against it, declined to pay it, when he thereupon brought suit for that amount, in Connecticut, in 1871, which he discontinued in 1872, and, during its pendency, brought the action in which the judgment complained of was rendered, in which be ignored the special agreement, and sued upon a quantum meruit; that Palmer, one of the defendants, at the time of the trial was absent from the District of Columbia, and was not notified of the day of trial in time to be present; that Stanton, though present in Washington at the time, was unable to attend the trial on account of sickness; that since the trial Stanton, on examination, had found among his papers two letters from Atkinson, in which the latter expressly acknowledged the existence of the special contract for fees at five per cent, as claimed, but they were discovered too late for use on the trial; and that Embry, in suppressing his knowledge of the existence of this contract, and in procuring a judgment for a larger sum, was guilty of fraud, which made it inequitable in him to enforce the judgment to its full extent.

A general demurrer to this petition, reserved to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut for its advice, was overruled, that court being of opinion that the petition was sufficient. Its decision is reported in 46 Conn. 65, treating the case made in the petition as one of fraud in procuring an unjust judgment admitted by the demurrer.

Embry then filed his answer to the petition, in which he denies that he made out the account as originally presented at the rate of five per cent on the amount collected, to conform to any agreement between the parties, but because he found from Atkinson's books that he had charged at that rate in other cases, and without considering the difference of value in the services rendered in them; and that Atkinson kept no copies of the letters written to the petitioners. He claims that the question, whether there was any contract between the parties, and if so, what were its terms, was fully tried and finally decided in the action, which resulted in the judgment complained of, and which he sets up as an estoppel. He denies that he then or at any time knew of any contract between the parties as to fees, and claims that if the petitioners failed in that action to substantiate a defene, it was through their own laches, and not by reason of any fraud on his part.

In accordance with the practice in that State, the cause was referred to a committee, whose report of the facts constitutes part of the record, from which the following extract is taken :"At [the time of] the trial of this case at Washington neither Stanton nor Palmer was present in court. Palmer was

too

at Stonington; his attendance might have been secured by reasonable diligence, if such attendance had been deemed very important. Stanton was ill at his hotel in Washington, ill to attend the trial. His counsel asked for a postponement on that account; but no affidavit was offered in support of the motion, and it was denied. The petitioners' counsel appears to have been content to proceed with the trial in the absence of his clients. He had full and, as it turned out, undue confidence in the legal defences, which appear by the record to have been set up at the trial, and took it for granted that in no event could more be recovered than $2,296.29. The letters of Atkinson of February 18, 1870, and May 7, 1870, recognizing the special agreement for five per cent on claim D, were not in Washington at the trial there; they were received by Stanton, the active partner, at a time when his mind was much depressed; they were stored for safe keeping at his home in Stonington, Connecticut, and the contents had escaped his recollection; they were not found by him until after the trial and disposal of the case at the general term.

"After the commencement of the suit at Washington he made search for all letters and papers relating to the case, and placed in possession of his counsel such as he found; and he then supposed that he had found and placed in the hands of counsel all the letters and papers pertaining to the matters in suit. As bearing on the question how it happened that these letters escaped the recollection of Stanton, it appears that for several reasons the attention of the petitioners was not alive to the importance of being prepared at the trial in Washington with the proof of the special agreement which the letters furnished: 1. Because the petitioners took it for granted that the full extent of the plaintiff's claim at the trial would be $2,296.29, that being the amount of the claim D presented through Mr. Pratt; and it did not occur to them that a larger amount might be claimed under the quantum meruit count.

2. Because their counsel had undue confidence in legal defences against the entire demand, and therefore did not apprehend the full importance to the interests of his clients of being prepared with proof of the special agreement.

"As to specification 7th in the petition, Atkinson, while living, had full knowledge that the amount due him was but $2,296.29, on a special contract for that amount, and he, if living, could not, with a good conscience, have presented a claim for a greater amount. Embry, the administrator, knew that Stanton and Palmer claimed a special contract, and was willing before trial was brought to settle on that basis; but his claim in court on, a quantum meruit was not on his part an intentional suggestio falsi. He did not know that the claim was unfounded; the full proof of the special agreement was not in his possession, and had not been fully brought to his knowledge.”

What decree should be passed in the cause upon this report was reserved for the action of the Supreme Court of Errors; which court, after argument, advised that the prayer of the petition be granted, on condition that the petitioners pay to the respondent the sum of $2,296.29, within a reasonable time. to be fixed, with interest thereon from March 10, 1871, which was accordingly so ordered; and the said sum of money having thereupon been paid by the petitioners to the attorney of the respondent, and received by him, with the interest thereon, it was ordered and decreed by the Supreme Court that he be enjoined, under a penalty of $20,000, payable to them, to abstain and desist from the further prosecution of his suit upon the judgment, and from instituting any other suit or action thereon, or from executing or in any manner enforcing the same against them.

Proceedings in error were taken in due form to review this judgment in the Supreme Court of Errors of the State, it being assigned for error "that the decree is in contravention of art. 4, sect. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, and sect. 905, c. 17, tit. 13, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in that it enjoins the prosecution of a suit on a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia," and "that the decree enjoins the collection of a judgment of a court of the United States."

The opinion of the Supreme Court of Errors in passing upon the case as presented by the report of the committee, and advising as to the decree to be rendered thereon, is reported in Stanton v. Embry, 46 Conn. 595.

The final decree entered in pursuance thereof, and affirmed by that court, is now, by writ of error, brought here by Embry for review.

Mr. Edward Lander and Mr. Amos L. Merriman for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Jeremiah Halsey and Mr. Charles W. Hornor for the defendants in error.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

A suggestion is made in argument that Embry is estopped to prosecute this writ to the reversal of the decree below, because it appears that the amount of money ordered by it to be paid to him as a condition of relief granted has been accepted by him. It is said that this is a release of errors. Without entering upon a discussion of the general question, it is sufficient for the present purpose to say that no waiver or release of errors, operating as a bar to the further prosecution of an appeal or writ of error, can be implied, except from conduct which is inconsistent with the claim of a right to reverse the judgment or decree, which it is sought to bring into review. If the release is not expressed, it can arise only upon the principle of an estoppel. The present is not such a case. The amount awarded, paid, and accepted constitutes no part of what is in controversy. Its acceptance by the plaintiff in error cannot be construed into an admission that the decree he seeks to reverse is not erroneous; nor does it take from the defendants in error anything, on the reversal of the decree, to which they would otherwise be entitled; for they cannot deny that this sum, at least, is due and payable from them to him. But in every point of view the objection is met and answered by the decision of this court in the case of United States v. Dashiel, 3 Wall. 688.

The jurisdiction of the court invoked by this writ of error is conferred by sect. 709, Rev. Stat., it being a case in which a title or right is claimed under an authority exercised under the

United States, and the decision of the State court being in denial of the title or right so asserted. It was decided in Dupasseur v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. 130, that such a question is undoubtedly raised whenever "a State court refuses to give effect to the judgment of a court of the United States rendered upon the point in dispute, and with jurisdiction of the case and of the parties." The judgment, which is the subject-matter of the litigation, is that of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which is a court of the United States. The question we have to determine is whether the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut, in the decree complained of, gave to that judgment its due effect.

Section 905, Rev. Stat., which embodies the original act of May 26, 1790, c. 11, and the supplement thereto of March 27, 1804, c. 56, provides that the records and judicial proceedings, not only of the courts of any State, but also of any Territory, or of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, authenticated as therein prescribed, "shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken;" which, by supplying the ellipsis, must be taken to mean, such faith and credit as they are entitled to in the courts of the State, Territory, or other country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from which they are taken.

So far as this statutory provision relates to the effect to be given to the judicial proceedings of the States, it is founded on art. 4, sect. 1, of the Constitution, which, however, does not extend to the other cases covered by the statute. The power to prescribe what effect shall be given to the judicial proceedings of the courts of the United States is conferred by other provisions of the Constitution, such as those which declare the extent of the judicial power of the United States, which authorize all legislation necessary and proper for executing the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, and which declare the supremacy of the authority of the national government within the limits of the Constitution. As part of its general authority, the power to give effect to the judgments