United States Supreme Court Reports

the obligation to make entry and pay the by a court of equity as having been made. duties arises. Morris v. United States,

Id.

946

EASEMENTS.

See HIGHWAYS.

EJECTMENT.

1. Plaintiff in ejectment can recover only on the strength of his own title. King v. Mullins, 214

2. One plaintiff cannot recover in a joint action of ejectment if the coplaintiffs cannot. Davis v. Coblens,

1147

ELECTION OF REMEDIES.

See ACTION OR SUIT, 1.

EMINENT DOMAIN.

See also CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 18;
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, 1, 2.

1. The taxation by a city, of a bridge and its appurtenances within the fixed boundary between low-water mark on the two sides of the Ohio river, is not a taking of private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Constitution of the United States, merely because that part of the bridge which is over the river is not as much or as distinctly benefited by the police protection afforded by the city as the part which is above low-water mark. Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 823

2. Owners of expensive wharves and warehouses erected and maintained under express or implied licenses from city authorities on the water front along the Potomac river in Washington, D. C., are not to be treated as trespassers in taking the premises for a government improvement, but are entitled to compensation for the value of their private interests in the structures. Morris v. United States,

946

THE

EQUAL

LAWS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9-17.

PROTECTION

EQUITY.

See also CLOUD ON TITLE; COURTS, 1;
INJUNCTION; USURY, 1, 2.

4. The legal remedy of the holder of municipal warrants, which, if valid, are legal causes of action, precludes a suit by him in equity for specific performance of the contract under which the warrants were given, and for an injunction against the enforce ment of ordinances attempting to repeal the contract. Raton Waterworks Co. v. Raton, 1005

common and ordinary way of doing business 2. Judicial notice may be taken of the in exchanges or boards of trade throughout the country. Nichol v. Ames,

786

3. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that semicircular hand holds or recesses in the front of book shelves have been long in familiar use. Office Specialty Mig. Co. v. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. 1058

that banks and other corporations continue 4. It is a matter of common knowledge in many instances to do their regular and ordinary business for long periods though in a condition of actual insolvency as disclosed by subsequent events. McDonald v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 1106 foreclosures of railroad mortgages ordin5. It is a fact of common knowledge that arily mean, not the destruction of all interest of the mortgagor and a transfer to the mortgagee alone of the full title, but that such proceedings are carried on in the interests of all parties who have any rights in the mortgaged property whether as mortgagee, creditor, or mortgagor. Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co.

1130

1. A court of equity will not release an individual from the operation of the statute of frauds, which requires that interest in lands be created by an instrument in writing, and impose an equitable lien upon land in favor of one who makes improvements thereon, knowing that the title is in another, -especially where the money is expended under an express understanding with reference thereto, had with the owner, but will leave the party to the remedies, if any, which a court of law provides. Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia, 478 2. A controversy as to the basis on which dividends should be declared by a receiver of a national bank is within the jurisdiction of equity as the administration of a trust. Merrill v. National Bank, 640

the navigability of the river ceases cannot be 6. Judicial notice of the point at which taken unless that is a matter of general knowledge or one that ought to be generally 3. A conveyance from trustees which known. United States v. Rio Grande Dam ought to have been made will be considered & I. Co. 1252 1136

Presumptions and burden of proof.

7. The presumption of the innocence of an accused attends him throughout the trial and has relation to every fact that must be established in order to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Kirby v. United States,

890

17. Evidence of the wealth of one of the defendants in a libel case, offered as bearing on the allowance of exemplary damages, is inadmissible, as the verdict must be against all the defendants and may be collected from any of them. Washington Gaslight Co. v. 543 Lansden,

18. Testimony of persons named by an accused as his enemies, that they have no ill will against him, is not collateral to the main issue, or a contradiction of what the prosecution has brought out, where the accused on his direct examination said enemies had placed in his pocket stolen money that 946 was found there, and their names were Scott v. brought out on cross-examination. United States, 471 Sufficiency.

8. The burden of proving undue influence in a gift from an aged woman to daughters with whom she lives alternately rests upon the person alleging it. Towson v. Moore,

597

9. A presumptive grant of the right to wharves and water fronts does not arise by long-continued use of them, when the lands and water fronts are owned by the government, in trust for public purposes, and are withheld from sale by the Land Department, without any renunciation of the exercise of jurisdiction and control over them. Morris v. United States,

10. It cannot be assumed that an officer will neglect to discharge a duty expressly impressed upon him by law, or that courts are without power to compel him to act, where this is necessary for the protection of the rights of an individual. King v. Mullins, 214

11. Authority of Mexican officials to make a grant cannot be presumed because they made it, for the purpose of determining the validity of the grant, under the act of Congress which provides for confirmation of grants only when made by persons vested with authority, or when subsequently ratified. Ely v. United States, 142

Documentary.

12. Certified copies from the Confederate Archives Office of official communications between high civil and military officers of the Confederate States are competent evidence to show that the Confederate authorities obtained possession of a vessel by purchase and not by capture or by other forcible and compulsory appropriation. Oakes V. United States,

1169

Parol as to writings.

13. A written contract which appears to be legal on its face may be proved to be only part of a contract the other portions of which were illegal. McMullen v. Hoffman, 1117

14. Evidence that a defendant in a state court was not a citizen or resident of the state, and gave no authority for an appearance by an attorney, is admissible to contradict recitals in the judgment, when the jurisdiction is attacked in a Federal court. Cooper v. Newell, 808

Declarations.

15. Declarations by persons who have made a deed of trust are admissible against them, at least in an action attacking it as a fraud upon creditors in which there is other evidence of a common purpose of the vendors and vendee to defraud, when the rights of the secured creditors are carefully guarded in the charge to the jury. Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brew. Co. 492 Relevancy.

which, by the act of Congress of March 3, 1891, is made competent evidence on the merits for claims for Indian depredations, is competent on the issue of amity, as amity is an essential prerequisite to recovery. Collier v. United States,

621

16. Any document on file in the departments of the government or in the courts,

19. The presumption against a vessel which is seized for attempting to enter a blockaded port which arises from the concealment and destruction of bills of health naming that port as the destination of the vessel is not conclusive where there is evidence that the concealment was due to forgetfulness and the destruction was made on the supposition that the papers were worthless. The Olinde Rodrigues,

1065

20. The evidence of evil intent must be clear and convincing before a merchant ship belonging to citizens of a friendly nation will be condemned as prize for breach of blockade.

Id.

21. A mere recital in a contract cannot be taken as sufficient to disprove the averment in an answer, when & case is heard upon pleadings, without any evidence except contracts set forth in the complaint. Nugent v. Arizona Improv. Co.

721

GARLAND.

Attorney General, death of.
GARNISHMENT.

EXTRADITION.

The right of a person extradited under 1. Jurisdiction in garnishment of a debt the treaty of 1890 with Great Britain to due to a nonresident creditor may be acquired have a reasonable time to return to his own without service on him except by publication country after his discharge from custody or so as to make a judgment against him valid imprisonment on account of the offense for and entitle it to full faith and credit in other which he is extradited, before he can be ar-states. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Sturm, rested for any other offense committed prior 1144 to his extradition, is not lost or waived by 2. The appointment of a garnishee as regoing to his own country and voluntarily ceiver, with the consent of all parties then in returning while at liberty on bail before his the case, before the expiration of the time final discharge in the case for which he was for taking issue on his answer, precludes the extradited. Cosgrove v. Winney, necessity of traversing the statements in his answer, which allege his individual right to See APPEAL AND ERROR, II. c; COURTS, & T. Co. v. Campbell Commission Co. the possession of the property. Central Loan 623

897

FEDERAL QUESTION.

14, 15.

EX POST FACTO LAWS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4.

3. The failure to traverse the answer of a garnishee, which, by Okla. Stat. 1893, § 4085, makes it conclusive of the truth of the fact therein stated, does not make it con

clusive as to statements made by an interplea, wholly independent and distinct from the garnishment, setting up his individual right to the possession of the property.

Id.

GAS.

See DUTIES, 8; MUNICIPAL CORPORA-
TIONS, 1.

GENERAL AVERAGE.

See AVERAGE.

GIFT.

See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 9, 34.

1. A conviction cannot be reviewed by

habeas corpus on the ground that the judge before whom the trial was had had no right to exercise the judicial functions, where he was acting with color of authority. Ex parte Ward,

HARTER ACT.

2. Federal courts will not interfere by habeas corpus with the trial of indictments found in state courts, on the ground that the state statutes are repugnant to the Federal Constitution, laws, or treaties, unless there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to require it. Fitts v. McGhee,

535

3. The refusal to permit counsel engaged by a prisoner to have a consultation with him before the district attorney had seen him and examined him is not ground for attacking a conviction by habeas corpus, when the prisoner waived examination before a commissioner, and was represented on the trial by counsel assigned to him at his own request, and the statement made by him to the district attorney was voluntary and was not put in evidence, and, no objections were raised to questions asked him on the stand as to what he said on that occasion, and no witnesses were called to contradict his answers. Andersen v. Treat,

351

See DAMAGES, 5; SHIPPING.

the act of Congress of March 3, 1891, for allowance of the claims of Pottawatomie Indians for depredations committed "by others" upon their property. United States 765 v. Navarre,

620

INCREASE.

See MORTGAGE, 1.

2. The record of a deed from an Indian without the approval of the President, which is necessary for a valid conveyance, constitutes notice of the title to subsequent purchasers, under the Illinois conveyancing act, § 30, making an unrecorded deed void as to creditors and subsequent purchasers. Lomax v. Pickering,

601

2. The ownership by the United States of stolen postage stamps when received by the accused is sufficiently alleged by stating that the stamps were the property of the United States when feloniously stolen on a certain day, and that two days afterwards the accused received them, knowing they were feloniously stolen, with intent to convert them to his own use. Id.

3. An indictment in the language of U. S. Rev. Stat. § 3296, charging the concealment of distilled spirits on which the tax had 1230 not been paid, which had been removed to a place other than the distillery warehouse provided by law, is sufficiently certain and sufficiently alleges the existence of a warehouse provided for such spirits. Pounds v. 62 United States,

4. An indictment for unlawfully import ing and bringing into a certain port of the United States diamonds of a stated value, "contrary to law," with intent to defraud the United States, but not indicating what is relied on as violative of the law, is insufficient, although it charges the offense substantially in the words of U. S. Rev. Stat. 678 3082. Keck v. United States,

505

58,

1. Depredations by other Indians as well as by white men are within the provision of

INDIAN DEPREDATIONS.

See also CLAIMS, 7-10; EVIDENCE, 16; White V. Butler,
INDIANS, 1.
INDIANS.

See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 3, 19,
76; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2.

2. Equity cannot entertain jurisdiction to restrain or relieve against proceedings for the removal of public officers, as this would invade the domain of the courts of law or of the executive and administrative department of the government. White v. Berry,

199 204

3. The discretion of the executive department in respect to assigning one person to work in place of another, even if this does not constitute a removal of the latter from office, will not be interfered with by a court of equity. White v. Berry,

199 1255

4. An injunction against the building of waterworks by a city in violation of a contract with a water company will not be denied on the ground of a complete and adequate remedy at law, as the damage by the breach would be great, and perhaps irreparable, and exceedingly difficult of ascertainment. Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water

Co.

341

Against tax or assessment.

2. The stamp tax imposed by the war revenue act of 1898 on sales at exchanges or boards of trade is not a direct tax which the Constitution requires to be levied by the rule of apportionment, since it is not a tax upon the business itself, or upon the property sold, or upon sales generally, but is in effect a 5. Provision for a review and correction duty or excise laid upon the privilege, opby the circuit court of a county, of an assess-portunity, or facility offered at the board of ment for taxes made by the board of public trade or exchange. Nicol v. Ames, 786 works, affords such a convenient and ade3. The stamp tax on sales at exchanges quate remedy for any error in the taxation or boards of trade, being uniform throughout as will preclude an injunction against col- the United States and upon all who avail lecting the tax. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. themselves of the privileges or facilities offered at the exchanges, does not violate the constitutional rule of uniformity merely because sales elsewhere are not taxed and the tax is imposed on the seller only, and not the purchaser, and the tax is not imposed on the use of the privilege under all circumstances. Id.

R. Co. v. Board of Public Works,

354

6. The collection of taxes assessed under the authority of a state is not to be restrained by a writ of injunction from a court of the United States, unless it clearly appears, not only that the tax is illegal, but that the owner of the property taxed has no adequate remedy by the ordinary processes of the law, and that there are special circumstances bringing the case under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction. Id.

7. An injunction against a special assessment which is illegal because it rests upon a basis that excludes any consideration of benefits should enjoin the whole assessment, without considering whether the amount is in excess of the special benefits to the property or not. Norwood v. Baker,

443

8. Payment or tender of the amount of benefits received from an improvement is not necessary in order to obtain an injunction against an illegal assessment which is based on a rule or system that has no reference to special benefits. Id.

IN MEMORIAM.

Field, Stephen J.,
Garland, Augustus Hill,
Herschell, Baron,

INNOCENCE.

See EVIDENCE, 7.

INSOLVENCY.

See ATTACHMENT, 4; BANKRUPTCY; BANKS, 2; EVIDENCE, 4; TRIAL, 6. INSPECTION.

See COMMERCE, 2, 6, 7.

INSURANCE.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 15, 23. INTENDANT.

See PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS, 6.

INTEREST.

See USURY.

INTERNAL REVENUE.

Bøker

United States Supreme Court Reports, Volum 43;Volumer 171-174