Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

v. Sherman, 11 Cal. App. 402, 105 Pac. 277; Riverdale Reclamation Dist. v. Shimmin, 24 Cal. App. 596, 141 Pac. 1070; Inglin v. Hoppin, 156 Cal. 483, 105 Pac. 582.

The assessment was not constitutionally defective because the plan contemplated, among other things, débris control.

People ex rel. Chapman v. Sacramento Drainage Dist. 155 Cal. 373, 103 Pac. 207. The mere fact that the comprehensive plan, when completed, may not be effectual, presents no reason for avoiding the assessment.

tablish drainage districts and tax lands therein for local improvements, and that none of such lands may escape liability solely because they will not receive direct benefits. The allegations of the original [131] complaint are wholly insufficient to raise the issue in respect of arbitrary legislative action presented bv Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia & S. M. Drainage Dist. 239 U. S. 478, 60 L. ed. 392, L.R.A.1918E, 190, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 204.

The petition for certiorari is denied and the writ of error is dismissed.

Reclamation Dist. v. Birks, 159 Cal. 241, 113 Pac. 170; Houck v. Little River RE NATIONAL PARK BANK of New Drainage Dist. 239 U. S. 254, 60 L. ed. 266, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58.

[130] Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court:

York, Petitioner.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 131-133.)

[blocks in formation]

The failure of a Federal circuit court

of appeals in its decree to dispose of one of the claims in suit will not be corrected by mandamus, where the relator failed adequately to call the court's attention to such omission during the term, or to seek relief in the Federal Supreme Court by petition for a writ of certiorari.

[For other cases, see Mandamus, II. b, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

ON

[No. 28, Original.]

1921.

N PETITION for a Writ of ManCircuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth damus to require the United States Circuit to enter a final judgment disposing of one of the claims in suit. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

This cause is here upon writ of error to the supreme court of the state of California, 182 Cal. 252, 187 Pac. 1041. There is also an application for certiorari, but, under the settled practice, no adequate grounds therefor are shown. By the Act of August 10, 1913 (Stat. 1913, p. 252), the legislature of California undertook to create the Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District, including 1,725,553 acres along the general course of the Sacramento and San Argued March 15, 1921. Decided April 11, Joaquin rivers, and particularly an extensive area south of Stockton. The reclamation board, appointed as directed by the statute, levied a tax of $250,000 for general preliminary expenses incidental to the project, and appointed assessors to apportion the same. Certain of plaintiff in error's lands lying south of Stockton were assessed at 5 cents per acre, and to annul this assessment it began the present proceeding. In support of the writ of error, reliance is placed upon the contention that, as construed by the state courts, the Act of 1913 denies plaintiff in error opportunity to show that its lands will receive no special or direct benefits from the proposed works, and therefore conflicts with the 14th Amendment. But we think that when the writ was sued out (May, 1920), this claim had already become too unsubstantial to support our jurisdiction as defined by the Act of September 6, 1916 (39 Stat. at L. 726, chap. 448, Comp. Stat. § 1207). Since Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist. (1915) 239 U. S. 254, 60 L. ed. 266, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58, the doctrine has been definitely settled that, in the absence of flagrant abuse or purely arbitrary action, a state may es

Mr. Edwin V. Guinan argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Louis F. Doyle, I. H. Burney, R. W. Flournoy, and Warren Bigelow, filed a brief for petitioner. No brief was filed for respondent.

Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the

opinion of the court:

The National Park Band of New York filed in this court a petition for a writ

Note. As to when mandamus is the proper remedy, generally-see notes to United States ex rel. International Contracting Co. v. Lamont, 39 L. ed. U. S. 160; McCluny v. Silliman, 4 L. ed. U. S. 263; Fleming v. Gathrie, 3 L.R.A. 54; Burnsville Turnp. Co. v. State, 3 L.R.A. 265; State ex rel. Charleston, C. & C. R. Co. v. Whitesides, 3 L.R.A. 777; and Ex parte Hun, 13 L.R.A. 120.

of mandamus, directed to the United, that term of court. In November, 1920, States circuit court of appeals for the after the city filed in the district court fifth circuit. A rule to show cause was a motion for judgment on the mandate, granted (256 U. S. -, post, 41 Sup. the bank applied to the circuit court of Ct. Rep. 317), and the case is now here appeals for permission to file a motion on the petition and the return. in which it called attention to the failure to pass specifically upon the claim to the Davidson tract, and contended that the decree entered at the preceding term was, for that reason, not final, and should be modified. The circuit court of appeals denied leave to file the motion, and this petition for a writ of mandamus was then brought to require the circuit court of appeals to enter a final judgment disposing of the Davidson tract.

[132] In order to satisfy a judgment against the Reid Cattle Company the bank brought suit against it and the city of Fort Worth, in the Federal court for the northern district of Texas, to have certain lands to which the city held title declared property of the company, and subject to the payment of its debts. The lands comprised about 30,000 acres, and had been deeded to the city by Baldridge. He had received conveyances of all the lands except one It is clear that the rule granted must 640-acre tract, either directly or indi- be discharged. The decree entered by rectly from the company; and it was the circuit court of appeals was, in the alleged that all the lands, including that light of its opinion, a final one, and tract, had been conveyed to him either disposed of all the issues before it. in trust for the company or in fraud of That court was powerless to modify the its creditors. The district court, find- decree after the expiration of the term ing that all the lands had been held in at which it was entered. If the omistrust for the company, and that the city sion in the decree had been adequately was not a purchaser for value without called to the court's attention during the notice, decreed that all the lands be sub-term, it would doubtless have corrected jected to payment of the company's debts. Upon appeal by the city, the circuit court of appeals found that the lands had not been conveyed in trust for the company; but it affirmed the decree in part and reversed it in part. 261 Fed. 817. The decree was affirmed so far as it related to lands conveyed by the company by deed of August 25, 1914, on the ground that such conveyance was in fraud of creditors. The decree was reversed so far as it related to lands conveyed by deed of the company dated December 7, 1911, on the ground that this conveyance left the company solvent. The opinion and the decree omitted to make specific reference to the 640-acre tract, the legal title to which had never been in the company, but had stood in the name of Davidson, and had been conveyed to Baldridge by deed of October 13, 1913.

the error complained of; or relief might have been sought in this court by a petition for a writ of certiorari. The bank failed to avail itself of remedies open to it. A petition for writ of mandamus will not be granted under such circumstances. Re Riddle, decided March 21, 1921 [ 255 U. S. 450, ante, 725, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370].

Rule discharged.

Petition dismissed.

[134]

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY
COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

V.

MCGREW COAL COMPANY.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 134, 135.)

Error to state court scope of review

local law.

The objection, in an action by a shipper against a carrier for overcharges. brought under a state long-and-short-haul freight charges, and therefore was not damstatute, that the shipper did not pay

The decision of the court of appeals was rendered December 2, 1919. A motion for a rehearing of the whole case was made, and it contained, among other contentions, a slight reference to the fail-aged, raises no substantial Federal quesure to dispose of the Davidson tract. That motion was overruled January 13, 1920. No attempt was made to stay the mandate, which issued [133] in due course and was filed in the district court February 2, 1920. The term of the circuit court of appeals did not end until September 1, 1920, but no further application of any kind was made during

Note. On the general subject of writs of error from the United States Supreme Court to state courts-see notes to Martin v. Hunter, 4 L. ed. U. S. 97; Hamblin v. Western Land Co. 37 L. ed. U. S. 267; Re Buchanan, 39 L. ed. U. S. 884, and Kipley v. Illinois, 42 L ed. U. S. 998.

tion, but a question of state law, which 16, 20, 60 L. ed. 865. 867, 36 Sup. Ct. the Federal Supreme Court has no juris- Rep. 486.

diction to review on writ of error to a

state court.

[For other cases, see Appeal and Error, 20702226, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

[No. 265.]

Argued March 1, 1921. Decided April 11,

IN

1921.

IN ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri to review a judgment which affirmed a judgment of the Circuit Court of Lafayette County, in that state, in favor of the shipper in an action against a carrier to recover for overcharges. Affirmed.

See same case below, 280 Mo. 466, 13 A.L.R. 283, 217 S. W. 984.

Mr. Edward J. White argued the cause, and, with Messrs. James F. Green and Harvey C. Clark, filed a brief for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edwin A. Krauthoff argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Z. Lewis Dalby, William S. McClintock, and Arthur L. Quant, filed a brief for defendant in er

ror.

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by Mr. Justice Brandeis:

In this action by a shipper, brought under the long-and-short-haul statute of Missouri, a judgment for the overcharges, [135] entered by the trial court, was affirmed by the highest court of the state.

The case comes here on writ of error, the railroad contending that the statute as construed violates rights secured to it by the Federal Constitution. The only Federal question which was substantial and properly raised below was decided adversely to the railroad's contention in Missouri P. R. Co. v. McGrew Coal Co. 244 U. S. 191, 61 L. ed. 1075, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 518, a case between the same parties and involving transactions precisely similar. The objection now made, that the shipper did not pay freight charges, and therefore was not damaged, raised no substantial Federal question, but a question of state law, which we have no jurisdiction to review. See Osborne v. Gray, 241 U. S.

On what questions the Federal Supreme Court will consider in reviewing the judgments of state courts-see note to Missouri ex rel. Hill v. Dockery, 63 L.R.A. 571.

And see note to this case in the state court, as reported in 13 A.L.R. 283.

Affirmed.

JULIUS BLOCK, Trading and Carrying on Business under the Name and Style of Whites, Plff. in Err.,

V.

LOUIS HIRSH.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 135-170.)

relation to other department Courts of government — legislative declaration.

1. A legislative declaration of facts that are material only as the ground for enacting a rule of law, for instance, that a certain use is a public one, may not be held conclusive by the courts, but a declaraditions that, by necessity and duty, it must tion by a legislature concerning public conknow, is entitied at least to great respect.

[For other cases, see Courts, I. e, 3, a, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Constitutional law public interest.

police power

2. Circumstances may so change in time or so differ in space as to clothe with a public interest so great as to justify regulation by law an interest which, at other times or in other places, would be a matter of purely private concern. [For other cases, see Constitutional Law, IV. c, 2, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Constitutional law

police power due process of law emergency legislation rent laws — public interest. 3. The emergency growing out of the World War clothed the letting of buildings in the District of Columbia with a public interest so great as to justify, despite U. S. Const., 5th Amend., such temporary regulation as is made by the Act of October 22, 1919, tit. 2, § 109 (to remain in force two years unless sooner repealed), giving a

Note. As to constitutionality of rent laws-see notes to Hirsh v. Block, 11 A.L.R. 1238, and Block v. Hirsh, 16

A.L.R. 178.

As to the validity of class legislation, generally-see notes to State v. Goodwill, 6 L.R.A. 621, and State v. Loomis, 21 L.R.A. 789.

As to constitutional right of trial by jury-see notes to Thompson v. Utah, 42 L. ed. U. S. 1061; Perego v. Dodge, 41 L. ed. U. S. 113; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Shane, 39 L. ed. U. S. 727; Eilenbecker v. District Ct. 33 L. ed. U. S. 891; and Justices of Supreme Ct. v. United States, 19 L. ed. U. S. 658.

As to validity and construction of war legislation in aid of moratory statute-see note to Thress v. Zemple, 9 A.L.R. 6.

865

tenant the privilege of holding over after | Bank v. Craig, 181 U. S. 548, 553, 45 L. ed. 994, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 703; League v. Texas, 184 U. S. 158, 46 L. ed. 480, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Tranbarger, 238 U. S. 67, 59 L. ed. 1204, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678; New York C. R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188, 61 L. ed. 667, L.R.A.1917D, 1, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247, 13 N. C. C. A. 943.

Law.

the expiration of the lease, subject to regu-
lation by the commission appointed by that
act, so long as he pays the rent and per-
forms the conditions as fixed by the lease,
or as modified by the commission.
[For other cases, see Constitutional
IV. b, 7; IV. c, 3, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]
Constitutional law police power
emergency temporary regulation.
4. A limit in time to tide over a pass-
ing trouble may justify a law that could
not be upheld as a permanent change.
[For other cases, see Constitutional

Law,

IV. c, 1, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Jury trial infringement of right emergency legislation

rent laws.

5. Temporary emergency legislation, like the Act of October 22, 1919, tit. 2; § 109, giving a tenant in the District of Columbia the privilege of holding over after the expiration of the lease, subject to regulation by the commission appointed by that act, so long as he pays the rent and performs the conditions as fixed by the lease or as modified by the commission, is not invalid merely because landlords and tenants are deprived by it of a trial by jury on the right to possession of the land. [For other cases, see Jury, I. d, 1, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

[No. 640.]

Having failed to give the thirty-day notice, defendant in error cannot question the constitutionality of the regulatory provisions of the statute.

Arkadelphia Mill. Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. 249 U. S. 134, 63 L. ed. 517, P.U.R.1919C, 710, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237; Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Blagg, 235 U. S. 571, 576, 59 L. ed. 364, 368, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 167, 7 N. C. C. A. 570; Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 531, 544, 545, 58 L. ed. 713, 719, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 359; Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. 540, 550, 56 L. ed. 1197, 1201, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 784; Southern R. Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 534, 54 L. ed. 872, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 47 L. ed. 70, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 20; Tyler v. Judges of Ct. of Registration, 179 U. S. 405, 45

Argued March 3, 1921. Decided April 18, L. ed. 252, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 206; New

1921.

IN
N ERROR to the Court of Appeals of
the District of Columbia to review a
judgment which, on a second appeal,
affirmed a judgment of the Supreme
Court of the District in favor of plain-
tiff, in a proceeding brought to recover
possession of certain premises from a
tenant holding over after the expiration
of the lease. Reversed.

See same case below, on first appeal,
50 App. D. C., 11 A.L.R. 1238, 267
Fed. 614; on second appeal, 50 App.
D. C., 267 Fed. 631.

York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 51 L. ed. 415, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 56 L. ed. 439, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 286.

The regulatory provisions of the act constitute a valid exercise of the war powers of Congress.

Stewart v. Kahn (Stewart v. Bloom) 11 Wall. 507, 20 L. ed. 179; Northern P. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135, 149, 63 L. ed. 897, 903, P.U.R.1919D, 305, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 502, 18 N. C. C. A. 878; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 156, 64 L. ed. 199, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Selective United Draft Law Cases (Arver v. States) 245 U. S. 366, 62 L. ed. 352, L.R.A.1918C, 361, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 159, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 856.

The owner's rights over real property are not absolute.

The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Jesse C. Adkins argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Julius I. Peyser, George E. Edelin, and Theodore D. Peyser, filed a brief for plaintiff in error: The requirement that, during the emergency period created by the war, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsthe owner of any rental property in the District of Columbia desiring posses-boro, 232 U. S. 561, 58 L. ed. 721, 34 sion must give thirty days' notice to the Sup. Ct. Rep. 364; Rideout v. Knox, 148 tenant, is a mere change in remedy, and Mass. 368, 2 L.R.A. 81, 12 Am. St. Rep. does not deprive the owner of property. 560, 19 N. E. 390; St. Louis Poster AdThomas v. Black, 8 Houst. (Del.) 507, vertising Co. v. St. Louis, 249 U. S. 269, 18 Atl. 771; Bonsall v. McKay, 1 Houst. 63 L. ed. 599, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 274; (Del.) 520; Roberts v. Grubb, 5 Houst. Freund, Pol. Power, §§ 118, 127, 128: (Del.) 461; Rich v. Keyser, 54 Pa. 86; Perley v. North Carolina, 249 U. S. 510, Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 63 L. ed. 735, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; 236, 4 L. ed. 559; Red River Valley Nat. I Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232

256 U. S.

U. S. 531, 58 L. ed. 713, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. | Cas. 1912C, 160; Walls v. Midland Car

359.

The control over personal property is just as great.

Goldsmith-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 505, ante, 376, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189.

The owner's right to transfer his property is greatly limited.

Lemieux v. Young, 211 U. S. 489, 53 L. ed. 295, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co. 242 U. S. 539, 6 L. ed. 480, L.R.A.1917F, 514, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 217, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 643; State v. Heldenbrand, 62 Neb. 136, 89 Am. St. Rep. 743, 87 N. W. 25; Com. v. Hodges, 137 Ky. 233, 125 S. W. 689; House v. Mayes, 227 Mo. 641, 127 S. W. 305; State v. Mullins, 87 S. C. 512, 70 S. E. 9; Fed. Trade Com. v. Fed. Chemical & Color Co. 2 Fed. Trade Com. Dec. 71; Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U. S. 510, 60 L. ed. 771, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 440, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 548. If, during the emergency, the business of renting real property in the District of Columbia holds such a peculiar relation to the public interest as to justify it, there will be superinduced upon that business the right of public regulation. German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389, 411, 58 L. ed. 1011, 1021, L.R.A.1915C, 1189, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612; People v. Budd, 117 N. Y. 27, 5 L.R.A. 559, 22 N. E. 670, 143 U. S. 517, 36 L. ed. 247, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 45, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468; Beale & W. Railroad Rate Regulation, §§ 2, 7-11, 18, 27, 35; Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 42 L. ed. 260, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 864; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 592, 50 L. ed. 609, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341, 4 Ann. Cas. 1175; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. ed. 77; State Public Utilities Commission v. Monarch Refrigerating Co. 267 Ill. 534, P.U.R.1915D, 119, 108 N. E. 716, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 528; Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391, 410, 38 L. ed. 757, 763, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 670, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 857; State ex rel. Martin v. Howard, 96 Neb. 293, 147 N. W. 689; Nash v. Page, 80 Ky. 547, 44 Am. Rep. 490; Com. v. Hodges, 137 Ky. 244, 125 S. W. 689; Douglas Park Jockey Club v. Talbott, 173 Ky, 685, 191 S. W. 474; Davis v. State, 68 Ala. 63, 44 Am. Rep. 128; State v. Mullins, 87 S. C. 512, 70 S. E. 9; Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U. S. 190, 44 L. ed. 729, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 576, 20 Mor. Min. Rep. 466; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. S. 61, 55 L. ed. 369, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann.

bon Co. 254 U. S. 300, ante, 276, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118; Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 311, 51 L. ed. 499, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; Rast v. Van Deman & L. Co. 240 U. S. 342, 60 L. ed. 679, L.R.A. 1917A, 421, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Tanner v. Little, 240 U. S. 369, 60 L. ed. 691, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 379; Jones v. Portland, 245 U. S. 217, 62 L. ed. 252, L.R.A.1918C, 765, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 112, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 660; Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233, 64 L. ed. 878, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 49 L. ed. 1085, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, 4 Ann. Cas. 1171; Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. 200 U. S. 527, 50 L. ed. 581, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 4 Ann. Cas. 1174; Offield v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 203 U. S. 372, 377, 51 L. ed. 231, 236, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 575, 55 L. ed. 112, 341, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1062, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186, 299, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487; Perley v. North Carolina, 249 U. S. 510, 63 L. ed. 735, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; American Coal Min. Co. v. Special Coal & Food Commission, 268 Fed. 563; Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U. S. 331, 64 L. ed. 596, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 338; Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, post, 877, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465.

The business of renting property in the District of Columbia during the emergency has arisen to such public importance that the principle may be applied.

Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 132, 24 L. ed. 86; Rast v. Van Deman & L. Co. 240 U. S. 365, 60 L. ed. 679, L.R.A.1917A, 421, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, post, 877, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; American Coal Min. Co. v. Special Coal & Food Commission, 268 Fed. 563.

Mr. William G. Johnson argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Myer Cohen and Richard D. Daniels, filed a brief for defendant in error:

The legislation of Congress, relied upon by defendant in error, is unconstitutional and void.

Missouri P. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403, 41 L. ed. 489, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 130; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 1 L. ed. 648; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 627, 7 L. ed. 542; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 37 L. ed. 163, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales, 230 U. S. 139, 57

« ForrigeFortsett »