Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

the purchaser at the sale takes no title, as against him. Scott v.
McNeal, 34.

See ConstiTUTIONAL LAW, 1.

FORT DEARBORN ADDITION TO CHICAGO.
1. Under the operation of the act of the legislature of Illinois of February

27, 1833, for the making and recording of town plats, the interest in
and control of the United States over the streets, alleys and commons
in the Fort Dearborn addition to Chicago ceased with the record of
the plat thereof and the sale of the adjoining lots. United States v.

Illinois Central Railroad Co., 225.
2. When a resort is made by individuals, or by the government of the

United States to the mode provided by the statute of a State where
real property is situated, for the transfer of its title, the effect and
conditions prescribed by the statute will apply, and such operation
will be given to the instrument of conveyance as is there desig-
nated. 1b.

INDICTMENT.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
1. The twelfth section of the Interstate Commerce Act authorizing the

Circuit Courts of the United States to use their process in aid of
inquiries before the Commission established by that act, is not in
conflict with the Constitution of the United States, as imposing on
judicial tribunals duties not judicial in their nature. Interstate Com-

merce Commission v. Brimson, 447.
2. A petition filed under that section in the Circuit Court of the United

States against a witness, duly summoned to testify before the Com-
mission, to compel him to testify or to produce books, documents and
papers relating to the matter under investigation before that body,
makes a case or controversy to which the judicial power of the United

States extends. 1b.
3. As every citizen is bound to obey the law and to yield obedience to the

constituted authorities acting within the law, the power conferred
upon the Interstate Commerce Commission to require the attendance
and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers and
documents relating to a matter under investigation by it, imposes
upon any one summoned by that body to appear and testify the duty
of appearing and testifying, and upon any one required to produce
such books, papers and documents the duty of producing them, if the

testimony sought and the books, papers, etc., called for relate to the
matter under investigation, if such matter is one which the Com-
mission is legally entitled to investigate, and if the witness is not ex-
cused by the law on some personal ground from doing what the

Commission requires at his hands. 16.
4. Power given to Congress to regulate interstate commerce does not

carry with it authority to destroy or impair those fundamental guar-
antees of personal rights that are recognized by the Constitution as

inhering in the freedom of the citizen. Ib.
5. It was open to each of the defendants in this proceeding to contend

before the Circuit Court that he was protected by the Constitution
from making answer to the questions propounded to him or that he
was not bound to produce the books, papers, etc., ordered to be pro
duced, or that neither the questions propounded nor the books, papers,
etc., called for related to the particular matter under investigation,
nor to any matter which the Commission' was entitled under the
Constitution or laws to investigate. This issue being determined in
their favor by the court below, the petition of the Commission could

have been dismissed upon its merits. Ib.
6. Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40;

Todd's Case, 13 How. 52; Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. 697; In

re Sanborn, 148 U. S. 222, examined and distinguished. Ib.
7. The inquiry whether a witness before the Commission is bound to

answer a particular question propounded to him, or to produce books,
papers, etc., in his possession and called for by that body, is one that
cannot be committed to a subordinate administrative or executive
tribunal for final determination. Such a body could not, under our
system of government, and consistently with due process of law, be
invested with authority to compel obedience to its orders by a judg-

ment of fine or imprisonment. Ib.
8. Except in the particular instances enumerated in the Constitution, and

considered in Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, and in Kilbourn v.
Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 190, of the exercise by either house of Con.
gress of its right to punish disorderly behavior upon the part of its
members, and to compel the attendance of witnesses, and the produc-
tion of papers in election and impeachment cases, and in cases that
may involve the existence of those bodies, the power to impose fine
or imprisonment in order to compel the performance of a legal duty
imposed by the United States can only be exerted, under the law
of the land, by a competent judicial tribunal having jurisdiction in

the premises. Ib.
9. A proceeding under the twelfth section of the Interstate Commerce

Act is not merely ancillary and advisory, nor is its object merely to
obtain an opinion of the Circuit Court that would be without opera-
tion upon the rights of the parties. Any judgment rendered will be
a final and indisputable basis of action as between the Commission

and the defendant, and furnish a precedent for similar cases. The
judgment is none the less one of a judicial tribunal dealing with
questions judicial in their nature and presented in the customary
forms of judicial proceedings, because its effect may be to aid an ad-
ministrative or executive body in the performance of duties legally
imposed upon it by Congress in execution of a power granted by the

Constitution. Ib.
10. The issue made in such a case as this is not one for the determination

of a jury, nor can any question of contempt arise until the issue of
law in the Circuit Court is determined adversely to the defendants,
and they refuse to obey, not the order of the Commission, but the
final order of the court. In matters of contempt a jury is not re-
quired by due process of law. 1b.

JUDGMENT.
See Tax AND TAXATION, 2.

JURISDICTION.

A. OF THE SUPREME COURT.
1. This court has no jurisdiction to review by writ of error a judgment of

the highest court of a State, as against a right under the Constitution
of the United States, if the right was not claimed in any form before

judgment in that court. Morrison v. Watson, 111.
2. It is for the Supreme Court of the State of Virginia to construe the

statute of that State which provides that “any person duly authorized
and practising as counsel or attorney at law in any State or Territory
of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, may practise as
such in the courts of this State," and to determine whether the word
“person," as therein used, is confined to males, and whether women
are admitted to practise law in that Commonwealth. In re Lockwood,

Petitioner, 116.
3. When the laws of a State create a tribunal for the correction and

equalization of assessments, and provide that persons feeling aggrieved
by a valuation may apply to such board for its correction, and confer
upon the board power so to do, it is for the Supreme Court of the
State to determine whether the statute remedy is exclusive or whether
it is only cumulative; and its action in that respect raises no Federal

question. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Patterson, 130.
4. Several judgments severally held by different complainants who unite

in the prosecution of a creditor's bill, cannot be added together to
make the amount necessary to give this court appellate jurisdiction.

Hunt v. Bender, 556.
5. No question under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act having been

passed upon by the court below, this court has no jurisdiction over
the judgment of the state court. Davidson v. Starcher, 566.

6. There being no exception to a ruling or to anything which took place

at the trial, there is nothing in the record to be reviewed, and the

judgment below is affirmed. Weed v. Crane, 570.
7. This court will not take jurisdiction over an interlocutory decree.

McCollum y. Howard, 577.
8. To give this court jurisdiction over the judgment of the highest court

of a State, brought here by writ of error, it must appear that some
question under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act was made by the

pleadings, or passed upon by the court. Gray v. Coan, 589.
9. A writ of error to a state court is dismissed because no question was

decided by that court of which this court has jurisdiction under the

25th section of the Judiciary Act. Davidson v. Connelly, 589.
10. Dismissed because the amount in controversy does not give the court

jurisdiction. Jones v. Fritschle, 590.
11. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Allen v. Tarleton, 596.
12. The finding by a state court that the facts on which a party relies to

bring his case within a statute of the United States do not exist is no

decision against the validity of that statute. Crary v. Devlin, 619.
13. Dismissed because the jurisdictional amount is not involved. Bennett

v. Butterworth, 8 How. 124, distinguished. Pittsburgh Locomotive Car

Works v. Keokuk National Bank, 626.
14. Until the record of a judgment in a state court which this court is

called upon to examine discloses the question necessary to give it
jurisdiction, this court cannot proceed. Goodenough Horse-Shoe Manu-

facturing Co. v. Rhode Island Horse-Shoe Co., 635.
15. This court has no jurisdiction over a judgment of a state court when

it does not appear that a Federal question was raised, and that it was
either decided or necessarily involved in the judgment pronounced.

Hagar v. California, 639.
16. An appeal to this court will not lie from the judgment of a Circuit

Court in a proceeding by a creditor to prove his demand against the

estate of a bankrupt. Ingersoll v. Bourne, 645.
17. The decree from which this appeal was taken was not a final decree.

Follansbee v. Ballard Paving Co., 651.
18. The court has no jurisdiction in this case. Burr v. Meyers, 654.
19. In cases brought here from state courts this court can only look be-

yond the Federal question when that has been decided erroneously.

McLaughlin v. Fowler, 663.
20. No Federal question is raised in this case. France v. Missouri, 667.

See RECEIVER.

B. OF CIRCUIT COURTS.

See ADMIRALTY, 1;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 2.

C. OF STATE COURTS.
See ADMIRALTY, 2, 3;

JURISDICTION, A, 2, 3.

D. OF PROBATE COURTS.

See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.

LEX LOCI.
See DAMAGES, 2.

LIMITATION, STATUTES OF.

See LOCAL LAW.

LOCAL LAW.

1. An action of ejectment was brought in a state court of Alabama, in

which the parties were the same, the lands sought to be recovered were
the same, the issues were the same and the proof was the same as in
this action. That case was taken to the Supreme Court of the State,
and it was there held that, whilst the plaintiffs and those whom they
represented had no legal right to bring an action of ejectment pending
a life estate in the premises, yet, in view of a probate sale of the re-
versionary interest and the recorded title thereto, and of the payment
of the purchase price into the estate and its distribution among the
creditors of the estate, the heirs had an equitable right to commence
a suit to remove the cloud on the title which the probate proceedings
created; and, inasmuch as they had failed to do so during twenty
years, their right of action was barred under the doctrine of prescrip
tion. The statutes of Alabama provide that two judgments in favor
of the defendant in an action of ejectment, or in an action in the
nature of an action of ejectment, between the same parties, in which
the same title is put in issue, are a bar to any action for the recovery of
the land, or any part thereof, between the same parties or their privies,
founded on the same title. The plaintiffs, availing themselves of this
statute, brought this suit. Held, that, although the judgment of this
court might be, if the question were before it for original considera-
tion, that the bar of the statute would only begin to run upon the
death of the holder of the life estate, yet that, the court of last resort
of the State having passed upon the questions when the bar of the
statute of prescription began to be operative, and when the parties
were obliged to bring their action, whether legal or equitable, those
questions were purely within the province of that court, and this
court was bound to apply and enforce its conclusions. Balkam v.
Woodstock Iron Co., 177.

« ForrigeFortsett »