cation that the contract cannot be reformed; and a court of another
State does not fail to give full faith and credit to such a judgment
because in an equity action it reforms the policy and gives judgment
to the insured thereon as reformed. Northern Assur. Co. v. Grand
View Bldg. Assn., 106.
Notwithstanding the adoption of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments, the National Government still remains one of enumerated
powers, and the Tenth Amendment is not shorn of its vitality. Hodges
v. United States, 1.
19. Impairment of contract obligation; existence of contract.
A benefit association incorporated under a state law and styling itself a Na-
tional Council granted charters to various voluntary organizations in
other States, styled State Councils, for similar purposes under conditions
expressed in the charters. A dominant portion of the members of a
State Council procured a charter from the state legislature granting
the corporation so formed under the same name powers, in some re-
spects exclusive in that State, to carry on a similar work, but saving
any rights of property possessed by the National Council. In a suit,
brought by the latter, held that whatever relations may have existed
between the National Council and the voluntary State Council there
was no contract between the former and the incorporated State Council
which was impaired, and the act of incorporation was not void within
the impairment clause of the Federal Constitution. National Council
v. State Council, 151.
20. Impairment of contract obligation-Validity of condemnation under state
law of minority shares of stock in railroad.
It is within the power of a State to provide for condemnation of minority
shares of stock in railroad and other corporations where the majority of
the shares are held by another railroad corporation if public interest
demands; and the improvement of the railroad owning the majority of
stock of another corporation may be a public use if the state courts so
declare, and the condemnation under §§ 3694, 3695, Public Laws of
Connecticut, of such minority shares of a corporation is not void under
the impairment clause of the Constitution either because it impairs
the obligation of a lease made by the corporation to the corporation
obtaining the shares by condemnation, or because it impairs the con-
tract rights of the stockholder. Offield v. New York, N. H. & H. Rail-
road Co., 372.
See FEDERAL QUESTION, 3;
Ante, 9.
21. Judiciary; Federal courts; power under Seventh Amendment to examine
judgment based on verdict of jury.
Whether in view of the Seventh Amendment a Federal court sitting in
equity may inquire into whether a judgment based on a verdict was
obtained by fraud and if so found set the verdict aside argued, but not
decided. Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 64.
Self incrimination. See JURISDICTION, F 1.
22. Slavery and involuntary servitude defined.
Slavery and involuntary servitude as denounced by the Thirteenth Amend-
ment mean a condition of enforced compulsory service of one to an-
other; and while the cause inciting it was the emancipation of the
colored race, that amendment reaches every race and every individual.
Hodges v. United States, 1.
23. Slavery and involuntary servitude; effect of amendments.
The result of the amendments to the Constitution adopted after the Civil
War was to abolish slavery, and to make the emancipated slaves
citizens and not wards of the Nation over whom Congress retained
jurisdiction. This decision of the people is binding upon the courts.
and they cannot attempt to determine whether it was the wiser course.
Ib.
24. State contravention of sec. 10, Art. I, of Constitution relative to imposts, etc.
The provision in Section 10, Article I, of the Constitution of the United
States, that States shall not lay imposts and duties on imports and
exports is not contravened by a state inspection law applicable only
to goods shipped to other States, and not to goods directly shipped
to foreign countries. McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R., 38.
25. States; power to compel equality of railroad rates.
A State may insist upon equality of rates, and although a State may not
compel a railroad company to do business at a loss, and even though the
company may, against the power of the State, establish rates which
afford reasonable compensation, if it voluntarily establishes local rates
for some shippers-even though under the guise of a rebilling rate on
interstate shipments-it cannot resist the power of the State to enforce
the same rate for all shippers-or claim that the rate so fixed by the
commission acting under authority of the State deprives it of its prop-
erty without due process of law. Alabama & Vicksburg Ry. Co. v.
Mississippi R. R. Comm., 496.
26. States; suits against state railroad commission not a suit against State.
A commission created by the law of a State for the purpose of supervising
and controlling the acts of railroad companies operating within the
State is subject to suit, and a suit brought by a company of another
State in the Circuit Court of the United States against the members
of the commission is not a suit against the State within the prohibitions
of the Eleventh Amendment. Mississippi R. R. Comm. v. Illinois
Central R. R., 335.
CONSTRUCTION.
Of Contracts. See CONTRACTS.
Of Statutes. See CUSTOMS DUTIES;
STATUTES, A.
Of Wills. See WILLS.
In contempt proceedings the court is not a party, there is nothing that
affects the judges in their own persons and their concern is that the
law should be obeyed and enforced. United States v. Shipp, 563.
2. Disregard of order of this court staying proceedings below constitute con-
tempt.
After an appeal has been allowed by one of the justices of this court, and
an order entered that all proceedings against appellant be stayed and
his custody retained pending appeal, the acts of persons having knowl-
edge of such order, in creating a mob and taking appellant from his
place of confinement and hanging him, constitutes contempt of this
court, and it is immaterial whether appellant's custodian be regarded
as a mere state officer or as bailee of the United States under the order.
Ib.
3. Disregard of orders of this court, pending decision as to its jurisdiction,
constitute contempt, irrespective of whether or not the court has jurisdiction
of the cause.
Even if the Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction to enter-
tain the petition for habeas corpus of one convicted in the state court,
and this court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from the order of the
Circuit Court denying the petition, this court, and this court alone, has
jurisdiction to decide whether the case is properly before it, and, un-
til its judgment declining jurisdiction is announced, it has authority
to make orders to preserve existing conditions, and a willful disregard
of those orders constitutes contempt. Ib.
4. Purgation by disavowal of intent under oath.
Where the contempt consists of personal presence and overt acts those
charged therewith cannot be purged by their mere disavowal of intent
under oath. Ib.
1. Effect on title of word "sell" in agreement affecting real estate.
The word "sell" in an agreement affecting, but not in terms granting
or conveying, real estate, will not be given any more effect upon the
title than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of the transaction
stated in the agreement; and under the circumstances of this case, the
agreement held not to be a conveyance, but a power of attorney to
sell at the specified price and subject to revocation, not being coupled
with an interest. Taylor v. Burns, 120.
2. Phrase "coupled with an interest" in power of attorney, defined.
The phrase "coupled with an interest," in connection with a power of
attorney, does not mean an interest in the exercise of the power, but
an interest in the property on which the power is to operate. (Hunt
v. Rousmanier's Administrator, 8 Wheat. 174, followed.) Ib.
See BONDS;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 9, 19, 20;
COURTS, 2;
JURISDICTION, B 4; D 2.
This court will take judicial notice of the fact that cattle run at large in
the great stretches of country in the West, identified only as to owner-
ship by brands, and of the necessity for, and use of, branding of such
cattle, and will not strike down state or territorial legislation, essential
for prevention of crime, requiring the inspection of hides to be shipped
without the State, although the act does not require such inspection of
hides not to be so shipped. McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R., 38.
2. When Federal Supreme Court will ignore state court's decision as to effect
of state statute.
It is only where an irrepealable contract exists that it is the duty of this
court to decide for itself irrespective of the decisions of the state court
whether a subsequent act impairs the obligation of such contract.
Wicomico County v. Bancroft, 112.
3. Interference by Federal court on habeas corpus by party held by State for
The duty of a Federal court, to interfere, on habeas corpus, for the protection
of one alleged to be restrained of his liberty in violation of the Constitu-
tion or laws of the United States must often be controlled by the
special circumstances of the case, and except in an emergency demand-
ing prompt action, the party held in custody by a State, charged with
crime against its laws, will be left to stand his trial in the state court,
which, it will be assumed, will enforce, as it has the power to do equally
with a Federal court, any right asserted under and secured by the
supreme law of the land. Pettibone v. Nichols, 192.
4. Right of one wrongfully arrested and deported into demanding State to
resort to Federal court for release on habeas corpus.
Even if the arrest and deportation of one alleged to be a fugitive from
justice may have been effected by fraud and connivance arranged be-
tween the executive authorities of the demanding and surrendering
States so as to deprive him of any opportunity to apply before deporta-
tion to a court in the surrendering State for his discharge, and even if
on such application to any court, state or Federal, he would have been
discharged, he cannot, so far as the Constitution or the laws of the
United States are concerned-when actually in the demanding State,
in the custody of its authorities for trial, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof be discharged on habeas corpus by the Federal court. It
would be improper and inappropriate in the Circuit Court to inquire
as to the motives guiding or controlling the action of the Governors
of the demanding and surrendering States. Ib.
5. Status of state railroad commission as a court, within prohibition of § 720,
Rev. Stat., relative to interference by Federal courts.
The Railroad Commission of Mississippi is not, as has been determined by
the highest court of that State, a court, but a mere administrative
agency of the State, and the prohibitions of § 720, Rev. Stat., against
injunctions from United States courts to stay proceedings in state
courts are not applicable thereto; and even though the Commission
might, under the state law, resort to the state courts to aid it in en-
forcing its orders the proceeding cannot be regarded as one in the state
courts within the meaning of § 720, Rev. Stat. Mississippi R. R.
Comm. v. Illinois Central R. R., 335.
6. Province of courts distinguished from that of Congress.
It is the province of the courts to enforce, not to make, laws; and if a law
works inequality the redress, if any, must be had from Congress, and
arguments directed, not to the construction of the act, but as to the
justice of a method of distribution of assets under the bankruptcy law,
and the hardship resulting therefrom, cannot influence judicial deter-
mination. New Jersey v. Anderson, 483.
7. Usurpation of legislative power.
While under former decisions of this court the nature of inheritance taxes
has been defined, those decisions do not prescribe the time of its im-
position. To have done so would have been to usurp a legislative
power not possessed by this court. Cahen v. Brewster, 543.
FEDERAL QUESTION;
JURISDICTION;
See APPEAL AND ERROR;
BANKRUPTCY, 2, 3;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16,
CONTEMPT OF COURT;
EXTRADITION, 1;
MASTER AND SERVANT, 4;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE;
REMEDIES;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 2.
10 of the Organic Act of Oklahoma of May 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 85,
the place of trial of a crime committed in territory not embraced in
|