INTERSTATE COMMERCE-Continued.

Right of inspection of what included within § 20 of Act to
Regulate, as amended by Hepburn Act, includes accounts,
etc., kept and made prior to latter act. Id.

10. Original Package Doctrine: Original package doctrine
does not extend to moving picture films transported, deliv-
ered and used as in this case. Mutual Film Corp. v. Ohio In-
dustrial Comm....

PAGE

230, 247

As to character of packages in which goods transported. See
Kirmeyer v. Kansas....

568

11. Wilson Act, application of: Transportation is not com-
plete until delivery to consignee or expiration of reasonable
time therefor, and prior thereto Wilson Act not applicable.
Kirmeyer v. Kansas

568

12. Generally: In construing Hepburn Act, history of origin
and report of Commission recommending passage may be re-
ferred to. United States v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. 318
Principles governing the operation of the commerce clause of
the Constitution. Heyman v. Hays....

Southern Operating Co. v. Hays....

Where shipper has paid full freight charges computed on full
weight of shipment equalling minimum capacity of cars ap-
plied for and permitted for the class of traffic by the filed
tariff, he cannot afterwards be compelled to pay an excess
on recomputation of charges based on minimum capacity of
larger cars supplied by the carrier on account of shortage of
the size applied for, all parties having acted in good faith; and
failure to show that carrier did not comply with rules in re-
gard to noting fact that smaller cars were supplied for its
own convenience, does not require shipper to pay charges on
marked capacity of the cars actually used. St. Louis S. W.
Ry. v. Spring River Stone Co.. . . . . .

See Interstate Commerce Commission.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION:

178

188

718

1. Jurisdiction of: No authority beyond that already con-
ferred by Act to Regulate Commerce can be derived by
Commission from resolution passed by only one branch of
Congress. United States v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. 318
It is for the Commission to correct unreasonableness in lim-
itation of liability; until then the amount specified in filed
tariff stands. Pierce Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co... .. ..
2. Orders within jurisdiction: Commission may make such
orders relative to terminal facilities as will prevent creation

278

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION-Continued.
of monopolies within prohibitions and limitations of Anti-
trust Act. Pennsylvania Co. v. United States . . . . . .
Jurisdiction exists to require interstate carrier to receive and
transport over its terminals carload interstate freight from
one carrier having physical connection with its lines on same
terms as applied to other connecting carriers similarly sit-
uated; and such an order is not unconstitutional. Id.
Order of Commission requiring interstate carrier to receive
and transport over its terminals carload interstate freight
from one carrier having physical connection with its lines on
same terms on which it performs such service for other con-
necting carriers similarly situated, is regulation of terminal
facilities within power properly delegated by Congress. Id.
3. Awards of reparation: Under § 16 of Act to Regulate, as
amended in 1906, report awarding reparation need not state
evidential facts, but must contain findings of ultimate facts,
which are taken as prima facie true. Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh
Valley R. R..

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.
4. Judicial power over: Courts cannot set aside order of
Commission in regard to interchange of freight by carriers
which does not contravene any constitutional limitation and
is within authority of that body and supported by testi-
mony. Pennsylvania Co. v. United States. ...

5. Generally: Unenforced ruling of Commission without
weight accorded to contemporaneous construction of statute.
United States v. Erie R. R. Co. . . . . .

INTERVENTION:

See Interstate Commerce.

While court below may not allow persons not parties to
intervene in settling decree on mandate, this court may
take action on original petition for intervention here. Evens
& Howard Brick Co. v. United States .....

Persons not entitled to intervene in court below because not
parties may be entitled to be heard in this court concerning
decree in so far as it may operate prejudicially to their rights.
United States v. St. Louis Terminal ....

INTOXICATING LIQUORS:

Active exercise of Federal authority in suppressing introduc-

VOL. CCXXXVI-49

PAGE

351

412

351

259

210

194

INTOXICATING LIQUORS—Continued.

tion of liquor into Indian country under act of March 1,
1895, held suspended pending exertion of state authority on
subject prescribed by Oklahoma Enabling Act. Joplin Mer-
cantile Co. v. United States.....

PAGE

.... 531

Oklahoma Enabling Act did not repeal acts of 1892 and
1897, prohibiting introduction of liquor into Indian country
within Oklahoma either as to interstate or intrastate ship-
ments, but as to intrastate transactions made act of 1895
unenforceable. Id.

Construction and sufficiency of indictment for conspiring to
introduce liquor into Indian country. Id.

Selling of liquor under strictly mail order business and de-
livery within State to carrier for through interstate ship-
ment, beyond control of State. Heyman v. Hays...
Southern Operating Co. v.
Hays.

Transportation is not complete until delivery to consignee
or expiration of reasonable time therefor, and prior thereto
Wilson Act not applicable. Kirmeyer v. Kansas . . . . . .
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES:

Enforcement of judgment obtained by fraud or without
service of process may be enjoined by Federal court. Simon
v. Southern Ry. Co. . . . . . .

Section 720, Rev. Stat., does not affect this jurisdiction. Id.
Rule obtains whether case one removed from state court to,
or originally commenced in, Federal court. Id.
Judgment without process absolutely void under Constitu-
tion and principles of natural justice. Id.

Quære, whether act of foreign corporation against whom judg-
ment entered amounted to doing business within state. Id.
Judgment by default against foreign corporation in suit
based on cause of action arising in another State, where in
absence of resident agent service of process was made on
Secretary of State under state law, is absolutely void and
Federal court may enjoin. Id.

Controlling effect of judgment of state court. See Coppage

v. Kansas...

JUDICIAL CODE:

See Interstate Commerce.

178

188

568

115

1

Section 237 construed. Olympia Mining Co. v. Kerns.... 211

JUDICIAL CODE-Continued.

Section 250, cl. 6, construed. Washington, A. & Mt. V. Ry.
v. Downey.

JUDICIAL DISCRETION:

As to allowing suits in forma pauperis. Kinney v. Plymouth
Rock Squab Co.. ...

In allowing prosecution of writ of error in forma pauperis.
Id.

JUDICIARY. See Courts; Jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION:

I. Generally.

PAGE

190

43

This court has jurisdiction to review question as to effect of
proceedings in bankruptcy and discharge as bar to debt held
by bankruptcy court to be not provable. Lesser v. Gray... 70.
This court does not sit as a revisory board to substitute its
judgment for that of the legislature or its administrative
agent. Northern Pacific Ry. v. North Dakota . . . .
This court will review particular items of a schedule of rates
where a commodity has been segregated and carrier required
to transport it at loss or without substantial compensation.
Id.

Although Federal court may have made orders continuing
case in which petition for removal and bond filed, and even
dismissed it for want of jurisdiction, if question of its author-
ity had never been presented to or decided by it, state court
not bound to respect such orders as conclusive of question of
jurisdiction. Iowa Central Ry. v. Bacon.

While court below may not allow persons not parties to in-
tervene in settling decree on mandate, this court may take
action on original petition for intervention here. Evens &
Howard Brick Co. v. United States...

Enforcement of judgment obtained by fraud or without
service of process may be enjoined by Federal court. Simon
v. Southern Ry. Co.. ...

Section 720, Rev. Stat., does not affect this jurisdiction. Id.
Rule obtains whether case one removed from state court to,
or originally commenced in, Federal court. Id.

Of Federal Court not affected by state statute regulating
venue or establishing rules of procedure. Id.

See Removal of Causes.

II. Jurisdiction of this court.

1. Over judgments of Circuit Court of Appeals: Controversy

585

305

210

115

JURISDICTION-Continued.

over distribution of fund in hands of trustee in bankruptcy,
proceeds of property attached by creditor, within four
months of petition, lien of which has been preserved to es-
tate, is one arising in bankruptcy proceedings, appealable
under Circuit Court of Appeals Act and not controlled by
§25 of Bankruptcy Act. Globe Bank v. Martin.
Although jurisdiction of Federal court may have been in-
voked solely on account of diverse citizenship, if object of
suit quieting title to grant of former sovereign, depending on
treaty and laws of United States and acts of Federal officers
thereunder, this court has jurisdiction to review. Wilson
Cypress Co. v. Del Pozo....

Where bill presents case of diversity of citizenship only, de-
cree of Circuit Court of Appeals final. McCormick v. Okla-
homa City...

2. Over judgments of District Courts: Authority to review case
from District Court where constitutional question not friv-
olous involved, embraces duty of determining all questions,
including those otherwise within exclusive jurisdiction of
District Court. Brolan v. United States...

Contention that § 2 of act of 1909, regulating importation of
opium, is unconstitutional as beyond power of Congress,
held frivolous and affording no basis for jurisdiction under
§ 238, Judicial Code. Id.

3. Over judgments of Court of Appeals of District of Columbia:
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. Washington, A. & Mt. V. Ry. Co. v.
Downey..

Law of United States within meaning of cl. 6, § 250, Judicial
Code, only such as not local in application to District of Co-
lumbia. Id.

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.

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.

4. Over judgments of state courts: Power to review under
§ 237, Jud. Code, rests upon substance as well as form and

PAGE

288

635

657

216

190