Bona fide purchase an affirmative defense to claim of one
seeking to have trust declared in lands patented. Great
Northern Ry. v. Hower....
Also to suit to cancel patent for land. Wright-Blodgett Co. v.
United States...
Power to dissolve corporation, given by Anti-trust Act, in-
consistent with defense by individual of want of legal ex-
istence. Wilder Mfg. Co. v. Corn Products Co...
Defense by one who has dealt with corporation that it has
no legal existence because an unlawful combination under
Anti-trust Act, is mere collateral attack on its organization
which cannot lawfully be made. Id.
DELEGATION OF POWER:
Kansas moving picture censorship act of 1913 does not dele-
gate legislative power. Mutual Film Corp. v. Kansas...... 248
Ohio moving picture censor act of 1913 not violative of Con-
stitution as delegating legislative authority. Mutual Film
Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Comm....
While legislature declares policy of the law and fixes legal
principles to control in given cases, an administrative body
may be empowered to ascertain facts and conditions to
which such policy and principles applicable. Mutual Film
Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Comm....
Sufficiency under Massachusetts law of delivery of goods
sold or mortgaged. Duffy v. Charak....
DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION. See Estates of Deced-
ents; Indians.
DIRECTED VERDICT. See Court and Jury.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
Section 491c of Code means that notice shall be given
twenty days before time set and not that it shall be given on
twenty distinct days before that time. District of Columbia
v. Lynchburg Invest. Corp.. . . .
Assumption by court that special act directing condemna-
tion proceedings adjudicates benefits as a whole and leaves.
open all questions as to particular lots, and trial court should
instruct that burden is on District to establish by prepon-
derance of evidence extent of special benefits accruing to a
particular parcel. Id.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-Continued.
Jury in condemnation proceedings should be instructed as to
duty in regard to considering dedications of land taken. Id.
Assessment for benefits cannot be separated and error in
charging in that respect cannot be corrected by reversal of
judgment in part. Id.
Law of United States within meaning of cl. 6, § 250, Judicial
Code, only such as not local in application to District of
Columbia. Washington, A. & Mt. V. Ry. Co. v. Downey.. 190
Statute of United States, general in application but declared
unconstitutional except as it relates to District of Columbia
and Territories, is not a law of the United States within
meaning of cl. 6, § 250, Judicial Code. Id.
Test of jurisdiction of this court under cl. 6, § 250, Judicial
Code, is character of statute and not that of act to which
statute applies. Id.
Employers' Liability Act of 1906 held applicable to accident
occurring on interstate train in District of Columbia as local
statute and not one contemplated by cl. 6, § 250, Judicial
Code. Id.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY. See Constitutional Law.
Michigan Cent. R. R. v. Michigan R. R. Comm...
As to sufficiency of notice and assessment of benefits in pro-
ceeding in District of Columbia, see District of Columbia.
Rights of corporation under legislative authority to exercise.
Ramapo Water Co. v. New York ....
State police statute regulating basis for compensation of
miners on run of mine subject to regulations of industrial
commission, but which makes orders of commission only
prima facie reasonable and provides for prompt judicial re-
view, and does not prevent employers from screening coal
as they desire for marketing it, amply protects rights of em-
ployers. Rail & River Coal Co. v. Ohio Industrial Comm... 338
See Master and Servant.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT:
Act of 1906 held applicable to accident occurring on inter-
state train in District of Columbia as local statute and not
one contemplated by cl. 6, § 250, Judicial Code. Washing-
ton, A. & Mt. V. Ry. Co. v. Downey....
Where there are substantive differences between state and
Federal statutes in regard to defenses of assumption of risk
and contributory negligence, proceeding under former is
reversible error. Toledo, St. L. & W. R. R. v. Slavin ... .. 454
Where evidence shows that although case brought under
state statute plaintiff was injured in interstate commerce,
objection that he cannot recover under Federal Act not
technical rule of pleading but matter of substance. Id.
Sufficiency of instructions as to assumption of risk. Sea-
board Air Line v. Padgett..
If proof sufficient to justify submission of case to jury on
question of assumption of risk, refusal to instruct verdict for
defendant not reversible error. Id.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW:
Cases involving questions of:
Northern Pacific Ry. v. North Dakota..
Rule that equity will not enjoin collection of taxes where
adequate remedy at law, applied. Dalton Machine Co. v.
Virginia..
ESTATES OF DECEDENTS:
Personal property goes primarily to executor or adminis-
trator who passes to legatees or distributees residue after set-
tlement of estate. United States v. Jones.
ESTATES OF DECEDENTS-Continued.
Interest of legatees and distributees, prior to ascertainment
of surplus after administration of estate, not absolute but
contingent within meaning of § 29 of War Revenue Act of
1898 and § 3 of Refunding Act of 1902. Id.
What liable to tax imposed by act. Id.
See Indians.
Owner's statement of condition of record title of property in
Porto Rico not necessarily effective to enlarge scope of en-
cumbrance or estop owner. Gallardo v. Noble. .
Two reports of Interstate Commerce Commission in same
proceeding, the later affirmatively showing it to be supple-
mental, read together. Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. 412
Statute making findings and reparation order of Commis-
sion prima facie evidence of facts therein stated is merely
rule of evidence and not unconstitutional as abridging right
of trial by jury or denying due process of law. Id.
Report of Interstate Commerce Commission holding rate
excessive and declaring reasonable rate, and reparation order
based thereon, held properly admitted as prima facie evi-
dence of facts therein contained in another and identical
proceeding between same parties which could have been
consolidated. Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. R... ..
Sufficiency in suit to cancel patent. Wright-Blodgett Co. v.
United States... ...
Immunity from self-incrimination. Burdick v. United
States.
EXCEPTIONS. See Appeal and Error.
Quare, whether President may exercise pardoning power
before conviction. Burdick v. United States
Under §§ 649, 700, 1011, Rev. Stat., as amended, findings of
fact have effect of verdict of jury, and this court does not
reverse but merely determines whether they support judg-
ment. United States v. United States Fidelity Co.......... 512
This court takes facts as found by state court, unless Federal
right denied by finding shown by record to be unsupported
by evidence, or a conclusion of law as to Federal right and
finding of fact are so commingled as to make analysis of
latter necessary. Northern Pacific Ry. v. North Dakota... 585
On writ of error under § 237, Jud. Code, finding of facts
analyzed where necessary to determine whether purported
finding so interwoven with question of law involving Federal
right as to amount to decision thereof. Norfolk & West. Ry.
v. West Virginia
Existence of preference forbidden by Act to Regulate Com-
merce a question of fact. Pennsylvania Co. v. United States 351
See Practice and Procedure.
Constitutional question cannot be imported into case by
allegation in pleading of vested right of property in con-
tracts or their performance and that refusal to perform
amounts to deprivation of such property. McCormick v.
Oklahoma City ....
Federal questions asserted as basis for jurisdiction of this
court must have been presented or suggested to court below.
Olympia Mining Co. v. Kerns...
Where demurrer to complaint resulting in dismissal contains
express statement that its basis is statute of limitations,
plaintiff has opportunity to assert impairment of Federal
right by application of statute. Id.
Where interstate character of transaction the basis of suit
inferable from pleadings and decision turns on construction
of Anti-trust Act, Federal question involved. Wilder Mfg.
Co. v. Corn Products Co... ..
Contention that § 2 of act of 1909, regulating importation of
opium, is unconstitutional as beyond power of Congress, held
frivolous. Brolan v. United States..
What allowable under §§ 8, 16, Act to Regulate Commerce.
See Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R.....
FEMALES. See Hours of Labor; White Slave Traffic Act.
FERRIES:
Congress may regulate interstate transportation by ferry.
Wilmington Transp. Cc. v. California R. R. Comm.. .....
In absence of action by Congress, State may prevent un-
reasonable charges for ferriage from point of departure
within borders. Id.
|