
    Marqueze v. Bloom.
    A case brought here .as within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act dismissed ; neither the record nor the opinion of the Supreme Court, ■ which was in the records, showing any question before that court, except one relating to the interruption of a “prescription” (statute of limitations) set up as a defence, and the opinion showing that this question was decided exclusiyely upon the principles of the jurisprudence of the State.
    On motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court' of the State of Louisiaua.
    Marqueze & Co. brought this suit in the Fourth District Court of the Parish of Orleans, in Louisiana, on the 19th of April, 1866, against Bloom,' Kahn, and Levi, trading as Bloom, Kahn & Co. The petition was fox the recovex’y of money alleged to be due to- the plaintiffs, for certain merchandise sold to the defendants during the first six months of 1861, amounting with interest, to $1045. The defendants, except Levi, pleaded the prescx'iption of three years. Levi pleaded the same prescx’iption, averring that at the time of the sale of the goods and since, uutil the commencement of the suit, he resided in the city of New Orleans, The District Court gave judgment against all the defendants, Levi alone appealed to the Supi-eme Court, and the judgment as to him was x’evex’sed.
    The opinion of the Supi-eme Coux-t was in thé record) and it appeared that the only question befox-e that court related to the interruption, of prescription, and that this was decided exclusively upou the principles of the jurisprudence of the State.
   The CHIEF JUSTICE:

No Federal question is referred to in the record or in the opinion. We have, therefore, no j-urisdiction of the ease, and the writ of error must be

Dismissed. 
      
       Gibson v. Chouteau, 8 Wallace, 314; Worthy v. The Commissioners, 9 Id. 613; Northern Railroad v. The People, 12 Id. 384.
     