UNITED STATES REPORTS VOLUME 245 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT AT OCTOBER TERM, 1917 FROM OCTOBER 1, 1917, TO MARCH 4, 1918 ERNEST KNAEBEL REPORTER THE BANKS LAW PUBLISHING CO. NEW YORK 1918 Copyright, 1917, 1918, by THE BANKS LAW PUBLISHING COMPANY NOTICE The price of this volume is fixed by statute (§ 226, Judicial Code, 36 U. S. Statutes at Large, 1153) at one dollar and seventy-five cents. Cash must accompany the order. The purchaser must pay the cost of delivery. JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE TIME OF THESE REPORTS.1 EDWARD DOUGLASS WHITE, Chief Justice. JOSEPH McKENNA, Associate Justice. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, Associate Justice. WILLIAM R. DAY, Associate Justice. WILLIS VAN DEVANTER, Associate Justice. MAHLON PITNEY, Associate Justice. JAMES CLARK McREYNOLDS, Associate Justice. LOUIS D. BRANDEIS, Associate Justice. JOHN H. CLARKE, Associate Justice. THOMAS WATT GREGORY, Attorney General. JOHN WILLIAM DAVIS, Solicitor General. JAMES D. MAHER, Clerk. FRANK KEY GREEN, Marshal. 1 For allotment of The Chief Justice and Associate Justices among the several circuits see next page. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Allotment of Justices, October Term, 1916.1 Order: There having been an Associate Justice of this court appointed since the adjournment of the last term, . It is ordered, That the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this court among the circuits agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and that such allotment be entered of record, viz: For the First Circuit, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Associate Justice. For the Second Circuit, Louis D. Brandeis, Associate Justice. For the Third Circuit, Mahlon Pitney, Associate Justice. For the Fourth Circuit, Edward D. White, Chief Justice. For the Fifth Circuit, J. C. McReynolds, Associate Justice. For the Sixth Circuit, William R. Day, Associate Justice. For the Seventh Circuit, John H. Clarke, Associate Justice. For the Eighth Circuit, Willis Van Devanter, Associate Justice. For the Ninth Circuit, Joseph McKenna, Associate Justice. October 30, 1916. 1 For next previous allotment see 241 U. 8., p. iv. TABLE OF CASES REPORTED PAGE Abbott v. Wauchula Mfg. & Timber Co. . . 646 Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Baldwin . . . 198 Acadia, Police Jury of, v. City of Crowley . . 637 Ageo, Veloso v. . . . . . . . 673 Aitken v. United States, by its trustee Government of the Philippine Islands .... 678 Albion Vein Slate Co., Fillippon v. 648 American Flint Glass Workers’ Union, Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. ...... 275 American Mfg. Co., State of Missouri ex rel., v. Reynolds et al., Judges .... 635 American Mfg. Co. v. Reynolds et al., Judges . 650 American Radiator Co. v. Rogge, Admr. . . 630 American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council ...... 670 Anderson, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. La Rose Consolidated Mines Co. .... 646 Apperson, Hendrickson, Judge, v. . . .105 Arant, United States ex rel., v. Lane, Secy, of the Interior . . . . . - . . 166 Armentrout, Roller v. ..... 642 Armijo, Sanchez y, v. State of New Mexico . . 676 Armstrong, Drees v. . . . . . . 656 Aronson, Orlov v. ..... 662 Arver v. United States ..... 366 Ascarate v. State of New Mexico . . . 625 Associated Press, International News Service v. . 644 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Cole . . 641 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. County Commrs., County of Douglas, Colorado 634, 669 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Railroad Comm. of California . . . . . . 638 (v) vi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Westling, Admx. 654 Atlantic City, Clowney v. . . . . . 674 Atlantic City, Lassiter v. . . . . . 674 Atlantic City, Shill Rolling Chair Co. v. . . 674 Atlantic City, Smith’s Rolling Chairs v. . . 674 Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Dutton, Admx. . 637 Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Treadway, Admx. . 670 Aunt Jemima Mills Co., Rigney & Co. v. . . 672 Bailey, Secy, of State of Louisiana, Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. . . . . 677 Baldwin, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. . . . 198 Baldwin v. United States . . . . 664 Ball Engineering Co. v. White & Co. . . . 647 Bank of Iverness v. Hayden .... 645 Barber, Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. ... 146 Barber & Co. v. Sulzberger & Sons Co. . . 657 Barnes-Ames Co. v. Jones S. S. Co. . . . 658 Barrett v. Virginian Ry. . . . . . 659 Bates v. Bodie . . . . . . 520 Batesville Southwestern Ry. v. Mims . . . 680 Baulch v. Strathleven S. S. Co. ... . . 663 Bear, Tutor, Dendinger v. . . . . . 660 Bell, Admx., v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. . . 629 Bell v. Fitzpatrick ...... 681 Bell, Admx., Midland Valley R. R. v. . . . 653 Bellows Falls Power Co. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts ....... 630 Bernal v. United States ..... 672 Berrios, People of Porto Rico v. . . . . 665 Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, City of New York........................................128 Bisso Towboat Co., Societe Naphtes Transports v. 652 Biwabik Mining Co., United States v. . . . 648 Blum v. Bumiller-Remelin Co. .... 659 Board of Education, School Dist. of Pittsburgh, Susman v. . . . . . . . 636 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. vii PAGE Board of Trade, City of Chicago, Turner v. . . 667 Bodie, Bates v. . . . . . . . 520 Boemer v. Thompson, Mayor .... 669 Bogart et al., Executors, Southern Pacific Co. v. . 668 Boldt, Admx., v. Pennsylvania R. R. . . . 441 Boston, City of, City of Chelsea w. 626 Bouker Contracting Co., Jones v. ... 647 Bower Chemical Mfg. Co., Herrmann, surviving partner, v. . . . . . . 649 Bowlegs, United States ex rel., v. Lane, Secy, of the Interior ....... 678 Braziel v. United States ..... 644 Brewster, Attorney General, State of ‘Kansas ex rel., Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. v. . 627 Brewster, Attorney General, State of Kansas ex rel., Wear, impleaded sub nom. Wear Sand Co. v. . 154 Brightman v. Lake Erie & Western R. R. . . 637 Brooks, Receiver, v. Empire Trust Co. . . 634 Brooks, Bankrupt, Moore Dry Goods Co. v. . .651 Brooks Co., Davidson v. . . . . . 665 Brown, Treasurer of Iowa, Duus, Admr., v. . . 176 Bruce, Admr., v. Tobin ..... 18 Buchanan v. Warley . . . 60 Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Co., Jones v. . . 328 Bumiller-Remelin Co., Blum v. . . . . 659 Burr, Ketcham v. . . . , . . 510 Burton v. New York Central R. R. . . . 315 Butler & Co., Gardiner, Trustee, v. . . . 603 Butte Miners’ Union, Moyer, Trustee, v. . .671 Caldwell, Attorney General, Wells, Fargo & Co. v. 677 California Bridge & Construction Co. v. United States 337 California Land Co., Doane v. ... . 660 California R. R. Comm. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. ...... 638 Cambria Steel Co.* Capitol Transportation Co. v. . 648 Camp v. Gress ....... 655 viii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE Campbell, Sheriff, Crane v. . . . . 304 Campbell, Harrison v. ..... 653 Capitol Transportation Co. v. Cambria Steel Co. . 648 Carlin Construction Co., Guerini Stone Co. v. 643 Carraway, El Paso Sash & Door Co. v. 643 Carroll-Porter Boiler & Tank Co., City of St. Louis to the use of, Parker-Washington Co. v. .651 Catlett, Trustee, Roller v. . . . . . 632 Central California Canneries Co. v. Dunkley Co. . 668 Central R. R. Co. of New Jersey, Moran v. . . 629 Chain Belt Co., New York Scaffolding Co. v. 666 Chaloner, Washington Post Co. w. 670 Chapman et al., Co-partners, v. Java Pacific Line . 650 Chapman, I. F., The Barge, Scully, Clmt., v. Kazar- ian . . . . . . . . 647 Chase, United States, Trustee, v. ... 89 Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co. . . . 655 Chelsea, City of, v. City of Boston . . 626 Chesapeake & Ohio Ry., Bell., Admx., v. . . 629 Chicago, City of, v. White Transportation Co. 660 Chicago, City of, Board of Trade, Turner v. . 667 Chicago & Alton Ry. v. Pressed Steel Car Co. . 652 Chicago & Alton R. R. v. United States . 655 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R., Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co. v. . . . . 644 Chicago Car Heating Co. v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co..................................631 Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Ry., De Bord v. . 652 Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. v. State of Kan- sas ex rel. Brewster, Attorney General . . 627 Choy Fong, Ng, v. United States .... 669 Cincinnati, City of, v. Cincinnati & Hamilton Trac- tion Co. . . . . . . . 446 Cincinnati & Hamilton Traction Co., City of Cincinnati v. ...... 446 Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. v. McCollum, Admr. . . . . . . . 632 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. ix PAGE Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. v. Goode 681 Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry., United States v. . . . . . . 648 Clowney v. Atlantic City ..... 674 Clum, Trustee, Stellwagen, Trustee, v. . . . 605 Coal & Coke Ry. Co. v. Deal .... 681 Cohen, Trustee, v. Samuels ..... 50 Cole, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. . . 641 Columbia River Packers’ Assn., McGowan v. . 352 Commercial National Bank, Martin, Trustee, v. . 513 Commissioner of Police, City of New York, Biddinger v............................................128 Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, Leyland & Co. v......................................647 Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, Gauzon v............................................86 Conron Bros. Co., Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. 656 Contributors to the Pennsylvania Hospital v. City of Philadelphia ...... 20 Cook, Admr., Southern Ry. v. ... . 677 Corrugated Bar Co. v. Trussed Concrete Co. . 659 County Commrs., County of Douglas, Colorado, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. . 634, 669 Crane v. Campbell, Sheriff . . . . • 304 Crane Co., Looney, Attorney General v. . . 178 Creager, Hendrickson, Judge, v. . . . .115 Crew Levick Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 292 Crowley, City of, Police Jury, Parish of Acadia, v. . 637 Cutler Mfg. Co., Sundh Electric Co. v. . . 661 Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co., Southern Pacific Co. v........................................ . 531 Davidson v. Brooks Co. . . . . . 665 Dawson, Attorney General, State of Kansas ex rel., Kansas City Stock Yards Co. v. . . . 674 Day et al., Partners, v. United States . . . 159 Deal, Coal & Coke Ry. Co. v. ... . 681 X TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE De Bord v. Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Ry. . 652 Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. v. Fish . 675 Dendinger v. Bear, Tutor ..... 660 Denver, City and County of, Wheeler v. . 626 Department of Education, City of New York, Wilds, Trustee, v. ...... 654 Deschutes R. R. v. Eastern Oregon Land Co. 672 Detroit, City of, Detroit United Ry. v. . . 673 Detroit United Ry. v. City of Detroit . . . 673 Dittman, Stevirmac Oil & Gas Co. v, . . .210 Doane v. California Land Co. .... 660 Dollar S. S. Co., Scharrenberg v. . . . 122 Donovan, McDowall v. .... . 678 Donovan, Munroe v. . . . . . . 679 Douds, State of Ohio ex rel. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. 642 Douglas County, Colorado, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. . . . . . 634, 669 Drees v. Armstrong ...... 656 Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane, Secy, of the Interior 308 Dunkley Co., Central California Canneries Co. v. . 668 Dutton, Admx., Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. . 637 Duus, Admr., v. Brown, Treasurer of Iowa . . 176 Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe, Individually, &c. 275 Eastern Oregon Land Co., Deschutes R. R. v. . 672 Eichel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. . 102 Eisner, Collector of Internal Revenue, Towne v. . 418 Ellison v. City of La Moure .... 628 El Monte de Piedad y Caha de Ahorros de Manila v. Philippine Islands ..... 649 El Paso Sash & Door Co. v. Carraway . . . 643 Empire Trust Co., Brooks, Receiver, v. . . 634 Enterprise Ry. Equipment Co. v. Norfolk & Western Ry. ..........................................631 Estabrook, Sands, Trustee, v. . . . .651 Ex parte Park & Tilford ..... 82 Ex parte Reade ....... 625 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. xi PAGE Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., Hull, Trustee, v. . 312 Fellows, Attorney General, Winthrop v. . . 679 Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., Executor, v. City of Louisville ....... 54 Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed et al., Receivers . . 597 Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co. . . 648 Finke, Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Ry. v. 656 Fish, Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. v. . 675 Fitzpatrick, Bell v. . . . . . .681 Fong, Ng Choy, v. United States . 669 Fry, Lumkin for the use of, Pamoski, by Tiger, Guardian, v. ...... 646 Fuller, Auditor General, Germania Refg. Co. v. . 632 Fuller Co. v. Otis Elevator Co. . . . . 489 Gardiner, Trustee, v. Butler & Co. . . . 603 Gardner, Hendrickson, Judge, v. . . . .115 Gast Realty & Investment Co. v. Schneider Granite Co......................................288 Gauzon v. Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas . . . . . . .86 General Electric Co., Sundh Electric Co. v. . . 661 Germania Refg. Co. v. Fuller, Auditor General . 632 Getkin v. Pennsylvania R. R. . . . . 663 Gibson v. Lentz ....... 680 Gilbert, Philadelphia & Reading C. & I. Co. v. . 162 Gill, Kelley, Trustee, v. . . . . .116 Glenn v. Southern Express Co. .... 679 Globe S. S. Co. v. Moss . . . . .663 Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co., Chicago Car Heating Co. v. ..... 631 Goldberg, New York Central R. R. v. . . . 655 Goldman v. United States . . . . 474 Goode, Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. v.......................................681 Goodrich, Houston Oil Co. v. . . . . 440 Gould v. Gould ....... 151 xii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE Gould Coupler Co., Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v...................................646 Grahl v. United States ..... 366 Graubard v. United States ..... 366 Great Lakes Towing Co., United States v. . . 675 Great Northern Ry. v. United States . . . 664 Greer v. United States . . . . . 559 Gress, Camp v. . . . . . . . 655 Gretsch v. United States ..... 654 Griffith, Admx., Midland Valley R. R. v. . 633, 653 Grosman, Union Trust Co. v. ... . 412 Guerini Stone Co. v. Carlin Construction Co. . 643 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. v. Nelson . . 657 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. v. Vasbinder . 635 Gulf Oil Corporation v. Llewellyn, Collector of In- ternal Revenue ...... 669 Hamill v. Schlitz Brewing Co. .... 676 Hargardine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co. v. Zeitinger 667 Harrison v. Campbell ..... 653 Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Barber .... 146 Hartford Life Ins. Co., State of Ohio ex rel., v. Douds 642 Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson . . . 664 Hayden, Bank of Iverness v. . . . . 645 Heatherly, Admr., v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. . 673 Heeren v. New York Central R. R. . . . 315 Hendrickson, Judge, v. Apperson .... 105 Hendrickson, Judge, v. Creager . . . .115 Hendrickson, Judge, v. Gardner . . . .115 Hendrickson, Judge, v. Hocker . . . .115 Hendrickson, Judge, v. Sterling Land & Investment Co. .....................................115 Herrmann, surviving partner, v. Bower Chemical Mfg. Co. ....... 649 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell . . 229 Hocker, Hendrickson, Judge, v. . . . .115 Hodge, Sheriff, Medcraf v. . . . . . 630 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. xiii PAGE Hollifield, Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. ....... . 680 Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich .... 440 Hull, Trustee, v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. . . 312 Huxoll, Admx., Union Pacific R. R. v. . . . 535 Idora Hill Mining Co. v. Olson * . 640 Illinois Central R. R. v. Public Utilities Comm, of Illinois ....... 493 Illinois Public Utilities Comm., Illinois Central R. R. v...........................................493 Illinois Public Utilities Comm. v. United States 493 International News Service v. Associated Press . 644 Interstate Commerce Commission, Jones v. . .48 Interstate Commerce Commission, Smith v. . 33, 47 Iowa, State of, ex rel. State Treasurer, Petersen et al., Legatees, v. ...... 170 Iowa State Travelling Men’s Assn. v. Ruge . . 657 Ivemess, Bank of, v. Hayden .... 645 Jan, Woo, United States v. . . . . . 552 Java Pacific Line, Chapman et al., Co-partners, v. . 650 Jesson v. Noyes, Receiver ..... 667 Johnson, Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. . . . 664 Johnson v. Lankford ...... 541 Johnson, Admr., Pocahontas Consolidated Collieries Co. v............................. . .658 Johnstone v. Schmidt ...... 678 Jones v. Bouker Contracting Co. .... 647 Jones v. Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Co. . . 328 Jones v. Interstate Commerce Commission . . 48 Jones v. Perkins, Deputy U. S. Marshal . . 390 Jones, Pettingill v. . . . . . . 663 Jones v. City of Portland . * . . . 217 Jones S. S. Co., Barnes-Ames Co. v. . . . 658 Kansas, State of, ex rel. Brewster, Attorney General, Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. v. . . 627 xiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE Kansas, State of, ex ret. Dawson, Attorney General, Kansas City Stock Yards Co. w. . . 674 Kansas, State of, ex rel. Brewster, Attorney General, Wear, impleaded sub. nom. Wear Sand Co. v. . 154 Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Ry. v. Finke . . 656 Kansas City Stock Yards Co. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Dawson, Attorney General . . . 674 Kazarian, Scully, Clmt. of the Barge I. F. Chap- man, v. ...... 647 Keetoowah Society v. Lane, Secy, of the Interior . 676 Kelley, Trustee, v. Gill . . . . .116 Kellogg, Executor, v. King, Admx. . . . 626 Kessler & Co., United States for the use of, v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. .... 628 Ketcham v. Blut . ,. . . . . 510 King, Admx., Kellogg, Executor, v. . . . 626 Kirk v. Olson ....... 225 Knights of Pythias, Supreme Lodge, v. Smyth . 594 Korbly, Receiver, v. Springfield Institution for Sav- ings .................................330 Kramer v. United States .... 366, 478 Kreszewski, Admx., Watson, Master, v. . . 658 Lake Charles, City of, State of Louisiana ex rel., St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. v. . 674 Lake Erie & Western R. R., Brightman v. . . 637 La Moure, City of, Ellison v. ..... . 628 La Moure, City of, Lloyd v. .... 628 Lane, Secy, of the Interior, United States ex rel. Arant v. ...... 166 Lane, Secy, of the Interior, United States ex rel. Bowlegs v. ....... 678 Lane, Secy, of the Interior, Duncan Townsite Co. v. 308 Lane, Secy, of the Interior, Keetoowah Society v. 676 Lane, Secy, of the Interior, State of Wisconsin v. . 427 Lankford, Johnson v. . . . . . . 541 Lankford, Martin v. ..... 547 TABLE OF CASES RÉPORTED. xv PAGE Lansing S. S. Co., New York, New Haven & Hart- ford R. R. v. . . . 653 La Rose Consolidated Mines Co., Anderson, Col- lector of Internal Revenue, y. 646 Lassiter v. Atlantic City ..... 674 Leary et al., Admrs., United States v. . . . 1 Leatherwood, Texas & Pacific Ry. y. . 649 Lee Wilson & Co. y. United States ... 24 Lentz, Gibson y. ...... 680 Leyland & Co. y. Commrs. of the Port of New Or- leans ....... 647 Liberal Elevator Co. y. Wichita Mill & Elevator Co. 662 Liebel-Binney Construction Co., New York Scaf- folding Co. y. ..... 666 Linkous, Admx., y. Virginian Ry. . 649 Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. y. Bailey, Secy, of State of Louisiana .... 677 Llewellyn, Collector of Internal Revenue, Gulf Oil Corporation y. ..... 669 Llewellyn y. State of New Mexico . . . 666 Lloyd y. City of La Moure ..... 628 Lohman y. Stock Yards Loan Co. . . . 668 London, The Steamship, Nellemenn y. . . . 652 Looney, Attorney General, v. Crane Co. . . 178 Louisiana, State of, ex rei. City of Lake Charles, St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. v. . 674 Louisville, City of, Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., Executor, v. . . . . .54 Louisville & Nashville R. R., Heatherly, Admr. v. 673 Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. United States . . 463 Luckenbach S. S. Co., Chelentis y. 655 Lumkin, for the use of Fry, Pamoski by Tiger, Guardian, v. ...... 646 McCall et al., Public Service Comm, of New York, State of New York ex rei. New York & Queens Gas Co. y. . . . . . . . 345 xvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE McCollum, Admr., Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. v. . ' . . . . . . 632 McDonald v. Ralston ...... 657 McDowall v. Donovan ..... 678 McGowan v. Columbia River Packers’ Assn. . 352 McNaughton v. Stephens, Governor . . . 640 Marland, Admx., Philadelphia & Reading Ry. v. . 671 Martin, Trustee, v. Commercial National Bank . 513 Martin v. Lankford ...... 547 Maryland Public Service Comm., Pennsylvania R. R. v. . . . . . . . . 6 Massachusetts, Commonwealth of, Bellows Falls Power Co. v. ..... 630 Medcraf v. Hodge, Sheriff ..... 630 Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. . . . . 633 Midland Valley R. R. v. Bell, Admx. . . . 653 Midland Valley R. R» v. Griffith, Admx. . 633, 653 Midland Valley R. R. v. Ogden, Admx. . . 675 Miller v. United States . . . . . 660 Miller, Simpson, indicted as, v. United States . 667 Mims, Batesville Southwestern Ry. v. . . . 680 Miner, Stadelman v. . . . . . . 636 Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. v. United States . 666 Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry., Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. ... . . 633 Mississippi, State of, U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. 679 Missouri, State of, ex rel. American Mfg. Co. v. Rey- nolds et al,, Judges ..... 635 Missouri District Telegraph Co. v. Morris & Co. . 651 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. v. Schnoutz . . 641 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. v. State of Texas . 484 Mitchell, Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. . . 229 Mobile Towing & Wrecking Co. v. Steamship San Cristobal . . . . . . 644 Moore v. Olsness, Commr. of Insurance of North Dakota . . . . . ' . . 627 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. xvii PAGE Moore Dry Goods Co. v. Brooks, Bankrupt . . 651 Moran v. Central R. R. Co. of New Jersey . . 629 Morena, United States v. . . . . 392 Morris & Co., Missouri District Telegraph Co. v. . 651 Morrison v. Rieman ...... 669 Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Conron Bros. Co............................................656 Moss, Globe S. S. Co. v. .... . 663 Moyer, Trustee, v. Butte Miners’ Union . . 671 Munroe v. Donovan ...... 679 Muratti, People of Porto Rico v. . . . . 639 Murray, Roller v. ..... 645 Nanninga Co., The Steamship Queensmore v. . 656 Nellemenn v. The Steamship London . . . 652 Nelson, Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. v. . . 657 Ness, United States v. ..... 319 New Mexico, State of, Ascarate v. . . . 625 New Mexico, State of, Llewellyn v. . . . 666 New Mexico, State of, Sanchez y Armijo v. . . 676 New Orleans, City of, v. Penn Bridge Co. . . 658 New Orleans, Commrs. of the Port of, Leyland & Co., v........................... . . .647 New York, State of, ex rei. New York & Queens Gas Co., v. McCall et al., Public Service Comm. of New York . . . . . 345 New York, Commissioner of Police, City of, Biddinger v. . . . . . . . 128 New York, Department of Education, Wilds, Trustee, v. . . . . . . . 654 New York Public Service Comm., State of New York ex rei. New York & Queens Gas Co. v. . 345 New York Central R. R., Burton v. . . . 315 New York Central R. R. v. Goldberg . . . 655 New York Central R. R., Heeren v. . . . 315 New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. v. Lansing S. S. Co. . . . . . . . 653 xviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE New York & Queens Gas Co., State of New York ex rel., v. McCall et al., Public Service Comm, of New York . . . . ’ . . . 345 New York Scaffolding Co. v. Chain Belt Co. . . 666 New York Scaffolding Co. v. Liebel-Binney Con- struction Co. ...... 666 Ng Choy Fong v. United States .... 669 Nickell v. Stephens, Governor .... 640 Norfolk, City of, Norfolk County Water Co. v. . 672 Norfolk County Water Co. v. City of Norfolk . 672 Norfolk & Western Ry., Enterprise Ry. Equipment Co. v. ....... 631 North Carolina, State of, Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. 298 North Dakota, State of, Olson v. . . . .676 North Dakota Tax Comm., Skarderud v. . . 633 Northern Central Ry. v. United States . . . 645 Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co. v. State of Ohio ex. rel. Pontius, Prosecuting Attorney &c. . 574 Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. . . . . 644 Noyes, Receiver, Jesson v. . . . . . 667 Ogden, Admx., Midland Valley R. R. v. . . 675 Ohio, State of, ex rel. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Douds ....... 642 Ohio, State of, ex rel. Pontius, Prosecuting Attorney &c., Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co. v. 574 Olsness, Commr. of Insurance of North Dakota, Moore v. ...... 627 Olson, Idora Hill Mining Co. v. . . . . 640 Olson, Kirk v. ...... 225 Olson v. State of North Dakota .... 676 Orlov v. Aronson . . . . . 662 Otis Elevator Co., Fuller Co. v. . . . . 489 Pakas v. United States ..... 467 Park & Tilford, Ex parte ..... 82 TABLE ÖF CASES REPORTED. xix PAGE Parker-Washington Co. v. City of St. Louis to the use of Carroll-Porter Boiler & Tank Co. . 651 Pamoski, by Tiger, Guardian, v. Lumkin, for the use of Fry . . . . . . . 646 Patterson, Stroecker, Trustee, v. . . . . 673 Penn Bridge Co., City of New Orleans v. . . 658 Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of, Crew Levick Co. v...................................... .292 Pennsylvania Hospital v. City of Philadelphia . 20 Pennsylvania R. R., Boldt, Admx., v. . . . 441 Pennsylvania R. R., Getkin v. ... . 663 Pennsylvania R. R. v. Price, Admx. . .671 Pennsylvania R. R. v. Towers et al., Public Service Comm, of Maryland ..... 6 Perkins, Deputy U. S. Marshal, Jones v. 390 Petersen et al., Legatees, v. State of Iowa ex rel. State Treasurer ...... 170 Pettingill v. Jones . . . . . . 663 Pfeuffer, Sandoval v. . . . . . . 664 Philadelphia, City of, Contributors to the Penn- sylvania Hospital v. . . . . .20 Philadelphia & Reading C. & I. Co. v. Gilbert . 162 Philadelphia & Reading Ry. v. Marland, Admx. 671 Philippine Islands, United States, by its trustee, Aitken v. ...... 678 Philippine Islands, El Monte de Piedad y Caha de Ahorros de Manila v. . . . . . 649 Pittsburgh, City of, Stanton v. . . .651 Pittsburgh, Board of Education, Susman v. . 636 Planters’ S. S. Co. v. Rolf Seeberg Ship Chandlery Co. . . ........................662 Pocahontas Consolidated Collieries Co. v. Johnson, Admr. ....... 658 Police Jury, Parish of Acadia v. City of Crowley . 637 Pontius, Prosecuting Attorney &c., State of Ohio ex rel., Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co. v. 574 Port Graham Coal Co. v. Staples . . . . 671 XX TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE Portland, City of, Jones v. . . . . . 217 Portland, Port of, v. Wilhelmsen . . . 661 Porto Rico, People of, v. Berrios . . .. . 665 Porto Rico, People of, v. Muratti . . . 639 Porto Rico, People of, Ramirez y. 665 Porto Rico, People of, v. Tapia .... 639 Porto Rico, People of, v. Wys . . . . 665 Potter, Williams v. ..... 675 Preeman v. United States ..... 654 Pressed Steel Car Co., Chicago & Alton Ry. v. . 652 Price, Admx., Pennsylvania R. R. v. . . 671 Pryor, United Metals Selling Co. y. 662 Pryor et al., Receivers, Walton, Admx. y. . 675 Public Utilities Comm, of Illinois, Illinois Central R. R. y.........................................493 Public Utilities Comm, of Illinois y. United States . 493 Queensmore, The Steamship, y. Nanninga Co. . 656 Railroad Comm, of California y. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. ...... 638 Ralston, McDonald y. ..... 657 Ramirez y. People of Porto Rico .... 665 Reade, Ex parte ...... 625 Reagan, Tremont Lumber Co. y. . . . 625 Reynolds et al., Judges, State of Missouri ex rei. American Mfg. Co. v. . . . . . 635 Reynolds et al., Judges, American Mfg. Co. v. . 650 Riddell y. United States ..... 668 Rieman, Morrison y. . . . . . . 669 Rigney & Co. v. Aunt Jemima Mills Co. . . 672 Rogge, Admr., American Radiator Co. v. . . 630 Rolf Seeberg Ship Chandlery Co., Planters’ S. S. Co. y...........................................662 Roller y. Armentrout ...... 642 Roller y. Catlett, Trustee ..... 632 Roller y. Murray . . . . . . 645 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. xxi PZ.GE Rosen v. United States ..... 467 Rowe, Individually, &c., Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. 275 Ruge, Iowa State Travelling Men’s Assn. v. . . 657 Ruthenberg v. United States . . . • . 480 Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. Gould Coupler Co...........................................646 St. Louis, City of, to the use of Carroll-Porter Boiler & Tank Co., Parker-Washington Co. v. . . 651 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. v. State of Louisiana ex rel. City of Lake Charles . . 674 St. Louis Southwestern Ry. v. United States . . 136 Samuels, Cohen, Trustee, v. .... 50 San Cristobal, The Steamship, Mobile Towing & Wrecking Co. v. . . . . . 644 Sanchez y Armijo v. State of New Mexico . . 676 Sandies, Williams v. . . . ... . 680 Sandoval v. Pfeuffer ...... 664 Sands, Trustee, v. Estabrook . . . .651 Sanner v. Western Maryland Ry. . . . 661 Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. Co. .... 122 Schlitz Brewing Co., Hamill v. . . . . 676 Schmidt, Johnstone v. ..... 678 Schneider Granite Co. v. Gast Realty & Investment Co...........................................288 Schnoutz, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. v. . 641 Schock, Treasurer of Okmulgee County, Okla., Sweet v. . . .........................192 Scully, Clmt. of the Barge I. F. Chapman, v. Kazarian ....... 647 Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. State of North Carolina . 298 Selective Draft Law Cases ..... 366 Shill Rolling Chair Co. v. Atlantic City . . 674 Simpson v. United States . . . . . 664 Simpson, indicted as Miller, v. United States. . 667 Skarderud v. Tax Comm, of North Dakota . 633 Smith v. Interstate Commerce Commission . 33, 47 xxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE Smith’s Rolling Chairs v. Atlantic City . . 674 Smyth, Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. . 594 Societe Naphtes Transports v. Bisso Towboat Co. . 652 Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Holli- field .....................................680 Southern Express Co., Glenn v. . . . . 679 Southern Pacific Co. v. Bogart et al., Executors . 668 Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co. 531 Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart . . . 359, 562 Southern Ry. v. Cook, Admr. .... 677 Southern Ry. v. Young ..... 666 Springfield Institution for Savings v. Korbly, Re- ceiver ....... 330 Stadelman v. Miner ...... 636 Stanton v. City of Pittsburgh . . . .651 Staples, Port Graham Coal Co. v. . . .671 State Treasurer, State of Iowa ex rei., Petersen et al., Legatees, v. ...... 170 Stearns Lumber Co., United States v. . . . 436 Stellwagen, Trustee, v. Cium, Trustee . . . 605 Stephens, Governor, McNaughton v. . . . 640 Stephens, Governor, Nickell v. . . . . 640 Sterling Land & Investment Co., Hendrickson, Judge, v..........................................115 Stevirmac Oil & Gas Co. v. Dittman . . . 210 Stewart, Southern Pacific Co. v. . . . 359, 562 Stock Yards Loan Co., Lohman v. . . . 668 Stone, Guardian, v. Stone, Next Friend . . 638 Stone, Next Friend, Stone, Guardian, v. . . 638 Stonebraker-Zea Co. v. United States . . . 642 Strathleven S. S. Co., Baulch v. . . . . 663 Stroecker, Trustee, v. Patterson .... 673 Stroud v. United States ..... 680 Sulzberger & Sons Co., Barber & Co. v. . . 657 Sundh Electric Co. v. Cutler Mfg. Co. . . . 661 Sundh Electric Co. v. General Electric Co. . . 661 Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Smyth . 594 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. xxiii PAGE Susman v. Board of Education, School Dist. of Pittsburgh . . . . . . . 636 Sweet v. Schock, Treasurer of Okmulgee County, Okla...........................................192 Sweet, Admr., United States v. . . . . 563 Tapia, People of Porto Rico v. . . . 639 Tax Comm, of North Dakota, Skarderud v. . 633 Terrell v. United States . . ... . 659 Texas, State of, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. v. . 484 Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Leatherwood . . . 649 Texas & Pacific Ry., Waller et al., Trustees, v. . 398 Thompson, Mayor, Boemer v. ... . 669 Thurston v. United States ..... 646 Tiger, Guardian of Pamoski, v. Lumkin, for the use of Fry................................. . . 646 Title Guaranty & Surety Co., United States for the use of Kessler & Co. v. .... 628 Tobin, Bruce, Admr., v. . . • . . .18 Towers et al., Public Service Comm, of Maryland, Pennslyvania R. R. v. . . . . . 6 Towne v. Eisner, Collector of Internal Revenue 418 Treadway, Admx., Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. . 670 Tremont Lumber Co. v. Reagan .... 625 Tri-City Central Trades Council, American Steel Foundries v. . . . . . . 670 Trogler v. United States ..... 629 Trussed Concrete Co., Corrugated Bar Co. v. . 659 Turner v. Board of Trade, City of Chicago . . 667 Tweedie Trading Co. v. United States . . . 645 Union Pacific R. R. v. Huxoll, Admx. . . . 535 Union Trust Co. v. Grosman . . . .412 United Metals Selling Co. v. Pryor . . 662 United States, by its trustee Government of the Philippine Islands, Aitken v. . . . . 678 United States, Arver v. .... . 366 xxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE United States, Baldwin v. . . . . . 664 United States, Bernal v. . . . . .672 United States v. Biwabik Mining Co. . . . 648 United States, Braziel v. .... . 644 United States v. California Bridge & Construction Co. . ...............................337 United States, Trustee, v. Chase .... 89 United States, Chicago & Alton R. R. v. . . 655 United States vK Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. ...... 648 United States, Day et al., Partners, v. . . . 159 United States, Goldman v. . . . . . 474 United States, Grahl v. .... . 366 United States, Graubard v. . . . . . 366 United States v. Great Lakes Towing Co. . . 675 United States, Great Northern Ry. v. . . . 664 United States, Greer v. .... . 559 United States, Gretsch v. .... . 654 United States, Kramer v. . . . . 366, 478 United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane, Secy, of the Interior . . . . . . 166 United States ex rel. Bowlegs v. Lane, Secy, of the Interior ....... 678 United States v. Leary et al., Admrs. ... 1 United States, Lee Wilson & Co. v. . . .24 United States, Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. 463 United States, Miller v. .... . 660 United States, Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. v. . 666 United States v. Morena . . . . . 392 United States v. Ness ...... 319 United States, Ng Choy Fong v. . . . . 669 United States, Northern Central Ry. v. . . 645 United States, Pakas v. . . . . 467 United States, Preeman v.. . . . . . 654 United States, Public Utilities Comm, of Illinois v. . 493 United States, Riddell v. ... . . 668 United States, Rosen v. . • . . . . 467 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. xxv PAGE United States, Ruthenberg v. . . . . 480 United States, St. Louis Southwestern Ry. v. . 136 United States, Simpson v. . . . 664 United States, Simpson, indicted as Miller, v. . 667 United States v. Steams Lumber Co. . . . 436 United States, Stonebraker-Zea Co. v. . . 642 United States, Stroud v. .... . 680 United States v. Sweet, Admr. . . . .. . 563 United States, Terrell v. .... . 659 United States, Thurston v. . . . . 646 United States for the use of Kessler & Co. v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. . . . . 628 United States, Tweedie Trading Co. v. . . . 645 United States, Trogler v. ..... . 629 United States, Wallace v. . . . . 650 United States, Wangerin v. . . . . . 366 United States, Weeks v. .... . 618 United States, Whitehead v. . . . .670 United States v. Woo Jan . . . . 552 United States, Woo Vey v. . . . . . . 660 United States, Younge v. . .. . . . 656 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Eichel v. . 102 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State of Mississippi ....... 679 Vasbinder, Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. v. . . 635 Veloso v. Ageo ....... 673 Vey, Woo, v. United States ..... 660 Virginian Ry., Barrett v. . . . . . 659 Virginian Ry., Linkous, Admx., v. . . '. 649 Wallace v. United States ..... 650 Waller et al., Trustees, v. Texas & Pacific Ry. . . 398 Walton, Adrnx., v. Pryor et al., Receivers . . 675 Wangerin v. United States . . . . . 366 Warley, Buchanan v. . . . . . .60 Washington Post Co. v. Chaloner . . .670 xxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. PAGE Watson, Master, v. Kreszewski, Admx. . . 658 Wauchula Mfg. & Timber Co., Abbott v. . . 646 Wear, impleaded sub. nom. Wear Sand Co. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Brewster, Attorney General . 154 Weed et al., Receivers, Filene’s Sons Co. v. . . 597 Weeks v. United States ..... 618 Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Cladwell, Attorney General . 677 Western Maryland Ry., Sanner v. . . . 661 Westling, Admx., Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. ....... 654 Wheeler v. City and County of Denver . . . 626 White & Co., Ball Engineering Co. v. . . . 647 White Transportation Co., City of Chicago v. . 660 Whitehead v. United States .... 670 Wichita Mill & Elevator Co., Liberal Elevator Co. v. 662 Wilds, Trustee, v. Department of Education, City of New York ....... 654 Wilhelmsen, Port of Portland v. . . . .661 Williams v. Potter . . . . . .675 Williams v. Sandies . . . . . . 680 Wilson & Co. v. United States .... 24 Winthrop v. Fellows, Attorney General . .679 Wisconsin, State of, v. Lane, Secy, of the Interior . 427 Woo Jan, United States v. . . . . . 552 Woo Vey v. United States ..... 660 Wys, People of Porto Rico v. ... . 665 Young, Southern Ry. v. .... . 666 Younge v. United States ..... 656 Zeitinger, Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co. v. 667 TABLE OF CASES CITED IN OPINIONS. PAGE Adair v. United States, 208 U. S.161 251 Adams Express Co. v. Cron-inger, 226 U. S. 491 635 Addison v. People, 193 Ill. 405 561 Agnew v. United States, 165 U. S. 36 482 Akin v. First Natl. Bank of Bridgeport, 194 S. W. Rep. 610 417 Aldrich v. Warren, 16 Me. 465 249 Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U. S. 583 425 American Express Co. v. Caldwell, 244 U. S. 617 145, 507, 509 American Express Co. v. U. S. Horse Shoe Co., 244 U. S. 58 635 American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141U. S. 468 153 American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70 632 American Security Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 224 U. S. 491 168 Ammons, Ex parte, 34 Oh. St. 518 318 Anderson, In re, 214 Fed. Rep. 662 395 Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14 525 Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul &c. Ry., 151 U. S. 1 252 Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524 631, 636 Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S. 222 133, 134 Archer v. Greenville Sand & Gravel Co., 233 U. S. 60 158 Armstrongs. Best, 112N. Car. 59 416 PAGE Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56 633 Arver v. United States. (See Selective Draft Law Cases.) Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. O’Connor, 223 U. S. 280 188 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173 635 Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. N orth Carolina Corp. Comm., 206 U. S. 1 350 Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186 142 Attorney-General v. Napier, 6 Exch. 217 59 Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U. 8. 575 153 Baer v. Terry, 105 La. 479 416 Bailey v. Baker Ice Mach. Co., 239 U. S. 268 517 Baker Mfg. Co. v. Chicago & North Western Ry., 21 I. C. C. 605 534 Ballinger v. Frost, 216 U. S. 240 310 Baltic Mining Co. v. Massachusetts, 231 U. S. 68 189, 298 Balt. & Ohio R. R. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U. S. 481 348 Balt. & Ohio R. R. v. Whit-acfe, 242 U. S. 169 629, 638, 641 Bank of Louisiana v. Williams, 46 Miss. 618 416 Barber v. Irwin, 34 Ga. 27 388 Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, 178 U. S. 524 119, 121 Bardes v. Hawarden First Natl. Bank, 175 U. S. 526 169 Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324 157 (xxvii) xxviii TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAGE Barreda v. Silsbee, 21 How. 146 250 Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129 307 Bauer v. O’Donnell, 229 U. S. 1 169 Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U. S. 517 434 Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25 23, 307 Belknap«.Schild, 161U. S. 10 505 Bellingham Bay &c. R. R. v. New Whatcom, 172 U. S. 314 291 Benedicto v. Yulo, 26 Phil. Rep. 160 89 Benson v. United States, 146 U. S. 325 470, 471, 473 Benziger v. United States, 192 U. S. 38 153 Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45 79, 80 Bernards Township v. Stebbins, 109 U. S. 341 462 Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537 166 Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining Co., 225 U. S.Ill 341 Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261 425, 426 Bitterman v. Louis. & N ash. R. R., 207 U. S. 205 256 Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 400 588, 594 Bleser v. Baldwin, 199 Fed. Rep. 133 201 Blinn v. Nelson, 222 U. S. 1 397 Bohall v. Dilla, 114 U. S. 47 229 Boise Water Co. v. Boise City, 230 U. S. 98 626 Bonaparte v. Appeal Tax Court, 104 U. S. 592 59 Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 177 311 Booth v. Illinois, 184 U. S. 425 82, 307 Boston Electric Light Co. v. Boston Terminal Co., 184 Mass. 566 593 Botts v. Williams, 17 B. Monr. 687 318 Bowden v. Johnson, 107 U. S. 251 333 PAGE Bowe v. Scott, 233 U. S. 658 643 Bowling Green Business Men’s Assn. v. Louis. & Nash. R. R., 241. C. C. 228 465 Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135 389 Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192 637 Brennan v. United Hatters, 73N. J. L. 729 252,254,256 Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216 476 Broughton v. Lashmar, 5 My. & Cr. 136 358 Brown v. Hitchcock, 173 U. S. 473 311 Brown v. Honiss, 74 N. J. L. 501 252 Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18 492 Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U. S. 625 59 Burlingham v. Crouse, 228 U. S. 459 53, 617 Burroughs v. Peyton, 16 Gratt. 470 388 Bushnell v. Leland, 164 U. S. 684 333 Butchers’ Union Co. v. Cres- cent City Co., 111U. S. 746 23 Butler v. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 402 627 Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470 389 California v. Deseret Water Co., 243 U. S. 415 572 Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1 454 Carey v. Atlanta, 143 Ga. 192 79 Carey v. Donohue, 240 U. S. 430 517, 518, 519 Carey v. Houston & Tex. Cent. Ry., 150 U. S. 170 215 Carey v. Houston & Tex. Cent. Ry., 161 U. S. 115 104, 634 Cariño v. Insular Govt., 212 U. S. 449 88 Carnegie Steel Co. v. United States, 240 U. S. 156 161 Carr v. United States, 98 U. S. 433 505 Carrington v. Holly, 1 Dickens, 280 358 TABLE OF CASES CITED. XXIX PAGE Castner v. Coffman, 178 U. S. 168 281 Causey v. United States, 240 U. S. 399 642 Cedar Rapids Gas Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 223 U. S. 655 348 Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103 329 Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Assn., 240 U. S. 581 605 Central Yellow Pine Assn. v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 10 I. C. C. 505 141 Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee v. Flint & Pere Marquette R. R., 21. C. C. 553 140 Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee Dist., 232 U. S. 186 29, 31 Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420 24 Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447 135 Ches. & Ohio Ry. v. De Atley, 241 U. S. 310 445 Chicago, Burl. & Q. R. R. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177 629 Chicago, Burl. & Q. R. R. v. R. R. Comm, of Wisconsin, 237 U. S. 220 489 Chicago Junction Ry. v. King, 222 U. S. 222 629, 638, 641 Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Tioga Southeastern Ry., 16 I. C. C. 323 141 Chicago, Mil. & St. P. Ry. v. Hoyt, 149 U. S. 1 161 Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665 196 Choteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200 627 Cincinnati v. Louis. & Nash. R. R., 223 U. S. 390 24 Cincinnati, N. O. & Tex. Pac. Ry. v. Interstate Com. Comm., 162 U. S. 184 142, 144 Cincinnati, N. O. & Tex. Pac. Ry. v. Rankin, 241 U.S. 319 362 Citizens’ Savgs. & Loan Assn. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 221 PAGE Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3 79 Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361 222 Clark Distilling Co. v. West- ern Maryland Ry., 242 U. S. 211 303, 307 Clement v. United States, 149 Fed. Rep. 305 482 Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U. S. 413 20 Collier Estate v. Western Paving Co., 180 Mo. 362 290 Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 148 U. S. 266 169 Commissioner of Stamps v. Hope [1891], A. C. 476 58 Commonwealth v. Deacon, 2 Wheeler Cr. Cas. 1 318 Commonwealth ex rel. Van Dyke v. Henry, 49 Pa. St. 530 312 Commonwealth v. Moody, 150 Ky. 571 110, 112 Commonwealth v. Wade’s Admr., 126 Ky. 791 111, 114 Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428 12, 15 Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 188 U. S. 208 249 Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. 596 24, 627, 630, 632, 636, 642 Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183 317 Cooper v. Roberts, 18 How. 173 573 Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1 251 Cortes Co. v. Thannhauser, 9 Fed. Rep. 226 104 Coupland, Ex parte, 26 Tex. 386 388 Covington v. First Natl. Bank, 185 U. S. 270 635 Cox v. Harper [1910], 1 Ch. 480 601 Crane, In re, 27 Idaho, 671 307 Crane v. Johnson, 242 U. S. 339 640 Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U.S. 389 622 Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225U. S. 246 538 XXX TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAGE Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352 101 Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351 526, 527 Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86 307 Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. 8. 410 510 Cummins v. Bennett, 8 Paige, 79 358 Cunningham Comm. Co. v. Rorer Mill & Elevator Co., 25 Okla. 133 211 Daly v. Harris, 33 Ga. (Supp.) 38 388 Davis v. Cleveland, Cincinnati &c. Ry., 217 U. S. 157 234 Davis v. Weibold, 139 U. S. 507 571 Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392 571 Defiance Water Co. v. Defiance, 191 U. S. 184 459, 587 De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419 505 Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102 632, 636, 642 Denver v. Denver Union Water Co., 229 U. S. 123 626 Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U. S. 123 281, 492, 504, 626 Depoilly v. Palmer, 28 App. D. C. 324 135 Des Moines v. Des Moines City Ry., 214 U. S. 179 458, 459, 587 Detroit v. Detroit Citizens’ Street Ry., 184 U. S. 368 454, 585 Dewey v. West Fairmont Gas Coal Co., 123 U. S. 329 104 Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243 157, 158 Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138 639 Douglas v. Kentucky, 168 U. S. 488 23 Dowdell v. United States, 221 U. S. 91 639 Downes w. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 639 Drew v. Thaw, 235 U. S. 432 135 PAGE Durant Land Co. v. Jerolo- man, 139N. Y. 14 312 Duus v. Brown, 245 U. S. 176 633 Easterling Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 235 U. S. 380 626, 630 East Ohio Gas Co. v. Akron, 81 Oh. St. 33 583, 584, 585, 590 Eaton v. Boston Safe Deposit Co., 240 U. S. 427 315 Eckman’s Alterative v. United States, 239 U. S. 510 622 Eichhorst v. Lindsey, 209 Fed. Rep. 708 395 Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U. S. 578 59 Elliott v. Toeppner, 187 U. S. 327 454 Emerson, In re, 39 Ala. 437 388 Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225 216 Ennis Water Works v. Ennis, 233 U. S. 652 636, 642 Ensign v. Pennsylvania, 227 U. S. 592 625 Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308 24, 626, 627, 630 Equitable Surety Go. v. Mc- Millan, 234 U. S. 448 169 Erie R. R. v. Purucker, 244 U. S. 320 445 Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361 642 Everett v. Judson, 228 U. S. 474 53 Fallbrook Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164U.S. 112 222, 636 Fargo v. Michigan, 121 U. S. 230 296 Farrell, In re, 176 Fed. Rep. 505 615 Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 455 329, 626, 637 Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U. S. 276 341 Fetter, Matter of, 23 N. J. L. 311 318 Ficklen v. Shelby County Tax- ing Dist., 145 U. S. 1 296, 297 Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649 389 Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed, 245 U. S. 597 603 TABLE OF CASES CITED. XXXI PAGE Finn v. United States, 123 U. S. 227 504 First Natl. Bank v. Estherville, 215 U. S. 341 627 First Natl. Bank v. Union Trust Co., 244 U. S. 416 389 First State Bank of Tomball v. Tinkham, 195 S. W. Rep. 880 418 Flaccus v. Smith, 199 Pa. St. 128 257 Flint v. Stone-Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107 59 Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506 441 Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309 625, 630 Frederick, In re, 149 U. S. , 70 630 Frederickson v. Louisiana, 23 How. 445 174 French v. Taylor, 199 U. S. 274 166 French-Glenn Live Stock Co. v. Springer, 185 U. S. 47 29 Frisbie v. United States, 157 U. S. 160 483 Fuller Co. v. McCloskey, 228 U. S.194 490 Furness, Withy & Co; v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Assn., 242 U. S. 430 440 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217 294, 296 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. v. Wallace, 223 U. S. 481 144 Garfield v. Goldsby, 211U. S. 249 310 Garst v. United States, 180 Fed. Rep. 339 560 Gast Realty Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U. S. 55 288 Gatlin v. Walton, 60 N. Car. 333 388 Genessee Chief, The, 12 How. 443 157 Georgia, Fla. & Ala. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co., 241U. S. 190 362 Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549 426 Gila Valley &c. Ry. v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 445 PAGE Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420 392 Globe Refg. Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co., 190 U. S. 540 161 Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518 234 Goldman v. United States, 245 U. S. 474 479 Goldstein, In re, 211 Fed. Rep. 163 395 Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418 253, 258, 268 Graham v. Quinlan, 207 Fed. Rep. 268 110 Grand Trunk Western Ry. v. South Bend, 227 U. S. 544 585 Graves v. Johnson, 156 Mass. 211 416 Great Northern Ry. v. Knapp, 240 U. S. 464 638, 641 Green v. Chicago, Burl. & Q. Ry., 205 U. S. 530 631 Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249 4 Gregory v. Van Ee, 160 U. S. 643 634 Grier Bros. Co. v. Baldwin, 219 Fed. Rep. 735 207 Guaranty Savgs. Bank v. Bladow, 176 U. S. 448 229 Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347 290 Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 545 634 Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291 631, 636 Hairston v. Danville & Western Ry., 208 U. S. 598 221, 222 Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 42, 483 Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485 79 Hallett’s Estate, In re, 13 Ch. Div. 696 5 Hamilton Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632 630 Hammel & Co., In re, 221 Fed. Rep. 56 51 Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285 626, 637 Hanover Natl. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181 613, 617 xxxii TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAGE! Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371 29 Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508 29 Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78- 643 Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476 234 Harmon v. United States, 223 Fed. Rep. 425 395 Harriman v. Interstate Com. Comm., 211 U. S. 407 44 Harriman v. N orthern Securities Co., 197 U. S. 244 281 Hart Steel Co. v. R. R. Supply Co., 244 U. S. 294 526 Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Ibs, 237 U. S. 662 149, 150 Haseltine v. Bank, 183 U. S. 130 19 Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197 639 Hawes v. Glover, 126 Ga. 305 517 Hawley v. Diller, 178 U. S. 476 228, 311 Hawley v. Malden, 232 U. S. 1 58 Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175 628 Hendricks v. United States, 223 U. S. 178 626, 637 Hendrickson v. Apperson, 245 U. S. 105 115 Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold & Silver Mining Co., 93 U. S. 634 435 Hill, Ex parte, 38 Ala. 429 388 Hill v. Kuhlman, 87 Fed. Rep. 498 104 Hill v. United States, 9 How. 386 505 Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45 622 Hiscock v. Mertens, 205 U. S. 202 53 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 241 U. S. 644 280, 287 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U. S. 229 276, 280, 283, 287 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 202 Fed. Rep. 512 276, 279 PAGE Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366 74 Holden Land Co. v. Inter- State Trading Co., 233 U. S. 536 638, 642 Hollo, In re, 206 Fed. Rep. 852 325 Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245 482 Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457 126 Home Telephone Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 U. S. 278 191 Hopkins v. Clemson College, 221 U. S. 636 546 Hopkins v. Lee, 6 Wheat. ‘ 109 341 Houston, E. & W. Tex. Ry. v. United States, 234 U. S. 342 506 Huguley Mfg. Co. v. Galeton Cotton Mills, 184 U. S. 290 364 Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Henderson Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 441 641 Illinois Surety Co. v. Peeler, 240 U. S. 214 628 Indiana Road Mach. Co. v. Keeney, 147 Mich. 184 312 Intermountain Rate Cases, 234 U. S. 476 389, 465 International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114 417 International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91 188 International Trust Co. v. Weeks, 203 U. S. 364 603 Interstate Com. Comm. v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25 42 Interstate Com. Comm. v. Balt. & Ohio R. R., 145 U. S. 263 10 Interstate Com. Comm. v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac: Ry., 218 U. S. 88 42, 45, 140 Interstate Com. Comm. v. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U. S. 194 42 Interstate Com. Comm. v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 215 / U. S. 452 348 TABLE OF CASES CITED. xxxiii PAGE Interstate Com. Comm. v. Northern Pac. Ry., 216 U. S. 538 143 Interstate Com. Comm. v. Union Pac. R. R., 222 U. S. 541 348 Jacobs v. Southern Ry., 241 U. S. 229 445 Jeffers v. Fair, 33 Ga. 347 388 Jenne v. Joslyn, 41 Vt. 478 250 Jersey City Prtg. Co. v. Cassidy, 63 N. J. Eq. 759 252 Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227 325 Johnson v. Christian, 125 U. S. 642 104 Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245 392 Johnson v. Lankford, 245 U. S. 541 547 Johnson v. Riddle, 240 U. S. 467 229 Johnston v. Bowersock, 62 Kans. 148 158 Jonas Glass Co. v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn., 77 N. J. Eq. 219 257 Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327 104 Jo ver y Costas v. Insular Govt., 221 U. S. 623 88 Kalkhoff v. Nelson, 60 Minn. 284 603 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46 157 Kansas City, Fort Scott &c. Ry. v. Kansas, 240 U. S. 227 189, 294, 298 Kansas City, Memphis &c. R. R. v. Stiles, 242 U. S. Ill 189 Kansas City So. Ry. v. Albers Comm. Co., 223 U. S. 573 641 Kansas City So. Ry. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639 641 Kansas City So. Ry. v. Kaw Valley Drainage Dist., 233 U. S. 75 158 Kansas City So. Ry. v. United States, 231 U. S. 423 348 Kansas City Star Co. v. Julian, 215 U. S. 589 628, 643 PAGE Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. v. Kansas City So. Ry., 87 Kans. 272 158 Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 99 Kans. 188 158 Kean v. Calumet Canal Co., 190 U. S. 452 29 Kempton v. Burgess, 136 Mass. 192 358 Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498 333 Kensington, The, 183 U. S. 263 416 Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66 132 Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436 317 Ketchum v. St. Louis, 101 U. S. 306 408 Kibbe v. Benson, 17 Wall. 624 325 Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730 58 Kies v. Lowrey, 199 U. S. 233 626, 628 King v. Buskirk, 231 U. S. 735 329 King v. Hardwick, 11 East, 578 249 King v. Mullins, 171U. S. 404 329 King v. Panther Lumber Co., 171 U. S. 437 329 King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92 329 Kingsbury’s Case, 106 Mass. 223 133 Kinney v. Columbia Savgs. & Loan Assn., 191 U. S. 78 363 Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491 58, 59 Knapp v. Milwaukee Trust Co., 216 U. S. 545 614 Kneedler v. Lane, 45 Pa. St. 238 388 Knight v. Lane, 228 U. S. 6 310 Knights of Pythias v. Mims, 241 U. S. 574 596 Knisely v. Cotterel, 196 Pa. St. 614 294 Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13 625 Kopel v. Bingham, 211 U. S. 468 639 XXXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAGE Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276 . _ 104 Kronprinzessin Cecilie, The, 244 U.S. 12 161 La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 423 250 Lake Shore & Mich. So. Ry. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684 9, 10, 17 Lamar v. United States, 240 U. S. 60 425 Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Co., 235 U. S. 461 545, 547 Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U. S. 537 132 Laughlin v. Portland, 111 Me. 486 221, 222 Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93 638, 642 Lee, In re, 236 Fed. Rep. 987 395 Lee Wong Hin v. Mayo, 240 Fed. Rep. 368 553 Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. B. & O. S. W. R. R., 35 I. C. C. 14 140 Lehigh Valley R. R. v. Bar-low, 244 U. S. 183 629 Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640 296 Lennon, In re, 150 U. S. 393 216 Liberman, In re, 193 Fed. Rep. 301 325 Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523 473 Lindsley v. N atural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61 632 Linger v. Balfour, 149 S. W. Rep. 795 395 Lister v. Leather, 1 DeG. & J. 361 358 Litchfield v. Goodnow, 123 U. S. 549 341 Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Orleans Assessors, 221 U. S. 346 58, 59 Llynvi Coal & Iron Co., Ex parte, L. R. 7 Ch. 28 603 Locke v. Stearns, 1 Mete. 560 250 Loeb v. Columbia Township, 179 U. S. 472 626 PAGE Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263 470, 473 Logan County v. United States, 169 U. S. 255 426 Lombard v. West Chicago Park Commrs., 181 U. S. 33 60, 291 Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685 24 Lo Pong v. Dunn, 235 Fed. Rep. 510 553 Lorraine, Ex parte, 16 Nev. 63 318 Louisiana v. N ew Orleans, 102U.S. 203 113 Louisiana Nav. Co. v. Oyster Comm, of La., 226 U. S. 99 19 Louisiana R. R. Comm. v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 212 U. S. 414 348 Louisville v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 224 U. S. 649 585 Louis. & N ash. R. R. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94 , 641 Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. Melton, 218 U. S.36 632 Louis. & N ash. R. R. v. Mott-ley, 219 U. S. 467 633 Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U. S. 225 170 Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. 1 341 Lowe v. Dalrymple, 117 Pa. St. 564 250 Lowe v. Fisher, 223 U. S. 95 310, 311 Ludwig v. Western Union Tel. Co., 216 U.S. 146 188 Lumberman’s Exchange of St. Louis «. Anderson & Saline River R. R., 24 I. C. C. 220 141 McCall v. California, 136 U. S. 104 296 McCandless v. Pratt, 211 U. S. 437 629, 637 McCaskill Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 504 642 McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268 629 McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432 628, 643 McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 115 622 TABLE OF CASES CITED: XXXV PAGE McGowan v. Parish, 228 U. S. 312 168 McGraw v. Union Trust Co., 135 Mich. 609 603 McManus v. Fisher, 39 App. D. C. 176 312 McN aughton v. Johnson, 242 U. S. 344 640 McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 389 Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288 364, 626 MacFarland v. Byrnes, 187 U. S. 246 635 Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490 175 Mahoganey No. 2 Lode Claim, 33 L. D. 37 573 Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700 317 Main v. Aukam, 4 App. D. C. 51 250 Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry., 142 U. S. 217 298 Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123 24, 626, 627, 630, 636 Manigault v. Springs, 199 U. S. 473 23 Mansfield, Coldwater &c. Ry. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379 214 Markuson v. Boucher, 175 U. S. 184 630 Marshall v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250 637 Martin v. Balt. & Ohio R. R., 151 U. S. 673 363 Martin v. Texas, 200 U. S. 316 482 Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485 281 Mayer v. Hellman, 91 U. S. 496 616, 617 Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 236 U. S. 412 ' 535 Mellon Co. v. McCafferty, 239 U. S. 134 638, 642 Merrielles v. State Bank of Keokuk, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 483 417 Metropolitan Home Tel. Co. v. Emerson, 202 Mass. 402 593 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. New Orleans, 205 U. S. 395 58 PAGE Mexican Cent. Ry. v. Pink-ney, 149 U. S. 194 234 Michigan Cent. R. R. v. Michigan R. R. Comm., 236 U. S. 615 144 Michigan Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U. S. 589 228, 310 Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U. S. 346 416 Midland Valley R. R. v. Grif- fith, 245 U. S. 633 636, 639 Miller v. Cornwall R. R., 168 U. S. 131 643 Miller v. New Orleans Fertilizer Co., 211 U. S. 496 615 Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374 417 Mills v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 238 U. S. 473 535 Mining Co. v. Consolidated Mining Co., 102 U. S. 167 570, 571, 574 Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257 144 Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373 428, 436 Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. 609 104 Missouri, Kans. & Tex. Ry. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642 625 Missouri, Kans. & Tex. Ry. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 412 510, 625 Missouri, Kans. & Tex. Ry. ’ v. United States, 235 U. S. 37 439 Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Castle, 224 U. S. 541 637 Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 262 350, 488 Mitchell v. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co., 214 Fed. Rep. 685 276, 279, 281 Moffitt v. United States, 128 Fed. Rep. 375 128 Mogul Steamship Case, 23 Q. B. Div. 613 256 Montello Salt Co. v. Utah, 221 U. S. 452 573 Moran v. Dunphy, 177 Mass. 485 252 XXXVi TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAGE Morrell v. Quarles, 35 Ala. 544 318 Morton v. Nebraska, 21 Wall. 660 568 Mueller v. N ugent, 184 U. S. 1 120 Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 307 Muhlenburg County v. Morehead, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 376 115 Mullan v. United States, 118 U. S. 271 571 Mullen, In re, 101 Fed. Rep. 413 614 Mullen v. United States, 106 Fed. Rep. 892 560 Murphy v. California, 225 U. S. 623 307 Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U. S. 225 632 Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368 290 National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U.S. 54 5 National Bank v. Mechanics Bank, 94 U. S. 437 336 National Foundry & Pipe Works v. Oconto Water Supply Co., 183 U. S. 216 526 Neal v. Clark, 95 U. S. 704 617 New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164 197 N ewman v. Frizzell, 238 U. S. 537 168 New Orleans v. Paine, 147 U. S. 261 228 New Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U. S. 309 59 New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 650 24 New Orleans Pac. Ry. v. United States, 124 U. S. 124 401 Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U. S. 548 628 New York Cent. R. R. v. Bea-ham, 242 U. S. 148 362 New York Cent. R. R. v. Gray, 239 U. S. 583 633 New York, N. H. & H. R. R. v. Ballou & Wright, 242 Fed. Rep. 862 534 PAGE New York, N. H. & H. R. R. v. Platt, 7 I. C. C. 323 139 New York, N. H. & H. R. R., People ex rel. v. Public Service Comm., 159 App. Div. 531; aff’d 215 N. Y. 689 13, 15 Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v. Louis. &Nash. R. R., 41 I. C. C. 199 534 Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315 358 Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 175 U. S.300 29 Noice Admx. v. Brown, 39 N.J. L. 569 252 Norfolk & Western Ry. v. Dixie Tobacco Co., 228 U. S. 593 144 Norfolk & Western Ry. v. West Virginia, 236 U. S. 605 11 Northern Pac. Ry. v. Boyd, 228 U. S. 482 410 Northern Pac. Ry. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585 11 Northern Pac. Ry. v. Wall, 241 U. S. 87 362 O’Brien v. Wheelock, 184 U. S. 493 406 Ocampo v. United States, 234 U. S. 91 639 Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320 389 Offield v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R.,203U. S.372 24,222 Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213 613 Ohio v. Toledo, 48 Oh. St. 112 224 O’Keefe v. United States, 240 U. S. 294 143 Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha,'230 U.S. 100 585 Olds v. Mapes-Reeve Constr. Co., 177 Mass. 41 534 O’Neill v. Learner, 239 U. S. 244 222 Ostenfeldt, Charles L., 41 L. D. 265 573 Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606 82 Owensboro v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 230 U. S. 58 454, 585 TABLE OF CASES CITED. xxxvii PAGE Paducah Board of Trade v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 29 I. C.C. 583,371. C. C.719 141 Page v. Parker, 40 N. H. 47 250 Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Utah, 31 416 Paper Bag Patent Case, 210 U. S. 405 207 Park v. Cameron, 237 U. S. 616 122 Parker v. Kaughman, 34 Ga. 136 388 Parsons v. Venzke, 164 U. S. 89 228 Pennington v. Woolfolk, 79 Ky. 13 115 Pennsylvania R. R. v. International Coal Mining Co., 230 U.S. 184 534 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co., 198 Fed. Rep. 721 602 People ex rel. Wood v. Assessors, 137 N. Y. 201 312 People v. Goodhue, 2 John Ch. 198 318 People ex rel. Durant Land Co. v. Jeroloman, 139 N. Y. 14 312 People ex rel. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. v. Public Service Comm., 159 App. Div. 531; aff’d 215 N. Y. 689 13, 15 People v. St. Nicholas Bank, 151 N. Y. 592 603 People v. Schenk, 2 Johns. 478 318 Petersen v. Iowa, 245 U. S. 170 178 Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U. S. 192 317 Phila. & Reading C. & I. Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U. S. 162 638, 643 Phila. & Southern S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326 296 Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665 635 Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387 135 Pierce v. Wood, 23N.H. 519 250 PAGE Pille, In re, 39 Ala. 459 388 Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116 249 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 79, 80 Portland Ry. Co. v. R. R. Comm, of Oregon, 229 U. S. 397 633 Porto Rico v. Rosaly, 227 U. S. 270 639 Porto Rico v. Tapia, 245 U. S. - 639 639 Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688 189, 297 Powers v. Ches. & Ohio Ry., 169 U. S. 92 363 Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Carter, 244 U. S. 646 634, 636, 639 Price v. United States, 218 Fed. Rep. 149 560 Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124 418 Puget Sound Trac. Co. v. Reynolds, 244 U. S. 574 350 Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56 188 Pullman’s Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18 59 Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192 307 Radford v. Myers, 231 U. S. 725 526 Railroad Co. v. County of Otoe, 16 Wall. 667 628 Railroad Co. v. Defiance, 52 Oh. St. 262 588 Railway Co. v. Railway Co., 5 Oh. C. C. (n. s.) 583, 73 Oh. St. 364 462, 590 Randolph v. Scruggs, 190 U. S. 533 .613 Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516 639 Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U. S. 342 307 Rates on Lumber from Southern Points, 341. C. C. 652 140, 141 Reading Iron Works—Sweatmen’s Appeal, 150 P$. St. 369 603 xxxviii TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAGE Red River Natl. Bank v. Ferguson, 192 S. W. Rep. Î088 417 Reed, Ex parte, 100 U. S. 13 473 Reed v. United States, 224 Fed. Rep. 378 135 Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272 505 Reggel, Ex parte, 114 U. S. 642 134 Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137 510 Richter v. Utah, 27 L. D. 95 573 Riggins v. United States, 199 U. S. 547 391 Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489 296, 622 Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80 133, 134 Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359 626 Romanes, Ex parte, 1 Utah, 23 318 Rosen v. United States, 245 U. S. 467 561 Rosenblat, Ex parte, 51 Cal. 285 318 Ross v. Oregon, 227 U. S. 150 584 Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47 634 Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U. S. 531 150 Royall, Ex parte, 117 U. S. 241 630 Rust v. United Waterworks Co., 70 Fed. Rep. 129 217 St. Louis, I. Mt. & So. Ry. v. Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518 632 St. Louis, I. Mt. & So. Ry. v. McKnight, 244 U. S. 368 120 St. Louis, I. Mt. & So. Ry. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592 362,635 St. Louis, I. Mt. & So. Ry. v. United States, 217 Fed. Rep. 80 141 St. Louis, K. C. & C. R. R. v. Wabash R. R., 217 U. S. 247 634 St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. v. James, 161 U. S. 545 637 St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240 628, 643 PAGE St. Louis Southwestern Ry. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350 189, 294, 627 St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U. S. 142 584, 587 Sandilands v. Marsh, 2 Barn. & Aid. 673 249 San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65 627 Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501 510 Savings & Loan Society v. Multnomah County, 169 U. S. 421 59 Schillinger v. United States, 155 U. S. 163 504 Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173 19 Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Blackwell, 244 U. S. 310 489 Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton,233U.S.492 445, 446 Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. North Carolina, 245 U. S. 298 307 Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668 538, 629, 638, 641 Seamans v. Temple Co., 105 Mich. 400 416 Searight v. Stokes, 3 How. 151 473 Security Land Co. v. Burns, 193 U. S. 167 29 Security Warehousing Co. v. Hand, 206 U. S. 415 614 Seibert v. Lewis, 122 U. S. 284 113 Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366 392, 476, 479, 481 Seven Cases, Eckman’s Alterative, v. United States, 239 U. S. 510 622 Shaw v. Proctor, 193 S. W. Rep. 1104 417 Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 157 Shreveport Case. (See Houston, E. & W. Tex. Ry. v. United States.) Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561 634 Sibray v. United States, 227 Fed. Rep. 1 553 TABLE OF CASES CITED. xxxix PAGE Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31 307 Simmons v. Commonwealth, 5 Binney, 617 318 Simmons v. Miller, 40 Miss. 19 388 Simmons v. Van Dyke, 138 Ind. 380 318 Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 76, 389 Smith v. Express Co., 166 N. Car. 155 303 Smith v. Goodman, 149 Ill. 75 603 Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138 629 Smith v. Interstate Com. Comm.,245U.S.33 47, 48 Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518 281 Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596 397 Soliah v. Heskin, 222 U. S. 522 636 Soper v. Lawrence Bros. Co., 201 U. S. 359 397 South Covington & Cincinnati Street Ry. v. Covington, 235 U. S. 537 489 Southern Pac. Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202 234 Southern Pac. Co. v. United States, 168 U. S. 1 341 Southern Ry. v. Allison, 190 U. S. 236 637 Southern Ry. v. Puckett, 244 U. S. 571 638, 641 South Wales Miners’ Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Co., [1905] A. C. 239 257 Sparks v. Pierce, 115 U. S. 408 229 Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526 364 Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345 291 Spencer v. United States, 169 Fed. Rep. 562 482 Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131 482 Springfield v. Springfield Street Ry. Co., 182 Mass. 41 593 State v. Anderson, 1 Hill, 327 318 State v. Buzine, 4 Harr. 572 318 PAGE State v. Central Vt. Ry., 81 Vt. 459 534 State ex rel. Taylor v. Columbus Ry. Co., 1 Oh. C. C. (n. s.) 145, 73 Oh. St. 363 584 State v. Huff ord, 28 la. 391 318 State v. Loper, 2 Ga. Dec. 33 318 State v. Powers, 38 Oh. St. 54 463 State v. Shearer, 46 Ohio St. 275 v 463 State v. Shelton, 79 N. Car. 605 318 State v. Taylor, 70 Vt. 1 318 State v. Tlubeau, 30 Vt. 100 250 State v. Whittle, 59 S. Car. 297 318 State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232 296, 297 Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445 310 Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14 626, 628, 633, 636, 637, 642 Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 23 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 76 Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527 222 Studebaker v. Perry, 184 U. S. 258 333 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 613 Sun Printing & Publishing Assn. v. Edwards, 194 U. S. 377 637 Sutton v. Goodman, 194 Mass. 389 605 Swann v. Treasurer of West Virginia. 188 U. S. 739 329 Sweatmen’s Appeal, 150 Pa. St. 369 603 Tappan v. Merchants’ Natl. Bank, 19 Wall. 490 58 Tarble’s Case, 13 Wall. 397 383 Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548 628 Taylor v. Columbus Ry. Co., 1 Oh. C. C. (n. s.) 145, 73 Oh. St. 363 584 Taylor v. United States, 207 U. S. 120 127 xl TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAGE Telluride Power Co. v. Rio Grande Western Ry., 175 U. S. 639 627 Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R. v. Indiana, 194 U. S. 579 150 Texas & N. O. R. R. v. Miller, 221 U. S. 408 23 Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Hill, 237 U. S. 208 597 Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Marcus, 237 U. S. 215 597 Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242 641 Thacker Coal Co. v. Burke, 59 W. Va. 253 252, 273 Thayer v. Spratt, 189 U. S. 346 228, 229 Thiede v. Utah Territory, 159 U. S. 510 482 Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258 631, 636 Thomas v. Texas, 212 U. S. 278 482 Through Routes and Through Rates, 121. C. C. 163 139 Tiglao v. Insular Govt., 215 U. S. 410 88 Topeka Water Supply Co. v. Potwin, 43 Kans. 404 158 Traer v. Clews, 115 U. S. 528 617 Troxell v. Del., Lack. & W. R. R., 227 U. S. 434 526 Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33 73, 251, 252, 273 Tucker v. Hubbert, 196 Fed. Rep. 849 110 Turner v. Fisher, 222 U. S. 204 312 Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78 625 Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co., 236 U.S. 723 631 Ullman v. Cameron, 186 N. Y. 339 314 Union Lime Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry., 233 U.S. 211 221 Union Pac. R. R. v. Laramie Stockyards Co., 231 U. S. 190 397 Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U. S. 194 59 PAGE Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Lynch, 177 U. S. 149 632 United States v. Ayres, 46 Fed. Rep. 651 482 United States v. Barnes, 222 U. S. 513 572 United States v. Beatty, 232 U. S. 463 635 United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 205 U. S. 105 601 United States v. Burke, 99 Fed. Rep. 895 128 United States v. Carter, 217 U. S. 286 3 United States v. Chandler- Dunbar Co., 209 U. S. 447 32 United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168 135 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 389 United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 310 United States ex ret. Mc- Manus v. Fisher, 39 App. D. C. 176 312 United States v. Gear, 3 How. 120 568 United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472 325 United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526 568 United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506 473 United States v. Jamieson, 185 Fed. Rep. 165 128 United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720 336 United States v. Knox, 102 U. S. 422 333 United States v. Lem Him, 239 Fed. Rep. 1023 553 United States v. Lengyell, 220 Fed. Rep. 720 395 United States v. Louis. & Nash. R. R., 235 U. S. 314 466 United States v. Louis. & Nash. R. R., 236 U. S. 318 35 United States v. McLemore, 4 How. 286 505 United States v. Merchants’ &c. Co., 187 Fed. Rep. 355 482 TABLE OF CASES CITED. xli PAGE United States v. Merchants’ & Manufacturers Traffic Assn., 242 U. S. 178 466 United States v. More, 3 Cranch, 159 170 United States v. Morrison, 240 U. S. 192 433, 434 United States v. Mulvey, 232 Fed. Rep. 513 327 United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625 175 United States v. Peuschel, 116 Fed. Rep. 642 482 United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78 . 477 United States v. Reid, 12 How. 361 469, 470, 473 United States v. Sandrey, 48 . Fed. Rep. 550 128 United States v. Smith, 217 Fed. Rep. 839 560 United States v. Thomas, 151 U. S. 577 435 United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61 325 United States v. Wan Lee, 44 Fed. Rep. 707 482 United States v. White Star Line, 224 U. S. 194 42 United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369 153 United States v. Wildcat, 244 U. S. Ill 310 United States v. Wong You, 223 U. S. 67 555, 557 United States Express Co. v. Minnesota, 223 U. S. 335 298 United States Fidelity Co. v. Bray, 225 U. S. 205 281 United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Co., 238 U. S. 140 168 Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179 630 Utah, State of, 29 L. D. 69 573 Utah, State of, 32 L. D. 117 573 Utah v. Allen, 27 L. D. 53 573 Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389 473 Valhoff, In re, 238 Fed. Rep. 405 395 Van Dyke v. Henry, 49 Pa. St. 530 312 PAGE Van Reimsdyk v. Kane, 1 Gall. 630 249 Veale v. Maynes, 23 Kans. 1 95 Vicksburg & Meridian R. R. v. O’Brien, 119 U. S. 99 250 Virginia, Ex parte, 100 U. S. 339 77 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Kirven, 215 U. S. 252 526 Von Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 535 112 Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555 252 Washington v. Oregon, 211 U. S. 127, 214 U. S. 205 356 Washington, Alexandria & Georgetown Packet Co. v. Sickles, 24 How. 333, 5 Wall. 580 341 Washington Gas Light Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 161 U. S. 316 491 Washington Securities Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 76, 642 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112 638, 643 Watts & Sachs, In re, 190 U. S. 1 613 Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573 358 Wells v. Johnston, 52 La. Ann. 713 318 West v. Hitchcock, 205 U. S. 80 389 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Andrews, 216 U, S. 165 191 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1 188, 191 Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 103 Tex. 306 188 West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507 24 Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U. S. 68 617 Wheeler v. Denver, 229 U. S. 342 626 Wheeler v. Sohmer, 233 U. S. 434 57, 58 White v. Ewing, 159 U. S. 36 119, 120 Whitney v. Dick, 202 U. S. 132 629 xlii TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAGE Whitney v. Wenman, 198 U. S. 539 120 Wiggan v. Conolly, 163 U. S. 56 96 Wilcutt & Sons Co. v. Driscoll, 200 Mass. 110 252 Wilder v. McDonald, 63 Oh. St. 383 602 Wilson v. Iseminger, 185 U. S. 55 397 Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332 42 Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S. 586 628 Wiscart v. D’Auchy, 3 Dall. 321 454 Wisconsin v. Hitchcock, 201 U. S. 202 436 Wisconsin v. Lane, 245 U. S. 427 437, 438 Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. St. Louis, I. Mt. & So. Ry., 331. C. C. 33 141 Wisconsin, Minn. & Pac. R. R. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287 , 144 Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. 210 636 PAGE Wood v. Assessors, 137 N. Y. 201 312 Wood v. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104 249 Wood v. Chesborough, 228 U. S. 672 627 Wood v. Fowler, 26 Kans. 682 158 Woodbury v. Sparrell Print, 187 Mass. 426 602 Woodland v. Wise, 112 Md. 35 603 Woodward v. de Graffenried, 238 U. S. 284 310 Woo Shing, Ex parte, 226 Fed. Rep. 141 553 Worcester v. Worcester Con- solidated Street Ry., 196 U. S. 539 626 Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 397 642 Young, Ex parte, 209 U. S. 123 191 Yunghauss v. United States, 210 Fed. Rep. 545, 218 Fed. Rep. 168 395 Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272 389 TABLE OF STATUTES CITED IN OPINIONS. (A.) Statutes of the United States. PAGE 1789, Sept. 24, c. 20, 1 Stat. 73 (see Judiciary Act). 1789, Sept. 29, c. 25,1 Stat. 95 384 1792, May 8, c. 33,1 Stat. 271 384 1793, Feb. 12, c. 7, 1 Stat. 302, §1................... 317 1794, May 9, c. 27,1 Stat. 367 384 1795, Feb. 28, c. 36, 1 Stat. 424 ...................... 384 1796, May 18, c. 29, 1 Stat. 464, §2................... 568 1797, June 24, c. 4,1 Stat. 522 384 1803, March 3, c. 32, 2 Stat. 241....................... 384 1806, April 18, c. 32, 2 Stat. 383 384 1807, Marchi 3, c. 46, 2 Stat. 445, §2....................568 1807, March 3, c. 49, 2 Stat. 448, §5....................568 1808, March 30, c. 39, 2 Stat. 478....................... 384 1811, Feb. 15, c. 14, 2 Stat. 617, §10.................. 568 1811, March 3, c. 46, 2 Stat. 662, §10.................. 568 1812, April 10, c. 55, 2 Stat. 705....................... 384 1812, .May 6, c. 77, 2 Stat. 728, §1................... 568 1815, Feb. 17, c. 45, 3 Stat. 211, §1................... 568 1816, March 25, c. 35,3 Stat. 260, §1................... 568 1816, April 29, c. 164, 3 Stat. 332...................... 568 1829, March 3, c. 55, 4 Stat. 364 ...................... 568 1841, Sept. 4, c. 16, 5 Stat. 453, § 10................. 568 1846, July 11, c. 36,9 Stat. 37 568 PAGE 1846, Aug. 6, c. 89, 9 Stat. 56 429, 437 §7..................... 429 1847, March 1, c. 32, 9 Stat. 146 ..................... 568 1847, March 3, c. 54, 9 Stat. 179...................... 568 1850, Sept. 26, c. 72, 9 Stat. 472.................... 568 1850, Sept. 27, c. 76, 9 Stat. 496, §§5,14.............. 569 1850, Sept. 28, c. 84, 9 Stat. Sift 97 1852, Augi 30i ci 103i 10 Stat. 41......................... 430 1853, Feb. 14, c. 69, 10 Stat. 158, §7.................. 569 1853, March 2, c. 90,10 Stat. 172, §21..................357 1853, March 3, c. 145,10 Stat. 244...................... 570 1854, July 22, c. 103,10 Stat. 308, §4.................. 569 1857, March 3, c. 117, 11 Stat. 251................... 27 1859, Feb. 14, c. 33, 11 Stat. 383, §2.................. 357 1860, June 21, c. 167,12 Stat. 71, §6................. 569 1861, April 15, Proclamation, 12 Stat. 1258.............. 386 1861, July 22, c. 9, 12 Stat. 268.................... 386 1861, July 29, c. 25, 12 Stat. 281 386 1862, May 17, c. 73, 12 Stat. 390, §6...................593 1862, May 20, c. 75, 12 Stat. 392, §1.................. 569 1862, May 30, c. 86, 12 Stat. 409, §§ 7, 10........... 569 (xliii) xliv TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. PAGE 1862, July 1, c. 120, 12 Stat. 489, §3.................. 569 1862, July 2, c. 129, 12 Stat. 503, §3.................. 569 1862, July 2, c. 130, 12 Stat. 503...................... 569 1863, March 3, c. 75,12 Stat. 731...................... 386 1864, July 1, c. 205, 13 Stat. 343, § 1..................571 1864, July 2, c. 216, 13 Stat. 356, §§4,19...............569 1864, July 2, c. 217, 13 Stat. 365, §3.................. 569 1865, Jan. 30, Joint Resolu- tion, 13 Stat. 567....... 569 1865, March 3, c. 107,13 Stat. 529, §1.................. 571 1866, April 9, c. 31, 14 Stat. 27, § 1................... 78 1866, June 21, c. 127,14 Stat. 66, §1................... 569 1866, July 4, c. 165, 14 Stat. 83 ...................... 569 1866, July 4, c. 166, 14 Stat. 85, §5....................569 1866, July 23, c. 219,14 Stat. 218, §1.................. 569 1866, July 25, c. 242,14 Stat. 239, §§ 2, 10.............569 1866, July 26, c. 262,14 Stat. 251...................... 571 1866, July 27, c. 278,14 Stat. 292, §3................. 569 1866, July 28, c. 300,14 Stat. 338, §1...................569 1867, March 2, c. 176,14 Stat. 517 (Bankruptcy Act) 119, 616 1870, May 4, c. 69,16 Stat. 94 569 1870, May 31, c. 114,16 Stat. 140, §16................. 78 1870, July 9, c. 235, 16 Stat. 217...................... 571 1871, Feb. 6, c. 38, 16 Stat. 404 ..................... 435 1871, March 3, c. 122,16 Stat. 573................. 399 §4 407 §6 407 §9 569 §22 399 1872, May 10, c. 152, 17 Stat. 91................... 571 PAGE 1873, Feb. 18, c. 159,17 Stat. 465..................... 571 1873, March 3, c. 279,17 Stat. 607..................... 571 1876, May 5, c. 91, 19 Stat. 52 ..................... 571 1882, May 6, c. 126, 22 Stat. 58 555 1882,’ Aug. 7, c. 434, 22 Stat. 341.................. 91 §4 98 §§5-8.................. 98 1883, March 3, c. 118,22 Stat. 487..................... 571 1884, July 5, c. 220, 23 Stat. 115 555 1886, May 17' c. 348,24 Stat. 57...................... 158 1887, Feb. 4, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379 (see Interstate Commerce Acts). 1887, Feb. 8, c. 120, 24 Stat. 391..................... 401 1888, Sept. 13, c. 1015, 25 Stat. 476, §13.............555 1890, July 2, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (Sherman Act)........265 1891, Feb. 28, c. 384,26 Stat. 70R 579 1891, March 3, c’ ¿i?, 26 Stat. 826 (see Judiciary Act). 1891, March 3, c. 543,26 Stat. 1026.................... 572 1891, March 3, c. 561,26 Stat. 1095..................... 32 1892, July 13, c. 158, 27 Stat. 109..................... 160 1892, July 29, c. 322, 27 Stat. 334, §8..................593 1893, March 2, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (see Safety Appliance Act). 1893, March 3, c. 209,27 Stat. 630 ..................... 99 1894, Jan. 22, c. 15, 28 Stat. 27...................... 158 1894, July 16, c. 138, 28 Stat. 107................. 566 §6 566 §10 567 1898, Apr. 29, c. 229,30 Stat. 367...................... 31 TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. xlv PAGE 1898, July 1, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 (see Bankruptcy Act). 1898, July 1, c. 546, 30 Stat. f»Q7 158 1899, March 3, c. 424,30 Stat. 1095 ........................................... 226 1900, June 6, c. 813, 31 Stat. 680............................................ 572 1901, March 1, c. 676,31 Stat. 861............................................. 193 1901, March 3, c. 845, 31 Stat. 1093, §3..........556 1902, April 15, c. 507,32 Stat. 106............................................. 226 1902, April 29, c. 641,32 Stat. 176............................................. 556 1902, May 3, c. 683, 32 Stat. 188 ............................................ 573 1902, June 30, c. 1323, 32 Stat. 500................................... 193 §16 193 1902, July 1, c. 1362,32 Stat. 641......................................... 309 §23 310 1903, Jan. 21, c. 196, 32 Stat. 775 .887 1903, Feb’ 5, c. 487,’ 32 Stat. 797 (see Bankruptcy Act). 1903, March 3, c. 994, 32 Stat. 996.............. 194 1904, April 27, c. 1630, 33 Stat. 394, §5....................................556 1906, April 26, c. 1876, 34 Stat. 137................................... 195 §2 311 §5 311 §19 195 1906, June 29, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584 (see Interstate Commerce Acts). 1906, June 29, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596........320, 393 §1 322 §4 324, 393 §4(1)..........................................393 §4 (2) 320, 393 § 4 (4) 323 §5 322 §6 323 §7 323 §8 395 § 11 320 §15 320 PAGE 1906, June 29, c. 3592 §27.................. 324 §28 323 §31 323 1906, June 30, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768 (Food & Drugs Act).......619 §2................. 621 §8................. 621 1907, Feb. 20, c. 1134, 34 Stat. 898. . .123, 323, 552 §2.................125, 323 §§4,5.............. 123 §21................ 552 §38................ 323 § 43 553 1908, April 22, c. 149’, 35 Stat. 65 (see Employers’ Liability Act). 1908, May 27, c. 199,35 Stat. 312.................... 195 §4....................... 195 1909, March 4, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1088 (see Criminal Code). 1910, March 26, c. 128, 36 Stat. 263.............125, 554 1910, June 18, c. 309,36 Stat. 539 (see Interstate Commerce Acts). §1 503 §1 7... 186 1910, June 25, c. 412,36 Stat. 838 (see Bankruptcy Act). 1911, March 3, c. 231,36 Stat. 1087 (see Judicial Code).. 361 1912, Aug. 24, c. 389,37 Stat. 555....................... 167 1913, March 1, c. 90,37 Stat. 699 (Webb-Kenyon Act).. 303 1913, March 4, c. 141, 37 Stat. 736................. 323 1913, Oct. 3, c. 16, 38 Stat. 114................83, 152, 425 §11, A (1)........152, 425 § II, A (2)...............425 §11, B............152, 425 §111,1................ 84 1913, Oct. 22, c. 32, 38 Stat. 219 (see Interstate Commerce Acts).........466, 502 1914, Jan. 20, c. 11, 38 Stat. 278........................ 361 xlvi TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. PAGE 1916, June 3, c. 134, 39 Stat. 911 37K 3R7 1916, Sept. 6, c. 448, 39 Stat’ 726. .19,164,492,634, 636, 638, 639, 643 §2.................... 492 §4................... 88 1917, May 18, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76..375,391, 475,479,481 §5.................... 483 Constitution. See Index at end of volume. Articles of Confederation 132, 380 Revised Statutes. §161.................. 472 §709................... 19 §802 ................. 482 § 1977................. 78 § 1978................. 78 §2318................. 570 §§2318-2352............. 571 §2346............... 570 §2448................. 101 §4612................. 127 §4888................. 207 §§5133 et seq........... 333 §5278.............131, 317 §5392................. 471 Bankruptcy Act.........119, 607 §2(7)................. 119 §3 (4).................613 §23................... 365 § 23b................. 119 § 24b.................. 51 § 47 a................ 516 § 47a (2).........119, 516 § 60b.............516, 614 § 67e................ 614 § 70a (3).............. 52 § 70a (5)..........52, 313 § 70e................. 614 Civil Service Law......... 167 PAGE Criminal Code............... 471 §37.................... 475 §194................... 472 §332. ............475, 483 Employers’ Liability Act 19, 443, 538 §1 445 §4 444 Interstate Commerce Acts 10, 34, 139, 506, 562 § 1...............34, 143 §3 145 §4 464 §6 499 § 12..............34, 143 §13 34 § 15.........34, 143, 302 § 16.............502, 535 §20............*...34, 361 §21 34 Judicial Code. §28 361 §29 362 §37 462 § 128............104, 361 §207 503 §208 504 §211 504 §237.. 19,164, 634, 636, 638, 639, 643 §238.........118, 214, 511 §239................... 169 §240 .................. 492 §241..............104, 364 §250................... 168 §251..............168, 492 §266................... 186 §277................... 482 Judiciary Act, 1789......... 470 §29 :.... 482 Judiciary Act, 1891. §5 214, 364 §6 169, 364 N ational Bank Act.........333 Safety Appliance Act....... 538 (B.) Statutes of the States and Territories. Arkansas. Kirby’s Digest, 1904, §§ 2681, 2684 ....... 528 Delaware. Constitution, 1776, Art. 9 380 Georgia. Constitution, 1777, Art. 33, 35........... 380 Code, 1910, §3260..... 516 TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. xlvii PAGE Idaho. 1915, Laws, c. 11..... 305 §2.................. 305 §§ 15, 22 ........... 306 Illinois. Hurd’s Rev. Stats., 1915-16, §§315,317.. 131 Iowa. CodeSupp., 1907, § 1467 171, 177 Kansas. 1858, Private Laws, c. 30, §4;c. 31, §4;c. 34... 158 1859, Laws (Kans. Terr.), c. 121................ 156 1860, Private Laws, c. 20, §3.................. 158 1864, Laws, c. 97..... 156 1913, Laws, c. 259.... 155 Kentucky. 1869, 1 Acts, p. 463.... 108 1877-78, 1 Acts, p. 554. 108 1906, Acts, p. 153, §3.. 110 Ky. Stats., 1873, c. 92, Art. 8, §2....... Ill 1894, §4131..........110 Maine. 1903, Laws, c. 122.... 220 Rev. Stats., 1903, c. 4, §87................. 220 Maryland. Constitution, 1776, Art. 33 ................. 380 Massachusetts. Constitution, 1780, Art. 10...................380 Rev. Laws, 1902, vol. II, §§ 7, 32, pp. 1044, 1051.............. 593 c. 163, §33........ 602 Michigan. Constitution, 1908, Art. 8, §25.............. 593 New Hampshire. Constitution, 1784, pt. 1, Art. 12............... 380 PAGE New York. Constitution, 1777, Art. 40..................... 380 North Carolina. 1913, Laws, c. 44, p. 76 299 §§1,2,5................299 §3................. 300 Ohio. Constitution, 1851, Art. I, §2.............584 Art. XIII, §2...... 584 Constitution, Art. II, §26...............’.... 462 1883, Apr. 18, 80 Ohio Laws, 173 ......... 462 1908, Apr. 30, 99 Ohio Laws, 241.......... 609 Rev. Stats., 1880. §2502.................. 463 §3439.............. 463 §6343.............. 609 §6344.............. 609 Gen. Code, 1910, §§11102-11107 ......... 609 Pennsylvania. Constitution, 1776, Art. 8...................... 380 1854, Laws, p. 385 .. 21 1899, Laws, p. 184 ... 292 Texas 1889, Acts, p. 87...... 184 1893, Acts, p. 158.... 184 1897, Acts, p. 168.... 184 1907, Acts, p. 503 ... 185 1907, Acts, S. S. p. 500. 186 Rev. Stats., 1911, Art. 3837.............. 186 Art. 7394.......... 185 Vermont. Constitution, 1777, c. 1, Art. 9................. 380 Virginia. Constitution, 1776 (Militia) ................ 380 Wisconsin. 1909, Laws, § 1797t.... 593 xlviii TABLE OF STATUTES CITED. (C.) Treaties. PAGE China. 1880, Nov. 17, 22 Stat. 826, Arts. I, II.... 558 Denmark. 1826, Apr. 26, 8 Stat. 340, Arts. 1,7..... 172 1857, Apr. 11, 11 Stat. 719................ 172 Indian. 1842, Oct. 4, 7 Stat.‘591 (Lake Superior Chippewas) ...............437 1848, Oct. 18,9 Stat. 952 (Menominee)...........429 1854, May 12, 10 Stat. 1064 (Menominee). . . 431 1854, Sept. 30, 10 Stat. PAGE Indian (coni.) 1109 (Lake Superior Chippewas)......... 437 Art. 3.............. 438 1861, Nov. 15, 12 Stat. 1191 (Pottawatomie). 95 1865, Mar. 6, 14 Stat. 667 (Omaha)........ 91 Art. IV.............. 92 1867, Feb. 27, 15 Stat. 531 (Pottawatomie).. 95 Sweden. 1783, Apr. 3, 8 Stat. 60, Arts. 2, 6......... 177 1816, Sept. 4,8 Stat. 232, Art. 12............... 177 1827, July 4, 8 Stat. 346, Art. 17............... 177 (D.) Foreign Laws. Canada. 1917, Aug. 27, Military Service Act........... 379 France. 1889, July 15, Loi sur le recrutement de l’armée (Duvergier, vol. 89, p. 440).............. 379 1905, Mar. 21, (Duvergier, vol. 105, p. 133). 379 Germany. Constitution, Apr. 16, 1871, Arts. 57, 59.... 379 1888, Feb. 11, Gesetz, betreffend Aenderun-gen der Wehrpflicht, No. 1767, RGB1., p. 11 379 1913, July 22, No. 4264, RGB1., p. 593 ..... 379 Great Britain. 1916, Jan. 27, 5 and 6 Geo. V, c. 104, p. 367, Military Service Act 379 1916, May 25, 2d sess., 6 and 7 Geo. V, c. 15, p. 33, Military Service Act.................. 379 Orange Free State. 1899, Conscription Law, Law No. 10, Military Service and Commando Law, §§ 10, 28 379 1901, Laws of Orange River Colony, p. 855. 379 South African Republic. 1898, De Locale Wetten en Volksraadsbesluiten, etc., Law No. 20, pp. 230, 233, Arts. 6, 28.................... 379 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1917. UNITED STATES v. LEARY ET AL., ADMINISTRATORS OF LEARY, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 194. Argued October 4, 1917.—Decided October 15, 1917. Where a defendant, under indictment for defrauding the United States of money, deposited stocks with a representative by whom another person was induced to execute the defendant’s bail bond on the faith of the deposit as indemnity, and neither surety nor depositary had notice of any defect in the depositor’s title, the surety’s equity in the deposit was superior to that of the United States, though the stocks were procured with the proceeds of the fraud. In such case, where, after the first bond, the surety executed several renewals in removal and habeas corpus proceedings, the parties repeatedly treating the proceedings and the indemnity agreement as continuing matters, held, by inference that the same understanding attached to a further bond for appearance at trial, and that the depositary’s conduct in retaining only shares constituting the deposit, while settling with the defendant for others, confirmed such intention. During the proceedings the shares originally deposited were sold by the depositary, with others belonging to the defendant, and, of new shares purchased with the proceeds, some were selected and retained by the depositary in lieu of those first deposited. Held, that the equity of the surety attached to them. Upon an issue of fact as to whether stock claimed by plaintiff was held by defendant as indemnity for interveners, defendant’s sworn answer, filed before the intervention and averring that he so held the (1) 2 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Argument for the United States. 245 U. S. stock, was evidence for the interveners as an act, if not as a statement of facts. • Whether defendant should have an allowance as trustee is left to the trial court. 229 Fed. Rep. 660, affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Marion Erwin, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for the United States: There was no extension to the bond of 1902 of the agreement to indemnify Leary. That required an express agreement, which was lacking. United States v. Ryder, 110 U. S. 729. The averments of the intervention show, as matter of law, that the temporary bail bond for appearance of Greene before the commissioner had long prior to January 20, 1902, become functus officio. Even if Leary had proved an express contract relative to the bond of 1902, her claim would be inferior to that of the Government. Boone v. Childs, 10 Pet. 177; Shirras v. Cary, 7 Cranch, 34; Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Pet. 252; Hallett v. Collins, 10 How. 174; Grimstone v. Carter, 3 Paige Ch. 420. A promise to pay a debt out of a particular fund creates no equitable lien or right in the fund. Seymour v. Railroad Co., 25 Barb. 284; Grinnel v. Suydam, 3 Sandf. 132; Drake v. Taylor, 7 Fed. Cas., No. 4067; Boone v. Childs, 10 Pet. 193; Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 69. As to the law relative to the tracing of trust funds, see May v. LeClaire, 11 Wall. 217, 236; Smith v. Vodges, 92 U. S. 186; Moore v. Crawford, 130 U. S. 122; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; Van Allen v. Bank, 52 N. Y. 1-5; National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 70; Knatchbull v. Hallett, 13 Ch. Div. 696; Cook v. Tullis, 18 Wall. 332; Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U. S. 365; Sexton v. Kessler, 225 U. S. 90. Mr. Aubrey E. Strode, with whom Mr. J. T. Coleman, Jr., was on the brief, for Leary et al., Administrators. UNITED STATES v. LEARY. 3 1. Opinion of the Court. Mr. Abram J. Rose, with whom Mr. Alfred C. Petté was on the brief, for Kellogg, appellee. Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court. This proceeding began as a suit by the United States to charge the defendant Kellogg with a trust in respect of funds alleged to have been received by him from Greene and to have been obtained from the plaintiff by Greene through his participation in the well-known Carter frauds. United States v. Carter, 217 U. S. 286. After the evidence had been taken, leave to intervene was granted, on terms, to the administratrix of the estate of James D. Leary, predecessor of the present Leary appellees. 224 U. S. 567. The fund now in question is four hundred shares of the stock of the Norfolk and Western Railway Company, which the Learys and Kellogg say were held by Kellogg as security to their intestate against his liability upon a bail bond for Greene. A judgment upon the bond has been paid by them. The Circuit Court of Appeals has sustained the Learys’ claim and the United States appeals. 229 Fed. Rep. 660. 144 C. C. A. 70. Although Kellogg argues the contrary, it may be assumed for the purposes of decision that the United States traces its money into the stock, since Kellogg makes no personal claim to it. On the other hand it appears that before the intestate Leary became bondsman for Greene on December 14, 1899, Kellogg wrote to him on the same day, stating that Greene had placed in his hands three hundred shares of stock of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company “as indemnity to you for becoming his bondsman in the matter of the United States against Greene, Gaynor and others, now pending in the district court” to hold until Leary was released from the said bond or to apply in payment of the obliga- 4 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 U. S. tion. We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that neither Kellogg nor Leary had notice of any defect in Greene’s title. The only question requiring discussion is whether the present stock is held upon the same terms against a later bond that Leary signed. The proceedings in which the bond of December, 1899, was given were for the removal of Greene from New York to Georgia. On February 20, 1900, the United States Commissioner found that there was probable cause. Greene was committed to the marshal and the bond was cancelled. On the same day another bond seems to have been given by Leary that was satisfied on May 28, 1901, when the district judge issued a warrant for removal. On May 21 Kellogg wrote to Leary that it would be necessary “to renew the bail given by you for Captain Greene, and for which I hold security for your protection,” fixing a time, and adding “This new bond is to take the place of the old one without additional liability.” The bond was given on May 28 and Greene was enlarged. On June 8 Greene was surrendered into the custody of the marshal in New York and a new bail bond was executed by Leary after having received a letter from Kellogg, dated June 6, saying “I am obliged to trouble you again to renew the bond in the Greene and Gaynor matter” fixing the time and adding “The reason for the matter is not that you have to incur any additional liability, but simply to enable them to carry their case to the United States Supreme Court.” The case was taken to this court and an order of the Circuit Court refusing a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed on January 6, 1902. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249. Thereafter, on January 20, Leary signed, as surety for Greene, the bond for $40,000, conditioned for Greene’s appearance in Georgia, which was forfeited and which the Learys have paid. More words could not make it plainer than it is made UNITED STATES v. LEARY. 5 1, Opinion of the Court. by the letters that the “matter” was regarded by the parties as a continuing one and that the bond of June 8, 1901, was executed on the agreement that the security also should continue. The only natural inference as to the later one of 1902 that took its place is that the understanding remained in force without the requirement of a repetition of the already repeated assurance. This inference is confirmed by the conduct of Kellogg. He had held stocks and bonds for Greene and settled with him, retaining only this stock. Even if his original answer under oath filed before the Learys intervened is not evidence for them as a statement of facts, it was an act as well as a statement and showed that at that time he asserted that the stock was security given by Greene. It is true that the stock was not the same that was mentioned in the first letter. Greene was allowed to make changes and substitutions. But this and other purchases were made with the proceeds of the sale of the first and other stocks before the letters of May and June, 1901 were written, and without considering whether in the interest of good faith the stock retained should or should not be attributed to the portion of the funds coming from that previously pledged, the selection and retention of it in place of the other is enough when taken with the agreement disclosed. See National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54, 68; In re Hallett’s Estate, 13 Ch. Div. 696. It seems to us unnecessary to add more to the discussion by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether Kellogg should receive an allowance as trustee may be left to the District Court. Decree affirmed. 6 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 245 U. S. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, LESSEE OF THE NORTHERN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY, v. TOWERS ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 31. Argued April 25, 26, 1917.—Decided October 15, 1917. Whether the statutes of Maryland intend to authorize the Public Service Commission to revise intrastate commutation rates when such rates have already been established by voluntary action of the railroad company, is a question of state law concerning which the conclusion of the Court of Appeals of Maryland binds this court upon a writ of error to review its judgment. State regulation, through a public service commission, requiring a carrier to maintain commutation service between points within the State and fixing rates therefor, which are less than the intrastate rate lawfully established for one-way intrastate travel in general, does not deprive the carrier of due process of law when the service so regulated was established by the carrier voluntarily and the rates fixed by the State are reasonable. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. n. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, is distinguished, and the views expressed in that case which are inconsistent with the decision in this one are disapproved. 126 Maryland, 59, affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. F. D. McKenney, with whom Mr. Henry Wolf Bikie, Mr. Shirley Carter and Mr. John Spalding Flannery were on the brief, for plaintiff in error, in support of the contention that the order of the Public Service Commission here in question was unconstitutional, relied principally upon Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, and Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. R. CO. v. TOWERS. 7 6. Opinion of the Court. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, citing in addition the following as sustaining the authority of the Lake Shore Case: Wisconsin &c. R. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 297; Erie R. R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U. S. 685, 701; Chicago &c. R. R. Co. v. Wisconsin, 238 U. S. 491, 499; Beardsley v. New York C. &c. R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 230; Commonwealth v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 106 Virginia, 61; State v. Bonneval, 128 Louisiana, 902; State v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 17 N. Dak. 370; Attorney General v. Old Colony R. Co., 160 Massachusetts, 62. Interstate Consolidated Street Ry. Co. v. Massachusetts, 207 U. S. 79, they distinguished upon the ground that the constitutionality of the state statute there in question—requiring street car companies to carry school children at half fare—was not involved. The statute was an exercise of the State’s reserved power over the corporation. The reasoning of the decision in no way detracts from the authority of the Lake Shore Case. The analogy between the Lake Shore Case and the case at bar would seem to be complete, for the difference between a 1,000-mile ticket and a 100-trip ticket, both required to be issued contrary to the managerial will of the carrier and at rates less than the maximum or standard one-way single fare, is not fundamental. Mr. W. Cabell Bruce for defendants in error. Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court. This was an action in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, Maryland, to enjoin the Public Service Commission of Maryland from enforcing an order to sell commutation tickets at certain rates specified. The injunction was refused, and on appeal the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the decree and held that although the order fixing the rates declared the same to be 8 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 U. S. in force for ten years, there should be reserved to the railroad company the right to apply to the Commission after the lapse of a reasonable time for a rescission or modification of its order if experience demonstrated that the revenue derived under the tariff as established by the Commission was not properly compensatory for the services performed. 126 Maryland, 59. The order of the Commission required the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, lessee of the Northern Central Railway, to sell tickets for the transportation of passengers between Baltimore and Parkton within the State of Maryland on the line of the Northern Central Railway. A table appearing in the opinion of the Court of Appeals shows the relative rates under the former schedules and the new order of the Public Service Commission to be as follows: Rates Prior to Nov. 25, 1914. 1: Round trip, 10 day, 2J^c. per M. 2: Exc. 2-10 days, 2J^c. per M. 3: 10-strip ticket, 1 yr., 1 8/10c. per M. 4: 60-trip 1 mo., 2c. for first 3M., J. WEED. 601 597. Opinion of the Court. that the filing of the bill had the same effect as a petition in bankruptcy in stopping claims that like this were not provable at that date. 230 Fed. Rep. 31. 144 C. C. A. 329. We are driven to different conclusions. In the first place, whether a letter showing that the payment of $20,0(00 a year was a substitute for a bonus of $340,000 was admissible or not, United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 205 U. S. 105, 120, we are of opinion that on the face of the lease and the figures it was dealt with as a separate item and as the inducing consideration for the sublease, the right to the whole of which was earned when the sublease was made. The summary of the clauses referring to it that we have given shows that the whole amount was to be paid in any event, whether the overleases were cancelled, or a part of the rent was abated, or the leases were terminated, as well as if they ran their full course. It is true that in the reddendum the words “as rental” might be construed to embrace the later clause “together with a further sum of twenty thousand dollars,” but the sentence does not compel that construction and the dominant intent and obvious fact seems to us to override any argument upon that ground. See Cox v. Harper [1910], 1 Ch. 480. Rent issues from the land, is not due until the rent day, and is due in respect of the enjoyment of the premises let. The twenty thousand dollars a year was to be paid whether the premises were enjoyed or not, upon a personal covenant that created a present debt, with no contingency except those possibly and lawfully accelerating the time in which it was to be paid. We perceive no ground that would justify the rejection of the petitioner’s proof for the whole sum subject to the discount agreed. Certainly the fact that the termination of the lease happened after the filing of the bill has no such effect, although the sum was not presently payable until then. When a statutory system is administered the only 602 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 U. S. question for the courts is what the statutes prescribe. But when the courts without statute take possession of all the assets of a corporation under a bill like the present and so make it impossible to collect debts except from the court’s hands, they have no warrant for excluding creditors, or for introducing supposed equities other than those determined by the contracts that the debtor was content to make and the creditors to accept. In order to make a distribution possible they must of necessity limit the time for the proof of claims. But they have no authority to give to the filing of the bill the effect of the filing of a petition in bankruptcy so as to exclude any previously made and lawful claim that matures within a reasonable time before distribution can be made. Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co., 198 Fed. Rep. 721, 740, 741. Of course it does not matter that the claim was perfected by the petitioner’s act, after a default in the rent. The receivers would not, and Butler & Company could not pay it, so that all agree that the petitioner’s course was the prudent and only possible course to take, as it was the course that was contemplated by the covenant in the lease. Wilder v. McDonald, 63 Ohio St. 383, 397. We agree with the petitioner that the discount on, payments so anticipated should be a simple discount on the payments as they would fall due, that is, monthly, making the total according to the Master’s report, $137,348.88. The rest of the claim is for damages ultra the twenty thousand dollars a year—the difference between the rental value at the date of entry and the rent reserved, less the amount received under the twenty thousand dollar clause. This also was contracted for and we see no reason why it should not be paid. The contract was not that all the rent for the term should become presently due, it was not for rent at all, but was a personal covenant that liquidated the damages upon a footing that was familiar and fair. Mass. Rev. Laws, c. 163, § 33. Woodbury v. Sparrell GARDINER v. BUTLER & CO. 603 597. Syllabus. Print, 187 Massachusetts, 426, 428. International Trust Co. v. Weeks, 203 U. S. 364. People v. St. Nicholas Bank, 151 N. Y. 592. Woodland v. Wise, 112 Maryland, 35. Reading Iron Works—Sweatmen’s Appeal, 150 Pa. St. 369. McGraw v. Union Trust Co., 135 Michigan, 609. Smith v. Goodman, 149 Illinois, 75, 85, 86. Kalkhoff v. Nelson, 60 Minnesota, 284, 288. Ex parte Llynvi Coal & Iron Co. in re Hide, L. R. 7 Ch. 28. The claim divides itself into two items: one from January 1, 1913, until April 1, 1913, when the whole premises were relet, put by the master at $39,829.80; the other from April 1, 1913, to the end of the term, put at $34,433.47. The other disputed item for expenses of reletting is disallowed. Decree reversed. Mr. Justice Brandeis having been of counsel took no part in the decision of this case. GARDINER, TRUSTEE OF THE PERRY REAL ESTATE TRUST, v. WILLIAM S. BUTLER & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No. 95. Argued December 18, 1917.—Decided February 4, 1918. Following Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed, ante, 597, held, that, in a non-statutory receivership proceeding brought to preserve the good will and pay the debts of a company occupying premises as lessee, the lessor, which reentered during the receivership, had a proper claim for rent up to reentry, and for damages based on the lessee’s covenant to pay the difference between the rental value at time of reentry and the rent and other payments reserved for the residue of the term. 604 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 U. S. In Massachusetts, in the absence of statute or express contract, a lessor who has terminated a lease and evicted the tenant has no further claim against the lessee—hence none against the lessee’s receivers in proceedings in equity to continue the lessee’s business to pay its debts. 230 Fed. Rep. 1021, reversed in part and affirmed in part. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Alexander Whiteside, with whom Mr. Bentley W. Warren and Mr. Howard Stockton, Jr., were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Frederick H. Nash, with, whom Mr. Charles F. Choate, Jr., was on the brief, for respondents. Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court. This case comes here upon the report of a master asking the court to decide whether two claims are provable. The first is upon a lease made by the petitioner to William S. Butler & Company. Receivers were appointed for the William S. Butler & Company corporation on November 7, 1912. At that time the winding up of the company was not contemplated by the bill or decree, but the object was to preserve the good will and pay the debts. On October 1,1913, the petitioner entered* and on December 1, 1913, presented his proof of claims. The lease contained a clause similar to that in the lease of Wm. Filene’s Sons Company, just considered, ante, 597, providing that in case of reentry the lessee should pay to the lessor the difference between the rental value and the rent and other payments required for the residue of the term. The claim was for rent up to the time of reentry and for damages for the later period. It was rejected by the courts below upon the same grounds as in the former case. 230 Fed. Rep. 1021; 144 C. C. A. 663. This decision, like the other, must be reversed. STELLWAGEN v. CLUM. 605 603. Syllabus. The second claim is upon a lease by Russell to the same company of which Gardiner had purchased the reversion. In substance it is for damages similar to those held allowable under the former lease, but simply on the ground that the petitioner has lost the benefit of his bargain from the time of his reentry, the lease not containing any clause stipulating for such an allowance. Of course there are plausible analogies for the contention. But the law as to leases is not a matter of logic in vacuo; it is a matter of history that has not forgotten Lord Coke. Massachusetts has followed the English tradition and we believe that it is the general understanding in that State that in the absence of statute or express contract a lessor who has terminated a lease and evicted the tenant has no further claim against the lessee. Sutton v. Goodman, 194 Massachusetts, 389, 395. Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Association, 240 U. S. 581, 590. Upon this claim the decree below is affirmed. Decree reversed. Mr. Justice Brandeis took no part in the decision of this case. STELLWAGEN, TRUSTEE FOR ZENGERLE, v. CLUM, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF GEORGIAN BAY COMPANY. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR the sixth Circuit. No. 89. Argued December 14, 1917.—Decided February 4, 1918. The Bankruptcy Act as it was on the dates herein mentioned (February 2, 1910, November 9, 1910) did not operate to suspend § 6343 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio as it. stood February 2, 1910, or the sections into which that section was divided and numbered by the General Code of Ohio, approved February 15, 1910, viz: §§ 11102-11105, as such sections existed May 5, 1910. 606 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Counsel for Parties. 245 U. S. The Ohio law, supra, (part of a chapter concerning insolvent debtors), provides, among other things, that any transfer made by a debtor to prefer creditors, or with intent to hinder, delay or defraud them, shall, if the transferee knew of such fraudulent intent, be declared void at the suit of any creditor or creditors, and that a receiver may thereupon be appointed to take charge of all the debtor’s assets, including the property so transferred, and administer them for the equal benefit of all creditors in proportion to their respective demands. Held, that such provisions are consistent with the Bankruptcy Law, and that, availing of them pursuant to § 70e of the latter, a trustee in bankruptcy proceedings, which followed within a few days of the debtor’s general assignment, could administer for the creditors generally property which had been transferred by the • debtor in trust for particular creditors more than four months previously. Bankruptcy laws enacted by Congress pursuant to Article I, § 8, of the Constitution, operate to suspend the laws of States only in so far as the latter laws are in conflict with the system established by the former. In determining whether a state law is in conflict with the Bankruptcy Act, much weight is to be given the consideration that a main purpose of the act, and a prime requisite of every true bankruptcy law, is to benefit the debtor by relieving his future acquired property from the obligations of existing debts. Although different results may ensue therefrom in different States, it is not inconsistent with the requirement of uniformity for the federal bankruptcy law to permit trustees in bankruptcy to avail themselves of state statutes intended to avoid fraudulent conveyances and thus promote the equal distribution of insolvent estates. Section 70-e of the Bankruptcy Act gives the trustee in bankruptcy a right to recover property transferred in violation of state law, without reference to the four months’ limitation; if a creditor could have avoided the transfer under the state law, the trustee may do the same. For opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals in re the certification, see 218 Fed. Rep. 730. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Bernard B. Selling, Mr. George E. Brand and Mr. J. Shurley Kennary for Stellwagen, Trustee, submitted. STELLWAGEN v. CLUM. 607 605. Opinion of the Court. Mr. Alfred Clum, with whom Mr. Geo. B. Marty was on the brief, for Clum, Trustee. Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court. This case is here upon certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. From the statement accompanying the certificate it appears that Stellwagen, Trustee for Margaret Zengerle, filed a petition in the United States District Court to require the surrender and transfer to him of a quantity of white pine lumber and balance due upon a certain open account then in possession of Clum as trustee in bankruptcy of the Georgian Bay Company. The order was denied, the petition dismissed, and appeal taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The questions are whether certain provisions of the statutes of Ohio are suspended by virtue of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. The facts upon which the questions arise, and in view of which they are to be answered, are thus stated: “The Georgian Bay Company, an Ohio corporation, was at the time of the transactions in dispute engaged in the wholesale and retail lumber business at Cleveland. Ohio. February 2, 1910, the company delivered to appellant’s predecessor (A. L. McBean), as trustee for Margaret Zengerle and the Dime Savings Bank of Detroit, its bill of sale, describing 433,500 feet of white pine lumber then in the company’s yards, and stating a total price of $14,013; crediting the trustee with certain promissory notes of the company for a like sum and payable in different amounts, to the order of Margaret Zengerle, C. M. Zengerle, agent, and the Dime Savings Bank, respectively. Neither the bill of sale nor a copy was filed with the recorder of Cuyahoga County, Ohio; but the lumber so in terms sold consisted of piles (stacked in the ordinary way) which were to be and at the time in fact were each dis- 608 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 Ü. S. tinctly marked: 'Sold to A. L. McB., Agt.’ May 3, 1910, the company with consent of McBean sold this lumber and certain of its own lumber then in the yards, to Schuette & Co. of Pittsburgh. Payment was to be made by Schuette & Co., part in cash, part in notes maturing at fixed times between date of sale and the following September 10th, and the balance in cash on or before October 1st. Two days later, May 5th, the Georgian Bay Company transferred to appellant 'the balance, twenty-five per cent, of invoice value or what may show due on the first of October, A. D. 1910, of the purchase price of the lumber’ (so sold to Schuette & Co.), to secure payment in full of all moneys that should be advanced by, and 'payment pro rata of all moneys’ then owing to, the Dime Savings Bank, Mrs. Zengerle and C. M. Zengerle, agent; and any surplus remaining was to be returned to the company. Schuette & Co., while owing a balance of $7,500 on portions of the lumber it had received, rejected the rest; this can be identified and is worth about $4,000. It was the transfer of this balance and the surrender of this rejected lumber that appellant sought in the court below. "October 31, 1910, the Georgian Bay Company made a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors, which was properly filed the following November 7th; and on the 9th of that month the company was adjudicated a bankrupt. At the time there remained due from the bankrupt to Mrs. Zengerle $7,100. C. M. Zengerle is the husband of Margaret Zengerle, and was the president of the Georgian Bay Company; the notes payable to his wife represented loans of money belonging to her; and in negotiating those loans and in the transaction had under the bill of sale, he acted as her agent and as president of the company. The theory of the court below was that the bill of sale (February 2, 1910) was intended merely as security and, not having been deposited in accordance with Sec. 4150 (2 Bates’ Ann. Ohio Stat., p. 2302) concerning STELLWAGEN v. CLUM. 609 605. Opinion of the Court. chattel mortgages, was null and void; that the transfer (May 5th) of balance accruing October 1st from Schuette & Co. was made with intent to hinder and delay creditors, when, according to the laws and the rule of judicial decision of the State of Ohio, the Georgian Bay Company was insolvent, though not according to the Bankruptcy Act; that Margaret Zengerle was, through her agent, C. M. Zengerle, chargeable with knowledge of such intent and insolvency, and the Savings Bank was not; that as to Margaret Zengerle the transfer was null and void and so was set aside, but that the Savings Bank was entitled to be paid out of the balance of the Schuette account. No appeal was taken from the portion of the decree which allowed recovery by the Savings Bank.” The statutes of the State of Ohio in question are §§ 6343 and 6344 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio as amended April 30, 1908, 99 Ohio Laws, 241, 242. These sections were rearranged under the General Code of Ohio approved February 15, 1910, wherein they appear as §§ 11102 to 11107, inclusive. (These sections are given in the certificate, as they stood February 2, 1910, and are found in the margin.1) 1 Sec. 6343. Every sale, conveyance, transfer, mortgage or assignment, made in trust or otherwise by a debtor or debtors, and every judgment suffered by him or them against himself or themselves in contemplation of insolvency, and with a design to prefer one or more creditors to the exclusion in whole or in part of others, and every sale, conveyance, transfer, mortgage or assignment made, or judgment procured by him or them to be rendered, in any maimer, with intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, shall be declared void as to creditors of such debtor or debtors at the suit of any creditor or creditors, and in any suit brought by any creditor or creditors of such debtor or debtors for the purpose of declaring such sale void, a receiver may be appointed who shall take charge of all the assets of such debtor or debtors, including the property so sold, conveyed, transferred, mortgaged, or assigned, which receiver shall adminster all the assets of the debtor or debtors for the equal benefit of the creditors of the debtor or debt 610 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 U. S. The claim is stated to be that § 6343 when considered in connection with the chapter concerning insolvent debtors is suspended by the Bankruptcy Act. Reliance is had for this contention upon the following portion of § 6343 which provides: “a receiver may be appointed who shall take charge of all the assets of such debtor or debtors, including the property so sold, conveyed, transferred, mortgaged, or assigned, which receiver shall administer all the ors in proportion to the amount of their respective demands, including those which are unmatured. Provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply unless the person, or persons to whom such sale, conveyance, transfer, mortgage or assignment be made, knew of such fraudulent intent on the part of such debtor or debtors, and provided, further, that nothing in this section contained shall vitiate or affect any mortgage made in good faith to secure any debt or liability created simultaneously with such mortgage, if such mortgage be filed for record in the county wherein the property is situated, or as otherwise provided by law, within three (3) days after its execution, and where, upon foreclosure or taking possession of such property, the mortgagee fully accounts for the proceeds of such property. Every sale or transfer of any portion of a stock of goods, wares or merchandise otherwise than in the ordinary course of trade in the regular and usual prosecution of the seller’s or transferrer’s business, or the sale or transfer of an entire stock in bulk shall be presumed to be made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors within the meaning of this section, unless the seller or transferrer shall, not less than seven (7) days previous to the transfer of the stock of goods sold or intended to be sold, and the payment of the money thereof, cause to be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which such seller or transferrer conducts his business, and in the office of the county recorder of the county or counties in which such goods are located, a notice of his intention to make such sale or transfer, which notice shall be in writing describing in general terms the property to be sold and all conditions of such sale and the parties thereto; excepting, however, that no such presumption shall arise because of the failure to record notice as above provided in the case of any sale or transfer made under the direction or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or by an executor, administrator, guardian, receiver, assignee for the benefit of creditors or other officer or person acting in the regular and STELLWAGEN v. CLUM. 611 605. Opinion of the Court. assets of the debtor or debtors for the equal benefit of the creditors of the debtor or debtors in proportion to the amount of their respective demands, including those which are Unmatured.” The questions propounded are: “ (a) Whether the Bankruptcy Act of the United States, in force on the dates herein mentioned, operated to suspend section 6343 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, as such section stood February 2, 1910. “(b) Whether the Bankruptcy Act operated to suspend the sections into which section 6343 was divided and numbered, February 15, 1910, by the General Code of Ohio, to-wit, sections 11102, 11103, 11104 and 11105, as such sections existed May 5, 1910. 1 ‘(c) If the Bankruptcy Act did not operate to suspend in their entirety the several sections of the Ohio statutes mentioned in the preceding questions, whether such suspension extended only to the portions thereof which in proper discharge of official duty or in the discharge of any trust imposed upon him by law, nor in the case of any sale or transfer of any property exempt from execution. Sec. 6344. Any creditor or creditors, as to whom any of the acts or things prohibited in the preceding section are void, whether the claim of such creditor or creditors has matured or will thereafter mature, may commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to have such acts or things declared void. And such court shall appoint a trustee or receiver according to the provisions of this chapter, who upon being duly qualified shall proceed by due course of law to recover possession of all property so sold, conveyed, transferred, mortgaged or assigned, and to administer the same for the equal benefit of all creditors, as in other cases of assignments to trustees for the benefit of creditors. And any assignee as to whom any thing or act mentioned in the preceding section shall be void, shall likewise commence a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover possession of all property so sold, conveyed, transferred, mortgaged or assigned, and shall administer the same for the equal benefit of all creditors as in other cases of assignments to trustees for the benefit of creditors. (99 Ohio Laws, 241, 242.) 612 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 U. S. terms appropriated, for the benefit of all the creditors, the property of the debtor not specifically described in the bill of sale and transfer of account in dispute.” The Circuit Court of Appeals also sends an opinion in re the certification aforesaid, in which the court says that it is disposed to hold that if the provisions of the Ohio statutes were suspended, the appellant is entitled in behalf of Margaret Zengerle to recover, otherwise the trustee in bankruptcy is entitled to hold the balance due from Schuette & Company and the lumber rejected by them, and administer the same as part of the estate of the bankrupt for the benefit of its general creditors. The court states that as between Mrs. Zengerle and the general creditors of the Georgian Bay Company, there was sufficient delivery of possession of lumber covered by the bill of sale to dispense with the necessity of depositing the instrument with the county recorder. The sale subsequently made to Schuette & Company, upon the consent of Mrs. Zengerle’s trustee, was a distinct recognition of the intent and effect of the bill of sale, and the marking of the piles of lumber, and the transfer of account made two days later was manifestly designed at once to execute the transaction involved under the bill, and transfer the rights thereunder of Mrs. Zengerle, as well as of the Savings Bank, to the sales’ proceeds. The court further says, upon the hypothesis that the state statutes are suspended, that because more than four months elapsed between the delivery of the bill of sale, as also of the transfer of account, and the bankruptcy, the trustee cannot by virtue of the Bankruptcy Act alone question the validity of either of those instruments. The court adds that if the state statutes were not suspended, the general creditors acquired rights to have the instruments in dispute set aside because, under the facts shown, the company was not able to meet its debts as they fell due, and so, was insolvent; and, further, the instruments in terms were STELLWAGEN v. CLUM. 613 605. Opinion of the Court. made to a trustee. The rights so vested in the creditors being enforcible at any time within four years under the Ohio law. The Federal Constitution, Article I, § 8, gives Congress the power to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy throughout the United States. In view of this grant of authority to the Congress it has been settled from an early date that state laws to the extent that they conflict with the laws of Congress, enacted under its constitutional authority, on the subject of bankruptcies are suspended. While this is true, state laws are thus suspended only to the extent of actual conflict with the system provided by the Bankruptcy Act of Congress. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213. Notwithstanding this requirement as to uniformity the bankruptcy acts of Congress may recognize the laws of the State in certain particulars, although such recognition may lead to different results in different States. For example, the Bankruptcy Act recognizes and enforces the laws of the States affecting dower, exemptions, the validity of mortgages, priorities of payment and the like. Such recognition in the application of state laws does not affect the constitutionality of the Bankruptcy Act, although in these particulars the operation of the act is not alike in all the States. Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181, 188, 189, 190. True it is that general assignments for the benefit of creditors are acts of bankruptcy, Act of 1898, § 3, clause 4, and since the amendment of 1903, 32 Stat. 797, a receivership of an insolvent debtor with a view to distribution of his property for the benefit of creditors will have the like effect. 1 Loveland on Bankruptcy, 4th ed., § 153. In such cases the bankruptcy proceedings, taken within four months, displace those in the state court and terminate the jurisdiction of the latter. Randolph v. Scruggs, 190 U. S. 533, 537; In re Watts & Sachs, 190 U. S. 614 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 U. S. 1, 31. But it does not follow that state statutes intended to avoid conveyances actually or constructively fraudulent and thereby to promote the equal distribution of insolvent estates, may not be availed of by the trustee. Section 70e of the Bankruptcy Act provides: “The trustee may avoid any transfer by the bankrupt of his property which any creditor of such bankrupt might have avoided, and may recover the property so transferred, or its value, from the person to whom it was transferred, unless he was a bona fide holder for value prior to the date of the adjudication. Such property may be recovered or its value collected from whoever may have received it, except a bona fide holder for value. For the purpose of such recovery any court of bankruptcy as hereinbefore defined, and any State court which would have had jurisdiction if bankruptcy had not intervened, shall have concurrent jurisdiction.” This section as construed by this court gives the trustee in bankruptcy a right of action to recover property transferred in violation of state law. Security Warehousing Co. v. Hand, 206 U. S. 415, 425, 426; Knapp v. Milwaukee Trust Co., 216 U. S. 545, 557. And a right of action under this subdivision is not subject to the four months’ limitation of other sections (60b, 67e) of the Bankruptcy Act. Under this subdivision if a creditor could have avoided a transfer under a state law, a trustee may do the same. In re Mullen, 101 Fed. Rep. 413 (opinion by Judge Lowell); 1 Loveland on Bankruptcy, 4th ed. 786, 787; Collier on Bankruptcy, 11th ed., p. 1178, and cases cited in note 439. Turning now to the sections of the Ohio laws in question,—the right to proceed by course of law to recover particular property transferred as prohibited in § 6344, and to cause the same to be administered for the equal benefit of creditors, as in cases of assignment to trustees for the benefit of creditors, has long been part of the stat STELLWAGEN v. CLUM. . 615 605. Opinion of the Court. utory law of Ohio. The part in § 6343 which enables the court to appoint a receiver to take charge of all the assets of the debtor or debtors, including the property conveyed, and administer the same for the equal benefit of creditors, is the new feature of the law. It is apparent that this section intends to permit the appointment of a receiver to take charge of all the assets of the debtor when the provisions of the statute apply as to the debtor and his transferee, and the latter is required to know of the fraudulent intent on the part of the debtor. Creditors are not thereby deprived of rights, but in case of bankruptcy proceedings within four months of a general assignment for creditors as was the case here, the property may be brought into the bankruptcy court, or, as in this case, may be in its possession and be retained in that court to be administered for the benefit of general creditors. This state statute is not opposed to the policy of the bankruptcy law or in contravention of the rules and principles established by it with a view to the fair distribution of the assets of the insolvent. It is only state laws which conflict with the bankruptcy laws of Congress that are suspended; those which are in aid of the Bankruptcy Act can stand. Miller v. New Orleans Fertilizer Co., 211 U. S. 496. This view of the sections in question was taken by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, in In re Farrell, 176 Fed. Rep. 505, 509, 510, wherein in the opinion it was said that the changes made by the new statutes were in harmony with the policy of the Bankruptcy Act and in aid of its purposes. There is much discussion in the books as to what constitutes a bankruptcy act as distinguished from an insolvency law. It is settled that a State may not pass an insolvency law which provides for a discharge of the debtor from his obligations, which shall have the effect of a bankruptcy discharge as to creditors in other States, and this although no general federal bankruptcy act is in effect. 616 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 U. S. And while it is not necessary to decide that there may not be state insolvent laws which are suspended although not providing for a discharge of indebtedness, all the cases lay stress upon the fact that one of the principal requisites of a true bankruptcy law is for the benefit of the debtor in that it discharges his future acquired property from the obligation of existing debts. In the case of Mayer v. Hellman, 91 U. S. 496, this court had before it, while the Bankruptcy Act of 1867 was in force, the question of the validity of the assignment of an insolvent, in Ohio, to trustees for the benefit of all his creditors executed six months before the proceedings in bankruptcy had been taken, and it was held that the assignment was good and the assignees in bankruptcy not entitled to the possession of the property. Mr. Justice Field, in delivering the opinion of the court, said: “In the argument of the counsel of the defendant in error, the position is taken that the Bankrupt Act suspends the operation of the act of Ohio regulating the mode of administering assignments for the benefit of creditors, treating the latter as an insolvent law of the State. The answer is, that the statute of Ohio is not an insolvent law in any proper sense of the term. It does not compel, or in terms even authorize, assignments: it assumes that such instruments were conveyances previously known, and only prescribes a mode by which the trust created shall be enforced. It provides for the security of the creditors by exacting a bond from the trustees for the discharge of their duties; it requires them to file statements showing what they have done with the property; and affords in various ways the means of compelling them to carry out the purposes of the conveyance. There is nothing in the act resembling an insolvent law. It does not discharge the insolvent from arrest or imprisonment: it leaves his after-acquired property liable to his creditors precisely as though no assignment had been made. The provisions STELLWAGEN v. CLUM. 617 605. Opinion of the Court. for enforcing a trust are substantially such, as a court of chancery would apply in the absence of any statutory provision. The assignment in this case must, therefore, be regarded as though the statute of Ohio, to which reference is made, had no existence. There is an insolvent law in that State; but the assignment in question was not made in pursuance of any of its provisions. The position, therefore, of counsel, that the Bankrupt Law of Congress suspends all proceedings under the Insolvent Law of the State, has no application.” The federal system of bankruptcy is designed not only to distribute the property of the debtor, not by law exempted, fairly and equally among his creditors, but as a main purpose of the act, intends to aid the unfortunate debtor by giving him a fresh start in life, free from debts, except of a certain character, after the property which he owned at the time of bankruptcy has been administered for the benefit of creditors. Our decisions lay great stress upon this feature of the law—as one not only of private but of great public interest in that it secures to the unfortunate debtor, who surrenders his property for distribution, a new opportunity in life. Neal v. Clark, 95 U. S. 704, 709; Traer v. Clews, 115 U. S. 528, 541; Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181, 192; Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U. S. 68, 77; Burlingham v. Crouse, 228 U. S. 459, 473. This feature of a bankruptcy law is wholly wanting in the Ohio statutes under consideration. Indeed, there is not now, any more than when Mayer v. Hellman, supra, was decided, any attempt in the Ohio laws to provide for the discharge of the debtor from his existing debts. If the Ohio statutes in the feature now under consideration be suspended, it would follow that a person in Ohio might successfully claim a part of the estate which is being administered in bankruptcy, although the conveyance under which the property is claimed is voidable under the laws of the State where it was made and the alleged right 618 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Syllabus. 245 U. S. in the property secured. We think that Congress in the Bankruptcy Act did not intend any such result, but meant to permit the trustee in bankruptcy to have the benefit of state laws of this character which do not conflict with the aims and purposes of the federal law.. And certainly, in view of the provisions of § 70e of the Bankruptcy Act, Congress did not intend to permit a conveyance such as is here involved to stand which creditors might attack and avoid under the state law for the benefit of general creditors of the estate. From what we have said it follows that Questions A and B should be answered in the negative, and it is unnecessary to answer Question C. So ordered. WEEKS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF O. J. WEEKS & COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 109. Submitted January 2, 1918.—Decided February 4, 1918. The Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915, § 8, 34 Stat. 768, specifies and defines at least two kinds of “misbranding”—one where the article bears a false or misleading label, and the other where it is offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article. In either case, it is not the misbranding that is made unlawful, but the shipment or delivery for shipment from one State to another, of the misbranded article. That this is a legitimate exertion of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce is settled by previous decisions. It is also settled that the negotiation of sales of goods which are in WEEKS v. UNITED STATES. 619 618. Opinion of the Court. another State, for the purpose of introducing them into the State in which the negotiation is made, is interstate commerce. Upon a charge of misbranding by offering for sale under the distinctive name of another article, held, that the trial court properly received evidence that the shipment was made to fill an order obtained by the defendant’s agent by so misrepresenting the article, and properly declined to confine the jury’s attention to the label borne by the article when it was shipped. Whether the court below was correct in viewing intent as not an element in such a case and so in holding that sanction by defendant of his agent’s misrepresentations was immaterial, this court need not determine, since the trial court instructed the jury that such authority must appear beyond reasonable doubt, and, as the record neither shows that defendant objected to this mode of submitting the question nor purports to contain all the evidence, the verdict of guilty must be taken as determining conclusively that he sanctioned the representations. 224 Fed. Rep. 64, affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Walter Jeffreys Carlin for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson for the United States. Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the. opinion of the court. This was a prosecution under the Act of June 30, 1906’ c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768, upon a charge of shipping an article of food in interstate commerce in circumstances making the shipment a violation of the act. The information contained two counts, both charging that the article was misbranded,—one because it bore a false and misleading label, and the other because it was offered for sale as lemon oil when in truth it was an imitation thereof containing alcohol and citral derived from lemon grass. In the District Court there was a conviction upon both counts, and the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction as 620 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 U. S. to the first count and affirmed it as to the second. 224 Fed. Rep. 64. The judgment upon the latter is all that is brought here for review. The defendant was engaged in making and selling various articles of food used by bakers, confectioners and ice cream makers, including the article with which this prosecution is concerned. On the occasion in question he shipped from one State to another a quantity of this article labeled “Special Lemon. Lemon Terpene and Citral.” The printed record, although not purporting to contain all the evidence, shows that there was testimony tending to prove the following facts, among others: The shipment was made to fill an order solicited and taken by a traveling salesman in the defendant’s employ. The salesman had been supplied by the defendant with a sample bottle of the article which was labeled simply “Special Lemon.” In offering the article for sale and soliciting the order the salesman exhibited the sample and represented that the article was pure lemon oil obtained by a second pressing and that this pressing produced a good, if not the best, oil. In truth the article was not lemon oil, but an imitation thereof containing alcohol and citral made froip lemon grass. Some of the elements of lemon oil were present in other than the usual proportions and others were entirely wanting. The testimony respecting the salesman’s representations was admitted over the defendant’s objection; and later the court denied a request on the part of the defendant that the jury be instructed that this testimony could not be considered, but only the statement appearing on the label when the article was shipped. In that connection the court told the jury that the defendant could not be held responsible criminally by reason of any representations made by the salesman unless it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt that the same were made by the defendant’s authority. WEEKS v. UNITED STATES. 621 618. Opinion of the Court. The defendant, who is the petitioner here, complains of the admission and consideration of this testimony and insists that under the statute the question whether an article is misbranded turns entirely upon how it is labeled when it is shipped, regardless of any representations made by a salesman, or even the vendor, in offering it for sale. The statute, in its second section, makes it unlawful to ship or deliver for shipment from one State to another “any article of food or drugs which is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act.” In its eighth section it declares: “That the term ‘misbranded,’ as used herein, shall apply to all drugs, or articles of food, or articles which enter into the composition of food, the package or label of which shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding such article, or the ingredients or substances contained therein which shall be false or misleading in any particular, and to any food or drug product which is falsely branded as to the State, Territory, or country in which it is manufactured or produced. “That for the purposes of this Act an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded: “In the case of drugs: ******** “In the case of food: “First. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.” This section contains other provisions relating to misbranding, but they are not material here and need not be set forth or specially noticed. It is apparent that the statute specifies and defines at least two kinds of misbranding,—one where the article bears a false or misleading label, and the other where it is offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article. The two are quite distinct, a deceptive label being an essential element of one, but not of the other. No 622 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Opinion of the Court. 245 U. S. doubt both involve a measure of deception, but they differ in respect of the mode in which it is practiced. Evidently each is intended to cover a field of its own, for otherwise there would be no occasion for specifying and defining both. That one article of food may be offered for sale in the distinctive name of another, and the offer accomplish its purpose, without the aid of a false or misleading label hardly needs statement. The statute does not attempt to make either kind of misbranding unlawful in itself, but does, as before indicated, make it unlawful to ship or deliver for shipment from one State to another an article of food which is misbranded in either way. That this is a legitimate exertion of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce is settled by our decisions. Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45; McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 115, 128; Seven Cases of Eckman’s Alterative v. United States, 239 U. S. 510, 514. It also is settled by our decisions that “the negotiation of sales of goods which are in another State, for the purpose of introducing them into the State in which the negotiation is made, is interstate commerce.” Robbins v. Shelby Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489, 497; Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389, 396. It follows that the testimony respecting the representations of the defendant’s traveling salesman was rightly admitted in evidence and submitted to the jury. It tended to prove that the order, to fill which the shipment was made, was obtained by offering the article for sale in the distinctive name of another article, and therefore that the article was misbranded within the meaning of the statute. To have confined the jury’s attention to the label borne by the article when it was shipped, as was requested by the defendant, would have been to disregard the nature of the charge in the second count and the distinction between the two kinds of misbranding. In the Circuit Court of Appeals the view was expressed WEEKS v. UNITED STATES. 623 618. Opinion of the Court. that intent was not an element of the offense charged in the second count and therefore that it was immaterial whether the representations of the salesman had the sanction of the defendant. Complaint is now made of this. But the question is not in the case, the view expressed by the Circuit Court of Appeals not being essential to an affirmance of the judgment. The District Court had expressly instructed the jury that to hold the defendant responsible criminally by reason of such representations it must appear, and appear beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were made by his authority. The record before us does not show that the defendant objected to the submission of this question to the jury in this way; neither does it purport to contain all the evidence. The verdict therefore must be taken as conclusively determining that the representations were made with the defendant’s sanction. Judgment affirmed. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 625 245 U. S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. DECISIONS PER CURIAM, FROM OCTOBER 1, 1917, TO MARCH 4, 1918, NOT INCLUDING ACTION ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI. No. 173. Ricardo Ascarate, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of New Mexico. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico. Motion to dismiss submitted October 1, 1917. Decided October 8, 1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78; Ensign v. Pennsylvania, 227 U. S. 592, 597, 598; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 342. Mr. Edward C. Wade, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Frank W. Clancy for defendant in error. No. —. Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of John E. Reade, Petitioner. Submitted October 1, 1917. Decided October 8,1917. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Mr. 0. T. Richey for petitioner. No. 3. Tremont Lumber Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mrs. Nora Reagan. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Submitted October 12, 1917. Decided October 15,1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of (1) Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13; (2) Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 412. Mr. John C. Theus for plaintiff in error. Mr. S. D. Pearce and Mr. H. Garland Dupre for defendant in error. 626 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 245 U. S. No. 236. City of Chelsea, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Boston. In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts. Motion to dismiss submitted October 8, 1917. Decided October 15, 1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 137; Easterling Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 235 U. S. 380; (2) Worcester v. Worcester Consolidated Street Ry., 196 U. S. 539; Kies v. Lowrey, 199 U. S. 233; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14. Mr. Wilton J. Lambert, Mr. Louis R. Kiernan and Mr. Samuel R. Cutler for plaintiff in error. Mr. John A. Sullivan and Mr. Joseph P. Lyons for defendant in error. No. 485. Clara A. Wheeler et al., Appellants, v. City and County of Denver et al. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 1, 1917. Decided October 15,1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285; Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 455; Hendricks v. United States, 223 U. S. 178, 184. See City and County of Denver v. New York Trust Co., City and County of Denver v. Denver Union Water Co., 229 U. S. 123; Wheeler v. City and County of Denver, 229 U. S. 342, 352; (2) Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359; Loeb v. Columbia Township, 179 U. S. 472; Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288; Boise Water Co. v. Boise City, 230 U. S. 98. Mr. Clayton C. Dorsey, Mr. Edwin H. Park and Mr. Henry A. Lindsley for appellants. Mr. James A. Marsh and Mr. Norton Montgomery for appellees. No. 619. J. M. Kellogg, Executor, Estate of Mrs. Mary H. Miles, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, vt OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 627 245 U. S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. Letitia King, Administratrix, Estate of Charles L. King, Deceased. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 8, 1917. Decided October 15, 1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Telluride Power & Transmission Co. v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 639; First National Bank v. Estherville, 215 U. S. 341; (2) Choteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200; San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65; Wood v. Chesbrough, 228 U. S. 672. Mr. E. F. Noel for plaintiff in error. Mr. William H. Watkins for defendant in error. No. 28. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of Kansas ex rel. S. M. Brewster, Attorney General, etc., et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Submitted October 18,1917. Decided November 5,1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350. Mr. Paul E. Walker for plaintiff in error. Mr. James P. Coleman and Mr. F. P. Lindsay for defendants in error. No. 280. B. V. Moore, Plaintiff in Error, v. S. A. Olsness, Commissioner of Insurance of the State of North Dakota, et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 17,1917. Decided November 5, 1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Manhattan Life Ins, Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 137; (2) Butler v. 628 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 245 U. S. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 402, 415, 416; Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U. S. 548, 559; Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548; Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S. 586; (3) Railroad Company v. County of Otoe, 16 Wall. 667, 676; Kies v. Lowrey, 199 U. S. 233; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14; Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175. Mr. Aubrey Lawrence for plaintiff in error. Mr. William Langer for defendants in error. No. 34. United States of America for the use of T. H. Kessler & Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Title Guaranty & Surety Company. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Argued November 8, 1917. Decided November 12, 1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Illinois Surety Co. v. Peeler, 240 U. S. 214, and cause remanded to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Texas. Mr. James A. Baker, Mr. Samuel B. Dabney and Mr. Claudian B. Northrop for plaintiff in error. Mr. Lewis R. Bryan for defendant in error, submitted. No. 35. E. O. Ellison, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of La Moure et al.; and No. 36. David Lloyd, Plaintif in Error, v. City of La Moure et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota. Argued November 8, 9, 1917. Decided November 12, 1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Kansas City Star v. Julian, 215 U. S. 589; McCorquodale V. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 437; St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240, 241. Mr. S. E. Ellsworth for plaintiffs in error. No brief filed for defendants in error. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 629 245 U. S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. No. 150. Eugene W. Moran, Plaintiff in Error, v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey. In error to the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey. Submitted November 5, 1917. Decided November 12, 1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177; Lehigh Valley R. R, Co. v. Barlow, 244 U. S. 183. Mr. Frank M. Harden-brook for plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles E. Miller for defendant in error. No. 350. Helen Bell, as Administratrix of George Bell, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company. In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. Motion to dismiss or affirm or place on summary docket submitted November 5, 1917. Decided November 12, 1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 242 U. S. 169. Mr. Alan D. Cole for plaintiff in error. Mr. E. L. Worthington, Mr. W. D. Cochran and Mr. LeWright Browning for defendant in error. No. 366. William A. Trogler et al., Appellants, v. United States et al. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Argued November 5, 1917. Decided November 12, 1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Whitney v. Dick, 202 U. S. 132, 135; McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 278; (2) Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138, 148-150; McCandless v. Pratt, 211 U. S. 437, 440. Mr. Edwin H. Park for appellants. 630 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 245 U. S. The Solicitor General and Mr. Archibald A. Lee for appellees. No. 59. Bellows Falls Power Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts. Argued November 16, 1917. Decided November 19, 1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Manhattan Life Insurance Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 137; Easterling Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 235 U. S. 380. See Hamilton Company v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632. Mr. Richard Y. FitzGerald for plaintiff in error. Mr. Henry C. Attwill and Mr. William Harold Hitchcock for defendant in error. No. 49. Francis Stephen Medcraf, Appellant, v. Robert T. Hodge, as Sheriff of King County, Washington. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington. Argued November 14, 15, 1917. Decided November 19, 1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 251; In re Frederick, 149 U. S. 70, 77; Markuson v. Boucher, 175 U. S. 184; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 328, 329. Mr. Cassius E. Gates and Mr. W. B. Stratton for appellant. Mr. Alfred C. Lundin and Mr. H. M. Caldwell for appellee. No. 42. American Radiator Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John F. Rogge, Administrator of the Es- OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 631 245 U. S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. tate of John F. Rogge, Jr., Deceased. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey. Argued November 12, 13, 1917. Decided November 19, 1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291; Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258; Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, 529. Mr. Franklin W. Fort, Mr. John Franklin Fort and Mr. J. G. Shipman for plaintiff in error. Mr. John K. English for defendant in error. No. 69. Enterprise Railway Equipment Company, Appellant, v. Norfolk & Western Railway Company. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Submitted November 16, 1917. Decided November 19, 1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 530; W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co., 236 U. S. 723. Mr. H. N. Low and Mr. George I. Haight for appellant. Mr. Theodore W. Reath and Mr. Robert J. Fisher for appellee. No. 47. Chicago Car Heating Company, Appellant, v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Company. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Submitted November 9, 1917. Decided November 19, 1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 530; W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co., 236 U. S. 723. Mr. Otto Raymond Barnett for appellant. Mr. William A. Redding, Mr. Edward Rector and Mr. Arthur C. Frazer for appellee. 632 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 245 U. S. No. 46. Germania Refining Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Oram el B. Fuller, Auditor General et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan. Argued November 14,1917. Decided November 19, 1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70; Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Lynch, 177 U. S. 149. Mr. Charles D. Chamberlin for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Alexander J. Groesbeck and Mr. Samuel D. Pepper for defendants in error, submitted. No. 57. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Joseph M. McCollum, Administrator of the Estate of Joseph William Roebuck. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana. Submitted November 13, 1917. Decided November 26, 1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36, 52, 53; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78; Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U. S. 225,235; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518. Mr. Morison R. Waite and Mr. Harvey J. Elam for plaintiff in error. Mr. Merrill Moores for defendant in error. No. 163. John E. Roller, Plaintiff in Error, v. Charles Catlett, Trustee. In error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. Motion to dismiss submitted November 26, 1917. Decided December 10,1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, 105; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 633 245 U. S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14. Mr. John E. Roller pro se. Mr. Rudolph Bumgardner for defendant in error. No. 507. Elina Skarderud, Plaintiff in Error, v. Tax Commission of the State of North Dakota. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota. Submitted November 23, 1917. Decided December 10, 1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Duus v. Brown, this day decided, ante, 176. Mr. Edward Engerud for plaintiff in error. Mr. William Langer for defendant in error. No. 83. Menasha Wooden Ware Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway. In error to the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, State of Wisconsin. Argued November 23, 1917. Decided December 10, 1917. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 80 et seq.; Louis. & Nash. R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467; Portland Railway &c. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Oregon, 229 U. S. 397, 412, 413; New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Gray, 239 U. S. 583. Mr. A. E. Thompson and Mr. J. C. Thompson for plaintiff in error, submitted. Mr. William A. Hayes and Mr. Alfred H. Bright for defendant in error. No. 601. Midland Valley Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mrs. Maude Griffith, Adminis 634 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 245 U. S. tratrix, etc. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Motion to dismiss or affirm and for damages submitted December 10, 1917. Decided December 17, 1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction with five per cent, damages, upon the authority of § 237, Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Congress of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726; Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Carter, 244 U. S. 646. (Petition for a writ of certiorari denied October 15, 1917, infra, 653.) Mr. L. T. Michener for plaintiff in error. Mr. W. L. Cunningham and Mr. C. T. Atkinson for defendant in error. No. 697. Sidney J. Brooks, Receiver, etc., Appellant, v. Empire Trust Company et al. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted December 10,1917. Decided December 17, 1917. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47; Gregory v. Van Ee, 160 U. S. 643; St. Louis, K. C. & C. R. R. Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co., 217 U. S. 247, 250; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561; (2) Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 545; Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47, 60; Carey v. Houston & Texas Central R. Co., 161 U. S. 115. Mr. Joseph W. Bailey and Mr. Chester H. Terrell for appellant. Mr. Thomas H. Franklin and Mr. Stephen H. Olin for appellees. No. 90. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, Appellant, v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Douglas, State of Colorado, et al. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Argued December 14, OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 635 245 U. S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 1917. Decided January 7,1918. Per Curiam, Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 671; Covington v. First National Bank, 185 U. S. 270; MacFarland v. Byrnes, 187 U. S. 246; United States v. Beatty, 232 U. S. 463. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Mr. S. T. Bledsoe, Mr. Gardiner Lathrop and Mr. Henry T. Rogers for appellant. Mr. A. L. Doud and Mr. B. C. Hilliard for appellees. No. 112. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. E. Vasbinder. In error to the Court of Civil Appeals, Fourth Supreme Judicial District, State of Texas. Argued January 2, 1918. Decided January 7, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed with costs upon the authority of Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592; American Express Co. v. United States Horse Shoe Co., 244 U. S. 58. Mr. Alexander Britton, Mr. J. W. Terry, Mr. Gardiner Lathrop, Mr. A. H. Culwell, Mr. Evans Browne and Mr. F. W. Clements for plaintiff in error. Mr. R. H. Ward for defendant in error, submitted. No. 607. State of Missouri on the relation of the American Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. George D. Reynolds, Albert D. Nortoni, and William H. Allen, Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and Louis Alt. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Submitted January 2, 1918. Decided January 7, 1918. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of 636 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 245 U. S. § 237, Judicial Code, as amended by- the Act of Congress of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726; Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Carter, 244 U. S. 646; Midland Valley R. R. Co. v. Griffith, ante, 633. (Petition for a writ of certiorari denied October 15, 1917, infra, 650.) Mr. Shepard Barclay for plaintiff in error. Mr. E. C. Slevin for defendants in error. No. 644. Minnie Evvia Stadelman et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. W. H. Miner et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. Submitted January 2, 1918. Decided January 7, 1918. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291, 301; Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258, 263; Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, 529; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 134. Mr. John M. Gearin for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Guy C. H. Corliss for defendants in error. No. 108. Harry Susman, Appellant, v. Board of Education of the School District of Pittsburgh. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Argued January 2, 1918. Decided January 14, 1918. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. 210, 217; Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112; Soliah v. Heskin, 222 U. S. 522; (2) Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, 105; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Ennis Water Works v. Ennis, 233 U. S. 652, 658; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14. Mr. Andrew G. Smith, Mr. W. H. Dodds and Mr. James M. Beck for appellant. Mr. J. Roger McCreary and Mr. Samuel S. Mehard for appellee. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 637 245 U. S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. No. 125. Archibald E. Brightman, Plaintiff in Error, v. Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company. In error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. Argued January 7, 1918. Decided January 14, 1918. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285; Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 455; Hendricks v. United States, 223 U. S. 178, 184; (2) St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545; Southern Ry. Co. v. Allison, 190 U. S. 236; Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards, 194 U. S. 377, 381; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Castle, 224 U. S. 541, 546. Mr. William V. Rooker for plaintiff in error. Mr. Samuel D. Miller, Mr. W. H. Thompson, Mr. John B. Cockrum and Mr. W. H. H. Miller for defendant in error. No. 116. Police Jury of the Parish of Acadia, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Crowley. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Argued January 4,1918. Decided January 21,1918. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192; McCandless v. Pratt, 211 U. S. 437; Marshall v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14. Mr. A. P. Holt and Mr. P. J. Chappuis for plaintiff in error. Mr. Philip S. Pugh and Mr. James E. Zunts for defendant in error. No. 202. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Ella Dutton, as Administratrix of the Estate of Lee Dutton, Deceased. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina. Argued January 18, 1918. Decided January 21, 638 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 245 U. S. 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Knapp, 240 U. S. 464; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 242 U. S. 169; Southern Ry. Co. v. Puckett, 244 U. S. 571, 574. Mr. P. A. Willcox, Mr. Lucian W. McLemore, Mr. Frederic D. McKenney and Mr. J. S. Flannery for plaintiff in error. Mr. L. D. Jennings and Mr. A. S. Harby for defendant in error. No. 391. Railroad Commission of the State of California, Plaintiff in Error, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. Argued January 18, 1918. Decided January 21, 1918. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 116; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Holden Land Co. v. Inter-State Trading Co., 233 U. S. 536, 541; Mellon Co. v. McCafferty, 239 U. S. 134; (2) §237, Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Congress of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726; Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U. S. 162. Mr. Douglas Brookman and Mr. Max Thelen for plaintiff in error. Mr. Robert Dunlap, Mr. E. W. Camp, Mr. E. S. Pillsbury and Mr. Gardiner Lathrop for defendant in error. No. 525. Carey W. Stone, Guardian of Thomas S. Stone, Plaintiff in Error, v. Emmett P. Stone, Next Friend of Thomas S. Stone. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. Argued January 18, 1918. Decided January 21, 1918. Per Curiam. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 639 245 U. S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of § 237, Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Congress of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726; Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Carter, 244 U. S. 646; Midland Valley R. R. Co. v. Griffith, ante, 633. Mr. Clyde A. Douglass, Mr. William C. Douglass, and Mr. Murray Allen for plaintiff in error. Mr. R. W. Winston and Mr. Moses N. Amis for defendant in error. No. 534. People of Porto Rico et al., Appellants, v. Carlos Tapia. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Porto Rico. Argued January 17, 18, 1918. Decided January 21, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed upon the authority of Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197; Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138; Rass-mussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516; Kopel v. Bingham, 211 U. S. 468; Dowdell v. United States, 221 U. S. 91; Porto Rico v. Rosaly, 227 U. S. 270, 274; Ocampo v. United States, 234 U. S. 91, 98. Mr. Edward S. Bailey, Mr. Samuel T. Ansell, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren and Mr. Robert Szold for appellants. Mr. Willis Sweet and Mr. Francis H. Dexter for appellee. No. 647. People of Porto Rico, et al., Plaintiffs in Error and Petitioners, v. Jose Muratti. In error to and on writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Porto Rico. Argued January 17,18,1918. Decided January 21, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed upon the authority of People of Porto Rico v. Tapia, just decided, supra, this page, and authorities therein cited. Mr. Edward S. Bailey, Mr. Samuel T. Ansell, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren and Mr. Robert Szold for plaintiffs in error and 640 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 245 U. S. petitioners. Mr. Willis Sweet and Mr. Francis H. Dexter for defendant in error and respondent. No. 678. Kate P. McNaughton, Appellant, v. W. D. Stephens, Governor of the State of California, et al. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. Submitted January 16, 1918. Decided January 21, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of McNaughton v. Johnson, 242 U. S. 344. Mr. Tom L. Johnston and Mr. James H. Longden for appellant. Mr. U. S. Webb, Mr. Robert M. Clarke, Mr. Thomas Lee Woolwine and Mr. Clifford P. Smith for appellees. No. 679. L. E. Nickell and Robert J. Burke, Appellants, v. W. D. Stephens, Governor of the State of California, et al. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. Submitted January 16, 1918. Decided January 21, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Crane v. Johnson, 242 U. S. 339. Mr. Tom L. Johnston and Mr. James H. Longden for appellants. Mr. U. S. Webb, Mr. Robert M. Clarke, Mr. Thomas Lee Woolwine, Mr. Clifford P. Smith and Mr. A. W. Eckman for appellees. No. 195. Idora Hill Mining Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harry Olson et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho. Motion to dismiss submitted January 14, 1918. Decided January 21, 1918. Dismissed with costs and five per cent, damages for failure to print OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 641 245 U. S. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. the record. Mr. Burton L. French for plaintiff in error. Mr. John W. Keener for defendants in error. No. 153. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Paul D. Cole. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Argued January 24, 1918. Decided January 28, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs and ten per cent, damages upon the authority of Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Knapp, 240 U. S. 464; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 242 U. S. 169; Southern Ry. Co. v. Puckett, 244 U. S. 571, 574. Mr. Alfred A. Scott, Mr. Robert Dunlap and Mr. Gardiner Lathrop for plaintiff in error. Mr. Alfred M. Jackson and Mr. Charles T. Atkinson for defendant in error, submitted. No. 156. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. P. Schnoutz and Texas Midland Railroad Company. In error to the County Court of Kauffman County, State of Texas. Submitted January 25, 1918. Decided January 28, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed upon the authority of Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573, 596-598; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Henderson Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 441; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 653. See Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94. Mr. Alexander Britton, Mr. C. S. Burg, Mr. Joseph M. Bryson and Mr. A. H. McKnight for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error. 642 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions Per Curiam, Etc. 245 U. S. No. 84. Stonebraker-Zea Company, Appellant, v. United States. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Submitted January 23, 1918. Decided January 28, 1918. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed upon the authority of McCaskill Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 504, 514; Washington Securities Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 76, 78; Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 397, 402, 405; Causey v. United States, 240 U. S. 399, 401; and cause remanded to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma. Mr. Henry B. Martin for appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Kearful for the United States. No. 167. John E. Roller, Plaintiff in Error, v. Lindsay M. Armentrout. In error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. Submitted January 25, 1918. Decided January 28, 1918. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, 105; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Ennis Water Works v. Ennis, 233 U. S. 652, 658; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14; (2) Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Holden Land Co. v. Inter-State Trading Co., 233 U. S. 536, 541; Mellon Co. v. McCafferty, 239 U. S. 134. Mr. John E. Roller pro se. Mr. Everett Dulaney Ott for defendant in error. No. 581. State of Ohio on the Relation of The Hartford Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alonzo J. Douds et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. Motion to affirm or place on summary docket submitted January 21, 1918. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 643 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. Decided January 28, 1918. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of § 237, Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Congress of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726; Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U.J8.162. Mr. James C. Jones and Mr. Harry B. Arnold for plaintiff in error. Mr. Smith W. Bennett for defendants in error. No. 369. El Paso Sash and Door Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. E. M. Carraway. In error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Eighth Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted January 28, 1918. Decided February 4, 1918. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 437; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 118; Kansas City Star Co. v. Julian, 215 U. S. 589; St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240, 241; (2) Miller v. Cornwall R. R. Co., 168 U. S. 131, 134; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 84 et seq.; Bowe v. Scott, 233 U. S. 658, 664,665. Mr. Charles B. Braun for plaintiff in error. Mr. Frank G. Morris for defendant in error. DECISIONS ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI, FROM OCTOBER 1,1917, TO MARCH 4, 1918. No. 557. Guerini Stone Company, Petitioner, v. P. J. Carlin Construction Company. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted. Mr. Ed 644 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. ward S. Paine for petitioner. Mr. Charles Hartzell for respondent. No. 568. International News Service, Petitioner, v. The Associated Press. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Samuel Untermyer, Mr. Henry A. Wise, Mr. Louis Marshall and Mr. William A. DeFord for petitioner. Mr. F. B. Jennings, Mr. Peter S. Grosscup and Mr. Winfred T. Denison for respondent. No. 385. Mobile Towing & Wrecking Company, Petitioner, v. The Steamship San Cristobal, etc. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Hannis Taylor and Mr. Palmer Pillans for petitioner. Mr. Gregory L. Smith for respondent. No. 487. Bob Braziel, Petitioner, v. United States. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Theodore Mack and Mr. David B. Trammell, II, for petitioner. No brief for the United States. No. 488. Northwestern Consolidated Milling Company, Petitioner, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 645 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. Minnesota denied. Mr. William Furst for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 511. Bank of Inverness, Petitioner, v. William T. Hayden. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. John W. Cutrer and Mr. 0. G. Johnston for petitioner. Mr. Gerald FitzGerald for respondent. No. 515. Tweedie Trading Company, Petitioner, v. United States. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Ferdinand E. M. Bullowa and Mr. R. J. M. Bullowa for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Thompson for the United States. No. 528. John E. Roller, Petitioner, v. Mary H. Murray et al. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. E. Hilton Jackson for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. No. 529. Northern Central Railway Company, Petitioner, v. United States. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Francis I. Gowen and Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for petitioner. Mr. Assistant to the Attorney General Todd for the United States. 646 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. No. 530. Safety Car Heating & Lighting Company, Petitioner, v. Gould Coupler Company. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York denied. Mr. Thomas J. Johnston, Mr. R. S. Blair and Mr. D. G. Haynes for petitioner. Mr. William Houston Kenyon for respondent. No. 531. Charles W. Anderson, as Collector of Internal Revenue, etc., Petitioner, v. La Rose Consolidated Mines Company. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. The Solicitor General for petitioner. Mr. Richard T. Greene for respondent. No. 537. Noah Parnoski, by Thomas Tiger, Guardian, etc., Petitioner, v. Lucinda Lumkin, for the use and Benefit of Robert Fry et al. October 8,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. Mr. R. C. Allen for petitioner. Mr. A. J. Biddison for respondent. No. 538. E. T. Thurston, Petitioner, v. United States. October 8,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. George G. Clough and Mr. John Ridout for petitioner. The Solicitor General for the United States. No. 548. William T. Abbott, Petitioner, v. Wauchula Manufacturing & Timber Company et al. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 647 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. October 8, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. George H. Lamar for petitioner. Mr. James F. Glen for respondents. No. 549. Thomas J. Scully, Claimant of the Barge I. F. Chapman, Petitioner, v. Jacob Kazarian. October 8,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. James J. Macklin and Mr. Frank V. Barns for petitioner. Mr. Alexander L. Churchill and Mr. Frank Healy for respondent. No. 552. Fred B. Jones, Petitioner, v. Bouker Contracting Company, Claimant, etc. October 8,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Fayette B. Dow for petitioner. Mr. Francis Martin for respondent. No. 553. Frederick Leyland & Company (Ltd.) et al., Petitioners, v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans. October 8,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Henry P. Dart and Mr. Henry P. Dart, Jr., for petitioners. No appearance for respondent. No. 589. Ball Engineering Company, Petitioner, v. J. G. White & Company. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court 648 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. 8. of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Homer S. Cummings, Mr. S. L. Swartz, Mr. Charles D. Lockwood and Mr. Solicitor General Davis for petitioner. Mr. Louis Sperry and Mr. J. Kemp Bartlett for respondent. No. 593. United States, Petitioner, v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. The Solicitor General for the United States. No appearance for respondent. No. 594. United States, Petitioner, v. Biwabik Mining Company. October 15,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. The Solicitor General for the United States. Mr. A. C. Dustin for respondent. No. 600. Capitol Transportation Company, Petitioner, v. Cambria Steel Company. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted. Mr. Frank S. Masten and Mr. George L. Canfield for petitioner. Mr. Francis S. Laws and Mr. William D. Cady for respondent. No. 622. Donatto Fillippon, Petitioner, v. Albion Vein Slate Company. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of 649 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Mr. J. Willard Paff and Mr. Calvin F. Smith for petitioner. Mr. Frank P. Prichard for respondent. No. 632. Texas & Pacific Railway Company et al., Petitioners, v. B. Leatherwood. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, Second Supreme Judicial District, of the State of Texas granted. Mr. George Thompson and Mr. J. H. Barwise, Jr., for petitioners. Mr. D. T. Bomar for respondent. No. 555. Daisy M. Linkous, Administratrix of J. M. Linkous, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Virginian Railway Company. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. W. L. Welborn for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No, 556. Morris Herrmann, as Surviving Partner of Morris Herrmann & Company, Petitioner, v. Henry Bower Chemical Manufacturing Company. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Louis Marshall for petitioner. Mr. James Piper and Mr. George Wharton Pepper for respondent. No. 559. El Monte de Piedad y Caha de Ahorros de Manila, Petitioner, v. Government of the Philip 650 OCTOBER TERM. 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. pine Islands, Represented by the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to thé Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands denied. Mr. Alexander Britton, Mr. Evans Browne and Mr. Thomas L. Hartigan for. petitioner. Mr. Samuel T. Ansell and Mr. Edward S. Bailey for respondent. No. 561. American Manufacturing Company, Petitioner, v. Hon. George D. Reynolds et al., Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and Louis Alt. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri denied. Mr. Shepard Barclay for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. See ante, p. 635. No. 564. J. W. Chapman and P. R. Thompson, Copartners, doing Business under the Firm Name of Chapman & Thompson, Petitioners, v. Java Pacific Line, Stoomvart-maat-schappy Nederland et al. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Eustace Cullinan and Mr. Thomas W. Hickey for petitioners. No appearance for respondents. No. 565. William E. Wallace, Petitioner, v. United States. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Roger L. Foote and Mr. William A. Morrow for petitioner. The Solicitor General for the United States. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 651 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. No. 572. Lewis H. Stanton et al., Petitioners, v. City of Pittsburgh. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania denied. Mr. Richard Townsend and Mr. James T. Lloyd for petitioners. No appearance for respondent. No. 573. Alex. H. Sands, Jr., as Trustee, etc., Petitioner, v. Fred W. Estabrook. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. J. Granville Meyers for petitioner. Mr. Percy D. Trafford for respondent. No. 582. William R. Moore Dry Goods Company et al., Petitioners, v. Eli Brooks, Bankrupt, and J. M. Jarman, Trustee. October 15,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. F. C. Mullinix for petitioners. No appearance for respondents. No. 584. Missouri District Telegraph Company, Petitioner, v. Morris & Company. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Rush Taggart for petitioner. Mr. Luther M. Walter for respondent. No. 585. Parker-Washington Company et al., Petitioners, v. City of St. Louis to the Use of Carroll- 652 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. Porter Boiler & Tank Company. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri denied. Mr. Shepard Barclay for petitioners. Mr. Frederick N. Judson and Mr. John F. Green for respondent. No. 562. Chicago & Alton Railway Company et al., Petitioners, v. Pressed Steel Car Company. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Silas H. Strawn and Mr. John D. Black for petitioners. Mr. Louis H. Freedman, Mr. Andrew W. Sheriff and Mr. Alfred R. Kiddle for respondent. No. 595. Jacob Nellemenn et al., Petitioners, v. The Steamship London, Christian Larsen, Master. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. J. H. Brinton for petitioners. No appearance for respondent. No. 596. Societe Naphtes Transports, Petitioner, v. Bisso Towboat Company et al. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Richard B. Montgomery for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. No. 597. Rolla de Bord, Petitioner, v. Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company. October 15, OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 653 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas denied. Mr. C. B. Reeder for petitioner. Mr. Hiram Glass and Mr. N. H. Lassiter for respondent. No. 599. Margaret C. Harrison et al., Petitioners, v. Florence A. Campbell et al. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri denied. Mr. L. Frank Ottofy for petitioners. Mr. Morton Jourdan, Mr. Frederick N. Judson and Mr. B. Schnurmacher for respondents. No. 601. Midland Valley Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mrs. Maude Griffith, Administratrix, etc. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas denied. Mr. L. T. Michener for plaintiff in error and petitioner. Mr. W. L. Cunningham and Mr. C. T. Atkinson for defendant in error and respondent. See ante, p. 633. No. 602. Midland Valley Railroad Company, Petitioner, v. Armor Bell, Administratrix, etc. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. L. T. Michener and Mr. Farrar L. McCain for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 604. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Petitioner, v. Lansing Steamship 654 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. Company (Inc.). October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. E. G. Buckland for petitioner. Mr. Edward E. Blodgett for respondent. No. 605. Mark J. Gretsch, Petitioner, v. United States. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Mark J. Gretsch, pro se. No brief for the United States. No. 606. Percival Wilds, as Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., Petitioner, v. Department of Education of the City of New York. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Irving L. Ernst for petitioner. Mr. Terence Farley for respondent. No. 608. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, Petitioner, v. Elsie Westling, Administratrix, etc. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas denied. Mr. Alfred A. Scott, Mr. Robert Dunlap and Mr. Gardiner Lathrop for petitioner. Mr. Alfred M. Jackson and Mr. Carroll L. Schwartz for respondent. No. 620. Abram H. Preeman et al., Petitioners, v. United States. October 15, 1917. Petition for a writ of OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 655 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Benjamin C. Bach-rach for petitioners. The Solicitor General and Mr. As-sistant Attorney General Fitts for the United States. No. 640. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, Petitioner, v. United States. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted. Mr. William L. Patton and Mr. Silas H. Strawn for petitioner. No brief for the United States. No. 646. New York Central Railroad Company, Petitioner, v. Samuel Goldberg. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted. Mr. Charles C. Paulding for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 657. Peter Chelentis, Petitioner, v. Lucken-bach Steamship Company, etc. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Fayette B. Dow for petitioner. Mr. Peter S. Carter for respondent. No. 698. P. D. Camp et al., Petitioners, v. Morgan V. Gress. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted. Mr. T. D. Savage for petitioners. Mr. Alexander Akerman for respondent. 656 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. No. 636. B. H. Drees, Petitioner, v. Sarah J. Armstrong et al. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa denied. Mr. Frederick 8. Tyler for petitioner^ No appearance for respondents. No. 637. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Company, Owner, etc., Petitioner, v. Conron Brothers Company et al. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Pierre M. Brown for petitioner. Mr. Mark Ash, Mr. Julius Offenbach, Mr. H. T. Newcomb, Mr. Charles Kelley and Mr. Peter S. Carter for respondents. No. 638. Eugene L. Younge, Petitioner, v. United States. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. James W. Vander vort and Mr. C. M. Hanna for petitioner. No brief for the United States. No. 642. Steamship Queensmore (Ltd.), Claimant, etc., Petitioner, v. Henry Nanninga Company et al. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin and Mr. Charles R. Hickox for petitioner. Mr. William Garrard for respondents. No. 659. Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Company of Texas, Petitioner, v. C. A. Finke. Octo- OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 657 245 U. 8. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. ber 22,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, Eighth Judicial District, of the State of Texas denied. Mr. Herbert S. Garrett for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 675. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company et al., Petitioners, v. J. P. Nelson. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas denied. Mr. Evans Browne, Mr. Robert Dunlap, Mr. J. W. Terry and Mr. Gardiner Lathrop for petitioners. Mr. Thomas H. Franklin and Mr. Floyd McGown for respondent. No. 682. Barber & Company (Inc.), Petitioner, v. Sulzberger & Sons Company. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin, Mr. John M. Woolsey and Mr. D. Roger Englar for petitioner. Mr. Paul D. Cravath and Mr. Stuart McNamara for respondent. No. 687. Florence McDonald et al., Petitioners, v. John F. Ralston et al. October 22,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma denied. Mr. C. W. King for petitioners. No appearance for respondents. No. 692. Iowa State Travelling Men’s Association v. Alma M. Ruge. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals 658 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Robert A. Holland, Jr., and Mr. Thomas G. Rutledge for petitioner. Mr. Lambert E. Walther for respondent. No. 718. City of New Orleans et al., Petitioners, v. Penn Bridge Company. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. I. D. Moore, Mr. H. Generes Dufour and Mr. Edgar H. Farrar for petitioners. Mr. R. C. Milling, Mr. William Grant and Mr. R. E. Milling for respondent. No. 691. Richard Watson, Master, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Mattie Kreszewski, Administratrix, etc., et al. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. George Forbes for petitioners. No appearance for respondents. No. 707. Barnes-Ames Company, Petitioner, v. W. & C. T. Jones Steamship Company (Ltd.). October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Charles S. Haight and Mr. John W. Griffin for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 723. Pocahontas Consolidated Collieries Company (Inc.), Petitioner, v. F. L. Johnson, Administra OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 659 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. tor, etc. October 22, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. S. C. Graham and Mr. Hugh Robert Hawthorne for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 689. S. D. Barrett, Petitioner, v. Virginian Railway Company. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted. Mr. W. L. Welborn for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 445. Bob Terrell, Petitioner, v. United States. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Guy H. Sigler and Mr. James C. Denton for petitioner. The Solicitor General for the United States. No. 516. Corrugated Bar Company, Petitioner, v. Trussed Concrete Company. November 5,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. James A. Carr for petitioner. Mr. Fred L. Chappell for respondent. No. 560. Edward W. Blum, Petitioner, v. Bumiller-Remelin Company. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. George B. Parkinson for petitioner. Mr. Charles L. Sturtevant for respondent. 660 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. No. 655. F. F. Doane, Petitioner, v. California Land Company. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. William B. Ogden and Mr. E. C. Brandenburg for petitioner. Mr. Peyton Gordon for respondent. No. 686. City of Chicago, Petitioner, v. White Transportation Company. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. Samuel A. Ettelson and Mr. Chester E. Cleveland for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 688. Woo Vey, Petitioner, v. United States. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Thomas S. Dunlap and Mr. C. W. Savage for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Fitts for the United States. No. 695. Theodore Dendinger, Petitioner, v. Arthur L. Bear, Tutor, etc. November 5,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana denied. Mr. Henry Mooney and Mr. J. D. Dresner for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 699. Harry Miller et al., Petitioners, v. United States. November 5,1917. Petition for a writ of OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 661 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. George F. Deiser for petitioners. The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren for the United States. No. 706. The Port of Portland, Petitioner, v. Wilhelm Wilhelmsen. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Joseph N. Teal and Mr. Wirt Minor for petitioner. Mr. William C. Bristol for respondent. No. 708. James Howard Sanner, Petitioner, v. Western Maryland Railway Company. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland denied. Mr. William C. Sullivan for petitioner. Mr. George R. Gaither for respondent. No. 710. Sundh Electric Company, Petitioner, v. Cutler Manufacturing Company. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. Albert C. Wall and Mr. Frederick S. Tyler for petitioner. Mr. W. Clyde Jones for respondent. No. 711. Sundh Electric Company, Petitioner, v. General Electric Company. November 5, 1917. Petion for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. 662 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. -Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. Albert C. Wall and Mr. Frederick S. Tyler for petitioner. Mr. Frederick P. Fish, Mr. Charles Neave and Mr. Albert G. Davis for respondent. No. 716. George Orlov et al., Petitioners, v. Abraham Aronson et al., etc. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts denied. Mr. Edward F. Mc-Clennen and Mr. Francis B. James for petitioners. Mr. Samuel Sigilman for respondents. No. 719. Planters’ Steamship Company, Petitioner, v. Rolf Seeberg Ship Chandlery Company et al. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. John D. Grace and Mr. Frederick S. Tyler for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. No. 720. Liberal Elevator Company, Petitioner, v. Wichita Mill & Elevator Company. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. C. M. Williams and Mr. E. F. Colladay for petitioner. Mr. Chester I. Long, for respondent. No. 730. United Metals Selling Company, Petitioner, v. Edward B. Pryor et al. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Cir OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 663 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. cuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. John A. Garver for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. No. 731. N. B. K. Pettingill, Petitioner, v. Walter McK. Jones. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr. N. B. K. Pettingill, pro se. Mr. Francis E. Neagle and Mr. Woodward Emery for respondent. No. 732. Ella Getkin, Petitioner, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, State of Pennsylvania, denied. Mr. William M. Hargest and Mr. William N. Hayne for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 736. Globe Steamship Company, Claimant, etc., Petitioner, v. Henry Moss. November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Thomas H. Garry for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 737. William Baulch, Petitioner, v. Strath-leven Steamship Company (Ltd.). November 5, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Robert H. Talley for petitioner. Mr. Floyd Hughes and Mr. R. J. M. Bullowa for respondent. 664 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. No. 742. Hartford Life Insurance Company, Petitioner, v. Nannie M. Johnson. November 12, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri granted. Mr. James C. Jones, Mr. James C. Jones, Jr., and Mr. George F. Raid for petitioner. Mr. Charles W. German for respondent. No. 542. Alberto Sandoval et al.. Petitioners, v. Ida C. Pfeuffer et al. November 12, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Don A. Bliss for petitioners. Mr. S. J. Brooks for respondents. No. 612. Charles M. Simpson, Petitioner, v. United States. November 12, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. George H. Eichelberger for petitioner. The Solicitor General for the United States. No. 721. Great Northern Railway Company, Petitioner, v. United States. November 12, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. E. C. Lindley, Mr. F. V. Brown and Mr. Charles S. Albert for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson for the United States. No. 725. J. E. Baldwin, Petitioner, v. United States. November 12, 1917. Petition for a writ of OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 665 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. A. S. Baskett for petitioner. The Solicitor General for the United States. No. 726. People of Porto Rico, Petitioner, v. Eduardo Wys. November 12, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Porto Rico denied. Mr. Samuel T. Ansell and Mr. Edward S. Bailey for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 727. People of Porto Rico, Petitioner, v. Aniceto Berrios. November 12, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Porto Rico denied. Mr. Samuel T. Ansell and Mr. Edward S. Bailey for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. N®. 729. Clemente Ramirez, Petitioner, v. People of Porto Rico. November 12,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Porto Rico denied. Mr. Carroll G. Walter for petitioner. Mr. Samuel T. Ansell and Mr. Edward S. Bailey for respondent. No. 741. H. Bradley Davidson et al., Petitioners, v. E. F. Brooks Company. November 12,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. John C. Gittings for petitioners. Mr. D. T. Wright and Mr. Henry F. Woodard for respondent. 666 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. No. 743. Southern Railway Company, Petitioner, v. Thomas Young. November 12, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina denied. Mr. H. O’B. Cooper, Mr. L. E. Jeffries, Mr. Benjamin Lindsay Abney and Mr. J. E. McDonald for petitioner. Mr. J. Frazer Lyon for respondent. No. 745. Morgan 0. Llewellyn et al., Petitioners, v. State of New Mexico. November 12,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico denied. Mr. Francis C. Wilson and Mr. S. P. Weisiger for petitioners. No appearance for respondent. No. 712. New York Scaffolding Company, Petitioner, v. Liebel-Binney Construction Company. November 19, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Mr. Frank Chase Somes for petitioner. Mr. Robert H. Parkinson and Mr. Wallace R. Lane for respondent. No. 713. New York Scaffolding Company, Petitioner, v. Chain Belt Company et al. November 19, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted. Mr. Frank Chase Somes for petitioner. Mr. Robert H. Parkinson and Mr. Wallace R. Lane for respondents. No. 744. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company, Petitioner, v. United States. November 26, OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 667 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. F. M. Miner for petitioner. No brief for the United States. No. 755. Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Company, Petitioner, v. Christian J. Zeitinger et al. November 26, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Charles A. Houts for petitioner. Mr. Matt. G. Reynolds and Mr. Julian Laughlin for respondents. No. 753. John A. Jesson et al., Petitioners, v. F. G. Noyes, as Receiver of the Washington-Alaska Bank. December 10,1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. W. H. Metson for petitioners. Mr. Orion L. Rider for respondent. No. 762. James B. Simpson, Indicted as James B. Miller, Petitioner, v. United States. December 10, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Samuel Herrick and Mr. Thomas E. Hayden for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Fitts for the United States. No. 661. John B. Turner, Petitioner, v. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago. December 17, 1917. 668 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mt. Joseph E. Johnson for petitioner. Mr. Henry S. Robbins for respondent. No. 754. H. H. Riddell, Petitioner, v. United States. December 17, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. W. Y. Masters for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Fitts for the United States. No. 757. A. W. Lohman, Petitioner, v. Stock Yards Loan Company. December 17, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. H. P. White for petitioner. Mr. B. F. Deatherage and Mr. Robert F. Blair for respondent. No. 777. Central California Canneries Company et al., Petitioners, v. Dunkley Company. December 17, 1917. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. William K. White for petitioners. Mr. Fred L. Chappell for respondent. No. 773. Southern Pacific Company, Petitioner,' v. Henry L. Bogart et al., Executors, etc., et al. January 7, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Mr. Louis H. Freedman and Mr. Arthur H. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 669 245 U. 8. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. Van Brunt for petitioner. Mr. H. Snowden Marshall, Mr. A. J. Dittenhoefer and Mr. David Gerber for respondents. No. 781. Gulf Oil Corporation, Petitioner, v. C. G. Llewellyn, Collector of Internal Revenue, etc. January 7, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. Mr. James H. Beal and Mr. William A. Seifert for petitioner. No brief for respondent. No. 90. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, Appellant, v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Douglas, State of Colorado, et al. See ante, p. 634. No. 550. Henry W. Boerner, Petitioner, v. William Hale Thompson, Mayor, etc., et al. January 7, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois denied. Mr. James R. Ward and Mr. Sanuel Herrick for petitioner. Mr. Samuel A. Ettelson and Mr. Chester E. Cleveland for respondents. No. 771. Ng Choy Fong, Petitioner, v. United States. January 7,1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Edward M. Cleary and Mr. Philip S. Ehrlich for petitioner. The Solicitor General for the United States. No. 782. Edward W. Morrison, Petitioner, v. Charles S. Rieman. January 7, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of 670 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. Mr. James R. Ward and Mr. Samuel Herrick for petitioner. Mr. James Rosenthal and Mr. Colin C. H. Fyffe for respondent. No. 432. American Steel Foundries, Petitioner, v. Tri-City Central Trades Council et al. January 14, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted. Mr. Max Pam for petitioner. Mr. Frank C. Smith for respondents. No. 791. The Washington Post Company, Petitioner, v. John Armstrong Chaloner. January 14, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia granted. Mr. Wilton J. Lambert, Mr. Joseph W. Bailey and Mr. Rudolph H. Yeatman for petitioner. Mr. E. F. Colladay, Mr. John Ridout and Mr. H. S. Barger for respondent. No. 785. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Petitioner, v. Leath E. Treadway, Administratrix, etc. January 14,1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia denied. Mr. William B. Mcllwaine for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 787. Lee A. Whitehead et al., Petitioners, v. United States. January 14,1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 671 245 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Benjamin C. Bachrach for petitioners. The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Fitts for the United States. No. 790. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, Petitioner, v. Catherine Marland, Administratrix, etc. January 14, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. William Clarke Mason and Mr. Charles Heebner for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 792. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Petitioner, v. Mary Price, Administratrix, etc. January 14, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, State of Ohio, denied. Mr. Andrew Squire and Mr. William L. Day for petitioner. Mr. Charles W. Savage for respondent. No. 796. Charles H. Moyer, as Trustee, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Butte Miners’ Union. January 14, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Horace N. Hawkins for petitioners. Mr. Peter Breen for respondent. No. 800. Port Graham Coal Company, Petitioner, v. Orren G. Staples. January 14, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied. Mr. Samuel Herrick, Mr. Joseph W. 672 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 245 U. S. Cox and Mr. Rufus S. Day for petitioner. Mr. Bynum E. Hinton for respondent. No. 750. Aurelia P. Bernal, Petitioner, v. United States. January 21, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. Carlos Bee for petitioner. The Solicitor General for the United States. No. 803. Deschutes Railroad Company, Petitioner, v. Eastern Oregon Land Company. January 21, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. A. C. Spencer and Mr. James G. Wilson for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. No. 815. Norfolk County Water Company, Petitioner, v. City of Norfolk, Virginia, et al. January 21, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Mr. Luther B. Way for petitioner. Mr. George Pilcher for respondents. No. 807. Rigney & Company, Petitioner, v. Aunt Jemima Mills Company. February 4,1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Mr. T. K. Bryant and Mr. F. F. Crampton for petitioner. Mr. Frank F. Reed and Mr. Edward S. Rogers for respondent. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 673 245 U. S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. No. 811. S. L. Heatherly, Administrator, etc., Petitioner, v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. February 4, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky denied. Mr. Conrad H. Syme for petitioner. Mr. Benjamin D. Warfield for respondent. No. 812. Edward S^troecker, as Trustee, etc., Petitioner v. Mariam A. Patterson et al. February 4, 1918. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Mr. Charles J. Heggerty for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, FROM OCTOBER 1, 1917, TO MARCH 4, 1918. No. 717. Martiniano M. Veloso, Plaintiff in Error and Appellant, v. Vicente Francisco Ageo et al. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. October 1, 1917. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Evans Browne for defendants in error and appellees. No one opposing. No. 1. Detroit United Railway, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Detroit. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan. October 1, 1917. Dismissed without costs to either party, per stipulation. Mr. John C. 674 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 245 U. S. Donnelly and Mr. Henry L. Lyster for plaintiff in error. Mr. Richard I. Lawson and Mr. Harry J. Dingeman for defendant in error. No. 21. Kansas City Stock Yards Company of Missouri, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of Kansas ex rel. John S. Dawson, Attorney General. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. October 1, 1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. L. W. Keplinger for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. No. 135. Shill Rolling Chair Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Atlantic City; No. 136. Hannah M. Clowney, Trading as Smith’s Rolling Chairs, Plaintiff in Error, v. Atlantic City; and No. 137. Thomas E. Lassiter, Plaintiff in Error, v. Atlantic City. In error to the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey. October 1, 1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiffs in error. Mr. George A. Bourgeois and Mr. Harry R. Coulomb for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error. No. 149. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of Louisiana ex rel. City of Lake Charles. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. October 1, 1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. Henry Bernstein for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 675 245 U. S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. No. 258. Midland Valley Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Della Ogden, Administratrix, etc. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. October 1, 1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. Norman R. Haskell for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. No. 54. United States, Appellant, v. Great Lakes Towing Company et al. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. October 2, 1917. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Davis for the United States. No appearance for appellees. No. 197. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co., Plaintiff in Error, v. George D. Fish. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. October 9,1917. Dismissed without costs to either party, per stipulation of counsel. Mr. Austin J. McMahon for plaintiff in error. Mr. Walter A. Fullerton for defendant in error. No. 547. Adah B. Walton, Administratrix, etc., Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward B. Pryor et al., Receivers, etc. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. October 9, 1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles C. LeForgee for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error. No. 159. Frank R. Williams, Appellant, v. Charles Potter et al. Appeal from the United States Circuit 676 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 245 U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. October 12, 1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. Mr. Frank R. Williams, pro se. No. 13. P. J. Hamill, Plaintiff in Error, v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. October 16,1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Frederick S. Tyler and Mr. Benjamin I. Salinger for plaintiff in error. Mr. G. P. Miller, Mr. Edwin S. Mack and Mr. Arthur W. Fairchild for defendant in error. No. 15. The Keetoowah Society et al., Appellants, v. Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior. Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. October 17, 1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. C. C. Calhoun for appellants. The Attorney General for appellee. No. 4. C. J. Olson, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of North Dakota. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota. October 17, 1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the sixteenth rule, on motion of Mr. William Langer for defendant in error. Mr. Edward Engerud for plaintiff in error. Mr. Andrew Miller and Mr. Harrison A. Bronson for defendant in error. No. 55. Jose Sanchez y Armijo, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of New Mexico. In error to the Supreme Court OCTOBER TERM, 1917. G77 245 U. S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. of the State of New Mexico. November 5, 1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. T. B. Catron for plaintiff in error. Mr. Frank W. Clancy for defendant in error. No. 357. Wells, Fargo & Company et al., Appellants, v. Clarence C. Caldwell, Attorney General, etc., et al. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota. November 5, 1917. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. C. 0. Bailey and Mr. Branch P. Kerfoot for appellants. Mr. Clarence C. Caldwell and Mr. P. W. Dougherty for appellees. No. 617. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company (Ltd.), Appellant, v. James J. Bailey, Secretary of State of the State of Louisiana. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. November 5, 1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. Mr. J. Zach Spearing for appellant. No appearance for appellee. No. 45. Southern Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. S. Cook, Administrator of W. M. Poteat, Deceased. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. November 9,1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. Robert B. Tunstall and Mr. L. E. Jeffries for plaintiff in error. Mr. Harry Wooding, Jr., for defendant in error. 678 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 245 U. S. No. 64. United States of America ex rel. David Bowlegs, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff in Error, v. Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior. In error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. November 15, 1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. James W. McNeill, Mr. John B. Meserve, Mr. U. L. Mott and Mr. W. L. Sturdevant for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General for defendant in error. No. 65. Thomas D. Aitken et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. United States of America, by its Trustee, The Government of the Philippine Islands. In error to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. November 15, 1917. Dismissed, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. C. L. Bouve for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Samuel T. Ansell for defendant in error. No. 79. John Johnstone, Plaintiff in Error, v. Andrew Schmidt et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota. November 20, 1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. C. L. Young and Mr. F. C. Heffron for plaintiff in error. Mr. James E. Trask for defendants in error. No. 86. James McDowall et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Edward I. Donovan et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota. November 22, 1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Edward Engerud for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Samuel Herrick for defendants in error. OCTOBER TERM, 1917. 679 245 U. S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. No. 87. George H. Munroe et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Edward I. Donovan et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota. November 22,1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Edward Engerud for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Samuel Herrick for defendants in error. No. 676. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of Mississippi et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. December 10, 1917. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. E. C. Brandenburg for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error. Nos. 121 and 122. George M. Glenn, Plaintiff in Error, v. Southern Express Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. December 17, 1917. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. Murray Allen, Mr. Lawrence Maxwell and Mr. Joseph S. Graydon for plaintiff in error. Mr. Alexander B. Andrews, Jr., for defendant in error. No. 151. Beekman Winthrop et al., Appellants, v. Grant Fellows, as Attorney General of the State of Michigan, et al. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. December 19,1917. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. Henry W. Taft and Mr. Edwin P. Grosvenor for appellants. Mr. Grant Fellows for appellees. 680 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 245 U. S. No. 251. Batesville Southwestern Railway Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. M. H. Mims. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. January 4, 1918. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. Thomas A. Evans and Mr. Roger Montgomery for plaintiffs in error. Mr. W. R. Wood for defendant in error. No. 123. Nannie C. Gibson, Plaintiff in Error, v. John J. Lentz. In error to the Court of Appeals for the Second Judicial District of the State of Ohio. January 14, 1918. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. Smith W. Bennett and Mr. W. J. Geer for plaintiff in error. Mr. John D. Karns for defendant in error. No. 181. Bert Williams et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. A. P. Sandles et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. January 31, 1918. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. F. S. Monnett for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Edward C. Turner for defendants in error. No. 694. Robert F. Stroud, Plaintiff in Error, v. United States. In error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. February 4, 1918. Judgment reversed upon confession of error; and cause remanded for further proceedings, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Davis for the United States. Mr. Isaac B. Kimbrell and Mr, Martin J. O’Donnell for plaintiff in error. No. 423. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. E. Hollifield. In 681 OCTOBER TERM, 1917. Cases Disposed of in Vacation. 245 U. S. error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. February 4, 1918. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Mr. James H. Merrimon and Mr. Alfred S. Barnard for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. CASES DISPOSED OF IN VACATION. No. 139. Coal & Coke Ry. Co., Plaintiff in Error, v. David F. Deal. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. July 16, 1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. George E. Price for plaintiff in error. Mr. H. W. Houston for defendant in error. No. 241. John A. Bell, Plaintiff in Error, v. Lizzie E. Fitzpatrick. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. July 31,1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. James A. Veazey for plaintiff in error. Mr. Joseph P. Rossiter for defendant in error. No. 182. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. E. Goode. In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. August 15, 1917. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. John Galvin and Mr. Edward Colston for plaintiff in error. Mr. Emmet Puryear for defendant in error. INDEX ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE. See Jurisdiction, I, 3; PAGE in, (7). ACCOUNTING. See Landlord and Tenant. ACETYLENE GAS LAMPS: Patent held valid and infringed. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Baldwin198 ACTIONS AND DEFENSES. See particular titles. 1. The immunity of the United States from suit recognizes no distinction between cross and original bills, or ancillary and original suits. Illinois Central R. R. v. Public Utilities Comm............................................... 493 2. Suit by United States to quiet its title to land erroneously excluded from survey, against abutting owner claiming riparian rights, is not a suit to vacate or annul defendant’s patent, and limitation of Act of 1891 inapplicable. Lee Wilson Co. v. United States ......................... 24 3. Intentionally to do that which is calculated in the ordinary course of events to damage and which does in fact damage another person in his property or trade, is malicious in law and actionable if done without just cause or excuse; and a proffered excuse cannot be deemed a just cause or excuse where it is based upon an assertion of conflicting rights that are sought to be attained by unfair methods and for the very purpose of interfering with plaintiff’s rights of which defendants have notice. Any violation of plaintiff’s legal rights, contrived by defendants for the purpose of inflicting damage, or having that as its necessary effect, is unlawful. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell...............229 4. One who has paid unreasonable freight charges may recover the overpayments from the carrier, even though he has shifted the burden by collecting from purchasers of the goods. Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Co........ 531 (683) 684 INDEX. ACTIONS AND DEFENSES.—Cmtinued. page 5. Where liabilities of shareholders of corporation to pay stock subscriptions are several, independent and unconditional, and no issue with the corporation touching such liabilities is common to the shareholders, the remedy of the corporation, or its trustee in bankruptcy, is by action at law against each shareholder separately, and not in equity on the ground of multiplicity of actions. Kelley v. Gill......... 116 6. Matters of defense—in this case the bar of the statute of limitations—cannot be heard on habeas corpus to test validity of arrest in extradition, but must be heard and determined at trial in demanding State. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police .......................................... 128 7. Patent for allotment issued under Act of Aug. 7, 1882, in name of an Indian who was dead at the time, cannot be attacked by a mere occupant of allotment in action brought by United States and patentee’s heir to recover damages for wrongful use and occupation of premises. United States v. Chase............................................... 89 8. Equities of abutting owner claiming riparian rights in public lands erroneously surveyed are not cognizable judicially but should be addressed to legislative department of government. Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States.... 24 ACTS OF CONGRESS. See Table at front of volume; Statutes. ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW. See Equity, 3. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS. See references under Ex- ecutive Officers. Effect of acts to estop United States from asserting title to public land erroneously surveyed. Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States................. •,.. •••••................... •• •• 24 ADMIRALTY: As to territorial status of American vessel. See Scharren-berg v. Dollar S. S. Co.... s............................... 122 AGENCY. See Food and Drugs Act, 3, 4. ALIENATION, RESTRAINT ON. See Constitutional Law, XIV, 2; Indians. IND&X. 685 ALIEN CONTRACT LABOR LAW. See Aliens, 5, 6, 7. PAGE ALIENS. See Immigration; Naturalization. 1. Favored nation clause in Art. I of Treaty with Denmark of 1826, 1857, does not apply where discrimination complained of is in rates of inheritance taxes. Petersen n. Iowa 170 2. And the same is true of Art. II of the Treaty of 1783 and renewal treaties with Sweden. Duus v. Brown..... 176 3. Art. VII, treaty with Denmark of 1826, 1857, places no limitation upon right of either government to deal with its own citizens and their property within its domain; and the treaty affords legatees of the estate of a naturalized citizen and resident of Iowa no basis for complaining of the discrimination of the Iowa law which taxes legacies of nonresident aliens higher than those given under similar conditions to residents of the State without regard to residence or nationality of testator. Petersen n. Iowa............. 170 4. So, too, of Art. VI of Treaty of 1783 and renewals with Sweden. Duus v. Brown............................... 176 5. Inducing and assisting aliens to come from abroad, working as seamen on the way, for bona fide service as seamen on an American ship during her voyage from American ports to foreign countries and while she lies in such ports preparatory to or in the course of such voyage, is not an assisting or encouraging of the importation or migration of alien contract laborers within §§ 4, 5 of Act of 1907, as amended 1910. Scharrenberg v. Dollar 8. 8. Co..................... 122 6. In a suit to enforce the penal provisions of the alien contract labor laws of 1907 and 1910, the circumstance that the aliens in question are Chinese subjects is without significance. Id. 7. An American ship engaged in foreign commerce is not a part of the territory of the United States in the sense that seamen employed upon her while in American ports or on voyages are performing labor in this country within the meaning of the alien contract labor laws. Id. ALIMONY. See Estoppel, 1; Taxation, IV, 2. ALLOTMENTS. See Indians. 686 INDEX. ANCILLARY SUITS. See Equity, 4. page APPEAL AND ERROR. See Jurisdiction; Procedure. APPEARANCE. See Jurisdiction, I. APPLIANCES. See Safety Appliance Act. ARMY: Power of Congress to raise by draft. See Constitutional Law, III. ASSESSMENT. See Insurance, 2; National Banks; Taxation. ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. See Bankruptcy; Landlord and Tenant; Receivers. ASSIGNMENTS. See Indians, 4, 5. ASSUMPTION OF RISK. See Employers’ Liability Act: BAIL BONDS. See Trusts and Trustees, 1. BANK DEPOSITS: Taxation by State of domicile. See Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville.................................. 54 Action against state bank commissioner for loss. Johnson n. Lankford............................................ 541 Martin v. Lankford...................................... 547 BANKRUPTCY. See Receivers, 1. 1. Uniformity. Requirement of uniformity does not prohibit giving trustees power to avail of state statutes intended to avoid fraudulent conveyances. Stellwagen v. Clum.605 2. Suspension of State Laws. Bankruptcy laws operate to suspend state laws only in so far as latter conflict with system established by former. Id. 3. Id. Bankruptcy Act, as amended in 1910, held not to operate to suspend § 6343, Rev. Stats. Ohio, or sub-sections into which it was divided in General Code of 1910. Id. 4. Id. In determining whether state lawjin conflict with INDEX. 687 BANKRUPTCY—Continued. page Bankruptcy Act much weight given consideration that main purpose of act is relief of debtor. Id. 5. Trustee has State Remedies, § 70-e. Provisions of Ohio law relative to insolvent debtors held consistent with Bankruptcy Law, and that, availing of them pursuant to § 70-e of latter, trustee in bankruptcy could administer for creditors generally property which had been transferred by debtor in trust for particular creditors more than 4 months previously. Id. 6. Id. Section 70-e gives trustee right to recover property transferred in violation of state law, without reference to 4 months’ limitation: if creditor could have avoided transfer under state law, trustee may do so. Id. 7. Failure to Record Transfer, Trustee’s Rights. Where state law recognizes unrecorded chattel mortgages as valid between parties and merely postpones them to liens created and purchases made while they remain unrecorded, delay of recordation until within 4 months before initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against mortgagor does not enable trustee to assail such mortgage as a preference. Martin v. Commer- cial Nat. Bank........................................ 513 8. Id.; § 60-b. Recordation deemed “ required ” under amendment of 1910 of § 60-b, when, through delay of it, a position superior to the challenged transfer has been gained, during the specified period, by some creditor whom the trustee represents or whose place he is entitled to take. Id. 9. Insurance Policy; when Asset; § 70-a. Policy of insurance held by bankrupt, which has cash surrender value at time of adjudication, becomes an asset, to extent of such value, in trustee, under § 70-a of Bankruptcy Act, even when payable to beneficiary other than the bankrupt, his estate or personal representatives, if bankrupt has reserved absolute power to change beneficiary. Cohen v. Samuels.. 50 10. Conditional Bequest—not Asset. Trustee not entitled to principal of trust estate paid to beneficiary after his discharge in bankruptcy, where will creating trust provided that such principal should be paid to beneficiary “ whenever he shall become financially solvent and able to pay all his just debts and liabilities from resources other than the prin- cipal of this trust fund.” Hull v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. 312 688 INDEX. BANKRUPTCY—Continued. page 11. Contested Stock Subscriptions—suit to collect by trustee. Contested claims of bankrupt corporation against persons alleged to be shareholders, for moneys alleged to be due and payable on subscriptions to corporate stock, are not to be regarded as property in the possession of the trustee for purpose of determining whether bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to enforce them; nor does fact that such alleged debtors are shareholders enable trustee to sue them in that forum to collect their subscriptions. Kelley v. Gill........ 116 12. Id. Joinder of Separate Claims—Effect of order making call. An order of a court of bankruptcy, calling for payment of shareholders’ subscriptions to a bankrupt corporation which, before and independently of the order, were ascertained and payable, adds nothing to shareholders’ liabilities or trustee’s rights, and cannot justify single suit by trustee against many shareholders to collect subscriptions which, in the absence of the order, would not have been cognizable in equity; neither can order of the bankruptcy court directing trustee to institute suit in equity to make such collections confer such equitable jurisdiction. Id. 13. Id. Equitable Jurisdiction. Where liabilities of shareholders to pay stock subscriptions are several, independent and unconditional, and no issue with corporation touching such liability is common to the shareholders, remedy of trustee in bankruptcy of the corporation is by action at law against each shareholder separately, and not in equity on ground of multiplicity of suits. Id. 14. Id. Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Court. No jurisdiction over suit in equity by trustee of bankrupt, corporation in State of its domicile, against resident shareholders to collect sums due on individual subscriptions. Id. 15. Id. Where bankrupt, before bankruptcy, could have sued only in state court, bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to enforce causes of action at suit of trustee, even if trustee, by joining all causes in one bill, could prevent multiplicity of suits. Id. 16. Id. § Jfia (2). Amendment of 1910 to § 47a (2) conferred no new means of collecting ordinary claims due bankrupt. Id. INDEX. 689 BANKS AND BANKING. See National Banks. page Suits against Oklahoma Bank Commissioner. See Jurisdic-tion, III, (5). State taxation of bank deposits. See Taxation, II, 2. In determining effect of certain payments made by trustees of savings banks, the court assumed that it was the purpose of the trustees to act within their powers and applied the settled rule that when neither debtor nor creditor has applied payments before the controversy has arisen the courts will apply them in a manner to accomplish the ends of justice. Korbly v. Spring field Inst, for Savgs..................... 330 BILL OF LADING. See Interstate Commerce Acts, III, 2. BILLS AND NOTES. See Married Women. BONA FIDE PURCHASER. See Indians, 8. BONDS: 1. To impair by subsequent legislation the means for collecting taxes to pay county bonds may impair the obligation of the bonds contrary to the Constitution. Hendrickson v. Apperson ... 105 Hendrickson v. Creager............................ 115 2. A suit, brought in 1913, by testamentary trustees, seeking to hold the Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., as by an express trust, for the satisfaction of certain bonds, issued under a deed of trust in 1872 by another company to whose interests and obligation it was alleged to have succeeded, the bonds at time of suit being more than 10 years overdue and the interest in default 37 years or longer, held barred by laches. Waller v. Texas & Pac. Ry......................... 398 3. Right of surety on bail bond to be reimbursed, for liability incurred, out of funds alleged to be fruits of fraud upon Government. See United States v. Leary.................... 1 BOUNDARIES. See Public Lands. The boundary between Oregon and Washington is the ship channel north of Sand Island in the Columbia River. McGowan v. Columbia River Packers' Assn.................. 352 CAPITAL STOCK. See Bankruptcy, 11-14; Equity, 2, 3; Taxation, III; IV, 1. 69Ö INDEX. CARMACK AMENDMENT. See Interstate Commerce page Acts, III, 2. CARRIERS. See Employers* Liability Act; Franchise; Interstate Commerce Acts; Safety Appliance Act. 1. State regulation, requiring carrier to maintain commutation service between points within State and fixing rates therefor, which are less than intrastate rate lawfully established for one-way intrastate travel in general, does not deprive carrier of due process of law when service so regulated was established by carrier voluntarily and rates fixed by State are reasonable. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Towers. 6 2. Intrastate commutation rates; conclusiveness of decision by state court as to power of revision by state commission. Id. 3. Under Webb-Kenyon Act, State may require carriers to exhibit records of interstate shipments of intoxicating liquors, notwithstanding § 15, Commerce Act. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. North Carolina......................... 298 4. State regulation of connection of local trains with interstate trains held void; power over local business of local railroad company does not authorize imposition of unjust burdens upon interstate trains. Missouri, Kans. & Tex. Ry. v. Texas........................................ 484 5. One who pays unreasonable freight charges is not prevented from recovering from carrier by fact that he has shifted burden by collecting from purchasers of goods. Southern Pac. Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Co............... 531 6. Action against carrier for wrongful arrest. See Burton v. New York Cent. R. R . 315 7. Status of American ship engaged in foreign commerce. See Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. Co....................... 122 CAUSE OF ACTION. See Actions and Defenses. CERTIFICATE. See Jurisdiction, II, 15. CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP. See Naturalization. CERTIORARI. See Jurisdiction, II, (3); (6) 16; (9) 18,19; Procedure, I. INDEX. 691 CHARACTER: PAGE Presumption as to good character. See Criminal Law, 4. Disqualification of witnesses convicted of crime. See Evidence, 3, 4. CHATTEL MORTGAGE: Recording. See Bankruptcy, 7, 8. CHINESE EXCLUSION ACTS: 1. Section 43, Immigration Act of 1907, preserves judicial proceedings prescribed by the Chinese Exclusion Acts for the cases to which those acts apply, and the summary administrative method provided by § 21 cannot be used in a case of violation of the Exclusion Acts. United States v. Woo Jan.............................................552 2. In a suit to enforce the penal provisions of the alien contract labor laws of 1907 and 1910, the circumstance that the aliens in question are Chinese subjects is without significance. Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. Co......... 122 CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. See Jurisdiction, II, (4). CITIZENSHIP. See Treaties; Naturalization. 1. It is the duty of the citizen to render military service in case of need and the right of the Government to compel it. Selective Draft Law Cases....................... 366 2. The Fourteenth Amendment broadened the national scope of the Government by causing citizenship of the United States to be paramount and dominant instead of being subordinate and derivative, thus operating generally upon the powers conferred by the Constitution. Id. CITY ORDINANCES. See Franchise; Ordinances. COAL LANDS. See Public Lands. COLORED PERSONS. Race segregation. See Constitutional Law, XIV, 2,11. COLUMBIA RIVER. See Boundaries; Jurisdiction, III, (7). •• COMBINATION RATE.” See Interstate Commerce Acts, I. 692 INDEX. COMITY: PAGE 1. A wife’s continuing guaranty of payment of husband’s note, enforceable in State where executed, held not enforceable, under the rule of comity, in the courts of the State of domicile against wife’s separate property there if contrary to public policy of State. Union Trust Co. v. Grosman.... 412 2. If a contract, made and valid in one State, is unenforceable in the courts of another on grounds of local public policy, it is unenforceable also, for the same reason, in the District Court in the latter State having jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship. Id. COMMERCE. See Constitutional Law, V; Interstate Commerce Acts. COMMISSIONS. See Trusts and Trustees, 4. COMMON CARRIERS. See Carriers; Interstate Commerce Acts. COMMON LAW. See Waters, 5. COMMON RIGHTS. See Waters, 2. COMMUTATION SERVICE. See Carriers, 1, 2. COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY. See National Banks. CONDEMNATION. See Eminent Domain. CONFLICT OF LAWS. See Bankruptcy, 1-4; Comity. CONGRESS: For acts cited. See Table at front of volume. For powers. See Constitutional Law. CONSENT DECREE. See Constitutional Law, IX, 1. CONSPIRACY. See Criminal Law, 6, 7, 8; Labor Unions. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: I. General: Duty to Enforce, p. 693. II. Delegation of Power, p. 693. INDEX. 693 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Coniinoed. PAGE III. Army Power: Militia Power, p. 693. IV. Bankruptcy, p. 694. V. Commerce Clause, p. 695. VI. Contract Clause, p. 695. VII. Exports: State Tax. See V, 5. VIII. Extradition. See that title. IX. Full Faith and Credit Clause, p. 696. X. First Amendment: Religious Liberty, p. 697. XI. Fifth Amendment: Due Process: Liberty, p. 697. XII. Sixth Amendment: Jury, p. 697. XIII. Thirteenth Amendment: Involuntary Servitude, p. 697. XIV. Fourteenth Amendment: (1) General, p. 698. (2) Hearing, Jury, p. 698. (3) Regulation of Rates and Public Service, p. 698. (4) Taxation, p. 698. (5) Liquor Regulation. See Intoxicating Liquors. (6) Equal Protection of the Laws, p. 699. XV. Who may Question Constitutionality of Statutes, p. 699. XVI. Force of State Court’s Construction of Statute, p. 699. Suits against States. See Jurisdiction, III, (5). Suits against United States. Id. Ill, (6). Income Taxes. See Taxation, IV. I. General: Duty to Enforce. The duty of enforcing the Constitution can not depend upon the degree of violation or of resulting wrong. Looney v. Crane Co......................................... 178 II. Delegation of Power. An objection to the constitutionality of the Selective Draft Act of 1917 because by some of its administrative features it delegates federal power to state officials and vests both legislative and judicial power in administrative officers, is untenable. Selective Draft Law Cases....................... 366 III. Army Power: Militia Power. 1. Powers granted to Congress by Art. I, § 8, of Constitu- 694 INDEX. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued. PAGe tion, include power to compel military service, exercised by Selective Draft Act of 1917. Selective Draft Law Cases .... 366 Jones v. Perkins........390 Goldman v. United States. 474 Kramer v. United States..478 Ruthenberg v. United States . . 480 2. The militia power reserved to the States by Art. I, § 8, while separate and distinct in its field, is subject to be restricted in, or deprived of, its area of operation through the army power, according to the extent to which Congress, in its discretion, finds necessity for calling the latter into play. Selective Draft Law Cases........ i...................... 366 3. The army power, combining the powers vested in the Con- , gress and the States under the Confederation, embraces the complete military power of government, as is manifested not only by the grant made but by the express limitation of Art. I, § 10, prohibiting the States, without the consent of Congress, from keeping troops in time of peace or engaging in war. Id. 4. The service which may be exacted of the citizen under the army power is not limited to the specific purposes for which Congress is expressly authorized, by the militia clause, to call the militia; the presence in the Constitution of such express regulations affords no basis for an inference that the army power, when exerted, is not complete and dominant to the extent of its exertion. Id. 5. Compelled military service is neither repugnant to a free government nor in conflict with the constitutional guarantees of individual liberty. It is the duty of the citizen to render military service in case of need and the right of the Government to compel it. Id. IV. Bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy. 1. Requirement of uniformity does not prohibit giving to trustees power to avail of state statutes intended to avoid fraudulent conveyances. Stellwagen v. Clum.. .. ;....... 605 2. Bankruptcy laws enacted by Congress pursuant to Constitution operate to suspend state laws only in so far as latter are in conflict with system established by former. Id. INDEX. 695 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued. PAGE V. Commerce Clause. See Interstate Commerce Acts. 1. Negotiation of sales of goods which are in another State, for the purpose of introducing them into the State in which negotiation made, is interstate commerce. Weeks v. United States.................1............................ 618 2. Making unlawful the shipment or delivery for shipment from one State to another of a misbranded article is legitimate exercise of power of Congress. Id. 3. Congress may prevent discriminating against localities by carriers whose lines do not reach them but which bill through traffic to them over other lines. St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. United States.................................... 136 4. Franchise and permit taxes, based on capital stock, surplus and profits, levied by State on foreign corporations doing business in the State held direct burden on interstate commerce. Looney v. Crane Co........................... 178 5. A state tax on business of selling goods in foreign commerce, measured by a percentage of entire business transacted, is both a regulation of foreign commerce and an impost or duty on exports, and therefore void. Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania......................................... 292 6. Under Webb-Kenyon Law a State may prescribe conditions under which shipments of intoxicating liquors from other States may be allowed. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. North Carolina.......................................298 7. Powers of States over local business of a local railroad do not authorize imposition of serious, unwarranted and unjust burdens in respect of interstate trains. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Texas.........................................484 8. Where, in regular course, a passenger train is moved by one company from one State to a point in another and is there taken charge of and carried to destination by a second company, local to the second State, its interstate character is not lost. Id. VI. Contract Clause. 1. Contracts divesting State of power of eminent domain are not within protection of contract clause. Pennsylvania Hospital n. Philadelphia.......................... 20 696 INDEX. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued. page 2. A resolution of county commissioners purporting to revoke a franchise, and treated by state court as having that effect, amounts to state action, and, franchise not being so revocable, amounts to impairment of obligation of contract and is void. Northern Ohio Tract. Co. v. Ohio............. 574 See Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & H. Tract. Co............446 3. Where, at time of issuing county bonds, there existed a law providing a method for collecting taxes to pay the bonds whereby a single collector, under a single bond, was to be appointed to collect all county taxes, including those levied to pay the county’s debts, a subsequent amendment, which authorized the appointment of more than one collector, under separate bonds, each charged with duty of collecting such part of taxes as should be designated in his appointment— an arrangement which made it possible to evade satisfaction of county’s debt—held to impair obligation of contract under which bonds were issued. Hendrickson v. Apperson. 105 Hendrickson v. Creager... 115 VII. Exports—State Tax. See V, 5, supra. VIII. Extradition. See Extradition. IX. Full Faith and Credit Clause. 1. A consent decree granting divorce as prayed and adjudging that wife recover a certain sum “ in full of alimony and all other demands set forth in cross-bill ” on which decree based, which bill recited husband’s property rights in certain lands in another State, held within jurisdiction of the court granting it, and that action of court of State in which land situated, in suit by wife for alimony out of such lands, in not accepting such decree as an estoppel, was a denial of Tull faith and credit. Bates n. Bodie.................... 520 2. Where an insurance company, by the decision of the court of the State of its domicile, was permitted, subject to a limitation as to amount, to keep up a mortuary fund through assessments, the decision of a court of another State, in a later action, holding such an assessment void on ground that it exceeded power of the company and the limit of amount, held to deny full faith and credit to former judgment. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Barber......... 146 INDEX. 697 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued. page X. First Amendment. Religious Liberty. The Selective Draft Law of 1917, by exempting ministers of religion and theological students under certain conditions and by relieving from strictly military service members of certain religious sects whose tenets deny the moral right to engage in war, is not repugnant to First Amendment. Selective Draft Law Cases......................... 366 XI. Fifth Amendment. Due Process. Liberty. 1. Railroad companies^ which, though chartered by different States, are all engaged in interstate commerce, and have established a through route between interstate points with a through rate consisting of the sum of the local rates, or of a combination of a local rate with a joint rate to an intermediate point, are not deprived of their rights under the Fifth Amendment when required, by order of Interstate Commerce Commission, to substitute a reasonable joint through rate for the existing through rate, and to maintain the same through route or, at their election, substitute a modification of it which the Commission has found preferable. St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. United States .............. 136 2. Error of District Court in admitting former judgments in evidence and in rendering judgment on such evidence against party who objects that they do not bind him, but who is fully heard, does not constitute denial of due process of law. Jones v. Buffalo Creek Coal Co................... 328 XII. Sixth Amendment. Jury. 1. The Amendment permits drawing of a jury from a part of the district in criminal cases. Ruthenberg v. United States............................................ 480 2. No infraction of constitutional or statutory right is predicable of the fact that the indictment and conviction of a Socialist are returned by grand and petit juries composed exclusively of members of other political parties, and property owners. Id. XIII. Thirteenth Amendment. Involuntary Servitude. The Selective Draft Law of 1917 does not create involuntary servitude. Selective Draft Law Cases.......366 698 INDEX. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued. page XIV. Fourteenth Amendment. (1) General. See Jurisdiction, II, 11, 19. 1. The Amendment broadened the national scope of the Government by causing citizenship of the United States to be paramount and dominant instead of being subordinate and derivative, thus operating generally upon the powers conferred by the Constitution. Selective Draft Law Cases... 366 2. An ordinance forbidding colored persons to occupy houses in blocks where the greater number of houses are occupied by white persons, and vice versa, is beyond police power, invades civil right to acquire, enjoy and use property, and is unconstitutional under Fourteenth Amendment. Bu- chanan v. Warley.................................... 60 (2) Hearing. Jury. 3. In' mandamus proceeding to test right of a State to levy charges on sand dredged from stream by a riparian owner under claim of title ad filum aquae, latter has not a constitutional right to have question of navigability determined by jury. Wear v. Kansas.............. i................. 154 (3) Regulation of Rates and Public Service. 4. State regulation requiring carrier to maintain commutation service between points within State and fixing rates therefor, which are less than intrastate rate lawfully established for one-way intrastate travel in general, does not deprive carrier of due process of law when service so regulated was established by carrier voluntarily and rates fixed by the State are reasonable. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Towers. 6 5. Order of state public service commission requiring city gas company to extend mains and service pipes to meet reasonable needs of growing community within the city, held not contrary to the due process clause. New York & Queens Gas Co. v. McCall..............................345 (4) Taxation. 6. Franchise and permit taxes levied by State on foreign corporations doing interstate business, with property in other States, is void when measured by entire authorized capital, surplus and undivided profits. Looney v. Crane Co. 178 INDEX. 699 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued. page 7. Establishing and maintaining public yard for sale of fuel, without financial profit, to inhabitants of municipality, held public purpose for which taxes may be levied. Jones n. City of Portland.......................'......... 217 8. Constitutionality of state tax determined by court’s own judgment of actual operation and effect of tax, irrespective of its form and how characterized by state courts. Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania....................... 292 9. Citizen’s bank deposit in another state taxable. Fidelity, &c. Tr. Co. v. Louisville................. 54 (5) Liquor Regulation. See Intoxicating Liquors. (6) Equal Protection of the Laws. See Johnson v. Lankford.......................... 541 Ma...............................rtin v. Samei... ;.......................... 547 10. State court’s decision does not deprive complaining party of equal protection merely because it departs from decisions made by court in earlier cases. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville................................. 54 11. An ordinance for the segregation of negroes and whites held to violate this clause. Buchanan v. Warley........... 60 XV. Who may Question Constitutionality of Statutes. A white plaintiff may attack segregation ordinance as invading rights of negroes, when it is set up by a negro as a defense to specific performance of contract to purchase city lot. Buchanan v. Warley.............................. 60 XVI. Force of State Court’s Construction of Statute. Constitutionality of state tax determined by court’s own judgment of actual operation and effect of tax, irrespective of its form and how characterized by state courts. Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania....................... 292 CONSTRUCTION. See Constitutional Law; Contracts; Indians; Interstate Commerce Acts; Landlord and Tenant; Public Lands; Statutes; Taxation; Treaties. Following state constructions. See Jurisdiction, II; VI; Procedure. 700 INDEX. CONTRACT LABOR. See Aliens, 5-7. page CONTRACTS: Impairment of obligation. See Constitutional Law, VI. Married women’s guaranty. See Married Women. Of employment. See Master and Servant; Labor Unions. Street railway franchises. See Franchise. Lease. See Landlord and Tenant. Transportation. See Interstate Commerce Acts, III, 2. 1. State may not by contract divest itself of power of eminent domain; and such contracts are not within protection of contract clause of Constitution. Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia .............................................. 20 2. The same liberty which enables men to form labor unions, and through the unions to enter into agreements with employers willing to agree, entitles other men to remain independent of the union and other employers to agree with them to employ no man who owes any allegiance or obligation to the union. The parties are entitled to be protected by the law in the enjoyment of the benefits of any lawful agreement they may make. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell.......... 229 3. If a contract, made and valid in one State, is unenforceable in the courts of another on grounds of local public policy, it is unenforceable also, for the same reason, in the District Court in the latter State having jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship. Union Trust Co. v. Grosman.......412 4. In a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a lot, where the vendee, a colored person, relies upon an ordinance forbidding colored persons to occupy houses in blocks where the greater number of houses are occupied by white persons, vendor may attack such prohibition under Fourteenth Amendment. Buchanan v. War ley................ 60 5. Modem tendencies to depart from the strict letter in discovering intent do not alter the principle that, within the scope of his undertaking, a party contracting assumes the risks of intervening obstacles. Day v. United States........ 159 6. A contract with the United States to furnish such labor and material in place as might be necessary to complete a canal and locks, held to be for the completion of the works and INDEX. 701 CONTRACTS—Continued. page that the cost of protecting them from floods in the meantime was within the contractor’s undertaking. Id. 7. Government’s claim of liquidated damages, interposed in a suit on a construction contract, held inequitable and therefore disallowed. United States v. California Bridge Co.. 337 8. Under a contract with the United States to erect certain structures “at the United States navy yard, Mare Island,” held the location selected before execution of contract was subject to be changed by Government for some other location within navy yard. Id. 9. Where, under supplemental agreements with new contractor to whom contract relet after default of original contractor, deviations were made involving a cost of about 6% of the total contract price and requiring estimates of the attendant expenses, the cost of the work being reduced notwithstanding the changes, held, because of the deviations, that the difference between the cost and the original contract price was not a proper measure of the original contractor’s liability. Id. See Res Judicata, 1. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. See Employers’ Liability Act. CONVEYANCES. See Indians; Public Lands. Fraudulent. See Bankruptcy. CONVICTS: Competency as witnesses. See Evidence, 3, 4. CORPORATIONS. See Bankruptcy, 11-14; Equity, 1-3; Receivers. Reserved power of State over. See Constitutional Law, VI; Franchise. Foreign. Suits against. See Jurisdiction, II, 19. Unconstitutional excises. See Taxation, III. Regulation of rates and public service. See Constitutional Law, XIV, (3); Interstate Commerce Acts. National Banks. Assessment against shareholders. See National Banks. 702 INDEX. CORPORATIONS—Continued. page Interstate carrier’s liability for personal injuries. See Employers’ Liability Act. Stock dividends. Not taxable under Income Tax Act. See Taxation, IV, 1. Stockholders. Action against state bank commissioner for excess of claims as depositor over liability as stockholder. See Martin v. Lankford................... 547 COUNTY BONDS. See Bonds, 1. COURT OF CUSTOMS APPEALS. See Mandamus, 3,4. COURTS. See Bankruptcy; Equity; Jurisdiction; Mandamus; Procedure. CREDITORS. See Bankruptcy; Equity; National Banks. Application of payments. See Payment. CRIMINAL LAW. See Evidence; Jury and Jurors. 1. In the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial. Jones v. Perkins ........ i.............................. 390 2. The statute of limitations is a defense and must be asserted on the trial by defendant in criminal cases; it cannot be heard on habeas corpus to test validity of arrest in extradition. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police.................... 128 3. District Court not bound by rules of evidence as they stood in 1789. Greer v. United States..................... 559 Rosen v. United States.................... 467 4. No presumption that accused is of good character. Greer v. United States................................. 559 5. A sworn charge previously made is not essential to validity of an indictment. Rutheriberg v. United States............. 480 6. Charging one person with the direct commission of the criminal act, and others with aiding, abetting, etc., it, charges but one offense against all under § 332, Crim. Code; and all persons so charged are principals, though the offense be a misdemeanor. Id. 7. In an indictment under the Selective Draft Law for failure INDEX. 703 CRIMINAL LAW—Continued. page to register and for aiding, abetting, etc., such failure, it is sufficient to allege that delinquent was a male person between the ages specified and not necessary to allege that he was a citizen of the United States, or a person, not an alien enemy, who had declared his intention to become such citizen. Id. 8. Under § 37, Crim. Code, a conspiracy to commit an offense, when followed by overt acts, is punishable as a substantive crime, whether the illegal end has been accomplished or not. Goldman v. United States............................... 474 9. Under Rev. Stats., § 161, and Crim. Code, § 194, a privately owned box coming within the designation of letter boxes as made by the Postmaster General, is “an authorized depository of mail matter” and a theft of letters therefrom is punishable as the latter section prescribes. Rosen v. United States.. 467 10. Mail matter which has not reached the manual possession of the addressee, but lies in a private letter box, designated as an authorized depository under the federal law, where it has been placed by the delivering carrier, is still subject to the protective power of the Government. Id. 11. Convictions under Selective Draft Law. See Selective Draft Law Cases........................... 366 Jones v. Perkins................................. 390 Goldman v. United States .......................... 474 Kramer v. United States .. ......................... 478 Ruthenberg v. United States ........................ 480 12. Prosecution for violation of Food and Drugs Act. Weeks v. United States..................................... 618 CRIMINALS: Competency as witnesses. See Evidence, 3, 4. CROSS BILLS. See Equity, 6; Interstate Commerce Acts, III, 6. CUSTOMS LAW: Where the Court of Customs Appeals had taken jurisdiction and decided the case upon its merits, mandamus will not lie to compel it to inquire into and pass upon refusal of Secretary of Treasury to direct action of Collector of Customs. Ex parte Park & Tilford.................................. 82 704 INDEX. DAMAGES. See Actions and Defenses, 3; Employers’ Lia- page bility Act, 2; Landlord and Tenant, 2. 1. Where, under supplemental agreements with new contractor to whom contract relet after default of original contractor, deviations were made involving a cost of about 6% of the total contract price and requiring estimates of the attendant expenses, the cost of the work being reduced notwithstanding the changes, held, because of the deviations, that the difference between the cost and the original contract price was not a proper measure of the original contractor’s liability. United States v. California Bridge Co..................... 337 2. Government’s claim of liquidated damages, interposed in a suit on a construction contract, held inequitable and therefore disallowed. Id. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. See Bankruptcy; Equity, 1-3; National Banks; Payment. DECLARATION OF INTENTION. See Naturalization, 4, 5. DECLARATIONS. See Evidence, 5. DECREES. See Judgments. DEED. See Indians. DELEGATION OF POWER. See Constitutional Law. DENMARK. See Treaties. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION. See Indians, 7; Treaties. DISCHARGE. See Bankruptcy, 10. DISCRIMINATION. See Interstate Commerce Acts, II; Taxation, V. DISTRICT COURTS. See Jurisdiction. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS. See Jurisdiction. INDEX. 705 “ DIVISION OF JOINT RATE.” See Interstate Com- page merce Acts, I. DIVORCE. See Estoppel, 1. Alimony. See Taxation, IV, 2. DRAFT LAW. See Selective Draft Law. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. See Constitutional Law, XI; XIV. EMINENT DOMAIN: 1. Power cannot be divested through contracts made by State. Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia ........... 20^ 2. A legislative contract prohibiting taking of land of charitable corporation for street extension without latter’s consent cannot be opposed to power of condemnation. Id. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. See Employers’Liability Act; Labor Unions; Master and Servant; Safety Appliance Act. EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT: 1. A railroad employee who was run down and killed in a switching yard in which he was walking between the rails amid a shifting cloud of steam and smoke coming from a roundhouse and nearby engines, held guilty of contributory negligence. Union Pacific R. R. v. Huxoll......... 535 2. Contributory negligence avails carrier neither as defense nor in diminishing damages if failure to observe Safety Appliance Acts contributed, in whole or in part, to cause death of employee. Id. 3. Question whether defective condition of power-brake of locomotive contributed, in whole or in part, to injury to employee, held properly submitted to jury. Id. 4. Question whether any substantial evidence was introduced to justify submission of case to jury on issue of proximate causal negligence is one of law, reviewable in an action under Employers’ Liability Act coming from the state court. Id. 706 INDEX. EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT—Continued. PAGE 5. Except in cases specified in § 4, employee assumes extraordinary risks incident to employment, and risks due to negligence of employer and fellow employees when obvious or fully known and appreciated by him. Boldt v. Pennsylvania R. R.....: ........................................ 441 6. Employee was killed, while helping to repair faulty coupler, due to impact of cars moving by gravity under control of brakeman. Evidence tended to support contentions that brakeman negligently permitted cars to strike with too great violence and company neglected to provide rules to safeguard deceased while about his task. Held, plaintiff not entitled to instruction that risk employee assumes, since passage of Employers’ Liability Act, is ordinary dangers incident to employment, which does not include assumption of risk incident to negligence of carrier’s officers, agents or employees. Id. EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. See Labor Unions. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS. See Constitutional Law, XIV (6). EQUITY. See Laches; Patents for Inventions; Procedure, III, 7; IV, 3; Receivers; Trusts and Trustees. Bona fide purchaser. See Indians, 8. 1. Insolvency Proceedings. Provable Claims. When court, tvithout statute, takes possession of all assets of corporation to satisfy its debts, rights and equities of creditors are determined by their contracts with debtor; it is error to give to filing of the bill the effect of the filing of, a petition in bankruptcy or to exclude lawful claims made within time fixed for proving claims and maturing within a reasonable time before distribution can be made. Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed 597 2. Suit to Collect Stock Subscriptions. Order of Bankruptcy Court. Order of bankruptcy court, calling for payment of shareholders’ subscriptions to a bankrupt corporation which, before and independently of the order, were ascertained and payable, adds nothing to shareholders’ liabilities or trustee’s rights, and cannot justify a single suit by trustee against many of the shareholders to collect their subscriptions which, in the absence of the order, would not have INDEX. 707 EQUITY—Continued. page been cognizable in equity; and neither can order of bankruptcy court directing trustee to institute a suit in equity to make such collections confer such equitable jurisdiction. Kelley v. Gill.................................... 116 3. Id. Multiplicity of Actions. Where liabilities to pay stock subscriptions are several, independent and unconditional, and no issue with corporation touching such liabilities is common to shareholders, remedy of the corporation, or its trustee in bankruptcy, is by action at law against each shareholder separately, and not in equity on ground of multiplicity of actions. Id. 4. Ancillary Bill to Enjoin and Absorb Law Actions. Jurisdiction. A bill filed in District Court by defendant in a number of actions at law pending therein, praying that the whole matter be tried in equity and the legal proceedings enjoined, held dependent and ancillary and that the jurisdiction to entertain it was referable to that invoked in the actions at law. Eichel v. U. 8. Fidelity & Guaranty Co............. 102 5. Injunction. Street Railway Franchises. City Ordinance. City restrained in District Court pending determination of franchise rights in state court. Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & H. Trac. Co................................................ 446 6. Cross Bills; against United States. United States no more impleadable by cross than original bill without its consent. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Public Utilities Comm.............. 493 7. Enforcing and Annulling Orders of Interstate Commerce Commission. As to what is such a suit; the venue and necessity of joining United States and Commission. See Id. 8. Injunction. Absent Parties. Jurisdiction. The District Court has no power to decree injunction against parties not served with process and who appeared only to object to jurisdiction over them. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell........................................................ 229 9. Id. Officials of Labor Union. In a suit to restrain alleged concerted wrongful conduct upon the part of officials of a labor union, a temporary injunction should not be granted against those not served and not submitting themselves to jurisdiction. Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe................ 275 708 INDEX. EQUITY—Continued. page 10. Id. An injunction will lie to prevent officers and agents of a labor union from inducing employees of a plant run on a non-union basis to break their contract of employment by remaining in the employ of such non-union employer after joining the union, for the purpose of coercing such employer, through a strike or the threat of one, into recognition of the union. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell.........229 Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe.............. 275 11. Id. Decree on Interlocutory Appeal. Where application for temporary injunction submitted upon affidavits taken ex parte without opportunity for cross-examination and without consent that court proceed to final determination of merits, dismissal of bill, on interlocutory appeal, should not be directed, unless on its face there is no ground for equitable relief. Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. n. Rowe.. 275 EQUIVALENTS. See Patents for Invention, 3. ESTOPPEL: 1. Principles of estoppel by judgment reviewed and held to apply peculiarly to decrees for divorce and alimony. Bates v. Bodie........................................... 520 2. Consent decree granting divorce as prayed and adjudging that wife recover a certain sum “in full of alimony and all other demands set forth in cross-bill ” on which decree based, which bill recited husband’s property rights in certain lands in another State, held within jurisdiction of court granting it, and that action of court of State in which land situated, in suit by wife for alimony out of such lands, in not accepting such decree as an estoppel, was a denial of full faith and credit. Id. 3. In suit to set aside certificate of naturalization illegally granted United States is not estopped by the order of naturalization, although it entered its appearance in the naturalization proceedings and there unsuccessfully raised the same objection. United States v. Ness......................... 319 4. Acts of administrative officers of government held not to estop United States from asserting title to public land erroneously surveyed. Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States. 24 5. Adjudication in former case held not to estop defendant INDEX. 709 ESTOPPEL—Continued. page on issue of primary responsibility of another in action whereby former, after paying judgment, sought indemnity from latter, the former adjudication not determining or involving such issue and party from whom indemnity sought having been dismissed from former case as co-defendant before defendant’s evidence therein was heard. Fuller Co. v. Otis Elevator Co................................. 489 EVIDENCE. See Judicial Notice; Presumptions. 1. District Court in criminal trial not bound by rules of evidence as they stood in 1789. Greer v. United States......... 559 Rosen v. United States........ 467 2. Power to review does not include the right to invade province of jury by determining questions of credibility and weight of evidence. Goldman v. United States............. 474 Kramer v. United States.....:.......478 3. The common-law rule of disqualification of witnesses convicted of crime is no longer followed, but such conviction is considered in determining the credibility and weight of their testimony. Rosen v. United States...................... 467 4. In a criminal trial in District Court in New York, a witness, who had been convicted of crime under the law of that State, held competent to testify for the United States against his co-defendants, irrespective of whether he would have been disqualified under the rules of competency as they were in New York at date of Judiciary Act of 1789. Id. 5. In order that declarations and conduct of third parties may be admissible against persons sued with respect to acts done to carry out an alleged conspiracy; a combination between them and defendants must be shown, by independent evidence, but the criminal or otherwise unlawful character of the combination may be shown by the declarations themselves. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell.................. 229 6. Where validity of an order of Interstate Commerce Commission depended upon the evidence before it, trial court, in a suit to set aside order, properly excluded other evidence. Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. United States......................... 463 7. Question whether any substantial evidence was introduced to justify submission of case to jury on issue of proxi- 710 INDEX. EVIDENCE—Continued. page mate causal negligence is one of law, reviewable in an action under Federal Employers’ Liability Act coming from state court. Union Pacific R. R. v. Huxoll. 535 8. Upon charge of misbranding under Food and Drugs Act, by offering for sale under distinctive name of another article, trial court properly received evidence that shipment was made to fill order obtained by defendant’s agent by so misrepresenting article, and properly declined to confine jury’s attention to label borne by article when shipped. Weeks v. United States....■................................. 618 EXCISE TAXES. See Taxation, III. EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. See Constitutional Law, II; Customs Law; Immigration; Indians; Mails; Mandamus-; National Banks; Public Lands. Suits against. See Jurisdiction, III, (5). EXPORTS. State tax on. See Constitutional Law, V, 5. EXTRADITION: 1. A person indicted in due form for offense against laws of State, who was present therein when offense is alleged to have been committed, and subsequently leaves, becomes a fugitive from justice; and upon fulfillment of the requirements of § 5278, Rev. Stats., governor of State where accused found must cause his arrest and delivery for extradition to authorized agent of demanding State. Biddinger n. Commissioner of Police.......................................... 128 2. Art. IV, § 2, of the Constitution intends, not to express the law as usually prevailing among independent nations, but to provide a summary executive proceeding whereby States may promptly aid one another in bringing accused persons to trial; and should be liberally construed to effectuate this purpose. Id. 3. Art. IV, § 2, subd. 2, of Constitution, places no limitation upon power of States to arrest in advance of extradition proceedings; with § 5278, Rev. Stats., it deals merely with conditions under which one State may demand rendition from another and under which alleged fugitive may resist com- INDEX. 711 EXTRADITION—Continued. page pliance by State upon which demand is made. Burton v. New York Cent. R. R............................... 315 4. Matters of defense—in this case the bar of the statute of limitations—cannot be heard on habeas corpus to test the validity of arrest in extradition, but must be heard and determined at trial in demanding State. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police................................... 128 FAVORED NATION CLAUSE. See Treaties. FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. See Em- ployers’ Liability Act. FELLOW SERVANT DOCTRINE. See Employers’ Liability Act, 5, 6. FIFTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law. FINAL JUDGMENTS. See Judgments; Jurisdiction, II. FINDINGS OF FACT. See Interstate Commerce Acts, II, 1; Procedure; Public Lands, III, 3, 4. FIRST AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law. FOOD AND DRUGS ACT: 1. Act specifies and defines at least two kinds of misbranding—where article bears false or misleading label and where offered for sale under distinctive name of another article. Weeks v. United States................................. 618 2. It is not the misbranding that is made unlawful, but shipment or delivery for shipment from one State to another of misbranded article. Id. 3. Upon charge of misbranding, by offering for sale under distinctive name of another article, trial court properly received evidence that shipment was made to fill order obtained by defendant’s agent by so misrepresenting article, and properly declined to confine jury’s attention to label borne by article when shipped. Id. 4. Whether intent of principal and sanction of agent’s misrepresentations are immaterial, not determined in a case where 712 INDEX. FOOD AND DRUGS ACT—Continued. page the jury found (presumptively with evidence) that principal authorized agent, under an instruction that such authority was essential. Id. FOREIGN COMMERCE: Tax on exports. See Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania. 292 FOREIGN CORPORATIONS: Power of State to tax. See Taxation, III. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law. FRANCHISE. See Constitutional Law, VI; Procedure, III, 1; Taxation, III. 1. In absence of state constitutional or statutory provision, and prior adjudication by state court to contrary, and of circumstances showing intention to give or accept mere revocable right, franchise granted by proper state authority without limit as to duration, is contract, not subject to annulment at will of grantor. Northern Ohio Traction Co. n. Ohio..........................................574 See Cincinnati v. Traction Co*.................. i. 446 2. Under constitution and statutes of Ohio in 1892, county commissioners had power to grant franchises over public roads valid for 25 years, if not perpetually. Id. FRATERNAL SOCIETIES. See Insurance, 2. FRAUD. See Indians; 3, 9; Naturalization. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. See Bankruptcy, 5-8. FREIGHT CHARGES. See Interstate Commerce Acts, III, 1. FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE. See Extradition. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. See Constitutional Law. GAS COMPANIES: Required to extend service. See New York & Queens Gas Co. v. McCall................................... 345 INDEX. 713 GOOD WILL. See Master and Servant, 1. page GRAND JURY. See Constitutional Law, XII, 2. GUARANTY. See Married Women. HABEAS CORPUS: 1. In the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial. Jones n. Perkins390 2. Matters of defense—in this case the bar of the statute of limitations—cannot be heard on habeas corpus to test validity of arrest in extradition, but must be heard and determined at trial in demanding State. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police................................ 128 HOMESTEADS. See Indians; Public Lands. HUSBAND AND WIFE. See Estoppel, 1; Married Women. Alimony. See Taxation, IV, 2. IMMIGRATION. See Aliens; Naturalization. Section 43, Immigration Act of 1907, preserves judicial proceedings prescribed by Chinese Exclusion Acts for cases to which those acts apply, and summary administrative method provided by § 21 cannot be used in a case of violation of Exclusion Acts. United States v. Woo Jan........ 552 IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT OBLIGATION. See Con- stitutional Law. INCOME TAX. See Taxation, IV. INDIANS: 1. Under treaties with Menominee Indians, acts of Congress and an act of the Wisconsin legislature, certain lands held disposed of within meaning of school section grant in Wisconsin Enabling Act; that they remained in reservation and subject to continuing occupancy and rights of Indians; and that State had no title to them and could not restrain cutting of timber on them by or in interest of Indians. Wisconsin v. Lane........................................ 427 714 INDEX. INDIANS—Continued. page 2. Treaty of 1854 with Lake Superior Chippewas and reservation for the Indians thereunder, held to withdraw certain lands and dispose of them within meaning of school section grant in Wisconsin Enabling Act, and that title did not pass to State. United States v. Stearns Lumber Co............. 436 3. Allotment certificate issued under Choctaw-Chickasaw agreement of 1902 passes equitable title only; until legal title conveyed by patent, duly recorded, as provided by § 5, Act of 1906, allotment may be set aside by Secretary of the Interior for fraudulent procurement. Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane......................................... 308 4. The assignment of land provided for by Art. IV of treaty of 1865 with Omaha Indians, was merely an apportionment of tribal right of occupancy to members in severalty, leaving fee in United States and leaving United States and tribe free to take such measures for ultimate and permanent disposal of lands, including fee, as might become appropriate in view of changing conditions, welfare of the Indians and public interests. United States v. Chase....................... 89 5. Possessory rights based on such assignments were terminated by Act of 1882,22 Stat. 341. An assignee who failed to exercise his preferred right of selection waived it, and his assigned tract became allottable to any other qualified selector. Id. 6. The provision of § 4, Act of 1882, that “ any right in severalty acquired by any Indian under existing treaties shall not be affected by this act ” was not intended to qualify the plan of allotment defined in § 5, but only to prevent the sale under the earlier and separable portion of the act of tracts subject to Indian rights in severalty acquired under treaties. Id. 7. Patent for allotment under Act of 1882, in the name of an Indian who was dead at the time, inures to benefit of his heir under § 2448, Rev. Stats.; the fact that patentee had died before requisite proceedings had been taken upon his selection would not render patent void but at most voidable in an appropriate proceeding. Such a patent cannot be attacked by mere occupant of the allotment in an action brought by United States and patentee’s heir to recover damages for wrongful use and occupation of the premises. Id. INDEX. 715 INDIANS—Continued. page 8. Doctrine of bona fide purchaser will not aid holder of an equity to overcome the holder of both the legal title and an equity. Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane................... 308 9. Mandamus will not lie to compel Secretary of Interior to execute and record a patent for land where relator, purchaser in good faith and without notice of a fraudulent Indian allotment, seeks to get legal title as against the United States. Id. 10. Under Acts of 1906, § 19, and 1908, § 4, land allotted to a Creek Freedwoman as a homestead under Act of 1902, lost its tax exemption when restrictions on alienation were removed by Secretary of Interior upon petition of allottee under townsite provision of Act of 1903. Sweet v. Schock.... 192 INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION. See Criminal Law, 5-7. INFRINGEMENT. See Patents for Inventions. INHERITANCE TAXES. See Taxation, V. INJUNCTION. See Equity, 4-11. INSOLVENCY. See Bankruptcy; Receivers. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY. See Employers’ Liability Act, 3, 4, 6; Food and Drugs Act, 3, 4. INSURANCE. 1. A policy of insurance having a cash surrender value held an asset of bankrupt’s estate to the extent of such value. Cohen v. Samuels................................................. 50 2. A fraternal insurance corporation held to have the right to increase assessment upon insurance certificate. Knights of Pythias v. Smyth............................................. 594 INTERSTATE COMMERCE. See Interstate Commerce Acts. As to what constitutes interstate commerce. See Constitutional Law, V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTS: For suits against the Commission, and to enforce or avoid its orders. See Jurisdiction, III, (4). 716 INDEX. INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTS—Continued. page I. Terms Defined. 1. Meanings and relations of the terms “through route,” “through rate,” “joint rate,” “sum of the locals,” “division of joint rate,” “rate-breaking point” and “combination rate” explained and defined. St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. United States.................................................. 136 II. Powers and Proceedings of Commission. See also III, 5, 6, infra. 1. Effect of findings. Findings of fact, based on ample evidence, are conclusive. Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. United States 463 2. Id. Where the validity of an order of Commission depended upon the evidence before it, the trial court, in a suit to set aside the order, properly excluded other evidence. Id. 3. Long and Short Haul Clause. An order passed after a full hearing on an application for relief from the long and short haul provision of the Act to Regulate Commerce, held not objectionable as to form or as broader than the hearing, or because other phases of the application were not acted upon, or as otherwise beyond the Commission’s power. Id. 4. Discrimination against Locality. The power to prevent discrimination against a particular locality applies to carriers whose lines do not reach it but which bill through traffic to it over connecting lines. St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. United States.. 136 5. Joint Rates and Through Routes. An order to substitute reasonable joint through rate for an existing through rate, and to maintain existing through route, or, at carrier’s election, substitute a modification of it found preferable, is within the power of the Commission. Id. 6. Id. An order held consistent with provision of § 15 of Commerce Act forbidding Commission to embrace in a through route “less than the entire length” of a railroad “unless to do so would make such through route unreasonably long.” Id. 7. Id. Removing Discrimination. An order requiring carriers to reduce existing through rates by establishing joint rates, or, in alternative, new through routes with joint rates, rests on § 15 of Commerce Act; it is not to be regarded as primarily an order to remove discrimination in violation of § 3, even INDEX. 717 INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTS—Continued. page though discrimination in rates as between two localities may have furnished the occasion for the complaint and afforded reason for the rate fixed. Id. 8. Investigating Power. An investigation directed by Senate resolution, relative to expenditures by certain railroad companies, held not to be regarded as directed to political activities, or to efforts to suppress competition, but as seeking to ascertain amounts of expenditures, their allocation, and the maimer in which charged upon books. Smith v. Interstate Com. Comm.......................................33, 47 Jones v. Interstate Com. Comm.......................... 48 9. Id. Power of investigation not necessarily confined to cases in which evils and abuses are definitely charged and remedies proposed in words; nor, semble, is right of inquiry in a particular proceeding necessarily to be measured by scope of the proceeding as defined by the order instituting it. Id. 10. Removing discriminating intrastate rates. When Commission finds that disparity in interstate and intrastate rates is resulting in unjust discrimination against interstate commerce, and determines what are reasonable rates for interstate traffic and directs removal of discrimination carrier not only entitled to put in force such rates but free to remove the forbidden discrimination by bringing intrastate rates to same level. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Public Utilities Comm.... 493 11. Id. Scope and certainty of order. In such case, Commission may make order as broad as wrongful discrimination, but extent of discrimination found and of remedy applied must be gathered from the reports and order of the Commission; and, to be effective in respect of intrastate rates established and maintained under state authority, order must have definite field of operation and not leave uncertain territory or points to which it applies. Such order should not be given precedence over a state rate statute, otherwise valid, unless, and except in so far as, it conforms to a high standard of per-tainty. Id. III. Duties, Rights and Liabilities of Carriers and Shippers. 1. Recovery of Excess Charges under Reparation Order. That one who has paid unreasonable freight charges has shifted burden by collecting from purchasers of the goods, does not 718 INDEX. INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTS—Continued. page prevent him from recovering overpayments from carrier, under an order of reparation: he is the proximate loser, his cause of action accrues immediately, and the purchaser, lacking privity, cannot recover the illegal profits from the carrier. Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Co.......... 531 2. Carmack Amendment. Bill of Lading Presumed. In a case of interstate shipment governed by Amendment, issuance of a receipt or bill of lading will be presumed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart......................................359 3. State Liquor Laws; Exposure of Records. A state law requiring carriers to keep records of shipments of intoxicating liquor open for inspection of any officer or citizen, is, under the Webb-Kenyon Law, valid, notwithstanding prohibition as to divulging information in § 15 of Commerce Act as amended. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. North Carolina................... 298 4. State Interference with Trains. Unwarranted requirements as to departure of trains and infliction of penalties, held contrary to commerce clause. Missouri, Kans. & Tex. Ry. v. Texas............................................... 484 5. Suits to Restrain State Interference with Commission’s Order—Venue. Suits by carriers to restrain state officials from interfering with establishment and maintenance of intrastate rates which carriers have adopted in pursuance of order of Interstate Commerce Commission requiring removal of discrimination against interstate commerce, need not be brought in district of residence of party upon whose petition order was made, but come within provision of § 1, Act of June 18, 1910 (Jud. Code, § 207). Illinois Central R. R. n. Public Utilities Comm.....................................X'. 493 6. Id. Cross Bill to Set Order Aside. The District Court of a district other than that of petitioner’s residence, in a suit by a carrier in aid of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, cannot, under the Act of October 22, 1913, entertain a cross bill seeking to have the order declared void and to enjoin the United States and the Commission from enforcing it and the carrier from complying with it. Id. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. See Inter- state Commerce Acts. INTERSTATE RENDITION. See Extradition. INDEX. 719 INTOXICATING LIQUORS : PAGE 1. A State may prohibit and punish the possession of intoxicating liquor for personal use. Crane v. Campbell. 304 2. Under Webb-Kenyon Law a State may prescribe conditions under which shipments of intoxicating liquors from other States may be allowed. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. North Carolina....................................... 298 3. A state law requiring carriers to keep records of shipments of intoxicating liquor open for inspection of any officer or citizen, is, under the Webb-Kenyon Law, valid, notwithstanding prohibition as to divulging information in § 15 of Commerce Act as amended. Id. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. See Constitutional Law, XIII. “ JOINT RATE.” See Interstate Commerce Acts, I. JUDGES: An attempt to impose on a circuit court or judge thereof the duty of levying and collecting taxes is void under the Constitution of Kentucky. Hendrickson v. Apperson......... 105 JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. See Constitutional Law, IX; XI, 2; XIV, 10; Equity, 11; Estoppel, 1, 2; Jurisdiction; Procedure, IV; Res Judicata. 1. Finality of judgment for purposes of review by certiorari and writ of error is determined by face of record and formal character as rendered by state court. Bruce v. Tobin... 18 2. Judgment of highest state court in action under Employers’ Liability Act, final in sense of determining ultimate right and general principles by which it was to be measured, but which did not fix amount of recovery and directed new trial to accomplish that result, held not final for purposes of certiorari under Act of 1916. Id. 3. Finality of judgments of Court of Appeals of District of Columbia for purposes of certiorari from this court. See Fuller Co. v. Otis Elevator Co..............................489 4. When a decree dismissing a bill is meant to be without prejudice, the better practice is to express it so. McGowan v. Columbia River Packers’ Assn............................ 352 720 INDEX. JUDICIAL NOTICE. See Presumptions. page Whether a state court may take judicial notice that a stream is navigable is a question of local law. Wear v. Kansas.... 154 JURISDICTION: I. Jurisdiction over the Person, p. 720. II. Jurisdiction of this Court. (1) In General^ p. 721. (2) Mandamus, p. 721. (3) Certiorari, p. 721. (4) Over Circuit Court of Appeals, p. 722. (5) Over District Courts, p. 722. (6) Over Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, p. 723. (7) Over Court of Customs Appeals. See Mandamus, 3, 4. (8) Over Courts of the Philippine Islands, p. 723. (9) Over State Courts, p. 724. III. Jurisdiction of District Courts. (1) Removal Proceedings, p. 725. (2) Enforcing Local Policy, p. 725. (3) Under Contract Clause, p. 725. (4) As to Orders of Interstate Commerce Commission, p. 725. (5) Suits against State Officials or States, p. 726. (6) Suits against United States, p. 727. (7) On Columbia River, p. 727. IV. Jurisdiction of State Courts, p. 727. V. Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. See II, (6), supra. VI. Local Law. Following State Courts, p. 727. See Bankruptcy. See Procedure. I. Jurisdiction over the Person. See II, 14,19; III, (7), infra. 1. District Court has no power to decree an injunction against parties who were not served with process and who appeared only to object to the jurisdiction over them. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell.................. 229 2. In a suit to restrain alleged concerted wrongful conduct upon the part of officials of a labor union, a temporary in- INDEX. 721 JURISDICTION—Continued. page junction should not be granted against those not served and not submitting themselves to jurisdiction. Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe..................................... 275 3. Where a bill to abate a nuisance on the Columbia River was filed in the Western District of Washington on the assumption that the locus in quo was within that State and District, a motion to dismiss without prejudice, because of an intervening decision of this court which fixed the locus in Oregon, should have been granted, the possibility of granting relief against the defendants in personam not justifying the retention of the case against plaintiff’s will. McGowan v. Columbia River Packers' Assn........................ 352 II. Jurisdiction of this Court. (1) In General. 1. Without departing from settled rule that writ of error dismissed if its total want of merit shown conclusively by decisions extant at time of decision below, judgment affirmed. Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia.................. 20 2. Power to review does not include the right to invade province of jury by determining questions of credibility and weight of evidence. Goldman v. United States..............474 Kramer v. United States ............. 478 3. In reviewing judgment erroneously treating franchise as revocable at will of county commissioners and upholding purported revocation by them, court not called upon to determine whether franchise term has since expired or whether legislature may have reserved power to revoke or repeal franchise. Northern Ohio Trac. Co. v. Ohio.....................574 (2) Mandamus. See Mandamus. 4. Writ will not issue to compel subordinate court to make a particular decision; and jurisdiction in this regard is no greater in a case in which lower court’s decision is by law made final than those in which decisions are reviewable in the ordinary ways. Ex parte Park & Tilford................. 82 (3) Certiorari. See (6) and (9), infra. See Procedure, I. 5. Remedy by certiorari under Act of 1916 is confined to final judgments, and finality is determined by face of record 722 INDEX. JURISDICTION—Continued. page and formal character of judgment of state court. Bruce v. Tobin................................................... 18 6. As to review by certiorari of cases brought under § 16 of Commerce Act to enforce reparation orders. Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Co....................... 531 (4) Over Circuit Court of Appeals. 7. Though an action be removable as one arising under a federal law, if defendant remove it solely on ground of diverse citizenship a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is not reviewable by writ of error. Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart................................................ 359 8. An ancillary, dependent bill to enjoin legal proceedings in District Court and adjudicate subject-matter is jurisdic-tionally referable to such actions, and decree therein is re- • viewable by appeal from Circuit Court of Appeals if original jurisdiction of action depended on federal question. Eichel v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co......................... 102 9. Suit against fraternal insurance corporation held to involve construction of federal charter, and that court had jurisdiction to entertain appeal. Knights of Pythias v. Smyth................................................... 594 (5) Over District Courts. 10. In reviewing directly judgment of District Court in criminal case, when constitutional questions upon which jurisdiction depends are not- frivolous but are resolved against plaintiff in error, other questions raised are to be , considered and passed upon. Goldman v. United States . .. 474 11. A suit by one adjudged a lunatic, seeking to regain certain documents and to set aside the inquisition, held to involve no construction or application of the Constitution to support direct appeal from District Court. Ketcham v. Burr.................................................... 510 12. An action to recover back money paid under protest as tax on income under Law of 1913, held to present not merely question whether statute has been wrongly understood and applied, but also question as to scope of Sixteenth Amendment, and that court had jurisdiction to review both ques- INDEX. 723 JURISDICTION—Continued. PAGE tions by direct writ of error to District Court. Towne v. Eisner............................................ 418 13. Upon appeal from decree of District Court granting an injunction against enforcement of a city ordinance, on ground that it impaired the obligations of grants under which a street railway has been built and that its enforcement would work a deprivation of property without due process or compensation and cause irreparable injury, the cause is subject to review upon both law and facts, relief depending upon the case as it develops in this court. Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & H. Trac. Co.................... 446 14. A proceeding to set aside default judgment for want of service of process, held to amount to an independent action and that the question of jurisdiction, as it related to the power of the court in the original action, could not be made the basis of a direct writ of error, under § 238, Judicial Code, to determine correctness of order overruling application to set aside. Stevirmac Oil & Gas Co. v. Dittman..................... 210 (6) Over Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. 15. Power of Court of Appeals to certify questions to this court is confined to cases where judgments or decrees are made final by § 250, Jud. Code, which does not embrace cases involving interpretation and effect of acts of Congress which are general in character, or the general duties or powers of officers under the law of the United States, as distinguished from merely local authority. Arant v. Lane............... 166 16. When issued to the Court of Appeals, the writ of certiorari is not limited to cases in which final judgment has been entered, but only to those in which judgment when entered is final. Fuller Co. v. Otis Elevator Co....... 489 (7) Over Court of Customs Appeals. See Mandamus, 3, 4. (8) Over Courts of the Philippine Islands. T7. Judgment of Supreme Court of Philippine Islands modifying judgment of Court of Land Registration held properly reviewable by writ of error and that an appeal also taken must be dismissed. Gauzon v. Compania General &c........ 86 724 INDEX. JURISDICTION—Continued. page (9) Over State Courts. 18. Judgment of highest state court, in action under Employers’ Liability Act, final in sense of determining ultimate right and general principles by which it was to be measured, but which did not fix amount of recovery and directed new trial to accomplish that result, held not final for purposes of certiorari under Act of 1916. Bruce v. Tobin.............. 18 19. A judgment rendered against corporation of one State in courts of another, on cause of action arising in the former, over objection that its consent to be sued in the latter could be implied only in respect of causes arising out of its business there and that the attempt to compel it to respond to the action was an invasion of its rights under Constitution, held not reviewable by writ of error, but by certiorari under that clause of § 237, Jud. Code, as amended, which deals with cases in which any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the Constitution. Phila. & Reading C. & I. Co. v. Gilbert........................................... 162 20. Where, by the judgment of a court of domicile, an insurance company was permitted to levy certain assessments, subject to limitation of amount, and in a later action in court of another State such an assessment was held void on the ground that it exceeded the power of the company and the limit fixed by the former judgment, and that it was not made as required by the company’s charter, held, that the second ground of decision could not be treated as an independent local basis of decision and thereby defeat the right of review and reversal of the decision on the first ground as one denying full faith and credit to the judgment with respect to the amount of assessment. Hartford Life Ins. Co v. Barber..... 146 21. Question whether any substantial evidence was introduced to justify submission of case to jury on issue of proximate causal negligence is one of law, reviewable in action under Federal Employers’ Liability Act coming from state court. Union Pacific R. R. v. Huxoll..................... 535 III. Jurisdiction of District Courts. See II, (4) and (5), supra. As to personal jurisdiction. See I, supra. As to jurisdiction in bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy. INDEX. 725 JURISDICTION—Continued. PAGE (1) Removed Proceedings. See II, 7, supra. 1. Where complaint states cause of action against common carrier for loss or damage in transit to goods shipped in interstate commerce, case is removable from state to District Court if jurisdictional amount is involved. Southern Pac. Co. v. Stewart.........................................359 (2) Enforcing Local Policy. 2. If a contract, made and valid in one State, is unenforceable in the courts of another on grounds of local public policy, it is unenforceable also, for the same reason, in District Court in latter State having jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship. Union Trust Co. v. Grosman....................... 412 (3) Under Contract Clause. 3. Corporations claiming right to operate street railway according to terms of various grants, etc., under which it had been built, sought to restrain enforcement of a city ordinance on ground that it impaired and attempted to impair the obligations of the several grants, etc., and that its enforcement would deprive them of their property without due process or compensation and cause irreparable injury. Held, that jurisdiction of District Court was properly invoked and that it had power to adjudicate the issues presented, but that the decree for an injunction as prayed should be modified so as to limit affirmative relief to an injunction restraining city from taking any steps, other than necessary court proceedings, to enforce the ordinance prior to final adjudication of controversies involved and from setting up claim that plaintiff’s continued operation of cars, pending such final adjudication, does or will amount to an acceptance of the ordinance or in any way prejudice their rights. Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & H. Trac. Co. .. 446 (4) As to Orders of Interstate Commerce Commission. 4. District Court, in a suit by a carrier in aid of an order of Commission, cannot, under Act of Oct. 22, 1913, entertain a cross bill seeking to have the order declared void and to enjoin United States and Commission from enforcing it and carrier from complying with it, in district where party who petitioned for the order does not reside. Illinois Certtral R. R. v. Public Utilities Comm........................ 493 726 INDEX. JURISDICTION—Continued. page 5. Suits by carriers to restrain state officials from interfering with establishment and maintenance of intrastate rates which carriers have adopted in pursuance of order of Commission requiring removal of discrimination against interstate commerce, need not be brought in district of residence of party upon whose petition order was made, but come within provision of § 1, Act of June 18, 1910 (Jud. Code, § 207). Id. 6. In suit by carrier to restrain state officials from interfering with establishment and maintenance of intrastate rates adopted in pursuance of order of Commission requiring removal of discrimination against interstate commerce, neither the United States nor the Commission is a necessary party. Id. 7. A cross bill seeking to have an order of the Commission declared void and to enjoin United States and Commission from enforcing it and carrier from complying with it, cannot be entertained as against Commission and carrier only: United States is a necessary party. Id. (5) Suits Against State Officials or States. 8. Action against Bank Commissioner of Oklahoma held to be against him personally and that, in absence of diverse citizenship, District Court without jurisdiction; allegations of abridgment of privileges and immunities and deprivation of property without due process being merely in emphasis of Commissioner’s wrongdoing and not a statement of an independent ground of recovery. Martin v. Lankford.......... 547 9. Action against Bank Commissioner of Oklahoma personally and his surety to recover damages for loss of plaintiff’s bank deposit, alleged to be due to his negligent or wilful disregard of his duties under state law, held not an action against State, but one within jurisdiction of District Court, there being di- versity of citizenship. Johnson v. Lankford............... 541 Martin v. Lankford............. 547 10. Allegations that Commissioner so arbitrarily and capriciously exercised his powers as to deprive plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws and of his property without due process, etc., held not to change complexion of action. Johnson v. Lankford................................................ 541 11. " Suit to enjoin state officials from enforcing unconstitutional tax not a suit against State. Looney v. Crane Co. 178 INDEX. 727 JURISDICTION—Continued. page (6) Suits against United States. 12. The immunity of the United States recognizes no distinction between cross and original bills, or ancillary and original suits. Illinois Central R. R. v. Public Utilities Comm...................'............................ 493 (7) On Columbia River. See I, 3, supra. 13. An alleged nuisance consisting of nets connected with buoys and heavily anchored to bottom of Columbia River between the line of extreme low tide and the channel, in Oregon, is not subject to abatement by District Court sitting in Western District of Washington; assuming that concurrent jurisdiction “on the Columbia” is enjoyed by State of Washington, it does not reach bed of stream in Oregon. McGowan v. Columbia River Packers1 Assn............... 352 IV. Jurisdiction of State Courts. See II, (9) supra; VI, infra. Removal. See II, 7; III, (1), supra. V. Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. See II, (6), supra. VI. Local Law. Following State Courts. See II, 20, 21; HI, (2), supra. 1. Conclusive effect of construction of state statutes by highest court of State. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Towers .... 6 New York & Queens Gas Co. v. Mc- Call....................... 345 Hendrickson v. Apperson........ 105 2. Where judgment sustaining in toto a street improvement tax laid upon abutting property partly according to frontage and partly according to area was reversed on sole ground that assessment based on area had produced results in conflict with Fourteenth Amendment and case sent back for further proceedings, questions as to whether the part of the tax based on frontage was severable, and whether, and by what agency, a new and just area assessment should be made, . held questions of state law for determination by state court. Schneider Granite Co. v. Gast Realty Co................... 288 3. Whether a state court may take judicial notice that a 728 INDEX. JURISDICTION—Continued. page stream is navigable is a question of local law. Wear v. Kansas.......................................... 154 4. Constitutionality of state tax determined by court’s own judgment of actual operation and effect of tax, irrespective of its form and of how characterized by state courts. Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania............................. 292 JURY AND JURORS. See Constitutional Law, XII; XIV, (2). Instructions. See Employers’ Liability Act, 3, 4, 6; Food and Drugs Act, 3, 4. 1. The Sixth Amendment and federal statutes permit the drawing of a jury from a part of the district in criminal cases. Ruthenberg v. United States................ 480 2. No infraction of constitutional or statutory right is predicable of the fact that the indictment and conviction of a Socialist are returned by grand and petit juries composed exclusively of members of other political parties, and property owners. Id. 3. Upon a criminal trial of defendants who are Socialists it is not error for court to refuse them permission to ask jurors whether they distinguish between Socialists and Anarchists. Id. JURY TRIAL. See Constitutional Law, XII; XIV, (2); Jury and Jurors. KANSAS: Riparian rights in. See Waters. KENTUCKY: Attempt to impose on a circuit court or judge thereof duty of levying and collecting taxes is void under Constitution of Kentucky. Hendrickson v. Apperson................. 105 LABELS. See Food and Drugs Act. LABORERS: Contract Labor Law. See Aliens. INDEX. 729 LABOR UNIONS. See Evidence, 5; Master and Servant. page 1. The right of action for persuading an employee to leave his employment rests upon fundamental principles of general application. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell...............229 Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe.................275 2. It is the right of workingmen to form unions and to enlarge their membership by inviting other workingmen to join, provided the objects of the union be proper and legitimate. The latter right must be exercised with reasonable regard for the conflicting rights of others and not by inducing or seeking to induce employees of an establishment to violate their contract of employment. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co v. Mitchell.....................................229 3. The same liberty which enables men to form unions, and through the unions to enter into agreements with employers willing to agree, entitles other men to remain independent of the unions and other employers to agree with them to employ no man who owes any allegiance or obligation to the union. The parties are entitled to be protected by the law in the enjoyment of the benefits of any lawful agreement they may make. Id. 4. An injunction will lie to prevent officers and agents of a labor union from inducing employees of a plant run on a nonunion basis to break their contract of employment by remaining in the employ of such non-union employer after joining the union, for the purpose of coercing such employer, through a strike or the threat of one, into recognition of the union. Id. 5. In a suit to restrain alleged concerted wrongful conduct upon the part of officials of a labor union, a temporary injunction should not be granted against those not served and not submitting themselves to jurisdiction. Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe........................................275 LACHES: A suit, brought in 1913, by testamentary trustees, seeking to hold the Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., as by an express trust, for the satisfaction of certain bonds issued under a deed of trust in 1872 by another company, to whose interests and obligation defendant was alleged to have succeeded, the bonds at time of suit being more than 10 years overdue and 730 INDEX. LACHES—Continued. page the interest in default 37 years or longer, held barred by laches. Waller v. Texas & Pac. Ry............... 398 LAND DEPARTMENT. See Public Lands. LAND GRANTS. See Public Lands. LANDLORD AND TENANT: 1. Rent issues from the land, is not due until the rent day, and is due in respect of the enjoyment of the premises let. Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed....................... 597 2. Where lessee corporation not only undertook to pay as rental all sums payable by its lessor under overleases of the same premises, but also, as the inducing consideration for the lease, covenanted to pay at all events a certain amount per annum, in monthly instalments throughout the term and, if the lease should be terminated sooner, to pay a sum measured at the same rate for the unexpired term, less a discount, held, that the covenant created a present indebtedness, independent of rent, for the whole amount so stipulated to be paid; that upon appointment of receivers in a purely equitable proceeding to carry on the lessee’s business and pay its debts, and upon their declining the lease leaving rent in default, the lessor, by reentry pursuant to the lease with the court’s consent, might perfect its claim to the amount payable under the covenant for the unexpired term and that the claim thus perfected was provable within the time fixed for proof of claims against the receivers; that lessor might in like manner perfect and prove its claim under the covenant to pay as damages difference between rental value at date of entry and rent reserved, for residue of term. Id. 3. In Massachusetts, in absence of statute or express contract, lessor who has terminated lease and evicted tenant has no further claim against lessee or his receivers appointed to continue business and pay debts. Gardiner n. Butler & Co.............................................. 603 4. In non-statutory receivership proceeding brought to preserve good will and pay debts of company occupying premises as lessee, lessor reentering during receivership held to have proper claim for rent up to reentry and for damages based INDEX. 731 LANDLORD AND TENANT—Continued. page on lessee’s covenant to pay difference between rental value at time of reentry and the rent and other payments reserved for residue of term. Id. 5. Covenant for payment of so much per annum in monthly payments throughout term, and, if lease terminated sooner, for anticipating payments for unexpired portion, less a discount on payments so anticipated, held to intend a simple discount on monthly payments as they fell due. Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed 597 LANDS. See Indian ; Public Lands. LARCENY. See Criminal Law, 9, 10. LEASE. See Landlord and Tenant. LEGACIES: Inheritance tax. See Taxation, V. LETTER-BOXES. See Criminal Law, 9, 10; Mails. LIBERTY. See Constitutional Law; Contracts, 2. LIMITATIONS. See Laches. 1. Statute of limitations is a defense and must be asserted on trial by defendant in criminal cases; it cannot be heard on habeas corpus to test validity of arrest in extradition. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police 128 2. Limitations in Act of Mar. 3, 1891, inapplicable to suit by United States to quiet its title to land erroneously excluded from survey. Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States.... 24 3. Second proviso in § 8, Naturalization Act of 1906, has no bearing on relation of 7 year limitation prescribed by § 4, subd. 2, to declarations filed before passage of act. United States v. Morena................................. 392 4. Requirement of subd. 2, § 4, that petition shall be filed not more than 7 years after alien has made his declaration of intention, applies to declarations made before act was passed. The period runs on such declarations from date of act. Id. 732 INDEX. LIQUOR LAWS. See Intoxicating Liquors. page LOCAL LAW. See Jurisdiction, VI. LONG AND SHORT HAULS. See Interstate Commerce Acts, II, 3. MAILS. See Criminal Law, 10. 1. Executive powers of Postmaster General under § 161, Rev. Stats., include power to designate certain receptacles as letter boxes. Rosen v. United States................. ’ 467 2. Theft of letters from mail boxes placed by tenants for receipt of mail in halls of buildings in which they have place of business punishable under Crim. Code, § 194. Id: MANDAMUS: 1. Discretionary remedy, largely controlled by equitable principles; will not be granted to promote wrong—to direct an act which will work public or private mischief, or which, while within letter, disregards spirit of law. Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane................................... 308 2. Will not lie to compel Secretary of Interior to execute and record patent for land where relator, purchaser in good faith and without notice of fraudulent Indian allotment, seeks to get in legal title as against the United States. Id. 3. Will not issue to compel subordinate court to make a particular decision; jurisdiction in this regard no greater in case in which lower court’s decision is by law made final than where decision is reviewable in the ordinary ways. Ex parte Park & Tilford............................... 82 4. Where the Court of Customs Appeals had taken jurisdiction and decided case upon its merits, mandamus will not lie to compel it to inquire into and pass upon the refusal of Secretary of Treasury to direct action of Collector of Customs. Id. 5. In a mandamus to test right of a State to levy charges on sand dredged from a stream by riparian owner under claim of title ad filum aquae, latter has not a constitutional right to have question of navigability determined by jury. Wear v. Kansas............................................. 154 INDEX. 733 MARITIME LAW: PAGE As to territorial status of American vessel. See Scharren- berg v. Dollar 8. 8. Co............................ 122 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. See Estoppel, 1; Married Women. Alimony. See Taxation, IV, 2. MARRIED WOMEN: 1. Wife’s continuing guaranty of payment of husband’s note, enforceable in State where executed, held, not enforceable, under the rule of comity, in courts of State of domicile against wife’s separate property there if contrary to public policy of State. Union Trust Co. v. Grosman........ 412 2. By law of Texas, married woman’s guaranty of husband’s note not enforceable against her separate property. Id. MASSACHUSETTS: In absence of statute or express contract, lessor who has terminated lease and evicted tenant has no further claim against lessee or his receivers appointed to continue business and pay debts. Gardiner v. Butler & Co..................... 603 MASTER AND SERVANT. See Employers’ Liability Act; Labor Unions; Safety Appliance Act. 1. An employer is entitled to the good will of his employees; to the benefit of the reasonable probability that by properly treating them he will be able to retain them in his employ and fill vacancies occurring from time to time by the employment of other men on the same terms; and it is unlawful for a third party, having notice of this relation, to interfere with it without just cause or excuse. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell.................................... 229 Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe.................... 275 2. The right of action for persuading an employee to leave his employment rests upon fundamental principles of general application. Id. 3. A bill setting up contract with plaintiff’s employees whereby latter were not to join labor unions and remain in employ and charging defendants with formation and pursuit of scheme to unionize plaintiff’s shop by interfering with its employees, held one stating an equitable cause of action, which appellate court should not dismiss on an interlocutory appeal. Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe.................. 275 734 INDEX. MASTER AND SERVANT—Continued. page 4. Party held liable for servant’s negligence may have indemnity from another primarily responsible as master. Fuller Co. v. Otis Elevator Co............... 489 MILITARY SERVICE. See Constitutional Law, III. MILITIA. See Constitutional Law, III. MINERAL LANDS. See Public Lands, III. MINES AND MINING. See Public Lands, III. MINISTERS OF RELIGION. See Constitutional Law, X. MISBRANDING. See Food and Drugs Act. MISTAKE. See Public Lands, I. MORTGAGES: Recording. See Bankruptcy, 7, 8. MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS. See Equity, 3, 4. MUNICIPALITIES. See Franchise ; Ordinances. NATIONAL BANKS. See Payment. 1. Comptroller of Currency has discretionary power to withdraw assessment on shareholders before it is paid, or when partly paid. Korbly v. Springfield Inst, for Savings. 330 2. Where sums paid by savings banks to receiver of national bank in which they held shares were intended to be applied against their liabilities under National Bank Act, to enforce which an assessment was then outstanding, second assessment, exceeding difference between their statutory liabilities and amounts so paid, is void. Id. NATURALIZATION: 1. Filing of certificate of arrival an essential prerequisite. United States v. Ness....................... 319 2. Certificate of naturalization, issued without certificate of arrival having been filed, may be set aside at suit of United States, as one illegally procured. Id. INDEX. 735. N ATURALIZATION—Continued. PAGE 3. In suit to set aside certificate of naturalization illegally granted, United States not estopped by order of naturalization although it entered appearance in naturalization proceedings and there unsuccessfully raised same obj ection. Id. 4. Second proviso in § 8, Act of 1906, has no bearing on relation of 7 year limitation prescribed by § 4, subd. 2, to declarations filed before passage of act. United States v. Morena 392 5. Requirement of subd. 2, of § 4, Act of 1906, that petition shall be filed not more than 7 years after alien has made his declaration of intention, applies to declarations made before act was passed. The period runs on such declarations from date of act. Id. NAVIGABLE WATERS. See Waters. NEGLIGENCE. See Employers’ Liability Act; Master and Servant, 4. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. See Married Women. NOTICE. See Judicial Notice; Public Lands, III, 3, 4. NU ISANCE. See Jurisdiction, I, 3; III, (7). OHIO: Under constitution and statutes in 1892, county commissioners had power to grant franchises over public roads valid for 25 years, if not perpetually. Northern Ohio Trac. Co. v. Ohio ...................... ........................ 574 ORDINANCES. See Franchise. Race segregation ordinance held unconstitutional under Fourteenth Amendment. Buchanan v. Warley........... 60 OREGON: Sand Island, in the Columbia River, is part of the State of Oregon, the boundary between that State and Washington being the ship channel north of the Island. McGowan v. Columbia River Packers’ Assn....................... 352 PARTIES. See Equity, 8, 9; Jurisdiction, I. Suits against state officials. See Jurisdiction, III, (5). 736 INDEX. PARTIES—Continued. page Diverse citizenship. See Jurisdiction, II, 7; III, 2, 9. Trustee in bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy, 6-8, 11-15. 1. In a suit by a carrier to restrain state officials from interfering with establishment and maintenance of intrastate rates adopted in pursuance of order of Interstate Commerce Commission requiring removal of discrimination against interstate commerce, neither United States nbr Commission is necessary party. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Public Utilities Comm. 493 2. A cross bill seeking to have order of Interstate Commerce Commission declared void and to enjoin United States and Commission from enforcing it and carrier from complying with it, cannot be entertained as against Commission and carrier only: United States is a necessary party. Id. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS: 1. One who entered the field when a patent was unquestioned and after the patentee by his efforts had created an extensive market, held to have acquired in equity no intervening rights against the patent as subsequently reissued. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Baldwin. 198 2. Baldwin patent for improvements in acetylene gas generating lamps held valid and infringed as to claim 4. Id. 3. The invention covered by stich patent held meritorious and entitled to invoke the doctrine of equivalents. Id. 4. The reissue of such patent and amendment therein held not to enlarge original patent. Id. PATENTS FOR LAND. See Indians; Public Lands. PAYMENT: In determining effect of certain payments made by trustees of savings banks, the court assumed that it was the purpose of trustees to act within their powers, and applied settled rule that when neither debtor nor creditor has applied payments before controversy has arisen courts will apply them in a manner to accomplish ends of justice. Korbly v. Springfield Inst, for Savgs.................................... 330 PERSONAL INJURY. See Employers’ Liability Act; Master and Servant, 4; Safety Appliance Act. PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. See Jurisdiction, II, (8); Procedure, III, 2, 3. INDEX. 737 PLEADING. See Criminal Law, 5-7; Equity, 4, 6, 7. page Allegations of violation of constitutional rights held not to state independent ground of recovery to support jurisdiction of District Court. Johnson v. Lankford................. 541 Martin v. Lankford.............. 547 POLICE POWER. See Constitutional Law, XIV, (1). POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. See Interstate Commerce Acts, II, 8, 9. POSTMASTER GENERAL. See Mails, 1. POST OFFICE. See Criminal Law, 9, 10; Mails. PRESUMPTIONS: 1. No presumption in criminal case that accused is of good character. Greer v. United States........................ 559 2. Presumption upon matter of fact, when not merely disguise for another principle, means that common experience shows fact to be so generally true that court may notice its truth. Id. 3. In a case of interstate shipment governed by Carmack Amendment, issuance of a receipt or bill of lading will be presumed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart................ 359 PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY. See Criminal Law, 6. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. See Food and Drugs Act, 3, 4. PROCEDURE: I. Error, Appeal or Certiorari, p. 737. II. Motion to Affirm, p. 738. III. Scope of Review, p. 738. IV. Scope and Form of Decree, p. 739. V. Rehearing, p. 740. See Jurisdiction; Extradition; Habeas Corpus. I. Error, Appeal or Certiorari. 1. Section 4, Act of 1916, does not abolish distinction between writs of error and appeals, but only requires that party seeking review shall have it in appropriate way notwithstand- 738 INDEX. PROCEDURE—Continued. page ing a mistake in his choice of proceeding. Gauzon v. Compania General &c...................................... 86 2. Writ of certiorari improvidently granted will be dismissed. So held where alleged errors consisted in refusing to submit certain questions to jury in action over title to land, rulings of District Court depending essentially on appreciation of the evidence and being concurred in by Circuit Court of Appeals. Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich.............................. 440 3. An objection that error will not lie not decided where a pending application for certiorari would be granted if the objection were held good. Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Co............................................... 531 II. Motion to Affirm. On a motion to dismiss or affirm in a case presenting only questions of fact and well settled questions of general law, decree affirmed where the federal courts of two circuits had reached the same conclusions of fact independently and the appeal taken apparently for delay. Eichel v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.......................................... 102 III. Scope of Review. See IV, infra; Jurisdiction, VI. 1. In reviewing judgment erroneously treating franchise as revocable at will of county commissioners and upholding purported revocation by them, court not called upon to determine whether franchise term has since expired or whether legislature may have reserved power to revoke or repeal franchise. North-ern Ohio Traction Co. v. Ohio............................ 574 2. This court is not disposed to disturb judgment of Supreme Court of Philippine Islands construing local laws and announcing rule applicable in the islands. Gauzon n. Compania General &c................................... ................... 86 3. Upon writ of error to Supreme Court of Philippine Islands in case decided upon issues of fact, conclusions of lower court, which find support in the record, not considered. Id. 4. In prosecution under Food and Drugs Act upon charge of shipping misbranded article in interstate commerce, the question of whether court below was correct in viewing intent as not an element and in holding that sanction by defendant of INDEX. 739 PROCEDURE—Continued. page his agent’s misrepresentations was immaterial, not determined in view of instruction of trial court that such authority must appear beyond reasonable doubt and as record neither shows that defendant objected to this mode of submitting the question nor purports to contain all the evidence, the verdict of guilty must be taken as determining conclusively that he sanctioned the representations. Weeks v. United States... 618 5. In reviewing directly judgment of District Court in criminal case, when constitutional questions upon which jurisdiction of this court depends are not frivolous but are resolved against plaintiff in error, other questions raised will be considered and passed upon. Goldman v. United States.. 474 6. Power to review does not include right to invade province of jury by determining questions of credibility and weight of evidence. Id. Kramer v. United States............. 478 7. Upon appeal from decree of District Court granting injunction against enforcement of city ordinance, on ground that it impaired obligations of railway grants and enforcement will work deprivation of property without due process and cause irreparable injury, cause is subject to review upon both law and facts, relief depending upon case as it develops in this court. Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & H. Trac. Co............................................. 446 IV. Scope and Form of Decree. 1. Without departing from settled rule that writ of error dismissed if its total want of merit shown conclusively by decisions extant at time of decision below, judgment affirmed. Penn- sylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia....;..................... 20 2. Where constitutional questions adversely disposed of by decision of this court, trial court’s order refusing habeas corpus affirmed, without departing from rule that habeas corpus should not anticipate trial in criminal cases. Jones v. Perkins................................................ 390 3. When a decree dismissing a bill is meant to be without prejudice, the better practice is to express it so. McGowan v. Columbia River Packers’ Assn352 4. Where application for temporary injunction submitted upon affidavits taken ex parte without opportunity for cross- 740 INDEX. PROCEDURE—Continued. page examination and without consent that court proceed to final determination of merits, dismissal of bill, on interlocutory appeal, should not be directed, unless on its face there is no ground for equitable relief. Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe.. 275 V. Rehearing. Dismissal resulting from misunderstanding due to incomplete printed record and statements in briefs set aside and cause restored to docket for rehearing. Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart. ........................................ 562 PROCESS, SERVICE OF. See Jurisdiction, I. PROXIMATE CAUSE. See Employers’ Liability Act, 4. PUBLIC CONTRACTS. See Bonds, 1; Contracts, 1, 6-9; Res Judicata, 1. PUBLIC LANDS. See Indians; Waters, 5. I. Swamp Lands. Erroneous Meander. Statute of Limitations. 1. Erroneous Survey. Powers of Department. If, in making a survey, an area is, through fraud or mistake, meandered as a body of water, which does not exist, riparian rights do not accrue; and Land Department has power to deal with the meandered area, to cause it to be surveyed, and lawfully to dispose of it. Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States... 24 2. Id. Riparian Rights. Estoppel of Government. That administrative officers, before discovering the error, have treated such meandered tract as subjected to the riparian rights of abutting owners, under state laws, cannot estop United States from asserting title in controversy with abutting owner; and even as against such owner who acquired property before mistake discovered, United States may correct mistake and protect its title. Equities of abutting owner are not judicially cognizable, but should be addressed to legislative department of government. Id. 3. Id. Swamp Land and Arkansas Compromise Acts. Effect of erroneous meander in survey of township held to exclude the meandered area from the township; and that neither the INDEX. 741 PUBLIC LANDS—Continued. page: selection of the township by State of Arkansas under Swamp Land Act of 1850, the confirmatory Act of 1857, nor patent issued, could be construed as embracing it; and that the State derived no title thereto through the Compromise Act of 1898. Id. 4. Swamp Land Act of 1850. Did not convey land of its own force, without survey, selection or patent. Id. 5. Statute of Limitations Inapplicable. Suit by United States to quiet its title to land erroneously excluded from survey, against abutting owner claiming riparian rights, is not a suit to vacate or annul defendant’s patent, and limitations of Act of 1891 inapplicable. Id. II. School Section G. ants. 1. Utah. Minerals Impliedly Excepted. School Land Indemnity Act of 1891, in providing for lieu selections, affords plain implication that sections 16 and 36 are not to pass under grant if known to be mineral when grant takes effect. United States v. Sweet................................. 563 2. Id. School land grant to Utah must be read in light of mining laws, indemnity law of 1891 and settled policy of Congress; and does not include mineral lands. Id. 3. Id. Exception Includes Coal. School section grant in Utah Enabling Act not intended to embrace lands known to be valuable for coal. Id. 4. Wisconsin. Indian Lands Excepted. Under treaties with Menominee Indians, acts of Congress and an act of the Wisconsin legislature, certain lands held disposed of within meaning of school section grant in Wisconsin Enabling Act; that they remained in reservation and subject to the continuing occupancy and rights of the Indians; and that State had no title and could not restrain cutting of timber by or in interest of Indians. Wisconsin v. Lane ................. 427 5. Id. Treaty of 1854 with Lake Superior Chippewas and reservation for the Indians thereunder, held to withdraw certain lands and dispose of them within meaning of school section grant in Wisconsin Enabling Act and that title did not pass to State. United States v. Stearns Lumber Co..,. 436 6. Id. Right of Congress before Survey. The grant of sec- 742 INDEX. PUBLIC LANDS—Continued. page tions 16 in § 7 of Wisconsin Enabling Act held subject to right of Congress to make other disposition of the land before sections identified by surveys finally approved, leaving State right to obtain other sections by way of indemnity. Wisconsin v. Lane..................................... 427 III. Mineral Lands. See II, 1-3, supra. 1. Mining Laws Exclusive. It is settled policy of Congress to dispose of mineral lands only under laws specially including them. United States v. Sweet...................... 563 2. Id. Taken collectively, the mining laws (including coal land laws) constitute a special code, intended not only to establish particular modes of disposition, but exceptions and reservations. Id. 3. Mineral Character. Department’s Finding. Notice. Where land embraced in conflicting placer and homestead entries is found, upon hearing in Land Department, to be nonmineral and therefore is patented to the homesteader, finding does not conclude claimant under placer entry who was not notified and given opportunity to be heard; a trust might be declared in his favor if he proved the land mineral; but not when evidence confirms Department’s finding. Kirk v. Olson................................................. 225 4. Id. Department’s Control before Patent. A finding of mineral character made in allowing an entry under the placer mining law is subject to be reconsidered and reversed by the Land Department at any time before the patent issues, upon due notice to the parties interested. Id. PUBLIC OFFICERS. See references under Executive Officers. PUBLIC POLICY. See Comity; Contracts, 3. PUBLIC USE. See Constitutional Law, XIV, 7. PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT. See Food and Drugs Act. RACE SEGREGATION. See Constitutional Law, XIV, 2, 11. INDEX. 743 RAILROADS. See Bonds, 2; Carriers; Employers’ Liability page Act; Interstate Commerce Acts; Safety Appliance Act. “ RATE-BREAKING POINT.” See Interstate Commerce Acts, I. RATES. See Carriers, 1,2; Interstate Commerce Acts. RECEIVERS. See Landlord and Tenant. 1. When court, without statute, takes possession of all assets of corporation to satisfy its debts, rights and equities of creditors are determined by their contracts with debtor; it is error to give to filing of bill effect of filing of petition in bankruptcy or to exclude lawful claims made within time fixed for proving claims and maturing within reasonable time before distribution can be made. Filene's Sons Co. v. Weed........................................ 597 2. In non-statutory receivership proceeding brought to preserve good will and pay debts of company occupying premises as lessee, lessor reentering during receivership held to have proper claim for rent up to reentry and for damages based on lessee’s covenant to pay difference between rental value at time of reentry and the rent and other payments reserved for residue of term. Gardiner v. Butler & Co. 603 3. In Massachusetts, in absence of statute or express contract, lessor who has terminated lease and evicted tenant has no further claim against lessee or his receivers appointed to continue business and pay debts. Id. RECORDATION OF INSTRUMENTS. See Bankruptcy 7, 8. REHEARING. See Procedure, V. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. See Constitutional Law, X. REMOVAL OF CAUSES. See Jurisdiction, II, (4)r 7; III, (Ik y. . RENTS. See Landlord and Tenant. REPARATION. See Interstate Commerce Acts, III, 1. 744 INDEX. RES JUDICATA. See Estoppel. page 1. Judgment exonerating surety on government construction contract on ground that location of work was changed by United States without surety’s consent, held not res judicata in respect of right of United States to make the change as against the principal contractor. United States v. California Bridge Co ....................... 337 2. An adjudication in a former case held not to estop defendant on issue of primary responsibility of another in an action whereby the former, after paying judgment, sought to recover from the latter indemnity, the former adjudication not determining or involving such issue and the party from whom indemnity sought having been dismissed from former case as co-defendant before defendant’s evidence therein was heard. Fuller Co. v. Otis Elevator Co.....489 3. Principles of estoppel by judgment reviewed and held to apply to decrees for divorce and alimony. Bates v. Bodie.. 520 RIPARIAN RIGHTS. See Public Lands, I; Waters. SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT: Where failure to observe the act by having the power-brake of its locomotive in working order contributed in whole or in part to cause the death of an employee, contributory negligence avails the carrier neither as a defense nor in diminu- tion of damages. Union Pacific R. R. v. Huxoll.. ...... 535 SCHOOL LANDS. See Public Lands, II. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. See Indians, 3, 9, 10; Mandamus, 2. SECRETARY OF LABOR. See Immigration. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. See Customs Law. SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW. See Criminal Law, 7. Constitutionality upheld in Selective Draft Law Cases.... 366 Jones v. Perkins...........390 Goldman v. United States.... 474 Kramer v. United States .... 478 Ruthenberg vi United States.. 480 INDEX. 745 SERVICE OF PROCESS. See Jurisdiction, I. page SIXTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law. SOCIALISTS. See Constitutional Law, XII, 2. SPECIAL APPEARANCE. See Jurisdiction, I, 1. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. See Contracts, 4. STATES: Powers. See Constitutional Law; Carriers; Interstate Commerce Acts; Taxation. Courts. See Jurisdiction. Statutes. See Table of Statutes Cited, and title Statutes. Suit against. See Jurisdiction, III, (5). Laws and construction, following. See Jurisdiction, VI. Boundaries. See Boundaries. STATUTES. See Table of Statutes cited, at front of volume; Aliens; Bankruptcy; Criminal Law; Employers' Liability Act; Extradition; Food and Drugs Act; Immigration; Indians; Interstate Commerce Acts; Intoxicating Liquors; Jurisdiction; National Banks; Naturalization; Patents for Inventions; Public Lands; Safety Appliance Act; Selective Draft Law. I. Principles of Construction. Following state construction. See Jurisdiction, VI. 1. Art. IV, § 2, of Constitution, and statutes passed in execution thereof, should be construed liberally. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police ............................. 128 2. Taxing statutes are not to be construed to extend provisions, by implication, beyond clear import of language used, or to enlarge operations to embrace matters not specifically pointed out: doubts are resolved against Government. Gould v. Gould....................................... 151 3. A limitation, plain in the letter and spirit of a statute, is not overridden by the fact that the court overlooked it in former cases where it was not brought in question. Arant v. Lane....................................- - • .... 166 4. A specific intent to accept the tidal test of navigability, and so to extend riparian ownership ad filum aqwe on non- 746 INDEX. STATUTES—Continued. page tidal streams which are navigable in fact, is not predicable of a statute adopting the common law of England in general terms only; and such a statute of a State affords no basis for denying power of state court to apply test of navigability in fact, as part of the common law, in determining the ownership of a river bed as between the State and riparian owners deriving title under a federal patent issued before statehood. Wear v. Kansas..................................... 154 5. School land grants must be read in light of mining laws, indemnity law of 1891, and settled policy of Congress. United States v. Sweet........................... 563 II. Particular Statutes. 1. Rev. Stats., § 161. Executive powers under, include power of Postmaster General to designate certain receptacles as letter boxes. Rosen v. United States........'... 467 2. Crim. Code, § 194- Embraces theft of letters from mail boxes placed by tenants for receipt of mail in halls of buildings in which they have place of business. Id. 3. 1913, Income Tax Act. Does not include as taxable income value of new shares, issued as stock dividends and representing merely surplus profits transferred to capital account of corporation. Towne v. Eisner. 418 4. Id. Does not include alimony as income. Gould v. Gould................................... 151 5. 1913, Tariff Act. Assessment under § III, par. I. Ex parte Park & Tilford ................................. 82 6. Idaho, Laws 1915, c. 11. Prohibiting the possession of intoxicating liquor for personal use,' sustained. Crane v. Campbell. 304 7. Iowa, 1907, Code Supp., § 1467. Taxing legacies to nonresident aliens; not violative of treaties with Denmark and Sweden. Petersen v. Iowa.................170 Duus v. Brown.............................. 176 8. Kansas, Law 1859. Adopting common law of navigability; does not import specific intent to accept tidal test. Wear v. Kansas.......................... 154 9. Kentucky, Refunding Act, 1878. Provision for satisfaction of bonds ineffectual. Hendrickson v. Apperson.... .. 105 INDEX. 747 STATUTES—Continued. page 10. Id. Stats. 1894, § 4131, and Act of 1906. Appointment of collector of taxes. Id. 11. Maine, Stats. 1903, § 87, c. 4- Establishing and maintaining public yard for sale of fuel, sustained. Jones v. City of Portland. ................................. 217 12. North Carolina, Laws 1913, a. 44t § 5. To secure enforcement of laws against sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors; sustained. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. North Carolina............................................ 298 13. Ohio. Statutes relative to grant of franchises over public roads. Northern Ohio Trac. Co. v. Ohio....... 574 14. Id. Rev. Stats., § 6343; Code 1910, §§ 11102-11105. Concerning insolvent debtors; not inconsistent with Bank- ruptcy Act. Stellwagen v. Clum..................... 605 15. Pennsylvania, Laws 1899, p. 184. Imposing mercantile license tax; void as regulation of foreign commerce and im- post or duty on exports. Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania.. 292 16. Texas; Corporation Permit and Franchise Laws of 1907. Violative of Fourteenth Amendment and commerce clause. Looney v. Crane Co.................................. 178 17. Texas Married Women's Law. Exempts married woman’s separate property from liability on her guaranty of her husband’s note. Union Trust Co. v. Grosman.......... 412 STOCK DIVIDENDS. See Taxation, IV, 1. STOCKHOLDERS. See Bankruptcy, 11-14; Equity, 2, 3; National Banks; Taxation, IV, 1. Action against state bank commissioner for excess of claims as depositor over liability as stockholder. Martin v. Lankford ...........................•................... 547 STREET RAILWAYS. See Equity, 5; Franchise. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS. See Franchise; Taxation, II, 3. STRIKES. See Labor Unions. 748 INDEX. “ SUM OF THE LOCALS.” See Interstate Commerce page Acts, I. SURETIES. See Res Judicata, 1; Trusts and Trustees, 1. SURVEYS. See Public Lands. SWAMP LANDS. See Public Lands, I. SWEDEN. See Treaties. TAXATION: On waiver of tax exemption under statutes relating to Creek Indian allotments, see Indians, 10. On constitutional right to an existing remedy by taxation for payment of county bonds. Hendrickson v. Apperson. . 105 Hendrickson v. Creager .... 115 That duty of' levying and collecting taxes cannot be imposed on state circuit judges under Kentucky Constitution. Id. I. Construction of Tax Acts. 1. Extension by Implication. Taxing statutes are not to be construed to extend provisions, by implication, beyond clear import of language used, or to enlarge operations to embrace matters not specifically pointed out: doubts are resolved against Government. (Income Tax Law.) Gould v. Gould..............................................151 2. Constitutionality of state tax determined by court’s own judgment of actual operation and effect of tax, irrespective of its form and of how characterized by state courts. Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania.......................... 292 II. State Taxation. Legitimate Purposes and Subjects. 1. Public Fuel Yard. Establishing and maintaining public yard for sale of fuel, without financial profit, to inhabitants of municipality, held a public purpose for which taxes may be levied without violating Fourteenth Amendment. Jones n. City of Portland.... ....................... 217 2. Bank Deposits. State of domicil of a party has power, in assessing his taxes, to include ordinary bank deposits in another State of moneys derived from business carried on in the latter. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville. 54 INDEX. 749 TAXATION—Continued. page 3. Street Improvements. Where judgment sustaining in toto a street improvement tax laid upon abutting property partly according to frontage and partly according to area was reversed on sole ground that the assessments based on area had produced results in conflict with Fourteenth Amendment and case sent back for further proceedings, questions as to whether the part of the tax based on frontage was severable, and whether, and by what agency, a new and just area assessment should be made, held questions of state law for determination by state court. Schneider Granite Co. v. Gast Realty Co............................ 288 III. Unconstitutional Excises on Corporations. 1. Excise on Foreign Corporation Measured by Capital. Franchise and permit taxes levied by State on foreign corporations doing interstate business, with property in other States, is void when measured by entire authorized capital, surplus and undivided profits. Looney v. Crane Co........ 178 2. Measured by Corporate Business. Affecting Foreign Commerce and Exports. A state tax on business of selling goods in foreign commerce, measured by a percentage of entire business transacted, is both a regulation of foreign commerce and an impost or duty on exports, and therefore void. Cr ew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania........................ 292 IV. Income Tax. 1. Stock Dividends. The value of new shares, issued as a stock dividend and representing merely surplus profits transferred to capital account of corporation, is not taxable to the shareholders as income within the meaning of the law of 1913. So held where the profits were earned before Jan. 1, 1913, transfer and dividend voted Dec. 17, 1913, and the distribution, ratably to shareholders of record on 26th of that month, took place on Jan. 2, 1914. Towne v. Eisner 418 2. Alimony paid monthly to a divorced wife under decree of court is not taxable income under Income Tax Act of 1913. Gould v. Gould ..................................... 151 V. Inheritance Taxes. i; Alien Legatees. Art. 7, Treaty with Denmark, 1826,1857, places no limitation upon right of either government to deal 750 INDEX. TAXATION—Continued. page with its own citizens and their property within its domain; treaty affords legatees of estate of naturalized citizen and resident of Iowa no basis for complaining of discrimination of Iowa law taxing legacies of nonresident aliens higher than those given under similar conditions to residents of the State without regard to residence or nationality of testator. Petersen v. Iowa................................... 170 2. Id. Hence, State of Iowa may place heavier inheritance taxes on legacies going from her citizens to citizens of Denmark than on those going to residents of the State. Id. 3. Id. Favored nation clause in Art. 1, Treaty with Denmark, supra, does not apply where discrimination complained of is in rate of inheritance taxes. Id. 4. Id. Similar construction of Arts. II, VI, Treaty of 1783, and renewals, with Sweden. Duus v. Brown........... 176 TERRITORIALITY: As to territorial status of American vessel. See Scharren-berg v. Dollar 8. S. Co............................ 122 THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS. See Constitutional Law, X. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law. “ THROUGH RATE.” See Interstate Commerce Acts, I. “ THROUGH ROUTE.” See Interstate Commerce Acts, I. TIMBER. See Public Lands, II, 4, 5. TITLE. See Indians; Public Lands; Waters. 1. Doctrine of bona fide purchaser will not aid holder of an equity to overcome the holder of both legal title and an equity. Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane................ 308 2. Effect of acts of administrative officers of government to estop United States from asserting title to public land erroneously surveyed. Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States... 24 TREATIES. See Indians, 1, 2, 4 et seq. 1. Art. 7, Treaty with Denmark, 1827, 1857, places no limitation upon right of either government to deal with its own INDEX. 751 TREATIES—Continued. page citizens and their property within its domain; treaty affords legatees of estate of naturalized citizen and resident of Iowa no basis for complaining of the discrimination of Iowa law which taxes legacies of nonresident aliens higher than those given under similar conditions to residents of State without regard to residence or nationality of testator. Petersen v. Iowa.................................................. 170 2. Hence, State of Iowa may place heavier inheritance taxes on legacies going from her citizens to citizens of Denmark than on those going to residents of the State. Id. 3. Favored nation clause in Art. I, Treaty with Denmark, supra, does not apply where discrimination complained of is in rates of inheritance taxes. Id. 4. Similar constructions of Arts. II, VI, Treaty with Sweden of 1783, and renewals. Duus v. Brown.................. 176 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. See Bankruptcy; Equity; Receivers. 1. In a suit by the United States to impress with a trust funds alleged to be the fruits of a fraud upon the Government, an intervenor claiming the fund by reason of his liability on the bail bond of the one by whom such fund had been deposited with the defendant for the purpose of securing such intervenor as surety, against such liability, held entitled to recover. United States v. Leary......................... 1 2. Where land embraced in conflicting placer and homestead entries is found, upon hearing in Land Department, to be non-mineral and therefore is patented to homesteader, finding does not conclude claimant under placer entry who was not notified and given opportunity to be heard; a trust might be declared in his favor if he proved land mineral; but not when evidence confirms Department’s finding. Kirk n. Olson.............................,........... 225 3. A suit, brought in 1913, by testamentary trustees, seeking to hold the Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., as by an express trust, for the satisfaction of certain bonds, issued under a deed of trust in 1872, by another company to whose interests and obligation defendant was alleged to have succeeded, the bonds at time of suit being more than 10 years overdue and the interest in default 37 years or longer, held barred by laches. Waller v, Texas & Pacific Ry................. 398 752 INDEX. TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES—Continued. page 4. Whether one entitled to an allowance as trustee left to trial court. United States v. Leary................... 1 5. Principal of trust fund, giving income to testator’s son for life, subject to condition that principal be paid over whenever son became able to pay debts from other sources, when paid over after son’s discharge in bankruptcy, does not go to trustee in bankruptcy. Hull v. Farmers’ Loan & Tr ust Co..............................:.......... 312 UNIONS. See Contracts, 2; Labor Unions. UNITED STATES. See Contracts, 6-9; Estoppel, 3, 4; Res Judicata, 1. 1. Immunity from suit recognizes no distinction between cross and original bills, or ancillary and original suits. Illinois Central R. R. v. Public Utilities Comm......493 2. When necessary party to suit. Id. 3. Limitations in Act Mar. 3, 1891, inapplicable to suit by United States to quiet its title to land erroneously excluded from survey. Id. UTAH: 1. School section grant in Enabling Act not intended to embrace lands known to be valuable for coal. United States v. Sweet.................................. 563 2. School land grant must be read in light of mining laws, indemnity law of 1891 and settled policy of Congress; and does not include mineral lands. Id. VENDOR AND VENDEE. See Contracts, 4. VERDICT. See Procedure, III, 4. VESSELS: Territorial status of. Scharreriberg v. Dollar S. S. Co....... 122 WAIVER: Effect of failure of assignee to exercise his preferred right of selection under Art. IV, Treaty of 1865 with Omaha Indians. United States v. Chase.............................: 89 INDEX. 753 WAR: PAGE Power to raise armies by draft. See Constitutional Law, III. WASHINGTON: The boundary between Oregon and Washington is the ship channel north of Sand Island in the Columbia River. McGowan n. Columbia River Packers' Assn.................. 352 WATERS: 1. As to riparian rights in land mistakenly meandered as water, see Public Lands, I. 2. A State may exact a charge from those taking sand from the bed of a navigable stream, even though such taking be of common right. Wear v. Kansas .................... 154 3. River sand appertains to the river bed when at rest; its tendency to migrate does not subject it to acquisition by mere occupancy. Id. 4. Whether a state court may take judicial notice that a stream is navigable is a question of local law. Id. 5. A specific intent to accept tidal test of navigability, and so to extend riparian ownership ad filum aqua on non-tidal streams which are navigable in fact, is not predicable of a statute adopting the common law of England in general terms only; and such a statute of a State affords no basis for denying power of state court to apply test of navigability in fact, as part of the common law, in determining the ownership of a river bed as between the State and riparian owners deriving title under federal patent issued before statehood. Id. 6. As to jurisdiction of States over boundary waters. See Jurisdiction, III, (7). WEBB-KENYON LAW. See Intoxicating Liquors. WISCONSIN: Rights in school sections. See Indians, 1,2; Public Lands, II, 4-6. WITNESSES. See Evidence, 3-5. 754 INDEX. WORDS AND PHRASES: paOb “ Through route,” “ through rate,” “ joint rate,” “ sum of the locals,” “ division of joint rate,” “ rate-breaking point ” and “ combination rate ” explained and defined. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. United States.......: .... 136 WRIT OF ERROR. See Jurisdiction; Procedure.