rectly and in unambiguous terms in that portion of the agreement which recites the contract to transport. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. McCann, 1093 COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3. COMMISSIONERS. See CONTRACTS, 4, 12. COMMON CARRIERS. See CARRIERS. COMPETITION. See CONSPIRACY, 3, 5; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 33. COMPROMISE. See MINES, 9. COMPTROLLER. See BANKS, 10. CONDITION. See REAL PROPERTY. CONFEDERATE ARCHIVES. See EVIDENCE, 12. CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT. See PRIZE, 3. CONFEDERATE MONEY. See GUARDIAN AND WARD. CONFISCATION. 1. The confiscation of all the property and estate of the lord proprietary of Maryland by Md. act 1781 included his private rights, if he had any, in the Potomac river and the soil under it. Morris v. United States, 946 2. Md. act 1781, confiscating the property and estate of the lord proprietary, was not void as in derogation of common law and of the Constitution of the state, or on the ground that the power to pass such acts did not inhere as a war power in the state. Id. 3. Relief from confiscation and restora tion of property confiscated by Md. act 1781 did not result from the treaty of 1783 and its adoption by Md. act 1787 as the law of the state or from the treaty of 1794. Id. 4. Any equitable obligation of the United States under its treaties to restore property confiscated by Md. act 1781, or to make compensation therefor, is a matter for Congress to consider, but is not for the consideration of the courts in determining the title to property. CONFLICT OF LAWS. See also ATTACHMENT, 4. Id. 2. Exemption laws are part of the remedy 1. A combination of commission merchants at stock yards, by which they refuse to do business with those who are not members of their association, even if it is illegal, is not subject to the act of Congress of July 2, 1890, to protect trade and commerce, since their business is not interstate commerce. Hopkins v. United States, 290 2. A rule of a live-stock exchange, that its members shall not recognize any yard trader who is not also a member of the exchange, is not in restraint of, or an attempt to monopolize, trade, where the exchange does not itself do any business, and there is nothing to prevent all yard traders from be ing members of the exchange, and no one is hindered from access to the yards or having all their facilities, except that of selling to members of the exchange. Anderson v. United States, 300 See also ACTION OR SUIT, 3; APPEAL 1. An act of Congress is not unconstitutional because it supersedes a prior treaty. Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 1041 2. The constitutionality of acts of Congress authorizing the determination of citizenship in Indian tribes cannot be successfully assailed on the ground of the impairment or destruction of vested rights, as the lands and moneys of these tribes are public and are not held in individual ownership. Id. 3. The Commissioner of Patents in deciding an interference case exercises judicial functions, and therefore the provision of the act of Congress of February 9, 1893, giving an appeal from his decisions to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia is not unconstitutional on the ground that it provides for the revision of an executive act by a judicial tribunal. United States, Bernardin, v. Duell, 559 Ex post facto laws. 4. A statute permitting the admission in evidence for the purposes of comparison with a disputed handwriting of other writings proved or admitted to be genuine, is not an ex post facto law in respect to a prosecution for a crime committed before the statute was passed. Thompson v. Missouri, 204 Equal privileges and immunities. 5. The constitutional guaranty of equal privileges and immunities to citizens for bids only such legislation affecting citizens of the respective states as will substantially or practically put a citizen of one state in a condition of alienage when he is within or when he removes to another state, or when asserting in another state the rights that commonly appertain to those who are part of the political community known as the people of the United States, by and for whom the government of the Union was ordained and established. Blake v. McClung, 432 6. A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the constitutional provision as to privileges and immunities of citizens. Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 552 7. A corporation of another state cannot invoke the constitutional guaranty of equal privileges and immunities of citizens in case of a discrimination against it in favor of the residents of a state, in respect to participation in the assets of an insolvent corporation. Blake v. McClung, 432 8. A state statute giving to residents of that state a priority over nonresidents in the distribution of the assets of a foreign corporation which, by filing its charter or articles of association in the state, is deemed a corporation of that state, is, so far as it discriminates against citizens of other states, in violation of U. S. Const. art. 4, giving equal privileges and immunities to the citizens of the several states. Equal protection of the laws. See also infra, 21, 26. Id. 9. Equal protection of the laws is not denied by a law or course of procedure which would have been applied to any other person in the state under similar circumstances and conditions. Tinsley v. Anderson, 91 10. The equal protection of the laws is not denied by a state statute abridging the right of trial by jury in the courts of a city withU. S.. BOOK 43. 79 18. Due process of law requires compensa1245 28. A commitment for contempt does not deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, unless the commitment was void. Id. 29. A statute authorizing an assessment to be levied upon property for a local improve ment, and imposing upon the lotowner, who is a nonresident of the state, a personal liability to pay such assessment, is in violation of the Federal Constitution, as such an assessment amounts to a taking of property without due process of law. Dewey v. Des Moines, 665 460 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 obcity 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,-espeing 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, 22. Railroad companies are not deprived of property without due process of law by a statute limiting their future contracts by providing that on the discharge of an employee all wages earned up to that time must be paid without discount. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Paul, 746 23. A statute compelling fire insurance companies, in case of total loss, to pay the amount for which the property was insured, less depreciation between the time of issuing the policy and the time of loss, does not deprive the insurer of property without due process of law, as it leaves the parties to fix the valuation of the property as they choose, but makes their action in this matter conclusive. Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 552 24. Formal notice as to the precise day upon which water rates will be fixed by ordinance need not be given to a company whose rates are thus fixed under the California Constitution which gives notice of the fact that ordinances will be passed annually in February to take effect on the 1st of July next and the statute requiring the company to make an annual statement of its rate-payers, revenue, and expenditures at least thirty days prior to the 15th of June. San Diego Land & T. Co. v. National City, 1154 25. The reasonable value of property rather than its original cost is to be taken as the basis of calculation in determining whether rates fixed under legislative authority constitute a fair compensation for the use of the property so that the owners are not deprived of their property without due process of law. Id. 26. A statute requiring thousand-mile tickets to be sold by railroad companies for less than the ordinary rates of fare, for use by the purchaser and his wife and children, if named on the ticket, and making them valid for two years after date of purchase, is a violation of the constitutional rights of the railroad companies to due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Smith, 31. The statutes and Constitution of the state must be looked at together for the purpose of determining whether a system of taxation is in its essential features consistent with due process of law, where it is claimed that the state Constitution provides for a forfeiture of property for nonpayment of taxes without due process of law. King V. Mullins, 214 32. Due process of law in forfeiting lands for nonpayment of taxes and failure to place them on the land books is furnished under a Constitution which provides that such failure for five years in succession shall, by operation of the Constitution itself, forfeit the title to the state, where the statutes provide the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity to protect his lands in a judicial proceeding, of which he is entitled to notice, and in which the court has authority to relieve him, upon reasonable terms, from the forfeiture. fa.; King v. Panther Lumber Co. Freedom of contract. 227 33. The constitutional freedom of contract in the use and management of property does not include the right of railroad companies to combine as one consolidated and powerful association for the purpose of stifling competition among themselves, and of thus keeping their rates and charges higher than they might otherwise be under the laws of competition. United States v. Joint Traffic Asso. CONTEMPT. 259 See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 27, 28, 33. See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 37; ARBI- 1. A statute exempting property held by a city for public or governmental purposes 858 cannot constitute a contract, within the meaning of the Federal Constitution. Cov- 9. An accounting of the profits of a ington v. Kentucky, partnership will not be awarded where the partnership was only a part of a contract of which other portions were illegal. McMullen v. Hoffman, 679 2. A statute declaring that property "shall be and remain forever exempt" from taxes does not constitute a contract, when it is passed subject to a general statute making all statutes subject to amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intent be therein plainly expressed. 1d. 3. An irrevocable contract was not created between the state and a bank accepting the provisions of the Kentucky act of 1886, known as the Hewitt act, by which the property of the bank was taxed at a higher rate of state taxation than that existing for other property, but was exempted from all other taxation during its corporate existence, although to this end the bank surrendered a contract limitation as to taxes in its charter, since the Hewitt act expressly provided that it should be subject to a general law authorizing the repeal of all grants to corporations. Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Owensboro, 840 Louisville v. Bank of Louisville, 1039 4. The mere statement of the appointment of a referee, on the minutes of the commissioners of the District of Columbia, without any signature thereto by the commissioners, is insufficient to constitute a contract by them under the act of Congress of June 11, 1878, chap. 180, § 5, requiring all contracts to be copied in a book kept for that purpose and to be signed by the commissioners. District of Columbia v. Bailey, 118 5. A guaranty of the nature of the soil under the site of the proposed dock is not implied in a contract to construct for the United States a dock according to specifications, within a designated time, for an agreed price, upon an "available" site, to be selected by the United States, where the bidder knows that a test of the soil has been made, but does not require a warranty that the ground selected shall be of a defined character. Simpson v. United States, 482 1117 10. A secret agreement between bidders for a public contract by which their bids are put in after mutual consultation and agreement and they are to share in any contract obtained, is illegal in its nature and tendency. Id. 11. A municipal contract for a water supply for a term of years is not void as an attempt to barter away the police power of the city council, so as to justify its abrogation or impairment, when the water supply is innocuous, and the contract is carried out with due regard to the good order of the city and the health of its inhabitants. Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co. 341 12. An agreement by commissioners of a sinking fund who form a corporation distinct from the city and the city attorney with certain banks to the effect that a dispute between them as to which no litigation is yet pending concerning liability for taxes shall abide the result of a pending litigation with another bank is not binding either upon the commissioners or the city in the absence of any grant of authority to the commissioners or the city attorney to make such contract. Stone v. Bank of Commerce, 1028 Fidelity Trust & S. V. Co. v. Louisville, 1034 Impairment. 13. The impairment of a municipal contract for a water supply by establishing its own system of waterworks is not excluded from the constitutional provision against impairing the obligation of contracts, on the ground that the city makes the contract and takes the action which impairs it in its proprietary capacity, and not as an agency of the state. Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co. See AVERAGE. See TRIAL, 9. CONVERSION. See TROVER. 6. A contract to pay an injured employee CONTRIBUTION $65 per month and furnish him fuel and a garden, while he releases the employer from all liability for personal injuries previously CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. sustained, must be construed to be an employment so long as he is disabled by reason of such injuries, and, if they are permanent, for life, when this is in lieu of a prior contract 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 before this, after his injury, the employer had agreed to pay him regular wages while disabled and furnish him house rent, fuel, and a garden. Pierce v. Tennessee Coal, I. & R. Co. 591 COPYRIGHT. 341 The serial publication of a book in a monthly magazine, prior to any steps taken toward securing a copyright, is such a publication of the same, within the meaning of the act of Congress of February 3, 1831, as to 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, Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. 108 Illegality. 8. The right to a recovery of property CORPORATIONS. transferred under an illegal contract is founded upon the implied promise to return or make compensation for it. Id. 904 See also BANKS; BILLS AND NOTES, 1; BONDS, 4, 5; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 68, 12-16, 19, 22, 23, 26; CONTRACTS. 3: COURTS, 8, 9; DAMAGES, 1-4; RE-Delegation of power. 1. The rule that a corporation cannot be estopped from asserting that it is not bound by a corporate act which is absolutely void does not apply to contracts which are merely voidable. Sioux City T. R. & W. Co. v. Trust Co. 628 2. The issuance of an attachment upon an affidavit stating grounds specified by statute does not involve the discharge of a judicial function, which can be exercised only by judges having common-law jurisdiction, but isterial duty, which may be delegated to othinvolves merely the performance of a miner officers. Central Loan & T. Co. v. Campbell Commission Co. 623 Relation to other parts of government. 2. A corporation is not bound by the declarations of its superintendent outside the scope of his agency or authority to the prejudice of its property rights. Walrath the government all questions of right should 3. So long as the legal title remains in Champion Min. Co. be solved by appeal to the Land Department, and not to the courts. Brown v. Hitchcock, 170 3. To hold a corporation liable for the torts of any of its agents the act in question must be performed in the course and within the scope of the agent's employment in the business of the principal. Washington Gas Light Co. v. Lansden, 543 5. A guaranty of bonds by a corporation which could be lawfully made only by a petition of the majority of its stockholders, which was not obtained, is enforceable by bona fide holders of the bonds but invalid as to other holders. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co. COSTS AND FEES. 1081 6. The judiciary should not interfere with rates established under legislative authority 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. 1. Judgment for costs cannot be rendered against the plaintiff in an action which has abated. McCullough v. Virginia, 382 See COURTS, 10, 11; STATUTES, 4. COURT OF CLAIMS. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 76. COURTS. the rights of property under the guise of regulations as to compel the court to say that the rates prescribed will necessarily have the effect to deny just compensation for private property taken for the public use. San Diego Land & T. Co. v. National City, Federal courts. 1154 9. The rights and liabilities of a corporation which has been incorporated in several states, as a corporation of states other See also CLAIMS, 6, 7; COMMERCE, 15; than that which created it, cannot be adjudiCONSTITUTIONAL 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 citizenship in the other states. 1. Id. 1. The cancelation of the guaranty of ne10. Coupons of county bonds payable to gotiable bonds which may otherwise pass in- bearer, being made by a corporation, are to the hands of bona fide purchasers and the within the exception made by the act of Conrestraint of suits upon the guaranty be-gress of August 13, 1888, from the general cause of facts not appearing upon its face, rule against action by an assignee unless can be had only in a court of equity. Louis- the assignor could sue. Lake County v. ville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co. |