58? INDF?. Circuit Court of Appeals will not be reversed by this court unless shown to be clearly err?mcous. D?n v. L?m?#n's C'r? A?, 20. Where the lower courts have both found that the proportion of copyrighted matter issued in alster publication, in this ease a trade rating journal, is insignificant compared with the volume of independently acquired in- formation, an injunction should be refused and the owner of the c?py- ri?t remitted to a court of law to recover the clama? actually sus- Findin? of an auditor assessing damages on an undertaking should not be set a?ide by the court unless there has been an error of law or a con- clueion o! fact unwarranted by the evidence. Hv/o?in? v. Munn, 246. Where the lan?age of the appellate court is ambiguous, if it may be taken a? a den[ination to pa? upon a question not necessary to the decision, this collrt will not, in order to aid a technical and non-meritorious de- reuse, spell out a Federat question; but it will resolve the ambiguity a?aiust the plaintiff in error who is bound, in order to.give this cour? jurisdietlun, to clearly show that a Federal right has been impaired. ,.qg? v. Ke?se,?, 419. ?. As ?o a?um?,n o! i,u?om6?n? ? o?m and c?i?a? o! Circa/? (7ou?. This court will not assume an inconsistency to exist between the opinion of the Circuit Court and its certificate. ?cu? v. Bird, 481. 6. As ?o sco? o! d?,minai? oa c?at? irom Circaif Co?. On certificate that the bill was dismissed solely because the suit was a?aiast the State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment and therelore not within the jurisdiction of the Federal court as such, this court cannot determine whether the bill should have been dismissed because not pre- sentlng a case for equitable relief. ?enlly v. Bird, 481. 7. ?c?l? o! r?v ?rs questi?m o! i?risdia'ioa vertif?cl ..?r �ot a? o/ ,1891. Where the question of jurisdietion is certl/ied to this court, under ?. 5 of the judiciary act of 1891, nothing but that question esa ? considereal here. ?n this ease the question is considered both as to parties and subject- matter. r?aner v. ?r? ?vo,t?ra ?. co., ?. 8. I, eon?trui, g cempa? b?wcea States. This enurt in construing a eumpaet between States will h?itato to r?aeh a conclusion different from that reached by the high?, eour? of both 8farce. Ce'ntra/R. R. Co. v. Jersey C?y.. 473.
�
