delivered the opinion of the Court.

• This case is brought here by appeal from the judgment'of the Court of Appeals fox the territory of Florida. A motion has been, made to dismiss the case upon the grounds that it was. a proceeding at law, and not in equity, and that, under the acts of Congress regulating the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the case cannot be brought here by appeal; and that we have no jurisdiction to revise the judgment of the territorial Court, unless •it is brought up by writ of error.

The question may, perhaps, seem to be rather one of form than of substance. But, nevertheless, it is our duty to conform to the acts of Congress-; and we cannot exercise the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon this Court except in the form, prescribed by law. ’

The case in the territorial Court was this: — James L. Parish died in .Jefferson county, in the territory of-Florida, in 1838, leaving his widow, Charlotte. A. Parish, the present appellant ; and no children. His sister, Catharine Ellis, one of the appellees, was his heir at law; and he left real estate, negroes, and personal property of considerable value.

After his death his widow petitioned the Superior Court of Middle Florida, for an allotment of her dower in the real estate, and her share of the personal property; claiming to be entitled to one half of each under a law of the territory, passed in 183S. And thereupon a writ was issued by the Court to the sheriff, directing him to deliver over to the petitioner her portion of the estate as prayed for. On the 18th of December, 1838, the sheriff returned the writ with an inquisition or report of certain freeholders summoned by him, allotting to the widow as her dower certain portions of the- real estate, negroes, and property, being the one half of the gross amount of said estate in quantity and value.

On the 15th of April, 18.39, the present appellees interposed *453 and objected to the return and allotment, because it was made before the estate was settled by the administrator, and,' as they also alleged, collusively; and because the allotment was too large, and the mode of proceeding informal. It -was, however, confirmed by the Superior Court; and an appeal thereupon taken to the Court of Appeals for the territory, where the judgment of the Superior Court was reversed. And from this judgment,of reverse the case has-been brought here by appeal.

If the proceedings in the territorial Courts were proceedings at law and not in equity, we have no jurisdiction to hear the case, because it is not brought here by writ of error. The act of Congress of July 14, 1832, sec. 3, (4 Story’s Laws, 2330,) declares, that the regulations prescribed by the second section of the act entitled “An act in addition to an act entitled an. act to amend the judicial system of the United States,” approved the 3d of March, 1803, as far as said regulations shall he practicable,-shall be ob'served in respect to all writs of error afid appeals from the said Court of Appeals in the said territory to the Supreme Court of the United States. And the act of .1803 thus referred to in the ■law of -1832, gives the right of appeal in cases of equity, of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and prize or no prize; but leaves the cases of law to .be brought up by writ of error as provided for by the act of 1789. And it has always been held that a case at law, cannot, under the act of 1803, be brought here by appeal. 2 Wheat. 141, 142.

The question, then> is whether the proceedings in the Florida Courts were in a case at law. They certainly differ from the ancient common law proceeding by writ of dower; and, indeed, they necessarily differed from it, because the widow’s share of the negroes and personal property were united in the .same proceeding that-was instituted to recover her dower in the real estate; and it certainly does not strictly conform to any of the modes of proceeding known to the common law. But in many of the states and territories the ancient common law remedy for the purpose of obtaining an allotment of dower, as well as the remedies for other mere legal rights, has been changed for others more convenient and suitable to our situation and habits. Yet they .are regarded as cases at law, although they are not carried on according- to the forms of the common law. In the case of *454 Parsons v. Bedford and others, 3 Peters, 447, the Court, when speaking of remedies of this description, said, that all suits brought to settle legal rights which were not of equity or admiralty jurisdiction, whatever might be their peculiar forms, were cases at law, within the meaning of those terms, as used in the Constitution and] acts of Congress. In arcase like the present,, it is true that although .the right is strictly a legal one, yet the Court of Chancery, possesses concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of Law. But the procéeding in question is obviously not according to the principles or established practice of Courts of Equity, and was not intended to be such. It could not be sustained in any Court acting upon the rules of a Court of Chancery; and must therefore he regarded as a proceeding at law. And being a case at law it cannot, under the acts of Congress before mentioned, be brought here except by writ of error.

The'appeal must therefore be dismissed.