Miscellaneous. Cited in Clarke's Appeal, 70 Conn. 484, 40 Atl. 112, error may issue direct from Federal Supreme Court to Superior Court, acting under mandate; Patterson v. Buchanan, 92 Md. 345, 348, 351, 48 Atl. 158, 160, 161, holding Act 1899, appropriating funds for payment of French spoliation claims, meant to benefit next of kin existing when act passed; Hadlock v. Brooks, 178 Mass. 440, 59 N. E. 1014, holding order on client to pay attorney's fees on final distribution of certain sum is payable on making of final order for distribution. 162 U. S. 466-478, 40 L. Ed. 1039, 16 Sup. Ct. 859, WALLACE v. UNITED STATES. Imminent danger of accused is no defense if he brought on dispute with homicidal intent. Approved in Andersen v. United States, 170 U. S. 508, 42 L. Ed. 1125, 18 Sup. Ct. 696, following rule; United States v. Lewis, 111 Fed. 635, charging jury that self-defense cannot be set up by one who brought such necessity upon himself. Homicide, by accused embarking in quarrel with no felonious intent, reasonably believing in his imminent danger, is not murder. Approved in Vance v. Territory, 3 Okl. Cr. 219, 105 Pac. 312, applying rule; Collins v. State, 102 Ark. 186, 143 S. W. 1077, holding accused may show crime committed in sudden heat of passion; Williams v. State, 100 Ark. 224, 139 S. W. 1121, holding failure to give instruction as to manslaughter could not be complained of where court instructed as to acquittal; Pickett v. State, 91 Ark. 575, 121 S. W. 734, holding where accused erroneously believed companion of deceased was reaching for gun, court should instruct as to manslaughter; People v. Hayes, 9 Cal. App. 307, 99 Pac. 388, holding homicide committed in self-defense is only manslaughter; Sacrini v. United States, 38 App. D. C. 378, holding imminent danger is tested according to belief reasonably prudent person would entertain; Davis v. United States, 16 App. D. C. 456, holding where there was no justification for murder court should not instruct as to same; State v. Gardner, 96 Minn. 329, 104 N. W. 976, doctrine that accused must retreat before killing in self-defense is justifiable, inapplicable where deceased was reaching for gun with intent to shoot accused; State v. Huber, 38 Nev. 262, 148 Pac. 564, holding where attack was not felonious accused may plead self-defense; People v. Filippelli, 173 N. Y. 516, 66 N. E. 404, holding one commencing quarrel with no. intent to take life and killing other in self-defense is guilty only of manslaughter. Distinguished in Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 452, 454, 86 S. W. 413, passion provoked by conductor's refusal to let defendant ride without paying insufficient to reduce unlawful homicide to manslaughter. Right of self-defense by one who has made an attack, voluntarily entered, upon a reencounter. Note, 109 Am. St. Rep. 811. Mere trespass on land cannot be repelled by killing. Approved in Allen v. United States, 164 U. S. 498, 41 L. Ed. 530, 17 Sup. Ct. 156, simple assault does not justify killing. Expulsion of trespasser. Note, 93 Am. St. Rep. 258. It is for jury to determine effect of circumstances tending to qualify character of offense. Approved in Fidelity Mut. Life Assn. v. Mettler, 185 U. S. 321, 46 L. Ed. 931, 22 Sup. Ct. 667, holding admissible to rebut inference of conspiracy evidence of family's belief as to fact and manner of death of insured; Hickey v. United States, 168 Fed. 538, 22 L. R. A. 728, 93 C. C. A. 616, holding one charged with assault with dangerous weapon cannot be convicted of simple assault; United States v. Lewis, 111 Fed. 632, 633, charging that jury may inquire into circumstances of killing and if facts warrant may find verdict of manslaughter; Bowles v. Commonwealth, 103 Va. 831, 48 S. E. 532, where evidence conflicting as to whether or not deceased armed, was error for court to refuse charge as to self-defense. Where intent is material, accused may testify in his own behalf as to what it was. Approved in Buchanan v. United States, 233 Fed. 259, holding defendants in action for trespass on homestead may show intent by evidence of statements which third persons made to them; Ryan v. Territory, 12 Ariz. 211, 212, 100 Pac. 772, holding accused may testify as to intent in drawing deadly weapon; Lane v. State, 44 Fla. 115, 32 South. 898, defendant is competent witness to testify as to belief as to necessity for killing to protect one's life. Distinguished in Cuddy v. Clement, 115 Fed. 302, 53 C. C. A. 94, holding undisclosed belief of vessel owner that person furnishing supplies obtained lien cannot overcome presumption of no lien. Admissibility of direct testimony by party to action as to his intention. Note, 12 Ann. Cas. 8. Right of one to testify as to his intent. Note, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 389. Admissibility of evidence of threats in prosecutions for homicide. Note, 89 Am. St. Rep. 704. Evidence of antecedent threats in homicide. Note, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 525. 162 U. S. 478-489, 40 L. Ed. 1044, 16 Sup. Ct. 871, CAMPBELL v. PORTER. Error is proper way to review District Supreme Court's order admitting will to probate. Approved in Craighead v. Alexander, 38 App. D. C. 234, Ann. Cas. 19130, 847, applying rule; Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 U. S. 456, 53 L. Ed. 596, 29 Sup. Ct. 334, holding judgment of Supreme Court of Philippines is reviewable by Federal Supreme Court on writ of error. Distinguished in Kenaday v. Sinnott, 179 U. S. 613, 45 L. Ed. 344, 21 Sup. Ct. 236, holding accounting by executrix in Supreme Court of District of Columbia is reviewable by appeal. Appealable judgments or orders in probate or administration proceedings. Note, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 851, 853. Supreme Court of district has no power to admit a will or codicil to probate as devise of realty. Approved in Beyer v. Le Fevre, 17 App. D. C. 247, holding bill in equity lies to revoke probate of will where devise is of equitable character; Perry v. Sweeny, 11 App. D. C. 412, 413, holding decree of orphans' court admitting will to probate is not conclusive in action of ejectment regarding property devised therein; Webb v. Janney, 9 App. D. C. 47, holding probate of will is not even prima facie evidence of due execution as regards title to real estate; Chidsey v. Brooks, 130 Ga. 220, 14 Ann. Cas. 975, 60 S. E. 530, holding title to lands in Georgia can only pass by will where same has been executed according to statutes of that State; Chew v. Tome, 93 Md. 256, 48 Atl. 705, holding probate of will in District of Columbia by court having no authority made defect in title of realty devised in such will. Miscellaneous. Cited in Barbour v. Moore, 10 App. D. C. 53, holding subscribing witness to will may testify as to his signature although he has no recollection of signing. 162 U. S. 490-498, 40 L. Ed. 1048, 16 Sup. Ct. 869, OREGON ETC. RY. CO. v. SKOTTOWE. Removal cannot be had merely because some of powers of railroad are derived from Congress. Approved in Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 154, 53 L. Ed. 128, 29 Sup. Ct. 42, holding suit to compel railroad to issue passes does not raise Federal question. Removal cannot be had because of Federal question or because defendant a Federal corporation, unless complaint shows it. Approved in Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 64, 48 L. Ed. 878, 24 Sup. Ct. 598, allegation that full faith and credit will be denied public acts of Minnesota by allowing combination of competing lines does not raise Federal question; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 528, 48 L. Ed. 289, 24 Sup. Ct. 175, holding Circuit Court decision not deprived of finality by existence of constitutional question where plaintiff's pleadings do not disclose such question; Arkansas v. Kansas etc. Coal Co., 183 U. S. 190, 46 L. Ed. 147, 22 Sup. Ct. 49, holding Circuit Court cannot create jurisdiction by taking judicial notice that importing of armed men means bringing them through adjoining territory; Mountain View Min. etc. Co. v. McFadden, 180 U. S. 535, 45 L. Ed. 656, 21 Sup. Ct. 489, holding jurisdiction cannot be supplied by judicial knowledge of facts not relied on; Houston & Texas Cent. R. R. Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 78, 44 L. Ed. 680, 20 Sup. Ct. 549, holding defendant cannot remove suit where plaintiff's statement shows no Federal question, although defendant's defense involves constitutional question; Florida Cent. etc. R. R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U. S. 328, 330, 44 L. Ed. 490, 20 Sup. Ct. 402, holding plaintiff cannot create jurisdiction by anticipating defendant's defense; Dewey Min. Co. v. Miller, 96 Fed. 2, following rule; Press Pub. Co. v. Monroe, 164 U. S. 110, 41 L. Ed. 368, 17 Sup. Ct. 41, action based on author's common-law rights do not involve copyright law; Wise v. Nixon, 76 Fed. 6, where suit to quiet title to mining claim presented only issues of fact; California Oil etc. Co. v. Miller, 96 Fed. 18, actual dispute over, and materiality of, Federal point must appear; State v. Three Sisters Irr. Co., 158 Fed. 348, holding action involving reclamation of certain desert lands was one arising under laws of United States; Clark v. Southern Pac. Co., 175 Fed. 125, holding complaint alleging injury resulting from negligence of carrier showed cause arising under Federal Liability Act; South Carolina v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 117 Fed. 729, holding suit by State to subject foreign corporation to penalty under State statute, with no mention of Federal laws, is not removable; Shellenbarger v. Fewel, 34 Okl. 85, 124 Pac. 620, holding cause not removable because construction of United States statute involved; Choctaw etc. R. Co. v. Hendricks, 21 Okl. 141, 95 Pac. 972, holding complaint showing defendant railroad to be organized under act of Congress shows removable cause; Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. Hollan, 49 Tex. Civ. 62, 107 S. W. 647, holding action for injuries occurring in Indian Territory is not necessarily removable; International etc. Ry. Co. v. Elder, 44 Tex. Civ. 607, 99 S. W. 857, holding complaint alleging that cars were not coupled according to law will not warrant its removal. Distinguished in Scott v. Choctaw etc. R. R. Co., 112 Fed. 181, 182, holding Federal character of corporation need not appear in complaint but may be added in petition for removal; Winters v. Drake, 102 Fed. 546, 549, holding plaintiff cannot defeat removal of suit against receiver by concealing fact of latter's Federal appointment. Departed from in Greer v. Texas etc. Ry. Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 359, 42 S. W. 1040, upholding petition alleging Federal charter notwithstanding contrary averment in complaint. Removal petition cannot supply omission of complaint to show Federal question or that defendant a Federal corporation. Approved in Storm Lake Tub etc. Factory v. Minneapolis etc. R. Co., 209 Fed. 898, applying rule; Oregon etc. Ry. Co. v. Mullan, 162 U. S. 498, 40 L. Ed. 1051, 16 Sup. Ct. 871, Oregon etc. Ry. Co. v. Conlin, 162 U. S. 499, 40 L. Ed. 1051, 16 Sup. Ct. 871, Florida v. Charlotte Harbor Phosphate Co., 74 Fed. 581, 20 C. C. A. 538, Lincoln v. Lincoln St. Ry. Co., 77 Fed. 659, and Darton v. Sperry, 71 Conn. 344, 41 Atl. 1053, all following rule; Kansas v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 77 Fed. 341, 345, anticipatory averments in complaint will not support removal; Argonaut Min. Co. v. Kennedy Min. etc. Co., 84 Fed. 2, action for trespass on mining claim; Cox v. Gilmer, 88 Fed. 347, allegation in complaint for false imprisonment of unconstitutionality of law is not anticipatory; W. G. Coyle & Co. v. Stern, 193 Fed. 585, 113 С. С. А. 450, applying rule in suit to seize and sell vessel under mortgage. Distinguished in Texas etc. Ry. Co. v. Cody, 166 U. S. 608, 41 L. Ed. 1134, 17 Sup. Ct. 704, where plaintiff's averment of defendant's incorporation by State was untrue; Order of R. R. Telegraphers v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 148 Fed. 440, failure of complaint to show value in controversy cured by being stated in petition for removal. Mere name of defendant does not bring to court's attention that it is a Federal corporation entitled to removal. Distinguished in Texas etc. Ry. Co. v. Cody, 166 U. S. 610, 41 L. Ed. 1134, 17 Sup. Ct. 705, where defendant was Federal and not State corporation. Excessiveness of verdicts for personal injuries. Note, L. R. A. 1915F, 352. 162 U. S. 498, 40 L. Ed. 1051, 16 Sup. Ct. 871, OREGON SHORT LINE ETC. RY. CO. v. MULLAN. Not cited. 162 U. S. 498-499, 40 L. Ed. 1051, 16 Sup. Ct. 871, OREGON SHORT LINE ETC. RY. CO. V. CONLIN. Not cited. 162 U. S. 499-511, 40 L. Ed. 1051, 16 Sup. Ct. 864, ALBERTY v. UNITED STATES. Cherokee treaty of 1866, giving freedmen rights of natives, does not make them Indians within criminal law. Distinguished in United States v. Miller, 105 Fed. 946, holding Indian furnishing intoxicating liquors to other Indians is within Rev. Stats., § 2139, amended 29 Stat. 506, against furnishing Indians with liquor. Effect of Oklahoma act of 1890, on jurisdiction of disputes between Indians, stated. Approved in Lucas v. United States, 163 U. S. 614, 41 L. Ed. 283, 16 Sup. Ct. 1169, government must establish jurisdiction over murder of negro of doubtful status; Nofire v. United States, 164 U. S. 658, 41 L. Ed. 589, 17 Sup. Ct. 212, declining jurisdiction of prosecution of Indians for murder of adopted white; Raymond v. Raymond, 83 Fed. |