Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States extends to suit by Virginia against West Virginia to determine the amount due the former by the latter of the public debt of Virginia assumed by West Virginia when created a state. - Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of West Virginia, 732. $ 10.

Questions certified to Supreme Court from Circuit Court of Appeals.

A question containing more than a single proposition of law cannot be certified by a Circuit Court of Appeais to the Supreme Court of the United States.-Quinlan v. Green County,

505.

A question of mixed law and fact, on which the whole case turns, cannot be certified by a Circuit Court of Appeals to the United States Supreme Court.-Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 559.

11. Review by Supreme Court of decisions of circuit courts and district courts.

under the United States within Act March 3, 1885, c. 355. § 2, 23 Stat. 443 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 572], defining appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court.-Territory of New Mexico v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 1.

*Some sum must be in dispute to sustain appellate jurisdiction of United States Supreme Court over Supreme Courts of territories which is conferred by Act March 3, 1885, c. 355, § 2, 23 Stat. 443 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 572], without regard to the sum in dispute in cases involving validity of statute or authority exercised under the United States.-Territory of New Mexico v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 1.

*Where matter in dispute is a right of consignors to have consignments shipped by common carrier to their destination held to satisfy requirements of Act March 3, 1885, c. 355, § 2, 23 Stat. 443 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 572], conferring on Supreme Courts of the United Court of territories.-Territory of New Mexico States appellate jurisdiction over Supreme v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 1.

*Appeal under Act June 22, 1860, c. 188 (12 *Determination by Supreme Court of territory Stat. 85, 87) § 11, to the Supreme Court, if in habeas corpus as to custody of a minor held decree of district court in private land claim not appealable to Supreme Court of the United cases is against the United States, held other-States under Rev. St. U. S. § 1909.-New York wise provided by law within Act March 3, 1891, Foundling Hospital v. Gatti, 53. c. 517, 26 Stat. 828 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 5501, § 6, making Circuit Court of Appeals the proper tribunal.-United States v. Dalcour, 58. In deciding the question of jurisdiction below, shown by the certificate of court to have been raised, the Supreme Court cannot resort to the statements in the certificate to determine elements of decision.-C. H. Nichols Lumber Co. v. Franson, 102.

The certificate of federal judge may be considered by the Supreme Court on direct review, under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826 IU. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 488], to supply failure of record to show the raising of question of jurisdiction.-C. H. Nichols Lumber Co. v. Franson, 102.

*Failure of certificate of federal Circuit Court to show the exact nature of the jurisdictional question relied on to sustain appeal to Supreme Court held not to defeat the jurisdiction of the latter court.-City of Chicago v. Mills, 406.

A case cannot be brought up to the Supreme Court of the United States from a federal Circuit Court, under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, 5, 26 Stat. 827 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 488], where jurisdiction challenged is not that of the court rendering decree, but that of a court which rendered a former decree, set up as the basis of the title in suit.-Empire StateIdaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Hanley, 476. A case in which contention is made that decree violates the right of trial by jury and to due process of law does not involve construction of Constitution, within Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, $ 5, 26 Stat. 827 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 488], authorizing direct appeals to the federal Supreme Court, where real issue was as to whether such prior decree was res judicata. Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Hanley, 476. $12.

states in its opinion that on a prior appeal it Where the Supreme Court of the territory had made a full statement and findings of fact, and that, finding the record the same as in its former appeal, judgment is affirmed, there is a finding of facts on which review can be had in the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error.-National Live Stock Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 79.

*Validity of authority exercised under the United States held not drawn in question so as to sustain appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, under Code D. C. § 233, by petition for mandamus to compel restoration to position in classified civil service of a clerk on the ground of an alleged illegal dismissal.-United States v. Taft, 148.

States from decree of District Court of Porto An appeal lies to Supreme Court of the United Rico in a suit by a wife for liquidation of community exceeding $5,000.-Garrozi v. Dastas, 224.

Statement of facts by territorial Supreme Court will not be held defective on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States because confused.-Crowe v. Trickey, 275; Same v. Harmon, 280.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States determined on appeal from territorial Supreme Court.-Crowe v. Trickey, 275; Same v. Harmon, 280.

The contention that, because the District Court of the United States for the district of Porto Rico is required, by Act April 12, 1900, c. 191, § 34, 31 Stat. 77, to proceed as a federal Circuit Court, a term of that court held at Mayaguez is a "special," as contradistinguished from a "regular," term, within Rev. St. U. S. § 670 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 545], forbidding jury trials at special terms, held too clearly lacking in merit to sustain a writ of error from the Supreme Court, in view of requirement of Rev. St. U. S. §§ 664-669 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 543-545], that special terms of Circuit Courts are to be held where regular terms are *Point annotated. See syllabus.

Review by Supreme Court of decisions of territorial courts and courts of District of Columbia. *Controversy as to right of territorial Legislature to pass a specified law under the power conferred by Rev. St. U. S. § 1851, involves the validity of an authority exercised

held.-American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Cas- that he did represent both classes of creditors. tro, 466; Same v. De Castro, 466.

-Frank v. Vollkommer, 596.

*Decisions of state courts on questions of fact are not reviewable by writ of error from Supreme Court of the United States.-Chapman & Dewey Land Co. v. Bigelow, 679.

Writ of error from the federal Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of the territory of Hawaii, which would not lie when final judgment was entered, cannot be sustained as an exercise of appellate jurisdiction conferred by Act March 3, 1905, c. 1465, § 3, 33 Stat. 1035. amending Act April 30, 1900, c. 339, § 86, 31 Stat. 141, 158, because a petition for rehearing in the territorial court was not denied by it un-able cause for beginning a trade-mark intil the later statute went into effect.-Harrison v. Magoon, 577.

§ 13. Review by Supreme Court of decisions of state courts in gen

eral.

A judgment of the highest court of a state reversing the trial court, and upholding against a pre-emptor a patent of the United States under Act Feb. 25, 1867, c. 77, 14 Stat. 409, will not be reversed on presumption as to what the evidence might have been where the testimony though reported by referee is not preserved in the record.-Andrews v. Eastern Oregon Land Co., 42.

The question whether the California Legislature could enact Act April 2, 1866, ratifying conveyances by the city of Monterey of pueblo lands confirmed to that city by the United States and afterwards patented held not so unsubstantial as to justify dismissal of writ of error to state court.-City of Monterey v. Jacks, 67.

Contention that proceedings under Gen. St. Conn. §§ 3694, 3695, by railway company, which is lessee of another railway, and owner of threefourths of its stock, to condemn outstanding shares owned by one who refused to agree to terms of purchase violate due process of law clause of amendment 14, and impair contract obligations, held not so frivolous as to require the dismissal of writ of error from Supreme Court of the United States to a state court. Offield v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 72.

*An inferior state court is the final court of the state where the federal question can be decided, and is the court to which a writ of error from the Supreme Court must be directed, where the highest state court dismissed a writ of error to the inferior court for want of jurisdiction.-Western Union Telegraph Co. Hughes, 162.

V.

*The construction, given by the highest court of the state to a statute of the state is conclusive on the Supreme Court of the United States.-Gatewood v. State of North Carolina,

167.

Question whether schedule interstate freight rates filed with interstate commerce commission was posted as required by the act to regulate commerce, held not open in the Supreme Court of the United States on writ of error to a state court.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 350.

*Findings of fact, by which it is determined whether certain transactions were invalid under the bankrupt act, held conclusive on the Supreme Court of the United States in reviewing the judgment of a state court.-Eau Claire Nat. Bank v. Jackman, 391.

If necessary for trustee in bankruptcy to represent judgment and simple contract creditors when attacking chattel mortgage given by bankrupt, it will be presumed on writ of error from the federal Supreme Court to the state court

§ 14.- Review by Supreme Court of
decisions of state courts as affect-
ed by nature of decision.
Decision of state court that there was prob-
fringement suit in the federal court held not
reviewable in the Supreme Court of the United
States as assuming that a decree entered in the
federal court was wrong, whereas not to as-
sume it to be correct is to fail to give it
full faith under Rev. St. U. S. § 905 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 677].-Burt v. Smith, 37.

*Whether or not a state court exceeded its functions under the state Constitution cannot give rise to a question respecting due process of law sustaining the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States.-Burt v. Smith, 37.

*A federal question as to validity of a paving assessment against a street railway company is not open on writ of error from Supreme Court of the United States to a state court, where the latter based its ruling on its view as to scope of application of railway company for relief from the assessment and the pleadings, and no error thereto is claimed.-Fair Haven & W. R. Co. v. City of New Haven, 74.

*Certificate of a state court that defendant railroad company, in a suit to recover damages because of violation of quarantine regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, under Act Feb. 2, 1903, c. 349, 32 Stat. 791 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 613], insisted that such statute was unconstitutional and did not authorize such regulations, removes any doubt as to whether a federal question was raised within Rev. St. U. S. § 709 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 575], where after demurrer to the answer judgment was rendered against defendant.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McKendree, 153; Same v. Edwards, 159.

*Any unconstitutional discrimination in Laws N. C. 1905, c. 538, relating to dealing in futures, held not to be considered on error from the Supreme Court of the United States to review a conviction under that act because of insufficiency of record.-Gatewood v. State of North Carolina, 167.

*The power of the state, consistently with Const. U. S. amend. 14, to enact Laws N. C. 1905, c. 538, prohibiting dealing in futures. which raises a presumption of guilt on proof of the doing of certain acts, cannot be considered on writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to review a conviction under that act.-Gatewood v. State of North Carolina, 167.

*There was no decision of a federal question essential to sustain writ of error from Supreme Court of the United States where highest state court dismissed an appeal for defect of parties. -Newman v. Gates, 220.

*Contest over a state office dependent on application of the state Constitution on the construc

tion of a provision of the state law held not to involve a federal question.-Elder v. People of State of Colorado, 223.

*Claim of right under an "authority exercised under the United States," Rev. St. U. S. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

$709 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 575], defining | Supreme Court.-Patterson v. People of State the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the of Colorado, 556. United States over state courts, held presented by contention that a Montana statute was authorized by Enabling Act Feb. 22, 1889,. c. 180, 25 Stat. 676.-State of Montana v. Rice,

281.

did not constitute a contempt held not a ques The objection that certain published articles tion to sustain a writ of error from the federal Supreme Court to a state court.-Patterson v. People of State of Colorado, 556.

A decision of a state court on questions of

Question as to validity of state law under federal Constitution held not necessarily in-law cannot be reviewed in United States Suvolved because state law might have been as sailed under the federal Constitution on grounds similar to those actually raised.-Osborne v.

Clark, 319.

Preme Court as presenting a question of the violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, because contrary to previous decisions of the same court.-Patterson v. People of State of Colorado, 556.

Objections that information in contempt was not supported by affidavit until after it was filed and the suits referred to were not then pending present question of local law, which will not sustain writ of error from the federal Supreme Court.-Patterson v. People of State of Colorado, 556.

References to the Dartmouth College Case in opinions of state courts held not to show that the contract clause of the federal Constitution was relied on to invalidate certain legislation, so as to sustain writ of error to Supreme Court of the United States.-Osborne v. Clark, 319. Question whether a state court can grant relief to a shipper because of an unreasonable freight rate for interstate shipment, when such rate has been filed with interstate commerce Decision of highest state court that accused commission, held to sustain writ of error from has been tried in accordance with the local procedure cannot be reviewed in Supreme Court of the federal Supreme Court to a state court.cedure cannot be reviewed in Supreme Court of Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., federal question was involved because accused the United States on theory that meritorious was a subject of Great Britain.-Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582.

350.

*Judgment of the highest court of a state sustaining a statute, challenged as repugnant to the federal Constitution, is reviewable in the Supreme Court of the United States.-Western Turf Ass'n v. Greenberg, 384.

*Judgment of the highest state court in favor of a trustee in bankruptcy in an action brought by him may be reviewed by the federal Supreme Court.-Eau Claire Nat. Bank v. Jackman, 391. Decision of a state court in which rights under statute of the United States were claimed by defendant held reviewable in the Supreme Court of the United States.-Hammond v. Whittredge, 396.

A carrier's denial that it was bound by law to receive as a connecting carrier an interstate shipment held not an assertion of a right under the act to regulate commerce, so as to sustain a writ of error in the Supreme Court of the United States.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith, Huggins & Co., 401.

A state court, by deciding that a railroad employé killed while coupling a car not equipped with automatic couplers, as required by Act March 2, 1893, c. 196. § 2, 27 Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174], was, as a matter of law, guilty of contributory negligence, cannot defeat the appellate jurisdiction of the federal Supreme Court, where section 8 of that statute was specially invoked.-Schlemmer v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 407.

Defendant's contention that Mining Act Ill. April 18, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 300), as to licensed employés, is repugnant to the Constitution of United States, held to sustain a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to a Circuit Court.-Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 412.

*Decision of state court on question of local law held not subject to review in Supreme Court of United States on writ of error.-Iroquois Transp. Co. v. De Laney Forge & Iron Co., 509; Same v. Edwards, Id.

Claim of right under the federal Constitution to prove truth of certain published articles held to constitute a contempt of court held not a basis of a writ of error from the United States

27 S.C.-52

fecting jurisdiction of the federal Supreme *Citizenship of parties is immaterial as afCourt under Rev. St. U. S. § 709 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 575], of writ of error to the state court.-Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582.

consistency and repugnancy held not to raise a Demurring to indictment on the ground of infederal question of sufficient merit to sustain writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.-Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582.

Admission of evidence which the highest state court decides did not involve rights of accused under state Constitution cannot involve question of due process of law.-Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582.

No federal question sustaining writ of error from Supreme Court of the United States to a state court held involved in contention that defendant was compelled to be a witness against himself, contrary to Const. U. S. Amend. 5.Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582.

Refusal of state court to grant change of venue cannot involve a federal question sufficient to sustain writ of error from federal Supreme Court.-Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582.

Whether an order of the North Carolina Corporation Commission, regulating train service, was unreasonable, held a local and not a federal question.-Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 585.

proceedings of state Legislature in enactment *Conformity with state Constitution of the of a law held not a federal question, sustaining a writ of error in the Supreme Court of the United States to a state court.-Smith v. Jennings, 610.

*No federal question as to impairment of contract obligations which will sustain a writ of error from Supreme Court of the United States to a state court held presented by contention that obligation of contract made by state bonds was impaired by joint resolution of the state Legislature.-Smith v. Jennings, 610.

*Whether a given corporation comes within statutes of state conferring right of eminent *Point annotated. See syllabus.

domain presents only a question of state law. -Stone v. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co., 615.

Objection that trustee in bankruptcy could not attack validity of chattel mortgage given by bankrupt, because it did not appear that he *The express denial of immunity claimed in represented any but simple creditors, is too late trial and appellate courts, under Rev. St. U. S. when first raised in the federal Supreme Court. § 5239 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3515], by-Frank v. Vollkommer, 596. officers of national bank as to liability for mak- § 16. ing false official reports, held to sustain appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court of the United States.-Yates v. Jones Nat. Bank, 638.

[blocks in formation]

court.

The judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court upholding validity of the free banking act of March 21, 1851, § 30, as amended April 24, 1879, under which an indictment had been found against the cashier of a bank cannot be reviewed by the federal Supreme Court where the failure of the state court to file an opinion, leaves it doubtful whether that court may not have held that the words "any banking company" embraces all banking institutions in the state.-Bachtel v. Wilson, 243, 246; Miller v. Same, Id. 246; Davis v. Same, Id.; Van Horn v. Same, Id.

*Raising a federal question for the first time in the petition for writ of error to a state court, and in the accompanying assignment of errors, held insufficient to give the Supreme Court of the United States jurisdiction over such question.-State of Montana v. Rice, 281. *A right_claimed under authority exercised under the United States held specially claimed within Rev. St. U. S. § 709 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 575], defining appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, where it appears from the opinion of the state court that the federal question was assumed to be in issue and that the decision was against the federal claim.-State of Montana v. Rice, 281.

Circuit courts of appeals. An appeal lies to the Court of Appeals in a case where the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court attached for diverse citizenship and on constitutional grounds.-Mississippi R. Commission v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 90.

The Circuit Court of Appeals cannot, in advance of final decree, review order adjudging defendants in contempt; it not being a final order within the appellate jurisdiction of such court, under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 6, 26 Stat. 828 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 550].Doyle v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 313.

§ 17. Court of claims.

Set-off in favor of the United States against demand of commissioner of federal Circuit Court for compensation may be allowed by Court of Claims, under Rev. St. U. S. § 1059 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 734], and Act March 3, 1887, c. 359, § 1, 24 Stat. 505 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 752], for fees improperly paid him on prior accounting.-Allen v. United States, 324.

§ 18. Concurrent and conflicting jurisdiction, and comity.

Mississippi Railroad Commission held not a court within Rev. St. U. S. § 720 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 581], forbidding federal courts to enjoin proceedings in a state court.-Mississippi R. Commission v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 90.

A proceeding before the Mississippi Railroad Commission held not a proceeding in a state court within the meaning of Rev. St. U. S. § 720 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 581].-Mississippi R. Commission v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 90.

Enjoining, at suit of Cotton Exchange, the use by defendant of the quotations of sale on such exchange, held not forbidden to a federal court by Rev. St. U. S. § 720 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 581], because a state court in a pending suit has restrained telegraph company from refusing to furnish quotations to defendant.Hunt v. New York Cotton Exch., 529.

COURTS-MARTIAL.

*Claim of immunity from suit in state court held in time to sustain writ of error from the federal Supreme Court, though first claimed in petition for rehearing.-McKay v. Kalyton, See "Army and Navy." 346.

*The certificate of the chief justice of the highest court of a state cannot help out total

COVERTURE.

failure of record to show that federal question See "Husband and Wife."
was raised.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith,
Huggins & Co., 401.

*Decision of state Supreme Court that foreign mutual insurance company not authorized

CREDITORS.

to do business in the state could not sue to col- See "Bankruptcy."
lect assessments on a policy issued in another
state on request of broker in the state cannot
be reviewed in Supreme Court of United States

as a federal question.-Swing v. Weston Lum

ber Co., 497.

*The suggestion of a federal question first made in petition for rehearing in highest state court held too late to sustain writ of error to Supreme Court from Supreme Court of United States.-Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582.

CRIMINAL LAW.

Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in criminal prosecution, see "Courts," § 14. Conformity of practice in criminal prosecution in federal court with that of state court, see "Courts," 7.

Criminal jurisdiction of federal courts, "Courts," § 4.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

Denial of due process of law in criminal prose- |ing an isolated fact.-Perovich v. United States, cution, see "Constitutional Law," §§ 7-10. 456. Extradition of persons accused, see "Extradition."

Relief of accused by habeas corpus, see "Habeas Corpus."

Trial by court martial, see "Army and Navy." Particular offenses.

See "Contempt"; "Homicide." Against liquor laws, see "Intoxicating Liquors," & 1.

§ 1. Nature and elements of crime and defenses in general.

Protection of national flag held not exclusively intrusted to federal government, so as to prevent state of Nebraska making it a misdemeanor by Act April 8, 1903, p. 644, c. 139, to use representations thereof for advertising purposes.-Halter v. State of Nebraska, 419. *Contractor for public work of the United States intentionally permitting laborers to work more than eight hours a day, under the mistaken assumption that extraordinary emergency exists, intentionally violates Eight-Hour Act Aug. 1, 1892, c. 352, 27 Stat. 340 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2521].-Ellis v. United States, 600; Eastern Dredging Co. v. Same, Id.; Bay State Dredging Co. v. Same, Id.

[blocks in formation]

3. Venue.

Trial in C. county, Oklahoma, of an offense committed within territory which at the time of trial had been organized as such county satisfies the requirements of Organic Act May 2, 1890, c. 182, § 10.-In re Moran, 25.

4. Former jeopardy.

One acquitted by a military court of competent jurisdiction of homicide, as defined by Pen. Code P. I. art. 404, cannot be tried a second time in a civil court of those islands for the same offense.-Grafton v. United States, 749.

Acquittal of homicide, as defined by Pen. Code P. I. art. 404, held a bar to a subsequent conviction under same facts under information charging assassination, as defined by article 403.-Grafton v. United States, 749.

§ 5. Preliminary complaint, affidavit, warrant, examination, commitment, and summary trial. *Evidence that no offense triable in the federal District Court to which accused is sought to be removed under Rev. St. U. S. § 1014 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 716], has been committed, cannot be excluded in removal proceedings. 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.

§ 6. Evidence.

*The deputy marshal may testify as to conversations with accused not induced by duress, intimidation or other improper other improper influence. Perovich v. United States, 456.

§ 8. Appeal and error, and certiorari. in a criminal case when testifying, held not Refusal to appoint interpreter for defendant prejudicially erroneous.-Perovich States, 456.

United

A judgment convicting a chancery receiver of embezzling the money in his official capacity held not reviewable on writ of error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia under Code D. C. §§ 233, 841.-Fields v. United States, 543.

Certiorari to review judgment of Court of Appeals of District of Columbia in a criminal case will not be granted by federal Supreme Court where it does not involve a question of general importance.-Fields v. United States, 543.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

Power of state to lay duties as affecting interstate commerce, see "Commerce," § 1. Tariff laws denying due process of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 10.

§ 1. Validity, construction, and operation of customs laws in general. The Isle of Pines held a foreign country within the meaning of Dingley Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, 30 Stat. 151 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1626].-Pearcy v. Stranahan, 545.

Congress could, by Act June 30, 1906, c. 3912, 34 Stat. 636, ratify illegal collection of duties on imports to Philippine Islands under President's order of July 12, 1898, between the dates of ratification of treaty of peace with Spain and passage of Act July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691.-United States v. Heinszen, 742. § 2. Goods subject to duty, rate, and amount.

Figured cotton cloth valued at over 11, 12, and 122 cents per square yard is liable, in addition to the specific duty imposed by Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule I, 30 Stat. 175, 178 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1656-1659, par. 313, to the ad valorem tax imposed by paragraphs 306, 307, upon similar plain cotton cloth above those values.-United States v. George Riggs & Co., 39.

Metal beads temporarily strung on strings to facilitate transportation are not dutiable under Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 408, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673], at 35 per cent. ad valorem as loose beads, but subject to 45 per cent. ad valorem duty, under paragraph 193.-Henry E. Frankenberg Co. v. United States, 628.

dutiable under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. A growth on skins of Mocha sheep held not 11, § 1, Schedule K, par. 360, 30 Stat. 183 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1666], as wool on the skin, but entitled to free entry under paragraph 664.-Goat & Sheepskin Import Co. v. United States, 634.

§ 3. Entry and appraisal of goods, bonds, and warehouses.

warehouse must be assessed on the weight at Duty on imports withdrawn from bonded the time of the original entry, as prescribed by proviso to Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 33, 30 Stat. 213 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1701], *Trial court held not required to give re- notwithstanding addition by Act Dec. 15, 1902, quested instruction in criminal case emphasiz- c. 1, 32 Stat. 753 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, *Point annotated. See syllabus.

7. Trial.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »