Right to injunction against collection Discrimination in favor of, in imposing Franchise tax on, see Taxes, 4-7, 11, Liability for breach of trust by, see COUNTERCLAIM. See Set-Off and Counterclaim. COURT OF CLAIMS. Jurisdiction of action on claim arising See also Claims, 22. Pleading. The practice of the court of claims does not allow a general statement of claim in analogy to the common-law counts, but there must be a plain, concise statement of Merritt v. United the facts relied on. 12. Inheritance tax on stock of, see Taxes, 21. Right to funds as against alien property custodian, see War, 3-5. Right to seize property of corporation having stockholders, see War, 7, 8. 5. That a corporation transacts business in a foreign state through a subsid-States, 267 U. S. 338, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 278, iary which is completely dominated by it does not render it subject to suit in such state, where the subsidiary does not act as its agent, but itself buys the product of the foreign company and sells to customers, all accounts and transactions being kept entirely separate. Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co. 267 U. S. 333, 45 Sup. Ct. (Annotated) 69: 634 Rep. 250, 6. That the stock of a subsidiary corporation is entirely owned by the parent corporation, and that, in the state of the attempted organization of the subsidiary, a corporation sole is not recognized, does not make all business done by the subsidiary 69: 643 COURT OF CUSTOMS APPEALS. See Rules of Courts. COURTS. I. Courts of justice generally, 1-11. a. Jurisdiction, 12-38. in another state that of the parent, so as III. Conflicting, concurrent, and exclusive to bring the parent within the jurisdiction of courts sitting in that state. Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co. 267 U. S. 333, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 250, (Annotated) 69: 634 COSTS AND FEES. Items of cost in fixing street railway Of public improvement, see Public Im- Against United States. 1. Ordinarily, costs are not allowed James Shewan against the United States. & Sons v. United States, 267 U. S. 86, 45 69:527 Sup. Ct. Rep. 238, 2. Under the provisions of the Act of March 9, 1920, chap. 95, authorizing suits in admiralty against the United States, which shall proceed and he heard and determined according to the principles of law and rules of practice obtaining in like cases between private parties, costs may be allowed against the United States in case James Shewan judgment goes against it. & Sons v. United States, 267 U. S. 86, 45 69: 527 Sup. Ct. Rep. 238, On dismissal. 3. A court which has no jurisdiction of a cause of action as a court cannot require plaintiff to pay the costs on dismissal of his bill. Smyth v. Asphalt Belt R. Co. 267 U. S. 326, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 242, 69: 629 jurisdiction, 40–48. IV. Rules of decision, 49-56. Jurisdiction of suit against United Encroachment on power of, see Consti- Encroachment by, on other depart ments, see Constitutional Law, 5, 6. Power to punish for contempt, see Con- Consideration of railroad rates by, see United States Supreme Court, see Su- I. Courts of justice generally. Jurisdiction generally. 1. A court upon which is conferred jurisdiction to try an offense has jurisdiction to determine whether or not that offense is 69: 1036 charged or proved. Knewel v. Egan. 268 U. S. 442, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522, 2. An objection to jurisdiction of a court over the subject-matter of an action by an employee of a railroad under Federal control against the Federal agent does not give the court jurisdiction if it is not conferred by the general orders controlling the matter. Davis v. O'Hara, 266 U. S. 314, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 104, 78 69: 303 i ernment. Relation to other departments of gov-be carried out without interference by any court. Mellon v. Orinoco Iron Co. 266 U. S. 121, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53, 3. An order of a regulatory body based upon evidence which clearly does not support it is an arbitrary act, against which courts afford relief. Northern P. R. Co. v. Department of Public Works, 268 U. S. 39, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 412, 69: 837 4. Where rates found by a regulatory body to be compensatory are attacked as being confiscatory, the courts may inquire into the method by which its conclusion is reached. Northern P. R. Co. v. Department of Public Works, 268 U. S. 39, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 412, 69: 837 legislative department. 5. The judicial function to be exercised in construing a statute is limited to ascertaining the intention of the legislature therein expressed. Ebert v. Poston, 266 U. S. 548, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 69: 435 6. The question of the wisdom of publicity or secrecy of income-tax returns is a matter addressed to the lawmaking department, with which the courts are not concerned so long as no constitutional right or privilege of the taxpayer is in vaded. United States v. Dickey, 268 U. S. 378, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 558, 69: 1006 United States v. Baltimore Post, 268 U. S. 388, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560, 69: 1009 II. Federal courts. 69: 199 Conflicting, concurrent and exclusive jurisdiction of, see post, III. Following state decisions, see post, 51–55. a. Jurisdiction. Sufficiency of allegation as to venue, see 12. The jurisdiction of a Federal court must affirmatively and distinctly appear, and cannot be helped by presumptions or argumentative inferences drawn from the pleadings. Norton v. Larney, 266 U. S. 511, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 145, 69: 413 States acquires jurisdiction of a controversy 13. Where a district court of the United case. 7. Danger to the inhabitants of a city from denial of the right to divert water from a navigable lake of the United States for the purpose of diluting the sewage of the city cannot be considered by the court in a suit to enjoin such act, as against the power of Congress to forbid the withdrawal of water from the lake as an interference with its navigability. Sanitary District of Chicago v. United States, 266 15. A district court of the United States U. S. 405, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176, 69: 352 has jurisdiction to pass upon the question 8. The state is primarily the judge of where the allegations of the complaint set regulations required in the interest of pub- out a substantial claim under a Federal lic safety and welfare. and its police stat- statute. United States v. Archibald McNeil utes may only be declared unconstitutional & Sons Co. 267 U. S. 302, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. where they are arbitrary or unreasonable attempts to exercise authority vested in the state in the public interest. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625, 69. 1138 9. The making of rates and the division of joint rates is a legislative, and not a judicial, function. Terminal R. Asso. v. United States, 266 U. S. 17, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 5, 69: 150 -executive department. 10. The decision of the director of the Veterans' Bureau upon a question of allow. ance to a disabled soldier is final and conclusive, and not subject to judicial review, unless it is wholly unsupported by the evidence, or is wholly dependent upon a question of law, or is shown to be clearly arbitrary or capricious. Silberschein v. United States, 266 U. S. 221, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 69, 69: 256 11. A direction by the Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Treasury, to pay money received from a foreign country on behalf of a private claimant to a designated person, is not so conclusive that it must 1234 258, 69: 620 16. The district court of the United States has jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin state officials from enforcing a tax against the property cf a railroad company which is alleged to be based on an assessment greater than the assessment of other property of the same class, whereby the railroad company is deprived of its property without due process of law, and denied the equal protection of the laws. Chicago G. W. R. Co. v. Kendall, 266 U. S. 94, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 55, 69: 183 17. A Federal court sitting in a state where property is assessed for taxation has jurisdiction of a suit in equity to enjoin the collection of the assessment because in conflict with the Federal Constitution, where the state law gives no remedy to recover taxes paid under protest, on the ground that they were illegally assessed and collected. Bohler v. Callaway, 267 U. S. 479, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431, 69: 745 18. A suit by a Federal reserve bank incorporated under the laws of the United States, to enforce payment of a note held by it as collateral security, is a suit arising under the laws of the United States, within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Sowell v. Federal Reserve Bank, 268 U. S. 449, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 528, 69:1041 19. If a right to an allotment of Indian land, set up by one claimant, would be defeated by a construction of an act of Congress contended for by the rival claimant, but would be supported by the opposite construction, a suit to quiet title is one arising under the laws of the United States, within the jurisdiction of the district court, under § 24, subdiv. 1, of the Judicial Code. Norton v. Larney, 266 U. S. 69: 413 511, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 145, 20. An allegation in a bill to quiet title to a tract of land allotted to a Creek Indian, that the allottee went into possession of the allotment by authority of treaties between the Creek Nation and the United States, and the laws of Congress dealing with the land and individuals of that nation, is insufficient to establish jurisdiction in the district court as of a suit arising under the laws of the United States. Norton v. Larney, 266 U. S. 511, 45 Sup. Ct. 69: 413 Rep. 145, Jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See also ante, 13. 21. A necessary party plaintiff to a suit to establish fraud in the lease of a mine and secure an accounting cannot be made a defendant for the purpose of establishing the necessary diversity of citizenship of the parties to give jurisdiction to the Federal court. Lee v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. 267 69: 782 U. S. 542, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 385, 22. A foreign railroad company which has purchased a road of a local corporation cannot maintain in the Federal court, on the ground of diverse citizenship, an action as such local corporation, to enforce a contract with a local municipality. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Parkersburg, 268 U. S. 35, 69: 834 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 382, 23. A foreign corporation cannot, as sole stockholder of a domestic one, maintain a suit in a Federal court on the ground of diverse citizenship of the parties, to enforce a contract between a local municipality and the domestic corporation, since the domestic corporation is an indispensable party to the suit. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Parkersburg, 268 U. S. 35, 45 Sup. Ct. Ren. 69: 834 382, suits by assignee. 24. The provision of the Judicial Code States has no jurisdiction, in view of the 26. The statute denying jurisdiction to 27. There is no jurisdiction in a United Suits by or against United States. Nassau States district court over a suit against the United States government unless it is 69: 190 expressly conferred by statute. Smelting & Ref. Works v. United States, 28. The district court of the United 266 U. S. 101, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25, States for the district where the seizure occurred has jurisdiction of a proceeding for compensation under the Lever Act of August 10, 1917, chap. 53, for coal commandeered or requisitioned by the President for the use of a railroad under Federal conUnited States v. Archibald trol, although claimant is not a resident of 69: 620 such district. McNeil & Sons Co. 267 U. S. 302, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 258, 29. A district court of the United States has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver to collect taxes due for a road improvement in a state where a statute authorized and confirmed an assessment, and a mortgage of it as security for bonds that the public was invited to buy, and provided in terms for collection by a receiver appointed in 69: 487 equity in case of default. Guardian Sav. & T. Co. v. Road Improv. Dist. 267 U. S. 1, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 201, Amount in controversy. Equitable jurisdiction. 30. Jurisdiction of the United States district court of an action for damages for breach of contract to purchase merchandise in an amount exceeding $3,000 is not defeated by the fact that the seller, after rescinding the contract, subsequently sold the goods for a price which, if deducted from the contract price, would reduce the loss below $3.000. Stein v. Tip-Top Baking Co. 267 U. S. 226, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273. 69: 585 31. The aggregate of the claims is the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining jurisdiction of a Federal court to enjoin the prosecution of a large number of claims for traveling and per diem expenses in attending a sovereign camp of a secret society as alleged delegates, where the claims are alleged to be without foundation, and to be prosecuted in pursuance of a conspiracy to embarrass and attempt to ruin the society, while the validity of all 1235 the claims depends upon the same issue. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World v. O'Neill, 266 U. S. 292, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 49, 69: 293 Districts; territorial limitations. 32. Congress has power to authorize a suit under a Federal law to be brought in any inferior Federal court, and to provide that process of every district court shall run into every part of the United States. Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, 268 U. S. 619, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621, 268 U. S. 93, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427, 69: 862 38. A creditor of a bankrupt cannot bring into the Federal court having jurisdiction of the bankruptcy proceedings, a bank which is a citizen of the state where the court is sitting and where the creditor also resides, for the purpose of litigating a right to money .deposited by the bankrupt in the bank, and set off by it upon its claim against the bankrupt, but which is alleged to belong to the creditor. Fulton Nat. Bank v. Hozier, 267 U. S. 276, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261, 69: 609 b. Practice and procedure. 39. In a civil suit in personam, jurisdiction over defendant, as distinguished from venue, implies, among other things, either voluntary appearance by defendant, or service of process upon him at a place where the officer serving it has authority to execute a writ of summons. Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, 268 U. S. 619, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621, 69: 1119 69: 1119 33. In view of the provision of § 51 of the Judicial Code, that no civil suit shall be brought in any district court against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, the provision of § 310 of the Transportation Act of February 28, 1920, chap. 91, that, upon failure of a witness to comply with a subpoena of the Labor Board, the Board may invoke the aid of any United States district court, will not be construed to confer jurisdiction on a court of a district other than that where the witness resides or is found. Robertson III. Conflicting, concurrent, and exclusive v. Railroad Labor Board, 268 U. S. 619, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621, 69: 1119 Ancillary and incidental jurisdiction. 34. The sale and delivery of railroad property to a purchaser under a decree of foreclosure does not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the property, or terminate plaintiff's right to carry on an ancillary suit, if the decree reserves all questions not determined and those affecting the property for further hearing and determination. Central Union Trust Co. v. Anderson County, 268 U. S. 93, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427, 69: 862 35. No controversy can be regarded as dependent or ancillary within the rule that when a Federal court has properly acquired jurisdiction over a cause, it may entertain, by intervention, dependent or ancillary controversies, unless it has direct relation to property or assets actually or constructively drawn into the court's possession or control by the principal suit. Fulton Nat. Bank v. Hozier, 267 U. S. 276, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261. 69: 609 36. An ancillary suit may be maintained by the plaintiff in the principal suit against strangers to the record, to determine a controversy having relation to the property in the custody of the court, and which, in justice to the parties before the court, ought to be determined in the principal suit. Central Union Trust Co. V. Anderson County, 268 U. S. 93, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427, 69: 862 37. A Federal court decreeing foreclosure of a railroad mortgage has jurisdiction of an ancillary suit to determine the valid ity of an alleged contract requiring the maintenance of shops at a particular place, which, under the allegations, would burden and restrict the operation of the road. require great and unnecessary expenditures, and diminish the value of the road. Central Union Trust Co. v. Anderson County, jurisdiction. 40. The state courts have, under the provisions of the Transportation Act of February 28, 1920, chap. 91, jurisdiction of an action to hold the Director General of Railroads liable for the value of coal requisitioned by him while in process of transportation over a road under his control. Davis v. George B. Newton Coal Co. 267 U. S. 292, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305, 69: 617 41. Congress having made no provision for remedy in the statute making an initial carrier liable for negligence of a connecting carrier, the Federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over suits arising under the act. Missouri ex rel. St. Louis, B. & M. R. Co. v. Taylor, 266 U. S. 200, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47, 69: 247 42. That jurisdiction cannot be secured by a Federal court through attachment in an action to hold an initial carrier liable for the negligence of a connecting carrier, without personal service of process on it, does not prevent jurisdiction being secured by that method in a state court. Missouri ex rel. St. Louis, B. & M. R. Co. v. Taylor, 266 U. S. 200, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47, 69: 247 Injunction against other courts and their officers. 43. The provision of § 265 of the Judicial Code, that the writ of injunction shall not be granted by a court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state, does not prevent the issuance of an injunction against the prosecution of claims in a state court against a secret society, under a conspiracy to ruin it. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World v. O'Neill, 266 U. S. 292, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 49, 69: 293 44. An action at law in a state court under § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act of June 5, 1920, chap. 250, to recover damages for the death of a seaman, may be enjoined in a Federal court in a proceeding under the admiralty rules for limitation of liability of the shipowner. Re East River Towing Co. 266 U. S. 355, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114, 69: 324 Priority in jurisdiction; exclusiveness. 45. Claims arising under § 10 of the Lever Act of August 10, 1917, chap. 53, for loss caused by government operations, must be brought in the district court, and not in the court of claims. United States Bedding Co. v. United States, 266 U. S. 491, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182, 69: 399 46. The district court of the United States cannot decline jurisdiction of an action by the owner of a logging camp to recover damages from a state corporation engaged in the production of war materials for losses incident upon the devotion of the camp to the production of airplane timber alone, upon assurances of government agents that the government would pay for what was done, upon the ground that the Dent Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in the court of claims. Olson v. United States Spruce Production Corp. 267 U. S. 462, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357, 69: 738 47. The principle that when the juris diction of the court has attached, it must be respected as exclusive until exhausted, has but limited application in criminal Morse v. United States, 267 U. S. 80, cases. 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 209, 69: 522 that court has the same authority and duty 53. The Supreme Court of the United States is bound by repeated decisions of the courts of a state, which have become a rule of property, to the effect that a statute providing that, upon the filing of a bond by a corporation with two or more good securities, patents of land might issue to the corporation, was not complied with by a bond signed by individuals only, and that those issued under such a bond were void. Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Martin, 268 U. S. 458, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 543, 69: 1050 States is bound by the decision of a state 69: 884 55. A confirmatory statute treated by 48. One indicted for crime in the Fed-lative determination of the lands which will the highest court of the state as a legiseral courts of two jurisdictions cannot avail be benefited by a public improvement must himself of the violation of any rule of be treated by the Supreme Court of the comity which may result from the refusal United States as an admissible legislative of one court to respect the jurisdiction of assessment of benefits, so far as the state the other, which first attached. Morse V. Constitution is concerned. Kansas City S. United States, 267 U. S. 80, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. R. Co. v. Road Improv. Dist. No. 3, 266 U. S. 379, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136, 69: 335 Federal courts following insular courts. 209, IV. Rules of decision. 69:522 Precedents and rule of stare decisis. 50. The Supreme Court of the United 51. Federal courts ordinarily hold themselves bound by the rulings of the state courts upon the meaning of state statutes and the rules of the unwritten law of the state affecting property within the state. Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Martin, 268 U. S. 458, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 543. 69: 1050 52. When questions affected by the interpretation of a state statute or a local rule of property arise in a Federal court, 56. The Federal courts should exercise caution in overruling decisions of the supreme court of Porto Rico, based on local statutes and local traditions. B. Fernandez & Bros. v. Ayllon y Ojeda, 266 U. S. 144. 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 52, 69: 209 |