It has been held that an order which is purely administrative in its nature, such as an order granting leave to sue a served with process, who were charged as jointly liable with the defendant served, was held to be not appealable. Beck & Pauli Lith. Co. v. Wacker & B. B. M. Co. (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R. 10. See also Meagher v. Minn. Thr. Co., 145 U. S. 608. It has been held that the following orders and decrees in equity are not final, and cannot be reviewed by appeal: An order directing money to be paid into court, Pulliam v. Christian, 6 How. 209; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232; Louisiana Bank v. Whitney, 121 U. S. 284; an order directing the delivery of property to a receiver, Brown v. Swann, 9 Pet. 1; McCollum v. Eager, 2 How. 61; Thomas & Co. v. Wooldridge, 23 Wall. 283; Grant v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 106 U. S. 429. Contra, Potter v. Beal (C. C. A.), 50 Fed. R. 860; City of Eau Claire v. Payson (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R. 552. See Re McKenzie, 180 U. S. 536; Tornanses v. Melsing (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 775; 31 St. at L. 660; supra, 238; an order directing the delivery of property to a new trustee appointed by the court, when another matter is reserved for further consideration, Pulliam v. Christian, 6 How. 209; but see Winthrop Iron Co. v. Meeker, 109 U. S. 180; an order dissolving an injunction, Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U. S. 121; a decree staying proceedings till the entry of a decree of a State court or the further order of the Federal court, Merriman v. Chicago & E. L. Co. (C. C. A.), 64 Fed. R. 535; an order directing a sale which does not describe the property to be sold sufficiently specifically to warrant an immediate sale, Railroad Co. v. Swasey, 23 Wall. 405; an order directing a sale which does not appoint the time of sale, Buckingham v. McLean, 13 How. 150; Parsons v. Robinson, 122 U. S. 112; an order setting aside a final decree where the appellant has obtained leave to amend, Fisher v. Simon (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. 387; a decree upon a cross-bill which does not dispose of the original bill, Ex parte Railroad Co., 95 U. S. 221; Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591; Winters v. Ethell, 132 U. S. 207; a decree in a partition suit which adjudges that the appellees are owners each of oneeighth of the property, and refers the matter to a master to proceed to a partition, Green v. Fisk, 103 U. S. 518; see also Perkins v. Fourniquet, 6 How. 206; Elder v. McClaskey (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 529; a decree of affirmance which does not tax costs nor specify the sum for which it is rendered, Wheeler v. Harris, 13 Wall. 51; The Lucille, 19 Wall. 73; but see Fowler v. Hamill, 139 U. S. 549; contra of affirmance upon writ of error, Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gen. try, 163 U. S. 353, 363; an order or decree denying relief except upon the performance of certain conditions, Barker v. Craig, 127 U. S. 213; Stratton v. Dewey (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R 32; unless it clearly appears that the appellant has refused to comply with the conditions, Tuttle v. Claflin (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 7. A docket entry, "Opinion-Decree for complainants," is not a decree and so not appealable till a formal decree has been entered thereupon. Herrick v. Cutcheon (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 6. A statement on the records of the court: "Court order October 26, 1893. Writ dismissed; prisoner remanded. Reg. ister 2 of Departments 1 to 10, page 249," is not a final judgment nor an order, and is not reviewable. Clarke v. McDade, 165 U. S. 168, 171. Where, after certain property had been sold under a trust deed executed to secure three promissory 14 receiver, and an order which is purely incidental to a previous final judgment or decree previously entered, such as an order after a judgment or decree for possession directing the notes to the holder of two of the notes, an action was brought by the holder of the remaining note to set aside the sale, and for an account of the rents collected, and of the amount due upon the notes held by each, and the special term of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia set aside the sale by an order from which an immediate appeal was taken, an order of the general term, reviewing the order below, ratifying and confirming the sale, and remanding the cause to the special term " for further proceedings," was held not to be a final order within the meaning of the statute allowing appeals from that court to the Supreme Court of the United States. Dainese v. Kendall, 119 U. S. 53. No appeal can be taken from a decree setting aside one sale and ordering another, Butterfield v. Usher, 91 U. S. 246; except by the purchaser at the sale. Blossom v. Milwaukee & C. R. Co., 1 Wall. 655. See infra, § 505. But see Grant v. Lowe (C. C. A.), 89 Fed. R. 881. Nor from a decree setting aside an assignment and directing a reference to determine the rights of creditors. Talley v. Curtain (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R. 4. Nor from an order discharging a previous order to the marshal to seize property of the defendant. Riddle v. Hudgins (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R. 490. Nor from a decree directing an account to be taken of rents and proceeds of lands with an option to appellant to purchase them and leave certain other questions to be decided thereafter. Crawford v. Points, 13 How. 11. No appeal can be taken from a decree to take an account upon evidence and report to the court. Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283. A decree that the plaint iff recover of the defendant the highest market value of certain bonds, to be ascertained by the court in special term, is not a final decree where the amount has not been ascertained. Follansbee v. Ballard Pav. Co., 154 U. S. 651. Where a decree dismissed a bill with costs, but contained a recital declaring that the patent on which the complainant sued was valid, it was said that the defendant could not appeal from that part of the decree. Corning v. Troy Iron & N. Factory, 15 How. 451, 465. The following decrees in admiralty were held not final, and consequently not appealable: A decree of restitution with costs and damages, when the court had taken no action on the report of the commissioners appointed to ascertain the damages before the appeal was taken. The Palmyra, 10 Wheat. 502. A decree on a libel in personam, for damages to be recovered, which appointed commissioners to ascertain the amount of the damages. Chace v. Vasquez, 11 Wheat. 429. A decree stating that the sum claimed by a petitioner was due from the fund in court, but that since the fund might not satisfy all claims, no order for payment would be made until further advised. Montgomery v. Anderson, 21 How. 386. A decree upon a libel claiming the condemnation of a schooner and cargo, which condemned the schooner, but made no mention of the cargo. Dayton v. U. S., 131 U. S. 1xxx. A decree dismissing a claim for a portion of the property libeled is final, and an appeal will lie therefrom. Withenbury v. U. S., 5 Wall. 819. 14 N. Y. Security & Tr. Co. v. Illi 15 issue of a writ of habere facias possessionem, an order granting leave to file a bill of exceptions,16 and an order of the lower court pending an appeal, directing a reference to ascertain whether a tenant should pay rent to the defendant or to a receiver previously appointed," are not appealable. Where, in pursuance of a special act of Congress, the Court of Claims reopened a case in which judgment had been rendered for the claimant, and, as a part of the original judgment, awarded him a further sum, which had been omitted by mistake, the order adjudging the additional sum was held merged in the original judgment, an appeal from which was barred by the lapse of time, and consequently not appealable.18 A judgment of the Court of Claims which is purely advisory is not appealable.19 3 § 504. Value of the matter in dispute upon writs of error and appeals. The final judgments and decrees of the State courts are reviewed by the Supreme Court;1 the final judgments and decrees of the Circuit and District Courts, except perhaps those of the District Courts in bankruptcy, are reviewed, by the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals; the interlocutory orders of the Circuit and District Courts and of the District Court of Hawaii appointing receivers and granting or continuing injunctions, the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Courts of the Continental Territories 5 and of the District Court of Hawaii," and the judgments of the District Courts adjudging and refusing to adjudge the defendants bankrupts and granting or denying a discharge, are reviewed by the Circuit Courts of Appeals, in the respective cases of which these appellants have jurisdiction: without regard to the amount involved. The judgments of the District nois Transfer R. Co. (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 710. Cf. Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. R. 254; supra, § 243, note. 15 Callan v. May, 2 Black, 541. 16 Honey v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R. 773. 17 Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 121 U. S. 118. 18 U. S. v. Grant, 110 U. S. 225. 19 In re Sanborn, 148 U. S. 222; supra, § 497. $504. U. S. R. S., § 709; Buel v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312; supra, § 501. 2 26 St. at L. 826, 827, §§ 5, 6; No. Pac. R. Co. v. Amato, 144 U. S. 465; S. C. (C. C. A.), 49 Fed. R. 881; The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677. 3 26 St. at L. 828, § 7; supra, § 238a. 5 26 St. at L. 826, § 15. 730 St. at L. 544, 553, § 25; supra, § 494. 8 Courts in bankruptcy which allow or reject a claim of five hundred dollars or over are reviewed by the Circuit Courts of Appeals. The final judgments of the Circuit Courts of Appeals, allowing or rejecting a claim in bankruptcy, are reviewed by the Supreme Court, irrespective of the amount involved, whenever a justice of the Supreme Court certifies that in his opinion the determination of the question or questions involved in the rejection or allowance of the claim is essential to a uniform construction of the bankruptcy law throughout the United States; and where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of two thousand dollars and the question involved is one which might have been taken on appeal or writ of error from the highest court of a State to the Supreme Court of the United States.10 The final judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeals in all other cases, where the decisions of these courts are not final, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States by appeal or writ of error, as the case may be, where the matter in controversy exceeds one thousand dollars besides costs." The judgments and decrees of those courts in all other cases may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by certiorari, irrespective of the amount involved. The judgments and decrees of the Supreme Courts of the Continental Territories,13 of the Supreme Court and the District Court of Porto Rico, and of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia,15 are reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the cases of which it has otherwise jurisdiction, irrespective of the amount involved, whenever there is involved the validity of any patent or copyright, or there is drawn in question the validity of a treaty, or a statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States; 16 and in other cases of which the Supreme Court has otherwise jurisdiction where the value of the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of five thousand dollars, which in the case of the Territories and Porto Rico should be ascertained by the oath of any party 830 St. at L. 544, 553, § 25; supra, § 494. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 26 St. at L. 826, 829, § 6. 12 Ibid.; supra, § 499. 13 23 St. at L. 443; supra, § 498. 14 31 St. at L. 85, § 35. 14 15 31 St. at L. 1227; D. C. Code, §§ 233, 1227; supra, § 498. 16 Ibid.; Maricopa & P. R. Co. v. Territory of Arizona, 156 U. S. 347; Springville City v. Thomas, 166 U. S. 707. or other competent witness.17 All other judgments and decrees of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States by certiorari irrespective of the amount involved.18 The judgments of the Court of Claims may be reviewed by appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, in case of a suit on a claim against the United States, where the amount in controversy exceeded three thousand dollars or his claim was forfeited to the United States for fraud, and on behalf of the United States in all cases decided adversely to them.19 The judgments of the Court of Private Land Claims may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States irrespective of the amount involved.20 Where the right to an appeal or writ of error depends on the value of the matter in dispute, such value must be estimable in money. Consequently, in such cases, where the matter in dispute is the right to personal liberty or the right to the custody of a child, by habeas corpus or otherwise," the right to a divorce in which no alimony is sought or granted," the right to a patent, or a trade-mark," or the right to prevent a discharge in bankruptcy," no appeal or writ of error can be maintained. The value of the matter in dispute at the time of the entry of the judgment is alone to be considered, including interest accrued before judgment and therein included. No 23 17 U. S. R. S., § 702; 23 St. at L. 443; 31 St. at L. 85, § 35; supra, § 498. 18 31 St. at L 1227; D. C. Code, § 234. 19 U. S. R. S., § 707; 24 St. at L. 506, S9; supra, § 457. county seat. Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167. A county clerk who is not shown to be a taxpayer has no pecuniary interest in the assessment of property there for taxation. Caf 20 26 St. at L 854, §§ 9, 14; supra, frey v. Oklahoma Territory, 177 U. S. § 472. 21 Lee v. Lee, 8 Pet. 44; Pratt v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black, 271; Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 103; Lau Ow Bew v. U.S., 144 U. S. 47; Perrine v. Slack, 164 U. S. 452; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82. 344, 346. See also Cameron v. U. S., 146 U. S. 533. 26 Bank of U. S. v. Daniel, 12 Peters, 32; Walker v. U. S., 4 Wall. 163. 27 Quebec S. S. Co. v. Merchant, 133 U. S. 375; Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610; Mass. Ben. L. Ass'n v. Miles, 137 22 Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 162, U. S. 689. But not interest added 166. by an ex parte amendment of the 23 Durham v. Seymour, 161 U. S. judgment on the defendant's mo235. tion. No. Pac. R. Co. v. Booth, 152 24 South Carolina v. Seymour, 153 U. S. 671. As to the method of calU.S. 353. 25 Huntington v. Saunders, 163 U. S. 319. So held of the right to a culating the interest when there have been payments on account of the principal, see Woodward v. Jew |