Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 18 Part 1.djvu/205

 Tm.}; xm.-THE JUDICIARY.—Ch. 11. 133 Sm. 709. _A ling.] judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court Jvdzmenw ¤¤d pf a. Shiga, 1D Wl1I0h-8 decision in the suit could be had. where is drawn gggiigsog \§é€ 2*; lll qucstion the vali¢l1ty of u treatv or statute of, or an authority excr- emm cased undgr, the United States, mul the decision is against their validity; -5 F b 1867* gr Wl1€l`8.1S drawn m question the validity of a statute of, or an author- 28 s_2°‘.j4 p_ my €X€I`ClS€(l under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant in sZ>p:.,H7s9,(·. lc tllc Qonstxtutiou. treaties, or laws of the United States, und the decis- 20,s. 25, v. 1, B. 86. lon IS ln fslvor of their validity: or where any title, right, privilege, or S01g_ 13% lgfg "- uumumty IS ('l&ll'll€d under the Constitution. or any treaty or stat- —»'}+LP¥ i— utc of, or commission held or authoritv exercised under, the United O]“"Y"·A"“°m· . . _ z . . . _ . 3 Dall., 308; Hep- Slbates, and the dccmon IS against the t1tle, nght, pmvxlege. Ol 1mmu— bum ,._ Em`., 2 mty specially set up or claimed, by either party, under such C0nsti— Cr., 445; Gui-don tution, treaty, statute, commission, or authority, may be 1-e-examined P. Caldleugh, 3 and l'€\:Bl’SCd. or aflirmcd in the Supreme Court upon u writ of error. §"igg§?£I3;t}‘§gf,? Thq wut shall have the same cifcct as if the judgment or decree com- (jwinés ,,_"N0Q.j lamcd of had bgen rendered or passed in a. court of the United States; wood’s Lessee, 5 Eznd Mg proceed an g fcqmn Hm *reversuZ S/udl be fha same, ezcegvt Heat the Su- Cr.,344i Martin •·. premc ( bart may, _¢1t their d1`xcreli0n, [Y/‘OC€¢*(Z to ajfnal decisimz of the case, §};l"°°$4¥’°E°‘ié and award mecutzon, 01* yvwzaml {hc Same to the mart from which J'! was 80 ,._ Cbblidgé 2v$h_ removed.] [Ser 5 1017-] 363;Miller’1·,Nich; The Supreme Court may [re-a_p‘irm,] reverse, modify, or ailirm the judg- cle, 4 Wh., 311; ment: or decree of such State court, and may, at their discretion, award glQl;°"z;g_OEd°qi execution, or remand the same to the court from which it was removed ,._v,m'g€sS;8 {Qi by the writ. ::12; xvimms J Norris, 12 Wh., 117; Montgomery 1·. Hernandez, I2 Wh., 129; Gwym1’s Heirs v. Jackson, 12 Wh., 135; Hickic v. Starke, 1 Pet., 94; Ross r. Barland, 1 Pet., 655; Wilson •·. Blackbird Creek Marsh Company, 2 Pet., 245; Satterlec zu Matthews0n, 2 Pct., 380; Weston r. City Council Charleston, 2 Pet., 449; Harris z·. Dennie, 3 Pet., 292; Craig 1-. Missouri, 4 Pet., 410; Fisher-r’s Lessee r. Cockercll, 5 Pet., 248; Maynard r. Aspasia, 5 Pet., 505; Davis 1·. Packard, 6 Pet., 41; City of New Orleans v. Armas, 9 Pet., 223; Crowell r. Randall, 10 Pet., 368; McBride 1·. Hoay, 11 Pet., 167; Recd’s Lessee ·r. Marsh, 13 Pct., 153; Ocean Ins. C0. r. Pollcys, 13 Pet., 157; Mitchell 1-, Lennox, 14 Pat., 45; Kentucky 1·. GriHith,rl Pet,. ,56; Holmes v. J ennison, 14 Pet..,540; Fulton v. McAffec,16 Pet., 149; City of Mobile 1·. Eslava, 16 Pct., 234; Armstrong •·. Treasurer of Athens Gompmy, 16 Pet., 281; Mills 1-. Brown, 16 Pet., 525; Chouteau v. Eckhart, 2 How., 344; Mackay v. Dillon, 4 How., 421; Pepper r. Dunlap, 5 How., 51; Walker u. Taylor, 5 How., 64; Commercial Bank of Cincinnati r. Buckingha.m’s Exccutors, 5 How., 317; Scott r. Jones, 5 How., 3-L3; Erwin r. Lowry, 7 How., 172; Smith v. Hunter, 7 How., 738; Almonester 1·. Kenton, 9 How., 1; Strader v. Baldwin, 9 How., 261; Doc z·. Eslava, 9 How., 421; Doe 1·. Mobile, 9 How., 451; Henderson v. Tennessee, 10 How., 311; Clements r. Berry, ll How., 398; Webster r. Reid, 11 How., 437; Gill r. Oliver’s Executors, 11 How., 529; Mincrs’ Bank w. Iowa, 12 How., 1; Williams v. Oliver, 12 How., 111; Kzmousc v. Martin, 14 How., 23; Lawler v. Walker, 14 How., 149; State Bank of Ohio v. K'noop, 16 How., 369; Poydras de la Land 1*. Treasurer of Louisiana, 17 How., 1; Heirs of Poydras de la Land z·. Treasurer of Louisiana, 18 How., 192; Calcotc v. Stanton, 18 How., 2-13; U. S. r. Booth, 18 How., 476; Maxwell v. Newbold, 18 How., 511; Cousin v. Blunds Executor, 19 How., 202; Bell v. Heamc, 19 How., 252; Michigan Central Railroad v. Michigan Southern Railroad, 19 How., 379; Burke v. Gaines, 19 How., 388; `vyllll v. Morris, 20 How., 3; Christ Church v. County Philadelphia, 20 How., 26; Withers r. Buckley, 20 How., 84; Moreland 1·. Paige, 20 How., 522; Beers 1·. Arkansas, 20 How., 527; Abelman 1:. Booth, 21 How., 507; White v. Wri§ht, 22 How., 19; Verden r. Coleman, 22 How., 192; Lytle v. Arkansas, 22 How., 193; erthold r. McDonald, 22 How., 334; Medberry v. State of Ohio, 24 How., 413; Porter v. Foley, 24 How., 415; Reddall 1·. Bryan, 24 How., 420; Maguire v. Tyler, 1 Bl., 195; Attome General z-. Féderalmtreet Meeting·House; 1 Bl., 2; Famey v. Towle, 1 Bl., 350; lyjloyt 1·. Shalden, 1 Bl., 518; Taylor v. Morton, 2 Bl., 481; Congdon v. Goodman, 2 B1., 574; Randall v. Howard, 2 Bl., 585; Minnesota 1-. Bahchelder, 1 Wall., 116; Bridge Proprietors r. Hoboken Comlgsny, 1 Wall., 142; Day v. Gallw, 2 Wall., 97; The Bungha.mt,¤n Bridge, 3 Wall., 51; wm r. Campcuu, 3\Vall., 106; l ining Company v. Bag§¤, 3 \VaIl., 304; Buck r. Colbath, 3 Wall., 334; McGuire v. The Commonwealth, 3 Wa ., 382; E1: parte Milligan, 4 Wall., 113; Railroad Company v. Rock, 4 Wall., 177; Lanfiar r. Hunley, 4 Wall., 209; Ryan 1:. Thomas, 4 Wall., 603; Green v. Van Buskirk, 5 Wall., 307; Townsend r. Greeley, 5 Wall., 326; \Valker v. Villavaso, 6 Wall., 124; Rector v. Ashley, 6 Wall., 142; Reichart v. Felps, 6 Wall., 160; Millengar v. Hartupee, 6 Wall., 258; The Victor, 6 Wall., 382; Hamilton Company v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall., 632; The Banks v. Illxc Mayor, 7 Wall., 16; Twitchell 1*. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall., 321; Austin v. The Alderman, 7 Wall., 694; Furman v. Nicholl, 8 Wall., 44; Gibson v. Chauteau, 8 Wall., 314; Aldrich 1·. Etna Company, 8 Wall., 491; Maguire v. Tglpr, 8 Wall., 651; Worthy 1*. The Commisioners, 9 Wal ., 611; Dpwnhsm v. Alcxan na, 9 Wall., 661; Gleason 1-. Florida, 9 Wall., 779; Carpenter v. Williams, 9 Wall., 785; Messenger v. Mason, 10 Wall., 507; Railroad Company v. McClure, 10 Wall.,511; Bethel v. Demorest, 10 Wall., 537; Parmelee an lawrence, 11 Wall., 36; Insurance Company 1-. The Treasurer, 11 Wall., 204; Runkin v. The State, 11 Wall., 380; Knox v. Exchange Bank,