Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

2. The constitutionality of acts of Con- out making a similar provision for the coun. gress authorizing the determination of citi-ties of the state. Chappell Chemical & F. zenship in Indian tribes cannot be success. Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co.

520 fully assailed on the ground of the impair- | 11. Permitting attachment against a noument or destruction of vested rights, as the

resident without a bond, while requiring the lands and moneys of these tribes are public | bond for attachment against a resident. d and are not held in individual ownership.

not constitute a denial of the equal protec. Id.

Id. I tion of the laws or of due process of law. 3. The Commissioner of Patents in decid. Central Loan & T. Co. v. Campbell Commising an interference case exercises judicial sion Co.

623 functions, and therefore the provision of the 12. A corporation not created by the laws act of Congress of February 9, 1893, giving of a state, or not doing business in that state an appeal from his decisions to the court of

o the court of under conditions that subject it to process appeals of the District of Columbia is not from the

from the courts of that state, is not within unconstitutional on the ground that it pro

the jurisdiction of that state, within the vides for the revision of an executive act by

meaning of the constitutional provision that a judicial tribunal. United States, Bernar

no state shall "deny to any person within its din, v. Duell,

559

jurisdiction the equal protection of the Ex post facto laws.

laws." Blake v. McClung,

432 4. A statute permitting the admission in

| 13. Railroad companies are not denied the evidence for the purposes of comparison with

equal protection of the laws by a statute proa disputed handwriting of other writings | viding that damages by fire caused by operat. proved or admitted to be genuine, is not an

ing a railroad shall be prima facie evidence ex post facto law in respect to a prosecution

of negligence on the part of the railroad comfor a crime committed before the statute was

pany, and that the plaintiff in any action passed. Thompson v. Missouri, 204

therefor shall be allowed a reasonable atEqual privileges and immunities. torney's fee, if he shall recover, since the

5. The constitutional guaranty of equal peculiar danger of fire from the running of privileges and immunities to citizens for- | railroad trains justifies the classification of bids only such legislation affecting citizens railroads made by such statute. Atchison, of the respective states as will substantially T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews,

909 or practically put a citizen of one state in a 14. Railroad companies are not denied the condition of alienage when he is within or equal protection of the laws by a statute apwhen he removes to another state, or when plicable to them only, which requires the asserting in another state the rights that payment without discount, to a discharged commonly appertain to those who are part employee, of wages earned at the time of disof the political community known as the peo-charge, and provides as a penalty that in ple of the United States, by and for whom case of nonpayment the wages shall continue the government of the Union was ordained for a limited period. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R.: and established. Blake v. McClung, 432 Co. v. Paul,

6. A corporation is not a citizen within 15. A fire insurance company is not dethe meaning of the constitutional provision nied the equal protection of the laws by a as to privileges and immunities of citizens. statute applicable to fire insurance only, Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs,

552 which makes the entire amount of the insur. 7. A corporation of another state cannot ance payable in case of total loss, except as invoke the constitutional guaranty of equal reduced by depreciation of the property afprivileges and immunities of citizens in case ter it was insured. Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, of a discrimination against it in favor of the

552 residents of a state, in respect to participa- 16. The equal protection of the laws is not tion in the assets of an insolvent corpora- denied to a foreign corporation which manu. tion. Blake v. McClung,

432 factures goods in other states and sends them 8. A state statute giving to residents of into the state for sale, by a tax on the that state a priority over nonresidents in the amount of capital employed by it within the distribution of the assets of a foreign cor- | state, because of an exemption of corporaporation which, by filing its charter or ar- tions which are wholly engaged in manuticles of association in the state, is deemed a facturing within the state, when the statute corporation of that state, is, so far as it dis- makes no discrimination between foreign and criminates against citizens of other states, domestic corporations. New York, Parke, in violation of U. S. Const. art. 4, giving D. & Co., v. Roberts,

323 equal privileges and immunities to the citi 17. The exemption of tracts of land of less zens of the several states.

than 1,000 acres from a provision for forEqual protection of the laws.

feiture of larger tracts by failure for five See also infra, 21, 26.

successive years to have them charged on the 9. Equal protection of the laws is not de- land books with taxes due thereon does not nied by a law or course of procedure which constitute such a discrimination against the would have been applied to any other person owners of larger tracts as to deny them the in the state under similar circumstances and equal protection of the laws. King v. Mul. conditions. Tinsley v. Anderson, 91 lins,

214 10. The equal protection of the laws is not Due process of law, denied by a state statute abridging the right See also supra, 11. of trial by jury in the courts of a city with: 18. Due process of law requires compensa.

746

Id.

214

vion to be made or secured to the owner of 27. A jury trial is not necessary to due private property when it is taken by a state, process of law on an inquiry for contempt or under its authority, for public use. Nor- | Tinsley v. Anderson,

91 wood v. Baker,

443 | 28. A commitment for contempt does not 19. A corporation of another state is not deprive a person of liberty without due proe deprived of property without due process of ess of law, unless the commitment was void. law by denying it equality with residents of

Id. the state in the distribution of the assets of

29. A statute authorizing an assessment to an insolvent corporation. Blake V. Mc- be levied upon property for a local improve Clung,

432

ment, and imposing upon the lotowner, who 20. An obstruction in a street causing | is a nonresident of the state, a personal liamerely consequential damages to a person is | bility to pay such assessment, is in violation not within the constituticnal provision of the Federal Constitution, as such an asagainst depriving a person of property with sessment amounts to a taking of property out due process of law. Meyer v. Richmond, without due process of law. Dewey v. Des 374 Moines,

665 21. An ordinance requiring the written 30. A notice of a reassessment for a street permission of the mayor or president of the improvement, allowing ten days only for ob city council, or, in their absence, of a coun-jections, is not insufficient for due process cilor, before any person shall move a build- of law because the time is so short, espe ing on the streets, is not unconstitutional as cially in case of a property owner doing busia denial of the equal protection of the laws ness in the city, and when there is nothing or of due process of law. Wilson v. Eureka to suggest any injustice. Bellingham Bay City,

603& B. C. R, Co. v. New Whatcom, 460 22. Railroad companies are not deprived 31. The statutes and Constitution of the of property without due process of law by a state must be looked at together for the purstatute limiting their future contraots by pose of determining whether a system of providing that on the discharge of an em- taxation is in its essential features consisployee all wages earned up to that time must tent with due process of law, where it is be paid without discount. St. Louis, I. M. claimed that the state Constitution provides & S. R. Co. v. Paul,

746 for a forfeiture of property for nonpayment 23. A statute compelling fire insurance of taxes without due process of law. King companies, in case of total loss, to pay the

v. Mullins, amount for which the property was insured, 32. Due process of law in forfeiting lands less depreciation between the time of issuing for nonpayment of taxes and failure to place the policy and the time of loss, does not de- them on the land books is furnished under a prive the insurer of property without due Constitution which provides that such failprocess of law, as it leaves the parties to fixure for five years in succession shall, by the valuation of the property as they choose, operation of the Constitution itself, forfeit but makes their action in this matter con- the title to the state, where the statutes pro clusive. Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 552 vide the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity

24. Formal notice as to the precise day to protect his lands in a judicial proceeding, upon which water rates will be fixed by or- of which he is entitled to notice, and in which dinance need not be given to a company the court has authority to relieve him, upon whose rates are thus fixed under the Cali. reasonable terms, from the forfeiture. Id.; fornia Constitution which gives notice of the King v. Panther Lumber Co. fact that ordinances will be passed annually Freedom of contract. in February to take effect on the 1st of July 33. The constitutional freedom of contract next and the statute requiring the company in the use and management of property does to make an annual statement of its rate-pay not include the right of railroad companies ers, revenue, and expenditures at least thirty to combine as one consolidated and powerdays prior to the 15th of June. San Diego ful association for the purpose of stilling Land & T. Co. v. National City, 1184 competition among themselves, and of thus 25. The reasonable value of property

keeping their rates and charges higher than rather than its original cost is to be taken

they inight otherwise be under the laws of as the basis of calculation in determining

competition. United States v. Joint Traffic whether rates fixed under legislative author

Asso.

259 ity constitute a fair compensation for the use of the property so that the owners are

CONTEMPT. not deprived of their property without due

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 27, 28, 33. process of law. 26. A statute requiring thousand-mile

CONTRACTS.

See also APPEAL AND ERROB, 37; ARBItickets to be sold by railroad companies for less than the ordinary rates of fare, for use

TRATION, 1; ATTORNEYS; CLAIMS, 3; by the purchaser and his wife and children,

CONSPIRACY, 4; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,

33; COURTS, 22; EQUITY, I; INJUNCif named on the ticket, and making them valid for two years after date of purchase,

TION, 4; SALVAGE; USUBY; WEIT AND is a violation of the constitutional rights of

PROCESS, 1. the railroad companies to due process of law 1. A statute exempting property held by and the equal protection of the laws. Lake a city for public or governmental purposes Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Smith, 858 'cannot constitute a contract, within the

227

Id.

341

meaning of the Federal Constitution. Cov. I 9. An accounting of tne profits of a ington v. Kentucky,

679 partnership will not be awarded where the 2. A statute declaring that property partnership was only a part of a contract of "ghall be and remain forever exempt" 'from which other portions were illegal. McMultaxes does not constitute a contract, when len v. Hoffman,

1117 it is passed subject to a general statute mak 10. A secret agreement between bidders ing all statutes subject to amendment or re- for a public contract by which their bids are peal, unless a contrary intent be therein put in after mutual consultation and agreeplainly expressed.

id. ment and they are to share in any contract 3. An irrevocable contract was not cre

obtained, is illegal in its nature and tendated between the state and a bank accepting | ency.

Id. the provisions of the Kentucky act of 1886, 11. A municipal contract for a water supknown as the Hewitt act, by which the prop- ply for a term of years is not void as an aterty of the bank was taxed at a higher rate tempt to barter away the police power of the of state taxation than that existing for other city council, so as to justify its abrogation or property, but was exempted from all other impairment, when the water supply is intaxation during its corporate existence, al. nocuous, and the contract is carried out with though to this end the bank surrendered a due regard to the good order of the city and contract limitation as to taxes in its charter, the health of its inhabitants. Walla Walla since the Hewitt act expressly provided that| v. Walla Walla Water Co. it should be subject to a general law author- 12. An agreement by commissioners of a izing the repeal of all grants to corporations. sinking fund who form a corporation disCitizens' Sav. Bank v. Owensboro, 840 | tinct from the city and the city attorney Louisville v. Bank of Louisville, 1039 with certain banks to the effect that a dis

4. The mere statement of the appoint-pute between them as to which no litigation ment of a referee, on the minutes of the com- is yet pending concerning liability for taxes missioners of the District of Columbia, with shall abide the result of a pending litigation out any signature thereto by the commis- with another bank is not binding either upon sioners, is insufficient to constitute a con. the commissioners or the city in the absence tract by them under the act of Congress of of any grant of authority to the commisJune 11, 1878, chap. 180, § 5, requiring all sioners or the city attorney to make such contracts to be copied in a book kept for that contract. Stone v. Bank of Commerce, 1028 purpose and to be signed by the commission- Fidelity Trust & S. V. Co. v. Louisville, 1034 ers. District of Columbia v. Bailey, 118 Impairment.

5. A guaranty of the nature of the soil un- 13. The impairment of a municipal conder the site of the proposed dock is not im-tract for a water supply by establishing its plied in a contract to construct for the Units own system of waterworks is not excluded ed States a dock according to specifications, from the constitutional provision against within a designated time, for an agreed impairing the obligation of contracts, on the price, upon an "available" site, to be selected ground that the city makes the contract and by the United States, where the bidder knows takes the action which impairs it in its prothat a test of the soil has been made, but prietary capacity, and not as an agency of does not require a warranty that the ground the state. Walla Walla v. Walla Walla selected shall be of a defined character. / Water Co.

341 Simpson v. United States,

482 6. A contract to pay an injured employee CONTRIBUTION $65 per month and furnish him fuel and a

See AVERAGE. garden, while he releases the employer from all liability for personal injuries previously CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. sustained, must be construed to be an em See TRIAL, 9. ployment so long as he is disabled by reason of such injuries, and, if they are permanent, I CONVERSION. for life, when this is in lieu of a prior con See TROVER. tract to pay him $60 per month and give him the rent of his house, as well as fuel and a garden, for such work as he can do, while be.

and a COPYRIGHT. fore this, after his injury, the employer had The serial publication of a book in a agreed to pay him regular wages while dis monthly magazine, prior to any steps taken abled and furnish him house rent, fuel, and toward securing a copyright, is such a puba garden. Pierce v. Tennessee Coal, I.'& R.lication of the same, within the meaning of

591 | the act of Congress of February 3, 1831, as to Illegality.

vitiate a copyright of the whole book ob7. A disaffirmance of the contract is the tained subsequently, but prior to the pubbasis of the right to recover property trans- lication of the book as an entirety. Holmes ferred under an illegal contract. Pullman's v. Hurst,

904 Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. 108

8. The right to a recovery of property CORPORATIONS. transferred under an illegal contract is See also BANKS; BILLS AND NOTES, 1; founded upon the implied promise to return BONDS, 4, 5; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6or make compensation for it. Id.! 8, 12-16,19, 22, 23, 26; CONTRACTS. 3:

[ocr errors]

Co.

170

COURTS, 8, 9; DAMAGES, 1-4; RE- Delegation of power.
CEIVERS, 1; TAXES, 1-3, 8-12; WRIT 2. The issuance of an attachment upon as
AND PROCESS.

affidavit stating grounds specified by statute 1. The rule that a corporation cannot be

he does not involve the discharge of a judicial estopped from asserting that it is not bound

function, which can be exercised only by

ül judges having common-law jurisdiction, but by a corporate act which is absolutely void!

involves merely the performance of a mitdoes not apply to contracts which are merely voidable. "Sioux City T. R. & W. Co. v.

isterial duty, which may be delegated to othTrust Co.

er officers. Central Loan & T. Co. v. Camp 628

| bell Commission Co. 2. A corporation is not bound by the dec

Relation to other parts of governlarations of its superintendent outside the

ment. scope of his agency or authority to the preju.

3. So long as the legal title remains :: dice of its property rights. Walrath v. Champion Min. Õo.

the government all questions of right should

be solved by appeal to the Land Department 3. To hold a corporation liable for the

and not to the courts. Brown v. Hitchcors torts of any of its agents the act in question must be performed in the course and within

4. The court cannot interfere with pre the scope of the agent's employment in the

ceedings in the land department by cancelbusiness of the principal. Washington Gas Light Co. v. Lansden,

543

| ing an order of the Secretary of the Interior,

whereby he revoked and annulled the approp4. No trust in money paid as dividends I al given by his predecessor to a selection of out of the capital of a corporation, when swamp land by a state, nor can it restrain there are no net profits to divide, attaches to the officers of the Land Department from them in the hands of stockholders who re- carrying such order of the Secretary into et ceive the dividends in good faith. McDonald | fect and treating the lands as public landa y. Williams,

1022 5. A guaranty of bonds by a corporation

5. Whether a general law can be made ao which could be lawfully made only by a pe- plicable to a special matter in regard to tition of the majority of its stockholders,

ckholders, which a special law is enacted is a matter for which was not obtained, is enforceable by the decision of the legislature itself. Guthbona fide holders of the bonds but invalid as

rie Nat. Bank v. Guthrie, to other holders. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co.

1081

6. The judiciary should not interiere

with rates established under legislative su COSTS AND FEES.

thority unless the case presents clearly and See APPEAL AND ERROR, 73; CLOUD ON beyond all doubt such a flagrant attack upon TITLE, 1; PRIZE, 4.

the rights of property under the guise of reg

ulations as to compel the court to say that 1. Judgment for costs cannot be rendered

| the rates prescribed will necessarily have against the plaintiff in an action which has

| the effect to deny just compensation for priabated. McCullough v. Virginia,

382 vate property taken for the public use. Sas

382 2. The coupon provision of Va. act March Diego Land & T. Co. v. National City, 1154 30, 1871, providing that the coupons of re

Federal courts. funding bonds shall be receivable for all

7. Jurisdiction of a suit once acquired by taxes, debts, dues, and demands due the

a court of the United States by reason of the state, which shall be so expressed on their

requisite citizenship is not lost by a change face, is not void. McCullough v. Virginia,

in the citizenship of either party pending COUNTIES.

the suit. Louisville, N. A. & C. R Co. See Bonds, 1-3; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Louisville Trust Co.

1081 10.

8. A corporation remains a citizen of the

state by which it was originally created for COUPONS.

the purposes of the jurisdiction of Federal See COURTS, 10, 11; STATUTES, 4. courts notwithstanding it may be also incor

porated in other states. COURT OF CLAIMS. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 76.

9. The rights and liabilities of a corpo

ration which has been incorporated in er COURTS.

eral states, as a corporation of states other See also CLAIMS, 6, 7; COMMERCE, 15; than that which created it, cannot be adjud, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3; DISTRICT AT cated in a suit in a Federal court in which TORNEYS; HABEAS CORPUS, 2; PRIVATE jurisdiction depends upon its citizenship in LAND CLAIMS, 1; RECEIVERS; STATUTES, that state and would be ousted by citizen 1.

ship in the other states. 1. The cancelation of the guaranty of ne

10. Coupons of county bonds payable to gotiable bonds which may otherwise pass in- 15

s in. bearer, being made by a corporation, are to the hands of bona fide purchasers and the w

nd the within the exception made by the act of Cor restraint of suits upon the guaranty be

gress of August 13, 1888, from the general

gress of AU cause of facts not appearing upon its' face.rule against action by an assignee unle can be had only in a court of equity. Louis- | the assignor could sue. Lake County ville, N. A. &C. R. Co. v. Louisville Trust | Dudley,

684 Co.

1081' 11. One who is not the real owner of con

382

pons, but to whom the apparent title is the validity of a statute which is the foundatransferred merely to give jurisdiction to a tion of a contract alleged to be impaired by Federal court on the ground of diverse citi. subsequent statutes is not binding on the zenship, cannot maintain the action. Id. Federal courts. McCullough v. Virginia, 12. Certificates of indebtedness issued by

382 a city and payable to bearer, being made by 21. The latest decision of the highest court a corporation, although not negotiable under of a state sustaining the validity of county the law merchant, are within the exception bonds under state laws and Constitution, alof the act of Congress of August 13, 1888, though it is a departure from earlier state from the general rule against actions in Fed decisions rendered after a decision of a Federal courts by an assignee unless the assign eral court based upon them, will be followed or could see. New Orleans v. Quinlan, 664 by the Supreme Court of the United States

13. The right given by state statute to reviewing a Federal decision. Wade v. have a contract canceled for usury without | Travis County,

1060 repaying the money loaned can be enforced 22. In determining the existence of a conin a Federal court. Missouri, K. & T. Trusttract which is alleged to be impaired the SuCo. v. Krumseig,

474 | preme Court of the United States will form 14. An allegation that the annexation of

an independent judgment, and is not bound territory to a city in violation of the state by a decision of that question by a state court Constitution, but which is upheld by the although the contract is alleged to be crestate courts after long acquiescence, on the ated by a state statute. Citizens' Sav. Bank principle of estoppel, where the only question v. Owensboro,

840 is as to the validity of the city organization, 23. Decisions of Maryland courts since the constitutes a deprivation of the property of cession of the District of Columbia, giving to inhabitants, of the territory without due statutes a construction at variance with that process of law, and therefore in violation of prevailing at the time of the cession, do not the Federal Constitution,-is so palpably control in construing those statutes as the unfounded that it constitutes not even a col- laws of the District of Columbian Morris v. or for the jurisdiction of a Federal court. United States.

946 McCain v. Des Moines,

936 15. An action against a receiver of a na

COVERTURE. tional bank appointed by the comptroller of

See LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, 1. the currency is one arising under the laws of the United States and within the juris.

CRIMINAL LAW. diction of the Federal court. Auten v.

See also CoNSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4; United States Nat. Bank,

COURTS, 16; EXTRADITION; HABEAS

CORPUS; INJUNCTION, 1.
Conflicting jurisdiction.
See also INJUNCTION, 1.

1. The constitutional right of an accused 16. An injunction against a criminal prog. to be confronted with witnesses against him ecution in a state court under a valid state 15

te is violated by the provision of the act of Conlaw, of a bank officer for embezzlement, can- gress

gress of March 3, 1875, which makes a judg. not be granted by a Federal court because it

ment of conviction of the principal felons for had previously obtained jurisdiction

in embezzling, stealing, or purloining property

in em equity cases in which a receiver of the bank of the United States evidence in a prosecuhad been appointed and the civil liability of lior

Ftion against a receiver of the property, of such officer was in litigation. Harkrader v.

the fact that such property has been emWadley,

399
og bezzled, stolen, or purloined. Kirby v.

United States,
17. The rights and disputes of riparian
owners as to water which has found its way

2. A verdict of guilty "without capital into the unimproved bed of a stream must

punishment” may be rendered in a murder be determined by the state courts, although

case under the act of Congress of January they cannot interfere with the control of the

15, 1897, chap. 29, even if there are no mitsurplus water power incidentally created by

igating or palliating circumstances. Wins

458 a dam and canal owned and operated by the

ton v. United States,
United States. Green Bay & M. Canal Co.
v. Patten Paper Co.

658
CROSS BILL.

See PLEADING, 1.
Rules of decision.

18. The public policy of a state in respect CROSS-EXAMINATION. to contracts made within the state and

See WITNESSES. sought to be enforced therein is obligatory on the Federal courts, whether acting in | CURATIVE ACT. equity or at law. Missouri, K. & T. Trust

Sec BONDS, 1. Co. v. Krumseig,

474 19. A state statute will be construed by CUSTOMS. the Supreme Court of the United States as See DUTIES. it is settled by the court of last resort of the state. Sioux City T. R. & W. Co. v. Trust DAMAGES. Co.

628 See also ACTION OR SUIT, I. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. McCann, 1093 1. The market value of the stock of a 20. The decision of a state court against corporation is not a proper measure of the

920

890

« ForrigeFortsett »