§ 689a. Review by the Supreme Court through certiorari of decisions of the Court of Customs Appeals. By the Judicial Code "in any case in which the judgment or decree of the Court of Customs Appeals is made final by the provisions of this title, it shall be competent for the Supreme Court, upon the petition of either part, filed within sixty days next after the issue by the Court of Customs Appeals of its mandate upon decision, in any case in which there is drawn in question the construction of the Constitution of the United States, or any part thereof, or of any treaty made pursuant thereof, or in any other case when the Attorney General of the United States shall, before the decision of the Court of Customs Appeals is rendered, file with the court a certificate to the effect that the case is of such importance as to render expedient its review and determination, with the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried by appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court; And provided further, That this Act shall not apply to any case involving only the construction of section one, or any portion thereof, of an Act entitled, 'An Act to provide revenue, equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the United States, and for other purposes,' approved August fifth, nineteen hundred and nine, nor to any case involving the construction of section two of an Act entitled 'An Act to promote reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes, approved July twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and eleven." 1 § 689b. Review by the Supreme Court through certiorari of decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The Judicial Code, after enumerating the cases in which the Supreme Court may review by appeal or writ of error final decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, provides: "In any case in which the judgment or decree of said Court of Appeals is made final by the section last preceding, it shall be competent for the Supreme Court of the United States to require, by certiorari or otherwise, any such case to be certified to it for its review and determination, with the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried by writ of § 689a. 136 St. at L. 91, 105, 38 St. at L. 703, Comp. St. § 1186, see supra, § 77. error or appeal to said Supreme Court. It shall also be competent for said Court of Appeals, in any case in which its judgment or decree is made final under the section last preceding, at any time to certify to the Supreme Court of the United States any questions or propositions of law concerning which it desires the instruction of that court for their proper decision; and thereupon the Supreme Court may either give its instruction on the questions and propositions certified to it, which shall be binding upon said court of appeals in such case, or it may require that the whole record and cause be sent up to it for its consideration, and thereupon shall decide the whole matter in controversy in the same manner as if it had been brought there for review by writ of error or appeal."1 § 689c. Review by the Supreme Court through certiorari of decisions of the Supreme Courts of Hawaii, Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands. By the Judicial Code in all civil or criminal cases wherein the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of Hawaii and of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico are not reviewable directly by appeal or writ of error “it shall be competent for the Supreme Court of the United States to require by certiorari, upon the petition of any party thereto, that the case be certified to it, after final judgment or decree, for review and determination, with the same power and authority as if taken to that court by appeal or writ of error."1 By the Act of September 6, 1916, "No judgment or decree rendered or passed by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands more than sixty days after the approval of this Act shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon writ of error or appeal; but it shall be competent for the Supreme Court, by certiorari or otherwise, to require that there be certified to it for review and determination, with the same power, and author § 689b. 1 Act of March 3, 1901, ch. 854, § 234, 31 St. at L. 1227; March 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 251, 36 St. at L. 1159. See infra, § 691; a contempt proceeding may be thus re viewed; Gompers v. U. S., 253 U. S. 604. A judgment which is not final, such as a judgment of reversal which orders a new trial, may be thus re viewed; George A. Fuller Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 245 U. S. 489. as § 689c. 1 Jud. Code § 246, amended, 35 St. at L. 838, 36 St. at L. 1158. Act of Jan'y 28, 1915, 38 St. at L. 804, Comp. St. § 1223. See infra, § 691a and as to the practice see supra, § 689. ity and with like effect as if brought up by writ of error or appeal, any case wherein after such sixty days, the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands may render or pass a judgment or decree which could be subject to review under existing laws." 2 § 689d. Review by the Supreme Court through certiorari of decisions of the State courts. By the Act of September 6, 1916, "It shall be competent, for the Supreme Court by certiorari or otherwise, to require that there be certified to it for review and determination with the same power and authority and with like effect as if brought up by writ of error, any cause wherein a final judgment or decree has been rendered or passed by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is against their validity,2 or where any title, right, privilege, 2 Act of Sept. 6, 1916, ch. 448, § 5, 39 St. at L. 727, Comp. St. § 1225b. See infra, § 691a, and as to practice see supra, § 689. Gsell v. Insular Customs Collector, 239 U. S. 93; Tayabas Land Co. v. Manila R. R. Co., 250 U. S. 22. Upon an appeal from a decree of reversal the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the evidence and finally disposed of the case. Philippines Sugar Estates Development Co. v. Government of Philippine Islands, 247 U. S. 385, 38 Sup. Ct. 513, 62 L. ed. 1177. It will usually defer to the decision of the court below upon the construction of local laws. Ibanez v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 246 U. S. 621, 38 Sup. Ct. 410, 62 L. ed. 903. Cf. Territory of Arizona v. Copper Queen Consol. Min. Co., 233 U. S. 87. But not when this is clearly erroneous. Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 247 U. S. 385, 38 Sup. Ct. 513, 62 L. ed. 1177. § 689d. 1 The words, or otherwise' add nothing of substance to the thought expressed by the new act." Chicago Great Western R. R. Co. v. Basham, 249 U. S. 165, 39 Sup. Ct. 213, 63 L. ed. 534, per Pitney, J. 2 Much can be said against the validity of this clause of the statute, although it is not improbable that it may be sustained. Where the decision of the State court was in favor of the title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the Federal authority, the Supreme Court 3682 WRITS OF ERROR AND APPEALS 8 or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held, or authority exercised under had before this act no jurisdiction Lodge, 4 Straus v. Am. Publishers' Ass'n, 231 U. S. 222; Sage v. Hampe, 235 U. S. 99. Such is a case which involves the construction of an act of Congress under which a corporation is organized. Supreme Knights of Pythias v. Mims, 241 U. S. 574; Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Smyth, 245 U. S. 594. A decision as to classification of merchandise imported into the Philippine Islands involves the construction of the Philippine Tariff Act. Gsell v. Insular Collector of CusSuch is the toms, 239 U. S. 93. right to a recovery, Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Padgett, Administratrix of Padgett, 236 U. S. 668; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Devine, 239 U. S. 52; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U. S. 276; or a defense, Nor. Car. R. R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248; Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492; Toledo, St. L. & West. R. R. Co. v. Slavin, 236 U. S. 454; Chicago and Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Gray, 237 U. S. 399; Norfolk Southern Railroad Co. v. Ferebee, 238 U. S. 269; Kansas City Western Ry. Co. v. McAdow, 248 U. S. 51; Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Jones, 241 U. S. 181; Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Renn, 241 U. S. 290; which depends upon the construction of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 St. at L. 65, Comp. St. § 8657-8665; supra, § 454j. But see Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Holloway, 246 U. S. 525, 38 Sup. Ct. 379, 62 L. ed. 867 (holding that the United States, and the decision is either in favor of or Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wall, 241 U. S. 87; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Texas Packing Co., 244 U. S. 31. See the Carmack Amendment of March 4, 1915, ch. 176, 38 St. at L. 119. Or the Federal land laws, when the validity of a treaty, or statute or authority of the United States is not questioned. See Gauthier v. Morrison, 232 U. S. 452; Logan v. Davis, 233 U. S. 613; State of California V. Deseret Water, Oil & Irrigation Co., 243 U. S. 415. For a decision that the construction of the National Bank Act was not in question, see Union National Bank v. McBoyle, 243 U. S. 26. In Ferry v. King County, 141 U. S. 668, 35 L. ed. 895, held: that the fact that a State statute and a mortgage made in pursuance thereof referred to certain acts of Congress as prescribing the rule and measure of the rights granted by the State thereunder, did not make the determination of such rights a Federal question. Miller's Ex'rs v. Swann, 150 U. S. 132, 137, 37 L. ed. 1028, per Brewer, J. In the absence of an act of Congress upon the subject no writ of error will review a judgment concerning an obstruction to a navigable stream. North Shore Boom & Driving Co. v. Nicomen Boom Co., 212 U. S. 406, 53 L. ed. 574. 5 A judgment for the recovery of land against defendants, officers of the army, who claim to hold the land as the property of the United States, may be reviewed. Stanley v. Schwalby, 147 U. S. 508, 37 L. ed. 259. A defense grounded upon an order, judgment or decree of a Federal court is a claim of a right or immunity under an authority exercised under the United States. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 151 U. S. 81, 99, 38 L. ed. 81, 87; Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. S. 327, 38 L. ed. 463; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Long Island L. & Tr. Co., 172 U. S. 493, 43 L. ed. 528; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Kirven, 215 U. S. 252, 54 L. ed. 179; Radford v. Myers, 231 U. S. 725; Roller v. Murray, 234 U. S. 738; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469; Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U. S. 531; Hartford Life Insurance Company v. Ibs, 237 U. S. 662; Penna. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Mining Co., 243 U. S. 93. Cf. Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co., 222 U. S. 300. But see Avery v. Popper, 179 U. S. 305, 45 L. ed. 203. A refusal to give full faith and credit to a judgment of another State in the Union is reviewable. Roller v. Murray, 234 U. S. 738; Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Barber, 245 U. S. 146, 38 Sup. Ct. 54, 62 L. ed. 208; Bates v. Bodie, 245 U. S. 520, 38 Sup. Ct. 182, 62 L. ed. 444. A State court does not deny full faith and credit to a provision of a statute or constitution of another State by giving an erroneous construction thereto. Smithsonian Institution v. St. John, 214 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 892; El Paso & Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Eichel, 226 U. S. 590, 57 L. ed. 43; Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 249 U. S. 490. There is no claim of a right or immunity under the Constitution of the United States by a suit or defense founded upon the judgment of a foreign State, unless the plaintiff in error rests upon |