24 CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH.

Here, however, this court has been entirely precluded from any
such inquiry. The law of this case has been pronounced by the
tribunal in the last resort; and it has been returned to this court
with special directions as to the mode in which that law is to be
earned into effect. Interest reipublicae res judicatas non rescindi.
It is, therefore, now wholly unimportant, as regards the matter un-
der consideration, what was the nature of the case on which the
decree of the Court of Appeals was founded; or what were the
reasons which induced that court to give the directions it has
done; since it is not the reason, or applicability of the law, so laid
down, which is in any manner the subject of consideration at this
time; but simply in what mode the directions given for executing
an unalterable judgment can be most correctly and effectually com-
plied with. Litigation must end somewhere. It is certain, that
this court cannot, in any one particular, however unimportant,
revise, correct, or alter, any order or decree of the Court of
Appeals; and it is questionable, whether even that court itself,
confined as it is, by the express provisions of the constitution, to
the exercise of none other than a specified degree of appellate
power over the decisions of the tribunals of original jurisdiction,
can, after the close of the term at which its decree has been passed,
grant a rehearing or bill of review for any cause whatever, (d)

This case has been carried to the ultimate tribunal, and a final
decree obtained; which having been sent here to be executed in
the mode prescribed, it consequently becomes my duty promptly
to obey. I therefore deem it proper to pass by, without further
notice, all those portions of the argument, respecting the incom-
plete nature and unjust operation of the decree of the Court of
Appeals, which have been so strongly urged, and to proceed to the
execution of it, according to its clear and unequivocal meaning.

It has been finally and very distinctly declared, that the plaintiff is
entitled to recover the value of the labour of certain negroes. That
value I conceive has been correctly ascertained by the auditor's
account A. I shall, therefore, award it to the plaintiff accordingly.
It has been further very perspicuously decreed by the Court of
Appeals, that the plaintiff is entitled to one moiety of the negroes

(d) 1804, ch. 55, s. 5. Barbon v. Searle, 1 Vern. 416. Penn v. Baltimore, 1
Ves. 455. Perry v. Whitehead, 6 Ves. 547. Willan v. Willan, 16 Ves. 89. Mur-
ray v. Coster, 20 John. Rep. 603. White v. Atkinson, 3 Call. 376. Campbell v.
Price, 3 Mun. 227. Burn v. Posug, 3 Desan. 614. McCormick v. Sullivant, 10
Wheat. 199. Vattel, b. l, ch. 13, s. 165.