1. As to restraint of collection of tax illegally assessed. Where a corporation has paid the full amount of its tax as based upon the same rate as that levied upon other property of the same class, equity will restrain the collection of the excess illegally assessed, there being no adequate remedy at law, when it appears that it would require a multiplicity of suits against the various taxing authorities to recover the tax and that a portion of it would go to the State against which no action would lie, and where the amount is so great that its payment would cause insolvency, and a levy upon the property-in this case a street car system-would embarrass and injure the public. Raymond v. Chicago Traction Co., 20.
2. Jurisdiction; adequacy of remedy at law.
No adequate remedy at law exists to redress the wrong done to a railroad
company by wrongfully dealing in vast numbers of its non-transferable reduced rate excursion tickets which will deprive the company of its right to resort to equity to restrain such wrong dealings. Bitterman v. Louisville & Nashville R. R., 205.
3. When action against a number of defendants not open to objection of multi- fariousness and misjoinder of parties.
An action against a number of defendants is not open to the objections of multifariousness and of misjoinder of parties if the defendants' acts are of a like character, the operation and effect whereof upon the rights of complainants are identical and in which the same relief is sought against all defendants, and the defenses to be interposed are neces- sarily common to all defendants and involve the same legal questions. (Hale v. Allinson, 188 U. S. 56, 77.) Ib.
1. Habeas corpus proper proceeding to determine whether one is a fugitive from justice.
Habeas corpus is an appropriate proceeding for determining whether one held under an extradition warrant is a fugitive from justice; and he should be discharged if he shows by competent evidence, overcoming the presumption of a properly issued warrant, that he is not a fugitive from the demanding State. McNichols v. Pease, 100.
2. Interpretation of provisions of Constitution bearing upon.
A faithful, vigorous enforcement of the constitutional and statutory pro- visions relating to fugitives from justice is vital to the harmony and
welfare of the States; and provisions of the Constitution should not be so narrowly interpreted as to enable offenders against the laws of a State to find a permanent asylum in the territory of another State. (Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S. 222.) Ib.
3. Sufficiency of requisition in respect of the time of commission of crime. Where the requisition is based on an indictment for a crime committed on a certain day, without specifying any hour, the accused does not overcome the prima facie case by proof that he was not at the place of the crime for a part of that day, the record not disclosing the hour of the crime, and it appearing that the accused might have been at the place named during a part of that day. Ib.
4. Discharge; when person held for extradition entitled to.
A person, held in custody as a fugitive from justice under an extradition warrant in proper form which shows upon its face all that is required by law to be shown as a prerequisite to its being issued, should not be discharged unless it clearly and satisfactorily appears that he is not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States. Ib.
1. Construction of pleading, etc., held local and not Federal questions. The construction of a pleading, the meaning to be given to its various alle- gations, the determination of the validity of a contract in reference to real estate within the State, and whether the form of remedy sought is proper, are, as a general rule, local questions. Vandalia R. R. Co. v. South Bend, 359.
Whether a notice to produce books and papers is broader than the state statute provides for is not a Federal question. Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 541.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 31, 34, 44,
FRANCHISES.
See LOCAL LAW (KAN.),
FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE. See EXTRADITION.
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 36-38.
GENERAL ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY. See BANKRUPTCY, 2.
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS. See RAILROADS, 4.
1. Construction of grants to municipal corporations.
Grants by the State to municipal corporations, like grants to private cor- porations, are to be strictly construed, and the power to grant an ex- clusive privilege must be expressly given, or, if inferred from other powers, must be indispensable, and not merely convenient, to them. (Citizens' Street Railway v. Detroit, 171 U. S. 48.) Water, Light & Gas Co. v. Hutchinson, 385.
2. Of privilege; not necessarily exclusive.
A grant conferring a privilege is not necessarily a grant making that privilege exclusive. Ib.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11;
LOCAL LAW (KAN.).
GROS VENTRE INDIANS.
See INDIANS, 2.
HABEAS CORPUS.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 3; EXTRADITION, 1.
IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT OBLIGATION. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5-11.
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
See CUSTOMS DUTIES.
1. Indians favored in resolving ambiguities in agreements and treaties. In a conflict of implications, the instruments must be construed according to the implication having the greater force; and, in the interpretation of agreements and treaties with Indians, ambiguities should be resolved from the standpoint of the Indians. Winters v. United States, 564.
2. Gros Ventre Indians-Construction of agreement of May 1, 1888-Reserva- tion of water rights.
In view of all the circumstances of the transaction this court holds that there was an implied reservation in the agreement of May 1, 1888, 25 Stat. 124, with the Gros Ventre and other Indians establishing the Fort Belknap Reservation, of a sufficient amount of water from the Milk River for irrigation purposes, which was not affected by the subsequent act of February 22, 1889, 25 Stat. 676, admitting Montana to the Union, and that the water of that river cannot be diverted, so as to prejudice this right of the Indians, by settlers on the public lands or those claim- ing riparian rights on that river. Ib.
« PředchozíPokračovat » |