Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

RATES.
See CARRIERS, 2;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 1, 4-10,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 10;

12, 18;
INJUNCTION, 2;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2.

RECEIVERS.
See CONTRACTS, 1.

RECORD.
Verity imported by; contradiction by affidavit.
The record in a case imports verity and cannot be contradicted by

affidavits. (Evans v. Stettnisch, 149 U. S. 605.) Johnson v. United
States, 405.
See CRIMINAL Law, 1; JURISDICTION, A 1;

HABEAS CORPUS, 5; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 7.

REFEREE'S FINDINGS.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 4, 5.

REGULATION OF OCCUPATIONS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 14, 15, 16, 26, 27, 28.

RELATION.
See Public LANDS, 12.

REPEALS.

See STATUTES, A 7, 8.

RESERVATIONS.
See INDIANS, 7, 15.

RES JUDICATA.
1. When court not bound by prior construction of will.
Where the Circuit Court of Appeals has before it in the second trial

of the same case, a will previously construed by it, and meanwhile
the highest court of the State in which the real estate affected is
situated has construed the will differently, the Circuit Court of Ap-
peals is not bound to adhere to its previous decision as being the
law of the case. It may follow, and in such a case it should lean

toward an agreement with, the state court. Messenger v. Ander-

son, 436.

2. Meaning of "law of the case" as applied to effect of prior orders on

later action of court.
In the absence of statute, the phrase "law of the case," as applied to

the effect of previous orders on the later action of the court render-
ing them in the same case, merely expresses the practice of courts
generally to refuse to open what has been decided—not a limit to
their power. Ib.

3. Effect on this court of conflict between state and federal courts.
In a conflict between decisions of the state and Federal courts, this

court is free when the case comes here. 16.

4. Effect of decision of state court in construing will; quære as to.
Qucere whether the decision of the state court did not finally adjudicate

the question of title as between the parties so as to be binding upon
every court before which the title might subsequently be discussed.

Ib.

5. Effect of decision of Supreme Court of Territory as.
Whatever effect the decision of the Supreme Court of a Territory may

have, as the law of the case, on the lower court or on the Supreme
Court itself, prior to an appeal to this court, it is not the law of the

case for this court. Zeckendorf v. Steinfeld, 445.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 19, 21, COURTS, 5, 6;
22, 24;

INDIANS, 2;
CONTRACTS, 1;

JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 6;
NATURALIZATION, 2.

RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 18, 25.

REVENUE MEASURES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 13, 29, 30.

REVISED STATUTES.

See STATUTES, A 10.

RULES OF COURT.

For amendment to g 3 of Rule 37 see p. 693.

SALES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, INDIANS, 5;
11, 12, 13;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 3, 11, 16;
PATENTS.

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.

See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 8.

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

See Public LANDS, 12.

SHIPPING.

See ADMIRALTY;

PILOTAGE.

SIXTH AMENDMENT.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 13, 22.

STATES.

1. Admission; effect on power of United States.
The rule that the admission of a new State into the Union on an equal

footing with the original States imports an equality of power over
internal affairs, does not prevent the United States from reserving
the right to regulate matters therein within the sphere of the plain
power of Congress. Ex parte Webb, 663.

2. Admission; derivation of powers reserved by Congress.
Where Congress embraces in an enabling act for the admission of a

new State, legislation intended as a regulation of matters within
the sphere of its powers, the legislation drives no force from any
agreement or compact with the new State as an acceptance of
statehood, but derives its force solely from the power of Congress
to regulate the subject-matter of the legislation. (Coyle v. Smith,
221 U. S. 559.) Ib.

3. Power to legislate on subject acted on by Congress.
Where an act of Congress relating to a subject on which the State may

act also, limits its prohibitions, it leaves the subject open to state
regulation as to the prohibitions which are unenumerated. Savage
v. Jones, 501.

4. Power to require disclosure of trade secrets; quære as to.
Quore whether a State can require disclosure of formulas for trade

secret for mixture of a harmless article whose value depends upon
the mixture. 16.

5. Power to prescribe qualifications of suitors in Federal courts.
A State cannot prescribe the qualifications of suitors in the Federal

courts; nor can it deprive of their privileges those who are entitled
under the Constitution and laws of the United States to resort to
the Federal courts for the enforcement of valid contracts. David
Lupton's Sons v. Automobile Club, 489.

6. Criminal procedure; power as to.
Subject to the requirement of due process of law, the States are under

no restriction as to their methods of procedure in the administra-
tion of public justice. (Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 111.)
Jordan v.

Massachusetts, 167.
See BOUNDARIES;

INDIANS, 10, 12, 13;
CONFLICT OF Laws, 2; INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 1, 12-15;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2, PILOTAGE;

3, 9, 11, 12, 26-30; PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15.

STATUTES.

A. CONSTRUCTION OF.
1. Amendment; exclusive legislative power as to.
If a statute should be amended to prevent its operation in particular

cases that result can only be accomplished by an exercise of legis-
lative authority. Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 460.

2. Change of language as evidence of change of legislative purpose.
In framing a new statute a change of language from that of a former

statute on the same subject is some evidence of a change of legisla-
tive purpose. Johnson v. United States, 405.

3. Codes; purpose of Congress in enacting local codes.
Congress in enacting the District Code recognized the expediency of

separate provisions for the District of Columbia. Ib.

4. Criminal statutes, ambiguities resolved, how; effect of repeal of part of

statute.
A law creating a crime ought to be explicit, and if ambiguous or un-

certain it should be interpreted in favor of the liberty of the citizen;
but in this case as there is no ambiguity in the act of 1895 a repeal
pro tanto does not leave anything doubtful or ambiguous in that
part of the act which remains in force. Ex parte Webb, 663.

5. Departmental construction; when rights acquired under, not disturbed.
Where an Executive Department has constantly given the same con-

struction to a statute affecting title to real estate, rights acquired
thereunder will not be lightly disturbed after a lapse of many
years. Kindred v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 582.

6. Objects and purposes looked to.
All statutes must be given a reasonable construction, with a view of

effecting the object and purposes thereof. Low Wah Suey v.
Backus, 460.

7. Repeals by implication not favored.
An act of Congress may repeal a prior treaty as well as it may repeal

a prior statute; but it is a settled rule of statutory construction
that repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be held
to exist if there be any other reasonable construction. Ex parte
Webb, 663.

8. Repeal; effect of later statute to repeal earlier one.
Provisions in earlier statutes in regard to matters which are embraced

in and superseded by a later statute are repealed by the later
statute; but where the two statutes have definite territorial opera-
tion, they can exist together and the earlier one is not repealed or
affected by the later. Johnson v. United States, 405.

9. Reference to repealed act to determine what regarded as Indian country.
Although that portion of the act of 1834 which defined Indian country

was repealed by $ 5596, Rev. Stat., it may still be referred to in
connection with the portion of the act remaining in force in order
to determine what must be regarded as Indian country when
spoken of in the statutes. Clairmont v. United States, 551.

10. Revised Statutes; effect of change of arrangement of provisions of law.
In adopting the Revised Statutes change of arrangement from earlier

statutes will not be regarded as altering their scope and purpose;
an intent of Congress to change the effect of prior law will not be
presumed unless clearly expressed. Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S.
Co., 187.

See COURTS, 6;

CRIMINAL LAW, 23-26;
PUBLIC LANDS, 4.

« ForrigeFortsett »