tions for crime to be based on indictment applies to pending cases
is a question of local law and the decision of the state court is not
reviewable here; and the decision of that court that such an amend-
ment did not repeal the statute under which a prosecution based
on an information already instituted does not deprive plaintiff in
error of his liberty without due process of law under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Federal Constitution and no Federal question
is involved giving this court jurisdiction to review the judgment
of conviction. Ross v. Oregon, 150.
10. To review decision of state court; discussion of merits where Federal
question wanting.
Where the record presents no Federal question, the writ of error must
be dismissed and this court cannot discuss the merits of the ques-
tions presented and determined in the state court. Ib.
11. Of appeal from Court of Appeals of District of Columbia under § 233
of District Code.
Under § 233 of the Code of the District of Columbia this court has
jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals
of the District of Columbia where the validity of a regulation pro-
mulgated by the Commissioners under an act of Congress is drawn
in question, irrespective of the conclusion reached by the court
below. Smoot v. Heyl, 518.
12. On appeal from Supreme Court of Porto Rico; scope of review.
The jurisdiction of this court on appeals from the Supreme Court of
Porto Rico is confined to determining whether the facts found by
that court support the judgment, and whether there was material
and prejudicial error in the admission or rejection of evidence mani-
fested by exceptions duly certified. Rosaly v. Graham, 584.
13. On appeal from Supreme Court of Porto Rico; scope of review.
In the absence of findings on a special verdict there is nothing for this
court to review except rulings on evidence, and in absence of error
in those rulings the judgment must be affirmed. Ib.
14. Effect of decision in prior case of constitutional questions on which
writ of error based on jurisdiction to consider other assignments of
If the constitutional questions on which the writ of error was based
were not foreclosed when the writ was sued out, this court retairs
jurisdiction to consider other assignments of error even if the con-
stitutional questions have meanwhile been decided in other cases
VOL. CCXXVII-47
adversely to plaintiff in error. Michigan Central R. R. Co. v.
Vreeland, 59.
B. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.
Finality of judgment in suit by trustee in bankruptcy.
Where a trustee in bankruptcy sues in the Federal court on the ground
that the property, or bond representing the value thereof, belonged
to the bankrupt, and diverse citizenship exists, the suit does not
depend upon the validity, construction or effect of any law of the
United States, and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals
is final. Lovell v. Newman, 412.
C. OF CIRCUIT COURTS.
1. Determination of grounds of jurisdiction.
Whether the Federal court had jurisdiction on grounds other than di-
verse citizenship must be determined from complainants' own
statement as set forth in the bill affirmatively and distinctly, re-
gardless of questions subsequently arising; grounds of jurisdiction
may not be inferred argumentatively. Lovell v. Newman, 412.
2. Bankruptcy; effect of § 23 of Bankruptcy Act as amended February 5,
1903.
Section 23 of the Bankruptcy Act as amended by the act of Feb-
ruary 5, 1903, conferring jurisdiction on the Circuit Courts of
certain classes of cases was not intended to increase the jurisdiction
of those courts in bankruptcy matters but rather to limit it to the
classes of cases over which those courts are given jurisdiction by
the acts creating them. Ib.
3. Of suit by trustee in bankruptcy; grounds for.
Where a trustee permits a bond to be given for value of goods and sucs
on the bond as merely representing the goods, and not as required
by any statute, the case is not one arising under the laws of the
United States, and jurisdiction is not conferred on the Federal
court by reason of the existence of such a bond. Ib.
4. Of suit by trustee in bankruptcy where diversity of citizenship exists;
effect of consent of defendant.
Where diversity of citizenship exists, the trustee can sue in the Federal
court without consent of defendant and if consent be given, it does
not, where such diversity exists, create an independent ground of
jurisdiction. Ib.
D. OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
Place of holding court; effect of multiplication of places.
Where the jurisdiction is coextensive with the district, multiplication
of places at which courts may be held or mere creation of divisions
does not nullify it. (Barrett v. United States, 169 U. S. 231.)
Matheson v. United States, 540.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1;
CORPORATIONS, 6-11;
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS, 1.
Summoning; effect of summoning for service in new division in Alaska
before act creating it in force.
Jurors summoned by the District Judge in Alaska before the act of
March 3,.1909, creating a Fourth Division, became effective, to
attend the first term of the court in that division when the act did
become effective, held properly summoned, as the act did not
create a new tribunal or revoke the power of the District Judges to
summon jurors to attend at any session of the court. Matheson v.
United States, 540.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16, 17, 18;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 18, 38, 39;
TAXES AND TAXATION.
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 22, 27.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 22, 23, 24.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 18-21.
Arkansas. Act of April 1, 1909, regulating sale of certain articles
(see Interstate Commerce, 39). Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 389;
Rogers v. Arkansas, 401.
Demurrage Statute, of 1907 (see Constitutional Law, 2). St.
Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 265.
District of Columbia. Code, § 233 (see Jurisdiction, A 11). Smoot v.
Heyl, 518.
Building Regulations (see Party Wall, 2). Ib.
Indiana. Ordinance of South Bend permitting railway to use streets
(see Constitutional Law, 6). Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v.
South Bend, 544.
Mississippi. Railroad regulation (see Constitutional Law, 3). Yazoo
& M. V. R. R. Co. v. Greenwood Grocery Co., 1.
New Mexico Territory. Changes of county seats (see Territories).
Gray v. Taylor, 51.
Elections (see Elections). Ib.
Oregon. Ordinance of Portland prohibiting use of locomotives in
streets (see Constitutional Law, 7). Southern Pacific Co. v. Port-
land, 559.
Porto Rico. Actions for acknowledgment of natural children. Under
the laws of Porto Rico, while Law Eleven of Toro as to effect of
acts of recognition of rights of natural children may be in force,
the provisions of §§ 133 and 137 of the Code of 1902 must be com-
plied with in order to enforce such rights; and this applies to per-
sons whose alleged parent died prior to the enactment of the Code.
Cordova v. Folgueras, 375.
Contracts (see Bonds and Undertakings, 3). Porto Rico v. Title
Guaranty Co., 382.
Partnerships (see Partnership, 2, 3). Zimmerman v. Harding,
Tennessee. Penalizing defenses in insurance litigation (see Constitu-
tional Law, 9). Fraternal Mystic Circle v. Snyder, 497.
Utah. Common carriers; right of safe carriage on. In Utah the rights
of safe carriage on a common carrier are not derived from the con-
tract of carriage but are based on the law of the State requiring
the carrier to use due care for the safety of passengers. Southern
Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 601.
Virginia. Bankers' license tax of Richmond (see Constitutional Law,
17). Bradley v. Richmond, 477.
Washington. Actions for wrongful death differentiated. Damages to the
estate of one killed by negligence is a distinct cause of action, under
the laws of the State of Washington, from damages to the parents
of the person so killed. Winfree v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 296.
Generally.-See JURISDICTION, A 9;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 10, 11, 12;
RAILROADS, 5, 6;
REMOVAL OF Causes, 5;
STATUTES, A 5, 6, 7.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 4, 5, 6.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
What constitutes; assertion of patent rights as.
Assertion of patent rights may be so conducted as to constitute mali-
cious prosecution; but failure of plaintiff to maintain the action
|