of the necessity of the work and of its benefit as against abutting
property. Parsons v. District of Columbia, 45.
2. The power of Congress to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases
within the District includes the power of taxation. Ib.
3. If the assessment for laying such water mains exceeds the cost of the
work it is not thereby invalidated. Ib.
1. The provision in the treaty of June 15, 1838, with the New York
Indians, that the United States will set apart as a permanent home
for them the tract therein described in what afterwards became the
State of Kansas, was intended to invest a present legal title thereto in
the Indians, which title has not been forfeited and has not been rein-
vested in the United States; and the Indians are not estopped froin
claiming the benefit of such reservation. New York Indians v. United
States, 1.
2. It appears by the records of the proceedings of the Senate that several
amendments were there made to said treaty, including a new article;
that the ratification was made subject to a proviso, the text of which
is stated in the opinion of the court; and that in the official publica-
tion of the treaty, and in the President's proclamation announcing it,
all the amendments except said proviso were published as part of the
treaty, and it was certified that "the treaty, as so amended, is word
for word as follows," omitting the proviso. Held, that it is difficult
to see how the proviso can be regarded as part of the treaty, or as
limiting at all the terms of the grant. Ib.
3. The judgment and mandate in this case, 170 U. S. 1, are amended.
New York Indians v. United States, 614.
1. Section 1553 of the code of Iowa, which provides that "if any express
company, railway company or any agent or person in the employ of
any express company, or of any common carrier, or any person in the
employ of any common carrier, or if any other person shall transport
or convey between points, or from one place to another within this'
State, for any other person or persons or corporation, any intoxicating
liquors, without having first been furnished with a certificate from
and under the seal of the county auditor of the county to which said
liquor is to be transported or is consigned for transportation, or within
which it is to be conveyed from place to place, certifying that the con-
signee or person to whom said liquor is to be transported, conveyed or
delivered, is authorized to sell such intoxicating liquors in such county,
such company, corporation or person so offending, and each of them,
and any agent of said company, corporation or person so offending,
shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of one hundred
dollars for each offence and pay costs of prosecution, and the costs
shall include a reasonable attorney fee to be assessed by the court,
which shall be paid into the county fund, and stand committed to the
county jail until such fine and costs of prosecution are paid," cannot
be held to apply to a box of spirituous liquors, shipped by rail from
a point in Illinois to a citizen of Iowa at his residence in that State
while in transit from its point of shipment to its delivery to the con-
signee, without causing the Iowa Law to be repugnant to the Consti-
tution of the United States. Rhodes v. Iowa, 412.
2. Moving such goods in the station from the platform on which they are
put on arrival to the freight warehouse is a part of the interstate com-
merce transportation. Ib.
3. It is settled by previous adjudications of this court: (1) That the re-
spective States have plenary power to regulate the sale of intoxicating
liquors within their borders, and the scope and extent of such regula-
tions depend solely on the judgment of the lawmaking power of the
States, provided always, they do not transcend the limits of state
authority by invading rights which are secured by the Constitution
of the United States, and provided further, that the regulations as
adopted do not operate a discrimination against the rights of residents
or citizens of other States of the Union; (2) That the right to send
liquors from one State into another, and the act of sending the same,
is interstate commerce, the regulation whereof has been committed
by the Constitution of the United States to Congress, and, hence, that
a state law which denies such a right, or substantially interferes with
or hampers the same, is in conflict with the Constitution of the United
States; (3) That the power to ship merchandise from one State into
another carries with it, as an incident, the right in the receiver of the
goods to sell them in the original packages, any state regulation to the
contrary notwithstanding; that is to say, that the goods received by
interstate commerce remain under the shelter of the interstate com-
merce clause of the Constitution, until by a sale in the original pack-
age they have been commingled with the general mass of property in
the State; but, since the passage of the act of August 8, 1890, c. 728,
26 Stat. 313, which provides "that all fermented, distilled or other
intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any State or Territory,
or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale or storage therein,
shall upon arrival in such State or Territory be subject to the opera-
tion and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the
exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same man-
ner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such State
or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being
introduced therein in original packages or otherwise," while the
receiver of intoxicating liquors in one State, sent from another State,
has the constitutional right to receive them for his own use, without
regard to the state laws to the contrary, he can no longer assert a
right to sell them in the original packages in defiance of state law.
Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., No. 1, 438.
4. The South Carolina act of March 5, 1897, No. 340, amending the act
of March 6, 1896, No. 61, is unconstitutional in so far as it compels
the resident of the State who desires to order alcoholic liquors for his
own use, to first communicate his purpose to a state chemist, and in
so far as it deprives any non-resident of the right to ship by means
of interstate commerce any liquor into South Carolina unless previ-
ous authority is obtained from the officers of the State of South Caro-
lina, since as, on the face of these regulations, it is clear that they
subject the constitutional right of the non-resident to ship into the
State and of the resident in the State to receive for his own use, to
conditions which are wholly incompatible with and repugnant to the
existence of the right which the statute itself acknowledges. Ib. `
A judgment is not final, so that the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court
may be invoked, while it is still under the control of the trial court,
through the pendency of a motion for a new trial.
ern Manufacturing Co., 675.
A. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
In a suit commenced in a court of the State of Montana by the admin-
istrator of the donor of national bank stock, no written assignment
having been made, against the donee to compel the delivery of the
certificates to the plaintiff, and a ainst the bank to require it to make
a transfer of the stock to the plaintiff, the donee set up that the gift
was voluntarily made to him by his father in his lifetime, causa mortis,
and on trial it was decided that he was the owner of such stock and of
the certificates, and was entitled to have new certificates therefor issued
to him by the bank; and a decree having been entered accordingly, it
was sustained by the Supreme Court of the State upon appeal. Held,
that these matters raised no Federal question; that no title, right,
privilege or immunity was specially set up or claimed by the admin-
istrator under a law of the United States, and denied by the highest
tribunal of the States; and that the controversy was merely as to
which of the claimants had the superior equity to those shares of
stock, and the national banking act was only collaterally involved.
Leyson v. Davis, 36.
2. No question is presented which brings this case within the supervisory
power of this court, as the alleged invalidities of the entries and of
the patents do not arise out of any alleged misconstruction or breach
of any treaty, but out of the alleged misconduct of the officers of the
Land Office; to correct which errors, if they exist, the proper course of
the defendants was to have gone to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Budzisz v. Illinois Steel Company, 41.
3. Although the matter in dispute in this case is not sufficient to give this
court jurisdiction, it plainly appears that the validity of statutes of the
United States, and of an authority exercised under the United States
was drawn into question in the court below, and is presented for the
consideration of this court. Parsons v. District of Columbia, 45.
4. A Federal question was specifically presented in the trial of this case
both in the trial court and at the hearing in error before the Supremne
Court of the State, and the motion to dismiss cannot be allowed.
Chicago, Quincy & Burlington Railroad v. Nebraska, 57.
5. This court, when reviewing the final judgment of a state court, uphold-
ing a state law alleged to be in violation of the contract clause of the
Constitution, must determine for itself the existence or the non-exist-
ence of the contract set up, and whether its obligation has been im-
paired by the state law. Ib.
6. On a writ of error to a state court this court cannot revise the judg-
ment of its highest tribunal unless a Federal question has been erro-
neously disposed of. Laclede Gas Light Co. v. Murphy, 78.
7. When the jurisdiction of this court is invoked for the protection,
against the final judgment of the highest court of a State, of some
title, right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States, it must appear expressly or by necessary intend-
ment, from the record, that such right, title, privilege or immunity
was specially set up or claimed " under such Constitution or laws;
as the jurisdiction of this court cannot arise in such case from infer-
ence, but only from averments so distinct and positive as to place it
beyond question that the party bringing the case up intended to assert
a federal right. Kipley v. Illinois, 182..
8. An interlocutory order of a Circuit Court for the issue of a temporary
injunction, having been taken on appeal to the Circuit Court of
Appeals, was there affirmed, and an order was issued for temporary
injunction. An appeal from this was taken to this court. Held, that
this court has no jurisdiction, and that the appeal must be dismissed.
Kirwan v. Murphy, 205.
9. It was essential, in order to confer jurisdiction on this court, in this
case, that the chief judge of the Court of Appeals of the State of
New York, or his lawful substitute, or a justice of this court, shonld
have allowed the writ and the citation; and as the writ was signed by
a judge as "Asso. Judge, Court of Appeals, State of New York."
and there was nothing in the record warranting the inference that he
was, at that time, acting as Chief Judge pro tem. of that court, the
writ is dismissed. Havnor v. New York, 408.
10. In determining from the face of a pleading whether the amount really
in dispute is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a court of the
United States, it is settled that if from the nature of the case as
stated in the pleadings there could not legally be a judgment for an
amount necessary to the jurisdiction, jurisdiction cannot attach even
though the damages be laid in the declaration at a larger sum.
Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co. (No. 2), 468.
11. The courts of South Carolina having held that in an action of trover
consequential damages are not recoverable, and the damage claimed
by the plaintiff below, in this case, omitting the consequential dam-
ages, being less than the sum necessary to give the Circuit Court
jurisdiction of it, it follows that, on the face of the complaint, that
court was without jurisdiction over the action. Ib.
B. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT Courts.
The Circuit Court of the United States, held within one State, has
jurisdiction of an action brought, by a citizen and resident of an-
other State, against a foreign corporation doing business in the first
State through its regularly appointed agents, upon whom the sum-
mons is there served, for a cause of action arising in a foreign coun-
try; although the statutes of the State confer no authority upon any
court to issue process against a foreign corporation, at the suit of a
person not residing within the State, and for a cause of action not
arising therein. Barrow Steamship Co. v. Kane, 100.
C. JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS.
The courts of a State may take cognizance of a suit brought by the State,
in its own courts, against citizens of other States, subject to the right
of the defendant to have such suit removed to the proper Circuit
Court of the United States, whenever the removal thereof is author-
ized by act of Congress, and subject also to the authority of this.
court to review the final judgment of the state court, if the case be
one within its appellate jurisdiction. Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co
V. Henderson, 511.
1. In the spring of the year 1825, when the grant of public land in con-
troversy in this suit was made, the territorial deputation of New
Mexico had no authority to make such grant. Hayes v. United States,
637.
2. After a careful examination of all the acts of the Mexican authorities
|