Civ. Code Porto Rico 1902, § 173.-Garrozi v. Ratification by Cherokee Nation of Act Cong.
Dastas, 224.

July 1, 1902, c. 1375, $ 26, 32 Stat. 716, does
The power of the husband, as the head of the pot amount to a concession of property rights
community property, under Civ. Code Porto by the Indians to all who intermarried prior
, ;

to that date.-Red Bird v. United States, 29;
1327, 1328, is such that he cannot, after disso Cherokee Nation v. Same, Id.; Fite v. Same,
lution of community, be required to account Id.;. Persons Claiming Rights in Cherokee
for money which he may have extravagantly ex-

Nation by Intermarriage v. Same, Id.
pended.-Garrozi v. Dastas, 224.

White persons who intermarried with Dela-
ware or Shawnee citizens of the Cherokee Na-

tion have no part in the Cherokee property,

and are not entitled to share in allotment of

lands or distribution of funds belonging to such

Nation.-Red Bird v. United States, 29; Cher-
See “Constitutional Law," $ 4.

okee Nation, y. Same, Id.; Fite v. Same, Id.;
Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court on by Intermarriage v. Same, Id.

Persons Claiming Rights in Cherokee Nation
issue of, see “Courts,” § 14.
As ground of jurisdiction of United States White persons who interm.rried with Cher-
court, see "Courts," $ 4.

okees by blood and after the death of the Chero-
By decisions of courts, see "Courts," $ 2.

kee wife or husband intermarried with persons
not of Cherokee blood, and white men who

having married Cherokee women abandoned

them have no share in the Cherokee property,

and are not entitled to share in the allotment
Duties, see "Customs Duties."

of lands or distribution of funds belonging to

the Cherokee Nation.-Red Bird v. United

States, 29; Cherokee Nation v. Same, Id.;

Fite v. Same, Id.; Persons Claiming Rights in
Habeas corpus, see “Habeas Corpus."

Cherokee. Nation by Intermarriage v. Same, Id.

White persons in Cherokee Nation who became

Cherokee citizens by internarriage with Cher-
okees, prior to November 1, 1875, have per

capita rights with Cherokees by blood in a
Liens for, see "Liens."
Public improvements, see "Municipal Corpora- entitled to enrollment.--Red Bird v. United

public domain of the Cherokee Nation, and are
tions, impresa

States, 29; Cherokee Nation v. Same, Id. ;

Fite. v. Same, Id.; Persons Claiming Rights

in Cherokee Nation by Intermarriage v. Same,

See "Guaranty.”

The original Cherokee law as duly passed

must prevail as against omissions in subsequent

compilations where acts providing for such com-

pilations did not declare that they should be
Claims against United States for commissions effective as laws of the Nation.-Red Bird v.

for sale of lands ceded by Indians, see United States, 29; Cherokee Nation v. Same, ,
“United States," $ 2.

Former decisions as precedents in actions re- Rights in Cherokee Nation by Intermarriage v.
lating to Indian lands, see “Courts,” ş 1.

Same, Id.
Judicial sale to enforce forfeiture to Indian Civil and political rights were alone within
nation, see “Judicial Sales.”

the amendment of 1866 to Cherokee Const. 1839,
Jurisdiction of federal courts of actions in- $ 5.-Red Bird v. United States, 29; Chero-

volving Indian allotments, see "Courts.” § 4. kee Nation v. Same, Id.; Fite v. Same, id. ;
Liability of Indian lands to taxation, see “Tax- Persons Claiming Rights in Cherokee Nation by
ation," $ 3.

Intermarriage v. Same, Id.
Mandamus to compel approval of selection of

An alienable title in fee simple held to pass
land by, see "Mandamus," $ 1.
Opinion evidence as to ratification of sale by children of Bokowtonden and their heirs, made

under reservation of 640 acres for the use of the
principal chief, see "Evidence," $ 3.

by the treaty of September 24, 1819.-Francis
No interest in funds of Cherokee Nation un- v. Francis, 129.
less derived from sale or otherwise from land
of the Cherokee Nation conveyed to it in 1838, Indians without the aid of Congress or patent

A title in fee may pass under treaty with the
were acquired by white persons residents in the from the United States.-Francis v. Francis,
Nation who became Cherokee citizens under 129.
Cherokee Laws by intermarriage, prior to
November 1, 1875. --Red Bird v. United States, A decree of a Choctaw and Chickasaw citi-
29; Cherokee Nation v. Same, Id.; Fite v. zenship court in case against 10 persons ad-
Same, Id.; Persons Claiming Rights in Chero- mitted to citizenship by the United States
kee Nation by Intermarriage v. Same, Id. court, vacating judgments of those courts, held

White persons who intermarried with Chero-binding on a person similarly situated who did
kees after November 1, 1875, held not entitled not avail himself of his privilege, under Act
to share in allotment of lands or distribution of his case from the territorial court

to the citizen-

July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, to transfer
United States, 29; Cherokee Nation v. Same: ship court.-Wallace v. Adams, 363.
Id.; Fite v. Same, Id. ; Persons Claiming Congress could empower the Choctaw and
Rights in Cherokee Nation by Intermarriage v. Chickasaw citizenship court, created by Act
Same, id.

July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stát. 641, to review
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

judgments of United States courts of the In-

dian Territory, though by Act June 10, 1896,
c. 398, 29 Stat. 339, 340, those judgments were in civil actions, see “Trial,” § 1.
final.- Wallace v. Adams, 363.

In criminal prosecutions, see “Criminal Law,"***
The regulation of the Department of the In- § 7.
terior, that the adoption of a person into an
Indian tribe must be approved by the Indian

office, held not beyond the power of that de
partment, under Rev. St. U. s. 463 [U. S. Foreign judgment in action on policy, see
Comp. $t. 1901, p. 262].-United States v.

"Judgment," $ 7.
Hitchcock, 423.

Laws relating to as denying due process of law,
Indian allottees under the Stockbridge and objections for purpose of review by supreme

see "Constitutional Law," $ 7.
5, .

court in action for assessment on policy, see
663), and Act Feb. 6, 1871, c. 38, 16 Stat. 404,
held yested with title in their allotments au- Prosecution of action on policy as election of

"Courts," $ 15.
thorizing the cutting of timber therefrom for
sale, without approval of Department of the Rights of trustee in bankruptcy as to insurance

remedy, see “Election of Remedies."
Interior.-United States v. Paine Lumber Co.,

by bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 2.
Taxation of insurance companies, see "Taxa-

tion," $ 4.
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION. 8 1. Risks and causes of loss.

*Exclusion of suicide as a defense in suits on
Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in life insurance policies given by Rev. St. Mo.
action involving
involving issues

issues relating to see 1879, 8 5982, held a legitimate exercise of the
"Courts," § 14.

power of the state.-Whitfield v. Ætna Life Ius..

Co., 578.

§ 2. Extent of loss and liability of in-

Of patent, see "Patents," $ 3.

Policy of accident insurance issued after pas-
sage of Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 5982, cannot re-

strict the liability of the company to one-tenth

of the sum insured in the event of suicide not

contemplated when application was made.-
Laws denying equal protection of laws, see Whitfield v. Ætna Life Ins. Co., 578.

"Constitutional Law," $ 6.
Laws relating to as denying due process of
law, see "Constitutional Law," 9.

Laws relating to as impairing obligation of

contract, see "Constitutional Law," $ 4. Criminal, see "Criminal Law," 8 1.


By or against state, see "States," 8 2.

Power of attorney coupled with interest, see

"Principal and Agent," § 1.
Conclusiveness of decree, see "Judgment," § 6.
Federal courts restraining proceedings in state
courts, see “Courts," $ 18.

Relief against collection of taxes, see "Taxa-
tion," 6.

In proceedings to obtain patent, see “Patents,"
§ 1. Subjects of protection and relief. § 1.

Lack of adequate remedy at law justifies ju-
risdiction in equity of a suit by the unsuccess-
ful defendant in a patent infringement suit to

enjoin complainant in a prior suit from suing See “Public Lands,” s 1.
customers of former defendant for alleged in-
fringement.-Kessler v. Eldred, 611.

The assumption by a manufacturer of the INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT.
defense of a patent infringement suit in a fed-
eral court against a customer does not deprive Appealability, see "Appeal and Error," $ 2.
him of his right to proceed against complainant
for wrongfully interfering with the business of
such manufacturer by instituting suit after

final adjudication in a prior suit that there
was no infringement.-Kessler y. Eldred, 611.

See "Aliens"; "Extradition," 1; "Treaties."

[ocr errors]



Failure to appoint interpreters in criminal pros-
See "Bankruptcy."

ecution as harmless error, see "Crimnial Law,"

$ 8.

Laws interfering with interstate commerce, see
“Commerce," $81, 3.

Regulation, see "Carriers," $ 1; "Commerce."
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

INTERSTATE EXTRADITION. policy while insured was alive which would

impeach such judgment as to the parties to
See "Extradition,” 8 2.

whom the clerk of court makes payments, out
of the money paid into court in satisfaction

of the judgment.-Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co.

*Notice of fraud in recovering a judgment
Interstate commerce in, see "Commerce.”
Wrongful issuance of new license for sale of as

on a policy of life insurance, held not estab-
denial of due process of law to assignee of Ins. Co. v. Clark, 19.

lished by the evidence.-Fidelity Mut. Life
original license, see “Constitutional Law," § 8.

§ 4. Collateral attack.
That express company knew that a C. 0. D.
interstate shipment of liquor was not ordered ity whose judgment is attacked collaterally acted
by the consignee held immaterial on criminal within its jurisdiction cannot be indulged when
prosecution of express company for violating it affirmatively appears that jurisdiction was
a state local option law.-Adams Express Co. v. wanting:-Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass'n v. Mc-
Commonwealth of Kentucky, 606, 608; Ameri- Donough, 236.
can Express Co. v. Same, 609.

§ 5. Merger and bar of causes of action

and defenses.

A decree providing that damage sustained by

two vessels by collision, but refusing to divide
See "Patents."

the damages to the cargo because not raised
by the pleading, does not prevent vessel com-

pelled to pay the entire cargo damage from

bringing libel to enforce contribution.-Erie R.

Co. v. Erie & W. Transp. Co., 246.
As foreign country under customs laws, see
“Customs Duties," § 1.

The judgment on demurrer dismissing suit to
establish trust in certain lands in favor of a

railway claiming under Land Grant Act July

2, 1864, c. 217, 13 Stat. 365, prevents the sur-

cessor in interest from bringing ejectment as
Former jeopardy bar to prosecution, see "Crim- to the same property under claim that the com-
inal Law," $ 4.

pany had acquired title under Act March 3,
1875, c. 152, 18 Stat. 482 [U. S. Comp. St.

1901, p. 1568], or under the state statute of

limitations.-Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Slaght,
See "Courts."

442, 446.
Mandamus to judge, see “Mandamus," 8 1.

*Judgment sustaining demurrer in action by
creditor of national bank against the directors

held not a bar to recovery in another action be-

tween the same parties under a petition setting

up right to recover for individual loans as dis-
Decisions of courts in general, see "Courts,” tinct from the right of the bank. Yates v.
§ 1.

Utica Bank, 646; Same v. Bailey, Id.; Same
Fees of clerk of court for recording abstract of v. Bank of Staplehurst, Id.

judgment, see "Clerks of Courts.
Giving effect to invalid judgment as denying $ 6. Conclusiveness of adjudication.
due process of law, see "Constitutional Law, *Jurisdiction of territorial court to order a

sale of property by receiver appointed in an
In action for infringement of patent, see "Pat- earlier action without extending receivership to
ents," § 3.

the pending suit cannot be collaterally attack-
In cause removed to federal court, see "Remov- ed after unsuccessful appeals to the territorial
al of Causes," $ 4.

court and Supreme Court of United States.-
Of court martial, see "Army and Navy." Gila Bend Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Gila
On appeal or writ of error, see “Appeal and Er- / Water Co., 495.

ror," § 7.
Review, see "Appeal and Error."

Decree enjoining city, at suit of waterworks
Sales under judgment, see "Judicial Sales." company, from building its waterworks or re-

fusing to pay water rentals contracted for, held
8 1. Nature and essentials in general. not conclusive as to right of municipality to

*No judgment in personam can be rendered regulate water rates under a law passed after
against defendant without personal service or the bill was filed.-City of Vicksburg v. Vicks-
waiver of summons and voluntary appearance.- burg Waterworks Co., 762.
Clark v. Wells, 43.

§ 7. Foreign judgments.
§ 2. Opening or vacating.

A judgment of the Supreme Court of the
*Court, acting under erroneous belief that no United States that a policy of fire insurance
action had been taken within a year and dis- could not be recovered upon as it stood held
missing action, cannot set aside such judgment not denied full faith and credit by an ad-
after the term or rule day equivalent to end of judication that it is not a bar to a suit to
term without motion and notice and render reform the policy.-Northern Assur. Co. v.
judgment by default.-Wetmore v. Karrick, 434. Grand View Bldg. Ass'n, 27.
§ 3. Equitable relief.

*The jurisdiction of a court rendering a judg-
*Notice of denial of death of insured in the ment is open to inquiry when questioned in a
answer in an action on a life policy held not court of another state.-Old Wayne Mut. Life
notice of fraud in recovering judgment on the Ass'n v. McDonough, 236.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

*Want of jurisdiction to set aside judgment LANDLORD AND TENANT.
after term, and render without notice a different
judgment, held available as a defense to an ac- 1. Terms for years.
tion on such judgment, in a foreign jurisdiction. Act of landlord in accepting as new tenant
-Wetmore v. Karrick, 434.

purchaser of irredeemable tax title held not a
§ 8. Actions on judgments.

fraud on the tenant in possession, entitling him
The burden of proof is on plaintiff in an ac- to relief from forfeiture of the lease for breach
tion on a judgment of a sister state, where of covenant to pay taxes.-Kann v. King, 213;
the answer contains a general denial to show Webb v. Same, id.
by what authority the court could enter the The purchase of an irredeemable tax title,
judgment sued on which was in personam with view to secure a lease of the property, held
against a foreign corporation, which did not not such a fraud on the tenant in possession
appear in person and was not personally served. as entitles him to relief from forfeiture of the
-Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass'n v. McDonough, lease for failure to pay taxes.-Kann y. King,

213; Webb v. Same, Id.

Release from forfeiture of lease, incurred by
tenant by breach of covenant to pay taxes,

denied on the ground of accident or mistake.-
In civil actions, see "Evidence," $ 1.

Kann v. King, 213; Webb v. Same, Id.

Equity cannot relieve from forfeiture of lease

for breach of covenant to pay taxes where

the evidence showed tenant's gross negligence.-
Opinion evidence as to ratification of, see "Evi-Kann v. King, 213; Webb v. Same, Id.
dence," $ 3.

Equity cannot endow a tenant with right to
A railway and its receiver did not by build-redeemable tax sale so as to give such tenant

create a contest as to the validity of an ir-
ing outside its right of way through the Indian the right, if the tax sale be held invalid to
Territory lose the right to assert that a sheriff's pay the taxes, and be relieved of a forfeiture
sale to enforce forfeiture to Choctaw Nation for his breach' of covenant to pay them.-Kann
was invalid because made on credit in viola-
tion of Choctaw law of October 30,"1888. . King, 213; Webb v. Same, Ta.
Walker v. McLoud, 293.

$ 2. Rent and advances.
Ratification by general council of Choctaw

*Rent after re-entry cannot be recovered by
Nation of sheriff's sale, invalid because made lessors unless reasonable effort has been made
in clear violation of law, held not accomplished to relet under lease providing that for breach
by subsequent legislation.--Walker v. McLoud, relet the premises.— International Trust Co. v.


Weeks, 69

Amount in controversy, see "Courts," $ 6.
Effect of appearance, see "Appearance.

See "Public Lands," $ 1.
Review of jurisdictional questions by United

States Supreme Court, see "Courts," § 11.
Right to attack jurisdiction affecting validity

of foreign judgment, see "Judgment," $ 7.

See "Public Lands."
Jurisdiction of particular actions or pro-

See "Habeas Corpus," 8 2.

Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,” g 2.
Foreclosure, see “Mortgages,” § 1.

See "Landlord and Tenant."
To enforce liability of officers of national bank,

see "Banks and Banking," $ 1.
To enforce maritime lien, see Maritime Liens,"

$ 1.

See “Wills."
Special jurisdictions and jurisdictions of partic-
ular classes of courts.

See "Admiralty," § 1.
Courts martial, see “Army and Navy."

See “Constitutional Law," § 2.
Particular courts, see "Courts."


See "Patents."
Instructions in civil actions, see "Trial," $ 1. For public lands, see "Mines and Minerals," $ 1.
Instructions in criminal prosecutions,

"Criminal Law," $ 7.
Jurisdiction of supreme court in action involv-

ing question of violation of right to jury trial,
see "Courts," § 11.

Denial of equal protection of law to persons

residing in levee district, see "Constitutional

Law," $ 6.

Laws relating to enforcement of levee taxes as

denying due process of law, see “Constitutional
In suit by state, see “States," $ 2.

Law," $ 9.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

Laws relating to land in levee district as deny-

ing privileges and immunities of citizens, see
"Constitutional Law," $ 5.

*Failure of clerk to properly index amended
Persons entitled to raise constitutional ques- declarations in ejectment, duly filed in his office,
tions relative to levee taxes, see “Constitution does not excuse failure of searcher to examine
al Law," $ 1.

files.-Armstrong v. Ashley, 270.
Recital in decree for sale of lands for unpaid Suit in equity to enforce judgment on real
levee taxes held conclusive as against collateral property resulting in decree that judgment debt-
attack based on ground that there was no suffi- or is owner of equitable title held within Mort-
cient proof of publication of a warning notice. gage Law Porto Rico, art. 42.-Romeu v. Todd,
-Ballard v. Hunter, 261.


Local statutory law, requiring recording of

lis pendens in suit in order to affect innocent
third parties, held applicable to equitable suit

in the United States District Court of Porto
Interfering with interstate commerce, see "Com- Rico, in view of Act April 12, 1900, C. 191, $
merce," $ 3.

8, 31 Stat. 79, though by section 34 such court

is given jurisdiction of all cases cognizant in

federal circuit courts.-Romeu v. Todd, 724.

See "Maritime Liens."

Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bank-
ruptcy," $ 3.

See "Intoxicating Liquors," $ 1.
*Land in possession of true owners pending
ejectment suit, when defendant executed deed

of trust to secure money to be used in erecting
improvements thereon, cannot be subjected iv | Of mining claim, see "Mines and Minerals,” s 1.
an equitable lien for the value of the improve-
ments.-Armstrong v. Ashley, 270.


Jurisdiction of federal courts of mandamus to

compel return of franchise tax collected under
Creation by will, see "Wills," $ 1.

authority of state statute, see "Courts," $ 4.
8 1. Subjects and purposes of relief.

*Mandamus is the proper remedy where Cir-

cuit Court of United States refuses to remand

to the state court from which it is removed
See "Insurance," $ 1.

a case over which the federal court has no

jurisdiction.-Ex parte Wisner, 150.

The Secretary of the Interior will not be
compelled by mandamus to approve the relator's

selection as adopted member of Wichita tribe
See "Adverse Possession."

of certain lands ceded under the agreement of
Particular actions or proceedings.

June 4, 1891, or ratified by Act March 2, 1895,

c. 188, 28 Stat. 876, 895–897.-United States
See "Mandamus," $ 2.

v. Hitchcock, 423.
By trustee in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy,"
$ 4.

Mandamus will not lie to compel a federal
For damages caused by conspiracy to monopo- circuit court to remand to state court a cause

where it has decided that the controversy can
lize trade, see “Monopolies," § 1.
To enforce stockholders' liability, see "Corpora- be determined between the removing defend-
tions," $ 1.

ant and plaintiff without the presence of other

defendants.-In re Pollitz, 729
§ 1. Computation of period of limita-

§ 2. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re-

*The state statute of limitations for recovery

Evidence held insufficient to justify refusal to

of -
way company as against settler under the honie enforce an order of a state railroad commission

act until patent has issued.-Northern fixing, local rates for carrying phosphates on
Pac, Ry. Co. v. Slaght, 442, 446.

any objection based on the due process of law
and equal protection of the laws clauses of

Const. 'U. S. Amend. 14.-Atlantic Coast Line

R. Co. v. State of Florida, 108.

*Proceeding in mandamus held not governed
Of carrier, see "Carriers," $ 2.

by limitations prescribed by Code Oki. $$ 18,
23, for civil actions, in view of provisions of

sections 687 and 694.-Duke v. Turner, 316.

*Mandamus to compel levy of tax to pay

municipal warrants held not to be denied be-
See "Damages," § 1.

cause of alleged laches of applicants.-Duke

v. Turner, 316.

See "Intoxicating Liquors.”

See "Mandamus."
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

« ForrigeFortsett »