This court takes judicial knowledge of facts known to every one as to the
distance between two neighboring cities and the time necessary to travel
from one to the other. McNichols v. Pease, 100.

JUDICIAL POWER.

See JURISDICTION;
RAILROADS, 4.

JURISDICTION.

A. OF THIS COURT.

1. Federal question; existence of for purposes of review by this court.
Although the state court may refer to and uphold the statute, the constitu-
tionality of which is attacked, if it does so after stating the rule at com-
mon law and that the statute is merely declaratory thereof the judgment
is based on the common law rule and no Federal question exists that
this court can review. Arkansas Southern R. R. Co. v. German Bank,
270.

2. What constitutes Federal question to give jurisdiction.
Where, at the request of the accused, the question of the voluntary nature
of a written confession has been submitted to the jury no constitutional
right under the Fifth Amendment has been asserted and denied and
errors assigned on that subject do not present any Federal question or
furnish any basis for the jurisdiction of this court. Kent v. Porto Rico,
113.

3. Federal question; determination of existence of-Avoidance of Federal issue
by state court.

While this court is not concluded by the judgment of the state court and
must determine for itself whether a Federal question is really involved,
and may take jurisdiction if the state court has in an unreasonable
manner avoided the Federal issue, the writ of error will be dismissed
where no intent to so avoid the Federal question is apparent. Van-
dalia R. R. Co. v. South Bend, 359.

4. Federal question not properly raised.

A motion for rehearing in the lower court on grounds set out in the assign-
ment of error, but which was denied, cannot be relied on as properly
raising the Federal question necessary to give this court jurisdiction.
(McMillan v. Ferrum Mining Co., 197 U. S. 343.) Paraiso v. United
States, 368.

5. Case from state court not reviewable, where judgment based on other than
Federal grounds.

In a case coming from a state court this court can consider only Federal
questions decided adversely to the plaintiff in error and upon which a
decision was necessary to the decision of the case, and if the judgment
complained of is supported also upon other and independent grounds
it must be affirmed or the writ of error dismissed. Leathe v. Thomas, 93.

6. As to review of judgment of state court based on sufficient non-Federal
ground.

If the judgment of the state court is based on a decision placed upon a suffi-
cient non-Federal ground this court has no jurisdiction to review it.
Vandalia R. R. Co. v. South Bend, 359.

7. A judgment of a state court supported upon a non-Federal ground not re-
viewable.

Even when an erroneous decision upon a Federal question is made a ground
of the judgment of a state court, if the judgment is also supported upon
another ground adequate in itself and containing no Federal question
the writ of error must be dismissed. Arkansas Southern R. R. Co. v.
German Bank, 270.

8. Where decision of Federal question not necessary to judgment, writ of error
dismissed.

Unless the decision upon a Federal question was necessary to the judgment
of the state court, or in fact made the ground of it, the writ of error must
be dismissed. Ib.

9. Frivolous objections-Claim by member of Congress of immunity from
arrest not frivolous, but sufficient to give jurisdiction.

An objection taken by a member of Congress that he cannot be sentenced
during his term of office on the ground that it would interfere with his
constitutional privilege from arrest is not frivolous even though taken
during recess of Congress, and such a claim involves a constitutional
question sufficient to give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment
by writ of error.・ (Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283.) Williamson
v. United States, 425.

10. As to review of judgment of Supreme Court of Territory when Federal
right asserted is frivolous.

Where the jurisdiction of this court to review a judgment of the Supreme
Court of a Territory depends on the presence of a Federal question the
mere assertion of a Federal right indubitably frivolous and without

color of merit is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction, nor in such a case
has this court jurisdiction to pass upon other questions non-Federal in
nature, and the judgment will not be affirmed but the writ of error dis-
missed. Kent v. Porto Rico, 113.

11. When Federal question so frivolous as to defeat jurisdiction.
While the contention that a local law of Porto Rico passed in 1904, changing
the boundaries of the judicial districts, was void because in conflict with
§ 33 of the act of April 12, 1900, so that no district courts have existed
since that time, presents a formal Federal question, it is frivolous and
without color of merit and therefore insufficient to confer jurisdiction
on this court to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico
under § 35 of that act. Ib.

12. Finality of decree of Court of Appeals, D. C., from which appeal will lie.
A decree of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia reversing the
Supreme Court of the District as to some of the findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and directing a new decree to be entered in accordance
with the opinion is not a final decree and an appeal will not lie there-
from to this court. Earle v. Myers, 244.

13. Review of whole case where writ of error based on constitutional grounds.
Where the writ of error is prosecuted directly from this court on constitu-
tional grounds, but there are errors assigned as to other subjects, this
court has jurisdiction to review the whole case if any constitutional
question is adequate to the exercise of jurisdiction. (Burton v. United
States, 196 U. S. 283.) Williamson v. United States, 425.

14. To review on direct writ of error dependent upon existence of constitutional
question at time writ sued out.

The jurisdiction of this court to review on direct writ of error depends on
the existence of a constitutional question at the time when the writ of
error is sued out, and even if that question subsequently and before the
case is reached becomes an abstract one, jurisdiction remains and this
court must review the whole case. Ib.

15. Review in criminal cases.

Amado v. United States, 195 U. S. 172, followed as to when this court cannot
review the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico in a
criminal case. Kent v. Porto Rico, 113.

16. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.; review of judgment of state court.

This court has jurisdiction to review the judgment on writ of error under
§ 709, Rev. Stat., if the opinion of the highest court of the State clearly
shows that the Federal question was assumed to be in issue, was decided
adversely, and the decision was essential to the judgment rendered.
Chambers v. Balto. & Ohio R. R. Co., 142.

17. Review of judgment of state court, under § 709, Rev. Stat.-Timeliness of
raising Federal question on motion for rehearing.

If the constitutional question is distinctly presented to the state court on

motion for rehearing, and is considered and decided adversely, it is
properly presented in time and this court has jurisdiction to review the
judgment under § 709, Rev. Stat. Sullivan v. Texas, 416.

1. Finality of order of Circuit Court; order for production of books and papers
of corporation, interlocutory.

An order of the Circuit Court under § 724, Rev. Stat., adjudging and de-
creeing that certain officers of the defendant corporation produce books
and papers, held to be an interlocutory order in the suit and not a final
order as against the individuals, and, therefore, not reviewable at their
instance, on writ of error, by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Webster
Coal & Coke Co. v. Cassatt, 181.

2. Power to compel District Court to alter its decree to conform to decision of
Supreme Court.

This court customarily issues a single mandate, and if in a case originating
in the District Court it is addressed to the Circuit Court of Appeals
the directions are simply to be communicated to the District Court to
be followed by it on the authority of this court and not of the Circuit
Court of Appeals, and that court has no jurisdiction to compel the
District Court to alter its decree. Ex parte First Nat. Bank of Chicago,

61.

C. GENERALLY.

1. Amount in controversy how determined.
Whether the jurisdictional amount is involved is to be determined not by
the mere pecuniary damage resulting from the acts complained of,
but also by the value of the business to be protected and the rights
of property which complainants seek to have recognized and en-
forced. (Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 205 U. S. 322.) Bitter-
man v. Louisville & Nashville R. R., 205.

2. Amount in controversy; when proof of, not necessary.

Where defendants do not formally plead to the jurisdiction it is not in-
cumbent upon complainant to offer proof in support of the averment
that the amount involved exceeds the jurisdictional amount as to
each defendant.

Ib.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 20, 21.

D. OF DISTRICT COURT.

See BANKRUPTCY, 1.

E. EQUITABLE.

See EQUITY, 2;

RAILROADS, 3.

Arkansas. Sale of patented articles (see Constitutional Law, 28). Ozan
Lumber Co. v. Union County Bank, 251.

Delaware. Kight of action for wrongful death of citizen on the high seas
(see Admiralty, 3). The Hamilton, 398.

Georgia. Political Code, §§ 804, 879 (see Constitutional Law, 23). Central
of Georgia Ry. v. Wright, 127.

Kansas. Power of cities of second class to grant exclusive franchises. The
Kansas statutes for the government of cities, as construed by the
highest court of that State, do not confer on cities of the second class
the power to grant exclusive franchises and, in the absence of such
power expressly conferred, the exclusive features of an ordinance of
such a city granting an exclusive franchise are invalid. (Vicksburg
v. Waterworks Co., 206 U. S. 496, distinguished.) Water, Light & Gas
Co. v. Hutchinson, 385.

Kentucky. Relation of state instrumentalities. In Kentucky, neither a
sheriff, nor assessor, nor the board of valuation has control of the fiscal
affairs of the county, and a judgment against them does not bind the
county. Bank of Kentucky v. Kentucky, 258.

Effect of judgment against some of the instrumentalities of the State
as res judicata against others (see Res Judicata). Ib.