issue to review a judgment which is not final, and, on the question of finality, the form of the judgment is controlling. A writ of error may be issued by the Supreme Court of the United States to a judgment of an inferior State court which, by the laws of the State, cannot be reviewed in the highest State court.8 v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336, 46 L. ed. 936; Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487, 493, 46 L. ed. 1005; Wabash R. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U. S. 29, 38, 48 L. ed. 328, 331. 6 Louisiana Nav. Co. v. Oyster Commission, 226 U. S. 99, 57 L. ed. See § 695, infra. The writ may issue to review final judgment overruling a plea of abatement. Buck Stove & Range Co. v. Wickers, 226 U. S. 205, 57 L. ed. -. It seems that an order denying a motion for a new trial may be thus reviewed in a proper case. Chicago, B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 41 L. ed. 979. What constitutes a final judgment, decree, or order is explained in another section. Infra, § 695. A judgment, which orders a new trial, Houston v. Moore, 3 Wheat. 433, 4 L. ed. 428; Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653, 22 L. ed. 410; Rankin v. State, 11 Wall. 380, 20 L. ed. 175; or any further proceedings, McComb Com'rs of Knox County, 91 U. S. 1, 23 L. ed. 185; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, 27 L. ed. 73; Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448, 5 L. ed. 302; Meagher v. Minn. Thr. Mfg. Co., 145 U. S. 608, 36 L. ed. 834; Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Snell, 179 U. S. 395, 45 L. ed. 248; cannot be immediately reviewed; even if no further proceedings have actually taken place. Haseltine v. Central Nat. Bank, 183 U. S. 130, 46 L. ed. 117. A judgment unconditionally dismissing a complaint, when nothing more is requisite to V. complete the dismissal, may thus be reviewed. Com'rs of Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108, 23 L. ed. 822. An error in an interlocutory judgment or order may be reviewed by writ of error to that which is final. Coe v. Armour Fertilizer. Works, 237 U. S. 413. Even though by the State practice it settled the law of the case and must be followed in subsequent proceedings therein. Grays Harbor Co. v. Coats Fordney Co., 243 U. S. 251. See infra, § 711f. Unless the former was in its nature final and immediately reviewable. Rio Grande Ry. Co. v. Stringham, 239 U. S. 44. 7 Louisiana Nav. Co. v. Oyster Commission, 226 U. S. 99, 57 L. ed. where the State Supreme Court, when reviewing a judgment of dismissal, said that an opportunity to amend the petition should be afforded, and in its judgment set aside the judgment appealed from and remanded the case for procedure in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion, plaintiff in error contending that the opinion finally disposed of his claim to the greater portion of the land. 9 8 Downham V. Alexandria, Wall. 659, 19 L. ed. 807; Gregory v. McVeigh, 23 Wall. 294, 23 L. ed. 156; Miller v. Joseph, 17 Wall. 655, 21 L. ed. 741; Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1, 37, 50 L. ed. 633, 649; Kanawha & Michigan Ry. Co. v. Kerse, 239 U. S. 576; San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U. S. 476; Second National When, however, the plaintiff in error has a right to a review of the judgment in another court of the State, no writ of error can be obtained till after such review has been had; even though the judgment of the inferior State court is in accordance with what was decided by the highest State court in a former appeal.10 Where leave to appeal to a higher court of the State is discretionary, the record must show an applicant for its allowance and a refusal thereof.11 The writ should be directed to the court in which the final judgment was rendered, by whose process it is to be executed, and where the record remains, although a higher court has considered the case upon appeal or writ of error, and sent down a remittitur or rescript accordingly.12 In the latter case, the writ may be addressed to the highest court, and seek through its instrumentality to obtain the record from the inferior court having it in keeping; 13 but it is the safer practice to address the writ to the court which has the record.14 Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio v. First 9 Downham v. Alexandria, 9 Wall. 659, 19 L. ed. 807; Miller v. Joseph, 17 Wall. 655, 21 L. ed. 741; Gregory v. McVeigh, 23 Wall. 294, 23 L. ed. 156. 10 Fisher v. Perkins, 122 U. S. 522, 30 L. ed. 1192; Gt. Western Tel. Co. v. Burnham, 162 U. S. 339, 40 L. ed. 991. 11 Fisher v. Perkins, 122 U. S. 522, 30 L. ed. 1192; Stratton v. Stratton, 239 U. S. 55. Where the highest State court denied a writ of error because it thought that the judgment below was right, the writ ran to the court immediately below. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 55 L. ed. 498. 12 Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246, 4 L. ed. 381; Kanouse v. Martin, 15 How. 198, 14 L. ed. 660; M'Guire v. Commonwealth, 3 Wall. 382, 18 L. ed. 164; Polleys v. Black R. I. Co., 113 U. S. 81, 28 L. ed. 938; Rothschild v. Knight, 184 U. S. 334, 46 L. ed. 573; Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573, 581, 48 L. ed. 570, 573. 13 Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, 147, 23 L. ed. 265, 266. 14 Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, 147, 23 L. ed. 265, 266; Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573, 581, 48 L. ed. 570, 573. Where an application to the highest court of the State for a writ of error to an inferior court has been refused, the writ should be addressed to the inferior court. Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 41 L. ed. 132; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, 40 L. ed. 960; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 55 L. ed. 498. But see Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264, 56 L. ed. 1082. If the clerk of the State court refuses to transmit a The writ of error to a State court must, like the writ to a District Court, be accompanied by a citation and a bond.15 The citation must be signed and the bond approved by the chief justice, judge or chancellor of the court to which the writ is addressed, or by a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.16 The defendant in error must have at least thirty days' notice before the hearing of the cause.17 Otherwise writs of error to State courts and the practice and proceedings under them are substantially similar to writs of error to District Courts of the United States, and the practice and proceedings thereunder.18 The Supreme Court may inquire whether, owing to any intervening event, the Federal questions have ceased to be material and will then dispose of the case in the light thereof.19 copy of the record in obedience to the writ of error, he may be compelled to do so by an order; U. S. v. Booth, 18 How. 477, 15 L. ed. 464; or a mandamus, U. S. v. Gomez, 3 Wall. 752, 18 L. ed. 212; even though the State Court forbade him to transmit the record, U. S. v. Booth, 18 How. 477, 15 L. ed. 464; but the clerk will not be thus compelled to transmit a copy of the record after a writ of error has been allowed but before it is issued; Ex parte Ralston, 119 U. S. 613, 30 L. ed. 506. 15 U. S. R. S., §§ 999, 1000. See infra, § 699. 16 U. S. R. S., §§ 999, 1000; Gleason v. Florida, 9 Wall. 779, 19 L. ed. 730; Butler v. Gage, 138 U. S. 52, 34 L. ed. 869. 17 U. S. R. S., § 999. 18 U. S. R. S., § 1003. As to costs, see Stevens v. Cent. Nat. Bank, 168 N. Y. 560. 19 Gulf, Col. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Dennis, 224 U. S. 503, 56 L. ed. 860; where, pending a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to review a judgment of an inferior State court, not re viewable by the State Supreme The Supreme Court of the United States will not, when reviewing the judgment of a State court, take judicial notice of a public act of another State, unless the practice of the State Court so permits.20 § 693. Writs of error from and appeals to the circuit courts of appeals. The Judicial Code provides: "The circuit courts of appeals shall exercise appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal or writ of error final decisions in the district courts, including the United States district court for Hawaii 2 and the United States district court for Porto Rico, in all cases other than those in which appeals and writs of error may be taken direct to the Supreme Court, as provided in section two hundred and thirty-eight, unless otherwise provided by law." The ter ernment under an act of Congress enacted after the judgment was rendered. Vandalia R. R. v. Public Service Comm., 242 U. S. 255; infra, § 711h. 20 Lloyd v. Matthews, 155 U. S. 222, 39 L. ed. 128. § 693. 1 The decision of a District Court upon exceptions to an award of arbitrators in a dispute between employers and employed appointed under the Act of July 15, 1913, Comp. St., § 8667, see supra, $77g, may be reviewed by the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals. Georgia & F. Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of L. Engineers, C. C. A., 217 Fed. 755, infra, § 695. 2 A decree in admiralty is thus appealable. Wilder's S. S. Co. v. Low, C. C. A., 112 Fed. 161. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has no jurisdiction to review a decision of the District Court of Hawaii, when the sole question involved is one concerning the construction of the Constitution of the United States. Wright v. McFarlane & Co., C. C. A., 122 Fed. 770. 3 Supra, § 688. 4 Jud. Code, § 128, 36 St. at L. 1087, re-enacting 26 St. at L. § 693. The words "unless otherwise provided by law," refer only to provisions of the same act, or of contemporaneous or subsequent acts, and do not include provisions of earlier statutes. Gray, J., in The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 683, 44 L. ed. 320, 322. "These words must be taken to refer to existing provisions and not to be merely a futile permission to future legisla tures to make a change. They do not save every existing provision, of course, or the act would fail of its purpose. But they save some. There is no case to which they can apply more clearly than one in which, by reason of its interest, the United States has manifested its will to submit to no judgment not sanctioned by its highest court." U. S. v. Dalcour, 203 U. S. 408, 420, 421, 51 L. ed. 248, 251, per Holmes, J.; Dickinson v. U. S., 174 Fed. 808. The Circuit Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction of appeals, Ogden v. U. S., 148 U. S. 390, 37 L. ed. 493; and it has been held of writs of error, U. ritorial jurisdiction, of these courts and the District Courts of the United States which are subject to their respective jurisdictions, has been previously explained.5 "Where upon a hearing in equity in a district court, or by a judge thereof in vacation, an injunction shall be granted, continued, refused, or dissolved by an interlocutory order or decree, or an application to dissolve an injunction shall be refused, or an interlocutory order or decree shall be made appointing a receiver, an appeal may be taken from such interlocutory order S. v. Coudert, C. C. A., 73 Fed. 505, to judgments of the Circuit and District Courts in suits upon claims against the United States; supra, § 36, provided, at least, when the claimant is the party aggrieved, that his claim exceeds $3,000 or has been forfeited to the United States for fraud, Reid v. U. S., 211 U. S. 529, 53 L. ed. 313; of appeals from orders and judgments of the District Courts, King v. McLean Asylum of Mass. Gen. Hospital, C. C. A., 64 Fed. 139. U. S. v. Fowkes, C. C. A., 53 Fed. 13; Carter v. Roberts, 177 U. S. 496, 44 L. ed. 861; and of the District Judges, Webb v. York, C. C. A., 74 Fed. 753; upon applications for the writ of habeas corpus where the discharge from imprisonment was not sought because of an alleged violation of a right secured by the Constitution or a treaty; Davis v. Burke, C. C. A., 97 Fed. 501. See supra, §§ 467, 688; Passavant v. U. S., 148 U. S. 214, 217, 37 L. ed. 426, 427; U. S. v. Hopewell, C. C. A., 51 Fed. 798, 799; Louisville Pub. Warehouse Co. v. Collector, C. C. A., 49 Fed. 561; of writs of error to judgments in actions against collectors to recover duties; Hubbard v. Soby, 146 U. S. 56, 36 L. ed. 886; of appeals from, or writs of error to, the orders of District Courts directing the deportation of Chinese; Tsoi Yii v. U. S., C. C. A., 129 Fed. 585; U. S. v. Hung Chang, C. C. A., 130 Fed. 439. Cf. The United States, Petitioner, 194 U. S. 194, 48 L. ed. 931; U. S. v. Gee Lee, C. C. A., 50 Fed. 271; Gee Cue Beng v. U. S., C. C. A., 184 Fed. 383, cf. § 694, infra; but not, it was held, of a writ of error to an order by a judge for such a deportation, where no final order or judgment was entered in the District Court, and the bill of exceptions allowed was not there filed, and the transcript was certified by the District Judge instead of by the clerk; U. S. v. Hung Chang, C. C. A., 130 Fed. 439 (where the Circuit Court of Appeals suggested that the District Court had not lost jurisdiction and should enter the order and direct the filing of the bill of exceptions); of appeals from orders granting warrants for the removal of prisoners to other districts; U. S. v. Fowkes, C. C. A., 53 Fed. 13, 14; cf. § 489 supra, and formerly at least of appeals from orders of the District Courts enforcing orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Interstate Com. Com 'n v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 149 U. S. 264. 5 Supra, § 4. |