sale of nonintoxicating malt liquors within State; State v. Smith, 233 Mo. 266, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 179, 135 S. W. 471, upholding act of 1901 making it misdemeanor to practice medicine or surgery or treat sick persons without license, though construed to include those who treat sick without use of medicine or surgery; State v. Miner, 233 Mo. 333, 135 S. W. 487, upholding act of 1907 prohibiting bucket-shops wherein pretended sales and purchases of certain commodities are made; Wheeler & Motter Merc. Co. v. Moon, 49 Mont. 313, 141 Pac. 668, upholding bulk sales law of Montana of 1907; Lawson v. Halifax-Tonopah Min. Co., 36 Nev. 603, 135 Pac. 615, upholding law of 1912 providing that no contract of employment, insurance, relief, benefit or indemnity nor acceptance of benefit under such contract shall constitute defense to action for personal injuries by employee; People v. Charles Schweinler Press, 214 N. Y. 407, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 1059, 108 N. E. 642, upholding law prohibiting employment of women in factory before 6 o'clock in morning or after 10 o'clock in evening; Noble v. Ft. Smith Wholesale Grocery Co., 34 Okl. 667, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 455, 127 Pac. 16, upholding bulk sales law of Oklahoma of 1908; Motlow v. State, 125 Tenn. 582, 585, 587, 145 S. W. 186, 187, 188, upholding act of 1909 prohibiting manufacture for sale of intoxicat、 ing liquor, including vinous, spirituous or malt liquors, except alcohol of not less than 188-proof; Pennell v. State, 141 Wis. 39, 123 N. W. 116, upholding statute of 1898 prohibiting sale of spirituous, malt, ardent or intoxicating liquors in no license territory, and holding sale of fermented malt liquor was violation of statute; dissenting opinion in Bracey v. Darst, 218 Fed. 498, majority holding act of West Virginia of 1913, known as blue sky law, relating to sales of stocks, bonds and debentures within State, is void; dissenting opinion in Eidge v. Bessemer, 164 Ala. 622, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 394, 51 South, 254, majority holding ordinance prohibiting keeping of intoxicants at places where drinks or beverages are sold is void; dissenting opinion in Wright v. Hart, 182 N. Y. 350, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 338, 75 N. E. 411, majority holding void Laws 1902, c. 528, p. 1249, providing sale other than in ordinary course of business void against seller's creditors unless five days' notice given with inventory. Distinguished in State v. Ramseyer, 73 N. H. 36, 58 Atl. 961, holding void Laws 1899, c. 60, §§ 1, 2, p. 298, prohibiting giving away trading stamps with purchase of merchandise; dissenting opinion in Wiseman v. Tanner, 221 Fed. 709, 710, majority upholding act of State of Washington of 1914 prohibiting employment agency from receiving fee for furnishing employment or information leading to such employment. valid. Judicial inquiry into wisdom or policy of statute or motives prompting its enactment. Note, 1 Ann. Cas. 571. Illinois Criminal Code, section 130, prohibiting option to buy futures, is Approved in State v. McGinnis, 138 N. C. 727, 51 S. E. 51, following rule; Ah Sin v. Wittman, 198 U. S. 506, 49 L. Ed. 1145, 25 Sup. Ct. 756, 1017 GOODRICH v. DETROIT. 184 U. S. 432-441 upholding ordinance making it unlawful to visit barricaded room where gambling implements exposed to view; In re Finley, 1 Cal. App. 200, 81 Pac. 1042, upholding Pen. Code, § 246, imposing death penalty where one serving life sentence in State prison commits assault with deadly weapon; Weare Commission Co. v. People, 209 Ill. 546, 70 N. E. 1082, upholding 1 Starr & C. Ann. Stats. 1896, c. 38, par. 262, making it unlawful to maintain office where pretended buying or selling on margin may be conducted; People v. Lochner, 177 N. Y. 149, 69 N. E. 374, upholding Laws 1897, p. 485, limiting hours of bakery employees to sixty per week and ten per day. 184 U. S. 432-441, 46 L. Ed. 627, 22 Sup. Ct. 397, GOODRICH v. DETROIT. Notice to property owners of resolution fixing gross amount of assessment is not necessary where statute provides for hearing on apportionment. Approved in St. Louis etc. Land Co. v. Kansas City, 241 U. S. 427, 430, 60 L. Ed. 1079, 1080, 36 Sup. Ct. 647, in supplemental proceeding to assess certain lands for benefits of street widening, refusal to reopen original proceeding, including condemnation and assessment of benefits and requiring notice to property owners within district benefited, was not denial of due process; Londoner v. Denver, 210 U. S. 378, 52 L. Ed. 1109, 28 Sup. Ct. 708, city charter authorizing finding by council, without notice to land owners, that proper petition was filed for making street improvement, is not denial of due process where hearing upon assessment itself is afforded; Schaefer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 518, 47 L. Ed. 572, 23 Sup. Ct. 450, upholding "Barrett Law" of Indiana of 1899 for assessing cost of improvements against abutting property according to frontage; Brook v. Oakland, 160 Cal. 429, 430, 117 Pac. 435, act of 1911 authorizing city council to create sewer district for special taxation to pay bonds for construction of sewer without providing hearing to persons interested on question of limits of district and exclusion of property therefrom if not benefited, denies due process; Londoner v. Denver, 52 Colo. 25, 119 Pac. 159, municipality was authorized to create park district and make assessments upon land benefited, and property owner is entitled to hearing only upon apportionment of tax; Manners v. Waterbury, 86 Conn. 575, 576, 86 Atl. 15, owner of property not touching proposed new highway is not entitled to notice of proceedings to survey street, but assessment of benefits without notice was void; State v. Seehorn, 246 Mo. 584, 151 S. W 728, 729, on appeal from decision in supplemental proceeding to assess for benefits certain lands erroneously assessed or omitted in original proceeding, including condemnation and assessment, writ of prohibition is granted to prevent circuit judge from retrying question of amount of damages awarded to owners of property condemned; Durkee v. Barre, 81 Vt. 537, 71 Atl. 821, law of 1906 authorizing city council to determine without notice to property owners, whether paving of certain street is for public good is not denial of due process where notice is required for mak ing of assessment; Adams v. Roanoke, 102 Va. 64, 45 S. E. 885, upholding under acts of 1896 and 1900, adopting frontage rule. Validity of special assessment levied by front foot instead of according to benefit. Note, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 656. 184 U. S. 441-450, 46 L. Ed. 632, 22 Sup. Ct. 422, UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ. Unexplained delay of seven years amounts to waiver of claim for pecuniary judgment. Approved in Sena v. United States, 189 U. S. 241, 47 L. Ed. 791, 23 Sup. Ct. 599, holding Court of Private Land Claims cannot confirm Spanish land grant where grantee's descendants abandoned possession nine years before Mexican treaty, never regaining same. Claimant to Mexican land grant seeking to confirm title, under act of 1891, is subject to condition of recognizing validity of grants within claim by United States and recovering specified price therefor. Distinguished in Richardson v. Ainsa, 218 U. S. 298, 54 L. Ed. 1047, 31 Sup. Ct. 23 (affirming 11 Ariz. 364, 95 Pac. 104), while, under act of 1891, claimant of Mexican land grant in Gadsden Purchase presenting claim to Court of Claims does so on condition of recognizing validity of grants of lands within his grant by United States and recovery of specified price, in suit by government to set aside grant to which title was perfected before treaty, patents issued by government to lands within boundaries of his grant are void. 184 U. S. 450-496, 46 L. Ed. 636, 22 Sup. Ct. 354, O'BRIEN v. WHEELOCK. Court refuses to assent to doctrine of legislation by estoppel by enforcing void law as to certain parties. Approved in Sellers v. Cox, 127 Ga. 252, 56 S. E. 286, taxpayer is not estopped by accepting benefits under invalid law creating school district to question validity of law as to future expenses to be incurred in operation of schools. Distinguished in Shepard v. Barron, 194 U. S. 569, 570, 571, 48 L. Ed. 1121, 1122, 24 Sup. Ct. 737, petitioners for street work recognizing justice of assessment will not then be heard to object because levied according to frontage rule. Estoppel of property owner to attack validity of special assessment. Who may raise objection to constitutionality of statute or ordinance. Under State construction of Constitution, Illinois act of 1871 was void and lands intended to be benefited could not be assessed to pay bonds issued under such act. Approved in George A. Shaw & Co. v. Cleveland etc. Ry. Co., 173 Fed. 749, 97 C. C. A. 520, following State court's construction of State Con 1019 O'BRIEN v. WHEELOCK. 184 U. S. 450-496 stitution as to rights arising after such construction and holding statute of Ohio giving absolute lien to subcontractor upon property of railroad for supplies or materials furnished for its construction at instance of contractor and contrary to contract between owner and contractor is void as abridgment of liberty of contract; Frank v. Butler Co., 139 Fed. 125, 71 C. C. A. 571, where Constitution provides for county bonds to aid railroad, State auditor to certify bond, failure to have certification makes bond nonenforceable; Drainage Commission v. National Contracting Co., 133 Fed. 786, under Act La. 1896, No. 114, p. 162, creating drainage commission to provide drainage system, commission could not consent to substitution of cheaper material than contract called for; dissenting opinion in Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U. S. 523, 48 L. Ed. 285, 24 Sup. Ct. 163, majority holding Federal decree based on effect of State judgment enjoining like taxes is conclusive while it remains in force. Land owners herein received no benefits from insufficient levee so as to authorize recovery in suit to enforce assessments made under invalid Illinois act of 1871, on theory of implied contract. Approved in Snouffer & Ford v. Tipton, 150 Iowa, 76, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 414, 129 N. W. 347, contractor for street paving cannot bring action of quantum meruit to recover value of pavement on theory that failure to comply substantially with terms of contract was fault of city in not pointing out defects; Roeder v. Robertson, 202 Mo. 535, 100 S. W. 1089, where foreign corporation sells goods within State without complying with statute and subsequently conveys title to purchaser with notice of facts, purchaser of title cannot recover from purchaser of goods as for conversion until payments made by latter have been returned; Young v. Gaus, 134 Mo. App. 173, 113 S. W. 737, officers of corporation transacting business within State without complying with law relating to foreign corporations and making note to corporation which is transferred to bona fide purchaser are estopped to assert invalidity of note as defense in suit on note. Laches depend not on mere lapse of time, but change of situation rendering it inequitable to afford relief. Approved in United States v. One Case Chemical Compound, 203 Fed. 65, where imported Citroline is seized and sold for undervaluation upon mistake of fact, not discovered until decision of infringement suit holding Citroline is not Ionone, delay for five years thereafter in suing for proceeds still in possession of government is not such laches as will bar recovery; Waller v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 229 Fed. 90, 91, 92, suit by holder of bonds of railroad secured by mortgage on its property brought forty years after date of bonds against another railroad is barred by laches; Schwartz v. Loftus, 216 Fed. 326, 132 C. C. A. 464, absence of administratrix from State was sufficient excuse for delay and suit against administratrix to establish statutory liability of deceased stockholder of insolvent corporation was not barred by laches; Central R. Co. v. Mayor etc. of Jersey City, 199 Fed. 245, railroad's delay of several years in suing city for discrimination in taxing its property is not laches barring recovery where, during that time, it was litigating right of city to tax property at all and pending litigation no attempt to collect taxes was made; United States Casualty Co. v. Charleston etc. Mfg. Co., 183 Fed. 249, suit for recovery of premiums on employer's liability insurance policies, where premiums were to be computed on pay-rolls during term of policies, is not barred by laches on ground that pay-rolls have been destroyed; Peralta v. California, 182 Fed. 764, 105 C. C. A. 491, suit brought thirty years after issuance of patents to heirs of grantee of Spanish land grant, to recover portions of land included by fraudulent surveys, is barred by laches; Thurmond v. Chesapeake etc. Ry. Co., 140 Fed. 699, 72 C. C. A. 191, bill brought after sixteen years to enforce contract by which railroad agreed to build station dismissed on ground of laches; Smith v. Emery, 106 Me. 262, 76 Atl. 687, suit brought in 1907 to compel accounting by alleged equitable mortgagee under deed recorded in 1897 is barred by laches where mortgagee's bond for reconveyance was assigned in 1900 to one making assignment to complainant in 1907; Crow v. Crow, 70 Or. 555, 139 Pac. 861, person alleging land was mortgaged and afterward conveyed to evade litigation with third person, after refusals to reconvey portions in 1884 and 1893, is barred by laches to sue for reconveyance in 1909; Wilder's Exr. v. Wilder, 82 Vt. 128, 72 Atl. 205, where it is not claimed at trial that answer sets up defense of laches, such question comes too late on appeal. Distinguished in Stuart v. Holland, 179 Fed. 972, suit begun in 1884 to enjoin maintenance of dam but remaining dormant for twenty-two years is barred by laches. Conclusiveness upon Federal courts of construction given to statute by State court subsequent to accrual of rights involved. Note, 17 Ann. Cas. 1212. Questions of State law as to which State court decisions must be followed in actions originating in, or removed to, Federal courts. Note, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 398, 447. 184 U. S. 497–524, 46 L. Ed. 657, 22 Sup. Ct. 372, TULLOCK v. MULVANE. Federal question held sufficiently raised below by pleadings and expressly passed on by court. Approved in German Sav. Soc. v. Dormitzer, 192 U. S. 127, 48 L. Ed. 376, 24 Sup. Ct. 221, holding Federal question raised below where court in opinion dealt expressly with constitutional rights of plaintiff in error. Claim of immunity from liability on injunction bond given in equity cause in Federal court until such case is decided raises Federal question. Approved in American Surety Co. v. Schultz, 237 U. S. 161, 59 L. Ed. 894, 35 Sup. Ct. 525, under Judicial Code, § 24, District Court has |