not open to collateral attack, applied in this case; and mandamus
refused to compel the Circuit Court to remand a case in which it
decided that it had jurisdiction on the issues of citizenship and
severable controversy. Ex parte Harding, 363.

2. To correct abuse of judicial discretion in retaining case without juris-
diction.

In this case the exceptional rule that mandamus will lie to the Circuit
Court to correct an abuse of judicial discretion in retaining a
case over which it has not jurisdiction does not apply. Ib.

3. Same-Cases reviewed and harmonized.

Conflicting decisions regarding issuing mandamus to the Circuit Court
to correct its decisions in regard to jurisdiction over cases re-
moved from the state court reviewed and harmonized.

4. Same.

Ib.

In this case, Ex parte Hoard, 105 U. S. 578, and cases following it ap-
plied, as expressing the general principle involved; Virginia v.
Rives, 100 U. S. 313, and cases following it distinguished, as ap-
plicable only to exceptional instances not involved in this case;
Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449; In re Moore, 209 U. S. 490, and
In re Winn, 213 U. S. 458, disapproved in part and qualified. Ib.

MANDATE.

See CONTEMPT OF COURT.

MATERIALMEN.

See ACTIONS, 5, 6;

PUBLIC WORKs, 1;
UNITED STATES.

MECHANICS' LIENS.

See UNITED STATES.

MILITARY LAW.

See ARMY AND NAVY.

MILITIA.

See ARMY AND NAVY, 5.

MOOT CASE.

1. When case not moot; repetition of conditions likely.

The case is not moot where interests of a public character are asserted

by the Government under conditions that may be immediately
repeated, merely because the particular order involved has ex-
pired. (United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S.
290, 308.) Southern Terminal Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm., 498.

2. When case not moot; actual controversies; appeal involving order of
Interstate Commerce Commission.

The rule that this court will only determine actual controversies, and
will dismiss if events have transpired pending appeal which render
it impossible to grant the appellant effectual relief, does not ap-
ply to an appeal involving an order of the Interstate Commerce
Commission merely because that order has expired. Such orders
are usually continuing and capable of repetition, and their con-
sideration, and the determination of the right of the Government
and the carriers to redress, should not be defeated on account of
the shortness of their term. Ib.

3. Settlement of controversy by parties before hearing.
Appeals dismissed without costs to either party, it having developed
from statements of counsel for both parties that the cases had
become purely moot because of the settlement between the parties
of every material controversy which the record presented. Bucks
Stove & Range Co. v. American Federation of Labor, 581.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 9.

NAVY.

See ARMY AND NAVY, 2.

NEGLIGENCE.

See CARRIERS, 4;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 15.

NEW TRIAL.

Grounds for; finding of verdict based on understanding among jurors that
punishment would be less than that imposed.

There was no error on the part of the trial court in denying a motion
for a new trial based on affidavits of some of the jurors that they
agreed to the verdict on the understanding between themselves
and other jurors that the punishment of the degree found would
be less than that imposed by the court. (Mattox v. United States,
146 U. S. 140.) Hendrix v. United States, 79.

NORTHERN PACIFIC LAND GRANTS.
See PUBLIC LAnds, 6–11.

NOTICE.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11, 13, 21.

OBITER DICTA.

See OPINIONS, 1.

OFFENSES.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 6.

OFFICERS OF THE ARMY.
See ARMY AND NAVY.

OKLAHOMA.

See JURISDICTION, F 2.

ONUS PROBANDI.

See REAL PROPERTY.

OPINIONS.

1. Controlling effect of general expressions in.

General expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection

with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go
beyond the case, they may be respected, but they are not con-
trolling when the very point is presented in a subsequent case.
Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, 380.

2. Effect of general expressions on uniform rule of executive department.
General expressions in an opinion such as those in Sjoli v. Dreschel, 199
U. S. 564, will not be made the basis for overthrowing a uniform
rule of the Land Department, involving destructive effects upon
property rights existing under different conditions. Ib.

A peon is one who is compelled to work for his creditor until his debt

VOL. CCXIX-41

is paid, and the fact that he contracted to perform the labor
which is sought to be compelled does not withdraw the attempted
enforcement from the condemnation of the peonage acts. Bailey
v. Alabama, 219.

2. State legislation violative of Federal acts prohibiting.

The Federal anti-peonage acts are necessarily violated by any state
legislation which seeks to compel service or labor by making it a
crime to fail or refuse to perform it. Ib.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 54, 55.

PLEADING.

Nature of plea not determined by its designation.

The designation of a plea does not change its essential nature, and the
fact that the statute of limitations is designated as a plea in abate-
ment and not a plea in bar, is untenable. United States v. Barber,
72.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2, 17, 18, 25, 27, 28, 65, 66, 78, 83;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 9;

STATES, 3-8.

POWERS OF CONGRESS.

See CONGRESS, POWERS OF.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

1. Construction of state statute as to constitutionality; questions open.
Neither the excellence nor the defects of a legislative scheme may be
permitted to determine the constitutionality of a state statute;
in this court the only question is whether the statute transcends
the limits of power defined by the Federal Constitution. Chicago,
B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. McGuire, 549.

2. Construction of state statutes; duty of court in considering constitu-
tionality.

Although this court may not impute to a State an actual motive to

oppress by a statute which that State enacts, it must consider the natural operation of such statute and strike it down if it becomes an instrument of coercion forbidden by the Federal Constitution. Bailey v. Alabama, 219.

3. Following state court's construction of state statute.

This court in determining the constitutionality of a state statute is bound by the construction given to it by the highest court of the State and will treat it as exacting whatever the state court has declared that it exacts either expressly or by implication. American Land Co. v. Zeiss, 47.

4. Following state court's construction of state statute.

Where the highest court of the State has held that provisions that might render an act unconstitutional are imperative, and the elimination of those provisions do not affect the remainder of the act, this court is bound by such construction and will construe the act as though stripped of such provisions. Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 140.

5. Scope of review; wisdom of legislation not considered.

Even where powerful arguments can be made against the wisdom of legislation this court can say nothing, as it is not concerned therewith. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 575.

6. Scope of inquiry on writ of error; questions as to evidence and damages not considered.

It is not the province of this court on writ of error to reverse if dissatisfied with the verdict of the jury; if there was evidence proper for the consideration of the jury, objection that the verdict was against the weight of evidence or that excessive damages were allowed cannot be considered. Herencia v. Guzman, 44.

7. Record; sufficiency of, to justify reversal of judgment for exclusion of evidence.

A judgment cannot be set aside on an exception to the refusal of the trial court to allow an expert to testify where the record does not show what testimony the witness was expected to give or that he was qualified to give any. Ib.

8. Assumption as to proof of facts on which decision of Secretary of Interior based.

Where a matter regarding selection of lieu land is wholly within the jurisdiction of the Secretary deciding it, this court will assume that the facts on which the decision rested were properly proved. Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, 380.