« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
testimony should establish the fact clearly and satisfactorily; and in
this case it is not so established. C'handler v. Pomeroy, 318.
See ConstitutionAL LAW, A, 15;
After the term at which a trial took place has expired, without the court's
control over the case being reserved by standing rule or special order,
and especially after a writ of error has been entered in this court, the
court below cannot allow a bill of exceptions then first presented, or
amend a bill of exceptions already allowed and filed. Michigan
Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 293.
EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.
1. An administrator, appointed in one State, who, after appearing and
having judgment rendered against him as such in a suit in equity
brought in another State, the laws of which authorize a foreign admin-
istrator to sue there, files a bill of review in the same court to reverse
the decree, for the reason that, not being an administrator appointed
by the courts of that State, he could not be sued there, is bound by
the original judgment against him, if his bill of review is dismissed
for want of equity. Lawrence v. Nelson, 215.
2. The general equity jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United
States to administer, as between citizens of different States, the assets
of a deceased person within its jurisdiction cannot be defeated or im-
paired by laws of a State undertaking to give exclusive jurisdiction to
its own courts. 16.
See ConstitUTIONAL LAW, A, 9.
Where a person is committed in one district, by a United States commis-
A. OF COURTS of the United STATES, GENERALLY.
An application to a court to review the action of the political department
of the government, upon a question pending between it and a foreign
power, and to determine whether the government was right or wrong,
made while diplomatic negotiations are still going on, should be
denied. In re Cooper, 472.
B. OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. When several plaintiffs claim under the same title, and the determina.
tion of the cause necessarily involves the validity of that title, and the
whole amount involved exceeds $5000, this court has jurisdiction as to
all such plaintiffs, though the individual claims of none of them ex-
ceed $5000: but where the matters in dispute are separate and dis-
tinct, and are joined in one suit for convenience or economy, the rule
is the reverse as to claims not exceeding $5000. New Orleans Pacific
Railway Co. v. Parker, 42.
2. It is not the province of this court to determine whether a verdict was
excessive. Erie Railroad Co. v. Winter, 60.
3. The questions (1) whether it is settled law in the State of Minnesota
that a judgment of dismissal in a former suit, such as is pleaded in
this case, was not a bar to a second suit on the same cause of action ;
(2) whether the law in respect of recovery by a servant against his
master for injuries received in the course of his employment was prop
erly applied on the trial of a case, do not fall within the category of
questions of such gravity and general importance as to require the
review of the conclusions of the Circuit Court of Appeals in reference
to them. In re Woods, Petitioner, 202.
4. The highest court of a State decided that a judgment of another court
of the State, granting a petition to revive a judgment under a statute
of limitations of the State authorizing this to be done upon citation
"to the defendant or his representative,” in order to prevent the run-
ning of the statute could not, at the suit of one claiming under the
original defendant, be collaterally impeached because the only person
cited was the assignee in bankruptcy of that defendant. Held, that
the decision was not subject to review by this court on writ of error.
Ludeling v. Chaffe, 301.
5. In this case, which was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of a State,
it was contended that that court did not give to a judgment of a Cir-
cuit Court of the United States such faith and credit as it was entitled
to under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that it
disregarded the provision of the Constitution of the United States that
no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of a contract.
Held, that the first contention was incorrect; that the question as to
the impairment of the obligation of a contract was raised for the first
time in this court, and was not accurate in fact; and that the writ of
error must be dismissed.
Winona 8 St. Peter Railroad Co. v. Plain.
6. On a complaint before a United States commissioner in New York,
against H. for a criminal offence, in violation of g 3894 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended by the act of September 19, 1890, c. 908, (26
Stat. 465,) prohibiting the sending by mail of circulars concerning
lotteries, H. was committed to await the action of the grand jury. A
writ of habeas corpus issued by the Circuit Court of the United States
was dismissed by that court. H. appealed to this court in November,
1891. Held, (1) As the constitutionality of $ 3894, as amended, was
drawn in question, an appeal lay directly to this court from the Circuit
Court, under § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, (26 Stat. 826 to
828, 1115;) (2) Under such an appeal, this court acquires jurisdiction
of the entire case, and of all questions involved in it, and not merely
of the question of constitutionality; (3) This court ought not to
review the question whether the transaction complained of was an
offence against the statute, because the commissioner had jurisdiction
of the subject matter involved, and of the person of H.; (4) The stat-
ute is constitutional; (5) A statute is a law equally with a treaty, and,
if subsequent to and conflicting with the treaty, supersedes the latter.
Horner v. United States, No. 2, 570.
The Supreme Court of the United States bas original jurisdiction of a
suit in equity brought by the United States against a State to deter-
mine the boundary between that State and a Territory of the United
States, and that question is susceptible of judicial determination.
United Stales v. Teras, 621.
See BEHRING SEA;
C. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED States.
1. In a case reversed in this court and remanded to a state court upon the
ground that that court had lost its jurisdiction by petition and bond
for removal, the propriety of staying proceedings in the Circuit Court
after removal, until costs adjudged in the state court are paid, is
purely a matter of discretion in the Circuit Court. National Steam-
ship Co. v. Tugman, 28.
2. The provision in the statute of Minois, (Rev. Stats. c. 45, § 35,) that
" at any time within one year after a judgment, either upon default or
verdict in the action of ejectment, the party against whom it is ren-
dered, his heirs or assigns, upon the payment of all costs recovered
therein, shall be entitled to have the judgment vacated, and a new
trial granted in the cause " applies to such a judgment rendered in a
Circuit Court of the United States, sitting within that State, on a
mandate from this court in a case commenced in a court of the State
of Illinois, and removed thence to the Circuit Court of the United
States. Smale v. Mitchell, 99.
See ExcePTION; EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, 2.
D. OF District COURTS.
1. The District Court for the District of Alaska has jurisdiction in admi-
ralty to forfeit vessels for violating the provisions of Rev. Stat. $ 1956
on any of the navigable waters of the United States which were ac-
quired by the treaty with Russia, concluded March 30, 1857, 15 Stat.
539. In re Cooper, 472.
2. United States District Courts, sitting in admiralty, are courts of supe-
rior jurisdiction, and every intendment is made in favor of their de-
crees; and when it appears that the court had jurisdiction of the
subject matter and either that the defendant was duly served with
process or that he voluntarily appeared and made defence, the decree
is not open collaterally to any inquiry upon the merits or jurisdiction
dependent on those facts. 16.
3. The latter part of section 7 of the act of May 17, 1884, 23 Stat. 24, 26,
may be read as follows : “And the final judgments and decrees of said
District Court of Alaska may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of
the United States as in other cases;” and, being so read, its meaning
is that this court may review the final judgments or decrees of that
court, as in cases of the same kind from other courts. 16.
4. The act of February 16, 1875, 18 Stat. 315, c. 77, § 1, applies to appeals
taken from decrees of the District Court of the United States for the
District of Alaska, sitting in admiralty. 16.
See BEHRING SEA.
In all cases where actual fraud is not made out, but the imputation rests
District of Columbia.
See DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
See CRIMINAL LAW, A, 4, 6, 7;
JURISDICTION, C, 2;
Tax AND TAXATION.
See ConstitUTIONAL LAW, A, 6.
See JURISDICTION, B, 3.
See ConstitUTIONAL LAW, 4, 10, 11.
See ConstitUTIONAL LAW, A, 1; JURISDICTION, B, 6;
CRIMINAL LAW, 1;
Mails, TRANSPORTATION OF.
MAILS, TRANSPORTATION OF.
parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, affirmed to the points; (1) That the power
vested in Congress to establish post offices and post-roads embraces the
regulation of the entire postal system of the country, and that under
it Congress may designate what may be carried in the mail and what
excluded; (2) That in excluding various articles from the mails the
object of Congress is, not to interfere with the freedom of the press, or
with any other rights of the people, but to refuse the facilities for the
distribution of matter deemed injurious by Congress to the public
morals ; (3) That the transportation in any other way of matter ex:
cluded from the mails is not forbidden. In re Rapier, 110.
See CoNsTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 1.
See Equity, 1;
See RIPARIAN OWNER, 2.
In ejectment for the possession of a mine. The plaintiff claimed under
a placer patent, issued January 30, 1880, on an application made
November 13, 1878, and entry and payment made February 21, 1879.
The defendant claimed under a location certificate of a lode issued to
one Goodale, dated March 10, and recorded March 11, 1879, reciting
a location February 1, 1879. The defendant, to maintain its claim,
offered the testimony of several witnesses, which this court holds to
establish that in 1877, and more than a year before any proceedings
were initiated with reference to the placer patent, the grantors of
defendant entered upon and ran a tunnel some 400 feet in length into
and through that ground which afterwards was patented as the placer