delivered the opinion. of the court.

Judgments in the State courts against the United States cannot be brought; here for re-examination upon a writ of error, except in cases where the same relief would be afforded to private parties. It was conceded upon the argument in behalf of the United States, that the question of priority of payment, under the laws of the United States, was not decided in the court below, because it was found that there was- no debt due. With this concession, which could not be avoided, it is difficult to see what Federal question there is in the record.

It appears affirmatively that the Circuit Court rejected the claim, because it had been paid; and the presumption, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, is, that the Court of Appeals based its decision upon the same ground. But, in addition to thL, on looking into the opinion which has been sent here, as part of the record in that court, we find that all questions as to the original liability of McFreely & Hopper to the United States were expressly waived, and the decision -placed solely upon the ground that “ any claim the United States may have ever had 'against the'firm, growing out of these dealings with Thompson, has been paid and extinguished.”

It is not contended that this decision is repugnant to the Constitution, or any law or treaty of the United -States; but the argument is, that, as the check of McFreely & Hopper was not paid, it did not pay their debt. Whether this is so or not, does not depend upon any statute, of the' United States, but upon the' principles of general law alone. We haye many *589 times held that we have no power to review the decisions of the State courts upon'such questions. Bethel v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537; Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 id. 666; Ins. Co. v. Henvdren, 92 U. S. 287; Rockhold v. Rockhold, id. 130.

Writ dismissed.