GRAIN ELEVATORS.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 2, 5, 7.
The writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to perform the function of a writ of error, nor can it be made the means of obtaining a new trial. Williams v. Walsh, 415.
See JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 1.
HORSEHAIR.
See CUSTOMS LAW, 2.
HOURS OF LABOR.
See PUBLIC WORKS, 2, 3;
STATES, 16, 17.
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.
See PLEADING.
ILLUMINATING OILS.
See GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, 3.
IMITATION HORSEHAIR.
See CUSTOMS Law, 2.
IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES.
See BANKRUPTCY, 12, 13;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 24, 25.
IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS.
See JURISDICTION, A 5, 6, 14, 15.
IMPORTS.
See CUSTOMS LAW.
1. Enrollment; rights acquired by; prerequisites to deprivation of. Where, under the provisions of acts of Congress, and after a hearing, the names of relators were duly entered as Creek Freedmen by
blood on the rolls made and approved by the Secretary of the
Interior, rights were acquired of which the freedmen could not
be deprived without that character of notice and opportunity to
be heard essential to due process of law. (Garfield v. Goldsby, 211
U. S. 249.) Turner v. Fisher, 204.
2. Enrollment; removal from; sufficiency of notice of hearing.
Notice to the attorney of such freedmen, given a few hours before the
hearing of a motion to strike their names, on the ground that
their enrollment had been secured by perjury, was not such
notice as afforded due process. (Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 399,
409; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U. S. 708; Iowa Central v.
Iowa, 160 U. S. 393; Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 414.) Ib.
See MANDAMUS, 2, 3, 5.
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
See COPYRIGHTS, 1, 2.
INJUNCTION.
See JURISDICTION, D.
INSPECTION CHARGES.
See TAXES AND TAXATION, 3-6.
1. Condition as to avoidance of policy on non-payment of premiums; ef-
fect of.
A condition in an Insurance policy that it shall be void for non-payment
of premiums means only that it shall be voidable at option of the
company. Grigsby v. Russell. 149.
2. Assignment of policy not within rule as to insurable interest.
The rule of public policy that forbids the taking out of insurance by
one on the life of another in which he has no insurable interest
does not apply to the assignment by the insured of a perfectly
valid policy to one not having an insurable interest. Ib.
3. Assignment of policy, validity of.
In this case, held, that the assignment by the insured of a perfectly
valid policy to one not having any insurable interest but who
paid a consideration therefor and afterwards paid the premiums
thereon was valid and the assignee entitled to the proceeds
from the insurance company as against the heirs of the deceased.
Ib.
4. Insurable interest; effect of cessation of, on validity of policy.
A valid policy of insurance is not avoided by a cessation of insurable
interest even as against the insurer unless so provided by the
policy itself. Conn. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U. S. 457; War-
nock v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775, distinguished. Ib.
5. Assignment of policy; rights of assignee as against those of insured's
administrator.
Where there is no rule of law against paying to an assignee who has no
insurable interest in the life of the insured, and the company
waives a clause in the policy requiring proof of interest, the rights
of the assignee are not diminished by such clause as against the
insured's administrator. Ib.
A train moving and carrying freight between two points in the same
State, but which is hauling freight between points one of which is
within and the other without the State, or hauling it through the
State between points both without the State, is engaged in in-
terstate commerce and subject to the laws of Congress enacted
in regard thereto. (Southern Railway Co. v. United States, 222
U. S. 20.) Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Washington, 370.
2. Discriminations; rebates; allowance to owners of elevators handling
own grain, held not illegal.
Contracts made by various railroads for elevation expenses of grain
at points of transshipment at rates not exceeding those fixed by
the Commission as reasonable, held not to be illegal discrimina-
tions or rebates when paid to owners of elevators on their own
grain although such owners perform services other than those
paid for at the same time to their own advantage. Interstate Com-
merce Commission v. Diffenbaugh, 42.
3. Evidence; reports of Commission as.
Section 14 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, making decisions of the
Interstate Commerce Commission as published in the official re-
ports competent evidence, does not relieve a party relying on a
decision from putting it in evidence or require courts, to take
judicial notice thereof-the statute relieves from expense and in-
convenience in connection with producing evidence, but it does
not otherwise change the rules of evidence. Robinson v. Baltimore
& Ohio R. R. Co., 506.
4. Preferences; when apparently fair rule held unreasonable and unfair.
A rule apparently fair on its face and reasonable in its terms may, in
fact, be unfair and unreasonable if it operates so as to give one
an advantage of which another similarly situated cannot avail.
Union Pacific R. R. v. Updike Grain Co., 215.
5. Preferences; unreasonable discrimination by carrier in compensating
for elevation of grain.
In this case held, that the Union Pacific Railroad Company could not
refuse to pay the owner of an elevator located on other railroads
compensation for elevating grain similar to that paid to owners
of elevators located on its own railroad on account of failure to
return cars within an arbitrary and unreasonable time fixed by
the Union Pacific; but also held that such cars should be returned
within a reasonable time in order to entitle the parties rendering
service to compensation therefor. Ib.
6. Rates; compensation contemplated by Interstate Commerce Act; power
of Commission.
The Interstate Commerce Act does not attempt to equalize fortune,
opportunities or abilities; it contemplates payment of reasonable
compensation by carriers for services rendered, and instrumen-
talities furnished, by owners of property transported, the only
power of the Commission being to determine the maximum of
such compensation. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Diffen-
baugh, 42.
7. Rates; compensation of shippers for elevation of grain; right of carrier
to accord.
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Diffenbaugh, ante, p. 42, followed to
effect that under the Interstate Commerce Law, as amended by
the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, 590, elevation of
grain is included in transportation, and, subject to the power of
the Commission to determine the reasonableness of the payments,
carriers can compensate owners of grain in transit for elevation
services rendered in connection therewith. Union Pacific R. R. v.
Updike Grain Co., 215.
8. Rates; compensation by carrier for services rendered in transportation;
right of carrier to withhold.
Although a carrier may have had an ulterior motive in establishing a
general rate of compensation for services rendered to it in con-
nection with goods in transit, the real consideration is the service
rendered; and even if the carrier does not realize the desired
benefit it cannot deprive one actually rendering the service of the
compensation on the ground of non-compliance with regulations
of an association of which the carrier is a member and over which
the party rendering the service has no control. Ib.
A carrier must treat all alike. It cannot pay one shipper for services
rendered to his goods in transit, and, by enforcing an arbitrary
rule, deprive another shipper rendering similar services of com-
pensation therefor. Ib.
10. Rates; reasonableness; proof of.
Reasonableness of railroad rates cannot be proved by categorical an-
swers like those given in regard to value of articles of merchan-
dise; too many elements are involved which require considera-
tion. Interstate Com. Comm. v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 541.
11. Rates; reasonableness; quære as to presumption of.
Quare: Whether the maintenance of an admittedly low rate for a long
time raises a presumption of reasonableness because the carriers
realized a profit thereon. Ib.
12. Rate regulation; scope of authority conferred by Act to Regulate Com-
By the Act to Regulate Commerce, Congress has provided a system
for establishing, maintaining, and altering rate schedules and of
redressing injuries, and committed to a single tribunal authority
to investigate complaints, enforce conformity to prescribed stand-
ards, and order reparation to injured parties for non-conformity
with those standards. Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co.,
506.
13. Rates; actions for reparation; when maintainable.
No action for reparation for exactions for railroad freight payments
can be maintained in any court, Federal or state, in the absence of
an appropriate finding and order of the Interstate Commerce
Commission. The rule laid down in Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
v. Abilene Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, as to suits for recovery of un-
reasonable rates, applies also to suits for recovery of rates as dis-
criminatory. Ib.
14. Rates; action for discriminatory exaction; when maintainable.
In this case held that an action could not be maintained for discrim-
inatory exaction on coal rates of fifty cents a ton when loaded
|