INHERITANCE TAX.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5.
INJUNCTION.
See JURISDICTION, B 3.
INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 2;
VERDICT.
If an insurance company does business in a State it must do so subject to
such valid regulations as the State adopts. Whitfield v. Etna Life Ins.
Co., 489.
2. Defenses to actions on policies of life insurance; limitation by States.
The statute of Missouri, that suicide, unless contemplated when the policy
was applied for, shall be no defense to actions on policies of life in-
surance, is a legitimate exercise of the power of the State; and a stipu-
lation in a policy that the company shall only be liable for a portion
of the amount in case of suicide, not contemplated when the policy
was applied for, is void, and cannot be set up as a defense. Ib.
See BANKRUPTCY, 2;
JURISDICTION, A 8;
STATES, 6.
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES.
1. Right to attack validity of judgment sued on.
Whatever remedies may exist as to the judgment in the State where ren-
dered, want of jurisdiction may be pleaded by the judgment debtor
wherever the judgment is set up against him in another forum. Wet-
more v: Karrick, 141.
2. Correction of clerical mistake cannot be made after term without notice.
Although a mistake in regard to a judgment may be a clerical one it can-
not be corrected after the term without notice, especially where the
condition of the parties has changed in view of new rights acquired
which render it prejudicial to enter a new judgment. Ib.
3. Judgment rendered after loss of jurisdiction and without notice to party,
invalid.
Jurisdiction once lost can only be regained by some proper notice to the
other party and where, as in this case, had notice been given of the
motion to render a new judgment defendant could have pleaded a
discharge in bankruptcy, substantial rights are impaired, and the
judgment so rendered without notice is void. Ib.
4. When judgment final under Massachusetts law.
In Massachusetts the rule day when a judgment becomes final is equivalent
to the end of a term, and in that State the rule is that judgment is
final unless set aside within the exceptions for mistake. Ib.
5. Validity of new judgment rendered after term at which original judgment
entered.
A court which has once rendered a judgment in favor of a defendant, dis-
missing the cause and discharging him from further attendance, can-
not, after the term or at a subsequent term, without notice to the
defendant, set that judgment aside and render a new judgment against
the defendant; a judgment so entered is void and not required to be
enforced in another State under the full faith and credit clause of the
Constitution. Ib.
A judgment on demurrer is as conclusive as one rendered on proof. North-
ern Pacific Railway v. Slaght, 122.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11, 12;
JURISDICTION, A 7; B 6;
RES JUDICATA, 1, 2.
JUDICIAL DISCRETION.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 4.
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
See COURTS, 4.
JUDICIAL SALES.
See SALES, 2, 3.
JURISDICTION.
A. OF THIS COURT.
1. Amount in controversy Commissions of fiduciary commuted of embezzle-
ment-Review of judgment of Court of Appeals of District of Columbu
One who embezzles money from an estate forfeits his right to commissions,
irrespective of whether he is or is not convicted of any crime in respect
thereto, and his conviction does not involve the pecuniary amount of
the commissions which he forfeits by reason of the embezzlement; nor
does the fact that such commissions amount to over $5.000 give this
court jurisdiction under § 233 of the Code to review the judgment of
the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirming the con-
viction. The rule that a writ of error does not lie from this court to
the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in a criminal case
applies in such a case. Fields v. United States, 292.
2. Conclusiveness of judgment of state court.
Whether a state lien statute, otherwise constitutional, applies to vessels
not to be used in the waters of the State; on whose credit the supplies
were furnished; whether the lien was properly filed as to time and place;
and what the effect thereof is as to bona fide purchasers without notice,
are not Federal questions, but the judgment of the state court is final
and conclusive in this court. The Winnebago, 354.
3. Of appeal or writ of error from territorial court under act of March 3, 1905.
Where no right of appeal existed when the final judgment was entered in
the Supreme Court of a Territory, an appeal or writ of error will not lie
under the act of March 3, 1905, 33 Stat. 1035, granting appeals in
certain cases, because after final judgment a petition for rehearing
was entertained and not finally denied until after the passage of the
act. Harrison v. Magoon, 501.
4. Under & 709, Rev. Stat.; materiality of question of citizenship.
The question of citizenship is immaterial as affecting the jurisdiction of
this court under § 709, Rev. Stat. As a general rule aliens are subject
to the law of the territory where the crime is committed. Barrington
v. Missouri, 483.
5. To review decision of state court as to compliance with state statute.
Under the laws of Missouri the right of accused to the endorsement of names
of witnesses on the indictment does not rest on the common law but
on state statute, and whether the provisions have been complied with
is not a Federal question and the decision of the state court is not open
to revision here. Ib.
6. Of writ of error where Federal questions alleged to have been raised are with-
out merit-Review of rulings of state court in criminal case.
Although the brief alleges that certain Federal questions were duly raised
in the state court and so disposed of as to sustain the jurisdiction of
this court, if those questions are wholly without merit, or foreclosed
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.
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.
|