(The Richmond, 103 U. S. 510.) A decree of the circuit court will not be reversed by the Supreme Court upon a mere doubt produced by conflicting testimony (The Marcellus. 1 Black, 414; the Water Witch, 1 Black, 394; The Potomac, 1 Black, 581; Phila. W. & B. R. Co. v. Towboat Co., 23 How. 209; Moorwood v. Enequest, 23 How. 491; Newell v. Norton, 3 Wall. 257; The Hypodame, 6 Wall. 217; Mephams v. Bressel, 9 Wall. 370; The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665; The S. B. Wheeler, 20 Wall. 285); nor will a decree of the district court affirmed by the circuit court be reversed upon a mere difference of opinion as to the force of such testimony (The Juniata, 93 U. S. 337), and where there is a concurrence in the opinion of the circuit and district courts in a case of collision, and testimony is not wanting to support their decision, mere doubts will not be sufficient to reverse the decree. (The Hypodame, 6 Wall. 217; The Grace Girdler, 7 Wall. 196; The Commerce, 16 Wall. 33) All the testimony in the case will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and an error of fact, if plainly proved, is as sufficient to reverse a decree as an error at law (The Lady Pike, 2 Wall. 1; The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 377), for the facts and law of the case are equally open to revision on appeal, as Congress intended that the whole merits of the contests should be examined and decided upon (The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 377); and the correctness of the decision of the court below will be assumed until it is proved to the contrary. (The Potomac, 2 Black, 581; The Vaughan, 14 Wall. 258.) Where the appeal involves only questions of fact, the burden of showing error is on the appellant. (United States v. One Hundred and Twelve Casks, 8 Peters, 277; The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 377.) A sentence is entirely suspended by an appeal, and until the appellate court pronounces the final sentence the case is not res adjudicata. The appellate court hears the case as though no sentence had been passed. (Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch, 281.) Decrees as to the amount of salvage are not usually interfered with by the Supreme Court unless a palpable error or gross overallowance has been made by the subordinate court. Appeals should not be encouraged in matters of discretion, unless upon some transgression of just principles which ought to regulate the subject (Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Peters, 108); nor will a decree for costs be interfered with under usual circumstances (United States v. The Malek Adhel, 2 How. 210), for the matter of costs per se is not properly appealable, but when the principal decree with which it is connected is before the court for examination, the matter of costs can be noticed incidentally only. (United States v. The Malek Adhel, 2 How. 210.) Where a law has expired or is repealed, violations committed while it was in force cannot be subsequently made the ground for punishment or penalty, unless it is specially so provided by statute. (United States v. The Helen, Cranch, 203; Rachel v. United States, 6 Cranch, 329; Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch, 281; United States v. Preston, 3 Peters, 57.) Where a second appeal is taken, the proceedings on the first appeal will be brought up in order that the Supreme Court may determine whether the mandate has been properly executed (Mitchell v. United States, 15 Peters, 52; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431). and only the proceedings subsequent to the mandate will be examined, and no inquiry is authorized to be made into the merits of the original decree. (Williains v. Gibbs, 20 How. 535; United States v. Four Hundred and Twenty-two Cases, 1 Peters, 547; Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S. 498; The Lady Pike, 96 U. S. 461; Browder v. M'Arthur, 7 Wheat. 58; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431.) The amendment of a libel in order to give jurisdiction is not allowed where jurisdiction was not had when the appeal was taken (Udall v. The Ohio, 17 How. 17); and a libel cannot be materially amended in the Supreme Court. (The Mabry, 10 Wall. 419) A defect of jurisdiction of the circuit court, as shown by the transcript, cannot be remedied by agreement or consent, for jurisdiction cannot be so given. (Mordecai v. Lindsey, 19 How. 199; Montgomery v. Anderson, 21 How 386.) All securities given by the parties to await the final decree are left in the

ircuit court, to which is sent the mandate of the Supreme Court, which loes not execute its own decrees. (Hayfard v. Griffith, 3 Blatchf. 34; The Collector, 6 Wheat. 194.) Costs may be refused to either party when here is a cause for the prosecution (United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat. 1); and the reversal of the case n the libelant's favor upon a ground not urged in the subordinate court will be without costs. (Dupont v. Vance, 19 How. 162.) In a salvage case he owner is entitled to an appeal where the sum decreed exceeds five housand dollars, although the circuit court apportioned the recovery mong co-salvors. (The Connemara, 103 U. S. 754.) The findings of fact 1 admiralty cases is conclusive, and only rulings upon questions of law an be reviewed by bill of exceptions. (The Benefactor, 102 U. S, 214; ffirming the Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440.)

Jurisdictional amounts.-Where the value of the thing is to be ated, affidavits will not be received to vary the value appearing on the cord; but where the question is nowhere disclosed by the record, affiavits and counter-affidavits may be allowed to establish the jurisdiction. Red River Cattle Co. v. Needham, 137 U. S. 632; Course v. Skad, 4 U. S. ; Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 U. S. 19; and see Rush v. Parker, 9 U. S. 37: Talkington v. Dumbleton, 123 U. S. 745; Zeigler v. Hopkins, 117 U.S. 33; Wilson v. Blair, 119 U. S. 387; Gage v. Pumpelly, 108 U.S. 164.) Where aintiffs claim part of a tract, of a value not over $2,000, this court has o jurisdiction. though the whole tract is worth $10 000. (Vicksburg etc. . Co. v. Smith, 135 U. S. 195; Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578; Opelika ity v. Daniel, 109 U. S. 108; Bruce v. Manchester etc. R. Co., 117 U. S. 4; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27.) Where plaintiff recovers over $2,000 clusive of interest and cost, and defendant brings error for failure to rever anything on his counterclaim of $6,000, the aggregate amount is suffient to give this court jurisdiction. (Sire v. Ellithorpe A. B. Co., 137 U.S. 9.) The claim of one appellant being for less than $5,000, is insufficient to ve this court jurisdiction, and the appeal therefore must be dismissed as to at company. (Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. 27; George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. v. McGroarty, 136 U. S. 237.) here the action is against the property itself in the nature of a suit in m, and the judgment is against the property, and the claim in the crossl grows out of the property, the amount thereof may be taken into acunt in determining the jurisdiction of this court. (Lovell v. Cragin, 136 S. 130.) Where judgment does not exceed $5.000 the case can come up this court only on the question of jurisdiction. (25 U. S. Stats. 693; Mcormick Harv. M. B. v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41.) Where part of plaintiff's im is undisputed the balance must amount to $5,000 to give jurisdiction. orman v. Havard, 141 U. S. 206; 35 L. Ed. 717.) For examples of the disaction between the sum actually demanded and the sum actually in diste, see Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337; Schacker v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 93 S. 241; Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564; 24 U. S. 1108; Tintsman v. First t. Bank, 100 U. S. 6; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165; Jenness v. sizens Nat. Bank, 110 U. S. 52; Wabash etc. R. Co. v. Knox, 110 U. S. 304.) several persons be joined in a suit in equity or admiralty, and have a nmon and undivided interest, though separable as between themselves, e amount of their joint claim or liability will be test of jurisdiction; where their interests are distinct, and they are joined for the sake of venience only, and because they form a class of parties whose nights liabilities arose out of the same transaction, or have relation to a comn fund or mass of property sought to be administered, such distinct nands or liabilities cannot be aggregated together for the purpose of ing this court jurisdiction. (Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27; Henderv. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 264; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61; Hawv. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543; Farmers L. & T. Co. v. Waterman, 106 U. 265; Russell v. Stansell, 105 U. S. 303; Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208; y v. Field, 133 U. S. 464.) Where the claim of one appellant is for FED. PROC. 45.

ap

less than $5,000, the appeal will be dismissed as to him; where the claim of another appellant is more than $10,000, this court has jurisdiction of the appeal as to such claim. (George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. v. McGroarty, 136 U. S. 237.) In a suit by general creditors on one of whose debts exceeds five thousand dollars, the decree having set aside a conveyance in trust for creditors as fraudulent, the appeal as to all other claimants claiming less than that amount will be dismissed on motion. (Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27; followed in Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366; Bruce v. Manchester etc. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514; Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 112 U. S. 227; Wabash etc. R. Co. v. Knox, 110 U. S. 304; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61.) In an action by a legatee against the executor and three other defendants to compel the latter to turn over to the executor bank-books and moneys entered therein, this court has not jurisdiction on peal where the amount represented by each of the three bankbooks did not exceed the sum of $1,792.61, and the interest of the plaintiff in the aggregate sum under the will as legatee was only one-sixth thereof, or $896.30. (Miller v. Clark, 138 U. S. 223.) The circuit court has jurisdiction of a suit in equity to compel payment of stock subscriptions, and where the trust fund administered and ordered to be distributed amounts to more than $5,000 this court has jurisdiction on appeal. (Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366.) Such a bill can be maintained by one or more for benefit of all, and not by one alone for his own benefit, and the amount of the fund, and not the amount to an individual creditor governs the jurisdiction. (Id., Sawyer v. Hoag, 84 U. S. 610; 21 L. Ed. 731; Patterson v. Lynden; 106 U. S. 519; Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640.) Where the amount is insufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the whole case its jurisdiction is confined to answering questions of law presented by certificate of division between the judges. Union Nat. Bk. v. Bank of Kansas City, 136 U. S. 223; Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158; U. S. v. Ambrose, 108 U. S. 336; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426.)

Amount in controversy.-The jurisdiction depends upon the amount in dispute, and not upon the amount of any contingent loss or damage sustained by one of the parties in a decision against him. (Ross v. Prentiss, 3 How. 771.) An appeal will be dismissed where the value of the matter in dispute is not shown to exceed five thousand dollars (Crooks v. The St. Charles, 19 How. 116; Richmond v. Milwaukee, 21 How. 80; Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564; Banking Assoc. v. Ins. Assoc., 102 U. S. 121); and the petition of appeal alleging such value is sufficient evidence of that fact if verified. (May v. Sloan, 101 U. S. 231.) Affidavits of the value will not be received where the value is stated in the pleadings or proceedings in the circuit court, and a case will not be postponed in order to have such affidavits produced; nor can such affidavits be filed after the dismissal of the case for want of jurisdiction (Richmond v. Milwaukee, 21 How. 391; see Rush v. Parker, 5 Cranch, 287.) In an admiralty case time may be given for the filing of affidavits to show that the interest of the appellaut exceeds five thousand dollars, where the record omits to so show (The Grace v. Girdler, 6 Wall. 441), for an appeal will not lie to the Supreme Court where the judgment of the circuit court is less than five thousand dollars (Merrill v. Petty, 16 Wall. 338); and where the circuit court reverses a judgment for eighteen hundred dollars in favor of a libelant who took no appeal, an appeal will not lie to the Supreme Court. (The D. R. Martin, 91 U. S. 365.) Where the libelant appeals, jurisdiction is not given by a claim for eighteen hundred dollars and upwards, for it is too indefinite (Olney v. The Falcon, 17 How. 19); nor will jurisdiction be given by a computation of interest unless specially claimed in the libel. (Udall v. The Ohio, 17 How. 17; Olney v. The Falcon, 17 How. 19.) In order to determine what the value in contest was at the time of the appeal, where the decree permits interest to the date

thereof, the interest and principal must be taken together, and in case the sum exceeds five thousand dollars an appeal will lie. The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451; The Rio Grande, 19 Wall. 178.) An apraisement in an admiralty case is the best evidence of the value of the natter in contest, where it is made by order of the court and is regularly returned and filed, and it cannot be overturned by affidavits (U. S. v. The Union, 4 Cranch, 216); and in a salvage case the test of jurisdiction is the mount of salvage in dispute, and not the value of the vessel or cargo. Spear v. Place, 11 How. 522.) Each claim of several claims filed by paries having separate interest must be considered separately, and an appeal vill not lie by the salvors where the amount against any particular claimnt is less than five thousand dollars, although the whole amount exceeds hat sum (Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347; Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Peters, 4); nd where a claim in an admiralty case exceeding five thousand dollars is not allowed, the party may appeal, although no claim allowed exceeds hat sum (Rodd v. Hearth, 17 Wall. 354); and where the claim of one party xceeds that sum a motion to dismiss the appeal cannot be granted, Ithough the other claims are less than that sum (The Rio Grande, 19 Wall. 78); and although one person represents the interest of several parties, et the claim of each is covered by a separate decree, and either party annot appeal unless his claim exceeds that sum. (Spear v. Place, 11 low. 522; Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347; Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Peters, 13; Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Peters, 4.) There is no distinction as to the rivilege of appeal from a decree entered in a case where several owners E cargo join in a libel for damages to the cargo, from that which exists in case where a distinct and separate libel is filed by each party. A party nnot appeal where his claim does not exceed five thousand dollars (Rich Lambert, 12 How. 347; nor can a libelant appeal where the libel is disissed, unless it is shown on the face of the libel that the claim exceeds ve thousand dollars. (Udall v. The Ohio, 17 How. 17); nor where two rties claim separate portions in a libel filed to recover freight on cargo in one of the parties appeal from a decree entered against him for a stinct sum less than five thousand dollars. (Clifton v. Sheldon, 23 ow. 481.) Where a joinder of parties having separate interests is rmitted for convenience and to save expense in a contest of an mount less than five thousand dollars, an appeal will not lie from a cree against them (Seaver v. Bigelow, 5 Wall. 208); and in a dispute upon e distribution of a fund among creditors, an appeal cannot be taken as ainst one creditor unless the one appealing has a share in the sum arded the other exceeding five thousand dollars, if that claim were nied. (Terry v. Hatch, 93 U. S. 44.) Where distinct and separate judgents for less than five thousand dollars are held by several creditors, who e a bill to reach a fund of more than that amount declared to be fraudutly held by the defendant, an appeal cannot be taken from a decree missing the bill (Seaver v. Bigelow, 5 Wall. 208); and where a bill is d by the mortgagee to prevent a sale of a lot under an execution on ich the amount claimed is less than five thousand dollars, he can take appeal from a decree dismissing the bill, even though the values of the and mortgage are each more than that sum, for the amount claimed the execution is the only matter of dispute (Ross v. Prentiss, 3 How. ); and where a bill is filed to enforce the specific performance of a conct, the value of the right under which is less than five thousand dollars, appeal cannot be taken from a decree against the defendant. (Brown Shannon, 20 How. 55.) Where parties legally representing an intestate a bill to enforce a decree previously obtained against a party who approated the estate to his own use, he may take an appeal from a decree ered against him for a sum exceeding five thousand dollars, although prior decree apportioned the same among such representatives in res of less than five thousand dollars each. (Shields v. Thomas, How. 3.) Where an agent secretly buys in a lot at a sale under

a decree in favor of his principal, and then sells it again to recover the amount of the decree or the amount of the money obtained by the second sale, and a bill is filed against him, an appeal will not lie where the decree under which the sale was made amounts with interest to less than five thousand dollars. (Sewall v. Chamberlain, 5 How. 6.) The defendant may appeal from a decree of more than five thousand dollars entered against him. (Bank v. Daniel, 12 Peters, 32.) An estimation of the value of the matter in dispute cannot be made by referring to the penalty of a bond taken upon granting an in!unction. (Brown v. Shannon, 20 How. 55.) The date of the decree in the circuit court is referred to by the expression, sum, or value of the matter in contest. (Bank v. Daniel, 12 Peters, 32.) Where the claimant sets off the freight by permission of the circuit court in the entry of a decree for damages to the cargo for a sum exceeding five thousand dollars, and a decree is then entered for less thar ive thousand dellars, an appeal will not lie, although the right to appeal was reserved in the election to set off the freight. (Sampson v. Welch, 24 How. 207.) Where the proceeds of a sale of a vessel libeled for a forfeiture are deposited in the court to abide the final decree without prejudice to either party, an appeal will not lie to the Supreme Court where such proceeds are less than five thousand dollars, although the value of the vessel is conceded by both parties to be more than that sum. (Gruner v. U. S., 11 How. 163.) The case as it existed at the time when the appeal was taken governs the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the question is not affected by any subsequent action of the circuit court in the sale of property (U. S. v. Eighty-four Boxes, 7 Peters, 453); and a decree of condemnation may be appealed from where the value of the property libeled for an alleged violation of revenue laws exceeds five thousand dollars, although the property is sold after the appeal is taken for a sum which, deducting the duties thereon, is less than that amount. (U. S. v. Eighty-four Boxes, 7 Peters, 453.)

Amount in controversy.-When the record in the court below is silent as to the value of the matter in dispute, it is good practice for that court to allow affidavits and counter-affidavits of value to be filed under directions from the court. (Wilson v. Blair, 119 U. S. 387.) This court cannot take cognizance of a case where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, does not exceed the sum or value of five thousand dollars. (R. S. secs. 690, 691; Act of Feb. 16, 1875, chap. 77, secs. 3, 4, 18; Stat. at L. 315; R. S. Supp. 136; Cogswell v. Fordyce, 128 U. S. 391.) Under the fourth subdivision of section 699 of the Revised Statutes, this court may, without regard to the sum or value in dispute, review any final judgment at law or final decree in equity of any circuit court, or of any district court acting as a circuit court. "In any case brought on account of the deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, or any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States," does not include an action upon a bond given to supersede judgment or decree. (Cogswell v. Fordyce, 128 U. S. 13.)

§ 692 a. Review of judgments and decrees entered on findings. That the circuit courts of the United States, in deciding causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the instance side of the court, shall find the facts and the conclusions of law upon which it renders its judgments or decrees, and shall state the facts and conclusions of law separately. And in finding the facts, as before provided, said court may, upon the consent of the parties who shall have appeared and put any matter of fact in issue, and subject to such general rules in the premises as shall be made and provided from time to time, impannel a jury of not less than five and not more than twelve persons, to whom shall be submitted the issues of fact in such causes, under the direction of the court, as in cases at common law. And the finding of such jury, unless set aside for lawful cause, shall be entered of record, and stand as the finding of the court, upon which judgment shall be entered vcording to law. The re