record sought to be eliminated as a cloud are essential parts of cause of action and must be alleged in bill. Id.
4. Rule is same in respect of suits to remove clouds under § 6115, Montana Codes, 1907, as distinguished from suits to quiet title under § 6870. Id.
See Public Lands, 18-19.
(2) Removal and Remand. See III, (5), 12, supra.
5. Conclusive effect of order of remand. Yankaus v. Felten- stein....
6. Case arising under Federal Employers' Liability Act cannot be removed to District Court upon ground of diver- sity of citizenship. Southern Ry. v. Puckett....
(3) Parties and Diverse Citizenship. See IV, (2), 6, supra. 7. Where judgment is held by trustee for benefit of all bond- holders secured by his mortgage, he is necessary party to suit by majority of them to enforce judgment; and if he be made defendant without adequate cause, he must be re- aligned as plaintiff. Hamer v. New York Rys. Co........ 266
8. Where District Court's decree of foreclosure and sale makes no provision concerning money judgment outstand- ing against defendant, which District Court did not con- sider because defendant's liability under it was not absolute when claims were presented in the foreclosure proceedings, subsequent suit in that court to enforce the judgment as lien on the property foreclosed is not ancillary to the fore- closure proceedings. Hamer v. New York Rys. Co........ 266 9. Reference made without authority by District Court after dismissal of bill pursuant to mandate of this court, for pur- pose of determining claims under an injunction bond, held not to afford basis for ancillary suit by railroad defendant to enjoin persons from asserting in state courts their right to regain excess rates collected by such company under protection of the injunction. St. Louis, I. Mt. & So. Ry. v. McKnight... 368
(5) After Mandate Dismissing Bill.
10. As to absence of jurisdiction in District Court to de- termine claims under an injunction bond after reversal of
its decree by this court and issuance of this court's mandate to dismiss bill. Id.
(6) Enjoining Interstate Commerce Commission.
11. Order of Commission assigning cause for hearing upon issue of reparation not an order in sense of § 1 of Commerce Court Act, and District Court has no jurisdiction to enjoin hearing. United States v. Illinois Cent. R. R...
V. Jurisdiction of State Courts.
Over foreign corporations. See I, supra.
1. Violation of due process for state supreme court to re- verse case and render judgment absolute against party who succeeded in trial court, upon a proposition of fact ruled to be immaterial at trial and concerning which he had there- fore no opportunity to introduce evidence. Saunders v. Shaw... 317
(2) Personal Injuries in Federal Work on Federal Reservation. 2. State court has jurisdiction of subject-matter of an ac- tion for personal injuries incurred in work under a federal contract performed on federal reservation, such action being transitory. Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon....
(3) Quo Warranto to National Bank.
3. Under § 11 (k), Act of Dec. 23, 1913, establishing Federal Reserve Board, supreme court of State may entertain pro- ceedings in nature of quo warranto, at instance of its attorney general, to test whether conduct of bank in acting as trustee, etc., is" in contravention of state or local law." First Natl. Bank v. Union Trust Co... . .
(4) As to Orders of Interstate Commerce Commission.
4. Suit by State to enjoin carriers from advancing intra- state rates without first complying with state regulations is not a suit, beyond the jurisdiction of state court, "to en- force, set aside, annul, or suspend in whole or in part" an order of Interstate Commerce Commission, where order covers the proposed advances in part only, is not mentioned in bill and is not relied on in answer as justifying them all. American Express Co. v. Caldwell. . . 617
JURISDICTION-Continued.
VI. Jurisdiction of Courts of District of Columbia.
1. Enjoining Secretary of the Interior. Santa Fe Pac. R. R. v. Lane..
2. Mandamus to Secretary of the Interior. lund.
3. Mandamus to Commissioner of Patents. Ewing v. Fowler Car Co....
VII. Local Law. Following State Constructions. See III, (4); III, (7), (a); IV, (1), supra.
1. Conclusive effect of construction of state statutes by supreme court of State. See Louisiana v. Jack.... Greene v. Louis. & Interurban R. R...
Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. Greene Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Greene ..
Missouri Pac. Ry. v. McGrew Coal Co.
2. In absence of authoritative decision of supreme court of State to contrary, contemporaneous construction of state constitution by act of the legislature, which is reasonable in itself and designed to accomplish obvious purpose of con- stitutional provision in question, should be followed by this court. Van Dyke v. Geary...
3. Persuasive force of construction given a state enactment by state attorneys general in its administration. Louisiana v. Jack.
4. What documentary matter should be filed with declara- tion in action in state court upon sister state judgment, a local question. Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Cherry..
5. In controversy in state courts over right of one corpora- tion to condemn lands of another, existence of petitioning corporation, right to condemn, inability to agree on com- pensation and necessity for appropriation are matters de- pending on local law. Cuyahoga Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co...
As to force given to construction of act of Congress by Land Department and adoption of it by Congress through later enactment. Santa Fe Pac. R. R. v. Lane..
See also West v. Rutledge Timber Co..
JURISDICTION-Continued. VIII. Conclusions of Fact, Judicial and Administrative.
1. Upon the effect of findings by Dawes Commission in en- rolling Indians. See United States v. Wildcat.. 111
2. Binding force of conclusions of state assessing board when free from fraud and based on fair hearing. See Taxation.
3. Strong presumption in favor of rates fixed by experienced administrative board after full hearing. Darnell v. Ed-
Cf. Miss. R. R. Comm. v. Mobile & Ohio R. R..
4. Concurrent findings of state trial and appellate courts as to fact of negligence not overturned by this court in absence of clear error. American Express Co. v. U, S. Horse Shoe
See Interstate Commerce Acts, I; Patents for Inven- tions.
JURY. See Instructions to Jury.
LABOR UNIONS:
Enjoining. See Equity, 21.
LAND DEPARTMENT. See Public Lands.
LANDS. See Indians; Public Lands.
LIMITATIONS. See Employers' Liability Act, (7); Public Lands, 12.
Limited liability contracts for transportation of. See Inter- state Commerce Acts, II.
MANDAMUS. See Parties, 3.
1. Mandamus will not lie to compel Commissioner of Pat- ents to declare interference where applicant for patent ad- mits his invention was made subsequent to date upon which another application for same invention was filed, and
concedes priority and utility of the other's invention by adopting his claims in an amended application. Ewing v. Fowler Car Co....
2. Priority of invention is determinable by suit in equity between the parties, not by mandamus against Commis- sioner in attempt to control administrative discretion con- ferred upon him by R. S., § 4904. Id.
3. Mandamus lies where duty sought to be enforced is plain and nondiscretionary and situation exigent. Lane v. Hog- lund.
4. Does not lie to control District Court upon jurisdictional question-as to its duty to remand a case removed from a court of another State-when other modes of reviewing its decision (writ of error or certiorari) are provided by statute; and inconvenience and expense to the party do not alter rule. Ex parte Park Sq. Automobile Station...
MARITIME CASES. See Admiralty; Constitutional Law, II.
MASTER AND SERVANT. See Employers' Liability Act; Hours of Service Act; Safety Appliance Act; Work- men's Compensation Laws.
Suit to enjoin former employee from using or disclosing secret processes. Du Pont Powder Co. v. Masland........ 100
MINERAL LANDS. See Public Lands, (5).
Making deed of trust to trustee in foreign State and pro- viding for payment of bonds there does not render corpora- tion liable to suit on bonds in that State. Toledo Rys. & Lt. Co. v. Hill ....
Proper mode of attacking service and jurisdiction thereon depending in District Court. Meisukas v. Greenough Coal Co....
MULTIFARIOUSNESS. See Equity, 1.
« ForrigeFortsett » |