Page images
PDF
EPUB

ARCHITECTS.
See CONTRACTS, 6, 7, 8

ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION.
See CONDEMNATION OF LAND;

TAXES AND TAXATION.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1, 2;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 1, 2, 3, 21.

ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT.

See INTERSTATE COMMERCE;

STATUTES, A 5.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

See EVIDENCE, 6.

ATTORNEYS.
See CONTRACTS, 5.

AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS.

See EVIDENCE, 3.

BANKRUPTCY.
Corporations within meaning of $ 4, subs.b, act of 1898.
On the authority of Toxaway Hotel Company v. Smathers & Co., 216

U. S. 439, held that a corporation engaged in a general restaurant
business is not subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act of
1898, as engaged in manufacturing, printing, publishing, trading
and mercantile pursuits. Nollman & Co. v. Wentworth Lunch Co.,
591.

See APPEAL AND ERROR, 5.

BANKS.
See TAXES AND TAXATION, 2, 4, 5, 6.

BOUNDARIES.
See Costs;

STATES, 1-6.

BROKERS.
Stockbrokers; right to retain stock of customer as security.
Quære, how far a broker having lawful possession of stock certificates

belonging to a customer, the legal title to which has not been
transferred to him, may retain the same as security for any debt
balance of such customer. Unity Banking Co. v. Bettman, 127.

BURDEN OF PROOF.
See EVIDENCE, 4;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 12, 13.

BURDENS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

See COMMERCE, 1;

CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 1-6.

CAR DISTRIBUTION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.
Covington v. First National Bank, 198 U. S. 100, distinguished in Citi-

zens' National Bank v. Kentucky, 443.
State v. Hoyt, 71 Vermont, 59, distinguished in Brown-Forman Co, v.

Kentucky, 563.
Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U. S. 438, distinguished in Wynne v.

United States, 234.
United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 337, distinguished in Wynne v.

United States, 234.

CASES FOLLOWED.
Alabama & Great Southern R. R. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 206, followed

in Southern Ry. o. v. Miller, 209.
American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Ry.

Co., 148 U. S. 372, followed in Heike v. United States, 423.
Alkins v. Moore; 212 U. S. 284, followed in Hutchinson, Pierce & Co. v.

Loewy, 457.
Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, followed in Williams v. Arkansas, 79.
Burbank v. Bigelow, 154 U. S. 558, followed in Lutcher & Moore Lumber

Co. v. Knight, 257.
Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 529, followed in McClellan v.

Carland, 268.
Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Bohon, 200 U. S. 221, followed in

Southern Ry. Co. v. Miller, 209.
Citizens' Savings Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 636, followed in part

in Citizens' National Bank v. Kentucky, 443.
Cooper Manuf. Co. v. Ferguson; 113 U. S, 727, followed in International

Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 91.

Covington v. First National Bank, 198 U. S. 100, followed in part in

Citizens' National Bank v. Kentucky, 443.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, followed in International Textbook Co.

v. Pigg, 91.
Gray v. Smith, 108 U. S. 12, followed in Will v. Tornabells, 47.
In re Chetwood, 165 U. S. 413, followed in McClellan v. Carland, 268.
In re Pollitz, 206 U. S. 323, followed in Ex parte Gruetter, 586.
Jellenik v. Huron Copper Mining Co., 177 U. S. 1, followed in Schultz

v. Diehl, 594.
Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100, followed in Freeman v. United

States, 539.
Lemieux v. Young, 211 U. S. 489, followed in Kidd, Dater Co. v. Mussel-

man Grocer Co., 461.
Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. 1, followed in Souffront v. Compagnie Des

Sucreries, 475.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, followed

in Williams v. Arkansas, 79.
Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 196, followed in Maryland v. West

Virginia, 1.
Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1,

followed in International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 91.
Romeu v. Todd, 206 U. S. 358, followed in Todd v. Romeu, 150.
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. R. Co. v. Express Co., 108

U. S. 24, followed in Heike v. United States, 423.
Seattle v. Kelleher, 195 U. S. 351, followed in Citizens' National Bank

v. Kentucky, 443.
Toxaway Hotel Co. v. Smathers, 216 U. S. 439, followed in Nollman &

Co. v. Wentworth Lunch Co., 591.
United States v. Rider, 110 U. S. 729, followed in Holmgren v. United

States, 509.
United States v. Welch, 217 U. S. 333, followed in United States v.

Sewell, 601.
Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank, 215 U. S. 33, followed in Mc-

Clellan v. Carland, 268.
Whitney v. Dick, 202 U. S. 132, followed in McClellan v. Carland, 268.

1

CAUTIONARY NOTICE.
See Local Law (Porto Rico, 1-3).

CERTIORARI.
1. Power to issue writ.
The power of this court to issue writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court

of Appeals is not limited to the provisions of the Court of Appeals
Act. It may issue them under $ 716, Rev. Stat. (In re Chetwood,

165 U. S. 443; Whitney v. Dick, 202 U. S. 132.) McClellan v.
Carland, 268.

2. Scope of review on.
On certiorari this court will consider only the record in the Circuit

Court of Appeals as certified here in return to the writ, and it de-
cides the case solely as presented in such return. Ib.

3. Scope of review on.
On certiorari granted under the provisions of the Court of Appeals Act

of 1891 the entire record is before this court with power to decide
the case as presented to the Circuit Court of Appeals on the writ
of error issued by it. Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co. v. Knight, 257.

a

4. To Circuit Court of Appeals; when writ properly granted.
It is proper for this court to grant certiorari where the questions in-

volve the construction of a prior decree of a United States Circuit
Court granting rights of use of railroad tracks and terminal
facilities in a great city, and where not only the private interests
of the railroad companies and of the shippers, but also the greater
interests of the public, require such rights to be settled. St. Louis,
K. C. & C. R. R. Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co., 247.

See JURISDICTION, A 8.

CHANCERY JURISDICTION.

See COURTS, 3.

CHARGE TO JURY.
See INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.

See CERTIORARI.

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ACT.

See JURISDICTION, F 2;

WRIT AND PROCESS.

CLASSIFICATION FOR REGULATION.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 32.

CLASSIFICATION FOR TAXATION.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 22-27.

COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
1. When legality under common law immaterial.
Whether a combination is or is not illegal at common law is immaterial

if it is illegal under a state statute which does not infringe the
Fourteenth Amendment. Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi, 433.

2. Motive and necesnty immaterial.
A combination that is actually in restraint of trade under a statute

which is constitutional, is illegal whatever may be the motive or
necessity inducing it. Ib.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7, 8.

COMMERCE.
1. Term defined.
Commerce is more than traffic; it is intercourse, and the transmission

of intelligence among the States cannot be obstructed or unnec-
essarily encumbered by state legislation. (Gibbons v. Ogden, 9
Wheat. 1; Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph
Co., 96 U. S. 1.) International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 91.

2. What constitutes commerce bet ucen States. Instruction through medium

of mails constitu'cs.
Intercourse or communication between persons in different States

hrough the mails and otherwise, and relating to matters of regular
continuous business, such as teaching by correspondence, and the
making of contracts relating to the transportation thereof, is com-
merce among the States within the commerce clause of the Federal
Constitution. 16.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1-6, 24:

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

COMMON LAW.
See COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, 1.

COMPETITION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 29.

CONDEMNATION OF LAND.
1. Assessment of benefits; power of Congress over District of Columbia.
Under the complete jurisdiction winch the United States exercises

over the District of Columbia it is within the power of Congress to
arbitrarily fix a minimum amount to be assessed for benefits on

VOL. CCXVII-0

« PreviousContinue »