clause of the Federal Constitution from regulation by the police power
of the State. Ib.

4. Shipment of intoxicating liquors C. O. D.; seizure under state laws prior
to delivery.

Without passing on the questions whether the property in a C. O. D. ship-
ment is at the risk of buyer or seller and when the sale is completed, a
package of intoxicating liquor received by an express company in one
State to be carried to another State, and there delivered to the con-
signee C. O. D. for price of the package and the expressage, is inter-
state commerce and is under the protection of the commerce clause
of the Federal Constitution and cannot, prior to its actual delivery
to the consignee, be confiscated under prohibitory liquor laws of the
State. American Express Co. v. Iowa, 133; Adams Express Co. v.
Iowa, 147.

5. Unusual method of transportation for evasion of police laws of State-
Commerce clause of Constitution not invokable as a cover for fraudulent

While a perfectly lawful act may not be impugned by the fact that the
person doing it was impelled thereto by a bad motive, where the law-
fulness or unlawfulness of the act is made an issue, the intent of the
actor may be material in characterizing the transaction, and where
a party, in transporting goods from one State to another, selects an
unusual method for the express purpose of evading or defying the
police laws of the latter State the commerce clause of the Federal
Constitution cannot be invoked as a cover for fraudulent dealing.
Cook v. Marshall County, 261.











1. Certificate from Circuit Court-Question of jurisdiction to be certified.
Under § 5 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, the question of jurisdiction

to be certified is the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court as a court of the
United States and not in respect of its general authority as a judicial

tribunal. The certificate of the lower court is an absolute prerequisite
to the exercise of power here unless the record clearly and unequiv-
ocally shows that the court sends up for consideration the single and
definite question of its jurisdiction as a court of the United States.
Courtney v. Pradt, 89.

2. Direct appeal from District Court sitting in bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine on a claim asserted by
the bankrupt whether property in the hands of the trustee is exempt;
and while an erroneous decision against the asserted right may be
corrected in the appropriate mode for the correction of errors, the
jurisdiction of the court is not in issue within the meaning of the act
of March 3, 1891, and a direct appeal to this court will not lie. Lucius
v. Cawthon-Coleman Co., 149.

3. To review decisions of state courts-Proper reservation of Federal question.
This court has no general power to review or correct the decisions of the
highest state court and in cases of this kind exercises a statutory juris-
diction to protect alleged violations, in state decisions, of certain rights
arising under Federal authority; and if the question is not properly
reserved in the state court the deficiency cannot be supplied in either
the petition for rehearing after judgment or the assignment of errors
in this court, or by the certification of the briefs which are not a part
of the record by the clerk of the state Supreme Court. This court will
not reverse the judgment of a state court holding an alleged Federal
constitutional objection waived, where the record discloses that no
authority was cited or argument advanced in its support and it is clear
that the decision was based upon other than Federal grounds and the
constitutional question was not decided. Harding v. Illinois, 78.

4. Review of final judgment of Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Under § 9, act of May 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 81, c. 182, final judgments of the

Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma in actions at law can
only be revised by this court as are judgments of the Circuit Courts
of the United States in similar actions-by writ of error and not by
appeal. Comstock v. Eagleton, 99.

5. Where Federal question properly invoked, although verdict and judgment
below rendered according to law.

Although when the charge of the state court is not before this court, and
the record contains ho exception to any part of it, the verdict and
judgment must be held to have been rendered according to law, never-
theless, if a provision of the Federal Constitution was properly in-
voked the motion to dismiss may be denied. Hamburg American
Steamship Co. v. Grube, 407.

6. Writ of error to District Court-Review not restricted to constitutional

Whether a Senator of the United States has waived his privilege from

arrest and whether such privilege is personal only or given for the
purpose of always securing a representation of his State in the Senate
are not frivolous questions; and, if properly raised in the court below
and denied, this court has jurisdiction to issue the writ of error directly
to the District Court, and then to decide the case without being re-
stricted to the constitutional question. It is not the habit of this
court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely
necessary to a decision of the case. Burton v. United States, 283.


OF CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (see Bankruptcy, 2).


1. Amount in controversy―Jurisdiction in action to remove cloud on title.
Complainants, who were heirs at law of an intestate leaving real estate the
undivided interest of each being valued at over $2.000, and situated
within the jurisdiction of the court, filed their bill in the proper Cir-
cuit Court of the United States against proper parties, citizens of other
States, alleging that defendants had combined to procure and had
fraudulently procured orders of the probate court allowing their claims
against one of the heirs at law as claims against the intestate whereby
such claims became liens upon the intestate's real estate; the claim
of each defendant was less that $2,000 but the aggregate amount
exceeded. $2,000. So far as the allegations of the bill were concerned
if any one of the claims was good all were good and the prosecution of
one could not be enjoined unless all were enjoined. The bill prayed
that the cloud on title of the intestate's real estate be removed by
declaring the claims invalid and enjoining proceedings under the
judgments of the probate court. The defendants were proceeded
against under the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470. The Circuit
Court dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction. Held error and that
it was competent for the Circuit Court upon the case made by the bill
to deprive defendants acting in combination of the benefit of the orders
made in the probate court allowing their respective claims. In this
case the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court does not depend, within the
judiciary act of 1887, 1888, on the value of complainants' interest in
the real estate from which the cloud is sought to be removed but on
the aggregate amount of the liens of all of the defendants' claims which
had been allowed by the probate court against the intestate's estate
pursuant to the alleged combination. McDaniel v. Traylor, 415.

2. Of suit by stockholder against corporation.
The presumption of law that stockholders are deemed to be citizens of the
State of the corporation's domicil must give way to the actual fact
proved that complainant is a citizen of a different State from the cor-
poration, and in such a case the stockholder, if other conditions of juris-
diction exist can bring his suit against the corporation in the Circuit
court of the United States. The ninety-fourth rule contemplates that

there may be and provides for a suit brought by a stockholder against
the corporation and other parties on rights which may be properly
asserted by the corporation, and when such a suit is between citizens
of different States and is not collusive, but the corporation is con-
trolled by interests antagonistic to complainant, it involves a contro-
versy which is cognizable in a Circuit Court of the United States, and
the defendant corporation is not to be classed on the same side of the
controversy as complainant for the purpose of determining the diversity
of citizenship on which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court must rest.
Doctor v. Harrington, 579.

3. Scope of power in case removed on ground of diversity of citizenship.
When a case has been removed into the Circuit Court of the United States
on the ground of diversity of citizenship, that court is entitled to pass
on all questions arising, including the question of jurisdiction over the
subject matter in the state courts or the sufficiency of mesne process
to authorize the recovery of personal judgment. The right to remove
for diversity of citizenship, as given by a constitutional act of Congress,
cannot be taken away or abridged by state statutes and the case being
removed the Circuit Court has power to so deal with the controversy
that the party will lose nothing by his choice of tribunals. Courtney
v. Pradt, 89.

[blocks in formation]




California. County ordinance imposing license (see Statutes, A 1). Flani-
gan v. Sierra County, 553.

District of Columbia. See District of Columbia.

Georgia. Carriers, sections 2317, 2318, Code of 1895 (see Constitutional
Law, 1). Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Murphey, 194.

Iowa. Taxation, sections 5007, 2441, 2442, Code (see Taxation, 3). Hodge
v. Muscatine County, 276 (see Constitutional Law, 4). Ib. Sec-
tion 5007 (see Constitutional Law, 6). Cook v. Marshall County, 261.
Kansas. Anti-trust act of March 8, 1897 (see Constitutional Law, 8).
Smiley v. Kansas, 447.

Kentucky. Condemnation of lands (see Action). Traction Company v.
Mining Company, 239.

Massachusetts. Chapter 578, Laws of 1898 (see Constitutional Law, 2).
Worcester v. Street Railway Co., 539.

Montana. Code, section 3612 (see Public Lands, 3). Butte City Water
Co. v. Baker, 119.

New Mexico. Service of process, Compiled Laws of 1897 (see Process).
Caledonian Coal Co. v. Baker, 432.

New York. Foreign corporations (see Federal Question, 1). Allen v.
Alleghany Co., 458.

North Dakota. Criminal law, chapter 99, March 9, 1903 (see Constitu-
tional Law, 5). Rooney v. North Dakota, 319.

Ohio. Taxation (see Taxation, 8). Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co. v.
Bowland, 611.

Pennsylvania. Foreign corporations (see Federal Question, 1). Allen v.
Alleghany Co., 458.

Porto Rico. Estates of decedents-Rights of heir ab intestato-Payment by

debtor to designated heir during pendency of proceedings by other heirs.
Under the law of Porto Rico while an heir to an intestate may assert
his rights against one already designated heir ab intestato any time
within five years after the decree of designation, the heir so designated
may within the five-year period collect debts due to the intestate's
estate and, where the payment is made in good faith and under the
order of the court into which the money was paid by the debtor, and
without notice of existence and claims of other heirs, discharge the
debtor from liability, notwithstanding such other heirs subsequently
assert their claims and are also designated as joint heirs ab intestato.
Where, however, the debtor has legal notice from the court where the
matter is pending that one not originally designated has asserted and
is prosecuting a claim to recognition as an heir ab intestato, any pay-

« ForrigeFortsett »