FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE. A conveyance by a debtor in Texas of his real estate there, made with intent GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED. The plaintiff took out fire insurance policies upon a vessel in 10 companies the owner to recover from the companies the amount of the claim for INTEREST. See JUDGMENT, 1; PATENT FOR INVENTION, 16; JUDGMENT. 1. Upon rendering a decree for the plaintiff in a suit in equity, brought in to adjudge the conveyance by the testator to the defendant of lands in JURISDICTION. A. OF THE SUPREME COURT. 1. A party cannot, by proceedings in the Circuit Court, waive a question 2. This case is dismissed by the court because the amount involved is not 3. The only question open in a case brought up under the act of February 4. Although it is true as a general rule that where judgment goes for the 6. The appeal was dismissed as to the claims of the appellees, which did 7. This court is bound to assume that decisions of state courts on matters 528. 8. Where an action at law was tried by a District Court without a jury, the District Court, and all that this court can do is to affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court, as the latter court had jurisdiction and this court has it. Rogers v. United States, 548. 9. Nearly two years after the entry of a decree dismissing a bill in equity relating to title to real estate, the complainant, without notice to the respondent, filed his affidavit to show that its value was more than $5000, appealed to this court, and the appeal was allowed below and was entered in this court. The respondent thereupon filed counter affidavits in the court below and, after notice to the complainant, moved to set aside the appeal upon the ground that the value of the property was shown to be less than $5000. The complainant was present at the hearing of this motion, which resulted in an order vacating the order allowing the appeal. The respondent as appellee in this court, on all these facts as shown by the original and supplemental records, moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Held, that, under the circumstances, it was no more than right that this court should consider the subsequent affidavits, and that they showed that the amount in controversy was not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction, and that therefore the appeal must be dismissed. Rector v. Lipscomb, 557. 10. Under section 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, "to establish Circuit Courts of Appeal," etc., the appeal or writ of error which may be taken "from the existing Circuit Courts direct to the Supreme Court," "in any case in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue," can be taken only after final judgment; when the party against whom it is rendered must elect whether he will take his writ of error or appeal to this court upon the question of jurisdiction alone, or to the Circuit Court of Appeals upon the whole case. McLish v. Roff, 661. 11. In an action against the county treasurer of a county in the State of Washington and the sureties on his official bond to recover moneys received by him officially, rulings of the state court that his settlements with the county commissioners were not conclusive, that that body acted ministerially in settling with him and could not absolve him from the duty to account and pay over, and that the denial by the trial court of an order to furnish a bill of particulars would not be disturbed in the absence of anything indicating that the defendants had been prejudiced thereby, do not deny the validity of the territorial code enacted under the authority of Congress, and confer no jurisdiction in error upon this court. Ferry v. King County, 668. 12. The validity of a statute is not drawn in question every time that rights claimed under it are controverted; nor is the validity of an authority every time an act done by such authority is disputed. Ib. 13. In a suit brought in a state court of Kentucky by the city of Henderson against the Henderson Bridge Company, to recover for taxes assessed by the city on the bridge of the company, which spanned the Ohio River at the city, the Court of Appeals of the State held that the city, as a taxing district, could tax the property of the company, and that, under an ordinance of the city, accepted by the company, the city acquired a contract right to tax the bridge to low-water mark on the Indiana shore, it being within the city limits, in consideration of rights and privileges granted to the company by the ordinance. On a motion to dismiss a writ of error from this court, sued out by the company: Held, (1) that although it was claimed in the pleadings, by the company, that the taxing ordinance impaired the obligation of a prior contract with the company, yet as the decision of the Court of Appeals was based wholly on the ground that the proper interpretation of the ordinance first above referred to was that the company voluntarily agreed that the bridge should be liable to taxation, and that did not involve a Federal question, and was broad enough to dispose of the case, without reference to any Federal question, and this court could not review the construction which was given by the state court to the ordinance, as a contract, in view of the constitution and laws of Kentucky, the writ of error must be dismissed; (2) that the taxation of the bridge was not a regulation of commerce among the States, or the taxation of any agency of the Federal government. Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 679. 14. This court has no jurisdiction to review in error or on appeal, in advance of the final judgment in the cause on the merits, an order of a Circuit Court of the United States remanding the cause to the state court from which it had been removed into the Circuit Court. Chicago, St. Paul &c. Railway Co. v. Roberts, 690. 15. The payment, whether voluntary or compulsory, of a tax, to prevent the payment of which a bill in equity has been filed, leaves no issue for the court to pass upon in that case. Singer M'f'g Co. v. Wright, 696. See EVIDENCE, 1; NATIONAL BANK, 10; PRACTICE, 1; B. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS. 1. Only questions of gravity and importance should be certified to this court by the Circuit Courts of Appeals, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 828, c. 517, § 6. Lau Ow Bew, Petitioner, 583. 2. Whether the Chinese restriction acts, in the light of the treaties between the United States and China, apply to a Chinese merchant, domiciled in the United States, who temporarily leaves the country for purposes of business or pleasure, animo revertendi, is such a question of gravity and importance. Ib. C. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 1. In a suit by the assignee of a promissory note payable to the order of the payee, where the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court depends upon |