A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends, and as this doctrine is not confined to full sovereign powers it extends to those, such as the Territories of the United States which in actual administration originate and change the law of contract and property. Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 349. See BANKRUPTCY, 3; JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 1; DEFENSES;
JURISDICTION, D 5;
RES JUDICATA.
ARKANSAS, Act of June 15, 1836, 5 Stat. 50 (see Boundaries): Moore v. McGuire, 214.
ARMY, Act of April 26, 1898, § 7, 30 Stat. 364 (see Army and Navy, 1): United States v. Mitchell, 161.
AUTOMATIC COUPLER ACT of March 2, 1893, § 8 (see Safety Appliance Act, 4): Schlemmer v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 1.
BANKRUPTCY ACT of 1898, § 17, subd. 4 and § 63a (see Bankruptcy, 1): Tindle v. Birkett, 183; § 70a (see Bankruptcy, 2): Hiscock v. Mertens, 202. Amendment of February 5, 1903 (see Bankruptcy, 3): Frank v. Vollkommer, 521.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rev. Stat. § 1014 (see Criminal Law); Tinsley v. Treat, 20.
EXTRADITION, Rev. Stat. §§ 5272, 5275 (see Extradition, 3): Johnson v. Browne, 309.
INDIANS, Act of March 2, 1895, 28 Stat. 876 (see Indians, 1): West v. Hitchcock, 80.
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT, Rev. Stat. §§ 441, 463 (see Indians, 2): West v. Hitchcock, 80.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Wilson Act, 26 Stat. 713 (see States, 8): Delamater v. South Dakota, 93.
JUDICIARY, Act of March 3, 1875, § 8. The repealing section of the Judiciary Act of 1887-1888 did not reach § 8 of the act of March 3, 1875,
18 Stat. 470, and that section is still in force. Citizens' Sav. & Trust Co. v. Illinois Central R. R., 46 (see also Jurisdiction, B 5). Act of March 3, 1891, § 6 (sec Practice and Procedure, 9): Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. v. Williams, 444; § 5 (see Jurisdiction, A 7): Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 225. District of Columbia Court of Appeals Act of 1891, § 6, 26 Stat. 828 (see Certiorari): Fields v. United States, 292. Act of March 3, 1905, 33 Stat. 1035 (see Jurisdiction, A 3): Harrison v. Magoon, 501. Rev. Stat. § 709 (see Courts, 3; Jurisdiction, A 4): Urquhart v. Brown, 179; Barrington v. Missouri, 483. Section 720 (see Jurisdiction, B 3): Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 322. MISSISSIPPI, Act of March 1, 1817, 3 Stat. 348 (see Boundaries): Moore v. McGuire, 214.
PUBLIC DEBT, Rev. Stat. § 3701 (see Taxes and Taxation, 2): Home Sav- ings Bank v. Des Moines, 503.
RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, Rev. Stat. § 905 (see Constitutional Law): Wetmore v. Karrick, 141.
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT of March 2, 1893, § 2, as amended April 1, 1896 (see Safety Appliance Act): Schlemmer v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 1. TARIFF ACT of 1897 (see Territory, 2): Pearcy v. Stranahan, 257.
ADMIRALTY.
See JURISDICTION, A 2; E;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 6.
ADMISSIONS.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 3.
ADOPTION.
See INDIANS, 2.
ALLOTMENTS.
See INDIANS, 1, 3.
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION. Fifth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Fourteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
See JURISDICTION, A 1; B 1.
1. Review of judgment of state court necessarily involving Federal question duly raised but not referred to in opinion.
Where a Federal question is duly raised at the proper time and in a proper manner in the state court and the judgment of the state court neces- sarily involves the decision of such question this court on writ of error will review such judgment although the state court in its opinion made no reference to the question. And if it is evident that the ruling of the state court purporting to deal only with local law has for its premise or necessary concomitant a cognizable mistake, that may be suffi- cient to warrant a review. Schlemmer v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 1.
2. Review of judgment of Supreme Court of Philippine Islands-Errors of law disregarded if not stated in assignment of error. In reviewing judgments of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands the same rule applies as does in reviewing judgments of the Circuit Courts of the United States that alleged errors of law not stated in the assignment of errors filed with the petition for the writ of error will be disregarded unless they are so plain that under the provision in the thirty-fifth rule to that effect the court may at its option notice them, but this court will not subject the opinion of the court below to minute scrutiny to discover error of law when on the whole it is clear, as in this case, that the facts found by that court justify the judgment under review. Behn v. Campbell, 403.
3. Mode of review of errors in action at law-Scope of review on appeal and writ of error.
In the absence of modification by statute the rule in respect to all courts whose records are brought for review to this court is that errors alleged to have been committed in an action at law can be reviewed here only by writ of error; but this court has always observed the rule recognized by legislation that while an appeal brings up questions of fact as well as of law, on writ of error only questions of law apparent on the record can be considered, and there can be no inquiry whether there was error in dealing with questions of fact. Ib.
1. Right to increased pay under § 7 of act of April 26, 1898. Section 7 of the act of April 26, 1898, 30 Stat. 364, was not enacted to give increased pay for the discharge of the ordinary duties of the service, but to give compensation for the greater risk and responsibility of active military command; and the assignment under orders of com- petent authority must be necessary and non-gratuitous. United States v. Mitchell, 161.
2. When officer of army is exercising command under assignment in orders by competent authority within meaning of § 7 of act of 1898.
A second lieutenant of the United States army who, in the absence of the captain and first lieutenant assumes command of the company in regular course under § 253 of the Army Regulations of 1895, is not exercising under assignment in orders issued by competent authority, a command above that appertaining to his grade within the meaning of § 7 so as to obtain the benefit of the statute, even though a regi- mental special order may issue directing him to assume the command, and this action may be attempted to be ratified by special order of the commanding general where it is not apparent that any necessity for special direction existed. Ib.
ASSESSMENT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8;
CONTRACTS, 3, 5.
ASSIGNMENT.
See CONTRACTS, 3, 5; CORPORATIONS, 2.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 2.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK.
See NEGLIGENCE, 1;
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.
AUTOMATIC COUPLER ACT.
See SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.
1. Discharge; claims barred by─To what words in § 17, subd. 4 of bankruptcy act extend.
Where a claim is founded upon an open account or upon a contract, express or implied, and can be proved under § 63a of the bankruptcy act, if the claimant chooses to waive the tort and take his place with the other creditors, the claim is one provable under the act and barred by the
« AnteriorContinuar » |