Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/249

 o9 U. 8. Op/nion o! the Court. Mr. Justice Strong, speaking for the court, saying: "In view of this [the action of the state court] we do not perceive that we have any authori4y to review the judgment of the state court." It was intimated in the opinion that a Federal question had been premnted, but i was not decided. "As we have seen," Mr. Justice Strong said,. "the bill was dismimed for want of jurisdiction. The judgment of the court respecting the extent of its equitable jurisdiction is, of course, not reviewable here." And, fmther: "It may well have been determined that the plaintiff's remedy aginst Adsit was at law, and not in equity, even if the sale from Holmes was utterly void, but whatever may have been the reasons for the decision, whether the court had .iurisdiction of the case or not, is a question exclusively for the iudgment of the state court." In Ca//en v. Bradsford a writ of error to the Court of Appeals of Virginia was distained on the ground that that court had disposed of the case on the ground that the matters involved were purely pecuniary, and that the amount in controversy in each case was less than sufficient to give the court jurisdic- tion under the.constitution of the State. "This being so," this-court said, "we are of opinion that the writs of error to that court must be dismissed." In Freepart Water Company v. Freeport City we said: "With what functions the Circuit Courts of the State [Illinois] may be invested may not be of Federal concern. It is also a matter of construction in which we might be obliged to follow the state COllrts." In Neurraan v. Gates the Federal right was asserted under that provision of the Constitution of the United States requiring due faith and credit to be given by each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State. The Supreme Court of the State (Indiana) dismissed the appeai to it as not having been properly taken. The' case was brought ' here but dismissed. We said, through Mr. Justice White: "As the jurisdiction of this court to review judgments or decrees of state courts when a Federal question is presented is limited to

�