"A writ of error is a writ issued from a court of appellate jurisdiction directed to the judge or judges of a court of record, requiring them to remit to the appellate court the record of an action before them, in which a final judgment has been entered, in order that examination may be made of certain errors alleged to have been committed, and that the judgment may be reversed, corrected, or affirmed, as the case may require." 10

A writ of error will only lie for substantial errors,11 never for mere formal errors.12 The errors relied upon must also appear upon the face of the record.13 In Machea vs. United States14 the court said on this point:

"The district attorney for the United States has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, because no bond was given, and because, the suit being one at law, no appeal would lie; and he also moves to dismiss the writ of error because there are no bills of exception nor assignments of error accompanying the same. The plaintiff in error makes no pretense that there is any appeal before the court, but does insist on his writ of error, and submits the case to the court on the facts as though the case were on appeal. The whole merits of the case are argued as though the court on writ of error could inquire into them and give relief. The jurisdiction of the court, however, extends no further than to pass upon such error as may appear by the record; and as there are no bills of exception to show any ruling of the court below prejudicial to the plaintiff in error nor assignments of error pointing out any part of the proceedings in the court below as injurious to the plaintiff in error, and as the counsel point out no error, and this court sees none on inspection of the record, it conclusively follows that the writ of error should be dismissed, and the judgment of the district court affirmed.

10 Block's Law Dictionary.

11 Harris vs. Cole, 2 Fla., 400.

12 Pettes vs. Com., 126 Mass., 242.

13 Claggett vs. Simes, 31 N. Y., 29;

Gaffney vs. People, 50 N. Y., 416. 14 26 Fed. Rep., 845.

"A court of error is confined to a revisory jurisdiction only. It has no original jurisdiction except as conferred by statute, and accordingly must limit its examination to errors of law only."

In Parks vs. Turner15 the Supreme Court of the United States said in part:

15 12 Howard, 39. The lawyers' edition of the Supreme Court reports contains the following note to the case:

"What questions the United States Supreme Court will review on writ of error; bill of exceptions.

"In cases at law the Supreme Court can only review the errors of the court below in matters of law appearing on the record. If the facts upon which the court pronounced their judgment do not appear on the record, it is impossible for this court to say that their judgment is erroneous in law. Prentice vs. Zane, 8 How., 470; 1 Law Rep., N. EL 204.

"Error can only be founded on a bill of exceptions in the record, so far as it relates to the ruling of the law by the judge, and the admission or rejection of the evidence. Beyond this an appellate court has no power to look into the bill on a writ of error. Zeller vs. Eckert, 3 Howard, 289.

"Where the record contains a bill of exceptions, the operation of the writ of error is not confined to that portion of the record. If error is apparent upon any part of the record it is open to review, whether it is found in the bill of exceptions or elsewhere. Suydam vs. Williamson, 20 How., 427.

"'When the whole record is brought up the court may reverse upon a defect not noticed below, and even upon its own notice of one not pointed out by counsel. Gurland vs. Davis, 4 How., 131, 143.

"The court will not review the judgment of an inferior court, unless it appears from the record that the point which is controverted was in fact decided by the court below. It is not sufficient if the point is involved in the case, and might have been raised and decided. Coons vs. Gallagher, 15 Pet., 18.

"It must be shown that the court below has erred, or the Supreme Court cannot reverse its judgment. It cannot proceed upon conjecture of what the court has laid down for law; it must be shown what instructions were in fact given and what were refused. Bradstreet vs. Huntington, 5 Pet., 402; United States vs. Cook, 2 Mas., 22.

"Only the errors presented in the record or bill of exceptions can be reviewed. Haney vs. Clark, "Now as to the first objection, we certainly cannot adopt in this court the practice and mode of proceeding in the appellate court of Louisiana. For a writ of error can bring up to this court nothing but questions of law. And as the whole practice of Louisiana cannot be adopted in a case of this description, is the Circuit Court bound to follow it? And must the validity of this verdict depend upon the Burn. (Wis.), 142; Thompson vs. Backentos, 1 Oreg., 17; Scott vs. Cook, 1 Ore., 24.

"Where a jury was waived by the court below, and the finding of the court is general, and there is no special verdict or agreed statement of facts or bill of exceptions on a point of law, or question raised on the pleading, the Supreme Court cannot review the judgment of the court below. But, having jurisdiction of the cause, and no error or question of law appearing on the record, the judgment must be affirmed. Guild vs. Frontin, 18 How., 135; Ohio vs. Marcy, 18 Wall, 52; Bethel vs. Matthews, 13 Wall, 11; Dickman vs. Planter's Bank, 16 Wall, 250.

"So where no error appears by the record, and no exceptions are presented to the rulings or decision of the court, the regular practice is to affirm the judgment, not to dismiss the case. Stevens vs. Gladding, 19 How., 64; Lathrop vs. Jud-son, 19 How., 66; James vs. Black, 7 Wall 692.

"Where jurisdiction depends upon the residence of the parties, such residence must appear on the record. Mossman vs. Higginson, 4 Dall, 12; Course vs. Stead., 4 Dall, 72.

"Exceptions to evidence cannot be considered unless the evidence be returned, and the court, on writ of error, will presume the evidence was proper, if the contrary does not appear by the record. Doty vs. Strong, Burn., 158; Nisqually Mill Co. vs. Tayloe, 1 Wash. T., 3; Blakeley vs. Ruedell, Hemst., 18; Leland vs. Wilkinson, 6 Pet., 317.

"Where judgment is upon demurrer, the case may be reexamined upon writ of error, without formal bill of exceptions. Rogers vs. Burlington, 3 Wall, 564.

"The record should show, by bill of exceptions, the proof, the decisions of the court below. A statement that the court below overruled a motion and that the plaintiffs in error reversed the exceptions to the decisions, does not bring up any question. Kearney vs. Denn, 15 Wall, 51.

"An assignment of error must state in what the error consisted; an assignment which alleges simply that the court below errea in giving the instructions which were given to the jury, in lieu of those asked for, is insufficient. Luc's vs. Brooks, 18 Wall, 436.

"Judgment affirmed for want of assignment of errors. Ryan vs. Koch, 17 Wall, 19.

"If the finding of the Circuit Court be a general one, the Supreme Court will review only questions of law arising during the trial as presented by the bill of exceptions or errors of law apparent on the face of the pleadings. Insurance Company vs. Folson, 18 Wall, 237; Ohio vs. Macy, 18 Wall, 532." rules of the common law, and the acts of Congress, or upon the formula prescribed by the Louisiana code of practice? Unquestionably the force and operation of the verdict when the case is brought here, depends upon the rules of the common law. It is conclusive upon this court as to the fact found, while in Louisiana it is open to revision and reversal in the appellate court. And if the conclusive force and effect of a verdict depends upon the rules of the common law, it would seem to follow, that what is a sufficient finding by the jury to constitute a legal verdict upon the issues joined, and to make it operate as such, must also depend upon the rules of the common law, except in so far as they may be modified by acts of Congress. And while this court is bound to give effect to the verdict according to the rules of the common law, it can hardly be required to look elsewhere, in order to ascertain what find of the jury is a verdict, and entitled to the conclusive 'effect which the common law gives it.

"At common law a writ of error is the sole remedy to review a judgment rendered in an action at law brought before a court of record." 16

In Parish vs. Ellis,17 the Supreme Court of the United States said:

"If the proceedings in the territorial courts were proceedings at law, and not in equity, we have no jurisdiction to hear the case, because it is not brought here by writ of error. The Act of Congress of July 14, 1832, Sec. 3 (4 Story's Laws, 2330), declares that the regulations prescribed by the second section of the Act entitled 'An act to amend the judicial system of the United States,' approved the 3d of March, 1893, as far as said regulations shall be practicable, shall be observed in respect to all writs of error and appeals from the said Court of Appeals in the said territory to the Supreme Court of the United States. And the Act of 1803, thus referred to in the law of 1832, gives the right of appeal in cases of equity or admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and prize or no prize, but leaves the cases of law to be brought up by writ of error as provided for by the Act of 1789. And it has always been held that a case at law cannot, under the Act of 1803, be brought here by appeal."

16 Ellis vs. State, 3 Iowa, 217; United States vs. Union Pac.

R. Co., 105 U. S., 263. 17 16 Peters, 451.

Only a party to the record, or one who has been injured by the judgment, is entitled to a writ of error.