Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

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.

IMPORTS.

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.

See "Guaranty."

INDEMNITY.

INDIANS.

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.,

697.

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.

INJUNCTION.

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.

INSTRUCTIONS.

In civil actions, see "Trial," § 1.
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 7.

INSURANCE.

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-

surer.

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.

INTENT.

Criminal, see "Criminal Law," § 1.

INTEREST.

Power of attorney coupled with interest, see
"Principal and Agent," § 1.

INTERFERENCE.

In proceedings to obtain patent, see "Patents,"
§ 1.

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT.

§ 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.

INSOLVENCY.

See "Bankruptcy."

INSPECTION.

Laws interfering with interstate commerce, see
"Commerce," §§ 1, 3.

INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT.

Appealability, see "Appeal and Error," § 2.

INTERNATIONAL LAW.

See "Aliens"; "Extradition," § 1; "Treaties."

INTERPRETERS.

Failure to appoint interpreters in criminal pros-
ecution as harmless error, see "Crimnial Law,'
§ 8.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

Regulation, see "Carriers," § 1; "Commerce.”
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

INTERSTATE EXTRADITION.

See "Extradition," § 2.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

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.

See "Patents."

INVENTION.

ISLE OF PINES.

As foreign country under customs laws, see
"Customs Duties," § 1.

JEOPARDY.

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.

See "Courts."

JUDGES.

Mandamus to judge, see "Mandamus," § 1.

JUDGMENT.

99

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.

JUDICIAL SALES.

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,

293.

JURISDICTION.

[ocr errors]

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."

JURY.

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.

LACHES.

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.

[blocks in formation]

*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.

LICENSES.

LIS PENDENS.

*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.

LIENS.

See "Maritime Liens."

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.

LOCATION.

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.

[blocks in formation]

MANDAMUS.

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-

lief.

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.

See "Mandamus."

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

MANDATE.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »