintiff reduced by remittitur to $2500, and, for the recovery of the latter sum, judgment was entered. The case was then brought on writ of error to this court, and the record filed August 30, 1890. Mr. John F. Dillon and Mr. Winslow S. Pierce for plaintiff in error. Mr. James Turner for defendant in error. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court. We are of opinion that the writ of error must be dismissed because the judgment does not exceed the sum of five thousand dollars, exclusive of costs, and the jurisdiction of the court below was not involved within the meaning of the act of February 25, 1889, 25 Stat. 693, c. 236, empowering this court to review the judgments of Circuit Courts, when such is the fact. The order of October 26, 1888, of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana directed, among other things, that "all claims against the receiver, as such, up to said 31st day of October, 1888, be presented and prosecuted by intervention prior to February 1, 1889, and if not so presented by that date, that the same be barred and shall not be a charge on the property of said company." Assuming that the plea based upon the order in question was the sole plea, filed in due time, and technically sufficient in form, it is enough to observe that it alleged that by the terms of that order the property of the company was freed from all demands and claims arising against the receiver and prior to October 31, 1888, which were not adjudicated by the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the cause of the Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. The Texas and Pacific Railway Opinion of the Court. Co. upon intervention prior to February 1, 1889, and that the plaintiff did not intervene in said cause prior to that day. Without discussing the effect of that order, which has already been sufficiently considered in Texas and Pacific Railway Co. v. Johnson, ante, 81, it will be perceived that on September 23, 1889, when this plea was filed, the time within which the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana would take cognizance of the plaintiff's claim had long before expired and the claim was barred as set forth by the plea, certainly so far as that court was concerned, and if the company, if liable at all, was only liable on intervention in that court as the plea asserted, then the plaintiff could not maintain any action in respect of his supposed cause of action. The plea was, therefore, not a plea to the jurisdiction, but a plea in bar. It did not seek to oust the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Texas by reason of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana or elsewhere, and so give the plaintiff a better writ, but to defeat his recovery altogether. We do not think this presented any question of jurisdiction, as such, which we could consider. As to the suggestion that the suit was brought in the wrong district, that objection, if it could be raised by the company at all, came after the defendant had pleaded in bar and too late. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593. Under these circumstances, as no question of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was open to inquiry, we do not regard this case as coming within the act of Congress referred to. Writ of error dismissed. Opinion of the Court. TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. HORN. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. No. 163. Argued and submitted December 13, 1893. - Decided January 3, 1894. $11,000, on suggestion of the As recorded, the terms of the A verdict being returned for plaintiff for court a remittitur of $6001 was entered. judgment were: "It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by the court that the plaintiff, Henry Horn, do have and recover of the defendant, the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, the sum of eleven thousand dollars and all costs in this behalf expended. And it appearing to the court that on this day the plaintiff filed, in writing, a remitter of $6000.00: It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by the court that execution issue for the sum of $4999.00 only, and all costs herein." The order of allowance of the writ of error declared that the judgment was rendered for $4999, and the bond and citation so described it. Held, that, upon the entire record, the judgment must be held to be for no larger sum than $4999. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. John F. Dillon and Mr. Winslow S. Pierce for plaintiff in error. Mr. C. A. Culberson for defendant in error submitted on his brief. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court. Upon the trial of this cause a verdict was returned for the plaintiff in the sum of eleven thousand dollars, and upon the suggestion of the court the plaintiff entered a remittitur of six thousand and one dollars, and prayed that the same be allowed, and judgment entered for four thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine dollars. The bill of exceptions states that judg ment was rendered for that amount, although as recorded the Opinion of the Court. terms of the judgment, after reciting the return of the verdict, were: "It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by the court that the plaintiff, Henry Horn, do have and recover of the defendant, the Texas and Pacific Railway Company, the sum of eleven thousand dollars and all costs in this behalf expended. "And it appearing to the court that on this day the plaintiff filed, in writing, a remitter of $6000.00: "It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by the court that execution issue for the sum of $4999.00 only, and all costs herein." The writ of error bore date June 24, 1890, and was made. a supersedeas, the order of allowance declaring that the judgment was rendered for $4999.00, February 13, 1890, and that a motion for new trial was filed, but not acted on until June 5, 1890. The bond and citation describe the judgment as for $4999.00. Although the judgment was entered immediately upon the return of the verdict in accordance with the practice in that jurisdiction, and, therefore, for the amount of the verdict, it was within the power of the court to allow the remittitur; and while the order to that effect might have been more accurately worded, we are of opinion that, upon the entire record, plaintiff in error cannot be permitted to insist that the judgment as it stands is for a larger sum than $4999, nor can it be hereafter held liable as on judgment for any other amount. Hence this case is not within our jurisdiction, unless it falls within the act of Congress of February 25, 1889, 25 Stat. 693, c. 236, which, for the reasons given in Texas and Pacific Railway v. Saunders, ante, 105, we do not think it does. The railway company, in this case, as in that, filed a plea based upon the order of October 26, 1888, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and in this case, as in that, the matter set up was in bar and not in abatement. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. for the Eastern District of Texas was not thereby questioned. Writ of error dismissed. Statement of the Case. HARDENBERGH v. RAY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. No. 113. Argued December 12, 13, 1893. - Decided January 3, 1894. When the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court has fully attached against the tenant in possession in an action of ejectment, the substitution of the landlord as defendant will in no way affect that jurisdiction, although he may be a citizen of the same State with the plaintiff. By the laws of Oregon in force in 1872, a testator was authorized and empowered to devise after-acquired real estate. A will in Oregon, duly executed May 15, 1872, and duly proved after the testator's death in 1886, in which he devised to his sister" all my right, title, and interest in and to all my lands, lots, and real estate lying and being in the State of Oregon," except specific devises previously made, and also "all my personal property and estate," shows an intent not to die intestate, and passes after acquired real estate. THE facts are stated at length in the opinion of the court. It is sufficient here to say that Peter De Witt Hardenbergh, of Portland, Oregon, made his will May 15, 1872, in form as prescribed by the laws of the State to pass real estate, that he died in 1886, and that the will was duly admitted to probate, and remains in full force. In 1882 he acquired a tract of land in Portland, of which he was seized and possessed at the time of his death. The question at issue in this case was, whether this after-acquired estate passed by a clause in the will devising to his sister "all my right, title, and interest in and to all my lands, lots, and real estate lying and being in the State of Oregon." The action to test this question was ejectment, brought by the brother of the testator, a citizen of New York, against tenants in possession. The devisee having died, her heirs were, on their own motion, substituted as defendants in the place of the tenants. One of these heirs was a citizen of New York. The statute in force in Oregon at the time of the making of the will and of the death of the testator provided that "every person of twenty-one years of age and upwards, of sound mind, may, by last will, devise all his |