Civ. Code Porto Rico 1902, § 173.-Garrozi v. Dastas, 224.
The power of the husband, as the head of the community property, under Civ. Code Porto Rico 1889, arts. 1412, 1413; Civ. Code 1902, 88 1327, 1328, is such that he cannot, after disso- lution of community, be required to account for money which he may have extravagantly ex- pended.-Garrozi v. Dastas, 224.
IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CON- TRACT.
See "Constitutional Law," § 4. Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court on issue of, see "Courts," § 14.
As ground of jurisdiction of United States court, see "Courts," § 4.
By decisions of courts, see "Courts," § 2.
Duties, see "Customs Duties."
IMPRISONMENT.
Habeas corpus, see "Habeas Corpus."
IMPROVEMENTS.
Liens for, see "Liens."
Ratification by Cherokee Nation of Act Cong. July 1, 1902, c. 1375, § 26, 32 Stat. 716, does not amount to a concession of property rights by the Indians to all who intermarried prior to that date.-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 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, v. Same, Id.; Fite v. Same, Id.; Persons Claiming Rights in Cherokee Nation by Intermarriage v. Same, Id.
White persons who interm rried with Cher- okees by blood and after the death of the Chero- kee wife or husband intermarried with persons 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 intermarriage 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
Public improvements, see "Municipal Corpora- entitled to enrollment.-Red Bird v. United tions," § 2.
Claims against United States for commissions for sale of lands ceded by Indians, see for sale of lands ceded by Indians, see "United States," § 2. Former decisions as precedents in actions re- lating to Indian lands, see "Courts," § 1. Judicial sale to enforce forfeiture to Indian nation, see "Judicial Sales."
Jurisdiction of federal courts of actions in- volving Indian allotments, see "Courts." § 4. Liability of Indian lands to taxation, see "Tax- ation," § 3.
Mandamus to compel approval of selection of land by, see "Mandamus," § 1. Opinion evidence as to ratification of sale by principal chief, see "Evidence," § 3.
No interest in funds of Cherokee Nation un- less derived from sale or otherwise from land of the Cherokee Nation conveyed to it in 1838, were acquired by white persons residents in the Nation who became Cherokee citizens under Cherokee Laws by intermarriage, prior to November 1, 1875.-Red Bird v. United States, 29; Cherokee Nation v. Same, Id.; Fite v. Same, Id.; Persons Claiming Rights in Chero- kee Nation by Intermarriage v. Same, Id.
White persons who intermarried with Chero- kees after November 1, 1875, held not entitled to share in allotment of lands or distribution of funds belonging to such 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.
States, 29; Cherokee Nation v. Same, Id.; Fite. v. Same, Id.; Persons Claiming Rights in Cherokee Nation by Intermarriage v. Same, Id.
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 effective as laws of the 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.
Civil and political rights were alone within the amendment of 1866 to Cherokee Const. 1839, § 5.-Red Bird v. United States, 29; Chero- kee Nation v. Same, Id.; Fite v. Same, Id.; Persons Claiming Rights in Cherokee Nation by Intermarriage v. Same, Id.
An alienable title in fee simple held to pass under reservation of 640 acres for the use of the children of Bokowtonden and their heirs, made by the treaty of September 24, 1819.-Francis v. Francis, 129.
Indians without the aid of Congress or patent A title in fee may pass under treaty with the from the United States.-Francis v. Francis, 129.
A decree of a Choctaw and Chickasaw citi- zenship court in case against 10 persons ad- mitted to citizenship by the United States court, vacating judgments of those courts, held binding on a person similarly situated who did July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, to transfer not avail himself of his privilege, under Act his case from the territorial court to the citizen- ship court.-Wallace v. Adams, 363.
Congress could empower the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court, created by Act July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, to review *Point annotated. See syllabus.
judgments of United States courts of the In- dian Territory, though by Act June 10, 1896, c. 398, 29 Stat. 339, 340, those judgments were final.-Wallace v. Adams, 363.
The regulation of the Department of the In- terior, that the adoption of a person into an Indian tribe must be approved by the Indian office, held not beyond the power of that de- partment, under Rev. St. U. S. § 463 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 262].-United States v. Hitchcock, 423.
Indian allottees under the Stockbridge and Munsee treaty of February 5, 1856 (11 Stat. 663), and Act Feb. 6, 1871, c. 38, 16 Stat. 404, held vested with title in their allotments au- thorizing the cutting of timber therefrom for sale, without approval of Department of the Interior.-United States v. Paine Lumber Co.,
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION. Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in action involving issues relating to, see "Courts," § 14.
INFRINGEMENT.
Of patent, see "Patents," § 3.
INHERITANCE TAX.
Laws denying equal protection of laws, see "Constitutional Law," § 6.
Laws relating to as denying due process of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 9. Laws relating to as impairing obligation of contract, see "Constitutional Law," § 4.
By or against state, see "States," § 2. Conclusiveness of decree, see "Judgment," § 6. Federal courts restraining proceedings in state courts, see "Courts," § 18.
Relief against collection of taxes, see "Taxa- tion," § 6.
In civil actions, see "Trial," § 1. In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 7.
Foreign judgment in action on policy, see- "Judgment," § 7. Laws relating to as denying due process of law, Objections for purpose of review by supreme see "Constitutional Law," & 7. court in action for assessment on policy, see Prosecution of action on policy as election of "Courts," § 15. Rights of trustee in bankruptcy as to insurance remedy, see "Election of Remedies." by bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 2. Taxation of insurance companies, see "Taxa- tion," § 4.
§ 1. Risks and causes of loss.
*Exclusion of suicide as a defense in suits on- life insurance policies given by Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 5982, held a legitimate exercise of the power of the state.-Whitfield v. Etna Life Ins.. Co., 578.
§ 2. Extent of loss and liability of in-
Policy of accident insurance issued after pas- sage of Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 5982, cannot re- strict the liability of the company to one-tenth of the sum insured in the event of suicide not contemplated when application was made.-- Whitfield v. Etna Life Ins. Co., 578.
Criminal, see "Criminal Law," § 1.
Power of attorney coupled with interest, see "Principal and Agent," § 1.
In proceedings to obtain patent, see "Patents," § 1.
§ 1. Subjects of protection and relief. Lack of adequate remedy at law justifies ju- risdiction in equity of a suit by the unsuccess- ful defendant in a patent infringement suit to enjoin complainant in a prior suit from suing See "Public Lands," § 1. customers of former defendant for alleged in- fringement.-Kessler v. Eldred, 611.
The assumption by a manufacturer of the defense of a patent infringement suit in a fed- eral court against a customer does not deprive him of his right to proceed against complainant for wrongfully interfering with the business of such manufacturer by instituting suit after final adjudication in a prior suit that there was no infringement.-Kessler v. Eldred, 611.
Laws interfering with interstate commerce, see "Commerce," §§ 1, 3.
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT.
Appealability, see "Appeal and Error," § 2.
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
See "Aliens"; "Extradition," § 1; "Treaties."
Failure to appoint interpreters in criminal pros- ecution as harmless error, see "Crimnial Law,' § 8.
Regulation, see "Carriers," § 1; "Commerce.” *Point annotated. See syllabus.
INTERSTATE EXTRADITION.
See "Extradition," § 2.
Interstate commerce in, see "Commerce." Wrongful issuance of new license for sale of as denial of due process of law to assignee of original license, see "Constitutional Law," § 8. § 1. Criminal prosecutions.
That express company knew that a C. O. D. interstate shipment of liquor was not ordered by the consignee held immaterial on criminal prosecution of express company for violating a state local option law.-Adams Express Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 606, 608; Ameri- can Express Co. v. Same, 609.
As foreign country under customs laws, see "Customs Duties," § 1.
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 money paid into court in satisfaction of the judgment.-Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 19.
*Notice of fraud in recovering a judgment on a policy of life insurance, held not estab- Ins. Co. v. Clark, 19. lished by the evidence.-Fidelity Mut. Life
§ 4. Collateral attack.
*Presumption that a court of superior author- ity whose judgment is attacked collaterally acted within its jurisdiction cannot be indulged when it affirmatively appears that jurisdiction was wanting.-Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass'n v. Mc- Donough, 236.
§ 5. Merger and bar of causes of action and defenses.
A decree providing that damage sustained by two vessels by collision, but refusing to divide the damages to the cargo because not raised by the pleading, does not prevent vessel com- 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 establish trust in certain lands in favor of a railway claiming under Land Grant Act July 2, 1864, c. 217, 13 Stat. 365, prevents the suc- cessor in interest from bringing ejectment as
Former jeopardy bar to prosecution, see "Crim- to the same property under claim that the com- inal Law," § 4.
Mandamus to judge, see "Mandamus," § 1.
Decisions of courts in general, see "Courts," § 1. Fees of clerk of court for recording abstract of judgment, see "Clerks of Courts.' Giving effect to invalid judgment as denying due process of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 7.
In action for infringement of patent, see "Pat- ents," § 3.
pany had acquired title under Act March 3, 1875, c. 152, 18 Stat. 482 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1568], or under the state statute of limitations.-Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Slaght, 442, 446.
*Judgment sustaining demurrer in action by creditor of national bank against the directors 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- tinct from the right of the bank.-Yates v. Utica Bank, 646; Same v. Bailey, Id.; Same v. Bank of Staplehurst, Id.
§ 6. Conclusiveness of adjudication. *Jurisdiction of territorial court to order a sale of property by receiver appointed in an earlier action without extending receivership to the pending suit cannot be collaterally attack-
In cause removed to federal court, see "Remov-ed after unsuccessful appeals to the territorial al of Causes," § 4.
Of court martial, see "Army and Navy."
court and Supreme Court of United States.- Gila Bend Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Gila
On appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal and Er- Water Co., 495. ror," § 7.
Review, see "Appeal and Error."
Sales under judgment, see "Judicial Sales." § 1. Nature and essentials in general. *No judgment in personam can be rendered against defendant without personal service or waiver of summons and voluntary appearance.- Clark v. Wells, 43.
§ 2. Opening or vacating.
*Court, acting under erroneous belief that no action had been taken within a year and dis- missing action, cannot set aside such judgment after the term or rule day equivalent to end of term without motion and notice and render judgment by default.-Wetmore v. Karrick, 434. § 3. Equitable relief.
*Notice of denial of death of insured in the answer in an action on a life policy held not notice of fraud in recovering judgment on the
Decree enjoining city, at suit of waterworks- company, from building its waterworks or re- fusing to pay water rentals contracted for, held not conclusive as to right of municipality to regulate water rates under a law passed after the bill was filed.-City of Vicksburg v. Vicks- burg Waterworks Co., 762.
§ 7. Foreign judgments.
A judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States that a policy of fire insurance could not be recovered upon as it stood held not denied full faith and credit by an ad- judication that it is not a bar to a suit to reform the policy.-Northern Assur. Co. v. Grand View Bldg. Ass'n, 27.
*The jurisdiction of a court rendering a judg- ment is open to inquiry when questioned in a court of another state.-Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass'n v. McDonough, 236. *Point annotated. See syllabus.
*Want of jurisdiction to set aside judgment after term, and render without notice a different judgment, held available as a defense to an ac- tion on such judgment, in a foreign jurisdiction. -Wetmore v. Karrick, 434.
§ 8. Actions on judgments.
The burden of proof is on plaintiff in an ac- tion on a judgment of a sister state, where the answer contains a general denial to show by what authority the court could enter the judgment sued on which was in personam against a foreign corporation, which did not appear in person and was not personally served. -Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass'n v. McDonough, 236.
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 1.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
§ 1. Terms for years.
Act of landlord in accepting as new tenant purchaser of irredeemable tax title held not a fraud on the tenant in possession, entitling him to relief from forfeiture of the lease for breach of covenant to pay taxes.-Kann v. King, 213; Webb v. Same, Id.
The purchase of an irredeemable tax title, with view to secure a lease of the property, held not such a fraud on the tenant in possession as entitles him to relief from forfeiture of the lease for failure to pay taxes.-Kann v. King, 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.-
Opinion evidence as to ratification of, see "Evi- Kann v. King, 213; Webb v. Same, Id. dence," § 3.
A railway and its receiver did not by build- ing outside its right of way through the Indian Territory lose the right to assert that a sheriff's sale to enforce forfeiture to Choctaw Nation was invalid because made on credit in viola- tion of Choctaw law of October 30, 1888.- Walker v. McLoud, 293.
Ratification by general council of Choctaw Nation of sheriff's sale, invalid because made in clear violation of law, held not accomplished by subsequent legislation.-Walker v. McLoud,
Amount in controversy, see "Courts," § 6. Effect of appearance, see "Appearance.' Review of jurisdictional questions by United States Supreme Court, see "Courts," § 11. Right to attack jurisdiction affecting validity of foreign judgment, see "Judgment," § 7. Jurisdiction of particular actions or pro- ceedings.
See "Habeas Corpus," § 2.
Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 2. Foreclosure, see "Mortgages," § 1.
To enforce liability of officers of national bank, see "Banks and Banking," § 1.
To enforce maritime lien, see "Maritime Liens," § 1.
Special jurisdictions and jurisdictions of partic- ular classes of courts.
See "Admiralty," § 1.
Courts martial, see "Army and Navy." Particular courts, see "Courts."
Instructions in civil actions, see "Trial," § 1. Instructions in criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 7.
Jurisdiction of supreme court in action involv- ing question of violation of right to jury trial, see "Courts," § 11.
In suit by state, see "States," § 2.
Equity cannot endow a tenant with right to redeemable tax sale so as to give such tenant create a contest as to the validity of an ir- the right, if the tax sale be held invalid to pay the taxes, and be relieved of a forfeiture for his breach of covenant to pay them.—Kann v. King, 213; Webb v. Same, Id.
§ 2. Rent and advances.
*Rent after re-entry cannot be recovered by lessors unless reasonable effort has been made to relet under lease providing that for breach of covenant the lessors may at their discretion relet the premises.-International Trust Co. v. Weeks, 69.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
Laws relating to land in levee district as deny- ing privileges and immunities of citizens, see "Constitutional Law," § 5. Persons entitled to raise constitutional ques- tions relative to levee taxes, see "Constitution- al Law," § 1.
Recital in decree for sale of lands for unpaid levee taxes held conclusive as against collateral attack based on ground that there was no suffi- cient proof of publication of a warning notice. -Ballard v. Hunter, 261.
*Failure of clerk to properly index amended declarations in ejectment, duly filed in his office, does not excuse failure of searcher to examine files.-Armstrong v. Ashley, 270.
Suit in equity to enforce judgment on real property resulting in decree that judgment debt- or is owner of equitable title held within Mort- gage Law Porto Rico, art. 42.-Romeu v. Todd, 724.
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
Interfering with interstate commerce, see "Com- Rico, in view of Act April 12, 1900, c. 191, § merce," § 3.
Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bank- ruptcy," § 3.
*Land in possession of true owners pending ejectment suit, when defendant executed deed of trust to secure money to be used in erecting
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.
LOCAL OPTION.
See "Intoxicating Liquors," § 1.
improvements thereon, cannot be subjected to Of mining claim, see "Mines and Minerals," § 1. an equitable lien for the value of the improve- ments.-Armstrong v. Ashley, 270.
Jurisdiction of federal courts of mandamus to compel return of franchise tax collected under authority of state statute, see "Courts," § 4.
§ 1. Subjects and purposes of relief. *Mandamus is the proper remedy where Cir- cuit Court of United States refuses to remand 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 compelled by mandamus to approve the relator's 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 circuit court to remand to state court a cause where it has decided that the controversy can be determined between the removing defend- 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 enforce an order of a state railroad commission fixing local rates for carrying phosphates on any objection based on the due process of law and equal protection of the laws clauses of 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, 23, for civil actions, in view of provisions of 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.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια » |