Lockwood v. Exchange Bank, 190 U. S. 294, distinguished in Chicago, B. Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, distin- United States v. Heinszen, 206 U. S. 370, distinguished in MacLeod v. Western Tie & Timber Co. v. Brown, 196 U. S. 502, distinguished in CASES FOLLOWED. Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453, followed in Bauer v. O'Donnell, 1. Anderson v. Connecticut, 226 U. S. 603, followed in Morse v. Brown, 604. Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, followed in Backus v. Fort Street Depot, 169 U. S. 557, followed in McGovern v. Bank v. Lanier, 11 Wall. 369, followed in National Safe Deposit Co. v. Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 401, followed in Wheeler v. Denver, 342. Boise Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U. S. 276, followed in Singer Sewing Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, followed in United States v. Chand- Brown v. Alton Water Co., 222 U. S. 326, followed in Harrington v. Carter v. Roberts, 177 U. S. 496, followed in Harrington v. Atlantic & Cary Mfg. Co. v. Acme Flexible Clasp Co., 187 U. S. 427, followed in Chamber of Commerce v. Boston, 217 U. S. 189, followed in United States Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559, followed in Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 317. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 426, Cleveland Electric Ry. Co. v. Cleveland, 204 U. S. 116, followed in Detroit Fisher v. Baker, 203 U. S. 174, followed in Harper v. Victor, 605. Henry v. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1, followed in Bauer v. O'Donnell, 1. Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245, followed in Wilson v. United States, 604. Kauffman v. Wooters, 138 U. S. 285, followed in Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Kaukauna Co. v. Green Bay Canal, 142 U. S. 254, followed in United Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276, followed in United States ex rel. v. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, followed in Nash v. United States, Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288, followed in Harrington v. Maxwell Land Grant Cases, 121 U. S. 325, followed in Campbell v. North- Metropolitan Co. v. Kaw Valley District, 223 U. S. 519, followed in Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, followed in Ashon v. Conservation Com- Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, followed in Barrett v. National Bank v. Burkhardt, 100 U. S. 686, followed in American Na- Newport Bank v. Herkimer Bank, 225 U. S. 178, followed in Continental New York County Bank v. Massey, 192 U. S. 138, followed in Studley v. Boylston National Bank, 523. Plested v. Abbey, 228 U. S. 42, followed in Degge v. Hitchcock, 162. Re Tampa Suburban R. R. Co., 168 U. S. 583, followed in Shipp v. Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U. S. 365, followed in Gorman v. Littlefield, 19. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bourman, 212 U. S. 538, followed in Shipp v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Howell, 224 U. S. 577, followed in Chicago, Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242, followed in St. Louis S. The Germanic, 196 U. S. 589, followed in Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Union Trust Co. v. Westhus, 228 U. S. 519, followed in Colorado & N. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53, followed in Lewis United States v. Miller, 223 U. S. 599, followed in St. Louis S. W. Ry. United States v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525, followed in United States v. At- Vigil v. Hopp, 104 U. S. 441, followed in Campbell v. Northwest Ecking- York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, followed in Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. CERTIFICATE. See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 3. CERTIFICATES OF STOCK. See BANKRUPTCY, 2, 3, 4, 5; CERTIORARI. 1. Nature of remedy; anticipation as to use. The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, and in deciding that 2. Scope of writ in Federal jurisdiction. The scope of the writ of certiorari as it exists at common law has not 3. Scope of writ; breadth of application. While the original scope of the writ of certiorari has been enlarged so 4. To review ruling by Federal executive officer. This is apparently the first case in which a Federal court has been 5. Not available to review decision of Postmaster General as to issuance of The decision of the Postmaster General that a fraud order shall issue is See JURISDICTION, A 10, 11. CHARTERS. See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 1, 3, 4. CHATTEL MORTGAGE. CHIPPEWA INDIANS. See INDIANS, 6, 7. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. CIRCUIT COURTS. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1; ATTACHMENT; CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 1. Interest on; exemption; exclusion of subordinate agencies. The exemption of the United States from payment of interest on claims in the absence of authorized engagement to pay it does not Parrish, 2. Interest; exemption; governmental agency not within. CLASSIFICATION FOR REGULATION. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9, 10, 11, 13; CLASSIFICATION FOR TAXATION. COLLATERAL ATTACK. See BANKRUPTCY, 16. COLLUSION. See JURISDICTION, D 2. COMMERCE. 1. Control of; Federal or state; how determined. It is the essential character of the commerce, not the accident of local 2. Character as interstate or foreign. Commerce takes its character as interstate or foreign when it is actually 3. Character as interstate and foreign; effect of shipment on local bills of In this case staves and logs intended by the shippers to be exported to foreign countries and shipped from points within the State to a See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1; INTERSTATE COMMERCE. |