Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

held not denied equal protection of the laws because section 11 of that act as amended in Act Ark. April 2, 1895, p. 88, § 1, provides for constructive service by publication on nonresident owners as to unpaid levee taxes for four weeks only.-Ballard v. Hunter, 261.

*Arbitrary discrimination against sheep industry prohibited by Const. U. S. Amend. 14, held not made by Rev. St. Idaho, §§ 1210, 1211, authorizing damages for permitting sheep to graze on the public domain within two miles of a dwelling house.-Bacon v. Walker, 289; Bown v. Walling, 292.

Lessee in possession of race track held not denied equal protection of the laws by a statute compelling it to recognize its own tickets in the hands of persons not drunken or boisterous, or of improper character.-Western Turf Ass'n v. Greenberg, 384.

*Selection of mineowners as a class on which to impose a responsibility for defaults of certain employés required by Mining Act Ill. April 18, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 300), to be selected from persons holding licenses, held not repugnant to Const. U. S. Amend. 14, as denying equal protection of laws.-Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 412.

Exception in favor of newspapers, etc., on which shall be printed representations of the national flag, made by Act Neb. April 8, 1903, p. 644, c. 139, does not make the statute repugnant to Const. U. S. Amend. 14, as denying equal protection of the laws.-Halter v. State of Nebraska, 419.

Order of North Carolina Corporation Commission, requiring railroad to restore connection at a certain point with a train of another railway company, held not so unreasonable as to amount to a denial of equal protection of law.-Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 585.

§ 7. Due process of law.

Improvement of a railroad company is a public use for which the lessee of the road and the owner of three-fourths of its stock may proceed, under Gen. St. Conn. §§ 3694, 3695, to condemn outstanding shares without violating due process of law clause of the federal Constitution, amendment 14.-Offield v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 72.

Due process of law held not denied a person injured in his employment about a railroad, by Act Pa. April 4, 1868, restricting his rights to those of an employé.-Martin v. Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co., 100.

Carriers may be forbidden by state railroad commission to make their local freight rates for phosphates more than one cent per ton per mile without denying due process of law.-Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. State of Florida, 109.

State regulation of local freight rates from the Florida West Shore Railway over the Seaboard Air Line Railway held not to deprive the latter road of its property without due process of law. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. State of Florida, 109.

A domestic corporation whose office and works: are outside of the state held not deprived of liberty and property without due process of law by Acts W. Va. 1905, c. 39, relating to appointment of State Auditor to accept serv-ice of process, and exacting an annual fee.St. Mary's Franco-American Petroleum Co. v. State of West Virginia, 132.

The right to take possession of the property of a street railway company remaining in streets at expiration of franchise cannot, consistently with due process of law, be conferred by municipal ordinance on another street railway company.-Cleveland Electric Ry. Co. v. City of Cleveland, 202; City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Ry. Co., Id.

Due process of law held denied by state court in according full credit to a judgment in personam by a court of a sister state against a nonresident not personally served and who did not appear.-Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass'n v. McDonough, 236.

*An owner of sheep held not deprived of property without due process of law by Rev. St. Idaho, §§ 1210, 1211, authorizing damages for permitting his sheep to graze within two miles of a dwelling house.-Bacon v. Walker, 289; Bown v. Walling, 292.

A public officer convicted of embezzlement, who has had every opportunity to defend, held not denied due process of law because sentenced under Cr. Code Neb. § 124, which provides for fine in double the amount of the embezzlement. Coffey v. Harlan County, 305.

Refusal of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands on appeal in a criminal case to consider objection to sufficiency of complaint held not a conviction without due process of law, in violation of the Bill of Rights, set forth in Act July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stat.. 691, 692 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 391]. -Serra v. Mortiga, 343.

Property rights of lessee in possession of race track held not taken away without due process of law by statute compelling it to recognize its own tickets of admission in the hands of persons not drunken or boisterous or of bad character.-Western Turf Ass'n v. Greenberg, 384.

The liberty guarantied by Const. U. S.. Amend. 14, is the liberty of natural and not artificial persons.-Western Turf Ass'n V.Greenberg, 384.

Imposition on mineowners by Mining Act Ill. April 18, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 300), of responsibility of defaults of mine managers and mine examiners, held not to deprive them of their property without due process of law. in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 412.

Act April 8, 1903, p. 644, c. 139, making it a misdemeanor to use national flag for adver-tising purposes, held not to affect right of personal liberty guarantied by Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Halter v. State of Nebraska, 419.

Act Neb. April 8, 1903, p. 644, c. 139, making it a misdemeanor to use flags for advertising purposes, held not to invade prop-violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Halter v. State of Nebraska, 419.

Foreign life insurance company doing business in Missouri held not deprived of liberty or property rights without due process of law, in erty without due process of law, by Rev. St. Mo. § 7890, cutting off any defense by a life insurance company based on fraudulent statements, except as to matters contributing to the death of insured.-Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 126.

Decision of state court involving ownership of property with all parties in interest before it held, not, as to the successful party, depriva-*Point annotated. See syllabus.

tion of property without due process of law.Tracy v. Ginzberg, 461.

Order of North Carolina Corporation Commission, requiring railroad to restore connection at a certain point with a train of another railway company, held not so unreasonable as to amount to a denial of due process of law.-Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 585.

Abutting owner held not deprived of his property without due process of law by erection by a city, under a statute making no provision for compensation to abutting owners, of an elevated iron viaduct for general public use.-Sauer v. City of New York, 686.

Due process of law held not denied stockholder in domestic corporation by Gen. Laws Minn. 1899, p. 315, c. 272, relating to liability of stockholders for debts of corporation.-Bernheimer v. Converse, 755; Drey v. Same, Id. Property and rights therein protected.

No property rights are taken away without due process of law by state statute incorporating a local benevolent society with the same name as that of a voluntary association whose charter has been withdrawn by the foreign corporation that issued it.-National Council, Junior Order of American Mechanics of United States. v. State Council of Virginia, Junior Order of United American Mechanics of State of Virginia, 46.

The police board of a city by issuing a liquor license to nominee of a trustee in bankruptcy of the original licensee held not to deprive one to whom the original license had been assigned as security of property without due process of law. Tracy v. Ginzberg, 461.

§ 9.- -Taxation of property.

Failure to require notice to be given of special assessment for back taxes on omitted property, under Ky. St. § 3179, held not to deprive taxpayer of property without due process of law.Security Trust & Safety Vault Co. v. City of Lexington, 87.

Universal legatees under the will of a person who died before enactment of the Louisiana inheritance tax law of June 28, 1904, held not deprived of property without due process of law by subjecting their share to the tax imposed by that statute.-Cahen v. Brewster, 174.

Adoption of the face value of shares as the basis of the tax on transfers imposed by Laws N. Y. 1905, c. 241, does not deprive the owners of property without due process of law.-People of State of New York v. Reardon, 188.

Tax on transfer of corporate shares, imposed by Laws N. Y. 1905, c. 241, held not taking property without due process of law, in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-People of State of New York v. Reardon, 188.

*Decree in suit to enforce payment of levee taxes held not to deprive owners of their property without due process of law because of mistakes in describing the ownership of the land. Ballard v. Hunter, 261.

*Four weeks' notice by publication to nonresident owners of land within levee district created by Act Ark. Feb. 15, 1893, p. 31, of pendency of suit to enforce levee taxes under section 11 of that act, as amended in Act Ark. April 2, 1895, p. 88. § 1, held due process of law.-Ballard v. Hunter, 261.

*Due process of law does not require that nonresident owners of land within levee district

shall have personal notice of the suit to collect levee taxes.-Ballard v. Hunter, 261.

Error in judgment as to costs in suits to enforce payment of levee taxes held not to deprive owners of their property without due process of law.-Ballard v. Hunter, 261.

*Decree for sale of lands for unpaid levee taxes based on constructive service held not to deny owners due process of law.-Ballard v. Hunter, 261.

of law in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, *Property is not taken without due process by imposing transfer tax under amendment of the general tax laws (Laws N. Y. 1897, p. 150, c. 284) on the exercise by will of power conferred by deed.-Chanler v. Kelsey, 550.

State of Indiana cannot, with due process of law, tax debts evidenced by notes given and payable in Ohio by residents of that state to a resident of New York for loans made in Ohio on lands there situated.-Buck v. Beach, 712.

[blocks in formation]

Appellate jurisdiction of Circuit Court of Ap-
peals in contempt proceedings, see "Courts,"
$ 16.
Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in con-
tempt proceedings, see "Courts," § 14.

§ 1. Acts or conduct constituting con-
tempt of court.

*Participation in the murder of prisoner under sentence of death in a state court to prevent delay attendant on appeal to the federal Supreme Court from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus, held a contempt of the Supreme Court when committed after the appeal had been allowed and the court had ordered all proceedings stayed.-United States v. Shipp, 165.

*Lack of jurisdiction in the circuit court of petition for habeas corpus or in the Supreme Court of appeal from the order denying the writ does not enable persons to disregard, without liability for contempt, order of Supreme Court that all proceedings against appellant be stayed.-United States v. Shipp, 165.

2. Power to punish and proceedings therefor.

*Sworn answers denying any participation in the alleged murder of a prisoner under sentence of death in a state court, pending appeal to the federal Supreme Court, held insufficient to purge affiants of a charge of con*Point annotated. See syllabus.

tempt by taking part in such murder.-United | Condemnation of shares of stock owned by States v. Shipp, 165.

CONTRACTS.

Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court on issue of impairing obligation of, see "Courts,"

$ 14. Decisions of courts impairing obligation of, see "Courts," § 2.

Impairing obligation as violation of constitutional right, see "Constitutional Law," § 4. Impairing obligation of as ground of jurisdiction of federal court, see "Courts," § 4. Liquidated damages or penalties, see "Damages," § 1.

Parol or extrinsic evidence, see "Evidence," § 2.

Contracts of particular classes of persons. See "Carriers." § 2; "Master and Servant"; "Municipal Corporations," § 1; "Warehousemen."

Contracts relating to particular subjects. Limitation of liability of carrier, see "Carriers," § 2.

Patented articles, see "Patents," § 2.

Particular classes of express contracts. See "Guaranty"; "Insurance"; "Sales."

"Liens";

Agency, see "Principal and Agent."
Employment, see "Master and Servant."
Leases, see "Landlord and Tenant."

Particular modes of discharging contracts.
See "Release."

§ 1. Performance or breach.

*Architect's certificate of completion according to contract plans and specifications held not conclusive.Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hensey,

535.

CONTRIBUTION.

Between vessels for damages from collision,
see "Collision," § 1.
Former judgment as bar to action to enforce,
see "Judgment," § 5.
Jurisdiction of admiralty to enforce contribu-
tion between vessels, see "Admiralty," § 1.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

Of servant, see "Master and Servant," § 2.

CONVEYANCES.

minority stockholders as denial of due process of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 7. Conspiracy between to monopolize trade, see "Monopolies," § 1.

Denial of equal protection of laws to foreign
Denial of privileges and immunities to foreign
corporations, see "Constitutional Law," § 6.
corporations, see "Constitutional Law," § 5.
Denial to of due process of law, see "Constitu-
tional Law," § 7.

Denial to of equal protection of law, see "Con-
stitutional Law," § 6.
Dismissal of writ of error in supreme court in
action involving validity of laws relating to
condemnation of shares of stock belonging
Jurisdiction of federal courts in action by or
to minority stockholders, see "Courts," § 13.
against stockholders as dependent on citizen-
Laws relating to condemnation of stock of rail-
ship, see "Courts," § 5.
road companies owned by minority stockhold-
ers as impairing obligation of contract, see
"Constitutional Law," § 4.

Laws relating to enforcement of stockholders'
liability as impairing obligation of contract,
see "Constitutional Law," § 4.

Laws relating to stockholders' liability as denying due process of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 7.

License tax against corporation as claim in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 5.

Privileges and immunities of as citizens, see "Constitutional Law," § 5.

Reasonableness of regulations imposed by cor-
poration commission against carriers as con-
ferring jurisdiction on supreme court, see
"Courts," § 14.

Receivers of in general, see "Receivers," § 1.
Regulations of foreign corporations impairing
obligation of contract,
of contract, see "Constitutional
Law," § 4.

State laws as rules of decisions in federal courts
as to powers of corporations, see "Courts,
§ 8.

Taxation of corporations and corporate prop-
Taxation of transfers of corporate shares, see
erty, see "Taxation," § 5.
"Taxation," § 2.

Tax on transfers of corporate shares as inter-
fering with interstate commerce, see "Com-
merce," § 3.

Transfer tax on shares of stock as denial of
due process of law, see "Constitutional Law,"
§ 10.

Particular classes of corporations.
See "Colleges and Universities"; "Municipal
Corporations"; "Street Railroads."
Banks, see "Banks and Banking."
Insurance companies, see "Insurance."

Conveyances of particular species of, or estates § 1. Members and stockholders.
or interests in, property.

See "Mines and Minerals," § 2.

Particular classes of conveyances. See "Chattel Mortgages"; "Deeds"; "Mortgages."

CORPORATIONS.

Action by state to enjoin acts of corporation
causing injury in state by reason of operations
outside of state, see "States," § 2.
Adoption by federal court of practice of state
court relative to appearance by railroad cor-
porations, see "Courts," § 7.

Domestic corporation formed for the purchase of capital stock and assets of another corporation and to sell implements and machinery held organized for a purpose other than that of carrying on a manufacturing business, and not within exception as to liability of stockholders made by Const. Minn. art. 10, § 3.-Bernheimer v. Converse, 755; Drey v. Same, Id.

Cause of action to enforce liability of stockholder under Minnesota Constitution and laws does not accrue so as to start running of the six-year limitation, under Code Civ. Proc. N. Y. § 382, until receiver of corporation can sue on the assessment.-Bernheimer v. Converse, 755; Drey v. Same, Id. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

Limitation of right to sue stockholder for debt | Jurisdiction of particular actions or proceedings. To enforce liability of officers of national bank, see "Banks and Banking," § 1. To enforce maritime lien, see "Maritime Liens," § 1.

of corporation to two years after he has ceased to be a stockholder, made by Laws N. Y. 1892, p. 1841, c. 688, § 55, held not applicable to suit against stockholder in foreign corporation.Bernheimer v. Converse, 755; Drey v. Same, Id. § 2. Foreign corporations.

The implied assent of a foreign corporation transacting business in Pennsylvania without complying with Act Pa. June 20, 1883, that service of process may be made upon the state insurance commissioner, does not extend to a suit on a contract of insurance executed in another state.-Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass'n v. McDonough, 236.

*Service of process on agent of foreign corporation doing business in the state must be on an agent representing the corporation as to such business.-Peterson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 513.

Ownership by foreign railway company of controlling interest in stock of a domestic railway company held not to make foreign corporation liable to service of process within the state. -Peterson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 513. Soliciting through its district freight agent in Philadelphia freight and passenger traffic for railway company incorporated in Iowa and having its eastern terminal at Chicago is not doing business in Pennsylvania, so that process can be served on the corporation there.-Green v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 595.

[blocks in formation]

Clerks, see "Clerks of Courts."

Special jurisdictions and particular classes of
courts.

Courts martial, see "Army and Navy."
Indian courts, see "Indians."
Jurisdiction in criminal prosecutions, see "Crim-
inal Law." § 2.

§ 1. Establishment,
§ 1. Establishment, organization, and
procedure in general.

Decisions of the state courts respecting the
title acquired by individual Indians, under the
treaty of September 24, 1819, with the Chippe-
wa Nations, as to lands reserved for their use,
will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court of
the United States where they have become a
rule of property.-Francis v. Francis, 129.
§ 2. Courts of general original jurisdic-
tion.

Contract rights held not unconstitutionally impaired by decision of state court denying city of an elevated iron viaduct in a street for compensation to abutting owner for erection by general public use.-Sauer v. City of New York,

686.

§ 3.

United States courts-Jurisdiction and powers in general.

A suit to cancel certain deeds and leases of railway property in the Eastern district of Illinois can be brought in the federal Circuit Court of that district against defendants, inhabitants of the Northern district, as a suit to remove a cloud on title within Act March 3, 1905, c. 1427, § 8, 33 Stat. 992, 995 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 93].-Citizens' Savings & Trust Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 425.

*The entire judicial power of the nation granted to federal courts by Const. U. S. art. 3, § 1, held not limited by section 2.-State of Kansas v. State of Colorado, 655.

vested by Const. U. S. art. 3, § 1, in federal
*The judicial power of the United States
courts, defined.-State of Kansas v. State of
Colorado, 655.
§ 4.

Jurisdiction dependent on na-
ture of subject-matter.
*Congress was not empowered by Const.
U. S. Amend. 13, to make it an offense
against the United States, cognizable in federal
courts, for. private individuals to compel negro
citizens to desist from performing their con-
tracts of employment.-Hodges v. United
States, 6.

*Federal circuit courts have no jurisdiction in mandamus to compel return of franchise

Commissioners, see "United States Commis- tax collected under the, authority of a state sioners."

statute, though taxation is alleged to be repugnant to the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.-Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Hager,

24.

Contempt of court, see "Contempt." Courts martial, see "Army and Navy." Failure to designate building in which court is to be held as ground for habeas corpus to obtain release of person convicted of of insolvent national bank to whom Comptroller Action for rent against agent for shareholders crime, see "Habeas Corpus," § 1. Mandamus to inferior courts, see "Mandamus," of Currency has released the estate is one to wind up the affairs of the bank and within the § 1. Nature and form of remedy for review of pro-Trust Co. v. Weeks, 69. jurisdiction of the federal court.-International ceedings in Supreme Court, see "Appeal and Trust Co. v. Weeks, 69. Error," 1.

Removal of action from state court to United
States court, see "Removal of Causes."
Review of decisions, see "Appeal and Error."

A controversy arising under the federal Constitution, of which a federal court has original jurisdiction without regard to citizenship, held presented by a bill asserting that obligation of *Point annotated. See syllabus.

contract to supply city with water is impaired | eral Circuit Court of an action in which such by subsequent ordinance under which the municipality is proposing to construct its own waterworks system.-Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. v. City of Columbus, 83.

State courts held not to have jurisdiction to determine title or right of possession under Indian allotment held in trust by the United States under Act Aug. 15, 1894, c. 290, 28 Stat. 286, delegating such power to the federal Circuit Court, and providing that the judgment in any such controversy shall be certified by the court to the Secretary of the Interior, and by Act Feb. 6, 1901, c. 217, 31 Stat. 760, providing that in such suits the parties shall be the claimant as plaintiff and the United States as defendant.-McKay v. Kalyton, 346.

§ 5. Jurisdiction dependent on citizenship, residence, or character of parties.

Alienage of plaintiff held sufficiently alleged to sustain jurisdiction of the federal Circuit Court.-C. H. Nichols Lumber Co. v. Franson, 102.

*The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois in a suit brought by a California stockholder of an Illinois gas company on refusal of company to sue held not fraudulently invoked. City of Chicago v. Mills, 286.

The United States is the real plaintiff so as to sustain the original jurisdiction of a federal court under judiciary acts of March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat. 552, and Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 508], without regard to the amount in dispute in a suit under Act Aug. 13, 1894, c. 282, § 5, 28 Stat. 279 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2316], for the use and benefit of a materialman on the bond of a contractor for a public work.-United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States, 381.

§ 6.

on

Jurisdiction dependent amount or value in controversy. Suit to recover land valued at $5,000, and $2,000 damages for detention, cannot be dismissed under Act March 3, 1875, c. 137. § 5. 18 Stat. 470 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 511], as not involving a controversy within the jurisdiction of the court, because, after hearing the evidence, the court is satisfied that the land taken by each defendant was of less value than $2,000.-Smithers v. Smith, 297.

*Plaintiff's allegations of value govern in determining the jurisdiction of a federal court, unless fraudulently made.-Smithers v. Smith, 297.

Jurisdictional amount involved in suit by Cotton Exchange to enjoin the defendant from receiving the quotations of sale on such exchange held to be measured by the value to the exchange of the right to control the same. Hunt v. New York Cotton Exch., 529.

--

Testimony in suit by Cotton Exchange to enjoin using quotations of sales on such exchange that the value of the right to control quotations is much greater than $2,000 held not impaired by evidence that the value varies with the volume of business.-Hunt v. New York Cotton Exch., 529.

§ 7. — Procedure, and adoption of

practice of state courts.

Lack of valid service of process on foreign corporation does not defeat jurisdiction of fed

corporation pleaded in answer a demand in recoupment, where under local practice, as defined in Rev. St. Ill. c. 110, §§ 30, 31, defendant might have a verdict and judgment in its favor. Merchants' Heat & Light Co. v. James B. Clow & Sons, 285.

The local practice under which one indicted is not entitled to a preliminary examination before trial on the merits, held not to apply to proceedings under Rev. St. U. S. § 1014 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 716], for removal to another federal district for the trial of a person charged with an offense against the United States.-Tinsley v. Treat, 430; Kessler v. Same, 434; Morgan v. Same, Id.; Carpenter v. Same, Id.; Whittle v. Same, Id.; Wilcox v. Same, Id.; Braden v. Same, Id.; Royster v. Same, Id.; Smith_v. Same, Id.; Burroughs v. Same, Id.; McDowell v. Same, Id. § 8. State laws as rules of decision. *Decision of the highest court of the state as to whether the exemption from certain taxation has been repealed held binding on the federal courts.-Wicomico County Com'rs v. Bancroft, 21.

*The construction given by the highest court of a state of a conveyance of mining property will be followed by the federal Supreme Court on writ of error to state court.-East Cent. Eureka Min. Co. v. Central Eureka Min. Co., 258.

*The decision of the highest court of a state that a state statute is repugnant to the Constitution of that state held conclusive on the Supreme Court of the United States.-State of Montana v. Rice, 281.

*Rulings of highest court of state on questions as to powers of corporations under the laws of that state held conclusive on federal Supreme Court.-Stone v. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co., 615.

*Decisions of highest court of state that an owner of land abutting on street has no easement of light, air, and access as against the public use of the street, or any structure erected thereon for public use, held conclusive on Supreme Court of the United States on writ of error.-Sauer v. City of New York, 686. § 9. -Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court and procedure in exercise thereof.

Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court of the United States held not to extend to a bill filed by the Attorney General of Kansas as trustee of a railway of certain lands in the Indian Territory granted to the state for the benefit of the railway, where the name of the state is used only to prosecute the claim of the company.-State of Kansas v. United States, 388.

Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court of United States held to extend to controversy between Kansas and Colorado and the United States as to whether Kansas has a right to continuous flow of the waters of the Arkansas river.-State of Kansas v. State of Colorado, 655.

Question of liability of West Virginia for its proportion of the debt of Virginia held not submitted to the West Virginia Legislature so as to defeat original jurisdiction of the United States by provision of Const. W. Va. art. 8, § 8 [Code 1906, p. lxxi], when read together with Virginia ordinance of August 20, 1861.-Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of West Virginia, 732.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »