oned, where slavery could not by law
exist, and that they thereby became free, and upon their return to
Missouri became citizens of that State.

Now, if the removal, of which he speaks, did not give them their
freedom, then by his own admission he is still a slave, and whatever
opinions may be entertained in favor of the citizenship of a free person
of the African race, no one supposes that a slave is a citizen of the
State or of the United States. If, therefore, the acts done by his owner
did not make them free persons, he is still a slave, and certainly
incapable of suing in the character of a citizen.

The principle of law is too well settled to be disputed, that a court
can give no judgment for either party, where it has no jurisdiction; and
if, upon the showing of Scott himself, it appeared that he was still a
slave, the case ought to have been dismissed, and the judgment against
him and in favor of the defendant for costs, is, like that on the plea
in abatement, erroneous, and the suit ought to have been dismissed by
the Circuit Court for want of jurisdiction in that court.

But, before we proceed to examine this part of the case, it may be
proper to notice an objection taken to the judicial authority of this
court to decide it; and it has been said, that as this court has decided
against the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court on the plea in abatement,
it has no right to examine any question presented by the exception; and
that any thing that it may say upon that part of the case will be extra
judicial, and mere orbita dicta.

This is a manifest mistake; there can be no doubt as to the jurisdiction
of this court to revise the judgment of a Circuit Court, and to reverse
it for any error apparent on the record, whether it be the error of
giving judgment in a case over which it had no jurisdiction, or any
other material error; and this, too, whether there is a plea in
abatement or not.

The objection appears to have arisen from confounding writs of error to
a State court, with writs of error to a Circuit Court of the United
States. Undoubtedly, upon a writ of error to a State court, unless the
record shows a case that gives jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed
for want of jurisdiction in _this court_. And if it is dismissed on that
ground, we have no right to examine and decide upon any question
presented by the bill of exceptions, or any other part of the record.
But writs of error to a State Court, and to a