? OOTOB? TEP,,M, 1007. Oplnion of the Gourt. ?09 U. 8. the case, we cannot shut our eyes to the total want of juris- diction, under the twenty-fifth section, or any other section of the Judiciary Act. It is plain,that ff the court had assumed �jurisdiction, and had declared the defendant's patent void, for the reason alleged in the bill, the defendant would have had a case which might have been 'reviewed by this court, under the twenty-fifth section, and one on which there miglit have been a question and difference of opinion. But it is hard to perceive how the twenty-fifth section could apply to a judgment of a state court, which did not decide that question, and re- fused to take jurisdiction of the case. The matter is too plain for argument." In other words, it was decided that the Federal question must be decided before it can be reviewed. Appar- ently there was no thought of considering whether the question of jurisdiction was rightly decided. That was seemingly con- sidered out of the power of this court to inquire into. Nvrtott v. 8helb!/Couatl/was a 'writ to enforce the payment of e?rtain bonds issued by the board of commissioners of Shelby county. One of the questions in the case was whether the board of commissioners was a legally constituted body. The Supreme Court of the State decided it was not, and this court accepted the decision as binding. "/The determination made," we said through Mr. Justice Field, "relates to the existence of an in- ferior tribunal of the State, and that depending upon the con- stitutional power of the legislature of the State to create it and supersede a preexisting institution. Upon a subject of this nature the Federal courts will recognize as authoritative the U.S. 400, 410, was cited. 'SMSA v. Ad,s'/t was a suit for equitable relief against a sale of land which a third party had undertaken to make in viola- tion of an act of Congress. A decree was entered against Adsit for $6,829 and dismissed as to other defendants. The decree was reversed by the Supreme Court of the State and the bill dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the ea?e was brought to this court by writ of error. A motion to dismiss was granted,
�
