An immunized person has greater rights than an innocent person. The former has given up and surrendered something on the strength of the pledge of the United States contained in the statute, while the innocent person has given up nothing. It cannot be said of the innocent person that he shall not be prosecuted; while it has been said most emphatically that the immunized person shall not be prosecuted.

The cases of Rebstock v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 146 California, 308, those quoted from Wisconsin, and Regina v. Skeen, 8 Cox, C. C. 143, 153, etc., are inapplicable.

The reference to the Criminal Appeals Act has no relevancy. United States v. Bitty, 208 U. S. 393, simply decided that this act was constitutional.

Plaintiff in error suffers a grievous hardship if he be compelled to await the end of the case below before having his rights under the immunity plea reviewed. There is no ground for the fears expressed by the Government with reference to the increase of business through interlocutory reviews. Alexander v. United States, 201 U. S. 117, cited by the Government in fact sustains the contention of plaintiff in error.

The Solicitor General, Mr. Henry L. Stimson, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, and Mr. Felix Frankfurter, Assistant United States Attorney, for the United States.

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error, Charles R. Heike, was indicted with others on January 10, 1910, for alleged violations of the customs laws of the United States in connection with the fraudulent importation of sugar, and also for conspiracy under 5440 of the Revised Statutes of the United States to defraud the United States of its revenues. Heike appeared and filed a special plea in bar claiming immunity from prosecution under the act of February 25, 1903, c. 755, 32 Stat. 904, as amended June 30, 1906, c. 3920, 34 Stat. 798. The plea set up in substance that Heike had been called upon to

testify before the grand jury in matters concerning the prosecution against him, and had thereby become immune from prosecution under the law. The Government filed a replication, taking issue upon the matters set up in the plea. The issues thus raised were brought to trial before a jury in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and at the conclusion of the testimony the Government and the defendant each moved for direction of a verdict, and the court thereupon instructed the jury to find the issues joined in favor of the Government. Upon application by Heike he was granted the privilege of pleading over, and he thereupon entered a plea of not guilty, and the case was set for trial on March 1, 1910.

No judgment having been entered in the case mandamus proceedings were brought in this court, and in pursuance of its order a judgment nunc pro tunc was entered as of February 14, 1910, as follows: "Judgment be and is hereby entered for the United States upon the verdict with leave to the defendant to plead over."

On February 25. 1910, a writ of error was allowed to the Circuit Court from this court by one of its justices. The Governinent then moved, February 28, 1910, to vacate the order allowing the writ. That motion was overruled, March 14, 1910, and the Government made the present motion to dismiss the writ of error, upon the ground that the judgment entered as of February 14, 1910, is not a final judgment within the meaning of the Court of Appeals Act.

The motion to dismiss brings to the attention of the court the important question of practice as to whether, after a judgment has been entered upon a verdict setting up the plea of immunity under the act of February 25, 1903, as amended June 30, 1906, finding the issues against the defendant, with leave given to plead over, and a plea of not guilty entered, on which no trial has been had, such judgment is, or is not, a final judgment reviewable by writ of error

from this court where a constitutional question is involved, under § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826.

The appellate jurisdiction in the Federal system of procedure is purely statutory. American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Ry. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 378. For many years it did not exist in criminal cases. It has been granted by statute in certain cases; and criminal cases in which are involved a deprivation of constitutional rights, may be brought to this court by writ of error under § 5 of the Court of Appeals Act. Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283.

In the case at bar it is the contention of the plaintiff in error that he was deprived of the constitutional right of trial by jury in the direction by the court that the jury find a verdict against him upon his plea in bar. The question then is, Is the judgment entered nunc pro tunc as of February 14, 1910, a reviewable one under the statute? That judgment in effect denied the validity of the plea in bar, and left the defendant to plead over, which he did. putting in issue the averments of the indictment.

The construction of § 5 of the Court of Appeals Act was before this court in the case of McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 665, and it was there held that the allowance of appeals or writs of error under that section must be understood to have the meaning which those terms had always had under acts of Congress relating to the appellate jurisdiction of this court, and that taken in that sense appeals or writs of error could only be allowed in cases in which there had been a final judgment. Mr. Justice Lamar, who spoke for the court in that case, pointed out that under the Judiciary Act of 1789 no appeal would lie to this court except from final judgments or decrees, and further stated that this was only declaratory of the settled practice of England, where no writ of error would lie except from a final judgment; and if the writ was made returnable before such judgment it would be quashed, and in this connection, speaking for the court, the learned justice said:

"From the very foundation of our judicial system the ob

ject and policy of the acts of Congress in relation to appeals and writs of error .. have been to save the expense and delays of repeated appeals in the same suit, and to have the whole case and every matter in controversy in it decided in a single appeal."

McLish v. Roff, supra, has been followed and approved in this court. American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Ry., 148 U. S. 372; Kirwan v. Murphy, 170 U. S. 205, 209; Ex parte National Enameling Co., 201 U. S. 156.

It may, therefore, be regarded as the settled practice of this court that a case cannot be brought here by piecemeal, and is only to be reviewed here after final judgment by direct appeal or writ of error in a limited class of cases under § 5 of the Court of Appeals Act.

It is unnecessary to enter upon a full consideration of what constitutes a final judgment, a subject of much discussion. The definition of a final judgment or decree was tersely stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. R. R. Co. v. Express Co., 108 U. S. 24, 28, in these terms: "A decree is final for the purposes of an appeal to this court when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined."

If we apply the definition herein contained of a final judgment or decree it appears certain that the judgment of respondeat ouster, leaving the case with issue joined upon the plea of not guilty, does not dispose of the whole matter litigated in this proceeding, leaving nothing to be done except the ministerial act of executing the judgment. The thing litigated in this case is the right to convict the accused of the crime charged in the indictment. Certainly that issue has not been disposed of, much less has a final order been made concerning it, leaving nothing but an execution of it yet undone. The defendant was indicted for the crime alleged, and being apprehended he had a right to raise an issue of law upon the indictment by demurrer, to plead in bar, or to plead the general

issue. He chose to plead in bar immunity from prosecution by reason of the statute referred to. That issue was, by direction of the court, whether properly or improperly, held against him and the verdict of the jury and the judgment of respondeat ouster duly entered. At the common law upon the failure of such plea in a case of misdemeanor it was usual at once to sentence the defendant as upon conviction of guilt of the offense charged. In cases of felony it was usual to permit a plea of not guilty after judgment over. In the case at bar the record shows after the return of the verdict the plaintiff in error's counsel asked to be permitted to plead, and was allowed that privilege. As the case now stands, upon the plea of not guilty, upon which the issue raised must be tried to a jury, certainly the whole matter has not been disposed of. It may be that upon trial the defendant will be acquitted on the merits. It may happen that for some reason the trial will never take place. In either of these events there can be no conclusive judgment against the defendant in the case. It is true that in a certain sense an order concerning a controlling question of law made in a case is, as to that question, final. Many interlocutory rulings and orders effectually dispose of some matters in controversy, but that is not the test of finality for the purposes of appeal or writ of error. The purpose of the statute is to give a review in one proceeding after final judgment of matters in controversy in any given case. Any contrary construction of the Court of Appeals Act may involve the necessity of examining successive appeals or writs of error in the same case, instead of awaiting, as has been the practice since the beginning of the Government, for one review after a final judgment, disposing of all controversies in that case between the parties.

But it is urged by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error that this judgment must be held to be final for the purpose of review, otherwise the Government cannot keep the contract of immunity which it has made with the accused, by virtue of the terms of the immunity statute, which provides: