GILBERT v. WASHINGTON

BENEFI

CIAL ENDOWMENT ASS'N et al. (March 6, 1899.) No. 90. Appeal from the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. See 10 App. D. C. 316. Thomas M. Fields and Henry D. Hotchkiss, for appellant. A. A. Lipscomb, Samuel F. Phillips, Frederic D. McKenney, James E. Padgett, and Edwin Forrest, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed on the authority of Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232, 10 Sup. Ct. 745; McGourkey v. Railway Co., 146 U. Š. 536, 13 Sup. Ct. 170, and cases cited.

GOLD et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. (October 17, 1898.) No. 442. Appeal from the court of private land claims. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed on motion of Sol. Gen. Richards, for appellees.

GOWEN. BUSH. (October 14, 1898.) No. 42. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. See 22 C. C. A. 196, 76 Fed. 349. Samuel Dickson and John W. McLoud, for plaintiff in error. Wm. H. H. Clayton and Joseph M. Hill, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation.

In re GREEN. (May 15, 1899.) No. 5. Asa P. French, for petitioner. F. P. Fish, for respondent. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation, on motion of W. W. Dodge in behalf of counsel.

HARMON v. NATIONAL PARK BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK. (January 9, 1899.) No. 111. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit. See 25 C. C. A. 214, 79 Fed. 891. Frederic J. Swift, for plaintiff in error. Louis F. Doyle, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Pauly v. Trust Co., 165 U. S. 606, 17 Sup. Ct. 465, and cause remanded to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, with a direction to render judgment in accordance with the mandate of the United States court of appeals.

HENDERSON BRIDGE CO. et al. v. CITY OF HENDERSON. (April 3, 1899.) No. 31. In error to the court of appeals of the state of Kentucky. Malcolm Yeaman and Wm. Lindsay, for plaintiff in error. James W. Clay, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action by the city of Henderson to recover taxes (with interest and penalties) assessed by it upon the property of the Henderson Bridge Company within the limits of that city for the years 1890, 1891, 1892, and 1893. The case presents substantially the same questions that are disposed of in the opinion just delivered in case No. 32 between the same parties (19 Sup. Ct. 553), for taxes for the years 1888 and 1889. For the reasons stated in that opinion the judgment of the court of appeals of Kentucky in the present case must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

HENDERSON NAT. BANK v. CITY OF HENDERSON. (October 11, 1898.) No. 201. In error to the court of appeals of the state of Kentucky. See 44 S. W. 1131. Malcolm Yeamm. for plaintiff in error. J. F. Clay, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

HENRIETTA MIN. & MILL. CO. ▼. HILL. (February 27, 1899.) No. 138. On appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Arizona. W. H. Barnes and Frank Asbury Johnson, for appellant.

Mr. Justice BROWN. The facts in this case, so far as they bear upon the question in controversy, are precisely similar to the one just decided (Milling Co. v. Johnson, 19 Sup. Čt. 402), and the judgment of the supreme court of Arizona is therefore affirmed.

HOLDEN v. WATSON et al. (December 5, 1898.) No. 233. In error to the supreme court of the state of Kansas. See 50 Pac. 883. 0. H. Dean, for plaintiff in error. Silas Porter, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for plaintiff in

error.

IRVINE v. UNITED STATES. (October 17, 1898.) No. 441. Appeal from the court of private land claims. No opinion. Docketed and dismissed on motion of Sol. Gen. Richards, for the appellee.

JESKE et al. v. COX et al. (October 24, 1898.) No. 217. In error to the superior court of Milwaukee county, state of Wisconsin. Rublee A. Cole, for plaintiffs in error. Howard Morris, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed on the authority of Railway Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 582, 16 Sup. Ct. 389; Meyer v. Cox, 169 U. S. 735, 18 Sup. Ct. 944; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 12 Sup. Ct. 118; Insurance Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374, 16 Sup. Ct. 318.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. et al. (December 2, 1898.) No. 320. On a certificate from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fourth circuit. See 92 Fed. 1020. Bernard Carter, Arthur George Brown, and John J. Donaldson, for appellant. Hugh L. Bond, Jr., and E. J. D. Cross, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, per stipulation, on motion of W. H. Buckler, for the appellees.

JORDAN et al. v. DUKE et al. (March 16, 1899.) No. 738. In error to the supreme court of the territory of Arizona. See 36 Pac. 896. John B. Clayberg, for plaintiffs in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on the authority of counsel for the plaintiffs in error.

JORDAN et al. v. SCHUERMAN. (March 16, 1899.) No. 739. In error to the supreme court of the territory of Arizona. See 53 Pac. 579. John B. Clayberg, for plaintiffs in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on the authority of counsel for the plaintiffs in error.

JURGENS V. YOT SANG. (October 31, 1898.) No. 50. Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Montana. C. B. Nolan, for appellant. A. C. Botkin, for appellee. No opinion. Final order reversed, with costs, and cause remanded, with a direc tion to discharge the writ and dismiss the petition on the authority of Washington v. Coovert, 164 U. S. 702, 17 Sup. Ct. 1000, and cases cited.

KEOKUK & H. BRIDGE CO. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS. (March 13, 1899.) No. 23. In error to the supreme court of the state of Illinois. See 52 N. E. 117. F. T.

appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, and mandate granted, on motion of M. J. Colbert, for the appellant.

MARTINEZ et al. v. UNITED STATES. (January 17, 1899.) No. 156. Appeal from the court of private land claims. T. B. Catron, for appellants. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule.

MEADOWCROFT et al. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS. (October 10, 1898.) No. 33. In error to the supreme court of the state of Illinois. See 45 N. E. 303, 991. Edwin Walker and Arthur J. Eddy, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiffs in error.

(April

METROPOLITAN RY. CO. v. CHURCH. BRIGHTWOOD RY. CO. v. O'NEAL 11, 1899.) Nos. 114 and 195. In error to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. D. W. Baker, for Metropolitan Ry. Co. H. P. Blair, for Brightwood Ry. Co. E. L. Schmidt, for Church. Raymond A. Heiskell and M. J. Colbert, for O'Neal.

Mr. Justice GRAY. This case, argued at the same time with Traction Co. v. Hof, 19 Sup. Ct. 580, the judgments of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, quashing writs of certiorari to set aside proceedings of a justice of the peace under similar circumstances, are likewise affirmed.

MILBURN GIN & MACHINE CO. et al. GERMAN BANK. (February 27, 1899.) No. 342. In error to the supreme court of the state of Tennessee. William M. Randolph, for plaintiffs in error. C. W. Metcalf, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed on the authority of Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361, 14 Sup. Ct. 131; Railway Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 556, 16 Sup. Ct. 389; Egan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188, 17 Sup. Ct. 300; and other cases.

OTERO v. UNITED STATES. (October 11, 1898.) No. 179. Appeal from the court of private land claims. T. B. Catron, for appellant. The Attorney General, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed on authority of counsel for the appellant.

PHOENIX ASSUR. CO. OF LONDON v. FIRE DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF MONTGOMERY. (April 3, 1899.) No. 763. No opinion. Docketed, and dismissed, with costs, on motion of A. B. Browne, in behalf of John T. Morgan, for the defendant in error.

PIERCE v. VAN DUSEN. (January 26, 1899.) No. 220. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Sixth circuit. See 24 C. C. A. 280, 78 Fed. 693. Clarence Brown, for plaintiff in error. O. S. Brumback, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. MONTGOMERY. (May 15, 1899.) No. 727. In error to the supreme court of the state of Indiana. See 49 N. E. 582. Nathan O. Ross, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

POSEY et al. v. HANSON. (January 24, 1899.) No. 205. In error to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. See 10 App. D. C. 496. F. H. Mackey, for plaintiffs in error. H. Randall Webb and John Sidney Webb, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

RAYMOND v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. (April 3, 1899.) No. 234. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Louisiana. Samuel T. Fisher, for appellant. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION & COLONIZATION CO. v. GILDERSLEEVE. (May 22, 1899.) No. 163.

PER CURIAM. Writ of error dismissed. See 19 Sup. Ct. 761.

ROESEL V. KIRK. (January 23, 1899.) No. 605. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey. Frank Bergen, for appellant. Nicholas C. J. English, for appellee. No opinion. Final order affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293, 16 Sup. Ct. 304; Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655, 15 Sup. Ct. 727; Lambert v. Barrett, 157 U. S. 697, 15 Sup. Ct. 722; Id., 159 U. S. 661, 16 Sup. Ct. 135; Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S. 272, 15 Sup. Ct. 389.

ROGERS et al. v. MORGAN et al. (March 13, 1899.) No. 228. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. See 25 C. C. A. 97, 79 Fed. 577. George Q. Richmond and Platt Rogers, for plaintiffs in error. Willard Teller and H. M. Orahood, for defendants in error. No opinion. Dismissed on the authority of Clark v. Kansas City, 172 U. S. 334, 19 Sup. Ct. 207; Kinnear v. Bausman, 172 U. S. 644, 19 Sup. Ct. 878, and cases cited.

ROSS v. KING et al. (November 7, 1898.) No. 400. In error to the supreme court of the state of Rhode Island. Heber J. May and J. M.

Wilson, for plaintiff in error. John H. Glover and Stephen H. Olin, for defendants in error. No opinion. Writ of error dismissed on the authority of Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler Co., 166 U. S. 648, 17 Sup. Ct. 709; Pim v. City of St. Louis, 165 U. S. 273, 17 Sup. Ct. 322; Zadig v. Baldwin, 166 U. S. 485, 17 Sup. Ct. 639; Kipley v. Illinois, 170 U. S. 182, 18 Sup. Ct. 550.

ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. v. BARKER. (December 12, 1898.) No. 70. In error to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. See 23 C. C. A. 475, 77 Fed. 810. L. F. Parker, A. T. Pritton, and A. B. Browne, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, and cause remand. ed to the United States court in the Indian Territory, Central district.

SALMEN BRICK & LUMBER CO. v. DIECK et al. (January 3, 1899.) No. 660. Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Eastern district of Louisiana. No opinion. Docketed and dismssed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Frederic D. McKenney, for the appellees.

SANTA FE, P. & P. RY. CO. v. HURLEY. (January 16, 1899.) No. 100. In error to the supreme court of the territory of Arizona. See 36 Pac. 216. G. W. Kretzinger, for plaintiff in error. William H. Barnes, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs and interest, by a divided court.

SCHMIDT v. WILLIAMS et al. (May 22, 1899.) No. 347. Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of New Jersey. J. Warren Coulston, for appellaut. Charles C. Burlingham, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

SCHOFIELD et al. v. HORSE SPRINGS CATTLE CO. (April 14, 1899.) No. 251. Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico. See 49 Pac. 954. W. B. Childers, for the appellants. J. H. McGowan and H. L. Warren, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

SIOUX CITY, O'N. & W. RY. CO. v. MAN. HATTAN TRUST CO. (two cases). (November 14, 1898.) Nos. 62 and 63. On a certificate from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. See 24 C. C. A. 689, 79 Fed. 1002. John C. Coombs and Henry J. Taylor, for appellant. G. W. Wickersham, John L. Cadwalader, and John L. Webster, for appellee. No opinion. Certificate_dismissed on the authority of U. S. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 512, 18 Sup. Ct. 167, and cases cited: Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 17 Sup. Ct. 733: Warner v. City of New Orleans, 167 U. S. 467, 17 Sup. Ct. 892; Packer v. Nixon, 10 Pet. 408; Wiggins v. Gray, 24 How. 303; Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U. S. 680, 7 Sup. Ct. 358.

SOPORI LAND & MINING CO. v. UNITED STATES et al. (October 11, 1898.) No. 38. Appeal from the court of private land claims. George Lines, for appellant. The Attorney Ger eral, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule.

STANDARD ELEVATOR CO. et al. v. CRANE ELEVATOR CO. et al. (February 20, 1899.) No. 44. On writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Seventh circuit. See 22 C. C. A. 549, 76 Fed. 767. Frank T. Brown, for appellants. Edwin

H. Brown and James H. Raymond, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of counsel for the appellants.

STARK v. UNITED STATES. (December 6, 1898.) No. 87. In error to the district court of the United States for the Northern district of Alabama. John T. Morgan, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the tenth rule.

STONE, Auditor, et al. v. FARMERS' BANK OF KENTUCKY. FARMERS' BANK OF KENTUCKY v. STONE, Auditor, et al. (May 15, 1899.) Nos. 385 and 386. Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky.

These appeals were taken from a decree rendered in a suit in equity brought by the Farmers' Bank of Kentucky against Samuel H. Stone, auditor, Charles Finley, secretary of state, and G. W. Long, treasurer of the commonwealth of Kentucky, constituting a state board of valuation and assessment; the board of councilmen of the city of Frankfort; the county of Franklin; the city of Henderson; the county of Henderson; the city of Georgetown; and the county of Scott. The object of the bill and of an amended and supplemental bill was to restrain the valuation of the franchise of the complainant under the provisions of a revenue act of Kentucky, enacted November 11, 1892, as also the certification of such valuation and the collection of taxes thereon for the years 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1898.

It was averred in the bill that the complainant was chartered on February 16, 1850, to endure until May 1, 1880; and that in and by the fifteenth section of the charter of complainant it was provided as follows:

"It shall be the duty of the cashier of the principal bank, on the 1st day of July, 1851, and on the 1st day of July in each succeeding year during the continuance of this charter, to pay to the treasury of this commonwealth fifty (50) cents on each one hundred dollars of stock held and paid for in said bank, which shall be in full for all tax or bonus: provided, that no tax shall be paid until said bank goes into operation: and provided further, that the tax or bonus hereby proposed to be imposed on each share of stock in this bank, or such as shall hereafter be imposed on each share, is hereby set apart and forever dedicated to the cause of education on the common school system; and that whenever the same, or any part thereof, shall be diverted otherwise by legislative enactment, said bank shall then be exonerated from the payment of any tax or bonus whatever."

It was further averred that on March 10, 1876, the charter of the bank was extended to May 1, 1905, by the following enactment:

"Section 1. That the charter of the Farmers' Bank of Kentucky as amended be extended for the period of twenty-five (25) years from the termination of its charter as therein fixed: provided, that said charter and amendments shall be subject to amendment or repeal by the general assembly by general or special acts: and provided further, that whilst the privileges and franchises so granted may be changed or repealed, no amendment or repeal shall impair other rights previously vested."

It was then averred that after the extension of the charter, in consequence of an attempt of the county of Franklin to collect a tax from the bank for county purposes, under the authority of an act of Kentucky passed in 1876, which statute, it was alleged by the bank, was in violation of the charter exemption of the bank, the complainant brought, and carried to a success

ful termination in 1888, in the court of appeals of Kentucky, a suit to enjoin the county named from collecting the taxes complained of. The judgment rendered was pleaded as res judicata.

The enactment, on May 17, 1886, of a law, commonly denominated as the "Hewitt Act," relating to the taxation of banks, was next stated in the bill. An acceptance of the terms of that act was averred, which it was claimed constituted an irrevocable contract with the complainant. It was next alleged that on November 11, 1892, the legislature of Kentucky passed a revenue act, which subjected banks in the state to county and municipal taxation, and to a much greater rate of taxation than was provided in the Hewitt act. Complainant then pleaded as res judicata judgments rendered in 1895 and 1896 in its favor by courts of the state of Kentucky, in suits brought by the bank to enjoin attempts to collect from it alleged franchise taxes under the supposed authority of the reve nue act of 1892. The defendants, who were parties to the suits in question, were averred to be the county of Franklin and the sheriff of that county, the board of councilmen of the city of Frankfort, the city of Henderson, and the county of Henderson and its sheriff. The several decrees, it was alleged, conclusively established that the acceptance of the Hewitt act constituted an irrevocable contract with the bank as respected taxation, and that the revenue act of 1892 in certain particulars impaired such contract, and, in so far as it did so, was in violation of the constitution of the United States, and void.

Certain of the defendants filed pleas to the jurisdiction. All the defendants demurred to the bill, and some filed answers, to which plaintiff filed replications. The demurrers and pleas were overruled, and the cause was heard upon the pleadings and attached exhibits. On January 21, 1898, a final decree was entered sustaining the claims of res judicata made in the bill, and granting the relief prayed for so far as respected the assessment, certification, and collection of franchise taxes for the benefit of the defendants the board of councilmen of the city of Frankfort, the county of Franklin, the city of Henderson, and the county of Henderson. It was held that by the judgments relied upon by complainant it had been conclusively adjudicated as to those defendants that the Hewitt act constituted an irrepealable contract, and that the provisions of the revenue act of 1892 in conflict with that act impaired the terms of such contract, and were void. 88 Fed. 987. The decree adjudged that as to the defendants the county of Scott and the city of Georgetown, who were found not to have been either par ties or privies to the records and decrees constituting res judicata, that no irrevocable contract had been established, by judgment or otherwise, and as to those defendants the bill was therefore dismissed. From the decree thus entered both parties appealed to this court.

Ira Julian, for city of Georgetown. W. S. Taylor, for Stone, auditor, and others. John W. Rodman, for Farmers' Bank of Kentucky.

Mr. Justice WHITE, after making the fore going statement, delivered the opinion of the

court.

The decree below, so far as it granted the relief prayed as against the defendants other than the city of Georgetown and the county of Scott, is affirmed by a divided court. The decree, so far as it adjudicated against the complainant and in favor of the defendants the city of Georgetown and the county of Scott, those defendants not having been parties or privies to the judgments pleaded as res judicst, must be affirmed upon the authority of the decision in Citizens' Sav. Bank of Owensboro v. City of Owensboro, 173 U. S. 636, 19 Sup. Ct. 530 571. And it is so ordered.

STONE et al. v. PRESIDENT, ETC., OF BANK OF KENTUCKY. CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. SAME. STONE v. LOUISVILLE BANKING CO. CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. SAME. STONE v. DEPOSIT BANK OF FRANKFORT. (May 15, 1899.) Nos. 356, 357, 360, 361, 387. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. See 88 Fed. 383, 985, 988. H. L. Stone, W. S. Taylor, and Ira Julian, for appellants. Alexander Pope Humphrey, George M. Davie, James P. Helm, Helm Bruce, and Frank Chinn, for appellees. No opinion. Decrees affirmed, with costs, by a divided court.

TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO v. UNITED STATES TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK et al. (two cases). (December 5, 1898.) Nos. 169 and 170. Appeals from the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico.

Mr. Justice MCKENNA. On the authority of the foregoing opinion (Territory of New Mexico v. United States Trust Co., 172 U. S. 171, 19 Sup. Ct. 128), the decrees in these cases are affirmed.

TOLLESTON CLUB OF CHICAGO V. CLOUGH. (October 17, 1898.) No. 219. In error to the supreme court of the state of Indiana. See 43 N. E. 647. Frederic Ullman, for plaintiff in error. Frank J. Smith, Addison L. Gardner, and Randall W. Burns, for defendant in error. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation.

UNION PAC. RY. CO. v. GOCHENAUER et al. (January 24, 1899.) No. 204. In error to the supreme court of the state of Kansas. See 43 Pac. 1135. John F. Dillon, for plaintiff in error. No opinion. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule.

UNITED STATES et al. v. ALASKA PACKERS' ASS'N et al. (May 22, 1899.) No. 768. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Washington. See 79 Fed. 152. The Attorney General and Sol. Gen. Richards, for appellants. Charles W. Dorr, A. F. Burleigh, A. T. Britton, and A. B. Browne, for appellees. No opinion. Dismissed per stipulation, on motion of Sol. Gen. Richards, for the appellants.

UNITED STATES v. THE CATALINA. (August 24, 1898.) No. 379. Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of Florida. See 87 Fed. 927. The Attorney General, for the United States. Wilhelmus Mynderse, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule.

UNITED STATES v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. (October 17, 1898.) No. 40. Appeal from the court of private land claims. The Attorney General, Sol. Gen. Richards, and Matt G. Reynolds, for the United States. F. W. Clancy, for appellee. No opinion. Decrees reversed on the authority of U. S. v. Santa Fé, 165 U. S. 681, 17 Sup. Ct. 472, and cause remanded, with directions to proceed therein in the matter of amendments, new parties, and otherwise as justice and equity may require.

UNITED STATES v. COE. (May 22, 1899.) No. 8. Appeal from the court of private land 19 S.C.-56

claims. The Attorney General and Matt G. Reynolds, for the United States. A. M. Stevenson and J. F. Shafroth, for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

After a careful re-examination of this record we adhere to the judgment heretofore rendered, and the petition for rehearing must be denied.

In the opinion heretofore delivered, and reported in 170 U. S. 681, 18 Sup. Ct. 745, it was stated that a grant from the state of Sonora was relied on and not a grant from the Mexi can government. This was in accordance with the petition originally filed, but it appears that it had been stipulated and agreed below between counsel for the government and the claimant that the petition should be considered as amended so as to claim title from both the nation and the state. That stipulation, however, did not appear in the record, but this was not material, as we did not regard the grant, whichever its alleged source, as a valid one, for the reasons given.

We remain of opinion that, from and after the adoption of the constitution of 1836, no power existed in the separate states to make such a grant as this. Camou v. U. S., 171 U. S. 277, 18 Sup. Ct. 855, related to a grant made prior to 1836, and ruled nothing to the contrary of the decision in this case.

Construing the various applicable statutes and decrees in relation to the sale of public lands, which were in force April 12, 1838, the date of the alleged grant, together, we think it clear that the board of sales which assumed to act in this matter had no power to sell and convey these lands so as to vest the purchaser with title, unless the sale was approved by the general government, and that it was not so approved. Furthermore, this board of sales did not assume to comply with_the_requirements of the law in making this sale. The members of the board really professed to be officers of the state, and to act for the state, although the grant was declared to be made in the "name of the free, independent, and sovereign state of Sonora as well as of the august Mexican government.' But it seems to us that they referred to the nation as it existed under the federal system of 1824, as contradistinguished from the supreme central system that was in existence in 1838. We understand that when this grant purports to have been made, the officers and people of Sonora were undertaking to carry on their government as a sovereign and independent state under the national constitution of 1824 and the laws passed thereunder, as well as the state constitution of 1825. and subsequent laws, in violation of the national constitution of 1836 and the laws promulgated under that instrument. This refusal to recognize their constitutional obligations put them in antagonism to the general government, and, although appellee's counsel deny that Sonora was in rebellion, and say that at the time of the sale she "was a conservative protestant against the dictatorial proceedings which gave rise to the central system,' we cannot agree that this sale was conducted in accordance with the paramount law, and it does not appear that the national government ever ratified or approved the grant. The various constitutions and laws bearing on the subject are set out in our previous opinion, and also to a considerable extent repeated in Faxon v. U. S., 171 U. S. 244, 18 Sup. Ct. 849. Petition denied.

UNITED STATES et al. v. FALLOWELL. SAME v. MACKEY. SAME v. LEATHERWOOD. SAME v. CARTER. SAME v. HITTSON. SAME v. SCROGGINS. SAME v. JENNINGS. SAME v. McCRACKEN. SAME v. WOODY. (April 11, 1899.) Nos. 321-329. Appeals from the court of claims. The Attorney General, for appellants. John Wharton