Court cannot know judicially that no opium is produced in
this country, nor so assume when construing statute itself
purporting to deal with producers of article. United States
v. Jin Fuey Moy....
In action by representatives of deceased employee against
carrier, court cannot, in absence of evidence that deceased
was employed in interstate commerce when killed, take
judicial notice of that fact. Osborne v. Gray.
Judicial power of United States is wholly independent of
state action and States may not, directly or indirectly, de-
stroy, abridge, limit or render it inefficacious. Wisconsin v.
Philadelphia & Reading Coal Co......
JUDICIARY. See Courts; Judicial Discretion; Judicial
Knowledge; Judicial Power; Jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION:
1. Generally.
Rule of retention of cause by first of two courts of concurrent
jurisdiction to exclusion of other courts and protection of its
jurisdiction by injunction, applies only where there is sub-
stantial identity in rights asserted and purposes sought in
the several suits. Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Oregon Water
Board.....
Party to action does not, after final judgment, remain in
court and subject, without further personal service, to what-
soever orders may be entered under title of cause. New
York Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy ....
Presumption that if Congress has purpose to take class of
suits out of usual jurisdictional restrictions relating thereto,
it will make its purpose plain. Bankers Trust Co. v. Texas &
Pacific Ry.....
295
Provision in.§ 1 of Act of 1871, incorporating Texas & Pa-
cific Ry., was not intended to confer jurisdiction upon any
particular court, but merely render company capable of
suing and being sued in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Id.
A supplemental bill is not dependent or ancillary to original
suit in sense that jurisdiction of it follows jurisdiction of
original cause. Merriam v. Saalfield..
Illegal arrest by state or municipal authorities does not af-
fect jurisdiction of United States extradition commissioner.
Kelly v. Griffin..
JURISDICTION-Continued.
II. Jurisdiction of this court.
Whether District Court has acquired jurisdiction of person
of defendant may be reviewed on direct appeal. Merriam
v. Saalfield...
Where state court considered and disposed of Federal ques-
tion adversely to plaintiff in error when asserted on applica-
tion for rehearing, this court has jurisdiction under § 237,
Jud. Code. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harold ....
Where case necessarily turns on construction of Act of
Congress, which is the charter of one of the parties, this court
has jurisdiction under § 237, Jud. Code, if construction con-
tended for by plaintiff in error was rejected below. Knights
of Pythias v. Mims. ....
Where right of person of Chinese descent to enter country
depends upon statutes regulating Chinese immigration, and
not upon construction of treaties, direct appeal will not lie
under § 238, Jud. Code, from judgment dismissing petition
for habeas corpus of Chinese person detained for deporta-
tion. Chin Fong v. Backus...
Court of district where person harbored is without jurisdic-
tion of offense of not filing certificate under § 6 of White
Slave Traffic Act. United States v. Lombardo...
Court is not lacking in jurisdiction to try criminal prosecu-
tion because presided over by judge of different district as-
signed to court conformably to Act of Oct. 3, 1913. Lamar
v. United States.....
Original jurisdiction of suits at law or in equity arising
under Constitution, laws or treaties of United States is, by
§ 24, Jud. Code, vested in District Courts, subject to re-
striction as to amount in controversy. Bankers Trust Co. v.
Texas & Pacific Ry...
Section 5 of Act of January 28, 1915, is amendatory of
Judicial Code, and renders fact of incorporation under
Act of Congress a negligible factor in determining whether
suit by or against a railroad company is one arising under a
law of the United States so as to give District Court juris-
diction thereof. Id.
A corporation incorporated under Act of Congress, whose
activities are intended to be and are carried on in different
States, is not a citizen of a State within meaning of juris-
dictional statute. Id.
A suit by a citizen of a State against a railroad corporation
organized and existing under an act of Congress is not a suit
between citizens of different States of which court has
jurisdiction. Id.
If oil and gas leases, to restrain interference with which
holder has brought suit in equity, cover Indian allottee land
and have been approved by Secretary of Interior, case
arises under laws of United States and court has jurisdic-
tion. Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Co......
Statements of bill in equity, which are not merely antic-
ipatory of a possible defense, can determine jurisdiction of
court. Id.
Rule requiring motions for new trial to be made within four
days after verdict is mere regulation of practice, breach of
which does not affect jurisdiction. Abbott v. Brown . . .
Order for new trial made by District Court for Southern
District of Florida after adjournment, pursuant to General
Rule No. 1, and before beginning of next term, is not
beyond jurisdictional power of judge. Id.
IV. Of State Courts.
Court without jurisdiction to render personal judgment
against one not voluntarily submitting, who is not citizen of
State, nor served with process within its borders. New
York Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy...
The offense of adultery is cognizable only in courts of State.
Southern Surety Co., v. Oklahoma. . .
Suit for damages to business caused by threat to sue under
patent law, not one of which state court cannot take jurisdic-
tion. American Well Works Co. v. Layne.
See Admiralty; Equity.
Application by state court to interstate shipment of local
rule investing innocent holder of bill of lading with rights
not available to shipper is reversible error. Atchison, T. &
S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harold
Under § 4 of the Act of June 29, 1834, constituting charter,
giving a right to have by-laws and to amend the same, the
corporation had power to raise rates for life benefits to such
point as was necessary for it to go, and a member con-
tinuing to remain therein was obligated to pay the assess-
ments fixed by the laws as amended. Knights of Pythias v.
Mims..
LAMAR, J., IN MEMORIAM. See p. v, ante.
As a general rule courts have no power to interfere with per-
formance by Land Department of administrative duties, but
may, when functions of the Department are at an end, cor-
rect errors of law committed in such administration. Lane
v. Mickadiet.
LAND GRANTS. See Public Lands.
Laws in force at time and place of making contract and
which affect its validity, performance and enforcement,
enter into and form part of it, as if expressly referred to or
incorporated therein. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wall.... 87
Policy reflected by legislation is that relations of Indians
among themselves are to be controlled by customs and laws
of tribe, save where Congress expressly and clearly directs
otherwise. United States v. Quiver....
Rights and obligations under Employers' Liability Act de-
pend upon it, and applicable principles of common law as
interpreted and applied in Federal courts., Southern Rail-
way v. Gray...
Rights and liabilities of parties to interstate shipment by rail
depend upon acts of Congress, bill of lading and common-
law principles. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. Ry. v. Rankin...... 319
Right of employee of interstate carrier by rail to recover for
injury depends upon acts of Congress, to which all state
legislation affecting subject-matter yields. Spokane & I. E.
R. R. Co. v. Campbell...
In action by representatives of employee for his death, from
negligence of interstate carrier by rail, defendants are en-
titled to insist upon applicable Federal law as exclusive
measure of liability, whether plaintiff presents case under
that or state law. Osborne v. Gray.....
Computation, rate of interest, periods of rest, etc., in de-
termining award under Employers' Liability Act, are mat-
ters determined by law of forum; but proper measure of
damages in cases arising under a Federal statute must be
settled according to principles administered in Federal
courts. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Kelly. .....
Whether a wrong is committed by one making statements
to effect that an article sold by another infringes former's
patent, depends upon law of State where act done and not
upon patent law of United States. American Well Works
Co. v. Layne...
Section 6525, Mansfield's Digest, Laws of Arkansas, was put
in force in Indian Territory by Act of May 2, 1890. Gidney
v. Chappel.
Sections 6509 and 6521, Mansfield's Digest, Laws of Arkan-
sas, were not put in force in Indian Territory by Act of May
2, 1890; but quære as to § 6523. Id.
Legislative power may not declare one guilty, or presump-
tively guilty, of a crime. McFarland v. American Sugar Co. 79
While state legislature may go far in raising presumptions
and changing burden of proof, there must be rational con-
nection between fact proved and ultimate fact presumed.
Id.
LEVEES. See Mississippi River; Riparian Rights.
An agreement made by way of compromise, more than four
months before filing of petition in bankruptcy, to pay from
fund of which bankrupt entitled to residue, all lienable
claims, held to create an equitable lien in favor of all parties
thereto having color of right. Johnson v. Root Mfg. Co.... 160
LIFE INSURANCE. See Insurance; Knights of Pythias.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. See Common Carriers.
LIMITATIONS:
An amendment which merely expands or amplifies what was
alleged in original complaint relates back to commencement
of action and is not affected by intervening lapse of time;
but an amendment which introduces a new or different cause
of action is the equivalent of a new suit barred by the expira-
tion of the period of limitation. Seaboard Air Line v. Renn. 290
Whether state court, in permitting amendment to com-
plaint in action under Employers' Liability Act, disre-
garded provision of § 6 of Act limiting time to commence
action, is a Federal question. Id.
|