PARTIES-Continued.

tervene 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..

PASSES:

Exchange of passes between carriers justified. United States
v. Erie R. R. Co. ... ..

Permission given to carriers subject to Act to Regulate
Commerce to interchange passes includes interchange be-
tween those subject and those not subject to act. Id.

PATENTS:

While patent obtained by fraud not void or subject to col-
lateral attack, it may be directly assailed by Government in
suit against patentee or grantee, which can only be sustained
by proof producing conviction. Wright-Blodgett Co. v.
United States.....

Despite satisfactory proof of fraud in obtaining patent, if
legal title has passed bona fide purchase for value is perfect
defense which grantee must establish affirmatively in order
to defeat Government's right to cancel. Id.

Foreign corporation held not to have had a regular and es-
tablished place of business in district which would subject it
to jurisdiction of Federal court under act of March 3, 1897.
Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co....

PAGE

210

194

259

397

723
Where agent solicits order in one State and forwards it to
principal at home office in another State and goods are
shipped direct by principal, sale is consummated in latter
State and does not constitute infringement in former. Id.

PATENTS FOR LAND. See Public Lands.

PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES:

Exclusiveness of statutory penalty. See Wilder Mfg. Co. v.
Corn Products Co.....

PERJURY:

See Constitutional Law; Indiana.

Charge of perjury may be based on § 125, Criminal Code,
for knowingly swearing falsely to affidavit required by act of
Congress or authorized regulation of Land Department.
United States v. Smull..

165

405

PERSONAL PROPERTY. See Estates of Decedents.

PHARMACISTS:

Validity of regulation of hours of labor of women. See Bos-
ley v. McLaughlin...

PLEADING:

Inadvertent omission in prescribed procedure overlooked
without creating precedent. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock
Squab Co.

.......

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. Toledo,
St. L. & W. R. R. v. Slavin .....

Contention not presented on pleadings nor involved in dis-
position of case below, not considered. Pierce Co. v. Wells,
Fargo & Co.

POLICE POWER:

See Federal Question.

PAGE

385

43

454

278

.230, 247

Extends to regulation of moving picture exhibitions. Mu-
tual Film Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Comm. . . .
Kansas moving picture censorship act of 1913 is valid exer-
cise of police power. Mutual Film Corp. v. Kansas.....
Coal mining proper subject for police regulation; measure
of relief for determination of legislature. Rail & River Coal
Co. v. Ohio Industrial Comm..

Statutory provision, not legitimate police regulation, not
made such by form, or title declaring purpose within police
power. Coppage v. Kansas...

248

338

1

See Constitutional Law; Injunction; Moving Pictures.

PORTO RICO:

Owner's statement of condition of record title of property
not necessarily effective to enlarge scope of encumbrance or
estop owner. Gallardo v. Noble..

Mortgage held one on crops and not on land. Id.

POWER OF CONGRESS. See Congress.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE:

135

Scope of decision: This court refrains from passing upon
propositions not necessary to decision of case although
passed on by courts below. Simon v. Southern Ry. Co..... 115

PRACTICE-Continued.

Where both parties have appealed, one from decree entered
on mandate of this court and other from denial of motion to
modify decree, dismissal of latter appeal would not limit
court's power and duty to pass on questions raised by it;
proper practice consolidation of appeals. United States v.
St. Louis Terminal .. .. ..

PAGE

194

Decision of state court as to application of police statute to
state of facts not involved in record here, not anticipated.
Mutual Film Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Comm. . . . ....230, 247
Question of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power
not determined in case where delegate body non-existent.
Id.

Contention not presented on pleadings nor involved in dis-
position of case below, not considered here. Pierce Co. v.
Wells, Fargo & Co..

Objections to portions of reports of Interstate Commerce
Commission awarding reparation waived by failure to direct
trial court's attention thereto. Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Val-
ley R. R.....

278

412

Ruling of highest state court as to enforcement of vendor's
statutory lien is matter of state law not reviewable here.
Lehman v. Gumbel....

448

Where lower courts held land not taxable but did not pass
on other questions of title involving questions of local law
and weighing of conflicting evidence, this court in reversing
will not finally pass on such other questions, but will remand
for further proceedings. Wilson Cypress Co. v. Del Pozo .... 635
Disposition of case: Where Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion has applied for mandamus broader than law permits,
and no amendment made narrowing demand, but petition
dismissed without prejudice, proper practice is to affirm or-
der and not reverse so as to grant relief within limits of law.
United States v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. . . . .
Where inferior state court attempts to proceed under at-
tachment based on vendor's statutory lien filed within four
months of petition in bankruptcy and state supreme court
holds that there is no vendor's lien but only ordinary attach-
ment, peremptory writ of prohibition against state court
and relegating parties to bankruptcy court is the proper
practice. Lehman v. Gumbel..

318

448
Under §§ 649, 700, 1011, Rev. Stat., as amended, findings of
fact have effect of verdict of jury, and this court does not

VOL. CCXXXVI-50

PRACTICE-Continued.
reverse but merely determines whether they support judg-
ment. United States v. United States Fidelity Co...
Although intermediate appellate court may have erred in
basing reversal on matter of most general importance in a
case, on certiorari here the judgment will be affirmed if cor-
rect on other points. District of Columbia v. Lynchburg
Invest. Corp.. ....

Where appeal properly prosecuted and certiorari also asked
from same judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals, latter
denied. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co..
Following findings of fact: This court follows findings of fact
of two courts below. Linn & Lane Timber Co. v. United
States.

PAGE

512

692

723

574

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
Rule as to following concurring findings of two lower courts
followed where in several cases cancelling patents for fraud,
alike in their main features, District Court entered the same
decree without opinion and Circuit Court of Appeals af-
firmed all the decrees with opinion stating fraud was proved.
Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States..

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

Where two courts below concur that there was sufficient
evidence to justify submission of case to jury on question of
assumption of risk, this court will find no error therein. Sea-
board Air Line v. Padgett.... ...

397

605

668

Judgment of state court as to operation and effect of state
statute not controlling on this court when considering con-
stitutionality. Coppage v. Kansas

Argument: Argument based on theory that decision of high-
est state court in conflict with law of State, not entertained.
Lehman v. Gumbel... ...

1

448

Intervention: 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 prej-
udicially to their rights. United States v. St. Louis Terminal 194

PRACTICE-Continued.

In general: Inadvertent omission in prescribed procedure
overlooked without creating precedent. Kinney v. Ply-
mouth Rock Squab Co....

Denial of right to prosecute writ of error in forma pauperis
where, in absence of petition, proposed transcript discloses
lack of merit. Id.

See Federal Question.

PREFERENCES. See Bankruptcy; Interstate Commerce.

PRESIDENT:

Power exercised to withdraw public lands from private
acquisition has never been repudiated by Congress although
subject to disaffirmance thereby. United States v. Midwest
Oil Co..

Land Department has constantly asserted power of Execu-
tive to withdraw unappropriated public lands. Id.
Long continued executive practice to withdraw public lands,
known to and acquiesced in by Congress, raises presumption
of legality. Id.

Congress may by implication grant power to Executive to
administer public domain. Id.

No distinction in principle between power to make reserva-
tions of portions of public domain and that of withdrawing
them from occupation. Id.

Executive withdrawal of public lands in aid of future legis-
lation valid. Id.

Action of Congress in particular case not to be construed as
denial of executive power to withdraw public lands in public
interest, of which there is proof of congressional recognition.
Id.

Silence of Congress equivalent to acquiescence and consent
to continuance of executive practice. Id.

Act of 1910, authorizing President to withdraw lands, not
to be construed as repudiating withdrawals already made.
Id.

Quare as to power, in absence of established practice, to
withdraw public lands. Id.

Quaere, whether President may exercise pardoning power
before conviction. Burdick v. United States ..

PRESUMPTIONS:

That authority to raise money by sale of municipal bonds
and certificates of indebtedness carries authority to put

PAGE

43

459

79