United States Reports

law, and he performed a noteworthy service in this Court in that branch of jurisprudence, writing a number of opinions in leading cases. Meek v. Centre County Banking Company, 268 U. S. 426, and Taylor v. Voss, 271 U. S. 176, are illustrations. Another outstanding judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Sanford was that in Liberty Warehouse Company v. Grannis, 273 U. S. 70, maintaining the essential limitation of the jurisdiction of the federal courts to' cases' and' controversies.' He reaffirmed with careful emphasis the fundamental principle, as he expressed it, 'that the judicial power vested by Article III of the Constitution in this Court and the inferior courts of the United States established by Congress thereunder, extends only to "cases" and "controversies" in which the claims of litigants are brought before them for determination by such regular proceedings as are established for the protection and enforcement of rights, or the prevention, redress, or punishment of wrongs; and that their jurisdiction is limited to cases and controversies presented in such form, with adverse litigants, that the judicial power is capable of acting upon them, and pronouncing and carrying into effect a judgment between the parties, and does not extend to the determination of abstract questions or issues framed for the purpose of invoking the advice of the court without real parties or a real case.'

"In estimating the value of judicial work, it is well not to lay too much stress upon opinions which seem to have a particular importance because of the public attention they receive or the spectacular circumstances of the controversies to which they are addressed. Juristic achievements are not measured by the distinction of litigants, or the amount in controversy, or the dramatic setting which gives temporary notoriety. The most worthy performance of judicial duty in the careful analysis of facts, in exact reasoning, and in the observance of a correct perspective in bringing the results of earlier controversies to their appropriate present service, may be

found in cases which attract at the time little attention on the part of the general public, but achieve importance in the annals of jurisprudence. The final reputation of a judge owes far less to contemporary estimate than to the inevitable later appraisal when his efforts find their appropriate historical setting.

"Mr. Justice Sanford was keenly aware of this, and, with philosophic bent and conscientious application, he was faithful to the judicial tradition, devoting the same care to every case which came before the Court, without regard to its rating in public opinion. He was ever intent upon the intrinsic quality of his work rather than upon adventitious circumstance.

"Although cut off in mid-career, as judicial careers are reckoned, we gratefully recognize the long service that he rendered in a life which enjoyed a succession of deserved honors and was crowned by the fulfillment of a worthy ambition. He met every responsibility with integrity of motive and singleness of purpose, and he discharged every trust with complete fidelity. His life is epitomized in his own words: 'Youth and age have come; youth rejoicing in the splendor of life's morning; and age, steadfast in the majesty of its noonday, serene in the tender glow of its evening sky.' In the midst of that serenity the final summons came, and he was taken from us. Mourning our loss, but enriched by the memory of his friendship and coöperation, we renew our labors."

TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page

Acheson, Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v.

551

Adams Grease Gun Corp. v. Bassick Mfg. Co....... 531

Adcock v. Commissioner..

537

Aetna Casualty & S. Co. v. Phoenix Nat. Bank..... 209

Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hagemyer...

542

Akeroyd (James) & Son v. United States...

550