« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
sion in evidence of the record of the convic-|ing to cause insubordination, &c., in the milltion of Ruthenberg, Wagenknecht and Baker, tary and naval forces, is equally impregnaRose Pastor Stokes, and Kate Richards ble. The jury were instructed that for the O'Hare. The defendant purported to under- purposes of the statute the persons designatstand the grounds on which these persons ed by the Act of May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. were imprisoned and it was proper to show 76 (Comp. St. 1918, §§ 2044a–2044k), registered what those grounds were in order to show and enrolled under it, and thus subject to be what he was talking about, to explain the called into the active service, were a part of true import of his expression of sympathy the military forces of the United States. and to throw light on the intent of the ad- The Government presents a strong argument, dress, so far as the present matter is con- from the history of the statutes that the incerned. struction was correct and in accordance with
(249 U. S. 217)
 There was introduced also an "Anti-established legislative usage. We see no sufWar Proclamation and Program" adopted at ficient reason for differing from the concluSt. Louis in April, 1917, coupled with testimo- sion but think it unnecessary to discuss the ny that about an hour before his speech the de- question in detail. fendant had stated that he approved of that Judgment affirmed. platform in spirit and in substance. The defendant referred to it in his address to the jury, seemingly with satisfaction and willingness that it should be considered in evidence. But his counsel objected and has argued BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. et al. v. LEACH. against its admissibility at some length. This document contained the usual suggestion that 'capitalism was the cause of the war and that our entrance into it "was instigated by the predatory capitalists in the United States." It alleged that the war *of the United States against Germany could not "be justified even on the plea that it is a war in defence of American rights or American 'honor.'" It said:
"We brand the declaration of war by our Government as a crime against the people of the United States and against the nations of the world. In all modern history there has been no war more unjustifiable. than the war in which we are about to engage."
(Argued Jan. 15 & 16, 1919. Decided March 10, 1919.)
Without going into further particulars we are of opinion that the verdict on the fourth count, for obstructing and attempting to obstruct the recruiting service of the United States, must be sustained. Therefore it is less important to consider whether that upon the third count, for causing and attempt
218(10) CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOCK-PROVISION IN BILL OF LADING-NECESSITY FOR COMPLIANCE.
A shipper of live stock must comply with provision in bill of lading, issued as required by Act of Congress, that no claim for damages shall be allowed or paid, or sued for, unless claim shall be made in writing, verified by affidavit of shipper or his agent, and delivered to general freight agent of carrier at his office in given city within five days from time live stock is removed from cars.
Its first recommendation was, "continuous, active, and public opposition to the war, through demonstrations, mass petitions, and all other means within our power." Evidence that the defendant accepted this view and this declaration of his duties at the time that he made his speech is evidence that if in that speech he used words tending to obstruct the recruiting service he meant that they should have that effect. The principle is too well established and too manifestly good sense to need citation of the books. We should adding and to set aside judgment, which motion that the jury were most carefully instructed was overruled (173 Ky. 452, 191 S. W. 310), that they could not find the defendant guilty and defendants bring certiorari. Reversed for advocacy of any of his opinions unless the and remanded. words used had as their natural tendency and reasonably probable effect to obstruct the recruiting service, &c., and unless the defendant had the specific intent to do so in his mind.
Action by J. G. Leach against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and the Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company. From judgment for plaintiff, the first defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals of the state of Kentucky, moving for rehear
Mr. Justice Clarke and Mr. Justice McKenna, dissenting.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky.
Messrs. Wm. W. Crawford and Charles H. Gibson, both of Louisville, Ky., for petitioners.
Messrs. Frank W. Hackett and John S. Blair, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Leach sued the petitioners for damages sustained en route by cattle delivered at East St. Louis, *Ill., October 1, 1914, for
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
In Boston & Maine Railroad v. Piper, 246 U. S. 439, 38 Sup. Ct. 354, 62 L. Ed. 820, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 469, a provision in exactly these terms was held "illegal and consequently "That no claim for damages which may ac- void," as an attempt by the carrier to exonercrue to the said shipper under this contract ate itself from loss negligently caused by it. shall be allowed or paid by the said carrier, or This is the only provision in the bill of ladsued for in any court by the said shipper, un-ing, as pleaded, which is applicable to a less a claim for loss or damages shall be made claim for delay, such as the shipper made in in writing verified by the affidavit of the shipper this case, and since it is void there is nothing or his agent, and delivered to the general eight in the contract for carriage on which the agent of said carrier at his office in Cincinnati, five-day limitation could operate, for it apOhio, within five days from the time said stock is removed from said car or cars, and that if any plied in terms only to claims "for damages loss or damage occurs upon the line of con- which may accrue to said shipper under this necting carrier, then such carrier shall not be contract." liable unless a claim shall be made in like manner and delivered in like time, to some proper officer or agent of the carrier on whose line the loss or injury occurs."
shipment to Georgetown, Ky. In defense the carriers set up non-compliance with the following provision contained in bill of lading issued as required by act of Congress.
The suit of the shipper was based on the common-law liability of the carrier, not at all on the bill of lading; the five-day limitation is in terms applicable only to claims under the bill of lading; the only provision in the bill of lading applicable to claims for delay was void, and therefore it seems very clear that the five-day limitation was not available as a defense.
Permit me to add that the many cases coming into this *and other courts show that this five-day limitation is unreasonably short and in my judgment, for this reason, it should be declared void upon its face. Certainly it should not be made a favorite of the law and extended beyond its strict terms, in presence of the Act of Congress approved March 4, 1915 (38 Stat. 1196, c. 176), declaring that where in such suit the damage complained of is due to delay or damage in transit by carelessness or negligence, "then no notice of claim nor filing of claim shall be required as a condition precedent to recovery." While the case before us arose prior to the passing of this, act, it is an important declaration of public
Mr. Justice PITNEY and Mr. Justice policy by Congress, which should not be BRANDEIS concur in the result.
This averment was not denied; but the shipper replied that he promptly advised the railroad's agent at Georgetown of all essential facts and maintained that requirement in respect of written notice to general freight agent had been waived.
The point involved has been discussed in our recent opinions and we can find nothing which takes this case out of the rule requiring compliance with a provision in a bill of lading like the one above quoted. St. L, I. Mt. & So. Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592, 37 Sup. Ct. 462, 61 L. Ed. 917; Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 248 U. S. 446, 39 Sup. Ct. 139, 63 L. Ed. 350, decided January 13, 1919.
The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
For the reasons thus briefly stated, I cannot concur in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Justice MCKENNA also dissents.
Mr. Justice CLARKE dissenting.
In this case the shipper sued two connecting interstate *carriers for damages to a carload of cattle, caused by delay in transit. Three died in the car and four more within three or four days of arrival at destination and the defense sustained by the court is SHAFFER v. HOWARD, Auditor of State of failure to notify the carrier of claim for damages within five days of unloading.
249 U. S. 200)
The carrier pleaded that one of the terms of the bill of lading was the five-day limita tion, quoted in the opinion of the court. This was immediately preceded, in the same paragraph, by the following:
Oklahoma, et al. (Argued Dec. 13, 1918. Decided March 10, 1919.) No. 375.
APPEAL AND ERROR 781(5)-Moor CAUSE-
In suit to enjoin state auditor and sheriff of county from enforcing tax as repugnant to Constitution of United States, term of office of defendant officials having expired, and their successors having qualified, and there being no law of state authorizing revival or continuance of cause against successors, controversy, after argument on appeal, has become merely meot, and
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
"That in the event of any unusual delay or detention of said live stock, caused by the negligence of the said carrier, or its employés, or its connecting carriers, or their employés, or otherwise, the said shipper agrees to accept as full compensation for all loss or damage sustained thereby the amount actually expended by said shipper in the purchase of food and water for said live stock, while so detained."
Supreme Court has no authority further to con- | qualified, and that there was no law of the sider or dispose of it, in absence of parties de- state of Oklahoma authorizing a revival or fendant, despite importance to people of state continuance of the cause of action against that subject-matter be determined. such successors, it follows that the conAppeal from the District Court of the troversy has become merely moot and that
United States for the Eastern District of
Suit for injunction by Charles B. Shaffer against E. B. Howard, Auditor of the State of Oklahoma, and John S. Woofter, Sheriff of Creek County, Okl. From a decree refusing injunction and dismissing the bill for want of equity (250 Fed. 873), complainant appeals. Decree reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to dismiss bill for want of proper parties.
Messrs. Malcolm E. Rosser and George S. Ramsey, both of Muskogee, Okl., for appel
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, for appellees.
we have no authority to further consider or dispose of it. Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 28, 34, 17 Sup. Ct. 225, 41 L. Ed. 621; Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590, 592, 24 Sup. Ct. 766, 48 L. Ed. 1129; Pullman Co. v. Croom, 231 U. S. 571, 575, 34 Sup. Ct. 182, 58 L. Ed. 375.
True it is that counsel in agreeing as to the statement above referred to suggest that, although the successors in office of the former defendants intend in the discharge of their official duties to enforce the tax comnevertheless, in view of the importance to plained of unless enjoined from doing so, the people of the state that the subjectmatter of the controversy be here determin
ed, now request a decision of the pending cause irrespective of the disappearance of the parties defendant. But the absence of
Memorandum opinion by Mr. Chief Justice power which results from such disappear
This suit was commenced against E. B. Howard, auditor of the state of Oklahoma, and John S. Woofter, sheriff of Creek county in that state, to enjoin such officials from enforcing a tax levied under the law of Oklahoma on the ground of the repugnancy of such tax to the Constitution of the United States. The court refused an injunction and dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the case was brought here.
ance cannot be supplied by the request referred to, since after all it amounts to but a suggestion that that be done which there is no authority to do; in other words that the cause be decided in the absence of the par-, ties whose presence is essential to its deci sion. United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604, 609, 21 L. Ed. 721; United States ex rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth, 169 U. S. 600, 609, 18 Sup. Ct. 441, 42 L. Ed. 873; Pullman Co. v. Croom, 231 U. S. 571, 576, 34 Sup. Ct. 182, 58 L. Ed. 375.
* Counsel for both parties having stated in answer to an inquiry on the subject submit- It follows therefore that the decree below ted to them by the court while the cause must be reversed, and the cause be remandwas pending after argument under submis-ed, with directions to dismiss the bill for sion that the term of office of the defendant want of proper parties; officials had expired and their successors had } And it is so ordered.
PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of ju- PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of risdiction upon the authority of section 237 of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) section the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 128 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of Sep-c. 231, 36 Stat. 1133 [Comp. St. § 1120]); Ste. tember 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. venson v. Fain, 195 U. S. 165, 166, 25 Sup St. § 1214). Ct. 6, 49 L. Ed. 142; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S.
(249 U. S. 598)
No. 798. Kate Richards O'HARE, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. March 3, 1919. For opinion below, see 253 Fed. 538. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
712, 720, 34 Sup. Ct. 892, 58 L. Ed. 1557; St. Anthony's Church v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 237 U. S. 575, 577, 35 Sup. Ct. 729, 59 L. Ed. 1119; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439, 444, 35 Sup. Ct. 902, 59 L. Ed. 1397; (2) Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire State-Idaho Mining, etc., Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544.
(249 U. S. 580)
No. 356. The UNITED STATES ex rel. George W. BILLERMAN, appellant, v. Matthew J. LONG, Criminal Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. March 3, 1919. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Mr. William Winans Wall, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
(249 U. S. 598)
PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire State-Idaho Mining, etc., Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544.
(249 U. S. 599) No. 812. ATLANTA NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, v. William A. FULLER, Trustee, etc. March 3, 1919. For opinion below, see 254 Fed. 278. Messrs. Jack J. Spalding, and Hughes of Milledgeville, Ga., Daniel McDougald, EuSpalding, both of Atlanta, Ga., John A. Sibley, gene Dodd, and Harry Dodd, all of Atlanta, Ga. (Messrs. King & Spalding and Dodd & Dodd, all of Atlanta, Ga., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Walter S. Dillon and J. H. Porter, both lanta, Ga., of counsel), for respondent. Petiof Atlanta, Ga. (Mr. Luther Z. Rosser, of Attion for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
(249 U. S. 618)
No. 482. DORSEY LAND & LUMBER COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GARLAND LEVEE DISTRICT. March 3, 1919. In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. opinion below, see 203 S. W. 33. Mr. William H. Arnold, of Texarkana, Ark., for plaintiff in Dismissed with costs per stipulation.
(249 U. S. 599) No. 814. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILV. Furney COMPANY, petitioner, ROAD 97 S. E. 29. Messrs. Robert N. Simms, of RaKING. March 3, 1919. For opinion below, see leigh, N. C., and William B. Rodman, of Norcertiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of folk, Va., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of North Carolina denied.
(249 U. S. 599)
No. 658. Ed C. LASATER, petitioner, v.
(249 U. S. 599)
No. 821. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS &
(249 U. S. 600) No. 817. JAMES KENNEY, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. March 3, 1919. For opinion below, see 254 Fed. 262. Messrs. J. Q. Mahaffey, John J. King, and W. L. Estes, all of Texarkana, Tex., for petitioner. Messrs. Alex. C. King, Sol. Gen., of Atlanta, Ga., and Claude R. Porter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
(249 U. S. 598)
No. 784. The CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. O. W. SEAY. March 3, 1919. For opinion below, see Dickinson v. Seay, 175 Pac. 216. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied.
(249 U. S. 600) No. 826. F. R. GLASCOCK and the Deming Investment Company, petitioner, v. Ellis McDANIEL et al., minors, by J. O. Cravens, Messrs. William B. Moore guardian. March 3, 1919. For opinion below, see 175 Pac. 737. and George S. Ramsey, both of Muskogee, Okl.,
for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari í opinion below, see 32 Cal. App. 184, 167 Pac. to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma 199. Messrs. U. S. Webb and John T. Nourse, denied. both of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in er
(249 U. S. 600)
PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of
No. 830. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 COMPANY, petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY FI- of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. DELITY & PLATE GLASS INSURANCE COMPANY. March 3, 1919. For opinion be- 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of low, see 105 Atl. 206. Messrs. Lindley M. Gar- September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 rison, of New York City, Gilbert Collins, of (Comp. St. § 1214). Jersey City, N. J., Edgar H. Boles, of Philadelphia, Pa., Richard W. Barrett, of New York City, and Geo. S. Hobart, of Jersey City, N. J., for petitioner. Mr. Maximilian M. Stallman, of Newark, N. J. (Mr. Jeremiah F. Hoover, of Newark, N. J., of counsel), for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey denied.
(249 U. S. 619)
No. 834. U. B. BUSKIRK and S. M. Croft, as partners composing Kentucky River Hardwood Company, plaintiffs in error, v. Isham CAUDILL, as Administrator, etc. March 3, 1919. In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. For opinions below, see 182 Ky. 685, 206 S. W. 867, and 181 Ky. 45, 203 S. W. 864. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiffs in error.
(249 U. S. 582) No.
Original. Ex parte in the matter of John F. DEITZ, petitioner. March 10, 1919. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of habeas corpus herein denied.
No. Original. STATE OF GEORGIA, complainant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. March 10, 1919. Motion for leave to file bill of complaint herein granted, and process ordered to issue returnable on the first day
of the next term.
(249 U. S. 581) No. 209. The STATE OF CALIFORNIA, plaintiff in error, v. PACIFIC POWER COMPANY. March 10, 1919. In error to the District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, State of California. For opinion below, Messrs. see 32 Cal. App. 175, 162 Pac. 643. U. S. Webb and John T. Nourse, both of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
No. Original. Ex parte in the matter of the UNITED STATES, petitioner. March 10, 1919. Motion for leave to file petition for writs of prohibition and mandamus herein granted and a rule to show cause awarded returnable Monday, April 14, next.
PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of
jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).
No. 439. William P. RICHARDSON, plaintiff in error, v. LIBERTY OIL COMPANY et al. March 10, 1919. For opinion below, see 143 La. 130, 78 South. 326. Mr. E. J. Jacquet, of New Orleans, La., for plaintiff in error. Motion to dismiss denied.
(249 U. S. 600)
No. 543. Gideon M. FREEMAN, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. March 10, 1919. For opinion below, see 243 Fed. 353, 156 C. C. A. 133. Mr. C. W. Pendleton, Jr., of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. The Attorney General, for the United States. tion for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
(249 U. S. 581) No. 606. H. A. JASTRO et al., plaintiffs in March 10, error, v. Elias FRANCIS et al. 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico. For opinion below, see 172 Pac. 1139. Messrs. Alonzo B. McMillen, of Albuquerque, N. M., and Alex Britton and Evans Browne, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Bernard S. Rodey, of Albuquerque, N. M., for defendant in error.
(249 U. S. 580)
No. 161. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. John NEWMAN. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of juMarch 10, 1919. In error to the Superior Court risdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. of Los Angeles County, State of California. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, Messrs. Henry T. Gage and William I. Gilbert, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire State-Idaho Mining, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff in error. etc., Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232, 27 PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of Sep-216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544. tember 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).
(249 U. S. 582) No. 682. Bessie TYRRELL, etc., petitioner, March 10, 1919. On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. For opinion below, see 174 Pac. 1074. Messrs. Henry B. Martin and Richard Clyde Allen, both of Tulsa,
(249 U. S. 581)
No. 208. The STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. Charles B. SHAFFER et al.
plaintiff in error, v. MONO COUNTY IRRIGATION COMPANY. March 10, 1919. In error to the District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, State of California. For