der facts similar to those in main case; Jacobs v. McDonald, 8 Mo. 568, holding where assignee of note sues maker in Justice's Court, and execution is returned unsatisfied for want of personal property, and transcript is filed in Circuit Court, but no execution issued, assignee is discharged.

Distinguished in Sayre v. McEwen, 41 Ind. 115, holding assignee of note was not bound, before suing indorser, to proceed by attachment against property of maker, a non-resident.

Discharge under State insolvent law will not authorize the discharge of a person imprisoned under judgment of Federal Circuit Court, p. 388.

Cited and applied in In re Freeman, 2 Curt. 494, F. C. 5,083, holding State act to abolish imprisonment for debt will not affect process out of Circuit Court; Offutt v. Bowen, Walk. (Miss.) 547, discharge of prisoner delivered by United States marshal, under State insolvent law, is no defense to action on prison bond.

4 Pet. 392, 7 L. 897, SAUNDERS v. GOULD.

Appeal and error.- On a certificate of division, where the whole cause, and not a point or points, has been certified, it is irregular and the case will be remanded, p. 392.

Cited and rule followed in United States v. Chicago, 7 How. 192, 12 L. 663, holding where there are several questions so material as to decide the whole case, Supreme Court will not dismiss them, provided they appear to have arisen at one time, and to have involved little beyond one point; Williamsport Bank v. Knapp, 119 U. S. 360, 30 L. 447, 7 S. Ct. 275, and Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 433, 31 L. 193, 8 S. Ct. 194, holding each question certified to Supreme Court must be a distinct point of law and not the whole case; Bagg v. Detroit, 5 Mich. 69, holding that questions reserved must be presented directly and definitely; Kelley, etc., Shoe Co. v. Insurance Co., 87 Tex. 114, 26 S. W. 1063, holding the statute never contemplated that the whole of a complicated case should be certified. Cited in Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 435, 17 L. 323, holding power of Supreme Court to revise is strictly confined to questions stated in the certificate.

Federal courts will follow settled construction of State statute by State courts, p. 392.

Cited and applied in Thompson v. Phillips, Bald. 284, F. C. 13,974, following State court's construction of State laws as to judgments.

4 Pet. 393-409, 7 L. 897, SPRATT v. SPRATT.

Naturalization is a judicial proceeding submitted to courts of record, and their judgments thereon are conclusive, p. 408.

The following citing cases affirm and apply this principle: In re Loney, 134 U. S. 376, 33 L. 951, 10 S. Ct. 586, holding State courts

have no jurisdiction of a complaint for perjury in testifying before. a notary of the State upon a contested election of a member of the house of representatives; Ex parte Cregg, 2 Curt. 100, F. C. 3,380, holding that a court of record, without any clerk, is not competent to take an alien's preliminary declaration; The Acorn, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 444, F. C. 29, holding order of court of competent jurisdiction, admitting an alien to citizenship, is conclusive; In re Coleman, 15 Blatchf. 426, F. C. 2,980, holding where applicant for citizenship receives a certificate, he cannot afterwards be convicted of using such certificate, knowing it was unlawfully issued; United States v. Makins, 26 Fed. Cas. 1144, holding clerks of Federal courts have no power to certify an admission to citizenship, which is a judgment and provable only by the original record; Green v. Salas, 31 Fed. 107, holding that naturalization can only be proved by the record of the judgment; In re Bodek, 63 Fed. 814, 815, declaring that an applicant for naturalization is a suitor and his petition must allege a fulfillment of all the conditions of the statute; United States v. Gleason, 78 Fed. 397, and Pintsch C. Co. v. Bergin, 84 Fed. 141, holding certificate of citizenship cannot be set aside upon the ground that the facts were falsely represented to the court; Harley v. The State, 40 Ala. 697, holding record of naturalization is not required to show affirmatively the existence of all the legal prerequisites; Scott v. Strobach, 49 Ala. 488, holding certificate of naturalization cannot be collaterally impeached, unless for want of jurisdiction; Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 301, declaring the power to naturalize is judicial by act of Congress; Holcomb v. Phelps, 16 Conn. 131, holding decree of surrogate granting administration, a complete defense to action of trover; People v. McGowan, 77 IIL 647, 20 Am. Rep. 255, holding record of naturalization cannot be impeached collaterally; Morgan v. Dudley, 18 B. Mon. 714, 68 Am. Dec. 739, holding Congress cannot authoritatively confer jurisdiction of naturalization on State court; Dean, Petitioner, 83 Me. 498, 22 Atl. 387, 13 L. R. A. 232, and n., holding court without clerk has no jurisdiction over naturalization of aliens; Andres v. Arnold, Circuit Judge, 77 Mich. 88, 43 N. W. 858, 6 L. R. A. 239, declaring final admission to citizenship cannot be attacked to show want of conformity to the previous requirements of the statute; State v. Macdonald, 24 Minn. 59, and McCarthy v. Marsh, 5 N. Y. 284, holding record of proceedings in naturalization cannot be questioned in collateral proceedings; State v. Boyd, 31 Neb. 710, 48 N. W. 746, holding that admission to citizenship can be proven only by record; State v. Whittemore, 50 N. H. 251, 9 Am. Rep. 203, holding court of record, without a clerk, is not competent to naturalize an alien; Priest v. Cummings, 16 Wend. 626, holding every intendment is in favor of naturalization proceedings; People v. Turnpike Co., 23 Wend. 227, opinion of Cowen, he maintaining that State is estopped by the certificate of the commissioners from claiming a forfeiture for non-compliance with incorporating act; People v. Snyder, 41 VOL. III-9

N. Y. 409; Commonwealth v. Towles, 5 Leigh, 746, and State v. Hoeflinger, 35 Wis. 400, maintaining that record of naturalization is conclusive; Knapp v. Thomas, 39 Ohio St. 387, 48 Am. Rep. 468, holding pardon cannot be impeached by showing it was obtained by false representations.

Alien. Act of Maryland authorizing descent to aliens of lands held by aliens does not authorize the descent to such heirs of land of a citizen, p. 408.

Cited in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 266, 33 L. 644, 10 S. Ct. 296, under article 7 of the convention with France, 1800, a citizen of France can take land in District of Columbia, by descent from a citizen of the United States. Cited without special application in Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 574, 97 Am. Dec. 136.

Miscellaneous.- Miscited in State v. Judge, 33 La. Ann. 270; New Orleans v. Orphan Asylum, 33 La. Ann. 855.

4 Pet. 410-465, 7 L. 903, CRAIG v. STATE OF MISSOURI. Assumpsit. Everything which disaffirms and invalidates the contract may be shown under the general issue of assumpsit, p. 426.

Cited and applied in Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 267, 26 L. 542, and Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 15 Blatchf. 87, F. C. 10,600, holding defense that agreement was void because against public policy could be set up under a plea of general issue, as also in Tufts v. Tufts, 3 Wood. & M. 501, F. C. 14,233, ruling similarly; Gauthier v. Cole, 17 Fed. 717, holding illegality of consideration may, at common law, be pleaded under the general issue; Minard v. Lawler, 26 Ill. 305, holding, on appeal from a justice's judgment, notice of any particular defense to be presented need not be given; Hill v. Callaghan, 31 Mich. 426, holding, under general issue, invalidity of Instrument may be shown, without special notice; Johnson v. Hulings, 103 Pa. St. 503, 49 Am. Rep. 134, holding whenever it appears in action of assumpsit that plaintiff's claim is illegal, court will not enforce it.

Practice. Where cause is tried by court without jury exceptions to court's charge cannot of course be taken, but the court should make findings as to the points in controversy, p. 427.

Cited to this point in United States v. King, 7 How. 853, 12 L. 943, and Weems v. George, 13 How. 197, 14 L. 111, holding where, in a trial in Louisiana, judge tried case without a jury, no bill of exceptions can be taken to his judgment on the law; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 675, 28 L. 864, 5 S. Ct. 323, holding that the general finding is conclusive of the issues of fact against the plaintiff, and there is no question of law presented by the record; Obermier v. Core, 25 Ark. 563, holding findings of facts by court are conclusive; Lynch v. Grayson, 7 N. Mex. 34, 32 Pac. 151, holding statute providing

that where jury has been waived the Supreme Court shall review same as if tried by a jury, does not intend that the Supreme Court shall decide on the weight of the evidence. Cited without particular application in Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 249, 21 L. 833.

Jurisdiction.- Under twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act, it Is sufficient if the record shows that the constitutionality of a State law claimed to be repugnant to the National Constitution was sustained, and the record need not, in terms, aver the fact, p. 429.

Cited and rule applied in Fisher v. Cockerell, 5 Pet. 256, 8 L. 117, holding, since record did not show the compact with Virginia was involved, the court had no jurisdiction; Davis v. Packard, 6 Pet. 48, 8 L. 315, declaring court had jurisdiction where it appeared from the record that the decision of State court was against the privilege especially set up; Byrne v. Missouri, 8 Pet. 42, 8 L. 860, under facts similar to main case; Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 397, 9 L. 469, dismissing case where record did not show that such a question did arise, and was applied to the case; Magwire v. Tyler, 1 Black, 203, 17 L. 141, where decision of State court, construing act of Congress, is against the title set up thereunder, Federal court has jurisdiction; The Victory, 6 Wall. 384, 18 L. 849, holding it is not sufficient that the court can see the question ought to have been raised; Frost v. Ilsey, 55 Me. 380, holding it must appear that the sustaining of the validity of the statute was indispensable to the judgment. Cited without special application in Stockton v. Montgomery, Dall. (Tex.) 485.

Construction of Constitution.- In construing the Constitution history may be examined, p. 432.

Cited and followed in Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 723, 9 L. 1260, and Carey v. McDougald, 7 Ga. 87.

Constitutional law - Bills of credit.- Certificates issued by State, containing a pledge of its faith, and receivable as payment for State, county and town dues, are bills of credit, p. 433.

The citations of this leading case very naturally collect a number of others involving the same or a similar point to that stated above: dissenting opinions, Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 619, 678, 20 L. 334, 353, majority holding legal tender acts constitutional; Wesley v. Eells, 90 Fed. 157, holding revenue bond scrip of North Carolina was intended for circulation as money, and constituted bills of credit; Bragg v. Tuffts, 49 Ark. 563, 564, 565, 6 S. W. 162, holding treasury warrants to be "bills of credit; " Linn v. State Bank, 1 Scam. 90, 93, 25 Am. Dec. 72, 76, holding bills issued by State bank were "bills of credit;" City Nat. Bk. v. Mahan, 21 La. Ann. 752, holding certificates of indebtedness authorized by general assembly are bills of credit; " Hunt, Appellant, 141 Mass. 520, 6 N. E. 556, holding a certificate of deposit is not a note issued to circulate as money;

46

Pagaud v. State, 5 Smedes & M. 495, holding auditor's warrants are not "bills of credit;" Green v. Sizer, 40 Miss. 561, 562, holding State treasury notes issued as a loan of money are not bills of credit, though used as currency; Bank of Kentucky v. Clark, 4 Mo. 61, 28 Am. Dec. 347, holding notes of State bank of Kentucky are “bills of credit; " Delafield v. Illinois, 26 Wend. 218, holding the bonds were transferable certificates of stock, and not bills of credit; Indiana v. Woram, 6 Hill, 37, 40 Am. Dec. 380, holding bonds not intended to circulate as money are not "bills of credit; " Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 492, holding congressional act making treasury notes legal tender is valid; dissenting opinion, Shollenberger v. Brinton, 52 Pa. St. 54, 72, and Breitenbach v. Turner, 18 Wis. 145, majority holding Congress can issue treasury notes and make them legal tender; Thornburg v. Harris, 3 Cold. 160, holding Confederate treasury notes to be "bills of credit;" Gowen v. Shute, 4 Baxt. 63, holding bill drawn by State, resting not on its credit but on a fund, is not a bill of credit; W. & A. R. R. Co. v. Taylor, 6 Heisk. 413, holding bills issued not exclusively on faith of the State are not bills of credit. See note, 25 Am. Dec. 78, 79, as to what are bills of credit, collecting authorities; see note, 37 Am. Dec. 769. Cited without special application in Hatch v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 447, F. C. 6,203, dissenting opinion, McElvain v. Mudd, 44 Ala. 66; Lucas v. San Francisco, 7 Cal. 477; Griswold v. Hepburn, 2 Duv. 38, and Green v. Lanier, 5 Heisk. 680.

Distinguished in Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 313, 323. 9 L. 731, 735, holding notes issued by State bank and required to t received on executions by plaintiffs, are not "bills of credit; " see dissenting opinions, pp. 328, 329, 332, 333, 340, 341, 9 L. 737, 738, 739, 742; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 284, 29 L. 190, 5 S. Ct. 910, holding the coupons are not bills of credit, because they were not intended to circulate as money; Bailey v. Milner, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 263, F. C. 740, 1 Bank. Reg. 107, 35 Ga. 332, holding "Confederate treasury notes" not "bills of credit; " Owen v. Bank, 3 Ala. 262, 263, 264, holding notes issued by State bank are not "bills of credit;" also in McFarland v. State Bank, 4 Ark. 48, 51, 52, 37 Am. Dec. 762, 764. 765, ruling similarly; Ramsey v. Cox, 28 Ark. 369, holding treasurer's certificates not issued to circulate as money, are not "bills of credit; " State Bank v. Gibson, 6 Ala. 815, holding State bank is not invested with attributes of sovereignty, and must present claim to administrator like ordinary creditor; Martin v. Branch Bank of Alabama, 14 La. 417, holding that bank owned by State may be sued in court of another State. Distinguished without special application in Briscoe v. Bank of Commonwealth, 7 J. J. Marsh, 349.

Constitution was intended to prohibit things, not names; giving a new name to an old thing will not take it out of the prohibition, p. 433.

Cited and applied in In re Klein, 14 Fed. Cas. 727, holding bankrupt act, so far as it undertakes to discharge debtor from debts con