PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES.
See CONTRACTS, 2.
PERSONAL PROPERTY.
See TAXES AND TAXATION, 5.
Limitation of privilege of citizenship and rights inhering in personal liberty.
The privileges of citizenship and the rights inhering in personal liberty are
subject in their enjoyment to such reasonable restraints as may be
required for the public good; and no one has a right of property to
use the Nation's emblem for individual purposes. Halter v. Nebraska,
The averment that territory named in the complaint is a part of the United
States is a conclusion of law and not admitted by a demurrer. Pearcy
It is for the plaintiff in error to show affirmatively that error was com-
mitted; it is not to be presumed and will not be inferred from a doubt-
ful statement in the record. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hensey, 298.
2. As to duty of counsel to call trial court's attention to error; and effect on
appeal of failure to do so.
Where there is no evidence of the amount of damage caused by each par-
ticular breach but only of the total amount sustained, the attention
of the trial court should have been called to the plaintiff's objection to
a recovery of particular damage permitted, and a request made for
direction of verdict, and in the absence thereof the objection cannot
be argued here. Ib.
3. As to declaring state law unconstitutional at suit of one whose constitutional
rights are not invaded.
A state law will not be held unconstitutional in a suit coming from a state
court at the instance of one whose constitutional rights are not in-
vaded, because as against a class making no complaint it might be held
unconstitutional. The Winnebago, 354.
4. As to determination of boundary between States at suit of private parties.
In this case the court determined a controversy between private parties
involving the location of the boundary line between two States favor-
ably to the party in possession of the land involved under the au-
thority of the State actually exercising jurisdiction thereover, but ex-
pressed doubt as to whether courts should in such a case go further
than the actual conditions rather than leave it to the other State, if
dissatisfied, to bring a suit in its own name. Moore v. McGuire, 214.
5. Following decision of state court.
This court must follow the decision of the state court in determining that
the essential thing to transfer an estate is the exercise of a power of
appointment. Chanler v. Kelsey, 466.
6. When constitutionality of state statute will not be determined—Necessary
parties.
Whether a state lien statute is unconstitutional as permitting the seizure
and sale of a vessel and the distribution of the proceeds in conflict with
the exclusive jurisdiction in admiralty of the Federal courts will not
be determined in a suit from the state courts where no holder of a
maritime lien is present contesting the unconstitutionality of the
statute. The Winnebago, 354.
7. Statement of facts found by court appealed from; necessity for.
In an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, tried by
the court of first instance without a jury, where the Supreme Court of
the Territory reversed the conclusions of law, but took the findings of
fact as true, and those findings are not open to dispute, but the ques-
tion for decision is definite and plain, there is no need to send the case
back for a statement of facts by the Supreme Court of the Territory,
although one should have been made. Bierce v. Hutchins, 340.
8. Effect of failure to make defense-Power to raise in this court question not
presented below.
The failure to make a defense by a party who is in court is, generally speak-
ing, equivalent to making a defense and having it overruled; and
where the question of the jurisdiction of a court in a particular case
over property in its actual possession was not presented in that court,
the appellant cannot, in this court, question the power of that court
to order a sale of the property or the title conveyed to the purchaser.
Gila Reservoir Co. v. Gila Water Co., 279.
9. Certificate of Circuit Court of Appeals must present distinct point of law—
When question certified will not be answered.
Under § 6 of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat.
826, the certificate of the Circuit Court of Appeals as to questions or
propositions of law concerning which it desires instruction must present
a distinct point of law, clearly stated, which can be decided without
passing upon the weight or effect of the advice on which the question
arises, and if not so presented this court is without jurisdiction; and
where the question certified practically brings up the entire case, and
this court is asked to pass upon the validity of a contract and indicate
what the final judgment should be, the certificate will be dismissed and
the questions not answered. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. v. Williams, 444.
10. Question certified by Circuit Court of Appeals must be single.
Where a question certified by the Circuit Court of Appeals contains more
than a single question or proposition of law it will not be answered by
this court. Quinlan v. Green County, 410.
Foreign corporations can be served with process in a State only when
doing business therein, and such service must be upon an agent who
represents the corporation in such business. Peterson v. Chicago, R. I.
& P. Ry. Co., 364.
2. Sufficiency of service on corporation-What constitutes partnership of rail-
roads.
There is no partnership liability under such circumstances by which the
company owning or controlling the capital stock of the other can be
brought into court to respond for a tort by serving the latter com-
pany with process. Ib.
3. What constitutes doing business in State fɔr purpose of service of process
on corporation.
Under the circumstances of this case a railroad company is not doing busi-
ness in a State simply because another railroad company, of which it
owns practically the entire capital stock, does do business therein,
nor is the latter company or its officers and employés agents of the
former company for the purpose of service of process even though
such agents may at times also represent that company as to business
done in other States. Ib.
4. What constitutes doing business within district by non-resident railroad
to render it liable to service of process.
A railroad company which has no tracks within the district is not doing
business therein in the sense that liability for service is incurred be-
cause it hires an office and employs an agent for the merely incidental
business of solicitation of freight and passenger traffic. Green v. Chi-
cago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 530.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 6;
JURISDICTION, B 2.
Quotations of prices collected by an exchange are property.
Quotations of prices on an exchange, collected by the exchange, are prop-
erty and entitled to the protection of the law, and the exchange has
the right to keep them to itself or have them distributed under con-
ditions established by it. (Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock
Co., 198 U. S. 236.) Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 322.
See JURISDICTION, B-1;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2.
PUBLICATIONS
See COURTS, 2.
1. Homesteads-Conclusiveness of findings of Land Department.
In a contest over a homestead entry, whether there was a sale and whether
the thing sold was or was not the tract in question, are matters of fact
to be determined by the testimony, and the findings of the Land De-
partment in those respects are conclusive in the courts. Love v.
Flahive, 195.
2. Homesteads-Right of homesteader to abandon or relinquish rights in land
-Effect of attempt to sell.
While a homesteader cannot make a valid and enforceable contract to sell
the land he is seeking to enter, he is not bound to perfect his applica-
tion but may abandon or relinquish his rights in the land, and if he
in fact makes a sale he is no longer interested in the land and the
Government can treat the sale as a relinquishment and patent the
land to other applicants. Ib.
Petition for rehearing in Gila Reservoir Co. v. Gila Water Co., 202 U. S.
270, denied, 279.
1. When judgment bar to second action; and extent of bar.
The question as to the effect of a judgment as res judicata when pleaded
in bar of another action is its legal identity with the judgment sought in
the second action, and, as a general rule, its extent as a bar is not only
what was pleaded or litigated, but what could have been pleaded or
litigated. Northern Pacific Railway v. Slaght, 122.
2. Extension of bar to what might have been pleaded.
Where a plaintiff could have pleaded rights to property in addition to those
pleaded, he and his grantees are bound by that election, and after an
adverse judgment cannot again assert title to the same property against
the same parties under a different source of title. Ib.
See JURISDICTION, A 7; B 3.
|