that before sale or barter of patent rights, an authenticated copy of
the letters patent and the authority of the vendor to sell the right
patented shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the county within
which the rights are sold is not an unreasonable regulation. Allen v.
Riley, 347.
2. Power of State to regulate transfer of patent rights.
Allen v. Riley, ante, p. 347, followed as to power of a State to require one
selling patent rights to record the letters patent and applied to a law
of Arkansas, which also makes a note void if given for a patent right,
if the note does not show on its face for what it was given. John Woods
& Sons v. Carl, 358.
See INDIANS, 4;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 4;
PUBLIC LANDs, 2.
PATENT OFFICE.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 14.
Liability of members of pilotage association as partners, to owners of piloted
vessels for negligence of each other.
The members of a pilot association recognized by state statute and to which
every pilot licensed by the State belongs, are not to be held liable as
partners to owners of piloted vessels for the negligence of each other,
because the association collects the fees for pilotage and after paying
certain expenses distributes them to those on the active list according
to the number of days they have been on duty. So held as to Virginia
Pilot Association. Guy v. Donald, 399.
PLACE OF TRIAL.
See CRIMINAL LAW;
JURISDICTION, D 1.
PLEADING.
See JURISDICTION, B 5;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.
Validity of exercise having the effect to levy tax on property.
The exercise of the police power may and should have reference to the
peculiar situation and needs of the community and is not necessarily
invalid because it may have the effect to levy a tax upon the property
affected, if its main purpose is to protect the people against fraud and
wrong. McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R., 38.
POST OFFICES AND POST ROADS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11, 12.
POWER OF ATTORNEY.
See CONTRACTS, 1, 2.
POWERS OF CONGRESS.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 23.
1. Binding effect of state court's decision as to whether statutory exemption has
been repealed.
In the absence of a contract protected by the impairment clause of the
Federal Constitution, whether a statutory exemption has been re-
pealed by a subsequent statute is a question of state law in which the
decisions of the highest court of the State are binding. Wicomico
County v. Bancroft, 112.
2. Binding effect of state court's decision as to whether statutory exemption
has been repealed.
Even though Federal courts might exercise independent judgment, in
this case the decisions of the Supreme Court of Maryland are followed
to the effect that an act directing a new assessment of property in the
State and expressly declaring that property of every railroad in the
State be valued and assessed, amounted to a repeal of prior exemp-
tions from taxation where there was no irrepealable contract.
3. Following construction by state court of state statute.
In determining the constitutionality of a state statute this court must
follow the construction given thereto by the highest court of the State,
and a ruling by that court that provisions of statute prohibiting the
purchasing of a commodity on margin, and the carrying on of "bucket
shops" for dealing in such commodity are separable, is conclusive on
this court, and refutes the contention of one convicted of carrying on
a "bucket shop' that the law is void as to him because certain pre-
sumptions created by the statute in regard to the prohibitions of pur-
chasing on margins may be repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment;
nor will this court determine that the creation of certain presumptions
of guilt by a state statute is repugnant to the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment when the record does not show that the con-
viction sought to be reviewed was based on these presumptions and
could not have been based on independent evidence. Gatewood v.
North Carolina, 531.
4. Binding force of state court's decision as to effect to be given to a patent.
When the conclusions of the highest court of a State reversing the trial
court are in harmony with the general rule as to the effect to be given
to a patent of the United States, this court is not justified in setting
the judgment aside upon a presumption of what might have been the
testimony upon which the trial court made its findings. Andrews v.
Eastern Oregon Land Co., 127.
5. Raising Federal question-Resort to opinion of state court to disclose Federal
question.
Although the opinion of the highest court of a State may be resorted to
for the purpose of showing that the court actually dealt with a Fed-
eral question presented by the record, or that a right asserted in gen-
eral terms was maintained and dealt with on Federal grounds, where
the record discloses no Federal question until the assignment of errors
in this court, it comes too late and the writ will be dismissed. Burt
v. Smith, 129.
6. As to showing of how question of jurisdiction was raised.
While under the Judiciary Act of 1891, in case of direct review on question
of jurisdiction, when the record does not otherwise show how the ques-
tion was raised, the certificate of the Circuit Court may be considered
for the purpose of supplying such deficiency, when the elements nec-
essary to decide the question are in the record the better practice, in
every case of direct review on question of jurisdiction, is to make
apparent on the record by a bill of exceptions, or other appropriate
mode, the fact that the question of jurisdiction was raised, and passed
on, and also the elements upon which the question was decided. Nichols
Lumber Co. v. Franson, 278.
7. Timeliness of objection as to parties to bill of review.
An objection that a person should have been made a party to a bill of
review comes too late when the existence of that person does not ap-
pear of record. Landram v. Jordan, 56.
8. Unavailability of objection not taken below.
Whether the obligation of the contract was impaired by a statute as con-
strued is not open in this court if that objection was not taken below.
Northern Assur. Co. v. Grand View Building Asso., 106.
9. Moot question not considered.
When an application on habeas corpus is denied because the writ had been
suspended, and thereafter, and before appeal taken is allowed, the
suspension is revoked, the question of power of the authorities to
suspend the writ becomes a moot one not calling for determination
by this court. Fisher v. Baker, 175.
10. As to province of this court to pronounce contradictory and decisive one
of two decisions of state court.
When the state court which has delivered two decisions declares that the
later does not overrule, but distinguishes, the earlier, which it states was
decided on considerations having no application to the later one, both
decisions must be considered as correct interpretations of the statute
construed, and it is not the province of this court to pronounce them
contradictory or one to be more decisive than the other. Cahen v.
Brewster, 543.
11. Effect of failure of record to disclose how facts on which state court's find-
ing was based were brought to its knowledge.
Although the record of a case here on writ of error may fail to show how
the facts on which the highest court of a State set aside the findings
of the trial court, were brought to its knowledge, this court cannot
ignore the recitals of what it considered, if it appears that testimony
was taken and preserved. Andrews v. Eastern Oregon Land Co., 127.
12. Right of one not appealing.
One not appealing cannot, in this court, go beyond supporting the judgment
and opposing every assignment of error. Landram v. Jordan, 56.
13. When writ of error should be to trial court and not to higher court.
Where the highest court of the State dismisses the writ of error to the trial
court solely and expressly because of lack of jurisdiction, the result of
the ruling is to determine that the trial court is the final court where
the question could be decided, and the writ of error from this court
should be directed to the trial court, and not to the highest court,
although that court may be clothed with jurisdiction of questions of
state and Federal constitutionality of state laws, and may have dis-
cussed, and found without merit, the constitutional question. Western
Union Telegraph Co. v. Hughes, 505.
14. Validity of rule of Patent Office as to appeals.
Rule 124 of the Patent Office which provides that no appeal can be taken
from a decision of a primary examiner affirming the patentability of the
claim or the applicant's right to make the same, is not void as contrary
to the provisions of §§ 482, 483, 4904, 4910, 4911, Rev. Stats., or § 9
of the act of February 9, 1893, 27 Stat. 436. Those statutes provide
only for appeals upon the question of priority of invention, and appeals
on other questions are left under the power given by § 483, Rev. Stat.,
to the regulation of the Patent Office. Lowry v. Allen, 474.
PREFERENCES.
See BANKRUPTCY, 4, 5, 6.
PRESCRIPTION.
See INDIANS, 5.
PRESUMPTIONS.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2, 4.
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11, 12.
PROBABLE CAUSE.
See TRADE-MARK,
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3;
JURISDICTION, D 3; F 3.
PROHIBITION.
See REMEDIES.
PROPERTY RIGHTS.
See CARRIERS;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
PUBLICATION.
See JURISDICTION, D 3.
1. Title to pueblo lands in California.
In California, pueblo lands, which were simply ancillary to the execution
of the public trust and in which the pueblo never had an indefeasible
proprietary interest, and which were subject to the supreme political
dominion of the former Mexican government, became, on the change
of government, equally subject to the sovereignty of the State of
California through its legislature, and the title to such lands did not
pass to the United States. City of Monterey v. Jacks, 360.
2. Title to pueblo lands in California.
The title of one holding under a deed to pueblo lands from a city in Califor-
nia, ratified by the legislature, sustained as against the city claiming
to hold under a subsequent patent from the United States. Ib.
|