pellant and all of the defendants in the question to be "invalid and groundless." The decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The findings of fact of the Supreme Court are very general. They are only that the appellant had not, at the commencement of the action, any cause of action in respect to the property, and has not now any right, title or interest therein; that the appellee was the owner in fee simple and in possession thereof.

The special rulings of the trial court, which were assigned as errors and affirmed by the Supreme Court, appear in the opinion of the latter court and in the bill of exceptions. These rulings were made upon the introduction in evidence by the appellee to sustain its title of certain judgments rendered by the District Court of Maricopa County. The facts as to these judgments are stated by the Supreme Court as follows:

"It appears that in the District Court of Marieopa County, in the year 1893, the appellant brought suit against the Peoria Canal Company and the Arizona Construction Company and applied for a receiver therein to take possession of the property in controversy in this action. Thereafter the court appointed one James McMillan as such receiver who took possession of the property, and by leave of the court issued a large amount of receiver's certificates to meet the expenses of necessary improvements upon the property. This suit was docketed as number 1728. Pending this action, one W. H. Linn, and others, brought suit in the District Court of Maricopa County, against the appellant and other defendants, alleging in their complaint, among other facts, the pendency of action number 1728, the appointment of the receiver and the issuing of the receiver's certificates, and praying, among other things, that the assets of the Gila Bend Reservoir and Irrigation Company be marshalled and that the receiver take possession of and be directed to sell the property of the said company and from the proceeds of said sale pay the debts adjudged due against it.

"All the parties to this suit, including the Gila Bend Reservoir and Irrigation Company, appeared and answered. A trial was had and judgment was rendered, in which the receiver was directed to sell the property. The record further discloses that a sale was made under this judgment by the receiver, which was affirmed by the court, and a deed executed by the said receiver, to the purchaser, who was one of the grantors of the appellee. This judgment was appealed from to this court, where it was affirmed, and subsequently an appeal was taken by the appellant to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the judgment of this court was affirmed. The latter suit in the court below was docketed as number 1996. The objection which the appellant urged in the court below to the judgment in cause numbered 1996 was that it appears upon the face of the record that the judgment, ordering a sale of the premises by the receiver, was without jurisdiction and void for the reason that no order was made by the court extending the receivership in suit number 1728 to cause number 1996. In passing upon this objection the trial court pointed out that all the parties in the cause number 1728 were parties in cause number 1996, that, when the latter suit was brought, the property was in the hands of the court, through its receiver, and that after the bringing of cause number 1996 the record disclosed that the court and all the parties, including the Gila Bend Reservoir and Irrigation Company, treated the property in possession of the receiver, appointed in cause number 1728, as though it had been placed in his possession as a receiver appointed in cause number 1996, and, further, that orders were made by the court concerning said receivership which were entitled in both suits jointly, and held that, although no order was made consolidating the two suits and no order was in terms made extending the receivership to the second suit number 1996, the receivership was in fact extended to the second suit, and that the court, by its action, ratified the acts of the receiver in the second suit and thereby, in effect, extended his power and authority as such receiver to said second suit.

VOL. CCII-18

"The view thus taken is amply justified by an inspection of the record in the two suits, and upon this ground alone the action of the trial court, in admitting the judgment, was correct."

We concur in this conclusion. The objection made by the appellant to it is, as we have indicated, that suit No. 1996 was a proceeding in rem and that the court did not acquire jurisdiction of the property for the reason that it was in the custody of the court in suit No. 1728, and that the court in the latter case did not extend the receivership to the No. 1996 nor consolidate the suits, and, therefore, had no power to order the sale of the property by the receiver in No. 1728.

This is tantamount to saying that the absence of formal orders by the court must prevail over its essential action. It is clear from the record that the District Court considered the cases pending before it at the same time, considered No. 1996 as the complement of No. 1728, regarded the cases in fact as consolidated, and empowered the receiver appointed in 1728. to sell the property and distribute the proceeds as directed by the decree in 1996. The provision of the decree entered July 21, 1894 (and of the amended decree of November 20, 1894), is as follows:

"It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that James McMillan, the receiver heretofore appointed by this court, and now in possession of said premises under the orders of this court, proceed to advertise and sell said property and distribute the proceeds as directed in the decree."

This decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory and afterwards by this court. The assignments of error, therefore, are without foundation.

Decree affirmed.

202 U. S.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

HULBERT v. CITY OF CHICAGO.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

No. 248. Submitted April 25, 1906.-Decided May 14, 1906.

The mere claim in objections to confirmation of a rule in a proceeding in the County Court to confirm an assessment for paving a street that the act under which the assessment was made was unconstitutional as depriving the objector of his process of law, never afterwards brought to the attention of the trial court or of the Supreme Court of the State, is not a sufficient compliance with § 709, Rev. Stat., in setting up a right under the Constitution of the United States to give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment on writ of error.

According to the practice of Illinois an error not assigned is not open to review in the Supreme Court of the State, and if assigned but not noticed or relied on in the brief or argument of counsel it will be regarded as waived or abandoned, and this court will recognize that rule of practice. It is too late to raise the Federal question by a statement in the writ of error and petition for citation that constitutional rights and privileges were involved and decided by the highest court of the State against plaintiff in error, even if the Chief Justice of that court allowed the writ.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. George W. Wilbur for plaintiff in error:

The act entitled, "An Act Concerning Local Improvements," passed June 14, 1897, and amendments thereto, is contrary to section 2, article 2, and section 9, article 9, of the constitution of Illinois.

The board of local improvements is not a municipal corporation, and it has no authority to make special assessments. Harward v. St. Clair & M. L. & D. Co., 51 Illinois, 130; Cornell v. People, 107 Illinois, 372; Updike v. Wright, 91 Illinois, 49; Gage v. Graham, 57 Illinois, 144; Dunham v. People, 96 Illinois, 331; Wetherell v. Devine, 116 Illinois, 631; Snell v. Chicago, 133 Illinois, 413; The People v. Knopf, 171 Illinois, 191.

Sections 42 and 84 of said act are unconstitutional and void

Argument for Defendant in Error.

202 U.S.

because they interfere with right of contract by fixing the rate of interest on assessments and improvement bonds at five per cent. Ritchie v. People, 155 Illinois, 98; McChesney v. People, 200 Illinois, 146; Adams v. Brennan, 177 Illinois, 194; Frorer v. People, 141 Illinois, 171; Millett v. People, 117 Illinois, 294; Bailey v. People, 190 Illinois, 28.

Mr. James Hamilton Lewis, Mr. Charles H. Mitchell and Mr. Frank Johnston, Jr., for defendant in error:

The question of the constitutionality of the Local Improvement Act of Illinois of June 14, 1897, cannot be reviewed by this court for the reason that this question was not decided nor even noticed in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and the record does not show that it was called to the attention of that court. In order to give this court the power to reëxamine the judgment of the state court, the title, right, privilege or immunity must be specially set up or claimed at the proper time and in the proper way, and the right on which the party relies must have been called to the attention of the court in some proper way, and the decision of the court must have been against the right claimed. Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler Co., 166 U. S. 648; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180; Levy v. Sup. Ct. of San Francisco, 167 U. S. 175, 177; C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 164 U. S. 454, 457; Ansbro v. United States, 159 U. S. 695, 698; Hoyt v. Shelden, 1 Black, 518, 521; Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Illinois, 175 U. S. 626. Although the state court may have decided a Federal question, it must appear that the particular Federal question sought to be raised here was also decided. Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 248; Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127.

The fact that the opinion of the state court makes no reference to the particular question sought to be presented in this court, may be considered in determining whether the question was called to the attention of the state court. Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648, 653, 655; Kipley v. Illinois, 170 U. S. 182, 186; C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 164 U. S.