« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
Civ. Code Porto Rico 1902, § 173.-Garrozi v. Ratification by Cherokee Nation of Act Cong.
July 1, 1902, c. 1375, $ 26, 32 Stat. 716, does
to that date.-Red Bird v. United States, 29;
Nation by Intermarriage v. Same, Id.
White persons who intermarried with Dela-
ware or Shawnee citizens of the Cherokee Na-
tion have no part in the Cherokee property,
and are not entitled to share in allotment of
lands or distribution of funds belonging to such
Nation.-Red Bird v. United States, 29; Cher-
okee Nation, y. Same, Id.; Fite v. Same, Id.;
Persons Claiming Rights in Cherokee Nation
okees by blood and after the death of the Chero-
not of Cherokee blood, and white men who
having married Cherokee women abandoned
them have no share in the Cherokee property,
and are not entitled to share in the allotment
of lands or distribution of funds belonging to
the Cherokee Nation.-Red Bird v. United
States, 29; Cherokee Nation v. Same, Id.;
Fite v. Same, Id.; Persons Claiming Rights in
Cherokee Nation by Intermarriage v. Same, Id.
White persons in Cherokee Nation who became
Cherokee citizens by internarriage with Cher-
okees, prior to November 1, 1875, have per
capita rights with Cherokees by blood in a
public domain of the Cherokee Nation, and are
States, 29; Cherokee Nation v. Same, Id. ;
Fite. v. Same, Id.; Persons Claiming Rights
in Cherokee Nation by Intermarriage v. Same,
The original Cherokee law as duly passed
must prevail as against omissions in subsequent
compilations where acts providing for such com-
pilations did not declare that they should be
for sale of lands ceded by Indians, see United States, 29; Cherokee Nation v. Same,
Id.; "Fite v. Same, Id.; Persons Claiming
the amendment of 1866 to Cherokee Const. 1839,
volving Indian allotments, see “Courts.” § 4. kee Nation v. Same, Id.; Fite v. Same, Id.;
Intermarriage v. Same, Id.
An alienable title in fee simple held to pass
under reservation of 640 acres for the use of the
by the treaty of September 24, 1819.-Francis
A title in fee may pass under treaty with the
White persons who intermarried with Chero-binding on a person similarly situated who did
July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, to transfer
July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, to review
judgments of United States courts of the In-
In criminal prosecutions, see “Criminal Law,"***
"Judgment," $ 7.
Laws relating to as denying due process of law,
see "Constitutional Law," $ 7.
court in action for assessment on policy, see
"Courts," § 15.
Prosecution of action on policy as election of
remedy, see "Election of Remedies."
by bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 2.
tion,” s 4.
*Exclusion of suicide as a defense in suits on
issues relating to see 1879, $ 5982, held a legitimate exercise of the
power of the state.-Whitfield v. Ætna Life Ius...
§ 2. Extent of loss and liability of in-
Policy of accident insurance issued after pas-
strict the liability of the company to one-tenth
of the sum insured in the event of suicide not
contemplated when application was made.-
"Constitutional Law," $ 6.
Power of attorney coupled with interest, see
"Principal and Agent," 8 1.
In proceedings to obtain patent, see “Patents,"
Lack of adequate remedy at law justifies ju-
The assumption by a manufacturer of the INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT.
See "Aliens"; "Extradition,” $ 1; "Treaties."
Failure to appoint interpreters in criminal pros-
ecution as harmless error, see "Crimnial Law,"
Regulation, see “Carriers," § 1; “Commerce."
That expressa companye knew that a C. 0. D. Presumption that tacourt of superior author-
INTERSTATE EXTRADITION. policy while insured was alive which would
impeach such judgment as to the parties to
whom the clerk of court makes payments, out
of the judgment.-Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co.
*Notice of fraud in recovering a judgment
on a policy of life insurance, held not estab-
lished by the evidence.-Fidelity Mut. Life
§ 4. Collateral .
§ 5. Merger and bar of causes of action
A decree providing that damage sustained by
two vessels by collision, but refusing to divide
the damages to the cargo because not raised
pelled to pay the entire cargo damage from
bringing libel to enforce contribution.-Erie R.
Co. v. Erie & W. Transp. Co., 246.
The judgment on demurrer dismissing suit to
railway claiming under Land Grant Act July
2, 1864, c. 217, 13 Stat. 365, prevents the sur-
cessor in interest from bringing ejectment as
pany had acquired title under Act March 3,
1901, p. 1568], or under the state statute of
limitations.-Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Slaght,
*Judgment sustaining demurrer in action by
held not a bar to recovery in another action be-
tween the same parties under a petition setting
up right to recover for individual loans as dis-
Utica Bank, 646; Same v. Bailey, Id.; Same
judgment, see "Clerks of Courts.
sale of property by receiver appointed in an
the pending suit cannot be collaterally attack-
court and Supreme Court of United States.-
ror," § 7.
Decree enjoining city, at suit of waterworks
fusing to pay water rentals contracted for, held
*No judgment in personam can be rendered regulate water rates under a law passed after
§ 7. Foreign judgments.
A judgment of the Supreme Court of the
*The jurisdiction of a court rendering a judg-
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
*Want of jurisdiction to set aside judgment LANDLORD AND TENANT.
purchaser of irredeemable tax title held not a
fraud on the tenant in possession, entitling him
213; Webb v. Same, Id.
Release from forfeiture of lease, incurred by
tenant by breach of covenant to pay taxes,
denied on the ground of accident or mistake.-
Kann v. King, 213; Webb v. Same, Id.
Equity cannot relieve from forfeiture of lease
for breach of covenant to pay taxes where
the evidence showed tenant's gross negligence.-
Equity cannot endow a tenant with right to
create a contest as to the validity of an ir-
pay the taxes, and be relieved of a forfeiture
8 2. Rent and advances.
*Rent after re-entry cannot be recovered by
lessors unless reasonable effort has been made
See "Public Lands," $ 1.
States Supreme Court, see "Courts," § 11.
See "Public Lands."
See "Landlord and Tenant.'
see "Banks and Banking," $ 1.
See “Constitutional Law," § 2.
"Criminal Law," $ 7.
Denial of equal protection of law to persons
Law," $ 6.
Laws relating to enforcement of levee taxes as
denying due process of law, see "Constitutional
Law," 8 9.
Laws relating to land in levee district as deny-
"Constitutional Law," $ 5.
*Failure of clerk to properly index amended
taxes, see “Constitution does not excuse failure of searcher to examine
files.-Armstrong v. Ashley, 270.
Local statutory law, requiring recording of
lis pendens in suit in order to affect innocent
third parties, held applicable to equitable suit
in the United States District Court of Porto
8, 31 Stat. 79, though by section 34 such court
is given jurisdiction of all cases cognizant in
federal circuit courts.-Romeu V. Todd, 724.
See "Maritime Liens."
See "Intoxicating Liquors," 1.
Jurisdiction of federal courts of mandamus to
compel return of franchise tax collected under
authority of state statute, see "Courts," § 4.
8 1. Subjects and purposes of relief.
*Mandamus is the proper remedy where Cir.
to the state court from which it is removed
a case over which the federal court has no
jurisdiction.-Ex parte Wisner, 150.
The Secretary of the Interior will not be
selection as adopted member of Wichita tribe
of certain lands ceded under the agreement of
June 4, 1891, or ratified by Act March 2, 1895,
c. 188, 28 Stat. 876, 895–897.-United States
v. Hitchcock, 423.
Mandamus will not lie to compel a federal
where it has decided that the controversy can
ant and plaintiff without the presence of other
defendants.-In re Pollitz, 729.
§ 2. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re-
Evidence held insufficient to justify refusal to
any objection based on the due process of law
Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Atlantic Coast Line
R. Co. v. State of Florida, 108.
*Proceeding in mandamus held not governed
by limitations prescribed by Code Okl. $$ 18,
sections 687 and 694.-Duke v. Turner, 316.
*Mandamus to compel levy of tax to pay
municipal warrants held not to be denied be-
cause of alleged laches of applicants.-Duke
v. Turner, 316.