4. Original-Of suit by State against citizen of another State for the abatement
of a nuisance.
This court has jurisdiction to, and at the suit of a State will, enjoin a cor-
poration, citizen of another State, from discharging over its territory
noxious fumes from works in another State where it appears that
those fumes cause and threaten damage on a considerable scale to the
forests and vegetable life, if not to health, within the plaintiff's State.
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 230.
5. Original; of suit by one State against another for an accounting.
This court has original jurisdiction of a suit by the State of Virginia against
the State of West Virginia for an accounting as between the two States,
and, in order to a full and correct adjustment of the accounts to ad-
judicate and determine the amount, if any, due the former by the latter.
Virginia v. West Virginia, 290.
6. Original Suits between States-Effect of question of how judgment will be
enforced Consent of State to be sued.
Consent to be sued in this court by another State is given by a State, by,
and at the time of, its admission to the Union. It will be presumed that
the legislature of a State will provide for the satisfaction of any judg-
ment that may be rendered against it, and the jurisdiction and power
of this court is not affected by the question of how it will be enforced.
If a State should repudiate its obligation to satisfy judgment rendered
against it, this court will after the event consider the means by which
it may be enforced. Ib.
7. Original—Suits between States—Determination of questions, raised by de-
murrer, postponed to hearing on the merits.
The court having jurisdiction of the controversy, the effect of the provisions
in the constitution of West Virginia, as well as the several statutes
enacted by that State and by Virginia on the liability of West Virginia,
for a part of the public debt of Virginia, and the relations of Virginia
to the holders of bonds will not be determined on demurrer, but post-
poned to the merits. Ib.
1. Of bill in equity to restrain filing or enforcement of schedule of unreasonable
railroad rates.
Although an action at law for damages to recover unreasonable railroad rates
which have been exacted in accordance with the schedule of rates as
filed is forbidden by the Interstate Commerce Act (Texas & Pacific
Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Co., 204 U. S. 426), the Circuit Court may
entertain jurisdiction of a bill in equity to restrain the filing or enforce-
ment of a schedule of unreasonable rates or a change to unjust or un-
reasonable rates. Southern R. R. Co. v. Tift, 428.
2. To render decree based upon findings and conclusions of Interstate Com-
merce Commission.
Where, as in this case, the Circuit Court granted no relief on the original bill
prejudicial to the railway company, but sent the parties to the Inter-
state Commerce Commission, and afterwards rendered a decree based
upon the findings and conclusions of that commission and testimony
adduced before it, which was stipulated into the case, this court will
not reverse the decree, as affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals,
either because the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction, or because an
order of reference in the case was too broad in requiring the master to
ascertain the amounts paid by shippers in increased rates after the
schedules sought to be enjoined went into effect. Ib.
3. To adjudge reparation, on stipulation by parties to action under § 16 of
Interstate Commerce Act.
Although reparation for excess rates must be obtained in a proceeding before
the Interstate Commerce Commission, the parties to an action brought
under § 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act may stipulate after the
commission has declared the rate complained of to be excessive that
the court adjudge the amount of reparation, and presumably, after the
master has reported, the court will make reparation adequate for the
injury and award only the advance on the old rate and to those who are
parties to the cause. Ib.
C. OF COURTS-MARTIAL.
See COURTS-MARTIAL, 2.
D. GENERALLY.
See TAXES AND TAXATION.
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.
See JURISDICTION, A 1.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7;
EIGHT-HOUR LAW.
LAND GRANTS.
See PUBLIC LANDS.
LAND OFFICE.
See PUBLIC OFFICERS, 1.
LEGISLATIVE POWERS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7;
CONGRESS, POWERS OF;
EIGHT-HOUR LAW.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1;
PLEDGE, 3.
Arizona. Rev. Stat. § 2282 (see Statutes, A 2). Copper Queen Mining Co.
v. Arizona Board, 474.
Iowa. Act of July 14, 1856 (see Public Lands, 1). Iowa Railroad Land
Co. v. Blumer, 482.
Minnesota. Stockholders' liability law of 1899 (see Corporations; Constitu-
tional Law, 2, 6). Bernheimer v. Converse, 516.
Mississippi. Municipal contracts (see Constitutional Law, 1). Vicksburg
v. Waterworks Co., 496.
New York. Waiver by pledgor-Validity of sale of pledge. Under the law
of New York a pledgor may waive strict performance of the common-
law duties of the pledgee and if so waived a sale may be held without
notice, demand or advertisement. Hiscock v. Varick Bank, 28.
Easements in streets (see Constitutional Law, 5). Sauer v. City of
New York, 536.
Sec. 55 of ch. 588, Laws of 1892, limitation of actions against stock-
holders (see Corporations, 4). Bernheimer v. Converse, 516.
Porto Rico. See PORTO RICO, 2.
Wisconsin. Law of pledge (see Pledge). Warehousing Co. v. Hand, 415.
Generally. See BANKRUPTCY, 1; FEDERAL QUESTION; PRACTICE AND PRO-
CEDURE, 2; STATES, 2.
Writ will not issue to compel Circuit Court to remand case.
The writ of mandamus cannot be used to perform the office of an appeal or
writ of error; it will not issue to compel the Circuit Court to reverse
its decision refusing to remand a case removed by a defendant on the
ground that the controversy between it and the plaintiff is separate
and fully determinable without the presence of the other defendants.
Such a decision being within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court
should be reviewed after final judgment by appeal or writ of error.
In re Pollitz, 323.
MISSIONS.
See CONTRACTS, 2.
MORTGAGE NOTES.
See TAXES AND TAXATION.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 2;
STATES, 8.
NATIONAL BANKS.
Liability of directors; rule by which measured.
The National Banking Act as embodied in § 5239, Rev. Stat., affords the
exclusive rule by which to measure the right to recover damages from
directors, based upon a loss resulting solely from their violation of a
duty expressly imposed upon them by a provision of the act; and that
liability cannot be measured by a higher standard than that imposed
by the act. Yates v. Jones National Bank, 158.
See JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 4;
JURISDICTION, A 3.
Deviation in construction of bridge over navigable waters, from plans ap-
proved by Secretary of War-Power of State to authorize extension of
bridge.
The act of January 26, 1901, 31 Stat. 741, having authorized the construc-
tion by an Illinois corporation of a bridge and approaches across the
Mississippi River, it is within the power of one of the States within which
the bridge was constructed to authorize extensions thereof and connec-
tions therewith necessary and proper to make it available for the use
contemplated by the statute, and although such extensions and connec-
tions were not within the plans and specifications of the bridge itself and
its approaches as approved by the Secretary of War, the condemnation
of land necessary for the bridge company to construct them is not in
contravention of § 9 of the act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. 1151, making
it unlawful to deviate in the construction of any bridge over navigable
waters from the plans approved by the Secretary of War. Stone v.
Southern Illinois Bridge Co., 267.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF;
FEDERAL QUESTION, 3.
NAVY PERSONNEL ACT.
See ARMY AND NAVY, 1.
See PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES, 2.
See PORTO RICO, 1;
PUBLIC LANDS, 3.
NUISANCE.
See JURISDICTION, A 4;
STATES, 6, 7.
OBITER DICTA.
See PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 3.
OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 4.
OSAGE INDIAN LANDS.
See PUBLIC OFficers, 2.
PARTNERSHIP.
See BANKRUPTCY, 2.
Infringement suits; restraint of—Res judicata.
The defeated party in an infringement suit will be restrained by a court of
equity from interfering with the business of the successful defendant by
bringing infringement suits based on the same patents against the cus-
tomers of the latter. Kessler v. Eldred, 285.
PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES.
Where a statute creates a duty and prescribes a penalty for its non-per-
formance the rule prescribed by the statute is the exclusive test of lia-
bility. Yates v. Jones National Bank, 158.
2. Statutory; proof of intentional violation of statute.
Where by a statute a responsibility is made to arise from its violation
knowingly, proof of something more than negligence is required and
that the violation was in effect intentional. Ib.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
1. Delegation of authority by Congress in respect of.
Congress in dealing with the Philippine Islands may delegate legislative
|