GENERAL INDEX TO THE THREE VOLUMES CONTAINED IN THIS BOOK, 254, 255, 256 OCTOBER TERM, 1920. Editorial Notes are Indexed by the word "Annotated" appended to the paragraphs to which they apply. ABANDONED AND CAPTURED PROP-ACQUIESCENCE. ERTY. Jurisdiction of court of claims, see Claims, 3, 4. ABANDONMENT. Of claim against United States, see ABATEMENT. A restraining order issued by a state court in purely private litigation between third parties over the validity of a state tax, which leaves those who have already begun suit in a Federal court to enjoin the enforcement of the tax statute subject to all the danger of irreparable injury against which they sought the protection of the Federal court, is not such a stay as is contemplated by the provision of the Judicial Code, § 266, as amended by the Act of March 4, 1913, that if, before the final hearing of an application to restrain the enforcement of a statute or an administrative order, "a suit shall have been brought in a court of the state having jurisdiction thereof, under the laws of such state, to enforce such statute or order, accompanied by a stay in such court of proceedings under such statute or order pending the determination of such suit by such state court, all proceedings in any court of the United States to restrain the execution of such statute or order shall be stayed pending the final determination of such suit in the courts of the state." Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272, 65: 638 ABUTTING OWNERS. Assessment for local improvement, see ACCOUNTING. Under trust, see Trusts, 8. See also Trademark, 5. Estoppel by, see Estoppel. ACTION OR SUIT. Matters peculiar to particular kinds of actions or proceedings, see Assumpsit; Bankruptcy; Criminal Law; Equity; Extradition; Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Judicial Sale; Mandamus; Prohibition. Abatement of action, see Abatement. Exhausting remedy before state rail road commission as condition precedent to suit, see Carriers, 17. As to election of remedies, see Election of Remedies. Suicide as defense to suit on life in- Parties to suit, see Parties. Suit against state, see States, 6-8. On motion, see Appeal and Error, 46, 47. AGREEMENTS. See Contracts. ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN. ALIENS. Alien property custodian, see War. 2. The objection that a vessel libeled was owned by a foreign government, and, at the time of arrest, was in the possession of such government, should come through official channels of the United States, and not by way of a direct suggestion of the Ambassador of such foreign government, and an accompanying certificate of the Secretary of State that such Ambassador is the duly accredited representative of such foreign government gives no sanction to such suggestion. The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 1. British subjects, citizens and resi216, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 308, 65: 592 dents of Canada, do not inherit real prop3. The British Ambassador should not erty in the United States, contrary to local be permitted, in a suit in admiralty for laws, by virtue of the stipulations of the damages for a shipowner's failure to fur-treaty with Great Britain of March 2, 1899, nish a vessel, as agreed in a charter party, nor by reason of the most-favored-nation to intervene as amicus curiæ and present a clause of said treaty, in the absence of certificate that the requisition of such ship notice of adhesion to the treaty on behalf by the British government for war use was of the Dominion of Canada, as required by a governmental act. Texas Co. v. Hogarth art. 4, which provides that the stipulations Shipping Corp. 256 U. S. 619, 41 Sup. Ct. of such treaty shall not be applicable to Rep. 612, 65: 1123 any British colonies or foreign possessions 4. The symmetry and uniformity char- unless notice to that effect shall be given acteristic of the rules of maritime law are on behalf of such colony or foreign possesnot defeated by according to the several sion by the British representative at Washstates an exemption in the courts of mari- ington to the Secretary of State of the time and admiralty jurisdiction from liti-United States. Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U. S. gation against them at the suit of individ- 433, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 158, 65: 344 uals. Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 41 2. Federal legislation undertaking to Sup. Ct. Rep. 588, 65: 1057 limit immigration and residence of Chinese Jurisdiction. laborers was re-enacted, extended, and continued without modification, limitation, or condition by the act of April 29, 1902, as amended by the act of April 27, 1904, § 5, and is now in force, notwithstanding the treaty of December 8, 1894, expired in 1904. Yee Won v. White, 256 U. S. 399, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 504, 5. A vessel, the property of a state, in its possession and control, and employed in its public governmental service, is exempt from seizure by admiralty process in rem. Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 503, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592, 65: 1063 6. A contract to furnish the materials, work, and labor for the completion of a vessel, made after such vessel was launched, but while not yet sufficiently advanced to discharge the functions for which she was intended, is not within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Thames Towboat Co. v. The Francis McDonald, 254 U. S. 242, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 65, 65: 245 Evidence. 65: 1012 3. A Chinese person, first permitted to enter the United States in 1901 as a resi dent merchant's minor son, but who subsequently acquired the status of laborer, and as such is entitled to remain in the United States, may not properly demand that his wife and minor children, who were born in China, and have never resided elsewhere, be permitted to come into this country and 7. The verified suggestion presented by reside with him. The Federal statutes exthe attorney general of the state in his offi- clude all Chinese persons belonging to the cial capacity as representative of the state class defined as laborers except those speand the people thereof, that a vessel libeled cifically and definitely exempted, and there in admiralty is the property of the state, is no such exemption of a resident laborer's in its possession and control, and employed wife and minor children. Yee Won v. in its public governmental service, amounts White, 256 U. S. 399, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 504, to an official certificate concerning a public 65: 101 matter presumably within his official knowl 4. A person bringing Chinese laborers edge, and ought to be accepted as sufficient into the United States, who, because of Intervention by, see Admiralty, 3; Ap- | See also Certiorari, I. peal and Error, 63. AMENDMENT. Of pleading after judgment on appeal, Law, I. AMICUS CURIE. see Constitutional 1. A decision of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia on an appeal from the Commissioner of Patents, which reverses the latter's decision not to cancel certain certificates of registration of a trademark, and directs the clerk of the court to certify the court's decison to the Commissioner, as required by law, is not final See Admiralty, 1-3; Appeal and Error, for the purpose of appeal to or certiorari 63. AMOUNT IN DISPUTE. See Appeal and Error, I. b. ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. See Courts, 20, 21. ANIMALS. State regulation of property in dogs as affording due process of law, see Constitutional Law, 42, 43. ANTI-TRUST ACT. Combination in violation of, see Monopoly. APEXING VEINS. See Mines, 3, 4. APPEAL AND ERROR. I. Appellate jurisdiction generally, 1-6. a. Decisions reviewable; final judgments, 1, 2. b. Jurisdictional amount, 3, 4. c. Review by government in crimi. nal case, 5, 6. II. Jurisdiction of particular courts, 7 36. a. Of circuit courts of appeals, 7. 1. Over Federal courts, 8-19. III. Transfer of cause; further proceed- IV. The record, 38, 39. V. Objections and exceptions, 40-43. VI. Preliminary motions and orders; dismissal, 44-49. VII. Hearing and determination, 50-68. VIII. Judgment, 69-80. IX. Liability on appeal bond, 81. For certified questions, see Cases Certified. from the Federal Supreme Court. Baldwin Co. v. R. S. Howard Co. 256 U. S. 35, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 405, 65: 816 2. A decree of a Federal district court in a suit in rem in admiralty against a ship, which decree, though not formally dismissing the libel, holds for naught the process under which the ship was arrested, declares that the ship is not subject to any such process, and directs her release, is final for the purpose of an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 308, 65: 592 b. Jurisdictional amount. 3. The amount in controversy in a suit in the court of claims is to be determined, when testing the right to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, by the amended petition, where there is one, rather than by the original petition. Journal & Tribune Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 581, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 202, 65: 415 4. The amount claimed in a petition in the court of claims is the amount in controversy for the purpose of testing the right to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, although there may be a defense to a part that does not extend to the entire claim, where there is nothing in the nature of the case to prevent a recovery of the entire amount should claimant's view of the law be sustained. Journal & Tribune Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 581, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 202, 65: 415 c. Review by government in criminal case. Scope of review. 5. The construction or sufficiency of the indictment is not brought before the Federal Supreme Court on a writ of error sued out to a district court under the Act of March 2, 1907, to review a decision quashing and sustaining a demurer to the indict ment. United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U. S. 450, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 551, 65: 1043 6. For the purpose of interpreting the statute on which an indictment is founded, the meaning placed upon such indictment by the Federal district court will be adopted by the Federal Supreme Court on a direct writ of error sued out under the Act of March 2, 1907, to review a decision of the district court quashing and sustaining a demurrer to such indictment. United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U. S. 450. 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 551, 65: 1043 II. Jurisdiction of particular courts. a. Of circuit courts of appeals. of general law applicable to actions brought in other jurisdictions. De Rees v. Costaguta, 254 U. S. 166, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 69, 65: 202 11. The contention that a Federal district court was without jurisdiction of a criminal prosecution for the murder of one Indian by another within the limits of an Indian reservation because, before the time of the alleged crime, the accused had been declared competent, and the land on which the crime was alleged to have been committed had been allotted and deeded to him in fee simple, raises a question not of the jurisdiction of the court, but of the jurisdiction of the United States, and hence furnishes no basis for a direct writ of error from the Federal Supreme Court to the district court. Louie v. United States, 254 Revisory proceeding in bankruptcy case, see U. S. 548, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 65: 399 Bankruptcy, 4. See also infra, 61. 8. The transfer to the appropriate circuit court of appeals of a part of the thenexisting appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court over the United States! district court for Porto Rico, which is made by the Act of January 28, 1915, does not warrant the inference that the Federal Supreme Court may, by virtue of its general jurisdiction over the circuit courts of appeals, review a final decision of such a court, properly appealed to that court from the Porto Rico court. El Banco Popular de Economias v. Wilcox, 255 U. S. 72, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 312, 65: 510 Over district courts. See also infra, 47; Courts, 8. 9. A direct writ of error from the Federal Supreme Court to a district court will not lie in a suit brought conformably to the Lever Act of August 10, 1917, § 10, by a person dissatisfied with the President's award of compensation for war supplies requisitioned by him under that section. United States v. Pfitsch, 256 U. S. 547, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569, 65: 1084 10. The jurisdiction of a Federal district court as a Federal court is not presented in such a way as to authorize an appeal directly to the Federal Supreme Court, where the question of jurisdiction presented and decided turns upon questions 12. Whether or not a ship owned by a foreign government, and, at the time of arrest, in the possession of such government, is subject to the process of a Federal district court, sitting as a court of admiralty, is a jurisdictional question in the sense of the provision of the Judicial Code, § 238, for an appeal or writ of error from a district court directly to the Federal Supreme Court in any case in whch the jurisdiction of the lower court may be in issue. The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 308, 65:592 The Carlo Poma, 255 U. S. 219, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 309, 65: 594 13. A judgment of a Federal district court can be reviewed by direct appeal to the Federal Supreme Court in a case in which there is a contention that no valid service of process has been made upon the defendant, and that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction over the person. De Rees v. Costaguta, 254 U. S. 166, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 69, 65: 202 14. A decree of a Federal district court which set aside the attempted service by publication upon nonresident defendants and dismissed the bill upon consideration of the allegations of such bill, which, upon application of general principles, were held not to show that plaintiff had any such lien upon or interest in the assets within the district sought to be reached as authorized him to invoke the procedure outlined in the Judicial Code, § 57, is not reviewable in the Federal Supreme Court as presenting a question of the jurisdiction of the district court as a Federal court. De Rees v. Costaguta, 254 U. S. 166, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 69, 65: 202 15, 16. The Federal Supreme Court has jurisdiction of a writ of error to a district court to review a judgment which sustained a demurrer to a declaration in assumpsit to recover back Federal income taxes, where the claim to recover is based upon the contention that the fund taxed was not income within the scope of U. S. Const., 16th Amend., and that the effect given by the lower court to the Federal legislation under which such taxes were imposed renders it unconstitutional and void. Merchants Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 386, 65: 751 Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 527, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390, 65: 758 17. The Federal Supreme Court has jurisdiction of a writ of error to a district court to review a judgment in favor of a taxpayer in a suit to recover back Federal income taxes where the claim to recover is based upon the contention that the fund taxed was not income within the scope of U. S. Const., 16th Amend., and that to construe the Federal income-tax legislation as imposing such taxes would render it unconstitutional and void. Walsh v. Brewster, 255 U. S. 536, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 392, 65: 762 18. A supplementary decree of a Federal district court in a subordinate proceeding to carry into effect a decree of the Federal Supreme Court in the main cause, which supplemental decree brings to effective conclusion, if not vitiated by error, a controversy that arose out of a railway company's attack on constitutional grounds upon freight rates prescribed by state authority, must be treated as involving a Federal question, so as to justify, under the Judicial Code, § 238, a direct appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, although the only question immediately involved is the proper construction of the tariff prescribed by the state. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. J. F. Hasty & Sons, 255 U. S. 252, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269, 65:614 Over District of Columbia courts. Review of certified questions, see Cases Certified. Review by certiorari, see Certiorari, 1, 2. See also supra, 1; infra, 37. 19. A judgment of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia in a case in which the constitutional power of Congress to enact a local statute is drawn in question is reviewable in the Federal Supreme Court on writ of error or appeal under the Judicial Code, § 250, which in express terms confers power on the latter court to review judgments of the District of Columbia court "in cases involving the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States, or the constitutionality of any law of the United States." Heald v. District of Columbia, 254 U. S. 20, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 42, 65: 106 2. Over state courts. Error or certiorari. Review by certiorari, see Certiorari, 3-5. 20. Whether a carrier is entitled to recover from the consignee of an interstate shipment, as a matter of law, under the Interstate Commerce Acts, the difference between the freight rates charged and collected and the larger amount due under the applicable published rates, is a question which the Federal Supreme Court can review by certiorari to a state court; not by writ of error. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. York & W. Co. 256 U. S. 406, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 509, 65:1016 21. The validity of a state statute under the Federal Constitution having been adequately challenged in the state courts, the case may be brought up to the Federal Supreme Court by writ of error, and certiorari will be denied. Kansas City South. ern R. Co. v. Road Improvement Dist. 256 U. S. 658, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 604, 65: 1151 22. Writ of error, not certiorari, is the proper method of reviewing in the Federal Supreme Court the judgment of the highest court of a state in a suit in which the defeated party below drew in question the validity of a municipal ordinance and the statute sanctioning it, as construed and applied, upon the ground of their alleged repugnance to a Federal statute, and the state court sustained their validity notwithstanding such contention. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Richmond, 256 U. S. 635, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 619, 65: 1135 Federal questions. See also infra, 44, 45. 23. A writ of error will not lie from the Federal Supreme Court to a state court in a case in which the only question which the state court was called upon to decide, and did decide, is one which was no longer an open one in the Federal Supreme Court, the ruling of the latter court being the basis of the state court's decision. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. v. C. L. Merrick Co. 254 U. S. 376, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 142, 65: 312 24. A judgment of the highest state court, imposing a penalty upon a railway company and the Director General for violations of state statutes, over the objection by the defendants that such statutes, so applied, violated the Federal Constitution, is reviewable in the Federal Supreme Court on writ of error. Missouri P. R. Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 593, 65: 1087 Norfolk-Southern R. Co. v. Owens, 256 U. S. 565, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 597, 65: 1093 Presentation of Federal question to state court. 25. A Federal question first raised by a petition to the highest court of the state for a rehearing, which that court overruled without more, will not support a writ of error from the Federal Supreme Court. Wall v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 256 U. S. 125, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 402, 65: 856 Decision on non-Federal grounds. 26. A decision of the highest court of a state which rests upon grounds independent of the only Federal question involved that would serve as the basis of a writ of error from the Federal Supreme Court, and which appeared to the state court to preclude any recovery, is not reviewable in the Federal Supreme Court on writ of error, where such independent grounds are broad enough to sustain the judgment, and, if not well taken, are not without substantial support, and, while possibly involving Federal questions, are not such as, since the Act of September 6, 1916, will support such a writ of error. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. v. Washburn Lignite Coal Co. 254 U. S. 370, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140, 65: 310 |