return, in a criminal prosecution, retain for the purposes of evi-
dence against the accused his letters and correspondence seized
in his house during his absence and without his authority by a
United States marshal holding no warrant for his arrest or for the
search of his premises. Ib.
54. Searches and seizures; unlawful; duty of court on seasonable applica-
tion for return of papers seized.
While an incidental seizure of incriminating papers, made in the execu-
tion of a legal warrant, and their use as evidence, may be justified,
and a collateral issue will not be raised to ascertain the source of
competent evidence, Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585, that rule
does not justify the retention of letters seized in violation of the
protection given by the Fourth Amendment where an application
in the cause for their return has been made by the accused before
trial. Ib.
55. Searches and seizures; duty of court on seasonable application for re-
turn of papers unlawfully seized.
Where letters and papers of the accused were taken from his premises
by an official of the United States, acting under color of office but
without any search warrant and in violation of the constitutional
rights of accused under the Fourth Amendment, and a seasonable
application for return of the letters and papers has been refused
and they are used in evidence over his objections, prejudicial error
is committed and the judgment should be reversed. Ib.
56. States; taxation of governmental agencies prohibited.
The entire independence of the General Government from any control
by the respective States is fundamental; and States may not tax
agencies of the Federal Government. (M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4
Wheat. 316.) Farmers Bank v. Minnesota, 516.
57. States; suits against, within prohibition of Eleventh Amendment.
A suit by a non-resident against officers of a State to enjoin the en-
forcement of a state statute which violates constitutional rights of
complainant is not a suit against the State within the prohibition
of the Eleventh Aendment. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Fran-
cisco R. R. Co., 318.
58. States; validity of legislation abridging Federal right.
A state statute which deprives those entitled thereto of a Federal right
is not made constitutional by the fact that it does not discriminate
but operates on all alike. Ib.
59. States; validity of legislation abridging Federal right.
The Oklahoma statute of May 26, 1908, forbidding foreign corporations
from asserting any citizenship other than of that State and provid-
ing for the revocation and forfeiture of the charter of any corpora-
tion filing a petition for removal of a cause from the state, to the
Federal, court, is unconstitutional as to corporations doing an
interstate business as an attempt to restrain and penalize the
assertion of a Federal right. Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94
U. S. 535, and Security Co. v. Prewitt, 202 U. S. 246, distinguished.
Ib.
60. Taxation; uniformity required in levying excise taxes.
The requirement of uniformity imposed by the Constitution on Con-
gress in levying excise taxes is not intrinsic but geographic. Bill-
ings v. United States, 261.
61. Taxation; authority to tax not limited by subsequent provisions of
Constitution.
The Constitution is not self-destructive-it does not take away by
one provision powers conferred by another, and the express au-
thority to tax is not limited or restricted by subsequent provisions
or amendments, especially the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment. (McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27.) Ib.
62. Taxation by Federal Government; restrictions on.
The limitations of due process of law which prevent States from taxing
property in another State do not apply to the United States, the
admitted taxing power of which is co-extensive with the limits of
the United States and knows no restriction save as expressed in or
arising from the Constitution itself. United States v. Bennett, 299.
63. Taxation; power of Congress to lay and collect; validity of classifica-
tion in.
The act of August 5, 1909, imposing a tax upon the use of foreign-built
yachts alone, provides a valid tax, and a valid classification for
purposes of taxation, within the power to lay and collect taxes
delegated to Congress by the Constitution of the United States.
Ib.
64. Taxation; conflict with due process of law provision.
The tax imposed by said act is not in conflict with the requirement of
due process of law contained in the Fifth Amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States. Ib.
See TAXES AND TAXATION, 20, 30.
Treaties.-See TREATIES, 2.
65. Trial by jury; application of Seventh Amendment; practice of Federal
court on reversal of judgment.
The Circuit Court of Appeals having, pursuant to the state court
practice in Pennsylvania, reversed a judgment in favor of the plain-
tiff and remanded to the trial court with instructions, not for new
trial, but for judgment for defendant, non obstante veredicto, this
court affirms the judgment of reversal so far as the case is remanded
to the trial court, but reverses it as to the direction to enter judg-
ment for defendant, and remands the case to the trial court for a
new trial conformably with the provisions of the Seventh Amend-
ment. (Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Co., 228 U. S. 364.)
Young v. Central Railroad of New Jersey, 602.
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES.
See STATUTES, A.
CONTRACT LABOR LAW.
See ALIEN CONTRACT LABOR LAW.
1. Construction of informal business transaction.
An informal business transaction should be construed as adopting
whatever form consistent with the facts as is most fitted to reach
the result seemingly desired. (Sexton v. Kessler, 225 U. S. 90.)
Barnes v. Alexander, 117.
2. Words of covenant; effect as grant.
It is an ancient principle even of the common law that words of cov-
enant may be construed as a grant when they concern a present
right. Ib.
3. Contractor's status as trustee.
In equity, a contract to convey a specific object even before it is ac-
quired will make a contractor a trustee as soon as he gets title
thereto. Ib.
CONVEYANCES.
See CONTRACTS, 2, 3.
1. Agency of corporation for stockholders.
Stockholders of a corporation organized in one State under a charter
expressly authorizing it to do business in another State create the
corporation their agent for the making of contracts within the latter
State in accordance with its laws. Thomas v. Matthiessen, 221.
2. Power to bind stockholders; effect of charter provisions.
While a corporation cannot, without authority from the stockholders,
make them answerable in a way not contemplated by the charter,
a provision in the charter of a corporation organized in one State
authorizing it to do business in another State may subject the
stockholders to the liability imposed in the latter State, notwith-
standing there are other provisions in the charter exempting stock-
holders from liability for debts of the corporation. Ib.
3. Stockholders' liability under laws of State in which charter authorized
doing of business.
Stockholders of a corporation organized in Arizona under a charter
which expressly authorized the corporation to do business in Cali-
fornia held, in this case, subject to the liability imposed by § 322,
Civil Code of the latter State. Ib.
This court cannot refuse to decide questions which are properly before
it for judgment. Billings v. United States, 261.
2. Duty to observe constitutional rights.
While the efforts of courts and their officials to bring the guilty to
punishment are praiseworthy, they are not to be aided by sacrific-
ing the great fundamental rights secured by the Constitution.
Weeks v. United States, 383.
3. Power to deal with papers in possession of officers of court and which
have been unlawfully seized.
The court has power to deal with papers and documents in the posses-
sion of the District Attorney and other officers of the court and to
direct their return to the accused if wrongfully seized. Ib.
4. Effect of state statute to withdraw authority conferred by Congress.
A statute of a Territory cannot withdraw from the courts established
by the United States authority expressly conferred upon them by
Congress by the Organic Act and other statutes. (The City of
Panama, 101 U. S. 453.) Santa Fe Cent. Ry. Co. v. Friday, 694.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2, 42,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 12, 21;
JURISDICTION;
LAND GRANTS, 3;
LOCAL LAW (Vt.);
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE;
PUBLIC LANDS, 1, 5, 15;
PURE FOOD AND Drugs Act, 3;
REMOVAL OF CAUSES;
STATES, 2;
STATUTES, A 3, 4.
COVENANT.
See CONTRACTS, 2.
1. Technical objections; when not allowed.
Technical objections, originating in the early period of English history
when the accused was entitled to but few rights, are passing away
and should not be allowed as to unimportant formalities where the
rights of the accused have not been prejudiced. Garland v. Wash-
ington, 642.
2. Presumption of innocence; sufficiency of charge as to.
In this case held that the charge of the trial court in regard to presump-
tions of innocence of the accused and their right to acquittal in
case of reasonable doubt was sufficiently favorable to the accused.
Wilson v. United States, 563.
3. Use of mails to defraud; sufficiency of indictment under § 215 of Crim-
inal Code.
Under § 5480, Rev. Stat., it was necessary to charge not only that a
|