Contracts.- Where transactions out of which a debt or demand grew were illegal, the illegality was not purged by settlement of a balance and giving notes therefor, p. 381.

Cited and principle applied in Lawson v. Miller, 44 Ala. 626, 4 Am. Rep. 150, holding renewing note for repayment of amount loaned in Confederate treasury notes did not purge transaction of illegality; Lyon & Co. v. Kent, Payne & Co., 45 Ala. 662, holding void sale between alien enemies could not be ratified; Briscoe v. Kinealy, 8 Mo. App. 81, denying right to recover for note given for balance settled plus amount of unjust claim.

Depositions.- Objections to deposition, made at former term of trial court, and overruled, were waived by failure to object to its introduction at the trial, and no objections could thereafter be urged in Supreme Court, p. 382.

Cited and followed in Union Pacific Ry. v. Reese, 56 Fed. 291, 15 U. S. App. 92, where party moved to suppress deposition before trial, but permitted its introduction without objection at trial; Williams v. Thomas, 3 N. Mex. 395, 9 Pac. 358, holding objections not made before master nor trial court unavailable in appellate court.

3 Wall. 382-387, 18 L. 164, MCGUIRE v. THE COMMONWEALTH. Courts.- Supreme Court has jurisdiction, under twenty-fifth section of judiciary act, where person indicted in State court for selling liquor contrary to State law, for defense, set up Federal license under internal revenue act, and this was overruled, p. 385.

Cited and principle applied in Home Ins. Co. v. City Council, 93 U. S. 121, 23 L. 826, sustaining jurisdiction, where State court decision was adverse to right claimed under Federal Constitution. Affirmed, arguendo, in Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. S. 418, 26 L. 188.

Appeal and error.- Where final decision was rendered by, and record remained in, a Superior Court, according to State law, writ of error was properly directed to such court, p. 386.

Cited and principle applied in Green v. Van Buskerk, 3 Wall. 450, 18 L. 245, holding writ of error was properly issued to New York Supreme Court, and stayed proceedings; Bryan v. Bates, 12 Allen, 204, holding judgment by State Superior Court of conviction for selling liquor final, and stayed proceedings; Brumagim v. Chew, 21 N. J. Eq. 186, holding writ filed in Chancery Court, within ten days after filing State Court of Appeals decree, operated as supersedeas. Cited also in Underwood v. McVeigh, 131 U. S. App. cxxii, exxiv, 21 L. 954, 955, dissenting opinion, majority dismissing writ because not directed to Virginia Court of Appeals. Affirmed, arguendo, in Slaughter-House Cases, 10 Wall. 291, 19 L. 920, discussing effect of writ of error as supersedeas.

Distinguished and authorities reviewed in Atherton v. Fowler, 91

U. S. 147, 148, 23 L. 266, as to practice where highest State court retains custody of its own records; Nauer v. Thomas, 13 Allen, 574 holding writ of error improvidently issued.

Certiorari does not lie to bring up proceedings in State Supreme Court, which had merely passed upon certain points in the case, the principal proceedings remaining in the State Superior Court, to which the writ of error was directed, p. 386.

Cited in Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 22 Fla. 571, refusing certiorari to have supplied papers on file in lower court, but not of record.

Appeal and error.- Counsel's alleged inability to prepare case by time set for hearing, and his associate's illness, are not sufficient grounds for leave to discontinue writ of error at plaintiff in error's cost, p. 387.

Appearance.

It is usual for Supreme Court to grant leave to withdraw an appearance whenever asked, saving, however, ali rights of adverse party, p. 387.

Appeal and error.— -After withdrawal of appearance of plaintiff's counsel in Supreme Court, defendant has right, under sixteenth rule, to have plaintiff called and suit dismissed, or to open record and pray an affirmance, p. 387.

8 Wall. 387-396, 18 L. 226, MCGUIRE v. THE COMMONWEALTH. Intoxicating liquors.- Federal license to conduct wholesale liquor business, granted under internal revenue law, did not au thorize keeping or selling liquor in violation of State law, p. 395.

Cited and principle applied in Endleman v. United States, 86 Fed. 462, 57 U. S. App. 11, holding payment of special tax on retail liquor business, no defense for selling liquor in Alaska; Territory v. O'Connor, 5 Dak. 408, 41 N. W. 751, 3 L. R. A. 360, holding payment of Federal license fee gave no authority to sell liquor contrary to territorial laws; Commonwealth v. Casey, 12 Allen, 222, State v. Elder, 54 Me. 383, and The State v. Lillard, 78 Mo. 138, all holding license granted by United States gave no authority to sell liquor contrary to State laws; Waterbury v. Newton, 50 N. J. L. 543, 14 Atl. 609, holding Federal tax on oleomargarine business did not legalize it where prohibited by State law. Cited also in Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 580, 29 L. 737, 6 S. Ct. 514, holding attorney's license fee merely tax for revenue; Standard Oil Co. v. Combs, 96 Ind. 184, 49 Am. Rep. 161, holding certain taxes on property temporarily in State not regulation of interstate commerce. Affirmed, arguendo, in Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 425, 20 Am. Rep. 667, and State v. Bennett, 19 Neb. 205, 26 N. W. 721, distinguishing between taxes and licenses.

Courts.- Supreme Court has jurisdiction, under twenty-fifth seo tion of judiciary act, where person indicted in State court for selling liquor contrary to State law, set up as defense license under Federal internal revenue law, and State court decided against right claimed thereunder, p. 396.

3 Wall. 396-407, 18 L. 34, COMSTOCK ▼. CRAWFORD.

Courts.- Jurisdiction of a court of limited authority, appearing by recital in record of its proceedings, cannot be attacked collaterally for error or irregularity, p. 403.

Cited and principle applied in Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 452, 34 L. 1060, 11 S. Ct. 373, holding appointment of administrator by Louisiana court not subject to collateral attack; Noble v. Union, etc., Rd., 147 U. S. 174, 37 L. 126, 13 S. Ct. 273, collecting cases, holding secretary of interior's decision in favor of company's right to receive grant not subject to revocation by successor; In re Lennon, 166 U. S. 553, 41 L. 1112, 17 S. Ct. 660, holding jurisdictional averments in record not subject to collateral attack by one not a party; Mohr v. Manierre, 7 Biss. 420, 423, 424, F. C. 9,695 (affirmed in S. C., 101 U. S. 425, 25 L. 1055), sustaining sale of lunatic's real estate in collateral proceeding; Norton v. Meader, 4 Sawy. 619, F. C. 10,351, holding service sufficiently shown by recital in decree; May v. County of Logan, 30 Fed. 255, holding ratification of sale conclusive in collateral proceeding; Beattie v. Wilkinson, 36 Fed. 650, holding recital of publication in decree conclusive in collateral proceeding; Reinach v. Atlantic, etc., Rd., 58 Fed. 43, holding decision of quasi-jurisdictional question binding except on appeal; Garrett v. Boeing, 68 Fed. 61, 37 U. S. App. 42, holding administration proceedings not collaterally assailable for irregularity, where petition showed jurisdiction; Graff v. Louis, 71 Fed. 595, holding judgment binding notwithstanding alleged irregularity; Smitha v. Flournoy, 47 Ala. 361, sustaining administrator's sale; Apel v. Kelsey, 47 Ark. 419, 2 S. W. 103, collecting cases, holding publication in wrong paper no ground for collateral attack on administrator's sale; Price v. Winter, 15 Fla. 106, holding sale of infant's interest in realty should not be set aside; Grevemberg v. Bradford, 44 La. Ann. 420, 10 So. 791, and Blanchard v. Webster, 62 N. H. 468, both holding probate sale valid; Long v. Long, 62 Md. 63, sustaining sale by order of court of property held in trust under a will; Blanchard v. Webster, 62 N. H. 468, holding conclusive decree for probate sale of land, for recovery of which writ of entry brought. Affirmed, arguendo, in In re McKibben, 12 N. B. R. 102, 16 Fed. Cas. 212, McClaskey v. Barr, 47 Fed. 169, Meyer v. Rousseau, 47 Ark. 462, 2 S. W. 113, and Ex parte Marx, 86 Va. 46, 9 S. E. 478. See also 86 Am. Dec. 292, note. Cited also in Hill v. Wall, 66 Cal. 135, 4 Pac. 1143, dissenting opinion, majority holding guardian's sale invalid for

imperfect description of land; Hays v. McNealy, 16 Fla. 414, holding sale void where necessary jurisdictional fact did not appear in the record.

Distinguished in Washington, etc., B. R. v. Alex., etc., R. R., 19 Gratt. 611, 100 Am. Dec. 723, holding void sale by improperly substituted trustee.

Executors and administrators.- Power to accept resignation of administrator, who had never taken possession nor attempted to exercise control over the estate, and to appoint his successor, are necessary incidents of power to grant letters of administration, p. 404.

Cited in Yost v. The State, 80 Ind. 353, upon effect of guardian's resignation and reappointment in another county, upon his bonds

men.

Executors and administrators.- Jurisdiction of proceeding to sell decedent's realty, under Wisconsin statute, attacked upon representation of insufficiency of deceased's personalty to pay his debts, and license to sell involved adjudication upon regularity of steps taken and necessity and propriety of sale, and is conclusive, pp. 404, 405.

Cited and principle applied in Mohr v. Manierre, 101 U. S. 425, 25 L. 1055, and S. C., when in Circuit Court, 7 Biss. 420, 423, 424, F. C. 9,695, holding judicial sale of lunatic's property not subject to collateral attack for insufficient publication; Hall v. Law, 102 U. S. 464, 26 L. 218, holding order upon application for partition is adjudication upon regularity of steps taken; Thaw v. Ritchie, 136 U. S. 548, 34 L. 538, 10 S. Ct. 1044, sustaining sale of infant's realty; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 455, 34 L. 1061, 11 S. Ct. 374, sustaining administrator's sale of real estate; Holmes v. Oregon, etc., Ry., 6 Sawy. 285, 5 Fed. 534, and S. C., in Circuit Court, 7 Sawy. 387, 400, 9 Fed. 234, 244, holding question of decedent's residence conclusively determined by County Court first appointing administrator; McArthur v. Allen, 3 Fed. 324, holding judgment setting aside will not subject to collateral attack; The Trenton, 4 Fed. 662, holding existence of jurisdictional facts conclusively presumed; Hurlburt v. Van Wormer, 14 Fed. 710, holding grant of letters testamentary evidence of testator's death; Graff v. Louis, 71 Fed. 595, holding judgment binding, notwithstanding alleged irregularity; Ryan v. Staples, 76 Fed. 726, 40 U. S. App. 427, holding judgment not void for erroneously placing lien on same footing with others; Emerson v. Ross, 17 Fla. 127, 128, holding grant of letters of administration an adjudication of court's jurisdiction of decedent's estate; Deans v. Wilcoxon, 25 Fla. 1031, 7 So. 172, collecting cases, conclusively presuming court to have considered questions necessary to determine before ordering sale. Affirmed, arguendo, in Epping v. Robinson, 21 Fla. 47.

Executors and administrators.- Wisconsin statute providing for sale of deceased's realty in certain cases did not require that the petition for sale show the amount and description of personalty and statement of debts, pp. 405, 406.

Cited in Needham v. Salt Lake, 7 Utah, 324, 26 Pac. 921, holding representation of insufficiency of deceased's personalty necessary to jurisdiction to order sale.

Executors and administrators.-Sufficiency of proof upon which court granted license to sell decedent's realty is not open to consideration in collateral proceeding, p. 406.

Followed in Sawyer v. Rector, 5 Dak. 129, 37 N. W. 748, holding sufficiency of proof upon which Bankruptcy Court took its action not open to collateral attack.

Executors and administrators.- Subsequent license to executor to sell decedent's realty, already sold under prior license, neither showed nor tended to show fraud or collusion in the first sale, and Its validity could not be impaired by the second, p. 406.

Executors and administrators.- Excess of proceeds of sale over sum for payment of which sale was ordered cannot affect purchaser's title, pp. 406, 407.

3 Wall. 407-420, 18 L. 182, UNITED STATES v. HOLIDAY.

Courts. Acts defining District and Circuit Courts' jurisdiction make it concurrent in criminal cases, except where punishment is death, and operate prospectively to make after-created offense cognizable in Circuit Court, where jurisdiction was conferred only on District Court, pp. 413, 414, 415.

Cited and principle applied in United States v. Block, 121, 3 Biss. 213, F. C. 14,610, holding judiciary act operated prospectively. See also note to Pelcher v. United States, 3 McCrary, 516.

Indians. Sale of liquor to Indian under Indian agent's charge, within State umits and without Indian reservation, was a Federal offense punishable in appropriate Federal courts, pp. 415, 416.

Followed in United States v. Mayrand, 154 U. S. 552, 18 L. 700, 14 S. Ct. 1213. Cited and principle applied in United States v. Shaw-Mux, 2 Sawy. 365, 366, F. C. 16,268, holding sale of liquor by Indian to Indian illegal; United States v. Osborne, 6 Sawy. 407, 2 Fed. 59, United States v. Earl, 9 Sawy. 82, 83, 17 Fed. 77, 78, United States v. Flynn, 1 Dill. 452, F. C. 15,124, United States v. Burdick, 1 Dak. 143, 46 N. W. 573, and Renfrow v. United States, 3 Okla. 170, 171, 41 Pac. 91, all holding sale of liquor to Indian living off of reservation violation of Federal law; United States v. Bridleman, 7 Sawy. 246, 7 Fed. 897, holding congressional power to regulate Intercourse with Indians can be exercised within State limits. Cited