Supreme Court of the United States. .




The Chief Justice: "It is with sincere sorrow that I announce to the members of the bar the sudden death of Baron Herschell, former Lord Chancellor of England, information of which has just been received by the court with deep sensibility.

"Lord Herschell had been some months in this country in a public and international capacity, and but a few days have elapsed since he sat with us here, a compliment which has been extended only once previously, in the instance of the then Lord Chief Justice of England.

“In view of the cordial relations between Lord Herschell and the members of this court, his great distinction in our common profession and on the bench, and his unexpected death while absent from home in the discharge of high public duty, we feel called upon to take notice of this sad event, and as a mark of respect to his memory the court will adjourn until to-morrow at the usual hour.

March 1, 1899.


Supreme Court of the United States.




The Chief Justice: “It becomes my sad duty to inform the gentlemen of the bar that Mr. Justice Field on yesterday (Sunday) evening passed peacefully from this life. He died full of years and of honors, and attended by all that should accompany

old age.

"The judicial career of Mr. Justice Field was unexampled in length and distinction, and he occupied a seat upon this bench for a longer period than any of its members from the beginning. His labors left no region of jurisprudence unexplored, and now that he rests from them, his works will follow him. His retirement when he saw port approaching was so recent that he hardly seems to have been absent, and his death comes home to us the more keenly.

“As a mark of respect to his memory, the court will adjourn until to-morrow."

April 10, 1899.


Supreme Court of the United States.



It is now here ordered by the court that all the cases on the docket not decided, and all the other business of the term not disposed of by the court, be, and the same are hereby, continued until the next term of the court. May 22, 1899.


[merged small][ocr errors]


171, 172, 173, 174.

OCTOBER TERMS, 1897, 1898





| although the cause of action would have abated if suit had not been brought, is a right inhering in the action, which accompanies it into a Federal court to which it is removed during the plaintiff's lifetime; and in such a case U. S. Rev. Stat. § 955, allowing revivor only when the cause of action survives by law, does not apply.





Law Governing, see CONFLICT OF LAWS. See PRIZE.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.. 1. An employee wrongfully discharged

The continuation of the adverse posmay elect to recover the entire damages for

session of a part of a square used as a brick the breach of the contract in a single action,

| yard after the removal of that business is a and thus avoid the embarrassment and an

question for the jury where there is evidence noyance of repeated litigation. Pierce v.

that some old brick were left on the premises Tennessee Coal, I. & R. Co.


and the entire square was advertised for sale 2. Failure of pledgees to sustain their al. or rent by the claimants, and one sign was leged rignts as purchasers at a sale set up on the part in dispute, and they actually as a defense will not affect their rights as leased the whole square and paid taxes therepledgees, when they stand on all their rights on. Davis v. Coblens.

1147 and have not been put to an election. Hubbard v. Tod,


AGENCY. 3. A person may, by his acts or omission

See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. to act, waive a right which he might otherwise have under the Constitution of the United States. Pierce v, Somerset Railway,


See MORTGAGE, 1. 4. The withdrawal of the appearance of an attorney without leave of court may

ANNEXATION. leave the record in condition for a valid See Courts, 14. judgment by default for want of appearance if there is no claim that the attorney has APPEAL AND ERROR. acted in collusion with the plaintiff or with

I. APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN out authority or by mistake. Rio Grande


ERAL. I. & C. Co. v. Gildersleeve,


II. JURISDICTION. 5. A right given by a state statute to re

a. Over Federal Courts. vive a pending action for personal injuries,

b. Over Courts of Territory or Inin the name of the personal representative

dians. of a deceased plaintiff, is not lost upon the

c. Over State Courts. removal of the case into a Federal court. III. TRANSFER OF CAUSE. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Joy,


IV. RECORD AND CASE ON APPEAL. 6. The right to revive an action for per V. EXCEPTIONS; MODE OF RAISING QUES. sonal injuries under Ohio Rev. Stat. § 5144,

TIONS. when the plaintiff dies pending the action,' VI. DISMISSAL.



6. A decree which determines that none a. In General.

of the defenses of a guaranty company are b. Objections Waived or Cured Be- good in law, and that it is liable on its bonds low.

for such sum as may thereafter be found to c. Decisions on Facts.

be due after crediting the amounts that be d. Discretionary Rulings.

be realized from certain assets, is not final e. What Errors Warrant Reversal. for the purposes of an appeal. Guarantee VIII. JUDGMENT AND ITS EFFECT.

Co. v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank & T. Co. 813 See also CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3; COUBTS,

7. A reversal of a decree, with specifie di20.

rections to enter a decree in accordance with

the mandate, is final for the purpose of aa I. APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN GENERAL.

appeal. Merrill v. National Bank, 640

8. The reversal of a judgment, with di1. The entry of a decree by the lower

rections to sustain a demurrer, is not a final court in conformity with a mandate, after

judgment on which writ of error will lie to reversal with specific directions, does not cut

a state court from the Supreme Court of the off the right to an appeal not yet prosecuted

United States, if the lower court has power from the decree of reversal. Merrill v. Na

to make a new case by amendment of pleadtional Bank,


|ings. Clark v. Kansas City, 2. The constitutional provision that no

9. An order discharging a prisoner 00 fact tried by jury shall be otherwise re-ex

writ of habeas corpus, which, if valid, takes amined in any court of the United States

away his custody from the state court and than according to the rules of common law

puts an end to his imprisonment under the is not violated by allowing an appeal for

process of that court, is final for the purpose trial by a common-law jury from a judgment

of an appeal, although he is discharged only on the verdict of a jury of twelve men in a pena

pending an injunction against the prosecucourt of a justice of the peace, as that is

tion. Harkrader v. Wadley, not a common-law jury. Oapital Traction 10. An order directing the trial court to Co. v. Hof,

873 enter an order for turning over certain mon3. The creation of the right to appeal aft

eys and securities received from certain perer the rendition of a decree by the United

sons, after making reasonable allowances for States court in the Indian territory as to

"costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees," tribal citizenship, and after the expiration of

as contemplated by law, is not a final order the term of court at which the decree was

for the purpose of appeal. California Nat. rendered, although the statutes in force at

Bank v. Stateler, the time of its rendition made it final, does not destroy any vested right, since the ex

II. JURISDICTION. emption of such a judgment from review,

a. Over Federal Courts. and the mere expectation of a share in the public lands and moneys of the tribe, if hereafter distributed, cannot be deemed such an

11. The right to appeal directly to the absolute right of property as to place the

United States Supreme Court from the cirdecree beyond the power of re-examination

cuit court because of a constitutional quesby a higher court under authority of a sub

tion is not waived by taking an appeal also sequent act of Congress. Stephens v. Chero

to the circuit court of appeals. Pullman's kee Nation,


Palace Car Co, v. Central Transp. Co. 109 4. A reversal by the circuit court of ap

12. A writ of error to the circuit court peals of an injunction in favor of the United

from the Supreme Court of the United States States against a diversion by defendant of

to review the merits cannot be taken pending water from a stream on the public domain to

a writ of error from the circuit court of apthe deprivation of a military reservation, and

peals in the same case. Columbus Constr. a remanding of the case for further proceed

Co. v. Crane Co.

1102 ings, are not final for the purpose of an appeal, 13. The dismissal of a bill by a Federal where the court decides that defendant could circuit court on the ground that the rights acquire a water right as against the United claimed had been determined by a judgment States subject to the appropriation for the of a state court, which could not be annulled, reservation, but the agreed facts show that, is not a decision against the jurisdiction of after his appropriation, water had been tak: the Federal court which can be reviewed by en from a higher point to the reservation, a direct appeal to the supreme court. Blythe but only a part of it used there, and it does v. Hinckley, not appear whether this supply might not 14. A decision by a Federal circuit court, have been sufficient if all had been used that the remedy is at law and not in equity, there. United States v. Krall,

1017 is not such a decision against the jurisdicFinality of decision.

tion of the court as can be reviewed by di5. A final order overruling the return of rect appeal to the supreme court. Id. the sheriff and discharging a prisoner from 15. An action against a marshal of we custody on writ of habeas corpus, made at United States and his sureties, and also ata stated term of the circuit court of the tachment creditors for whom he has seized United States, is appealable, although the goods, is not one in which the judgment of original order was made at chambers. Hark- / the circuit court of appeals is final, under rader v. Wadley,

399 the act of Congress of March 3, 1891, $ 6,


« ForrigeFortsett »