Tn theoase of Crowell v, Randall, 10 Peters, 368, file Court revised all the cases on ’ jurisdiction under the 25th section,of the judiciary act, and laid down the law as they wished it to be universally understood..

The case was submitted- to a jury in Jefierson county, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff; which was afterwards-set aside by the court, and a new trial ordered. The.-suit was afterwards tried before the same court,, and a verdict was given for the defendant. The plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions; and on a writ of error to the supreme court of Missouri, the judgment ,of the circuit court.was reversed, and the cause .was remanded to that court. It was after-wards remanded to the circuit court of St. Charles county, and Whs there tried again before' a jury; and a verdict and judgment were rendered in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant, on the .trials moved the court to instruct the jury:

The court refused to give, these instructions: and the defendant sued out a writ of error to the supreme court of Missouri,; where the judgment of the circuit court of Jefferson county was affirmed.

*509 ■ The defendant then sued out the writ of error to the Supreme Court of thé United States, under the-25th section of the judiciary act of 1789, to the supreme court of Missouri.

moved to dismiss the writ of error on the ground that the case is not within the provisions of the-25th section, of the judiciary act.

He contended that no question had .arisen in the case, in Which this Court could be called on to interfere-with its revising, powers. The plaintiff in error claimed that the -treaty of Louisiana, of 30th April, 1803> protected him in his property in the defendant, as she was his slave. The question .before the circuit court, and which was submitted to the jury, was, whether the plaintiff was a slave; and' the jury founcHhát she was free.

Under the 25th sec. of the judiciary act, the jurisdiction of this Court in writs of error to the supreme courts of the state, prevails in those cases in which a treaty of the United States has been drawn in question, and has been misconstrued; or a statute of the United States has been misconstrued and disregarded..

It has been supposed that this suit is within the class of cases cognizable,in the Supreme Court of the United States; as the defendant claimed Marguerite as a Slave, under the Louisiana treaty.

The first instruction has no reference to the treaty. The counsel sought to have the instructions of the court, .that if the plaintiff was always held as a slave, up to the time of the treaty, shé continued such. The court held that she cou'ld not be a slave. Whether this opinion was. right or not, the construction of the treaty was not drawn in question. The protection of the treaty was not denied; and the decisión of the court was such as did not make the case within its provisions. The plaintiff had- no property in Marguerite, which the treaty operated upon.

But this Court decided that the general provisions of the ordinance of 1787, could not give to the Suprepie Court jurisdiction, where rights of property were asserted to have been violated by the decision of a state court. Menard v. Aspasia, 5 Peters, 525.

In the case of Crowell v. Randall, 10 Peters, 368, there is a review of.all the cases on-the question of the jurisdiction of this Court, in cases from the highest court of the states of the United States. In that, and in all the other cases, the-laiw is laid down to be, that the appellate jurisdiction of this Court can only be sustained when *510 it appears that the question. over which the jurisdiction exists must appear to. have béen .brought before the Court, and decided' according to the provisions of +he' twenty-hfth section; pr that by:clear and necessary-intendment, the question/must have arisen and must-have been decided.

Mr. Key, with whom was, Mr.- Benton,opposed .the motion.

He contended tháf the decision of this Court, in:Ci-owell v. Randall', 10 Peters, 368,'did not in any way enlarge.the principles which hád prevailed before. All the Goprt are Required to do before they-take jurisdiction, is to see that the\case- is such as- presented a question cognizable by the Court. The Court", if. ijts consideration was. essential to.ihe decision'of the cause, will hold that it did arise, and was decided. He atgued that the treaty, of Louisiana must have been cons.idered .by the supreme court of Louisiana in this . ease.

Mr. Justice StCrv said that it' had been thought that the decisions of the Churt had been misunderstood.-: and the Court, in the ease, of Crowell, y. R-andáli, 10 Peters, had -revised all' the, cases; .and, had laid -down the law as they wished it should, be universally under-, stood,.

The motion to dismiss the case was . sustained.