mined by the courts, as is done by N. Y. Laws 1920, chaps. 942-953, was a valid exercise of the police power in the emergency growing out of the World War, as applied to a tenant holding over after the expiration of his lease. during the term of a lease which he avers was executed under the coercion and duress of a threat of eviction, refuses to pay the amount of rent stipulated therein, which he alleges is unjust, unreasonable, and oppres sive, offering to pay the same rent that he paid for the next preceding month. [For other cases, see Constitutional Law, IV. impairing conc, 3; IV. g, 4, h, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] law - due law existing at Constitutional process of indefinite standard housing · police power. [For other cases, see Constitutional Law, IV. 6. A lease made subsequent to the enactment of a statute cannot be unconstitutionally impaired by such statute. [For other cases, see Constitutional Law, 12731288, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Constitutional law police power impairing contract obligation emergency housing laws. law 8. A standard sufficiently definite to satisfy the due process of law clause of the Federal Constitution is adopted by the provisions of N. Y. Laws 1920, chap. 944, enacted in the exercise of the police power in the emergency growing out of the World War, that it shall be a defense to an action for rent accruing under an agreement for premises occupied for dwelling purposes that such rent is unjust and unreasonable, and that the agreement is oppressive, provided, however, that plaintiff may plead and prove in such action a fair and reasonable rent for the premises, and recover judgment therefor. 7. Making it a defense to an action for rent accruing under an agreement for premises occupied for dwelling purposes that such rent is unjust and unreasonable, and that the agreement is oppressive, with the qualification that plaintiff may plead and prove in such action a fair and reasonable rent for the premises, and recover judgment therefor, as is done by N. Y. Laws 1920, chap. 944, enacted in the exercise of the police power, in the emergency growing out of the World War, does not render the statute invalid, as impairing contract obligations, Argued January 24 and 25, 1922. Decided when applied in a suit against a tenant who, March 20, 1922. [For other cases, see Constitutional Law, IV. pose of dealing with it. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 65 L. ed. | resort to the police power for the pur865, 16 A.L.R. 165, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458; Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, 65 L. ed. 877, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; EDGAR A. LEVY LEASING Co. v. SIEGEL. The Chief Justice and Justices McKenna, Van Devanter, and McReynolds, strongly dissented in the first two cases, upon the ground that an emergency does not justify the overriding of the explicit prohibitions of the Federal and state Constitutions against depriving a person of his property without due process of law, against taking private property for public use without compensation, and against impairing the obligation of contracts. That there is no such inherent difference in property in land from that in tangible and intangible personal property as exempts it from the operation of the police power in appropriate cases is held in EDGAR A. LEVY LEASING CO. v. SIEGEL and Block v. Hirsh, supra. And the same cases hold that the relation of landlord and tenant may, in an emergency caused by a scarcity of dwellings, be so affected by a public interest as to render it subject to regulation by the exercise of the police power. While, as held in Block v. Hirsh, supra, a legislative declaration of the The laws involved in these cases were existence of such an emergency as would to remain in force only two years, and justify a resort to the police power for the court said in Block v. Hirsh, supra, the purpose of dealing with it in the that a limit in time, to tide over a pass-public interest is not conclusive upon ing trouble, might justify a law that could not be upheld as a permanent change. The authority for such legislation is found in the police power; and, as held in EDGAR A. LEVY LEASING Co. v. SIEGEL, a social emergency, caused by an insufficient supply of dwelling houses and apartments, so grave that it constitutes a serious menace to the health, morality, comfort, and peace of a large part of the people of the state, will sustain a the courts, such declaration is, as stated in that case and in EDGAR A. LEVY LEASING CO. v. SIEGEL, entitled, at least, to great respect; and in the former case the court assumed the existence of the emergency, and in the latter case it was held to have been sufficiently shown. In Block v. Hirsh, supra, involving the Act of Congress of October 22, 1919 (41 Stat. at L. 298, chap. 80, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1919, p. 42), the District of Columbia rent law, giving a tenant the privilege of holding over after the ex IN IN ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for the County of New York to review a judgment entered pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals of that state, which affirmed an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirming an order of a Special Term of the Supreme Court, denying a motion by plaintiff for judg ment upon the pleadings in an action for rent. Affirmed. Also IN N ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for the County of New York to review a judgment entered pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals of that state, which, reversing an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed an order of a Special Term of the Supreme Court, denying a motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings in an action in ejectment. Affirmed. See same case below, No. 285 in court of appeals, 230 N. Y. 634, 130 N. E. 923; in supreme court, 194 App. Div. 482, 186 N. Y. Supp. 5; No. 287, in court of appeals, 230 N. Y. 652, 130 N. E. 931; in supreme court, 194 App. Div. 521, 186 N. Y. Supp. 56. The facts are stated in the opinion. piration of the lease, subject to regulation by the commission appointed by the act, so long as he pays the rent and performs the conditions as fixed by the lease, or as modified by the commission, was sustained by the United States Supreme Court as against the objections that it was an attempt to authorize the taking of property not for public use, and without due process of law, in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Federal Constitution, and that it was invalid because landlords and tenants are deprived by it of a trial by jury on the right to possession of the land. Chapters 942 and 947 of the Laws of New York of 1920, temporarily suspending the right to recover possession of real property occupied for dwelling purposes, except where the person holding over is objectionable, or where the landlord seeks to occupy the premises as a dwelling for himself or family, or intends to demolish the building and construct a new one (provided the tenant or occupant is ready, willing, and able to pay a reasonable rent), are not repugnant to the contract or due process of law clauses of the Federal Constitution, even as applied to a case where, before the passage of such statutes, an Mr. Louis Marshall argued the cause, and, with Mr. Lewis M. Isaacs, filed a brief for plaintiffs in error: The court of appeals of New York unanimously decided that, under the law of that state, the defense of duress cannot be predicated upon the facts pleaded. by the defendant in error in the first affirmative defense. Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, 230 N. Y. 634, 130 N. E. 923; Orinoco Realty Co. v. Bandler, 197 App. Div. 693, 189 N. Y. Supp. 855. Chapters 136 and 944 of the Laws of 1920 violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, because they fail to establish clear and definite standards by which the justice, reasonableness, and freedom from oppression of the lease sued upon are to be determined. International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 58 L. ed. 1284, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 58 L. ed. 1510, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 924; American Seeding Mach. Co. v. Kentucky, 236 U. S. 660, 59 L. ed. 773, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Dey, 1 L.R.A. 744, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 325, 35 Fed. 866; Tozer v. United States, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 245, 52 Fed. 917; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com. 99 Ky. 132, 33 L.R.A. 209, 59 other lease of the premises had been made, to go into effect on the day following that when the existing lease by its terms expired, and when the lessees had contracted to surrender the premises. Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, 65 L. ed. 877, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465. These statutes were also upheld in EDGAR A. LEVY LEASING Co. v. SIEGEL, following the preceding case. Chapter 944 of the New York Laws of 1920, making it a defense to an action for rent accruing under an agreement for premises occupied for dwelling purposes that such rent is unjust and unreasonable, and that the agreement is oppressive, with the qualification that plaintiff may plead and prove in such action a fair and reasonable rent for the premises, and recover judgment therefor, is not invalid as impairing contract obligations, when applied in an action against a tenant, who, during the term of a lease which he avers was executed under the coercion and duress of a threat of eviction, refuses to pay the amount of rent stipulated therein, which he alleges is unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, offering to pay the same rent that he paid for the next preceding 148; Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 212 U. S. 19, 41, 52, 53 L. ed. 382, 395, 399, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1134, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U. S. 434, 57 L. ed. 1555, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; United States ex rel. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 U. S. 178, 64 L. ed. 517, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187. Am. St. Rep. 457, 35 S. W. 129; Waters- | 47 L. ed. 892, 894, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 571; Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 109, Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co. 212 53 L. ed. 430, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; U. S. 1, 53 L. ed. 371, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 494, 48 L. ed. 525, 535, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 369, 51 L. ed. 528, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 367; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 52 L. ed. 1061, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616, 21 Am. Neg. Rep. 464; Red "C" Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 222 U. S. 380, 56 L. ed. 240, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. 255 U. S. 81, 65 L. ed. 516, 14 L.R.A. 1045, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, affirming 264 Fed. 223; Shapiro v. Goldstein, 113 Misc. 258, 185 N. Y. Supp. 234; Marchbanks v. Moore, 113 Misc. 651, 185 N. Y. Supp. 226; JashLap Realty Co. v. Fishman, 115 Misc. 485, 190 N. Y. Supp. 117; A. C. & H. M. Hall Realty Co. v. Moos, 115 Misc. 506, 188 N. Y. Supp. 858; Schwartz v. Deutsch, 187 N. Y. Supp. 221; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Road Improv. Dist. 256 U. S. 658, 65 L. ed. 1151, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 604; Standard Chemicals & Metals Corp. v. Waugh Chemical Corp. 231 N. Y. 51, 14 A.L.R. 1054, 131 N. E. 566. The just compensation to which the owner is entitled is a fair return on the value of the property at the time when the service is rendered,-not five or ten years before that time; in other words, the present value of the property. The provision of § 3 of the Laws of 1920, chap. 944, which creates a statutory presumption of injustice, unreasonableness, and oppression when it appears that the rent of demised premises has been increased over the rent as it existed one year prior to the time of the contract sued upon, renders the act violative of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. People v. Cannon, 139 N. Y. 32, 36 Am. St. Rep. 668, 34 N. E. 759; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35, 55 L. ed. 78, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 226, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 463, 2 N. C. C. A. 243; Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219, 239, 55 L. ed. 191, 200, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 145; Lincoln Gas & É. L. Co. v. Lincoln, 250 U. S. 256, 268, 63 L. ed. 968, 976, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 454; People ex rel. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 215 Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 524, 42 N. Y. 247, P.U.R.1915D, 423, 109 N. E. L. ed. 819, 841, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; 252; Interstate Commerce Commission v. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. National Chicago G. W. R. Co. 209 U. S. 108, 119, City, 174 U. S. 739, 753, 754, 757, 43 52 L. ed. 705, 712, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; L. ed. 1154, 1159-1161, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. Elizabethtown Gaslight Co. v. Public 804; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Utility Comrs. 95 N. J. L. 18, 111 Atl. Co. (Cotting v. Godard) 183 U. S. 79, 729; Joplin & P. R. Co. v. Public Service 85, 86, 91-97, 46 L. ed. 92, 99, 101-104, Commission, 267 Fed. 584; St. Joseph, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30; San Diego Land & R. Light, Heat, & P. Co. v. Public ServTown Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 442,ice Commission, P.U.R.1921A, 540, 268 month. EDGAR A. LEVY LEASING CO. v. tute an unconstitutional discrimination SIEGEL. in respect of the cities affected or the character of the buildings. This case upheld such chapter also as against the contention that it did not adopt a standard sufficiently definite to satisfy the due process of law clause of the Federal Constitution. The fact that such chapters 942 and 944 were operative only in a city having a population of one million or more, and in cities in a county adjoining such a city, and did not extend to buildings occupied for business purposes, hotel property, or buildings in course of erection, was held in Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, 65 L. ed. 877, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465, not to consti And the United States Supreme Court held in the same case that an involuntary servitude forbidden by the 13th Amendment of the Federal Constitution was not created by the provisions of chapters 131 and 951 of the Laws of New York of 1920, which make it a misdemeanor for a lessor, or any agent or janitor, intentionally to fail to furnish such water, heat, light, elevator, telephone, or other service as may be required by the terms of the lease, and necessary to the proper and customary use of the building. V. Zeiss, 219 U. S. 47, 55 L. ed. 82, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200; Bertrand v. Taylor, 87 I. 235; Breitenbach v. Bush, 44 Pa. 313, 84 Am. Dec. 442; Hoffman v. Charlestown Five Cent Sav. Bank, 231 Mass. 324, 121 N. E. 15; American Coal Min. Co. v. Special Coal & Food Commission, 268 Fed. 563. Legislative limitation on the use of real property in accordance with the owner's volition has been recognized as constitutional in increasingly numerous instances. Lincoln Trust Co. v. Williams Bldg. Co. 229 N. Y. 313, 128 N. E. 209; Ex parte Quong Wo, 161 Cal. 220, 118 Pac. 714; St. Louis Poster Advertising Co. v. St. Louis, Mo. - 195 S. W. 717, affirmed in 249 U. S. 269, 63 L. ed. 599, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 274; Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91, 106, 53 L. ed. 923, 930, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 567; Re Wilshire, 103 Fed. 620; Rochester v. West, 164 N. Y. 510, 53 L.R.A. 548, 79 Am. St. Rep. 659, 58 N. E. 673; Green v. Savannah, 6 Ga. 1; Tenement House Dept. v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325, 70 L.R.A. 704, 103 Am. St. Rep. 910, 72 N. E. 231, 1 Ann. Cas. 439; Thomas Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 242 U. S. 526, 61 L. ed. 472, L.R.A.1918A, 136, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 594. These laws do not impair the obligation of contract. Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 551, 20 L. ed. 287, 312; Manigault v. Springs, 199 U. S. 473–480, 50 L. ed. 274-278, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 127; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548, 58 L. ed. 721, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 364; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Tranbarger, 238 U. S. 67, 76, 77, 59 L. ed. 1204, 1210, 1211, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678; Union Dry Goods Co. V. Georgia Pub. Serv. Corp. 248 U. S. 372, 375, 63 L. ed. 309, 311, 9 A.L.R. 1420, P.Ú.R.1919C, 60, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 117. Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court: These two cases were argued and will be disposed of together. A motion to dismiss or affirm was filed in each case, on the ground that each is ruled by the decision in Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, 65 L. ed. 877, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465, and both were postponed to the hearing on the merits. approved by the governor September 27, 1920, chapters 942 to 953, inclusive, Laws of New York, 1920. By these acts a number of changes were made in the substantive law, and a number of amendments to remedial statutes, of the state, for the purpose of securing to tenants in possession of houses or apartments occupied for dwelling purposes, in described cities, the legal right to continue in possession until November 1, 1922, by the payment, or securing the payment, of a reasonable rental, to be determined by the courts, and for the purpose, also, [244] of encouraging the building of dwellings by providing, under specified conditions, for their exemption from local taxation. In No. 285 it is alleged: that a described apartment was leased to the defendant from October 1, 1918, to October 1, 1920, at the stipulated rental of $1,450 per annum, payable in equal monthly instalments in advance; that while in possession under that lease, in June, 1920, the defendant executed a new lease for two years, beginning on the expiration of the former one on October 1, 1920, at a rental increased to $2,160, payable in equal monthly instalments in advance; and that he refuses to pay the instalment due on October 1, 1920. Judgment for the one month's rent is prayed for. was The defendant admits the execution of the leases, as stated in the complaint, but avers that the second one signed under the coercion and duress of threats of eviction, and that the rent stipulated for is "unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive." He offers to pay the same amount of rent as was paid for the preceding month, and asserts the right to continue in possession under the Emergency Acts. A motion for judgment on the pleadings presented the question of the constitutionality of chapter 944 of the Emergency Housing Laws, and the state courts all held the chapter a constitutional and valid exercise of the police power. In No. 287 it is averred: that the defendant is a tenant holding over after expiration of his lease; that he refuses to surrender possession, as he stipulated in his lease to do, and that he claims the right to retain possession under chapters 942 and 947 of the Emergency Housing Laws, which suspend the right The essential question presented for of action to recover possession except decision in the Marcus Brown Co. Case under specified conditions, which are was, and in these cases is, the constitu- not applicable. A general demurrer to tional validity of the Emergency Hous- this complaint presented the question ing Laws of the state of New York, of the constitutionality of chapters 942 Kenney, 115 U. S. 566, 29 L. ed. 495,, 242 U. S. 539, 61 L. ed. 480, L.R.A. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 179; Barnitz v. Beverly, 1917F, 514, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 217, Ann. 163 U. S. 118, 41 L. ed. 93, 16 Sup. Ct. Cas. 1917C, 643; Clark v. Nash, 198 Rep. 1042; Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. Oshkosh, 187 U. S. 437, 47 L. ed. 249, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234; Bradley v. Lightcap, 195 U. S. 24, 49 L. ed. 75, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 753. The fact that the act under review recites that it is based on the existence of a public emergency does not validate it, if its provisions are violative of the Constitution. Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 376, 61 L. ed. 785, L.R.A.1917E, 938, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; Effinger v. Kenney, 115 U. S. 566, 572, 574, 29 L. ed. 495, 497, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 179; Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 401, 402; Re Cheesebrough, 78 N. Y. 237; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 124, 18 L. ed. 281, 295. Messrs. William D. Guthrie and Julius Henry Cohen argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Elmer G. Sammis and Bernard Hershkopf, filed a brief for the Joint Legislative Committee on Housing: The questions raised by the plaintiffs in error are settled by the decisions of this court in the cases of Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 65 L. ed. 865, 16 A.L.R. 165, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458, and Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, 65 L. ed. 877, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; People ex rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La Fetra, 230 N. Y. 441, 16 A.L.R. 152, 130 N. E. 601. Chapters 944 and 947 of the Laws of 1920 are valid exercises of the police power of the state. U. S. 361, 49 L. ed. 1085, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, 4 Ann. Cas. 1171; People ex rel. Rayland Realty Co. v. Fagan, 194 App. Div. 202, 186 N. Y. Supp. 23; Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, 194 App. Div. 500, 186 N. Y. Supp. 5; Strickley v. Highland Boy Min. Co. 200 U. S. 527, 50 L. ed. 581, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 4 Ann. Cas. 1174; People ex rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La Fetra, 230 N. Y. 451, 16 A.L.R. 152, 130 N. E. 601. Messrs. Raymond L. Wise, David L. Podell, Martin C. Ansorge, Benjamin S. Kirsh, and J. J. Podell filed a brief for defendant in error in No. 287: In view of the extraordinary emergency in the shortage of housing of Greater New York, the September enactments constitute a proper exercise of the police power of the state. Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606, 47 L. ed. 323, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 168; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, 569, 55 L. ed. 328, 339, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 55 L. ed. 112, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1062, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280, 288, 58 L. ed. 1312, 1316, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; People V. Griswold, 213 N. Y. 92, L.R.A.1915D, 538, 106 N. E. 929. The liberty of contract is not a universal right, and may be abridged when required, for the public good. 551, 20 L. ed. 287, 312; MacLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 539, 545, 53 L. German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389, 411, 58 L. ed. 1011, 1021, L.R.A.1915C, 1189, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612; Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391, 38 L. ed. 757, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 670, 14 The police power of the state can be Sup. Ct. Rep. 857; Budd v. New York, exercised to protect the health of the 143 U. S. 517, 36 L. ed. 247, 4 Inters. community and to prevent extortion. Com. Rep. 45, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468; The physical fact that there is an exagLincoln Trust Co. v. Williams Bldg.gerated overdemand for dwelling places Corp. 229 N. Y. 313, 128 N. E. 209; and an abnormal undersupply of housWelch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91, 53 L. ed. ing accommodations accentuates that it 923, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 567; Walls v. Mid- is within the power of those who conland Carbon Co. 254 U. S. 300, 315, 65 trol living space to enforce exorbitant L. ed. 276, 282, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118; demands. These laws are a legislative Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U. S. 394, attempt to aid the law of supply and 410, 60 L. ed. 348, 356, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. demand to function normally. 143, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 927; Merrick v. N. W. Halsey & Co. 242 U. S. 568, 569, 578, 61 L. ed. 498, 499, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 55 L. ed. 112, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1062, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487; Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co. Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 61 L. ed. 755, L.R.A.1917E, 938, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U. S. 16, 25 L. ed. 980; Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U. S. 206, 64 L. ed. 862, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526; American Land Co. |