by previous decisions of this court, the writ of error will be dismissed;
and held that rulings of the state court in a criminal case in regard to
change of venue, admission of evidenec, and form of indictment were
not subject to review in this court and afforded no basis for holding
that plaintiff in error was not awarded due process of law. Ib.

7. Of direct appeal from Circuit Court-Involution of construction and appli-
cation of Constitution and laws of United States.

In a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States where diverse citizenship
exists, if the real question is the controlling effect of res judicata of a
decree rendered between the parties in another suit, and whether the
court rendering it had jurisdiction so to do and those questions are de-
cided upon principles of general law, the case is not one involving the
construction and application of the Constitution and laws of the United
States, and a direct appeal does not lie to this court under § 5 of the
Court of Appeals Act of 1891, 29 Stat. 492; nor can the decision ap-
pealed from be converted into one involving the construction and
application of the Constitution by averring argumentatively that to
give such effect to the former adjudication amounts to depriving a party
of due process of law. Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 225.

8. On writ of error to state court; involution of Federal question to confer-
Power of State relative to foreign insurance companies.

Where the state court decides that a foreign insurance company cannot
recover assessments on a policy issued within the State because it has
not complied with the statutory conditions imposed by the State, no
Federal question is involved, and a request to find that the state statute
could not prevent the insured from going outside the State and obtain-
ing insurance on property within the State does not raise a Federal
question, where the fact was otherwise, and the writ of error will be
dismissed. Swing v. Weston Lumber Co., 275.

See APPEAL AND ERROR;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 9.

B. OF CIRCUIT COURTS.

1. Amount in controversy; value of right of an exchange to control quotations.
In a suit brought by an exchange to enjoin defendant from receiving quo-
tations from the telegraph company to which it has given the right to
distribute them, and from using the same, the value involved is not
merely the amount which defendant pays the telegraph company, but
the right of the exchange to keep the control of the quotations and
protect itself from competition which is the object of the suit; and if
the testimony shows, as it does in this case, that such right is worth
more than $2,000, the Circuit Court has jurisdiction, so far as amount
is concerned; and when the plea presents such an issue the burden is
on appellant to show that the amount involved is less than the juris-
dictional amount. Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 322.

2. When service on non-resident corporation sufficient to give court jurisdic-
tion in case of diverse citizenship.

While in case of diverse citizenship the suit may be brought in the Circuit
Court for the district of the residence of either party, there must be
service within the district; and if the defendant is a non-resident cor-
poration service can only be made upon it if it is doing business in
that district in such a manner, and to such an extent, as to warrant
the inference that it is present there through its agent. Green v.
Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 530.

3. Under § 720, Rev. Stat.—Effect of pendency of prior suit in state court.
The fact that defendant has, in another action in the state court, and to
which the exchange was not a party, obtained an injunction against
the telegraph company, enjoining it from ceasing to deliver the quota-
tions, does not deprive the Circuit Court of jurisdiction of the suit by
the exchange under § 720, Rev. Stat., the parties and the purpose not
being the same. Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 322.

4. Of suit to remove cloud on title to land where construction of act of Congress
admitting a State to the Union and defining its boundaries is involved.
Where the bill is brought in the Circuit Court to quiet, and remove a cloud
upon, the title to land alleged to be within the State and District where
the suit is brought, and the cloud is based upon tax sales made under
the authority of an adjoining State in which defendants claim the
land is situated, although the chief difference may be upon the ques-
tion of fact as to the location of the boundary line between the two
States, if the construction of the act of Congress admitting one of the
States to the Union and defining its boundaries is also in dispute the
Circuit Court has jurisdiction of the case as one arising under the
Constitution or laws of the United States. (Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U. S.
332, distinguished.) Moore v. McGuire, 214.

5. Under § 8 of act of March 3, 1875-What constitutes a suit within meaning
of that act.

A suit brought by owners of stock of a railroad company for the cancellation
of deeds and leases under and by authority of which the properties of
the company are held and managed is a suit within the meaning of
§ 8 of the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, as one to remove incum-
brances or clouds upon rent or personal property and local to the dis-
trict and within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the district
in which the property is situated, without regard to the citizenship
of defendants so long as diverse to that of the plaintiff, and foreign
defendants not found can be brought in by order of the court subject
to the condition prescribed by that section, that any adjudication af-
fecting absent non-appearing defendants shall affect only such property
within the districts as may be the subject of the suit and under the
jurisdiction of the court. Citizens' Sav. & Trust Co. v. Illinois Central
R. R., 46.

6. Under act of March 3, 1875; effect of appearance of non-resident defendant
for sole purpose of denying jurisdiction.
Non-resident defendants appearing in the Circuit Court under protest for
the sole purpose of denying jurisdiction do not waive the condition in
§ 8 of the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, that any judgment of the
court shall affect only property within the district. Ib.

7. Court cannot proceed to judgment and award damages for injuries occurring
in Mexico, contrary to the laws of that Republic.
The certified question: "In an action brought in the United States Circuit
Court in and for the Western District of Texas by a citizen of that
district against the Mexican Central Railway Company, a corporation
duly created under the laws of the State of Massachusetts and doing
business in and operating a steam railroad under continuous line in
the State of Texas and the Republic of Mexico, to recover for injuries
to the plaintiff, received while he was engaged in defendant's service,
and whereby, through defective appliances furnished by said rail-
road company and the negligent operation of the said railroad in the
Republic of Mexico, the said plaintiff, at Ebano, Mexico, was injured
and lost a leg, can the said court proceed to judgment and award such
damages as upon proof may be assessed by a jury, notwithstanding
the provisions of the laws of the Republic of Mexico, proved on this
trial and recited in the statement of this case, and which, it is agreed,
were the laws of Mexico applicable herein in force and effect at the
time of the injuries complained of?" answered in the negative. Meri-
can Central Ry. Co. v. Eckman, 538.

See PROCESS, 4.

C. OF ADMIRALTY COURTS.

See JURISDICTION, E.

D. OF BANKRUPTCY COURTS.
See BANKRUPTCY, 3.

E. OF STATE COURTS.

To enforce contract to build vessel.

A contract to build a vessel is not a maritime contract enforceable only in
admiralty, but the remedy is within the jurisdiction of the state court,
and this rule applies to items furnished the vessel after she has been
launched, but which are really part of her original construction. The
Winnebago, 354.

See BANKRUPTCY, 3.

F. OF SECRETARY OF INTERIOR.
See INDIANS, 3.

G. GENERALLY.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 12;

JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 1, 3;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 8.

JURY.

See NEGLIGENCE, 3, 4.

JURY TRIAL.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 5.

LAND DEPARTMENT.

See PUBLIC LANDS, 1.

LIBERTY.

See COURTS, 3;

PERSONAL RIGHTS.

LICENSES.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1.

LIENS.

See BANKRUPTCY, 3;
JURISDICTION, A 2.

LIFE INSURANCE.

See BANKRUPTCY, 2.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.

As to government patentee.

A statute of limitations does not commence to run against a government
patentee until after the patent has been issued to him. Northern
Pacific Railway v. Slaght, 122.

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.
See CONTRACTS, 2.

LOCAL LAW.

Generally. Questions that are local. Whether an information for contempt
is properly supported, and what constitutes contempt, as well as the
time during which it may be committed, are all matters of local law.
Patterson v. Colorado, 454.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 6.

Illinois. Practice Act, § 57 (see Verdict). Wilmington Mining Co. v.
Fulton, 60.

Mining act of 1899-Relation of mine manager and examiner as vice-
principals. As construed by the highest court of that State, under
the mining act of Illinois of 1899, a mine manager and mine examiner
are vice-principals of the owner and engaged in the performance of
duties which the owner cannot so delegate to others as to relieve him-
self from responsibility. Ib.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7.

Iowa. Taxation of savings banks, etc., § 1332 of Code (see Taxes and
Taxation, 3). Home Savings Bank v. Des Moines, 503.

Massachusetts. Judgments. Terms of court (see Judgments and De-
crees, 4). Wetmore v. Karrick, 141.

Missouri. Suicide as defense to action on life insurance policy (see Insur-
ance, 2). Whitfield v. Ætna Life Ins. Co., 489. Criminal law; right
of accused to indorsement on indictment of names of witnesses (see
Jurisdiction, A 5). Barrington v. Missouri, 483.

Nebraska. Flag law (see Constitutional Law, 6). Halter v. Nebraska, 34.
New York. Inheritance and transfer tax law. Laws of 1897, ch. 284 (see
Constitutional Law, 5). Chanler v. Kelsey, 466.

South Dakota. Liquor license law (see Constitutional Law, 1). Delamater
v. South Dakota, 93 (see Statutes, A 2); Ib.

Proof of marriage in fact by habit and repute.

A man and woman, neither of whom was a resident of Virginia, and who
had not obtained any marriage license, went through a ceremony in
Virginia which the woman thought was a marriage by a clergyman; they
immediately went to New Jersey, she assuming the man's name; they
afterwards went to Maryland and then returned to New Jersey perma-
nently, where they lived and cohabitated as husband and wife and
were so regarded for many years until his death, she joining in a mort-
gage with him, and also being described in his wills as his wife; she
meanwhile and, prior to the later residence in New Jersey, had ascer-
tained that the person performing the ceremony was not a minister
and that there was no license, but the cohabitation continued and
there was testimony that the man assured her that they were married,
and afterwards in his last will he appointed his wife executrix and she
qualified as such. Held, that marriage in fact, as distinguished from
a ceremonial marriage, may be proved by habit and repute, and,
except in cases of adultery and bigamy when actual proof is required,
may be inferred from continued cohabitation. Travers v. Rein-
hardt, 423.