2. Involution in application to foreign corporations of state statute increasing liability. Although a statute increasing the liability of corporations may, as to corporations of the State, be an exercise of the reserved power to alter, amend and repeal, the application of that principle as to foreign corporations depends on many considerations and involves Federal questions. Aluminum Co. v. Ramsey, 251. 3. Validity of state law under state constitution not a Federal question. Whether a particular state law has been passed by the legislature in such manner as to become a valid law under the state constitution is a state and not a Federal question, and Federal courts must follow the adjudications of the state court. Peters v. Broward, 483. See JURISDICTION, A 10, 11, 12, 14. FIFTH AMENDMENT. FINDINGS OF FACT. See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 1, 2; FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. See FEDERAL QUESTION, 2. FOREIGN LAWS. See COURTS, 3, 4. FOREIGN SUITORS. See COURTS, 5. FORGERY. See FRAUD, 2. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 17, 19, 26-29. FOURTH AMENDMENT. See MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. FRAUD. 1. Defrauding United States; essentials of crime. It is not essential to charge or prove an actual financial or property loss to make a case of defrauding the United States. United States v. Plyler, 15. 2. Defrauding United States; offenses within § 5418, Rev. Stat.; forging Civil Service vouchers. Section 5418, Rev. Stat., prohibits the forging of written vouchers required upon examination by the Civil Service Commission of the United States, and presenting such vouchers to the Commissioners. Ib. See CRIMINAL LAW, 4. FRIVOLOUS QUESTION. See FEDERAL QUESTION, 1; GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS. 1. Power of legislature to impose obligations and responsibilities otherwise non-existent. The general principles of law that there is no individual liability for an act which ordinary human care and foresight could not guard against and that loss for causes purely accidental must rest where it falls, are subject to the legislative power which, in the absence of organic restraint, may, for the general welfare, impose obligations and responsibilities otherwise non-existent. City of Chicago v. Sturges, 313. 2. Duty of government to protect life, liberty and property. Primarily government exists for the maintenance of social order and is under the obligation to protect life, liberty and property against the careless and evil-minded. Ib. 3. Delegation of legislative power; what amounts to. A requirement by the legislature that illuminating oils must be safe, pure, and afford a satisfactory light, establishes a sufficient primary standard, and remitting to the proper state board the establishment of rules and regulations to determine what oils measure up to those standards does not amount to a delegation of legislative power. Red "C" Oil Co. v. North Carolina, 380. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 30; GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. See ACTIONS, 2; CONTRACTS, 2-8. Functions of writ. GRAIN ELEVATORS. See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 2, 5, 7. HABEAS CORPUS. 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. HARLAN, J., IN MEMORIAM. HAWAII. See JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 1. HORSEHAIR. See CUSTOMS LAW, 2. HOURS OF LABOR. See PUBLIC WORKS, 2, 3; IGNORANCE OF THE LAW. 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. IMPORTS. See CUSTOMS LAW. INDIANS. 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. INSURANCE. 1. Condition as to avoidance of policy on non-payment of premiums; effect 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 was 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; Warnock 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. 1. What constitutes. INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 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 interstate 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 discriminations 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 Commerce 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 reports 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 inconvenience in connection with producing evidence, but it does not otherwise change the rules of evidence. Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 506. |