p. 419], of provision to section 20 of the cus- toms administrative act of June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 140.-United States v. G. Falk & See "Constitutional Law," § 2. Bro., 191.
In pleading, see "Equity," § 2.
DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.
Duty on leaf tobacco, which on withdrawal from bonded warehouse, has lost weight must be assessed on the weight at the time of the original entry under Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 33, 30 Stat. 213 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1701.]-United States v. G. Falk & Bro., 191. Congress, by enacting proviso to Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 33, 30 Stat. 213 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1701], which differs from proviso to Act Oct. 1, 1890, c. 1244, § 50, 26 Stat. 624, only in substituting the word "entry" for the word "withdrawal" as the date from which the weight of merchandise withdrawn from bonded warehouse is to be taken as the basis of entry, held to have adopted the construction followed by executive officers charged with the administration of the law that such proviso was not limited to merchandise imported before See "Wills." the act took effect.-United States v. G. Falk & Bro., 191.
Inheritance tax law denying due process of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 9. Inheritance tax law denying equal protection of law, see "Constitutional Law," 6. Inheritance tax law impairing obligation of contract, see "Constitutional Law, § 4.
From indebtedness, see "Bankruptcy," § 6; "Release."
Of alien as affecting right to come into country, see "Aliens," § 1.
DISMISSAL AND NONSUIT.
Dismissal of appeal to supreme court, see "Courts," 14.
Dismissal of writ of error in supreme court, see "Courts," § 13.
Of estate of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," & 5..
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Appeals from courts of to supreme court, see"Courts," & 12.
DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP.
As ground of appellate jurisdiction of circuit court of appeals, see "Courts," § 16. Ground of jurisdiction of United States courts, see "Courts," § 5; "Removal of Causes," 881, 2.
Effect on community property rights, see "Hus band and Wife," § 1.
ground of jurisdiction, ser
DUE PROCESS OF LAW. See "Constitutional Law," §§ 7-10. Jurisdiction of supreme court in actions in- volving question of, see "Courts," § 14. See syllabus.
Customs duties, see "Customs Duties."
EIGHT-HOUR LAW.
See "Master and Servant," § 1.
time for its completion.-Stoney. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co. 615.
§ 2. Proceedings to take property and assess compensation.
Appropriation by eminent domain of land for terminal facilities for a bridge erected under Act Jan. 26, 1901, c. 181, 31 Stat. 741, over act.-Stone v. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co., 615.
Intent as element of crime in violation of, see navigable stream, held not forbidden by that "Criminal Law," § 1.
Bar of action by former adjudication, see "Judgment," § 5.
ELECTION OF REMEDIES.
*Prosecution of an action at law on an in- surance policy to final judgment, denying re- covery on the ground that the policy could not
be recovered on as it stood, held not an election Of imported goods, see "Customs Duties," § 3.
barring suit to reform the policy.-Northern Assur. Co. v. Grand View Bldg. Ass'n, 27.
*Seller in contract of conditional sale held
not by attempting to enforce materialmen's liens Of taxes, see "Taxation," § 5.
to make an election preventing him from suing in replevin.-William W. Bierce v. Hutchins, 524.
Decisions reviewable in prosecution for, see "Criminal Law," § 8.
Punishment for in violation of due process of law, see "Constitutional Law," §§ 7-10.
EMINENT DOMAIN.
Condemnation of shares of stock owned by minority stockholders as denial of due pro- cess of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 7. Dismissal of writ of error in supreme court in action involving validity of laws relating to condemnation of shares of stock, see "Courts," § 13.
Laws relating to condemnation of stock of rail- road companies owned by minority stock- holders as impairing obligation of contract, see "Constitutional Law," § 4. Public improvements by municipalities, see "Municipal Corporations," § 2. Removal of condemnation proceedings to feder- al court, see "Removal of Causes," § 2. Right of corporation to exercise power of as federal question giving jurisdiction to Su- preme Court, see "Courts," § 14.
§ 1. Nature, extent, and delegation of
The making of alterations in a bridge erected over an interstate water way which the Secre- tary of War, under Act March 3, 1899, c. 425, § 18, 30 Stat. 1121, 1153 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3545], requires to secure navigation against an unreasonable obstruction, is not a taking of private property for public use.-Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 367.
Equitable liens, see "Liens."
Equitable relief against collection of tax, see "Taxation," § 6. Laches in suit by state, see "States," § 2. Particular subjects of equitable jurisdiction and equitable remedies.
See "Injunction"; "Receivers"; "Trusts." Relief against judgment, see "Judgment," § 3. Suits for infringement of patents, see "Pat- ents," § 3.
§ 1. Parties and process.
Objection that widow of testator's son should have been made a party to a bill to review a de- the rule against perpetuities, held too late when cree declaring a testamentary trust, to violate raised on demurrer to bill of review.-Landram v. Jordan, 17.
The question whether Virginia has been re- leased from liability on public bonds of the state outstanding January 1, 1861, will not be passed upon on demurrer to bill filed by that state against West Virginia to adjudicate amount due the former by the latter as its pro- portion of the public debt of the original state of Virginia. - Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of West Virgina, 732.
Consideration of objections of multifarious- ness, misjoinder of parties and causes of action, may be postponed until final hearing on bill by Virginia against state of West Virginia to ad- judicate amount due the former as proportion of the public debt assumed by West Virginia. Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of West Virginia, 732.
Owner of property taken for approaches and terminal facilities for a bridge under Act Jan. 26, 1901, c. 181, 31 Stat. 741, over a navigable stream, held denied no federal right where bridge was constructed without complaint by federal authorities; Congress having, by Act Jan. 18, 1904, c. 5, 33 Stat. 6, extended the See "Appeal and Error." *Point annotated. See syllabus.
ESTABLISHMENT.
Of canals, see "Canals," § 1.
Of railroads, see "Street Railroads," § 1.
Created by will, see "Wills," § 1. Estates for years, see "Landlord and Tenant.” Restrictions on creation of future estates, see "Perpetuities."
By judgment, see "Judgment," §§ 5, 6.
Applicability of instructions to evidence, see Trial," § 1.
Presumption as to compliance with condition precedent to issuance of county railroad aid bonds, see "Counties," § 1.
In actions by or against particular classes of persons.
See "Master and Servant," § 2.
Trustee in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 4.
In particular civil actions or proceedings. For death of servant, see "Master and Serv- ant," § 2.
On foreign judgment, see "Judgment," § 8. In criminal prosecutions.
See "Criminal Law," § 6.
Review and procedure thereon in appellate
Harmless error in rulings on, see "Appeal and Error," § 6.
§ 1. Judicial notice.
Courts will take judicial notice of the fact that in the West cattle are required to be branded to identify their ownership.-Territory of New Mexico v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 1. § 2. Parol or extrinsic evidence affect- ing writings.
Recourse may be had to prior negotiations, where it is doubtful whether penalty or liqui- dated damages are intended by a clause in a written contract.-United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 450.
*Extrinsic evidence of circumstances preced- ing agreement and long-continued practice un- der it held admissible as an aid to the interpre- tation of the conditions of such agreement.- Lowrey v. Territory of Hawaii, 622.
§ 3. Opinion evidence.
*Allowing a practical railroad man to testify as to whether a buffer at the end of a spur track was a reasonably safe one, and whether the proper care had been exercised in building an overhead structure, held not an abuse of dis- cretion.-Gila Valley, G. & N. Ry. Co. v. Lyon,
*A statement that the principal chief of the Choctaw Nation ratified an illegal sheriff's sale held a conclusion of law, and inadmissible in evidence.-Walker v. McLoud, 293.
EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF.
Questions presented by for review, see "Appeal and Error," § 4.
Omission of the words "or be punished" from the provision of article 3 of the extradition treaty with Great Britain of July 12, 1889 (26 former conviction for any offense of a person Stat. 1508), does not justify imprisonment on extradited from Canada for an offense against the United States until he has had opportunity to return from Canada in view of positive pro- visions of Rev. St. U. S. §§ 5272, 5275 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3595, 35961, and the earlier Ashburton treaty of 1842 (8 Stat. 572–576).- Johnson v. Browne, 539.
Independent proof, apart from requisition papers, that the accused was a fugitive from *Point annotated. See syllabus.
justice, need not be demanded by the Governor. -Pettibone v. Nichols, 111.
Arranging for the arrest and deportation of Of mortgage, see "Mortgages," § 1. accused, so as to leave him no opportunity to prove to the Governor of the surrendering state that he was not a fugitive from justice, held not to violate Const. U: S. art. 4, 82, or Rev. St. U. S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3597], relating to extradition.-Pettibone v. Nichols,
Fugitive from justice within Const. U. S. art. 4, § 2, and Rev. St. U. S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3597], defined.-Appleyard v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 122.
The belief of the accused, when leaving the demanding state, that he had not committed any crime, does not prevent his being a fugitive from justice within Const. U. S. art. 4, § 2, and Rev. St. U. S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3597].-Appleyard v. Commonwealth of Massa- chusetts, 122.
FEDERAL COURTS.
See "Courts," §§ 3-17.
FEDERAL QUESTIONS.
Grounds for jurisdiction, see "Courts," § 4.
Of clerks of courts, see "Clerks of Courts." Of United States commissioners, see "United States Commissioners."
Claims against bankrupt estate, see "Bank- ruptcy," § 5.
FINAL JUDGMENT.
Appealability, see "Appeal and Error," § 2.
By interstate commerce commission, see "Com- merce," § 4.
Liability of carrier for injuries to goods by fire, see "Carriers," § 2.
Laws relating to use of for advertising pur- poses as denial of equal protection of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 6. Laws relative to use of for advertising pur- poses as denying due process of law, see "Constitutional Law," §§ 7-10. Laws relating to use of for advertising pur- poses as denying privileges and immunities of citizens, see "Constitutional Law," & 5. Power of state to punish use of for advertis- ing purposes, see "Criminal Law," § 1.
See "Corporations," § 2.
Action by state to restrain acts of outside of state but causing injury in state, see "States," § 2.
Adoption by federal court of practice of state court relative to appearance by, see "Courts," § 7.
Conspiracy between to monopolize trade, see "Monopolies," § 1. Denial to of equal protection of laws, see "Con- stitutional Law," § 6.
Denial to of privileges and immunities, see "Constitutional Law," § 5.
Receivers of in general, see "Receivers," § 1. Regulations of impairing obligation of con- tract, see "Constitutional Law," § 4.
FOREIGN JUDGMENTS.
See "Judgment," §§ 7, 8.
FOREIGN RECEIVERSHIP.
See "Receivers," § 1.
Judicial sale in proceedings to enforce, see "Ju- dicial Sales."
Of lease, see "Landlord and Tenant," § 1. Of rights in community property, see "Hus- band and Wife," § 1.
FORMER ADJUDICATION.
See "Judgment," §§ 5, 6.
FORMER JEOPARDY.
Bar to prosecution, see "Criminal Law," § 4.
Of street railroads, see "Street Railroads," § 1.
As ground for equitable relief against judg ment, see "Judgment," § 3.
By landlord or tenant, see "Landlord and Ten- ant," 1.
By principal or agent, see "Principal and Agent," 2.
In claims to public lands, see "Public Lands," § 2. Right to discharge in bankruptcy as against claim founded on fraud, see "Bankruptcy," § 6.
FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE.
See "Extradition," § 2. *Point annotated. See syllabus.
Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in pros- ecution for violation of gaming law, see "Courts," § 14. Enactment and validity of statutes in general, see "Statutes," § 1.
Laws relating to as denying equal protection of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 6. Laws relating to as denying due process of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 7.
Disobedience of law relating to as ground for habeas corpus proceedings in Supreme Court, see "Habeas Corpus," § 1.
Of public lands, see "Public Lands."
Plea in action on, see "Pleading," § 1. § 1. Construction and operation.
Sales of merchandise held covered by a bond conditioned that purchasers will pay the mon- ey due and to become due.-McGuire v. Gerst- ley, 332; Clark v. Same, 337.
Contempt of court in habeas corpus proceedings, see "Contempt," §§ 1, 2. Form of remedy on review, see "Appeal and Error," 1.
Review of habeas corpus proceedings by Unit- ed States Supreme Court, see "Courts," § 12. Review of moot questions in habeas corpus proceedings, see "Appeal and Error," § 7.
§ 1. Nature and grounds of remedy. Failure to specify a building in the order of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma fixing Lawton as a place where the district court should be held did not justify relief by habeas corpus of a person convicted of crime therein.-In re Moran, 25
Disobeying law, governing selecting of grand jurors, does not affect jurisdiction of court so as to justify release on habeas corpus of one convicted on indictment found by such jury. -In re Moran, 25.
Compelling accused to stand up and walk before the jury even if contrary to Const. U. S. Amend. 5, does not affect the jurisdiction of court so as to justify relief by habeas corpus. In re Moran, 25.
A person held in custody by a state for trial in one of its courts under an indictment for a crime against its laws will not be released on habeas corpus by a federal court because meth- ods to secure his presence may have violated Const. U. S. art. 4, § 2, or Rev. St. U. S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3597], relating to extradition. Pettibone v. Nichols, 111.
Relief by habeas corpus by a federal court to a person held by state authorities under a commitment entered after a jury had returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity will not lie.-Urquhart v. Brown, 459.
§ 2. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re- lief.
Oklahoma court held not entitled to release One imprisoned under conviction in an Oklahoma court held not entitled to release on habeas corpus under Rev. St. U. S. § 753 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 592], because the grand jurors were summoned from the body residents of the territory. In re Moran, 25. of the county and were not all electors or
HARMLESS ERROR.
In civil actions, see "Appeal and Error," § 6. In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 8.
Entries on public lands, see "Public Lands," § 1.
Former jeopardy, see "Criminal Law," § 4. Jurisdiction of prosecution for, see "Criminal Law," § 2.
Participation in murder of person under sen- tence of death during delay attendant on ap- peal as contempt of court, see "Contempt," S$ 1, 2.
Trial for by court martial, see "Army and Navy."
*Refusal of trial court to instruct jury to bring in verdict of not guilty, in a homicide case on the theory that corpus delicti had not been proved, held not error.-Perovich v. United States, 456.
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in suit instituted in district court for liquidation of community, see "Courts," § 12.
§ 1. Community property.
A rule of limited forfeiture in lieu of the rule of the Spanish law that the wife against whom a divorce for adultery was decreed for- feited all right to her share in community was adopted for Porto Rico by Civ. Code 1899, art. 73, par. 3, Civ. Code 1902, tit. 5, c. 5, § 174.- Garrozi v. Dastas, 224.
The rule of the Spanish law that a wife against whom judgment of divorce for adultery has been decreed forfeits all right to her share in the community property does not obtain in Porto Rico because of Civ. Code 1889, art. 1417: Civ. Code 1902, § 1330.-Garrozi v. Dastas, 224.
Court of the United States in Porto Rico to a Counsel fees cannot be allowed by District wife in a suit for liquidation of community.- Garrozi v. Dastas, 224.
The amount of alimony pendente lite and expenses incurred by wife in a divorce sanction- ed by Porto Rico court are properly allowed the wife in suit for liquidation of community.- Garrozi v. Dastas, 224.
The objection that the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico should not have given a money decree in a suit by a wife to obtain the liquidation of the community held not valid.-Garrozi v. Dastas, 224.
A divorced wife is entitled to liquidation of the community and payment of her share under *Point annotated. See syllabus.
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια » |