delivered the opinion of the Coui*t as follows :
This case stands upon a Writ of error to the Circuit Court, for the District of Pennsylvania. By the record, it appears, that an action of debt was brought, in the name of the United States, against the Defendant in error, in the District Court of Pennsylvania; in which judgment was rendered for the United States. On a. writ of error to the Circuit Court for that District, that judgment was reversed; and upon like process, the cause has been brought into this Court, for re-examination. A rule, has been obtained by the Defendant in error, upon the United States, to show cause why the writ of error should not be dismissed.; and the ground of the rule is, that, as the cause was not removed from the District into the Circuit Court, by appeal, but by writ of error, there -is. no provision in any of the laws of the United States, giving jurisdiction to this Court, to reexamine the judgment of the Circuit Court, upon a. writ of error or otherwise. This question can only be decided by an attentive consideration of the different acts of Congress on this subject.
The 21s‘t'se6tion of the judicial law of 1789, declares, that from final decrees in a District Court in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds 300 dollars, an appeal shall be allowed to the Circuit Court. The 22d section provides, that final decrees and judgments inóivil actions, in a District Court, where the matter in dispute exceeds theyalue of 50 dollars, exclusive of costs, may be re-examined arid reversed or affirmed in a Circuit Court, up-, on a writ of error. . This section then proceeds to declare, that, upon a like proeess, (that is to say, upon1 a writ of error,) may final judgments and decrees in civil actions and suits in Equity, in a Circuit Court, brought there by original process, or removed there from the State Courts, or by appeal from a District Court, where the value exceeds 2,000 dollars, exclusive of costs, be ré-ex, amined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court.
*110 ' The, 2d-section of the act .of the 3d of .March,1803,so far changes the above sections of .the act of 1799, that Whereas the latter allows an appeal- from the District to Circuit Court, only in admiralty and maritime cases, where' the value in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds 300 dollars', the former provides, an appeal from all.final judgments or decrees in a- District Court,■ where the matter ’in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds 50 dollars, and also an 'appeal to the Supreme Court, from all final decrees and judgments in a Circuit'Court, in cases of Equity, of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction, and of prize: dr no prize,, where the value, exclusive of costs, exceeds 2,006 dollars. . But this law makep no provision for the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in any. other cases than those above mentioned.. Consequently, we must refer t6 the sections of the act of 1789, before noticed, ( which are still in forces except so far as they aré inconsistent with the provisions of the act qf 1803,) t. see, in what- cases, qther than those provided for .by filé act of 1803, the Supreme Court can review the dec sions of the Circuit Courts. It' has been shown, that, all final judgments or decrees iff civil actions and suits in. equity, in a Circuit Court, brought there by original process, or. remqved from the State-Courts, or by appeal from a District Court," may be re-examined in the Su- . preme 'Courfcy upon-writ qf error. But no case can, under this act, be-removed from a District Court by appeal, except. if be of admiralty and maritime- jurisdiction ; anil, dónsequently, under the -literal construction of tfiis Jaw,: no. other cases could be carried from the Circuit. Court to the Supreme Court. The question then, ip, whether the word appeal, in the 22d. section, is to be understood technically, or merely as descriptive of, the, appellate jurisdiction of the Superior Court, without regard to the particular mode by which a cause transmitted to. that jurisdiction ? This question, appears to have been considered by the Supreme" Court po early as five year 1796, in the case..of Wise irt v.. Dapófíij. Chief Justice Ellsworth, iff deliveringthe opinion of the Court in'that. nape, expresses himself, as follows“ The act of 1789, speaks' of appeal and writ error, but does not confound them. They are to be understood according to tlieir ordinary acceptation. An appeal is a civil law process, and removes á cause entirely, subjecting the law and fact, to a ,review affd re *111 •trial. A writ of error is a common law process, apd removes for re-examination,.nothing but the' law. This statute observes this distinction. 'In .admiralty and maritime-causes, an appeal is allowed from the to-the Circuit Court, if, the .matter in dispute exceeds . 300 dollars, and yet decrces and judgments in civil actions may.be removed by writ of error, from the Bis* trict to the Circuit Court, though the. value barely exceeds 50 dollars.” In another part of this opinion, the judge, adds, “ that as to the appellate jurisdiction o„p the Supreme Court, the 22d section says, and upon alike process,, that is, upon a writ of error, shall final judgments: arid decrees in civil actions, viz: cases not criminal, and suits in equity,'¿cc.- — Among the .causes which may be brought to the Supreme Court, by writ of error,, are cases which,had been removed to the Circuit Court, by appeal from a District Court, which pan only be cases-of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,”
■ The objection made to this interpretation of the word appeal, that judgments in civil actions at common law, commenced in a District Court, could be re-examined only-in a Circuit Court, if well founded in itself, could not, with any propriety, be addressed.to courjs, after the-legislative «leaping of the term is ascertained. The technical distinction between a writ of error and an appeal, pnd between the different cases to which they were' applicable; was clearly marked in. the act-of 13th February, 1801, which was afterwards repealed by the act' of the 8th of March, 1802. The former act, after providing for the removal of all final- judgments or decrees, above the value of 50 dollars, from a District to a Circuit Court, ¿y appeal, and by a like -proceeding for a removal to, the Supreme-Court; of those cases only, which were of equity, of adjniralty and' maritime jurisdiction, and. of prize or no prize, proceeded toprovide for civil actions at common law, originating in a District Court, by decláring that final judgment's, in such, cases, if of a certain value,' might be removed, at once, from the District to the Supreme Court, by writ of error. So, that as the law stood at that time., apar ty, in pases at common law, had an election to carry his case, where it exceeded 2,000 dollars, by writpf prror, from the District to the Circuit Court, under the.22d section oftheact of IT’SO, but without the privilege of pro *112 ceéding farther,, or to proceed with his cause, at once* to'tjhe Supreme Court, passing by the Circuit Court— But it appears not to have been the policy of the legislaat that time, to subject the decisions, of the District Court, in civil-cases at common law, to more-than one re-examination in an appellate Court.