Congress was in question.-Amado v. United | injunction, held not to prevent a review by the States, 13.
A direct appeal from a federal District Court to the Supreme Court cannot be maintained un- der Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 827 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 549], because jurisdiction of lower court was questioned.- Schweer v. Brown, 15.
Writ of error, and not appeal, is the only mode of reviewing a judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia sustaining an award in condemnation proceedings, under Act Cong. June 6, 1900, c. 810 (31 Stat. 668), in view of Code D. C. § 233.-Metropolitan R. Co. v. MacFarland, 28.
Application of due process of law clause of Const. U. S. Amend. 5, held involved, so as to sustain direct appeal to the Supreme Court from a Circuit Court where the latter gave ef- fect to a judgment of a state court alleged to have unlawfully deprived parties of their prop- erty without due process of law.-Fayerweath- er v. Ritch, 58; Reynolds v. Same, Id.
Dismissal by federal Circuit Court of suit against foreign executor for want of jurisdic- tion in state court, from which it had been re- moved, does not present question of jurisdiction in the federal court, authorizing a direct ap- peal, under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 827 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 549].- Courtney v. Pradt, 208.
Denial of motion to remand a cause removed from state court does not present question of federal court's jurisdiction, so as to sustain a direct appeal to federal Supreme Court, under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5. 26 Stat. 827 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 549].-Courtney v. Pradt, 208.
Objection that attachment suit in aid of ac- tion at law was not cognizable in federal Cir- cuit Court, to which it had been removed, is not open to consideration by direct appeal to the Supreme Court, under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, 5, 26 Stat. 827 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 549].-Courtney v. Pradt, 208.
Writ of error, not appeal, is the proper meth- od of obtaining review in Supreme Court of judgment of supreme court of Oklahoma, af- firming a judgment sustaining a demurrer to and dismissing petition in action for false im- prisonment.Comstock v. Eagleton, 210.
A question respecting alleged privilege of free- dom from arrest as United States senator, un- der Const. U. S. art. 1, § 6, is one involving the construction of the federal Constitution, sus- taining a writ of error to review conviction in the federal District Court.-Burton v. United States, 243.
Concurrent findings of two lower courts that damage to cargo was caused by imprudent un- loading will be accepted by Supreme Court, unless clearly incorrect.-Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Aitken, 317.
That action of ejectment was tried without jury does not make appeal the proper method for review in federal Supreme Court of final judgment of Oklahoma Supreme Court, under Act May 2, 1890, c. 182, § 9, 26 Stat. 81, 85.- Oklahoma City v. McMaster, 324.
Supreme Court on writ of certiorari to Circuit Court of Appeals.-Harriman v. Northern Secu- rities Co.. 493.
Jurisdiction of the court below as a federal court held so involved as to sustain a direct re- view in the Supreme Court of the United States of a judgment dismissing an action removed from the state_court.-Remington v. Central Pac. R. Co., 577.
Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals will not be granted on dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a writ of error in that court.- Bonin v. Gulf Co., 608.
Assertion of title under a patent from the United States presents no question depriving judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in a petitory action of that finality which exists if the jurisdiction depends solely on diversity of citizenship.-Bonin v. Gulf Co., 608.
Evidence on the question of citizenship of par- ties to suit in federal Circuit Court must be ex- amined on appeal by the Supreme Court of the United States on motion to dismiss.-Steigleder v. McQuesten, 616.
Overruling of a motion in arrest of judgment, where accused asserted that the grand jurors were not drawn as required by law, presents a case in which an act of Congress is brought in question within Act April 12, 1900, c. 191, § 35, 31 Stat. 85, providing for review of final de- cisions of the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico.-Rodriguez v. United States, 617.
Supreme Court of United States cannot grant mandamus to compel federal Circuit Court judge to take jurisdiction of an action not of such a be directed or reviewed, under Act March 3, character that a final judgment therein could 1891. c. 517, 26 Stat. 826 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901. p. 547], in the Supreme Court.-In re Glaser, 653.
Appellant cannot invoke supposed presence of constitutional question as ground for sustaining appeal from United States Circuit Court of Ap- peals, where any such question was decided in their favor.-Empire State-Idaho Mining & De- veloping Co. v. Hanley, 691.
Allegation in bill held not an assertion that plaintiff was deprived of his interest in certain mining claim without due process of law, so as to support jurisdiction of federal court, irre- spective of citizenship. - Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Hanley, 691.
States may be so wanting in merit as not to Rights asserted under Constitution of United afford basis for appeal to Supreme Court from Circuit Court of Appeals.-O'Callaghan v. O'Brien, 727.
Question of validity of service of process of federal Circuit Court on agents of foreign cor- poration held to involve jurisdiction of that court, so as to sustain direct appeal to the Supreme Court, under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 827 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 549].-Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Hammond Elevator Co., 740.
The Supreme Court will, by direction to the dent treasurer of foreign corporation held to in- The validity of service of subpoena on resi- Circuit Court, finally dispose of a cause brought volve federal question, so as to sustain a di- before it on certiorari to a Circuit Court of Ap-rect appeal to the Supreme Court of the Unit- peals. Harriman v. Northern Securities Co.,
The lack of finality in a decree reversing an order of a circuit court, granting a preliminary
ed States, under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 827 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 549].- Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co., 768.
Review by supreme court of decisions of state courts. Whether a bankrupt was insolvent at the time of an alleged preferente. and whether the cred- itor knew it, held questions of fact, as to which a verdict of the jury is conclusive on the Su- preme Court of the United States.-Kaufman v. Tredway, 33.
Whether clauses of a state pilotage act, grant- ing discriminatory exemptions in violation of Rev. St. U. S. § 4237 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2903], can be eliminated, is a question for the state court.-Olsen v. Smith, 52.
Whether Const. Iowa, is violated by Code Iowa, § 5007, imposing a tax on cigarette sell- ing, held a purely local question, which cannot be considered by the federal Supreme Court on writ of error.-Hodge v. Muscatine County, 237. A verdict settles questions of fact on writ of error from the United States Supreme Court to a state court.-Smiley v. State of Kansas, 289. Writ of error to a state court, incorrectly stat- ing date of judgment, may be dismissed with- out prejudice to a second writ.-Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ely, 302; Same v. Hasse, 305.
Contention that a conveyance was fraudulent Decision of state court as to whether convey- under a state law, or that the residuary estate ance by a bankrupt was made to defraud cred- remained in the grantor, which would pass un-itors held not to present a federal question.- der assignee's sale in bankruptcy, presents a Thompson v. Fairbanks, 306. local question, which cannot be considered by Supreme Court on writ of error to a state court. -Cramer v. Wilson, 94.
Finding of state court that, when a com- mutation entry under the homestead entry law was allowed, neither the entryman nor the land officers had actual knowledge of amend- ment of Rev. St. U. S. § 2301, by Act March 3, 1891, c. 561, 26 Stat. 1098 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1406], making such commutation pre- mature, held a finding of fact, conclusive on writ of error to a state court.-Hill v. McCord, 96.
A federal question, if presented on motion for a new trial in a state court, which is not passed upon by the highest state court, because waived, cannot be deemed necessarily to have been de- cided where the record does not show it was raised in such highest court.-Harding v. Peo- ple of State of Illinois, 176.
Neither petition for rehearing, nor for writ of error, nor assignments of error, nor certifica- tion of briefs by the clerk of state court, can cure failure of record to show that a federal question was raised and decided.-Harding v. People of State of Illinois, 176.
The assertion, on motion for new trial, that a state statute is contrary to the federal Consti- tution, without pointing out in what way, held not to present a federal question, giving juris- diction on writ of error to the Supreme Court.- Harding v. People of State of Illinois, 176.
Writ of error to review decision of state court upholding seizure of intoxicating liquors shipped into the state from another state will not be dismissed, where protection of the commerce clause of the federal Constitution was invoked below.-American Express Co. V. State of Iowa, 182; Adams Express Co. v. Same, 185. Suggestion of violation of a federal right, first made in petition for review in the highest state court of the judgment of an intermediate court, held too late as a basis for the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States.-Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. McGuire, 200.
Decision of the state court sustaining a home-
stead exemption resting on the effect as res adjudicata of an order of a court of bankrupt- cy cannot be reviewed by the federal Supreme Court, where the only federal right claimed was immunity from the discharge in bankruptcy. Smalley v. Laugenour, 216.
Certificate of presiding judge of a state court, that a federal question raised by petition for rehearing was decided, held not to confer juris- diction on the federal Supreme Court of a writ of error to the state court.-Fullerton v. State of Texas, 221.
Decision of highest state court that a plea does not disclose defense that note in suit was given to a foreign corporation carrying on busi- ness without compliance with statutory condi- tions held to involve a purely local question.- Allen v. Alleghany Co., 311.
Whether courts of one state should, on prin- ciples of comity, permit an action to be main- tained upon a contract in contravention of the laws of any state, is not a federal question.- Allen v. Alleghany Co., 311.
Whether a corporate contract in contraven- tion of statutes regulating foreign corporations was ipso facto void and unenforceable in the courts of another state held not to present a question under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution.-Allen v. Alleghany Co., 311.
Contention, on motion for directed verdict, that cession to the United States in Act N. J. March 12, 1846, of jurisdiction over land at Sandy Hook, vested in the United States ex- clusive jurisdiction over littoral waters, held to present a question as to exclusive legislative power of Congress under Const. U. S. art. 1, § 8, cl. 17, sustaining a writ of error from the federal Supreme Court. - Hamburg-American S. S. Co. v. Grube, 352.
The contention that congressional consent in Act June 28, 1834, c. 126, 4 Stat. 708, to agree- ment between New Jersey and New. York as to territorial limits, vested exclusive jurisdiction. in the federal courts over the sea adjoining the two states held not to raise a federal ques- tion.-Hamburg-American S. S. Co. v. Grube, 352.
A decision sustaining validity, under the ex post facto clause of the federal Constitution, of Act Fla. May 30, 1901, amending Rev. St. Fla. § 970, held not involved in the denial by decree entered before the amendment, because the Supreme Court of a petition to vacate a of relationship of the judge and one of the parties, so as to give federal Supreme Court jurisdiction.-Caro v. Davidson, 428.
Findings of fact are conclusive on Supreme Court of the United States in cases from state
courts. Chrisman v. Miller, 468.
A decree of a state court requiring defend- ants to vacate certain lands and enjoining them from further mining thereon is not reviewable in the federal Supreme Court, as depriving a corporation not a party and a lessee of defend- Iron Cliffs Co. v. Negaunee Iron Co., 474. ants of its property without due process of law.
The Supreme Court of a state may decline to reopen on a second appeal a question of the va- lidity of a service of summons, which it had up- held on first appeal, without making a case for
That a suit was brought under Rev. St. U. S. § 2326 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1430], to try adverse rights to a mining claim, held not necessarily to involve a federal question.-Mc- Millen v. Ferrum Min. Co., 533.
Certificate of Chief Justice of the highest state court that the judgment of that court de- nied an immunity set up and claimed under a federal statute held insufficient to confer juris- diction on the Supreme Court of the United States of a writ of error to that court.-Allen v. Arguimbau, 622.
The Supreme Court of the United States will not take jurisdiction of a writ of error to a state court, where judgment rests on two grounds, one of which does not involve a federal ques- tion.-Allen v. Arguimbau, 622.
Defense in action on notice given for a promise to have cigars called for by a certain contract manufactured in Key West without compliance with Rev. St. U. S. §§ 3390, 3393, 3397 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2218, 2220, 2222], held not a special assertion of a right or immunity under a federal statute, within section 709 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 575], authorizing writs of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to state courts.-Allen v. Arguimbau, 622.
Judgment of highest state court, reversing de- cree of trial court in equity and remanding the cause, is not final, so as to sustain writ of er- ror in Supreme Court of the United States.- Schlosser v. Hemphill, 654.
Decision of state court that statute of limita- tions, making adverse possession for seven years a bar to recovery of real estate, op- erates to defeat action under Rev. St. U. S. § 2326 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1430], to try title to conflicting mining claims, in which de- feated party relied on relocation, under section 2324 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1426], of a forfeited claim, held to deny rights asserted un- der the latter section, so as to make a case for a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States.-Lavagnino v. Uhlig,
Where record shows that trial court consid- ered that unsuccessful party was claiming rights under Rev. St. U. S. § 2326 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1430], authorizing an adverse of an application for patent to mineral lands, and the highest state court acted on that assump- tion, a federal question is presented.-Lavagni- no v. Uhlig, 716.
Presence of question as to application of con- gressional legislation as to swamp lands held to give no jurisdiction to Supreme Court of United States to review judgment of state court in ejectment.-Leonard v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co., 750.
A decision of state court that defendant in ejectment cannot invoke rule that judgment de- termining ownership of portion of a tract is conclusive between the parties held not re- viewable in the Supreme Court of the United States, though judgment in question was ren- dered in the federal court.-Leonard v. Vicks- burg, S. & P. R. Co., 750.
A judgment of a state court will be affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, if there is evidence to sustain it, where the proceed- ings were approved by the highest state court without an opinion.-Gleason v. White, 782. § 9.
Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction, in a suit by citizens of a state in which it sits against citizens of other states to set aside judgments of probate court, as fraudulently ob- tained, which are a lien on real estate within the district and inherited by complainants, un- der Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, 8, 18 Stat. 472 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 513].-McDaniel v. Traylor, 369.
under Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat. 552, A federal Circuit Court has no jurisdiction States v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 538. of original proceedings in mandamus.-United
Jurisdiction in a federal Circuit Court of an original proceeding by mandamus to compel an interstate carrier to report to the Interstate Commerce Commission can only be inferred from the authority to the Commission to en- force that act or from the direction to district attorneys of the United States to enforce its provisions.-United States v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 538.
courts, and Court of Claims. for street improvement in the District of Co- Equitable jurisdiction to reform a contract lumbia held conferred on the Court of Claims by District of Columbia Claims Act June 16, 1880 (21 Stat. 284, c. 243).-District of Colum- bia v. Barnes, 401.
Compensation for work done outside the orig- inal contract may be awarded by Court of Claims under District of Columbia Claims Act June 16, 1880 (21 Stat. 284, c. 243).-District of Columbia v. Barnes, 401.
Power of Hawaiian judges at chambers, con- ferred by Hawaiian laws in force at the passage of Organic Act April 30, 1900, c. 339, 31 Stat. 141, was preserved by the provision of section 81 of such act.-Carter v. Gear, 491.
§ 11. Concurrent and conflicting juris- diction, and comity.
Federal court cannot enjoin collection of fran- chise tax, assessed under state authority, be- cause of inequality in valuation as compared with other taxable property.-Coulter v. Louis- ville & N. R. Co., 342.
One of two corporations bearing the same name but incorporated in different states will be restrained by ancillary suit from assailing title of purchaser under decree of federal court foreclosing trust deed, the property lying in both states.-Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Alabama & G. Mfg. Co., 629.
Federal court, which has decreed foreclosure A federal question may have been so explicit- in a suit in which diverse citizenship was admit- ly foreclosed by prior decisions as to give noted, may by ancillary suit restrain attack on basis for an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.-Leonard v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co., 750.
title of purchaser under a decree by a suit in a state court.-Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Ala- bama & G. Mfg. Co., 629.
Diverse citizenship held not to give jurisdic- tion to federal Circuit Court of a bill seeking a declaration of nonexistence of a will.-O'Cal- laghan v. O'Brien, 727.
COURTS-MARTIAL.
See "Army and Navy."
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 716], authorizing the re- moval for trial of persons charged with offense to the district where the trial is to be had, though contained in the judiciary act of 1789, when the district was not in existence.-Benson v. Henkel, 569.
Objections to indictment charging violation of Rev. St. U. S. § 5451 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3680], in bribing federal officers to reveal the contents of reports in an investigation pending in the Land Department at the time, held not available in proceedings before United States commissioner for removal of accused to another
Right to proceeds of life insurance, see "Insur- federal district for trial.-Benson v. Henkel, ance," § 4.
Evidence of probable cause in proceedings to remove a person to another federal district for trial held not rebutted, where the rebuttal tes- timony is negative and the accused claims his privilege under state practice of exemption from cross-examination.-Beavers v. Haubert, 573.
Constitutional rights of accused to a speedy trial held not violated by the prosecution of pro- ceedings to remove the accused to another fed- eral district for trial of an indictment.-Beavers v. Haubert, 573.
Offenses by particular classes of parties. United States officers, see "United States," § 1. other federal district for trial a person there Prosecution of proceedings to remove to an-
charged with an offense against the United States heid not an unlawful interference with the jurisdiction of the federal Circuit Court, in swer certain indictments.-Beavers v. Haubert, 573.
Neglect to detain aliens or return them to port, whose custody the accused was then held to an- see "Aliens," § 2.
Violation of health laws, see "Health." Violation of internal revenue laws, see "Inter- nal Revenue."
Person indicted in the Supreme Court of Dis- trict of Columbia for an offense against the United States may be removed to that district for trial, under Rev. St. U. S. § 1014 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 716].-Hyde v. Shine, 760; Dimond v. Same, 766.
Judicial notice will be taken that vaccination is believed by high medical authority to be a protection against the spread of smallpox.- Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 358.
The crime of bribing a public officer, in viola- tion of Rev. St. U. S. § 5451 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3680], begun by mailing a letter in one district and completed by receipt in another, is triable in the latter district.-Benson v. Henkel,Burton v. United States, 243.
§ 3. Limitation of prosecutions.
The further prosecution of a criminal of fense held not barred by failure of grand jury to act within nine months from date when the accused were held to bail to await such ac- tion by Code D. C. § 939 (31 Stat. 1189, 1342), which section operates merely to end the pend- ing prosecution and not to repeal pro tanto the general statute of limitations in Rev. St. U. S. 1044 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 725].-United States v. Cadarr, 487.
§ 4. Preliminary complaint, affidavit, warrant, examination, commit- ment, and summary trial. The Supreme Court of the District of Colum- bia must be deemed a court of the United States, within Rev. St. U. S. § 1014 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 716], in view of Act June 22, 1874, c. 396, 18 Stat. 193, and Code D. C. (31 Stat. 1189, 1199, c. 854) §§ 1, 61.-Benson v. Henkel, 569.
jury in a criminal case, when brought into court The trial court ought not to inquire of the for inability to agree, how the jury is divided.
Failure to request instructions to find for defendant will not prevent federal Supreme Court, in reviewing conviction of crime, from examining to see if there was any proof of a material element of the crime charged.-Clyatt v. United States, 429.
87. Appeal and error, and certiorari.
Lack of statutory authority precludes a re- view in the Supreme Court of judgments of the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma in capital cases.-New v. Territory of Oklahoma, 68.
A refusal to charge the jury in a criminal case, on their return into court for further in- structions, that certain applicable requests to charge, given at defendant's request, were ma- terial to the case, held reversible error.-Burton v. United States, 243.
Lack of affirmative statement in a criminal case that it contains all the evidence held not fatal. Clyatt v. United States, 429.
The District of Columbia is a district of the Failure to except to the overruling of a mo- United States, within Rev. St. U. S. § 1014 [U. | tion in arrest of judgment waives objection that
grand jurors were selected by an unauthorized official.-Rodriguez v. United States, 617.
Of property conveyed, see "Boundaries," 1.
Custom existing in San Francisco between See "Wills." shippers and shipowners, requiring a consignee to designate a berth for discharge of cargo, cannot prevail over terms of contract, requiring
delivery of coal at wharf and on wharf in See "Slaves." IIonolulu.-Moore v. United States, 202.
CUSTOMS DUTIES.
§ 1. Validity, construction, and opera- tion of customs laws in general. Existence of armed insurrection in Philippine Islands after treaty of peace with Spain did not justify exaction of duties on imports into Manila under an order of the President, issued during the Spanish-American war, that on oc- cupation of the Philippines duties should be collected as a military contribution.-Lincoln v. United States, 455; Warner, Barnes & Co. v. Same, Id.
From indebtedness, see "Accord and Satisfac- tion"; "Bankruptcy," § 3; "Compromise and Settlement"; "Release."
DISCRETION OF COURT.
Grant of certiorari incident to habeas corpus,. see "Habeas Corpus," § 2.
The collection of duties on imports to Ma- Of cadets, see "Army and Navy." nila, which was not authorized by order of July 12, 1898, after ratification of treaty of peace with Spain, was not ratified by Act July 1, 1902, c. 1369, § 2, 32 Stat. 691, 692 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903, p. 242].-Lincoln v. United States, 455; Warner, Barnes & Co. v. Same, Id. § 2. Entry and appraisal of goods, bonds, and warehouses. Reliquidation by Secretary of Treasury of en- try of imported gunnies at exchange value of the invoice rupee held authorized by Act Aug. 27, 1894, c. 349, § 25, 28 Stat. 509, 552 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2375].-United States v. Whitridge, 406.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The District of Columbia held not charged with duty so to light a street as to show a stepping stone on the sidewalk near the curb, by Rev. St. D. C. § 233.--Wolff v. District of Columbia, 198.
DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP.
Ground of jurisdiction of United States courts, see "Courts," § 4; "Removal of Causes," § 2. DIVORCE.
Compensation for property taken for public Effect of discharge in bankruptcy as to ali- use, see "Eminent Domain," § 2.
mony, see "Bankruptcy," § 3.
« AnteriorContinuar » |