7. Accounting; laches not imputed to administrator of deceased partner who delays demand until realization of assets.

A curator and administrator of a deceased member of a partnership, who has no power of sale, is not chargeable with laches because he waits until the surviving partner has realized the assets of the copartnership before demanding an account. The interests of his ward and intestate are founded in contract and cannot be destroyed by mere non-action. Ib.

See SALES, 3.

PENAL STATUTES.

See STATUTES, A 15, 16.

PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11, 12;
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, 2;
STATES, 11.

PERJURY.

See BANKRUPTCY, 13;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 24, 25;
STATUTES, A 11.

PERSONAL PROPERTY.

See ESTATES OF DECEDENTS, 6;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 15, 16.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

See JURISDICTION, A 9, 19, 20.

PHOTO-PLAYS.

See COPYRIGHTS, 1, 2.

PLEADING.

Ignorance of the law not available as defense where court has pointed way to knowledge.

Where the state courts have held that the journals of the legislature

can be examined to determine whether an act has been validly passed, it is the duty of one proposing to rely upon the act to examine the journals, and he cannot plead ignorance of the law as an excuse for not doing so. Peters v. Broward, 483.

See CONTRACTS, 8, 13, 14;

MANDAMUS, 4.

POLICE POWER.

Test of validity of police regulations.

The validity of police regulations depends upon the circumstances of each case, whether arbitrary or reasonable and whether really designed to accomplish a legitimate public purpose. (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Drainage Commissioners, 200 U. S. 591.) Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 225.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8;

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 1;
STATES, 12-20.

PORTO RICO.

See BANKRUPTCY, 4, 5, 6;

CONTRACTS, 1;

JURISDICTION, A 17, 18.

POSTMASTER GENERAL.

See CONTRACTS, 12.

POWDER.

See STATES, 20.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

1. Bill of exceptions; effect of absence from record.

Occurrences at the trial cannot be considered if the record contains

no bill of exceptions. Kinney v. United States Fidelity Co., 283.

2. Bill of exceptions; sufficiency of.

A paper in the record signed by the plaintiff is not a bill of exceptions although styled exceptions to charge of jury and purporting to be initialed by the trial judge. (Origet v. United States, 125 U. S. 243.) Ib.

3. Exceptions; when to be noted.

The stricter practice is to note the exceptions before the jury retires; but if all the exceptions are noted in open court after jury returns and no wrong is suffered, an exception will not be sustained on that ground. Gandia v. Pettingill, 452.

4. Exception to statement of account not made in lower court not available in this court.

If a defendant did not except to a ruling fixing a date for calculating interest on an account, and asked to be allowed interest on ad

VOL. CCXXII-41

vances from the same date, he is deemed to have acquiesced in the ruling, and cannot complain of it in this court. Consaul v. Cummings, 262.

5. Findings of fact by Court of Claims; sufficiency; when cause remanded for additional findings.

Where the right of one claiming under a contract with the United States depends on whether the government inspector acted in good or in bad faith in refusing to allow the work to proceed, the findings of the Court of Claims should be specific in this respect; and if not, the case will be remanded with directions to make specific findings. Ripley v. United States, 144.

6. Same.

Findings, which simply state that the inspector in immediate charge of the work acted with knowledge, other inspectors being also referred to in the findings, and which do not make a direct and unequivocal finding as to the good or bad faith of the inspector in giving the orders, do not conform to the order of this court heretofore made in this case, 220 U. S. 491, and the case is remanded for further compliance therewith. Ib.

7. Finding by state court of termination of bankruptcy proceeding not conclusive on this court.

A finding by the state court that bankruptcy proceedings had been concluded by denial of adjudication does not conclude this court on writ of error to review the judgment of the state court. Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co., 300.

8. Following lower court's decision as to conflicting decrees. Of two former decrees adjudicating title to real estate, the Supreme Court of Hawaii having found that the earlier was right and bound all interests and that the later was wrong, this court affirms, seeing no reason for not following the local court. Lewers & Cooke v. Atcherly, 285.

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

Whether a state statute providing remedies for damages to property within the State includes those to specified classes of property is for the state court to determine, and this court accepts the construction so given. (The Winnebago, 205 U. S. 354.) Martin v. West, 191.

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

The question of validity of a state statute under the state constitution

is foreclosed in this court by the decision of the highest court of the State. City of Chicago v. Sturges, 313.

11. When state court's adjudication as to validity of state statute followed though not res judicata.

While the judgment of the highest court of the State in a case may not be res judicata of the case at bar, the parties and land affected not being the same, if in deciding it the court announces what the law of the State is and whether a particular statute was or was not validly enacted under the state constitution, this court will follow it as an authoritative announcement of the law of the State. Peters v. Broward, 483.

12. Effect of decision by state court that act of State is unconstitutional on right of this court to hold it constitutional.

This court cannot hold that an act is constitutional under the state law because the defect on which the state court declared it to be unconstitutional occurred through mistake, when the state court. has passed on that question and held the act unconstitutional even under such condition. Ib.

13. Following territorial court's construction of local statute.

Where it is inherently legal and protects private rights, the construction given a local statute by the Supreme Court of a Territory will be followed by this court, unless there is such manifest error as to warrant reversal. Treat v. Grand Canyon Ry. Co., 448.

14. Same.

In this case this court follows the construction, given to a territorial statute of Arizona by the Supreme Court of that Territory, that an exemption from taxation of certain railroad property went with the land and extended to assigns of the first road. Ib.

15. Deference to tribunals on the spot in respect of necessity for legislation. This court recognizes the propriety of deferring to tribunals on the

spot and will not oppose its notions of necessity to legislation adopted to accomplish a legitimate public purpose. (Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San Francisco, 216 U. S. 358.) Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 225.

16. Weight given to decision of court on the spot. Great weight should be attributed to the decision of the court on the spot, especially when ancient law is involved, such as existed in Hawaii before the annexation. Lewers & Cooke v. Atcherly, 285.

17. Scope of inquiry as respects operation of statute.

This court cannot determine what the actual operation of a statute

will be after its enactment by going outside the record and taking judicial knowledge of what has happened since the filing of the transcript here. Red "C" Oil Co. v. North Carolina, 380.

18. Scope of review in determining validity of orders of Interstate Commerce Commission.

This court, in determining the validity of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, confines itself to the ultimate question as to whether the Commission acted within its power. It will not consider expediency, nor will it consider facts further than to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the order. Interstate Com. Comm. v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 541.

19. Record; bill of exceptions; disposition of case when evidence insufficient to support.

Even if a part of the record were treated as a bill of exceptions if all

matters therein depend for their solution upon examination of evidence not in the record, this court will affirm, not having any means for determining whether reversible error arose from the action of the court. Kinney v. United States Fidelity Co., 283.

20. Who may attack validity of law.

A law cannot be declared invalid at the instance of one not affected by it. Williams v. Walsh, 415.

21. Who may attack constitutionality of statute.

One assessed at the lowest rate under a graduated tax statute cannot object to the constitutionality because others are taxed at the higher rate. Keeney v. New York, 525.

22. Who may not object to constitutionality of classification for regulation. One within a distinct class which is properly subject to classification

cannot question the constitutionality of the classification on the ground that it is too broad and includes others outside of that class. Aluminum Co. v. Ramsey, 251.