PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-Continued.
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 be-
yond jurisdictional power of judge. Id.
Amendment of Rule. 10, §§ 2 and 9, relative to printing of
record. See p. 633.
PREFERENCES. See Bankruptcy.
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.
McFarland v. American Sugar Co. .....
State act creating rebuttable presumption having no foun-
dation except on intent to destroy, held unconstitutional
under Fourteenth Amendment. Id.
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..
It will not be presumed that interstate carrier is conducting
its affairs in violation of law. Cin., N. 0. & T. Ry. v.
Rankin..
Engineer of train, on seeing lights of brakeman sent out to
guard latter's train, has right to presume that brakeman is
standing on guard. Southern Railway v. Gray.
Court will not presume that demanding government will
suffer person surrendered to be tried for any offense other
than that for which surrendered. Bingham v. Bradley .... 511
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT:
Rule imputing agent's knowledge to principal not applicable
when third party knows there is no foundation for ordinary
presumption and is acquainted with circumstances plainly
indicating that agent will not advise principal. Mutual Life
Ins. Co. v. Hilton-Green....
Rule is not a shield for unfair dealing. Id.
PRIVILEGE TAX. See States.
PROCEDURE. See Practice and Procedure.
Service essential to validity of personal judgment by state
court where party does not voluntarily submit to jurisdiction
and is not citizen of State. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dun-
levy.....
Personal service on judgment debtor necessary in inter-
pleader proceedings brought by garnishee. Id.
See Appeal and Error; Certiorari; Habeas Corpus; In-
junction; Jurisdiction.
While Congress may exercise control over lands to which
claims have attached under existing statutes, such lands
are not regarded as public lands under acts of Congress
passed thereafter. United States v. Hemmer..
Nothing in legislative history of act of 1884 indicates that
it was passed as amendment to act of 1875, or that Congress
deemed earlier act did not sufficiently protect Indians in
retention of homesteads. Id.
Provisions in act of 1875 permitting Indians to make home-
stead entries, not repealed by act of 1884. Id.
Indian who made homestead entry prior to passage of act of
1884, but not final proof until thereafter, held to have made
entry under act of 1875 and limitations of inalienability was
according to that act. Id.
PUBLIC OFFICERS. See Members of Congress.
Corporation authorized by its charter to carry passengers
and goods, but not to exercise any powers of a public service
corporation, and which does such business, including carry-
ing of passengers to and from railroad terminals and hotels
under contracts therewith, and also does a garage business
with individuals, held a common carrier within meaning of
District of Columbia Public Utility Act of 1913, and subject
to jurisdiction of Commission as to terminal and hotel busi-
ness, but not as to garage business; and under the Act is
bound to furnish information properly required by Com-
mission in regard to former but not as to latter business.
Terminal Taxicab Co. v. District of Columbia...
Omission from a general order of a public utilities commis-
sion of concerns doing a small volume of business held not
to amount to such a preference as to deny those affected by
order the equal protection of the law. Id.
PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT:
While a distinctive name may be purely arbitrary, it must
be one that distinguishes the article; and where more than
one name, each descriptive of the article, are united, it
amounts to misbranding if the article sold does not contain
any of the article generally known individually by any of
such names. United States v. Coca Cola Co....
A compound food product, the formula of which included
a poisonous or deleterious ingredient, is not adulterated by
the omission of such ingredient. Id.
Adulteration as used in § 7 is used in a special sense and an
article may be adulterated by the adding of an injurious in-
gredient including component parts of the article itself; it
is not to be confused with misbranding and provisions as to
latter do not limit explicit provisions of §7; and pro-
prietary foods sold under descriptive names are within its
provisions, including those on market when Act was passed.
Id.
A poisonous or deleterious ingredient may be an added ingre-
dient although it is covered by the formula and made a con-
stituent of the article sold. Id.
Whether an added ingredient is poisonous or deleterious held
to be a question for the jury. Id.
The fact that a formula has been made up and followed and
a distinctive name therefor adopted does not suffice to take
an article from § 7, subd. 5 of Act: the standard by which
the combination is to be judged is not necessarily the com-
bination itself. Id.
Have right to test rates prescribed by state statute as a unit,
and to obtain injunction restraining state officers from en-
forcing law in its entirety if found to be confiscatory. Mis-
souri v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co... .
Right is not exclusive of right to test it by resisting in each
particular case an individual effort to enforce a single rate
prescribed. Id.
Engineer of approaching train, on seeing lights of brakeman
sent out to guard latter's train, has right to presume that
brakeman is standing on guard, and does not owe him duty
to immediately stop train. Southern Railway v. Gray...... 333
Danger to brakeman at work in switching at one end of
"manifest" train, arising from switching operations by
another crew at the other end, is not an ordinary risk, and,
in absence of notice or knowledge, is not an assumed one.
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Proffitt... . . . .
In absence of knowledge of custom of employer in making
up trains, brakeman not bound by custom unless it is such
as reasonably careful employer would adopt. Chesapeake &
Ohio Ry. v. Proffitt.....
Continuance of an engineer in his employment on locomotive
equipped with old style lubricator glass, after he has re-
quested that new and safe style be substituted, held not to
amount to assumption of extraordinary risk involved in re-
tention of older appliance. Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Bower 470
See Common Carriers; Employers' Liability Act; Inter-
state Commerce; Rate Regulation; Safety Appliance Act.
In exerting public power State cannot, without violating
Constitution, make rates so low as to be confiscatory. Mis-
souri v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. ....
From power to fix railroad rates results duty to provide op-
portunity to test their repugnancy as a unit to Constitution
in case confiscation charged. Id.
State may not, by mandamus, compel railroad to comply
with rates fixed by state law unless opportunity afforded to
test question of confiscation.
Railroad has right to test rates prescribed by state statute
as a unit, and to obtain injunction restraining state officers
from enforcing law in its entirety if found to be confiscatory.
Id.
Right to test rate-making law as a unit is not exclusive of
right to test it by resisting in each particular case an individ-
ual effort to enforce a single rate prescribed. Id.
Qualification as "without prejudice" of decrees in rate
cases where assertions of confiscation not upheld, held not
to leave controversy open as to period dealt with by decree,
but to avoid prejudice as to property rights in future if
confiscation should result. Id.
Qualification of decree dismissing bill to enjoin state officers
from enforcing rate statute as without prejudice does not
leave matter open so that in subsequent individual case
brought by State to recover excess fares paid during period
covered by company's suit latter can attack constitutional-
ity of law as a whole. Id.
That State not party to company's suit in which decree
RATE REGULATION-Continued.
dismissing bill without prejudice entered, does not make
decree inapplicable in individual suit of State to recover
excess fares paid during period covered by company's suit.
Id.
Quare as to ultimate right to recover for excess rates paid
pending stay while constitutionality of statute pending, in
absence of condition to that effect imposed when injunction
ssued. Id.
Quare, whether suit by railroad against state officers to
enjoin enforcement of rate-making statute is not a class suit
binding upon all. Id.
REAL PROPERTY. See Condemnation of Land.
Amendment of Rule 10, §§ 2 and 9, relative to printing.
See p. 633.
Nothing in Act of Congress of 1911, apportioning repre-
sentation among States, prevents people of State from
reserving right of approval or disapproval by referendum of
a state act redistricting State for purpose of congressional
elections. Davis v. Ohio....
Right to test rate-making law as a unit is not exclusive of
right to test it by resisting in each particular case an in-
dividual effort to enforce a single rate prescribed. Missouri
v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co.
State may not prevent foreign commercial corporations do-
ing local business from exercising constitutional right to
remove suits into Federal courts. Wisconsin v. Philadel-
phia & Reading Coal Co...
Section 1770f, Wisconsin Statutes, providing for revocation
of license of foreign corporation in case it removes, or
makes application to remove, into Federal court, any ac-
tion commenced against it by citizen of State is uncon-
stitutional as beyond power of State. Id.
Nothing is accomplished by unsuccessful attempt to re-
move administrative proceeding into Federal court where
|