EX PARTE SIBBALD v. THE UNITED STATES, U.S., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

Henry Baldwin

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arose after the Supreme Court had previously decided an appeal by the United States from the superior court of East Florida concerning Charles F. Sibbald’s land claim under a Spanish grant made before the cession of Florida. In that earlier decision (January Term 1836), the Supreme Court affirmed the decree confirming Sibbald’s title to a ten-thousand-acre tract and reversed the remainder, while also confirming Sibbald’s claim to additional four-thousand- and two-thousand-acre surveys and directing the surveyor of public lands in the eastern district of Florida to perform all acts required by law related to the lands within the surveys. The cause was remanded to the superior court of East Florida to carry out what remained to be done consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion and decree.

Sibbald later petitioned the Supreme Court, asserting that the clerk had issued a mandate directed only to the superior court of East Florida and not to the surveyor, and that the surveyor would not perform the surveys absent a mandate to him. Sibbald also stated that interferences with older surveys prevented him from obtaining the full quantity unless deficiencies could be made up by other locations. He sought reform of the mandate or issuance of a mandate directing the surveyor, and also directing the superior court to cause further lawful proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decree.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Supreme Court could reform or reissue its mandate to ensure execution of its prior final decree—particularly to direct the surveyor of public lands—without modifying the substance of the final decree.
Whether a mandate issued by the clerk that was directed only to the court below, and contained no direction to the surveyor, constituted an execution of the Supreme Court’s final decree.
What limits bind the inferior court’s authority on remand in executing the Supreme Court’s decree and mandate.

Arguments of the Parties

Sibbald (Petitioner/Appellee) — Arguments

The mandate as made out by the clerk was directed only to the superior court of East Florida and did not direct the surveyor of public lands, even though the Supreme Court’s decree imposed duties on both; therefore, the mandate was not in conformity with the judgment and was not an execution of it.
Because no mandate was directed to the surveyor, the surveyor refused to make the required surveys; the superior court declined to execute the mandate as Sibbald requested for want of authority under the mandate presented.
Sibbald asserted that the Supreme Court’s opinion and judgment clearly settled that he was entitled to the full complement of land under his original grant (sixteen thousand acres) and that he had a privilege to point out other locations to make up deficiencies caused by interferences with older valid claims.
He requested that the Supreme Court amend the error in the mandate so that full and complete execution of the decree could be had, including directing the surveyor to perform legally required acts.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the United States’ legal arguments in response to the petitions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
1 Wheat. 355	Final decrees in chancery are conclusive, like judgments at law.	Used to support the proposition that the Supreme Court cannot review its own final decisions after final action.
6 Wheat. 113, 116	Final decrees/judgments are conclusive on adjudicated rights.	Reinforced the Court’s statement that its final decree is conclusive between the parties.
3 Wheat. 591	A court cannot reverse or annul its own final decree after the term for errors of fact or law, except for clerical mistakes.	Supported the Court’s conclusion that it could not materially change its prior final decree, only ensure proper execution.
3 Peters, 431	Same general principle regarding finality after the term (subject to clerical-mistake exception).	Cited alongside 3 Wheat. 591 as authority for the Court’s rule on finality.
12 Wheat. 10	Exception permitting reinstatement of a cause dismissed by mistake.	Noted as an exception to the finality rule, but stated to be inapplicable to the present motion.
1 S.C. 194, 197	After mandate, the inferior court is bound to execute the decree and cannot vary or review matters decided on appeal.	Used to define the constrained scope of the lower court’s authority on remand.
1 H. M. 557	Same general “mandate binds lower court” principle.	Cited with other authorities to support limits on inferior courts after remand.
3 Menif. 228	Same general “mandate binds lower court” principle.	Cited with other authorities to support limits on inferior courts after remand.
3 Dow. P.C. 157	After a mandate, no rehearing will be granted; noted as consistent with practice in the House of Lords.	Used to support the Court’s statement that rehearing is not granted after mandate.
5 Cranch, 316	On a subsequent appeal, only proceedings subsequent to the mandate are reviewable.	Cited for the scope of review following a mandate.
7 Wheat. 58, 59	On a subsequent appeal, only proceedings after the mandate are before the appellate court.	Reinforced the rule limiting later appellate review to post-mandate proceedings.
10 Wheat. 443	Same rule limiting later appellate review to proceedings after mandate.	Reinforced the Court’s statement about the finality and binding effect of mandates.
Mitchell v. The United States	Example where the Court issued a special mandate “on great deliberation” to address anticipated difficulty.	Used to compare the present situation and show that special mandates can be crafted to meet execution needs.
the United States v. Soulard	Example where a special mandate was made to meet the case.	Used to illustrate that the Court can issue a mandate tailored to implement its decree.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first stated settled rules governing what happens after the Supreme Court’s final action in an appellate case. Appellate power is exercised over inferior courts, not over the appellate court’s own proceedings; thus, the Supreme Court cannot review its own final decisions. Final decrees in equity are conclusive like judgments at law. The Court emphasized the widely settled principle that no court can reverse or annul its own final decree for errors of fact or law after the term, except for clerical mistakes (and certain exceptions such as bills of review or writs of error coram vobis, which the Court said did not affect the present motion).

The Court then explained that when its final decree requires further acts, it does not issue “execution” itself; instead it sends a special mandate to the court below to award execution. Whatever the Supreme Court disposed of is finally settled. The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case and must carry it into execution according to the mandate; it cannot vary, review, or provide further relief as to matters decided on appeal, and it may act only on what has been remanded. After a mandate, rehearing will not be granted, and any subsequent appeal brings up only proceedings after the mandate.

Applying these principles, the Court recounted the prior case’s posture: Sibbald claimed sixteen thousand acres surveyed in three tracts (ten thousand, four thousand, and two thousand). The court below had confirmed the ten-thousand-acre tract but effectively limited Sibbald’s recovery by rejecting the other surveys and allowing the remainder only if vacant lands could be found at the place designated in the grant. On appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed Sibbald’s claim to the full sixteen thousand acres according to the three surveys in the record, construing the grant to allow surveys outside the original location to make up deficiencies, and treating the smaller surveys as an “equivalent” for land not vacant at the designated place. The Court reasoned that, to effectuate its final decree, Sibbald must receive the full confirmed quantity somewhere.

The Court discussed the post-decision statutory scheme described in the record (including duties of the surveyor and the court below in particular circumstances) to explain the intended operation of its mandate directing the surveyor to perform legally enjoined acts and directing the superior court to do what remained to be done consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion and decree. It explained that the lower court, acting under the mandate, could determine questions arising in execution (such as extent, locality, and boundaries), but could not revisit Sibbald’s entitlement to the full confirmed quantity or the validity of the surveys already confirmed by the Supreme Court’s final decree.

Turning to the petitions, the Court concluded that the mandate annexed to Sibbald’s petition—issued by the clerk—was directed only to the court below and gave no direction to the surveyor. The Court held that this was “therefore no execution” of its final decree. Because the decree remained unexecuted, it was not too late to have it done, and doing so required no new order modifying the earlier final decree. The Court stated that if a more special mandate had appeared necessary, it would have been ordered, and that the Court is bound to grant a mandate suited to the case.

Holding and Implications

ORDERED: The clerk of the Supreme Court was directed to make out a certificate of the final decree previously rendered in the United States v. Sibbald and to issue a mandate according to that final decree, the Court’s opinion in that case, and the Court’s opinion on the petitions.

The direct effect was to correct the execution mechanism for the prior decree by ensuring issuance of a mandate “according to” the final decree and opinions, addressing the problem that the clerk’s earlier mandate lacked direction to the surveyor. The opinion reiterates that the prior final decree remains unchanged and conclusive, and that the inferior court’s role is limited to execution consistent with the mandate; the Court did not describe broader implications beyond implementing its earlier decree.

Show full summary ...

EX PARTE CHARLES F. SIBBALD, APPELLEE v. THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS.

On an appeal from the superior court of East Florida by the United States, the decree of the court of East Florida was in part affirmed; the title of Sibbald, the appellee, to whom the grant of land hand been made by the Spanish governor, before the cession of Florida, having been deemed valid by the Supreme Court. The decree of the Supreme Court directed the surveyor of public lands in East Florida to do all things enjoined on him by law, in relation to the lands in the surveys made for the grantee. The case was remanded to the superior court of East Florida, for the execution of this decree. The mandate of the Supreme Court for the execution of the decree of the Supreme Court, was directed to the superior court of East Florida; and the surveyor of public lands would not make the surveys of the lands in the grant, according to the decision of the Court, the mandate not having been issued to him. A petition was presented to the Court by Sibbald, stating these facts, and asking the Court to order that a mandate be made out, directing the surveyor of public lands to do all required of him in relation to the surveys of the lands of the grantee, in conformity with the decree of the Court: and also to the superior court of East Florida, directing the court to cause further to be done therein what of right and according to law and justice, and in conformity to the decree of the Court, ought to be done. By the Court — Had it appeared, that a mandate more special than the one which was sent would have been necessary, it would have been ordered. The Court is bound to grant a mandate which will suit the case. The mandate which is annexed to the petition, was issued by the clerk, directed only to the court below, and no direction is given to the surveyor. It is, therefore, no execution of the final decree of the Supreme Court; and as it remains unexecuted, it is not too late to have it done; and requires no new order or decree in any way modifying that which has been rendered. The clerk was ordered to make out a certificate of the final decree of the Court before rendered; and also a mandate according to such final decree, the opinion of the Court in the case, and on the petition. Appellate power is exercised over the proceedings of inferior courts, not on those of the appellate courts. The superior court have no power to review their decisions, whether in a case at law or equity. A final decree in chancery is as conclusive as a judgment at law. Both are conclusive on the rights of the parties thereby adjudicated. No principle is better settled, or of more universal application, that no court can reverse or annual its own final decrees or judgments for errors of fact or law after the term in which they have been rendered, unless for clerical mistakes; or to reinstate a cause, dismissed by mistake: from which it follows, that no change or modification can be made which may substantially vary or affect it, in any material thing. Bills of review in cases of equity, and writs of error, coram vobis, at law, are exceptions. When the Supreme Court have executed their power in a case before them, and their final decree or judgment requires some further act to be done, it cannot issue an execution, but will send a special mandate to the court below to award it. Whatever was before the Court and is disposed of, is considered finally settled. The inferior court is bound by the decree, as the law of the case; and must carry it into execution according to the mandate: they can examine it for no other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it upon any matter decided on appeal, for error apparent; or intermeddle with it further than to settle so much as has been remanded. After a mandate, no rehearing will be granted: and on a subsequent appeal, nothing is brought up but the proceeding subsequent to the mandate. If the special mandate directed by the 24th section of the judiciary act is not obeyed, then the general power given to "all the courts of the United States to issue any writs which are necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law," by the 14th section of the judiciary act, fairly arises; and a mandamus or other appropriate writ will go.

Mr. Clarke, for Mr. Sibbald, moved to reform the mandate issued by the Court, in this case, at January term, 1836, so as to conform the same to the opinion given by the Court at that time; or to issue a mandate to the surveyor general of the district of East Florida, to do those acts and things which he is commanded to do by the judgment of this Court, and which are enjoined on him by law. He cited 10 Peters, 313; 3 Storv's Laws U.S. 1962; 9 Peters, 171; 10 Peters, 100.

The petition on which the motion was made, stated:

That at January term, 1836, of the Supreme Court of the United States, the case of the United States, appellants v. Charles F. Sibbald, appellee, was argued and determined in favour of said Charles F. Sibbald; and thereupon the following decree was given, to wit: —

"On consideration whereof, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this Court, that the decree of the said superior court, confirming the title of the petitioner to the ten thousand acres on Trout creek, be, and the same is hereby affirmed; and that the residue of the decree of the said superior court be, and the same is hereby reversed and annulled. And this Court, preceeding to render such decree as the said superior court ought to have rendered, doth order, adjudge, and decree, that the claim of the petitioner to the land embraced in the surveys of four thousand acres, and of two thousand acres, as returned with and contained in the record, is valid; and that the same be, and is hereby confirmed. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this Court, that the surveyor of public lands in the eastern district of Florida, be, and he is hereby directed to do, and cause to be done, all the acts and things enjoined on him by law, in relation to the lands within said survey. And that the said cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the said superior court, to cause further to be done therein, what of right, and according to law and justice, and in conformity to the opinion and decree of this Court, ought to be done." Vide 10 Peters, 324.

Your petitioner further represents, that he made application, by his solicitor, to said superior court of East Florida, to execute the mandate aforesaid; and which mandate he now exhibits in this Court, together with the opinion of the judge of said superior court, declining to execute said mandate, according to the requirements of your petitioner, for want of power or authority under said mandate.

Your petitioner further represents, that by the opinion and judgment of this honourable Court, he considered two points as clearly settled, to wit: first, that he was entitled to the full complement of sixteen thousand acres, according to his original grant. Secondly: That he had an inherent privilege to direct or point out where other locations should be made, in case the survey or surveys made for him, was interfered with by older and good claims.

Your petitioner further represents, that after said mandate was issued, and its execution demanded, it was clearly ascertained that there were divers interferences with older surveys, so as to prevent him from obtaining his full amount of lands; unless the deficiency were made up to him by other locations, to be pointed out. It will be seen by the opinion of the judge of said superior court, that he declined so to direct said surveys, according to his construction of said mandate.

Your petitioner further sets fourth, that in the decree of said Court, the surveyor general of East Florida was ordered and directed to do certain acts, and make the surveys therein ordered; but that no such mandate has been directed to said surveyor. He therefore prays that said mandate may be issued, in such terms as in the opinion of the Court may be right and proper.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prays your honourable Court to amend the error in said mandate as to conform to the judgment of the court; and that full and complete execution thereof may be had.

The petition was sworn to by Charles F. Sibbald, before a justice of the peace of the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia.

On the 7th of March, 1838, the counsel for the petitioner filed the following supplemental petition.

The supplemental petition of said Charles F. Sibbald, respectfully represents:

That by reference to the judgment of the Court, as set forth in 10 Peters, 324, it was "ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the surveyor of public lands in the eastern district of Florida, be, and he is hereby directed to do, and cause to be done, all the acts and things enjoined on him by law, in relation to the lands within said survey." And it was further ordered, adjudged, and decreed: "That the said cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the said superior court, to cause further to be done therein, what of right, and according to law and justice, and in conformity to the opinion and decree of this Court, ought to be done."

Your petitioner respectfully represents, that by the said judgment and decree, certain duties were imposed upon the surveyor of the public lands, as well as upon the said superior court; but that the mandate of this Court as made out by the clerk, is made to the judge of the superior court only, and none is directed to said surveyor; which your petitioner considers not to be an execution of, on in conformity with the judgment of this Court.

The duties of a surveyor are prescribed by the 6th and 11th secs. of the act of congress of 1834, 3 Story, 1962. And by an act of 23d May, 1828, are made applicable to cases in Florida. 4 Story, 2126, sec. 6; and 6 Laws U.S. 68, sec. 6.

The duties of the judge of the superior court are defined by the 1st sec. of said act of 1824, 3 Story, 1960.

Your petitioner, therefore, respectfully prays that the mandate of the Court as rendered, be made out by the clerk in conformity to the judgment of the Court, and that it be so done as to direct the said surveyor, by a mandate to him, to do, or cause to be done, all the acts and things enjoined on him by law, in relation to the lands within said surveys. And also to direct the mandate to the superior court, to cause further to be done therein what of right, and according to law and justice, and in conformity to the opinion and decree of this Court, ought to be done.

Mr. Justice BALDWIN delivered the opinion of the Court:

The matter of the original and supplemental petition of the party is founded on a final decree of this Court in the case of the United States v. Charles F. Sibbald, which is reported in the 10th vol. Peters' Reports at large, in p. 313, 325; in which latter page will be found the final decree and mandate therein made; the substance whereof is fully set out in the petitions now before us.

Before we proceed to consider the matter presented by these petitions, we think proper to state our settled opinion of the course which is prescribed by the law for this Court to take, after its final action upon a case brought within its appellate jurisdiction; as well as that which the court, whose final decree or judgment has been thus verified, ought to take.

Appellate power is exercised over the proceedings of inferior courts, not on those of the appellate court. The Supreme Court have no power to review their decisions, whether in a case at law or in equity. A final decree in chancery is as conclusive as a judgment at law. 1 Wheat. 355; 6 Wheat. 113, 116. Both are conclusive on the rights of the parties thereby adjudicated.

No principle is better settled, or of more universal application, than that no court can reverse or annul its own final decrees or judgments, for errors of fact or law, after the term in which they have been rendered, unless for clerical mistakes; 3 Wheat. 591; 3 Peters, 431: or to reinstate a cause dismissed by mistake, 12 Wheat. 10: from which it follows, that no change or modification can be made, which may substantially vary or affect it in any material thing. Bills of review, in cases in equity, and writs of error, coram vobis, at law; are exceptions which cannot affect the present motion.

When the Supreme Court have executed their power in a cause before them, and their final decree or judgment requires some further act to be done, it cannot issue an execution, but shall send a special mandate to the court below to award it. 24 sect. Judiciary Act, 1 Story's Laws, 61. Whatever was before the Court, and is disposed of, is considered as finally settled. The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case; and must carry it into execution, according to the mandate. They cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it upon any matter decided on appeal for error apparent; or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded. 1 S.C. 194, 197; 1 H. M. 557; 3 Menif. 228. After a mandate, no rehearing will be granted. It is never done in the House of Lords; 3 Dow. P.C. 157: and on a subsequent appeal, nothing is brought up, but the proceeding subsequent to the mandate. 5 Cranch, 316; 7 Wheat. 58, 59; 10 Wheat. 443.

If the special mandate directed by the 24th section, is not obeyed or executed, then the general power given to "all the courts of the United States to issue any writs which are necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law;" by the 14th section of the judiciary act; fairly arises, and a mandamus, or other appropriate writ will go. 1 Story, 59.

In the original cause, the now petitioner claimed sixteen thousand acres of land, which had been surveyed in three tracts of ten, four, and two thousand acres. The court below confirmed his title to the tract of ten thousand acres, surveyed at the place called for in the grant; but rejected his claim to the two others, surveyed elsewhere, by their final decree, which concluded thus: "And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the said claimant have leave to survey the whole number of acres called for in his grant, at the place designated in the same; provided vacant lands of sufficient extent may be obtained at that place."

The effect of this decree was to confirm the title to the whole quantity of sixteen thousand acres called for in the grant, if so much could be found vacant at the place called for; but to prohibit the survey of the deficiency at any other than the place designated; whereby the claim was reduced to ten thousand acres.

On an appeal to this Court, the petitioner's claim was confirmed to its full extent of sixteen thousand acres, according to the three separate surveys in the record; the decree below was affirmed as to the ten thousand, and reversed as to the two other surveys of four and two thousand acres respectively; and a mandate ordered accordingly.

In order to ascertain the true intention of the decree of confirmation, and consequently of the mandate, and its effect; that part of the decree below which was affirmed, must be taken in connection with the petitioner's title, and the construction of it by this Court. Both courts confirmed the title to the whole quantity claimed: the difference between them was as to the two small surveys, which the court below rejected on their construction of the grant: being of opinion, that by its terms, the whole quantity must be surveyed in one place. This Court, construing the grant differently, held, that by its terms, it authorized surveys at places other than the one described; and that after surveying all that was vacant there, the quantity found deficient might be surveyed where the grantee designated. This was done, as appeared by the evidence; surveys were made by the proper officers, and without objections by the Spanish governor. These were the surveys confirmed by this Court, at the place referred to in the plots in the record. Vide 10 Peters, 323, 324. There can, therefore, be no difficulty in understanding the mandate in this respect. It gives to the surveys of four and two thousand acres, the same validity as if they had been made for the land specified in the grant; as the " equivalent" of what could not be found vacant at the place called for in the grant. In the decree of the court below, the proviso, if vacant lands, of sufficient extent can be obtained at that place; must be referred to the decree of this Court affirming that part of the decree, in conformity with the opinion, as to the "equivalent," for such portion of the whole quantity as was not open to appropriation when the ten thousand acres were surveyed.

To make up such " equivalent," consistently with the declared opinion of the Court, the party must have the right of filling up his claim in some mode, or he will obtain a less quantity than has been confirmed to him by our final decree; which the law declares shall be final and conclusive between the parties, who were the United States and the petitioner. 3 Story L. 1961. The latter must, therefore, have his sixteen thousand acres somewhere.

By the eleventh section of the act of 1824, provision is made for the case; in enacting, "That if in any case it should so happen, that the lands, tenements or hereditaments, decreed to any claimant under the provisions of this act, shall have been sold by the United States, or otherwise disposed of; or if the same shall not have been heretofore located; in each and every such case the party may enter the like quantity," c. c. 3 Story, 1963. This section applies to each of the three surveys, provided that either comes within its provisions, by its appearing that any part thereof cannot be obtained pursuant to our decree.

By the sixth section of the same act, the duties to be performed after a final decision in favour of the claimant, are prescribed; the clerk of this Court is to give a copy of the decree under the seal of the Court to the party, who shall deliver it to the surveyor of the state or territory, who shall cause the land to be surveyed, and a plot thereof to be made out and returned to the land office; which shall entitle the party to a patent. 3 Story, 1962. This section applies to confirmations, where there is no interfering claim, so that nothing remains to be done by the court below; but when the case comes under the eleventh section, then the surveyor, and the court below must both act: the one to ascertain what portion of either of the confirmed survey comes within its provisions; and the other to decide on the return of the surveyor, how much land, if any, is to be entered at the proper land office. In such cases, the court below acts under our mandate to execute our decree on those matters which remained for their future action; which is to be done in the same manner, por tanto, as when the whole case was originally before it, in the first instance; according to the provisions of the first section of the act, with this exception; that they cannot act on any question of the title of the party to the full quantity confirmed, or decide against the validity of the surveys which have been confirmed by this Court. So far as our final decree goes, it must be taken to be conclusive.

On receiving the mandate, the court below must "determine all questions arising (in its execution) in relation to the extent, locality, and boundaries of the said claim, or other matters connected therewith, fit and proper to be heard and determined; and may, at discretion, order disputed facts to be found by a jury; and otherwise proceed as directed in that section." 3 Story, 1961. By this reference to the law the meaning of the mandate of this Court directed to the surveyor, commanding him to do and perform the acts enjoined on him by law; and to the court below, "to cause further to be done therein, what of right, according to law and justice, in conformity to the opinion and decree of this Court, ought to be done;" [is evident.]

In Mitchell v. The United States, where the Court apprehended that some difficulty might occur, a special mandate was made out on great deliberation. 9 Peters, 761-2. In the United States v. Soulard, one was made to meet the case, 10 Peters, 105-6: and had it appeared from the record, in the case between the United States and the petitioner, that a mandate more special than the one made out would have been necessary, it would have been done. The one ordered is, in substance, the same as those; and with the references now made, will meet the prayer of the petition, which we feel bound to grant, for the reasons set forth. The mandate which is annexed to the petition, was issued by the clerk, directed only to the court below, and no direction is given to the surveyor; it is therefore no execution of our final decree: and as it thus remains unexecuted. it is not too late to have it done, and requires no new order or decree, in any way modifying that which has been rendered in the reported case.

It is therefore ordered, that the clerk of this Court make out a certificate of the final decree heretofore rendered in the case of the United States v. Sibbald; and also a mandate according to such final decree, the opinion of the Court in that case, and on these petitions.

On consideration of the motion made in this cause by Mr. Clarke, of counsel for the appellant, on a prior day of the present term of this Court, to wit, on Saturday, the 10th day of February, A.D. 1838, and of the arguments of counsel thereupon had, it is now here considered, ordered and adjudged by this Court, that the clerk of this Court make out a certificate of the final decree heretofore rendered in the case of the United States v. Sibbald; and also a mandate according to such final decree, the opinion of the Court in that case, and on this petition.

EX PARTE SIBBALD v. THE UNITED STATES