JURISDICTION.
A. OF THIS COURT.
1. To review judgment of highest court of State; limitations of § 709,
Rev. Stat.
The right of this court to review the judgment of the highest court of
a State is specifically limited by § 709, Rev. Stat., and, in cases
such as this, depends on an alleged denial of a Federal right which
the record shows was specially set up and claimed in, and denied
by, the state court or that such was the necessary effect of the
judgment. Appleby v. Buffalo, 524.
2. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.; sufficiency of Federal question for.
Whether the State can require payment of accounts in savings banks
without production of the pass-book and the rights and relations
of parties arising out of the charter and contract of deposit are
to be determined by local law and do not present Federal ques-
tions giving this court jurisdiction under § 709, Rev. Stat. Provi-
dent Savings Institution v. Malone, 660.
3. Assignments of error cannot originate right of review.
Assignments of error made for the purpose of bringing the case to this
court cannot originate the right of review here. Appleby v. Buf-
falo, 524.
Under & 4 of Anti-trust Act of 1890.
Where one of the defendants in a suit, brought by the Government
in a Circuit Court of the United States under the authority of
§ 4 of the Anti-trust Act of July 2, 1890, is within the district,
the court, under the authority of § 5 of that act, can take juris-
diction and order notice to be served upon the non-resident de-
fendants. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 1;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 10.
LAND DEPARTMENT.
See PUBLIC LANDS, 2.
LAND ENTRIES.
See PUBLIC LAnds, 1, 2.
Interpretation by public officials; effect to be given.
Where a practical interpretation has been given to a grant of land by
the public officials authorized to interpret it, full effect should be
given thereto. Jover v. Insular Government, 623.
See PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 6, 7, 8;
LAND WARRANTS.
See PUBLIC LAnds, 11, 12.
LAW GOVERNING.
See CORPORATIONS, 5;
JURISDICTION, A 2.
LIBERTY OF CONTRACT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 10;
LIQUORS.
See INDIANS, 3, 4.
District of Columbia. Code, § 130, as amended by act of June 30,
1902 (see Testamentary Law). Lewis v. Luckett, 554.
Code, § 1120 (see Assignments, 2). Merillat v. Hensey, 333.
Act of Feb. 10, 1899, 30 Stat. 834, extending Rhode Island Avenue
(see Constitutional Law, 11). Briscoe v. District of Columbia, 547.
Louisiana. Act of 1884, giving right of action for wrongful death
(see Practice and Procedure, 3). Texas & New Orleans R. R.
Co. v. Miller, 408.
Massachusetts. Savings Bank Act of 1907 (see Constitutional Law.
13). Provident Savings Institution v. Malone, 660.
New York. Advertising vehicles law (see Constitutional Law, 15),
Fifth Avenue Coach Co. v. New York, 467.
Philippine Islands. Bill of Rights (see Philippine Islands, 1, 3). Dow-
dell v. United States, 325. Spanish law (see Philippine Islands,
6). Jover v. Insular Government, 623.
Spain. Constitution as existing in 1859, Art. 46 (see Spain, 1).
Jover v. Insular Government, 623. Laws of Partida relative to
common right to sea and its shores (see Spain, 2). Ib.
Corruptio optimi pessima. Sound general principles should not be
turned to support a conclusion manifestly improper. Jacobs v.
Beecham, 263.
Mobilia sequuntur personam. See TAXES AND Taxation, 2.
MISBRANDING.
See PURE FOOD AND DRUG ACT.
MONOPOLIZATION.
See RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
Shareholders; liability under § 5151, Rev. Stat.; withdrawals.
Shareholders who have complied, so far as steps required to be done
on their part is concerned, with the provisions of the act of July
12, 1882, 22 Stat. 162, c. 290, in regard to withdrawing from a
national banking association, two-thirds of the shareholders
whereof have asked for a renewal of the charter, cease to be mem-
bers of the association, even if, through no fault of their own,
the final action is not taken; and such shareholders are not liable
for assessments subsequently made by the Comptroller of the
Currency under § 5151, Rev. Stat. Apsey v. Kimball, 514.
NATURAL GAS AND OIL.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 4, 5, 7.
1. Bridges over; removal of; validity of act of Congress of March 3, 1899,
$18.
Section 18 of the act of March 3, 1899, c. 425, 30 Stat. 1153, authoriz-
ing the Secretary of War to require the removal of bridges which
are obstructions to navigation over navigable waterways of the
United States, is within the constitutional powers of Congress,
and was enacted to carry out the declared policy of the Govern-
ment as to the free and unobstructed navigation of waters of the
United States over which Congress has paramount control in vir-
tue of its power to regulate commerce. Hannibal Bridge Co. v.
United States, 194.
2. Bridges over; removal of; effect of act of 1899 as unconstitutional dele-
gation of power to executive officer.
As the statute only imposes on the Secretary of War the duty of at-
tending to details necessary to carry out such declared policy it
is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative or judicial
power to an executive officer. Ib.
3. Bridges; removal of; right of owners to complain of action of Secretary
of War.
Notice was duly served on all parties in interest and the hearings
given on the report of the Chief of Engineers by the Secretary of
War were in accord with the statute and the owners of the bridge,
the removal whereof was ordered, cannot complain. Ib.
4. Bridges; removal of; effect of act authorizing erection on right of Congress
to exercise reserved powers.
The fact that a bridge was erected over a navigable water of the
United States under authority of the act of July 25, 1866, c. 246,
14 Stat. 244, does not prevent Congress from ordering its removal
when it becomes an obstruction, as the act expressly reserves the
right to alter or amend it so as to prevent obstructions to naviga-
tion. (Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364.) Ib.
5. Bridges; alteration; sufficiency of notice therefor.
The notice of alterations required was sufficient in this case as it left
no reasonable doubt as to what was to be done. Ib.
6. Bridges; requiring alteration not a taking of property.
Requiring the alteration of a bridge which is an obstruction to naviga-
tion is not a taking of property of the owners of such bridge within
the meaning of the Constitution. Ib.
|