Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/603

 INDEX. JURISDICTION. A. OF THIe COURT. While th court will not ta]re juriediction if it ehould not, it must talre jurdction if it should. It cannot, as the legislature may, avoid meeting a measure because it dee!res so to do. gz part Young, 123. 2. Anount in wntrovorq; ugrs judmt iofv m//d/t o! otr/tM4V , While this court cannot review judgments of the Supreme COurt of the Territory of Oklahoma unless the amount involved exceeds $5,000, where the judgment also directly involves the validity of other judg- ments the amount in controversy may be measured by tha aregate of such judgments. .Bzad/ v. Stayset, 393. 3. Under t 709, R. star.; d.nlal o! coritutional right. Where complainant is entitled to equitable relief against the enforcement by state officers of an unconstitutional state statute, the judgment of the state court dismissing the bill for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the suit is one against the State gives effect to the statute, denies com- pbint a constitutional right and is reviewable by this court under [ 709, Rev. Stat. Gzrel Oil Co. v. Craln, 211. 4. Under �9, Po. ,S.; m/a'V o! Fdora/qua/on. In order to give this court jurisdiction under [ 709, Rev.'Star., to review the judgment of a state court, the Federal question must he distinctly raised in the state court, .and a mere claim, which amounts to no move tha a vague and inferential suggestion that a right under the Constitu- tion of the United States had been denied, is not sufficientand so  u to an exception tsken as to certain parts of the charge to the jury because in eect they deprived the accused of his liberty without due proems of law. iVhom v. Iowa, 258. Where the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma reveres the judg- ment of the trial court, the reviewing power of this court is limited to determining whether there was evidence supporting the findings and whether the facts found were adequate to sustain the legal conclusions. 8hawn Compr Co. v. Anderson, 423. 6. To 'iew iudumO o! Dir4ct Court !or Porto Ro. The power of this oourt to review judgments of the District Court of the United States for Porto. Rico given by � of the act of April 12, 1900, 31 Star. 85, is the same as that to review judgments of the Supreme Courte of the Territories and is controlled by �of the act of April 7, 1874, 18 8tt. 27; on writ of error, therefore, this court is confined to ueh legal questions as necearily ae on the face of the record, such as exceptions to rulings on the rejection and admission of testimony and

�