300 FEDERAL EBPOETER. �discretion on such motions, the case made would not seem to be a snfficient one. But this court bas no authority to grant the motion, however meritorious the case might be, because it must execute the mandate of the supreme court sent here upon the affirmance of the judgment of this court by the supreme court. That mandate entitles the plaintiff to an absolute and final judgment. If a mandate of the supreme court is open to construction, the court below can resort to the opinion of the supreme court, and can apply proper rules of construction, but further than this the court below cannot go �In Shilleru's ExWs v. May' s ExWs, 6 Cranch, 267, where it appeared to the circuit court, in a case remanded by the supreme court for further proceedings, that the cause was one not ■within the.Jurisdictioh of .the court, it was held the circuit court was bouna tio.carry the mandate into exeeutiqn. In Ex parte Story, 13 fei. 339, it was held that the court beio'w properlyrefused to p,ll6w the defendant to file a sup- plemental plea and answer, because the cause wa,s before it upon a mandate of the supreme court, and the court below ^y£ts hound to execute the inandate. Bee, alao. Ex parte Sib- hg.U, 12 Pet. 488, "where it W;Saia "theinferior court is bound bytthe decree as thelaw of the case, and must oarry it into eiecution accordihg to thematidate. They cannot vary it or examine it for any otiier purpose than execution, or give ahy other or further relief." In Ex parte Dubuque v. Pacifie Rail- road, 1 Wall. 69, where the court below, after entering Judg- ment according to the mandate, and thereafter affidavits of ability to show new facts haviug been filed, grahted a motion for a new trial, the supreme court issued a mandamus com- manding the lower court to vacate and erase the order, upon the ground that the authority of the court below extended only to executing the mandate. �The motion is, therefore, denied. ��� �
