Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 203 U. S.
Oklahoma. December 10, 1906. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. S. H. Harris for appellants. Mr. Fred Beall for appellee.
No. 336. ALBERT T. PATRICK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. In err to the Court of General Sessions of the Peace for the County of New York. December 13, 1906. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. William Lindsay for the plaintiff in error. Mr. William Lindsay for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error.
No. 524. PETRONA DEL CARMEN GONZALEZ RESTO, APPELLANT, V. PETRONA RESTO Y NEGRÓN ET AL. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico. December 17, 1906. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Perry Allen for the appellees. No one opposing.
No. 529. RICHARD HYNES, APPellant, v. Leo V. YOUNGWORTH, UNITED STATES MARSHAL, ETC.; and No. 530. A. H. HEDDERLY, APPELLANT, V. LEO V. YOUNGWORTH, UNITED STATES MARSHAL, ETC. Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. December 24, 1906. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of The Solicitor General for the appellee. No one opposing.
1. Limitation of actions brought under § 7 of the act of July 2, 1890.
The five year limitation in § 1047, Rev. Stat., does not apply to suits brought
under § 7 of the act of July 2, 1890, but by the silence of that act the
matter is left under § 721, Rev. Stat., to the local law. Chattanooga
Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta, 390.
2. Limitation of actions for injuries to property under Tennessee Code.
The three year limitation in § 2773, Tennessee Code, for actions for in-
juries to personal or real property, applies to injuries falling upon some
object more definite than the plaintiff's total wealth, and the general
ten year limitation in § 2776 for all actions not expressly provided for
controls actions of this nature brought under § 7 of the act of July 2,
1890. Ib.
3. Right of city to maintain action under Sherman Anti-trust Law.
By express provision of the act of July 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 209, a city is a
person within the meaning of section 7 of that act, and can maintain
an action against a party to a combination unlawful under the act by
reason of which it has been forced to pay a price for an article above
what it is reasonably worth. Ib.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 26;
JURISDICTION, B 1.
ANTI-TRUST Act of July 2, 1890 (see Actions): Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe
Works v. Atlanta, 390.
BANKRUPTCY, Act of 1898 (see Courts, 6): New Jersey v. Anderson, 483.
Act of 1898, § 19 (see Appeal and Error, 3): Grant Shoe Co. v. Laird
Co., 502; 25b (see Bankruptcy, 1, 2): Conboy v. First Nat. Bank, 141;
§ 64a (see Bankruptcy, 4, 5, 6): New Jersey v. Anderson, 483. Act of
1867 (see Bankruptcy, 4): Ib.
CATTLE CONTAGIOUS DISEASE ACT of February 2, 1903, 33 Stat. 1264 (see
Commerce, 7, 8, 9): Illinois Central R. R. v. McKendree, 514.
CHEROKEE INDIANS, Acts relating to citizenship and distribution of tribal
property (see Statutes, A 2): Cherokee Intermarriage Cases, 76.
CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Treaty of 1819 (see Treaties): Francis v. Francis, 233.
CIVIL RIGHTS, Rev. Stat. §§ 1978, 1979, 5508, 5510 (see Jurisdiction, D 2):
Hodges v. United States, 1.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Code, § 233, 31 Stat. 1189, 1127 (see Federal Ques-
tion, 4): Taylor v. Taft, 461.
FLORIDA LAND CLAIMS, Act of June 22, 1860, § 3, and act of May 23, 1828,
4 Stat. 284 (see Jurisdiction, C): United States v. Dalcour, 408.
HABEAS CORPUS, Rev. Stat. § 753 (see Territories): Matter of Moran, 96.
INDIANS, Act of February 8, 1887, (see Indians, 3): Goudy v. Meath, 146.
See also ante.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Wilson Act of August 8, 1890, 26 Stat. 313 (see
Commerce, 2, 3): Heyman v. Southern Ry. Co., 270.
JUDICIARY, Act of June 22, 1860, § 11, 12 Stat. 87 (see Jurisdiction, A 5):
United States v. Dalcour, 408. Act of March 3, 1875, §§ 1, 2, 3, 18
Stat. 470, as amended by act of March 1, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, corrected
by act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433 (see Jurisdiction, B 3): Ex parte
Wisner, 449. Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 443 (sce Jurisdiction,
A 1, 2): McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R., 38. Act of March 3,
1891, 26 Stat. 826 (see Jurisdiction, A 5; Practice and Procedure, 6):
United States v. Dalcour, 408; Nichols Lumber Co. v. Franson, 278.
Rev. Stat. § 709 (see Federal Question, 6): Illinois Central R. R. v. Mc-
Kendree, 514. Rev. Stat. § 720 (see Courts, 5): Mississippi R. R.
Comm. v. Illinois Central R. R., 335. Rev. Stat. § 721 (see Actions, 1):
Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta, 390.
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS FOR PENALTIES, Rev. Stat. § 1047 (see Actions, 1):
Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta, 390.
OKLAHOMA, Organie Act of May 2, 1890, § 10, 26 Stat. 85 (see Criminal
Law): Matter of Moran, 96.
PATENTS, Rev. Stat. §§ 482, 483, 4904, 4910, 4911, and act of February 9,
1893, § 9, 27 Stat. 436 (see Practice and Procedure, 14): Lowry v.
Allen, 474.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Act of July 1, 1902, § 10, 32 Stat. 691 (see Appeal
and Error, 2): Fisher v. Baker, 175.
TARIFF ACT of July 24, 1897, pars. 306, 307, 313 (see Customs Duties):
United States v. Riggs, 136.
TERRITORIES, Rev. Stat. § 1909 (see Jurisdiction, A 4): New York Foundling
Hospital v. Gatti, 429.
ALIENATION OF LAND.
See CONVEYANCES.
INDIANS.
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.
Generally, See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 21, 22, 23;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2.
Fifth Amendment, See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 15;
JURISDICTION, F 1.
Seventh Amendment, See INSURANCE,
Tenth Amendment, See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 18.
Eleventh Amendment, See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 26.
Thirteenth Amendment, See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16, 18;
JURISDICTION, D 2.
Fourteenth Amendment, See CONSTITUTIONAL Law;
Fifteenth Amendment, See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16, 18.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
See JURISDICTION, A 1, 2.
ANTI-TRUST ACT.
See ACTIONS.
1. Habeas corpus—Appeal from Federal court whose jurisdiction improperly
invoked.
Although, regularly, one seeking relief by habeas corpus in the state courts
should prosecute his appeal to, or writ of error from, the highest state
court, before invoking the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court on habeas
corpus, where the case is one of which the public interest demands a
speedy determination, and the ends of justice will be promoted thereby,
this court may proceed to final judgment on appeal from the order of
the Circuit Court denying the relief. Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 222.
2. Habeas corpus-Review of final order of Supreme Court of Philippine
Islands.
A proceeding in habeas corpus is a civil, and not a criminal, proceeding,
and as final orders of Circuit or District Courts of the United States
in such a proceeding can only be reviewed in this court by appeal,
under § 10 of the act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691, a final order of the
Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands in habeas corpus is governed
by the same rules and can be reviewed by appeal and not by writ of
error. Fisher v. Baker, 175.
3. Mode of review of judgment of adjudication in bankruptcy.
A judgment of the bankruptcy court that a person against whom a petition
has been filed is or is not a bankrupt, based upon the verdict of a jury
demanded as of right under § 19 of the bankruptcy law, can only be
reviewed by this court by writ of error and not by appeal. Grant Shoe
Co. v. Laird Co., 502.
4. Mode of review of judgment of territorial court.
The proper way to review judgments in actions at law of the Supreme
Court of the Territory of Oklahoma where the case was tried without
a jury is by writ of error, not by appeal. National Live Stock Bank v.
First Nat. Bank, 296.
5. Right of appeal from Circuit Court to Circuit Court of Appeals and thence
to Supreme Court.
Where complainant not only sets up diverse citizenship but also a con-
stitutional question he has the right to appeal from the judgment of
the Circuit Court to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and from its decision
an appeal or writ of error may be taken to this court. (Field v. Barber
Asphalt Co., 194 U. S. 618, distinguished.) Mississippi R. R. Comm.
v. Illinois Central R. R., 335.
Congress having provided by section 256 of the Bankruptcy Act that ap-
peals may be had under such rules and within such time as may be
prescribed by this court, the thirty day limitations in General Order
in Bankruptcy XXXVI has the same effect as if written in the statute
and the allowance of an appeal taken thereafter on certificate by the
Circuit Court of Appeals cannot operate as an adjudication that it is
taken in time. Conboy v. First National Bank, 141.
2. Appeals; running of limitations—Appeals do not lie from orders denying
petitions for rehearing.
The time within which an appeal should be taken under section 256 of
the Bankruptcy Act and General Order in Bankruptcy XXXVI runs
from the entry of the original judgment or decree and not of the order
denying petition for rehearing. Appeals do not lie from orders deny-
ing petitions for rehearing which are addressed to the discretion of
the court to afford it an opportunity to correct its own errors.
Ib.
3. Appeals; time not extended by petition for rehearing or arrested by order
of court.
The time for appeal cannot after it has expired be extended by an ap-
|