Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-01-27

The appellant - and judgment was accor-
dinghy entered for him.-From Mr.. Mum
ford's Rehort of this cause, however, it APP
pears that the two Judges who decided it.
were divided in opinion as 10 the effect OF
the several acts of Assembly, and the trea-
ty ofpeace set forth in the case agreed,
which division of the Court would have "a
mounted to an aifirmance 1t the judgment
of the District Court. But the Court ad-
verting to the act of compromise of the
year 1895 (see Sess-Acts of 1896 and ap
pendix to the I'd Vol. Rev. Code p. ~ be-
tween the Commonwealth. and the pur
chasers undsr Denny Fairfax. by wa.ch the
purchasers, i'll consideration Of release BY
the Commonw cath of its CAIN to :. any
land specifically appropriated by Lord
Fairfax to his own use, either by deed or
actual survey" agreed to release TO the
Commonwealth I" all claim to lands sup
posed to lie within the Northern Neck
which sure 7vSSte and unahnrohriated az
the time of the death Of Lord Fa,,fax 80 &
1t being admitted by the c .se agreed, that
the la:ds in question were of this last
description, and it appearing moreover
that the purchasers had actually aUGied
Themselves of the said compromise, by re-
versing two judgments in favor of the
Comm, ouwealth, and both JuGges concur
ring in opinion. on Me ground u the cam
Promise; the judgment Of the District
Court WAS reversed, ard Judgment was en-
tered for the appellant Hunter.
To this Judgment, Fairfax's devis.e OBJ
tanned writ of error from the Supreme
Court of the United States, under the 25th
Section of the Act Of Congress, passe1 tn
gath sept. 1889, (1st Vol. Lswsof the u.
,. p.65) which declares That a final jadg-
ment or deere in any suit, in the highest
Court OF law or equity If a state, in which
decision in the suit could be had. where is
drawn i'll question the validity of Il treaty
or statute of, or an authority exercised
under the United States. and the decision
is against their validity orwhere is drawn
in question the validity of statute of, or
an authority exercised under any state, on
the ground of their being repugnant to the
constitution, treaties Or laws OF the U. S.
and the decision is in favor Of such their
iidity, or where is drawn in question
the construction of any clause of the con
stitutinn, or of treaty or statute of or com
mission held under the United States, and
the decision is against the title, right, pr-
vlleSe or exemption specially set up or
claimed by either party under such clause
OF the said constitution, treaty, statute or
commission, may be re-examined and re-
versed. or affirmed in the Supreme Court
OK the United States upon writ of error
the citation being signed by the Chief JUS
tee, or Judge, or Chancellor of the Court
rendering or passing the judgment or de-
cree complained of, or by Justice OF the
Supreme Court of the United States. in
the SINE manner and under the same reg
uiations and the writ shall have the same
effect. as if the judgment or decree com
planned OF, had been rendered or passed in
circuit Court,Sl the proceeding upon the
reversal shall also be the same, except that
the Supreme Court, instead of remantiing
the cause for final decision as befors
provided, may at their desc retion, if the
| cause Shall have been once remanded be-
fore, proceed to a fiAal decision nf the same
and award exccution.-But no other error
| shall be assigned or regarded as ground
OF reversal in any such case as aforesaid,
than such as appears OH the face of the re-
cord, and Immediately respects the before
mentioned questions of validity or construc-
ton OF the said Constitution, treaties, sta
tutes, commissions or authorities in dis
pute."
| The record having beens carried by this
writ OF error into the Sui RENE Courc of the
United States, that Court reversed tae iudg-
m=nt OF this Court, and affirmed that of the
District Court of Winchester, and ordered
the Cause to be remanded to this Court
with instructions TO enter Judgment for
the appel ant Philip Martin - BY the
mandate directed to this Court, and recit-
ing the judgment of the Supreme Court
OF the United States, the Judges of this
Court are " commanded that such procee-
dings be had in the said cause, as accord.
ing to right and justice AMI the laws of the
United States, and agreeably to said judg-
ment and instructions of said Supreme
Court, ought to be had"
When the mandate was presented to the
Court, doubts were suggested whether the
case comes within The intent and meaning
of the provisions of the Act of Congress a
foresaid, and admitting it does come within
them, whether the provisions themselves
are authorised by the constitution Of the
United States. The suggestion Of these
doubts was followed by an argument from
the bar, elaborate, able & profound. Accor-
ding to tive view which have taken of the
subject however, do not deem it necessa-
ry to give an opinion on all the points pre-
scnted in the argument.
/ shall not enquire whether this is such
case as is contemplated by the act of Con
gFess | shall proceed upon the admission
that 1t is so; that it is the case of a final
Judgment, in the highest Court of a state,
IN which a decision in the suit could be
had that the record shows that the con
struction of a treaty has been directly
drawn in question, and that the decision
has been against the title set up or claimed
by one OF the parties, under that treaty. in