1. A case coming into this Court from the circuit court on a
writ of error issued under the 22d section of the Judiciary Act,
when the record shows that no exception was taken below, is not to
be treated like a case with a similar record which comes up from a
state court under the 26th section.
2. In a case which comes from a state court under the 25th
section, it must appear by the record that some one of the
questions stated in that section arose and was determined,
otherwise this Court is wholly without jurisdiction and can only
dismiss the writ.
3. If the cause is brought up from a circuit court, it is to be
either affirmed or reversed, and it will of course be affirmed if
the record does not present some ground of reversal.
This was a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United
States for the District of Massachusetts. It was like the case
of
Page 67 U. S. 482
Curtis v. Fiedler, supra, an action of assumpsit
against a collector of customs for exacting excessive duties on an
importation of hemp from Russia. The questions raised and argued in
the court below were the same as those presented to the Circuit
Court of New York in
Curtis v. Fiedler, but they were
decided differently, the verdict and judgment in this case being in
favor of the defendant, and it was the plaintiff who took this writ
of error. It did not, however, appear from the record that the
ruling of the court on any question of law was objected to on the
trial, and there was no bill of exceptions which made either the
evidence or the instructions of the court a part of the record.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD.
Suit was brought by the present plaintiffs against the defendant
as the Collector of the Customs for the Port of Boston and
Charlestown to recover back an alleged excess of duties exacted of
the plaintiffs by the defendant on certain unmanufactured hemp
imported by them from Russia in 1846. According to the transcript,
the action was entered at the May Term, 1847, and was thence
continued from term to term to the May Term, 1854, when the parties
went to trial upon the general issue. Duties charged on the hemp
were $40 per ton, whereas
Page 67 U. S. 483
it was insisted by the plaintiffs that the charge should have
been but $25 per ton, because by the 6th and 7th articles of the
Treaty between the United States and Russia, it is stipulated to
the effect that no higher rate of duty shall be imposed on
importations from Russia than on like articles from the most
favored nations, and by the Tariff Act of the 30th of August, 1842,
the duty imposed on manila, sunn, and other hemps of India, was but
$25 per ton. Evidence was introduced on both sides, but the record
states that when the evidence was all in, it was agreed that the
case should be taken from the jury and submitted to the court, with
authority to draw all such inferences of fact as a jury would be
authorized to draw from the evidence, and that a verdict should be
entered and judgment should be rendered for the plaintiffs or
defendant, as the court should think proper upon the law and the
evidence.
Accordingly a report of the case was made and signed by the
counsel of the respective parties. Whether the parties were ever
heard upon this report does not very satisfactorily appear, nor
does it appear that any decision was ever made by the court. On the
contrary, the record subsequently states that the
ad
damnum of the writ, on motion of the plaintiff, was increased,
by leave of court, from $2,000 to $2,500, and it also states, among
other things, that the case was submitted under instructions from
the court to a jury duly sworn to try the same, who thereupon
returned their verdict that the defendant did not promise in manner
and form as the plaintiffs have declared against him. Judgment was
accordingly entered for the defendant, and the plaintiffs sued out
this writ of error and removed the cause into this Court. They did
not, however, except to the instructions of the court, and there is
no bill of exceptions in the record, nor is there any assignment of
errors of any kind. All that appears is the before-mentioned
statement that the case was submitted to the jury under
instructions from the court, but the instructions are not given,
and there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
1. When a suit is brought into this Court by a writ of error
from a state court under the 25th section of the judiciary act,
it
Page 67 U. S. 484
must appear on the face of the record in order to maintain the
jurisdiction that some one of the questions stated in that section
did arise in the state court, and that the question so appearing
was decided in the state court, as required in the same section,
and if it does not so appear on the record, then this Court has no
jurisdiction to affirm or reverse, and the writ of error must be
dismissed.
2. But the writ of error in this case was sued out under the 22d
section of the judiciary act, which provides in effect that final
judgments in a circuit court, brought there by original process,
may be reexamined and reversed or affirmed in this Court upon a
writ of error. Consequently, when a cause is brought into this
Court upon a writ of error sued out under that section and all the
proceedings are regular and correct, it follows from the express
words of the section that the judgment of the court below must be
affirmed, although there is no question presented in the record for
revision.
Minor v.
Tellotson, 1 How. 287;
Stevens v.
Gladding, 19 How. 64;
Suydam
v. Williamson, 20 How. 440.
The judgment of the Circuit court, therefore, is affirmed
with costs.
