[blocks in formation]

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


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,


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.


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.





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. Id.

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,



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.


12. An agreement by commissioners of a sinking fund who form a corporation distinet 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 TRIAL, 9.



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




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 obtained subsequently, but prior to the publication of the book as an entirety. Holmes v. Hurst,

7. A disaffirmance of the contract is the basis of the right to recover property transferred under an illegal contract. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Čentral Transp. Co. 108 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.



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.
CEIVERS, 1; TAXES, 1-3, 8-12; WRIT

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.


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.


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,


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,


[blocks in formation]

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.



[blocks in formation]

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,


[blocks in formation]

See COURTS, 10, 11; STATUTES, 4.




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.


[blocks in formation]

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. 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.

[blocks in formation]

pons, but to whom the apparent title is transferred merely to give jurisdiction to a Federal court on the ground of diverse citizenship, cannot maintain the action. Id.

the validity of a statute which is the foundation of a contract alleged to be impaired by subsequent statutes is not binding on the Federal courts. McCullough v. Virginia,


21. The latest decision of the highest court of a state sustaining the validity of county bonds under state laws and Constitution, although it is a departure from earlier state decisions rendered after a decision of a Fed

by the Supreme Court of the United States reviewing a Federal decision. Wade v. Travis County,


12. Certificates of indebtedness issued by a city and payable to bearer, being made by a corporation, although not negotiable under the law merchant, are within the exception of the act of Congress of August 13, 1888, from the general rule against actions in Federal courts by an assignee unless the assign-eral court based upon them, will be followed or could see. New Orleans v. Quinlan, 664 13. The right given by state statute to have a contract canceled for usury without repaying the money loaned can be enforced in a Federal court. Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 474 14. An allegation that the annexation of territory to a city in violation of the state Constitution, but which is upheld by the state courts after long acquiescence, on the principle of estoppel, where the only question is as to the validity of the city organization, constitutes a deprivation of the property of inhabitants of the territory without due process of law, and therefore in violation of the Federal Constitution,-is so palpably unfounded that it constitutes not even a color for the jurisdiction of a Federal court. McCain v. Des Moines, 936

15. An action against a receiver of a national bank appointed by the comptroller of the currency is one arising under the laws of the United States and within the juris

diction of the Federal court. Auten
United States Nat. Bank,
Conflicting jurisdiction.

See also INJUNCTION, 1.



22. In determining the existence of a contract which is alleged to be impaired the Supreme Court of the United States will form an independent judgment, and is not bound by a decision of that question by a state court although the contract is alleged to be created by a state statute. Citizens' Sav. Bank V. Owensboro,


23. Decisions of Maryland courts since the cession of the District of Columbia, giving to statutes a construction at variance with that prevailing at the time of the cession, do not control in construing those statutes as the laws of the District of Columbia. Morris v. United States. 946

[blocks in formation]

1. The constitutional right of an accused to be confronted with witnesses against him 16. An injunction against a criminal prosecution in a state court under a valid state is violated by the provision of the act of Conlaw, of a bank officer for embezzlement, can-gress of March 3, 1875, which makes a judg not be granted by a Federal court because it nient of conviction of the principal felons for had previously obtained jurisdiction in embezzling, stealing, or purloining property equity cases in which a receiver of the bank of the United States evidence in a prosecuhad been appointed and the civil liability of tion against a receiver of the property, of such officer was in litigation. Harkrader v. the fact that such property has been emWadley, bezzled, stolen, or purloined. Kirby 399 United States,

17. The rights and disputes of riparian owners as to water which has found its way into the unimproved bed of a stream must be determined by the state courts, although they cannot interfere with the control of the surplus water power incidentally created by a dam and canal owned and operated by the United States. Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co. Rules of decision.




2. A verdict of guilty "without capital punishment" may be rendered in a murder case under the act of Congress of January 15, 1897, chap. 29, even if there are no mitigating or palliating circumstances. Winston v. United States,


18. The public policy of a state in respect CROSS-EXAMINATION. to contracts made within the state and sought to be enforced therein is obligatory on the Federal courts, whether acting in equity or at law. Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. Krumseig,


19. A state statute will be construed by the Supreme Court of the United States as it is settled by the court of last resort of the state. Sioux City T. R. & W. Co. v. Trust Co. 628 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. McCann, 1093 20. The decision of a state court against

See BONDS, 1.




See also ACTION OR SUIT, 1.


1. The market value of the stock of a corporation is not a proper measure of the

See COURTS, 2.

value of its property transferred by an ultra | DELEGATION OF POWER.
vires lease, and which must be returned or
compensation therefor made. Pullman's
Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. 108 DEPUTY.

2. The value of contracts with third parties, or of patents owned by a company which transfers property under an ultra vires lease, and which have expired when the obligation to restore the property or make compensation therefor is enforced, cannot be considered in determining the value of such property, when payment for the use of such patents and contracts for the time they were used was included in the rent paid. Id. 3. The earnings of property transferred under an ultra vires lease cannot be included in the compensation to be paid in lieu of the property on disaffirmance of the contract.

[blocks in formation]

5. One half the amount of damage to cargo of a sunken vessel may be recouped against one half the award for the loss of the vessel itself by collision, where both vessels were in fault, notwithstanding the Harter act, relieving a vessel from responsibility to its own cargo for loss or damage caused by fault of navigation, since that does not lessen its liability to the other vessel in case of collision by mutual fault, until the amount of liability has been fixed upon the principle of an equal division of damages. The Chatta hoochee,


See also CANALS; COURTS, 17.


[blocks in formation]







See REWARD, 1, 2.


A release by the mother of illegitimate children, in her own right and for them, of all claims against the father, without the sanction of any tribunal, will not cut off a right of the children to inherit from him. Naeglin v. De Cordoba,








See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 69.


[blocks in formation]

2. Leave to discontinue a suit alleging an election to terminate a lease by virtue of its provisions, and also alleging that it was ultra vires, and offering to do what is proper and fair under the circumstances, asking to have the court decree just what compensation or relief should be made, is properly denied after the lease has been held void in another case, and an injunction granted against ing to the subject-matter of the bill, while recovering rent, and testimony taken relat

defendant asks leave to file a cross bill to

avail itself of the tenders made in the origId.

inal bill.




Of Appeal, see APPEAL AND ERROR, VI.
See also JUDGMENT, 2, 3.




Extra compensation cannot be given to a district attorney for services in and about a proceeding in a Federal court for the condemnation of lands on behalf of the United States, as such a proceeding is included in civil actions, which by U. S. Rev. Stat. § 771, it is his duty to prosecute, and attendance thereon is "on the business of the United States," within the meaning of § 824. See CARRIERS, 5; CLAIMS, 8; TAXES, 12. United States v. Johnson, 731



« ForrigeFortsett »