Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

RENDITION.

Of fugitive, see Extradition.

REPEAL.

Of statute, see Statutes, 12.

REPRESENTATIVE SUIT.

Conclusiveness of judgment in, see
Judgment, 13.

Parties in, see Parties, 2.

See also Courts, 11, 12.

RES JUDICATA.

See Judgment, 5-14.

RETREAT.

Duty to retreat before killing in selfdefense, see Homicide.

RETROSPECTIVE LAWS. See Statutes, 9.

RETURN.

Of writ, see Writ and Process.

REVENUE.

See Internal Revenue.

REVIEW.

By appeal or writ of error, see Appeal and Error.

a

1. The unsuccessful defendant in patent suit, in which a Federal circuit court of appeals has affirmed the decree below upholding the patent and directing an accounting, has the right to apply by petition to the circuit court of appeals for leave to file a bill in the district court in the nature of a bill of review, setting up as a bar to the former proceedings a decree in another circuit adjudging the patent to be invalid. National Brake & Electric Co. v. Christensen, 254 U. S. 425, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154, 65: 341

2. An application in an appellate

court for leave to file a bill of review in the court below is addressed to the sound discretion of the appellate tribunal, and should be decided upon considerations addressed to the materiality of the new matter and diligence in its presentation. National Brake & Electric Co. v. Christensen, 254 U. S. 425, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154, 65: 341

3. A petition to a Federal circuit court
of appeals by which defendant in a patent
suit seeks, after that court has affirmed a
decree below, upholding the patent and
directing an accounting, to obtain the ben-
efit of a decree in another circuit as res
judicata, should be treated by the circuit
Court of appeals as an application for
leave to file in the district court a petition
in the nature of a bill of review, invoking
the consideration of the effect of such de-
cree. National Brake & Electric Co. v.
Christensen, 254 U. S. 425, 41 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 154,
65: 341

RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
See Waters, 5-11.

RULES OF COURTS.

Admiralty rules, see Appendix III.
ante, p. 1184.
General Orders and forms in bank-
ruptcy, see Appendix I., in
Book 43 L. ed. U. S. p. 1189.
Amendments, see Appendix I., in
Book 50 L. ed. U. S. p. 1177;
Appendix I., in Book 60 L. ed.
U. S. p. 1241; Appendix VI.,
in Book 61 L. ed. U. S. 1382.
Rules for appeals from court of claims,
see Appendix, Vol. 6, Digest Sup.
Ct. 1908.

Copyright practice and procedure, see
Appendix III., in Book 53 L. ed.
U. S. p. 1074.

Equity rules, see Appendix III., in
Book 57 L. ed. U. S. p. 1632.
Supreme Court rules, see Appendix, V.,
in Book 56 L. ed. U. S. p. 1295.
Amendments, see Appendices VI.,
VII., in Book 56 L. ed.
U. S. pp. 1306, 1307; Appen-
dices V., VII., in Book 60 L.
ed. U. S. pp. 1261, 1262; Ap-
pendix IV., in Book 61 L. ed.
U. S. p. 1381; Appendices I.,
II., in Book 63 L. ed. U. S. p.
1205.

SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.
See Master and Servant, 5-10.

SALE.

Validity of sale of entire property of
corporation, see Corporations, 4-6.
Stamp tax on goods removed for sale,
see Internal Revenue, 8, 9.
Income tax on accretions of selling
values, see Internal Revenue,
12-17.

Of intoxicating liquors, see Intoxicating
Liquors.

Judicial sale, see Judicial Sale.

SCHOOL LANDS.

See Public Lands, 8, 9.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE.
Use of evidence wrongfully obtained as
self incriminatory, see Criminal
Law, 4.

Use of evidence wrongfully obtained on
criminal trial, see Evidence, 10-12.
Of enemy property, see War.

1. The

constitutional guaranties against unreasonable searches and seizures and self crimination should be liberally construed. Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261, 65: 647

2. Search warrants may not be used as a means of gaining access to a man's house or office and papers, solely for the purpose of making search to secure evidence to be used against him in a criminal or penal proceeding, but they may be resorted to only when a primary right to such search and seizure may be found in the interest which the public or the complainant may have in the property to be

seized, or in the right to the possession, deau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465, 41 Sup. of it, or when a valid exercise of the police Ct. Rep. 574, 65: 1048 power renders possession of the property by the accussed unlawful, and provides that it may be taken. Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261,

65: 647 3. Private papers of no pecuniary value, in which the sole interest of the Federal government is their value as evidence against the owner in a contemplated criminal prosecution, may not, consistently with the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures, be taken from the owner's house or office under a search warrant. Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261,

65: 647

9. The constitutional rights of a person to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and self-crimination were not waived when his wife admitted to his home Federal officers, who came without warrant, demanding admission to make search of it under government authority, even assuming that it is possible for a wife, in the absence of her husband, thus to waive his constitutional rights, since, under the implied coercion here presented, no such waiver was intended or effected. Amos v. United States, 255 U. S. 313, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 266, 65: 654

SECONDARY BOYCOTT.

Injunction against, see Injunction, 8-10.
See also Monopoly, 3.

SECOND CLASS MAIL.
See Postoffice, 1-4.

SEIZURE.

See Search and Seizure.

SEWERS.

Enjoining discharge of sewage into harbor, see Injunction, 5.

4. Contracts may be so used as instruments or agencies for perpetrating frauds upon the government as to give the public an interest in them which would justify the search for and seizure of them under a properly issued search warrant for the purpose of preventing further frauds. Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261, 65: 647 5. The security afforded by U. S. SELF-DEFENSE. Const. 4th Amend., against unreasonable See Homicide. search and seizure, applies solely to governmental action. It is not invaded by the unlawful acts of individuals in which the government has no part. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 574, 65: 1048 6. The secret taking, without force, from the house or office of one suspected of crime, and in his absence, of a paper belonging to him, having evidential value only, by a representative of any branch or subdivision of the Federal government, violates the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures, whether entrance to such house or office be obtained by stealth or through social acquaintance, or in the guise of a business call, and whether the owner be present or not at the time of entry. Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261, 65: 647

SHERMAN ACT.

See Monopoly.

SHIPPING.

Admiralty jurisdiction generally, see
Admiralty.

Objection that vessel libeled was in
government service, see Admiralty,
1-3; Appeal and Error, 63.
Jurisdictional question respecting the
amenability of ship owned by for-
eign government to process of ad-
miralty court, see Appeal and Er-

ror, 12.

As to maritime liens, see Maritime
Liens.

Charter party.

1. Upon the designation of a particular ship conformably to a voyage charter party, there being no provision for substi tuting another ship, there is no obligation on the part of the owner to furnish, nor on the part of the charterer to accept, another ship. Texas Co. v. Hogarth Shipping Corp.

65: 1123

7. Property seized in the search of a private home by government agents without warrant of any kind, in plain violation of U. S. Const., 4th and 5th Amendments, should have been returned to the owner on his petition, presented by him after the jury in a criminal prosecution against him was impaneled, but before any evidence was offered. Amos v. United States, 255 U. S. 313, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 266, 65: 654 8. Constitutional guaranties against 256 U. S. 619, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612, unreasonable searches and seizures and self-incrimination will not be violated if 2. The requisition by the British govFederal prosecuting authorities to ernment of a British ship in British waters, whom incriminating papers stolen by pri- in invitum, for war use for a period likely vate persons have been delivered, retain to extend beyond the time for the intended them with a view to their use in a sub- voyage, dissolves a charter party entered sequent investigation by a grand jury where into in the United States by which the such papers will be part of the evidence shipowner agreed to furnish such ship for against the accused, and may be used such voyage, and excuses him from peragainst him upon trial should an indict-forming it. Texas Co. v. Hogarth Shipping ment be returned, the government having Corp. 256 U. S. 619, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612, had no part in the wrongful taking. Bur65: 1123

the

SLAVERY. debts due the state out of the general assets Involuntary servitude, see Constitution of the debtor in the custody of a receiver al Law, 78.

SPRINKLING STREETS.

appointed by a Federal court within the state extends to a claim for license taxes imposed upon a foreign corporation for the

As governmental function, see Munici- privilege of doing business within the state, pal Corporations, 2.

[blocks in formation]

Effect of admission.

Effect on Federal regulation of commerce, see Commerce, 4.

On Indian allotment, see Indians, 14. 1. To the extent that it pertained to internal affairs, the Ordinance of July 13, 1787, for the government of the Northwest Territory, notwithstanding its contractual form, was no more than a regulation of territory belonging to the United States, and was superseded by the admission of a state formed out of a part of said Northwest Territory, upon an equal footing with the original states. Economy Light & P. Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 113, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 409,

although the state may not have acquired a lien on such assets at the time they passed into the receiver's hands. Marshall v. New York, 254 U. S. 380, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 143, 65: 315

Right to sue.

5. The state of New York could maintain an original suit in the Federal Supreme Court to enjoin the state of New Jersey and its sewerage commissioners from discharging a large volume of sewage into the waters of upper New York bay, which, it is alleged, will cause such pollution of the waters of New York bay as to amount to a public nuisance which will result in grave injury to the health, property, and commercial welfare of the people of the state and city of New York. New York v. New Jersey, 256 U. S. 296, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 492, 65: 937

Immunity from suit.

Exemption of state from suit as de-
stroying uniformity of maritime
law, see Admiralty, 4.

As to removal of cause, see Removal of
Causes, 1.

6. The admiralty and maritime jurisof the rule that a state may not be sued diction is not exempt from the operation in personam without its consent by individuals, whether its own citizens or not. parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 588,

Ex

Priority as creditor.

65: 847

Federal courts following decisions of state courts as to, see Courts, 25,

26.

65: 1057

7. The entire judicial power granted by the Constitution does not embrace authority to entertain a suit brought by private parties against a state, without consent given, nor one brought by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign state, because of the 11th Amendment; and not even one brought by its own citizens, because of the fundamental rule of which the Amendment is but an exemplification. Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 588.

65: 1057

8. The immunity of a state from suit without its consent prevents a court of ad

miralty, in which libels have been filed against certain tugs for damages received by their tows upon the Erie canal, from proceeding against the superintendent of public works of the state of New York, who

2. The common-law priority of the state of New York over unsecured creditors in payment of all the debts due the state out of the assets of the debtor extends to all property of the debtor within the borders of the state, whether the debtor be a resident or a nonresident, and whether the property be in his possession or in custodia legis, and such priority is therefore enforceable against the property in the hands of a receiver appointed by a Federal court within the state. Marshall v. New York, 254 U. S. 380, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 143, 65: 315 3. Where the common-law prerogative right of the state of New York to priority was operating the tugs when the disaster over unsecured creditors in payment of all occurred, under charter parties authorized the debts due the state out of the assets by the state laws, where, the charters havof the debtor could not be enforced by levying since expired, at no time has any res and seizure because of the appointment of belonging to the state or to such officer, or a receiver by a Federal court within the in which they claim any interest, been atstate, an application to that court for pay- tached or brought under the jurisdiction of ment of the debt due was the appropriate the court, nor is any relief asked against remedy. Marshall v. New York, 254 U. S. such officer individually, the proceedings 380, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 143, 65: 315 against him being strictly in his capacity 4. The common-law prerogative right as a public officer. Ex parte New York, of the state of New York to priority over 356 U. S. 490, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 588, other unsecured creditors in payment of

65: 1057

Relation to Federal government.
Appellate jurisdiction of Federal

Supreme Court over state courts, see Appeal and Error, II. b, 2.

As respects control of interstate or foreign commerce, see Commerce. Conformity of state legislation to Federal Constitution generally, see

Constitutional Law. Federal estate tax as affecting right to regulate descent and distribution, see Internal Revenue, 3. State taxation of Federal agency or instrumentality, see Taxes, 4, 5. State taxation of national bank shares, see Taxes, 6.

Relative rights of state and United States in navigable waters, see Waters, 3, 4.

9. An employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment. Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U. S. 51, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 16, 65: 126

10. A state may not require a Postoffice employee to cease driving a government motor truck in the transportation of mail over a post road until he shall obtain a license by submitting to examination before a state official and paying a fee. Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U. S. 51, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 16,

65: 126

11. Congressional power is not usurped nor encroached upon by the enactment by a state of a statute making it unlawful to advocate or teach that men should not enlist in the military or naval forces of the United States or of the state, or that citizens of the state should not aid or assist the United States in prosecuting or carrying on war with the public enemies of the United States. Such statute renders a service to the people of the state, and may even be supported as a simple exercise of the police power to preserve the peace of the state. Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U. S. 325, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 125, 65: 287

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
See Limitation of Actions.

STATUTES.

As to constitutionality of statutes in

general, see Constitutional Law. Exclusiveness of statutory remedy, see Election of Remedies, 1.

Judicial notice of laws, see Evidence, 1,

2.

Implied repeal of statute respecting
constructive notice of Indian lease,
see Indians, 14.
Validity of territorial license tax, see
License, 2-5.

1. Every presumption is in favor of the legality of a statute, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Dane v. Jackson, 256 U. S. 589, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 566, 65: 1107 Who may assail validity.

2. A railway company which might constitutionally have been charged under the state laws with the whole expense of abolishing certain highway grade crossings may

not complain that not more than 10 per cent of the cost of abolishing three crossings used by a street railway is thrown upon the latter company. Erie R. Co. v. Public Utility Comrs. 254 U. S. 394, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 169, 65: 322

3. A state statute imposing a franchise tax upon domestic corporations cannot be assailed on the ground that the taxing statute did not in terms provide for a hearing, where the state tax commission accepted the corporation's own figures, and the contest is wholly upon matters of law. St. Louis-Dan Francisco R. Co. v. Middlekamp, 256 U. S. 226, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 489,

65: 905

4. A railway company taxed upon its own figures, in accordance with the statute, cannot complain that it was taxed disproportionately, as compared with other railways. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Middlekamp, 256 U. S. 226, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 489,

Construction.

65:905

Construction of re-enacted statute, see infra, 13.

Following decision below as to construc

tion of statute, see Appeal and Error, 30-33.

Following administrative construction, see Courts, 4.

Federal courts following state decisions as to, see Courts, 24, 28, 29. Following construction by Land Department, see Public Lands, 2.

5. The provisions of statutes levying taxes are not to be extended by implication. United States v. Field, 255 Ů. S. 257, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 256,

65: 617

6. Statutes must be judged by their contents, not by allegations as to their purpose in a complaint challenging their constitutionality. Alaska Fish Salting & By-Products Co. v. Smith, 255 U. S. 44, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 219, 65: 489

7. While criminal statutes are to be given a reasonable construction, ambiguities are not to be solved so as to embrace offenses not clearly within the law. Krichman v. United States, 256 U. S. 363, 41 Sup. 65: 992 Ct. Rep. 514,

of Representatives or of the Senate may
8. Reports of committees of the House
lative intent in a case where otherwise the
be regarded as an exposition of the legis
meaning of a statute is obscure, as may
also explanatory statements in the nature
committee member in charge of a bill in
of a supplemental report, made by the
course of passage. Duplex Printing Press
Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 41 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 172,
65: 345

Prospective or retrospective.

9. Constructions permitted before as well as after the passage of the Act of September 1, 1916, were comprehended by the provision of § 7 of that act, empowering the commissioners of the District of Columbia to assess and collect rent from users of space occupied under the sidewalks and streets in the District, in connection with the business of the users. District of Colum

bia v. R. P. Andrews Paper Co. 256 U. S
582, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 545,
65: 1103
Invalid in part.

10. A single excise tax imposed upon the sale and use of gasolene according to the number of gallons sold and used, while invalid so far as the gasolene is sold in the tank cars or other original packages in which the gasolene was brought into the state, is enforceable to the extent that it imposes the tax úpon gasolene sold at retail in quantities to suit customers, not in the original packages. Bowman v. Continental Oil Co. 256 U. S. 642, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 606, 65: 1139

11. The invalidity as respects interstate
commerce of the annual license tax imposed
by N. M. Laws 1919, chap. 93, upon gaso-
lene distributing stations or places of busi-
ness, with a prohibition against further
conduct of the business without making the
required payment, renders the tax unen-
forceable also as to the domestic commerce
of a dealer who conducts his interstate and
domestic business indiscriminately at the
same stations and by the same agencies.
Bowman v. Continental Oil Co. 256 U. S.
642, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 606,
65: 1139
Repeal.

Implied repeal of venue provision of
Interstate Commerce Act,

see

to the health, property, and commercial
welfare of the people of the state and city
of New York, it was within the authority of
the Attorney General to agree that the
United States should retire from the case
upon terms stated in a stipulation on behalf
of the state of New Jersey, which were
plainly approved by the Secretary of War,
who afterward embodied them in a construc-
tion permit issued to the sewerage commis-
sioners. New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.
S. 296, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 492,
65: 937

STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS.
See Corporations.

STREET RAILWAYS.

Municipal election authorizing acquisition of street railway and issue of bonds, see Bonds.

Taxation of franchise as affecting inter

state commerce, see Commerce, 16. Requiring removal of street railway tracks from city streets as afford

ing due process of law, see Constitutional Law, 39-41.

Due process of law in rate regulation, see Constitutional Law, 58-61. Federal jurisdiction of suit to enjoin municipal rate regulation, Courts, 19.

see

Courts, 18.

Implied repeal of Indian Allotment Acts,
see Indians, 10.
Implied repeal of revenue laws by Na-
tional Prohibition Act, see Internal
Revenue, 26.

Estoppel to deny extension of street
railway franchise, see Estoppel, 4.

Franchise.

1. Street railway construction and operation under day-to-day arrangements 12. Existing penal statutes are repealed with the municipality by which continued by later ones covering practically the same operation was permitted, notwithstanding acts, but fixing lesser penalties. United the expiration of franchise rights, could States v. Yuginovich, 256 U. S. 450, 41 Sup. give the street railway company no extended Ct. Rep. 551. 65: 1043 franchise in the streets, where it was exRe-enactment. pressly provided that the permits granted might be revoked, and that action under the day-to-day agreement should not waive the rights of either party. Detroit United R. Co. v. Detroit, 255 U. S. 171, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 285, 65: 570

13. Where provisions of a statute had, previous to their re-enactment, a settled significance, that meaning will attach to them in the absence of plain implication to the contrary. Heald v. District of Columbia, 254 U. S. 20, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 42,

STIPULATION.

(Annotated) 65: 106

1. A stipulation executed by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners under sanction of a special act of the New Jersey legislature, and entered of record by the state's special counsel in a suit in the Federal Supreme Court, must be regarded as a valid obligation of the state as certainly as of the commisioners. New York v. New Jersey, 256 U. S. 296, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 492, 65: 937

2. The Federal government having properly intervened in a suit begun by the state of New York in the Federal Supreme Court, to enjoin the state of New Jersey and its sewerage commissioners from discharging a large volume of sewage into the waters of upper New York bay, which, it is alleged, will cause such pollution of the waters of New York bay as to amount to a public nuisance which will result in grave injury

2. An ordinance looking to the continued operation, for a limited period, of a street railway system after the franchises had expired, which, by its express terms, provided for amendment or repeal, and that, unless amended or repealed, such ordinance should remain in force for the period of one year, could not, after that period, give any rights to the street railway company in the streets where the franchises have expired. Detroit United R. Co. v. Detroit, 255 U. S. 171, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 285,

65:570

3. A decree intended only to provide a temporary arrangement by which cars might be operated by a street railway company on streets where its franchises have expired, could give no extended franchises in such streets, where it is expressly stated in such decree that it did not affect any fundamental rights of the parties in and to the city streets as they had at that time existed, the intention being to provide for the rate of fare at which cars should be

« ForrigeFortsett »