recently decided in the lower Federal courts, this court expresses no opinion upon any other subjects involved in such cases, and does not even indirectly leave room for any implication that any opinion has been expressed as to such other issues which may hereafter come before it for decision. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 452.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

1. Assumption that lower court acted rightfully in appointing receivers and issuing injunction.

Where no sufficient reason is stated warranting the court in deciding that the Circuit Court acted without jurisdiction, this court will assume that the Circuit Court acted rightfully in appointing receivers and issuing an injunction against disposition of assets. Bien v. Robinson, 423.

2. Assumption that general judgment of condemnation of land by state court conformed to state law.

Where the state law, as is the case with the law of Virginia, permits no exercise of the right of eminent domain except for public uses, a general judgment of condemnation by the state court will be assumed to have been held to be for a public use even if there was no specific finding of that fact. Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway, 598.

3. Certificate from and certiorari to Circuit Court of Appeals; scope of review. After the Circuit Court of Appeals. has certified questions to this court

and this court has issued its writ of certiorari requiring the whole record to be sent up, it devolves upon this court under § 6 of the Judiciary Act of 1891, to decide the whole matter in controversy in the same manner as if it had been brought here for review by writ of error or appeal. Loewe v. Lawlor, 274.

4. Determination by this court as to existence of contract within impairment clause of Constitution.

In cases arising under the contract clause of the Federal Constitution this court determines for itself, irrespective of the decision of the state court, whether a contract exists and whether its obligation has been impaired, and if plaintiff in error substantially sets up a claim of contract with allegations of its impairment by state or municipal legislstion, the judgment of the state court is reviewable by this court under § 709, Rev. Stat. Northern Pacific Railway v. Duluth, 583.

5. Effect of local court's construction of local statute.

The views of the territorial courts are very persuasive on this court as to the construction of local statutes. Crary v. Dye, 515.

6. Following construction by state court of state statute.

When a subsequently erracted criminal law is more drastic than the existing law which in terms is repealed thereby, the claim that it is ex post facto as to one imprisoned under the former law and therefore void, and that the earlier law being repealed he cannot be held thereunder, has no force in this court where the state court has held that the later law does not repeal the earlier law as to those sentenced thereunder. In such a case this court follows the construction of the state court. Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 481.

7. Following construction by state court of state statute.

This court follows the construction of an indeterminate sentence law by

the highest court of the State, to the effect that where the maximum term of imprisonment for a crime has been fixed by statute a minimum term fixed by the court of a shorter period is simply void. Ib.

8. Following construction by state court of state statute; when question of existence of contract involved.

This court while not bound by the construction placed on a state statute by the state court, as to whether a contract was created thereby, and if so how it should be construed, gives to such construction respectful consideration, and unless plainly erroneous generally follows it; a decision of the state court, however, that a leasehold interest in exempted property cannot, during the exemption, be taxed against the owner of the fee, is not authority to be followed by this court, on the proposition that the leasehold interest cannot be taxed without impairing the obligation of the contract of exemption against the lessee in his own name and against his particular interest in the land. Jetton v. University of the South, 489.

9. Following construction by state court of state statute. This court will not construe a state statute assessing leaseholds and making the tax a lien upon the fee as creating a lien on property exempted from taxation, and thereby violating the contract clause of the Constitution when the state court has not so construed the statute and the taxing officers of the State disclaim any intention of so construing it or levying any tax on exempted property. Ib.

10. Conclusiveness of state court's decision.

Where the condernnation of land has been held by the state court to be authorized by the constitution and laws of that State this court cannot review that aspect of the decision. Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway, 598.

11. As to following state court's decision that taking of property was for public

use.

While cases may arise in which this court will not follow the decision of the state court, up to the present time it has not condemned as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment any taking of property upheld by the state court as one for a public use in conformity with its laws. Ib.

12. As to following territorial court's construction of local statutes. The construction of the statute of a Territory by the local courts is of great, if not of controlling, weight; and in this case this court follows the construction given by the Supreme Court of Arizona to par. 725, Rev. Stat. of Arizona of 1901, to the effect that a deed or conveyance of real property to be valid as against third parties must be signed and acknowledged by the grantor and that until acknowledged it is ineffectual to convey title. Lewis v. Herrera, 309.

13. Following territorial court's finding of fact.

Halsell v. Renfrow, 202 U. S. 287, followed, as to when this court, in re

VOL. CCVIII-42

viewing a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma, is confined to determining whether that court erred in holding that there was evidence tending to support the findings made by the trial court in a case submitted to it by stipulation, without a jury, and whether such findings sustained the judgment. Southern Pine Co. v. Ward, 126.

14. When Federal question raised too late.

It is too late to raise the Federal question on motion for rehearing in the state court, unless that court entertains the motion and expressly passes on the Federal question. Disconto Gesellschaft v. Umbreit, 570.

15. When objection to remarks of trial court to be taken.

Objections to remarks of the trial court which counsel consider prejudicial must be taken at the time so that if the court does not then correct what is misleading its action is subject to review. Drumm-Flato Commission Co. v. Edmisson, 534.

16. When contention embraced in ground for demurrer to indictment not considered on review of judgment.

Although a ground for demurrer to indictment may be sufficiently broad to embrace a contention raised before this court, if it appears that such contention was disclaimed, and was not urged, in the trial court and in the Circuit Court of Appeals, and was not referred to in any of the opinions below or in the petition for certiorari or the brief in support thereof, this court will, without intimating any opinion in regard to its merits, decline to consider it. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 452.

17. Consideration of local conditions in determining constitutionality of state court's decision in respect of exercise of eminent domain.

While it is beyond the legislative power of a State to take, against his will, the property of one and give it to another for a private use, even if compensation be required, it is ultimately a judicial question whether the use is public or private; and, i.. deciding whether the state court has determined that question within the limits of the Fourteenth Amendment, this court will take into consideration the diversity of local conditions. Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway, 598.

18. Where conflict of decisions of state and Federal courts as to rights of parties to property in possession of Circuit Court. Where claims are presented for adjudication to the Circuit Court against

property in its possession and there are conflicting decisions of the stateand Federal courts as to the rights of the parties, the Circuit Court must f decermine which decision it will follow. This court cannot pass upon that question until it is properly before it. Wabash Railroad Co. v. Adelbert College, 609.

See JUDGMENTS AND DECREES;

JURISDICTION, A 7.

PRESUMPTIONS.

See BANKRUPTCY, 3;
COURTS, 1.

PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

See EQUITY, 2.

PRIORITY OF LIEN.
See TAXES AND TAXATION, 2.

PROPERTY RIGHTS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6, 16, 17, 18.

PROSTITUTION.

See STATUTES, A 1.

PUBLIC LANDS.

1. Adverse occupancy under joint patent.

Where lands are within the overlap of place limits of two grants, both of which are in præsenti, and for which eventually a joint patent is issued to both companies, the occupancy of a portion thereof, under a deed given by one of the companies after definite location, and before the issuing of the joint patent, is adverse to the other company, and not that of a co-tenant; nor, under the circumstances of this case, do the acts of such occupant in acquiring title from the United States, under the remedial act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 556, interfere with his title thereto which had already been established by adverse possession. Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Wiese, 234; Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Wrich, 250.

? Entrys-Equitable relief from error of Land Department.

li an entryman's entry is good when made and the Land Department, by error of law, adjudges the land to belong to another, a court of equity will convert the latter into a trustee for the former and compel him to convey the legal title. Prosser v. Finn, 67.

3. Entrys-Determination of entryman's rights.

Continued occupation of public land by one not entitled to enter after the disability has been removed is not equivalent to a new entry. The entryman's rights are determined by the validity of the original entry when made. Ib.

4. Special agents of Land Department within prohibition of § 452, Rev. Stat. -Effect of good faith of agent and construction of statute by commissioner. Congress having said without qualification, by § 452, Rev. Stat., that employés in the General Land Office shall not, while in the service of that office, purchase, or become interested directly or indirectly in the purchase of, public lands, this prohibition applies to special agents of that office and renders an entry made by a special agent under the Timber Culture Act void, leaving the land open to entry, notwithstanding that