the law is afforded by excluding a class from the defense of the
statute of limitations, the construction of the statute as to its
scope is for the state court and does not present a Federal ques-
tion. Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 413.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 7;
JURISDICTION;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 17.
For table of fees to be charged in Customs Appeals Court, see p. 611.
See CONTRACTS, 5, 7.
FINAL JUDGMENTS.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 3, 4.
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5, 33;
CORPORATIONS;
JURISDICTION, C 1.
1. Effect of, to pass property rights.
As against the true owner, a right of property cannot be acquired by
means of a forged written instrument relating to such property,
except when the owner has by laches or gross or culpable negli-
gence induced another who proceeds with reasonable care to act
in belief that the instrument was genuine or would be so recog-
nized by the owner. Unity Banking Co. v. Bettman, 127
Where the owner of property which passes only by written transfer has
left it with another who has wilfully forged the name of such
owner to a transfer of the property, the person taking it acquire3
no right thereto merely because the property was left with party
committing the forgery. Ib..
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
1. Status of one committing.
One committing a fraud does not become an outlaw and caput lupinum.
Stoffela v. Nugent, 499.
2. Rescission of transaction for.
Although one by reason of fraud may have no standing to rescind his
transaction, if it is rescinded by one having the right to do so the
court should do such justice as is consistent with adherence to
law. Ib
GARNISHMENT.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
1. Instrumentalities; use of.
A paramount governmental authority may make use of subordinate
governmental instruments, without the creation of a distinct legal
entity as is the case of the United States and the United States
Government of the Philippine Islands. Weems v. United States,
349.
2. Legislative and judicial powers; superiority of judicial power.
While the judiciary may not oppose its power to that of the legislature
in defining crimes and their punishment as to expediency, it is
the duty of the judiciary to determine whether the legislature
has contravened constitutional prohibition and in that respect
and for that purpose the power of the judiciary is superior to that
of the legislature. Ib.
3. Judicial; power of this court to declare Philippine legislation void.
It is within the power of this court to declare a statute of the Penal
Code defining a crime and fixing its punishment void as violative
of the provision in the Philippine bill of rights prohibiting cruel
and unusual punishment. Ib.
Leave to file petition for, denied.
Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the
ground that petitioner was restrained under a judgment of sen-
tence of imprisonment entered by a court without jurisdiction
and in disregard of petitioner's constitutional rights, denied with-
out opinion. Ex parte Morse, 596.
See JURISDICTION, D 1, 2.
HUSBAND AND WIFE
See EVIDENCE, 7.
IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 1.
IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT OBLIGATION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
See PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES.
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 2, 3;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 14.
INFORMATIONS.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 2, 3.
INJUNCTION.
See CONTRACTS, 3;
JURISDICTION, C 4.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS.
See LOCAL LAW (PORTO RICO, 4).
INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.
Cure of ambiguity by subsequent elucidation.
Where doubt as to meaning of one part of the charge is eliminated by
other parts of the charge, there is no reversible error. Columbia
Heights Realty Co. v. Rudolph, 547.
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF GOVERNMENT.
See GOVERNMENTAL POWERS, 1.
Attachment and garnishment in state court of cars engaged in interstate
Although different views have been taken in several States as to the
immunity from seizure and garnishment under attachment of cars
engaged in interstate commerce and credits due for interstate
transportation, this court holds that it was within the jurisdiction
of the state court to seize and hold the cars and credits seized and
garnisheed in this case, notwithstanding their connection with
interstate commerce. Davis v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. Louis Ry.
Co., 157.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1-6, 24;
COURTS, 5
INTERVENTION.
See JURISDICTION, A 9.
INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 23.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 14.
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES.
1. Privies; vendees as privies to judgment obtained by their vendors for
their protection.
Where the vendors bring an action in their own name but to protect
their vendees, such vendees, although having acquired title prior
to the institution of the action are privies thereto and may plead
the judgment in such action as res judicata; in such a case the
general rule that no one whose interest was acquired prior to the
institution of the action is privy to the judgment rendered therein
does not apply. Souffront v. Compagnie Des Sucreries, 475.
2. Privies; rights acquired by vendees under judgment obtained by their
vendors for their benefit-Spanish law.
Under Spanish law it was competent for vendors after parting with
title to conduct a litigation in their own names for the benefit of
their vendees, and therefore a judgment in such a case inures to
the benefit of the vendees as between them and the defendants
against whom it was rendered and their respective privies. Ib.
3. Privies; status of one prosecuting or defending suit in name of another
but for his own benefit.
One who prosecutes or defends a suit in the name of another to estab-
lish and protect his own right, or who assists in the prosecution or
defense of an action in aid of some interest of his own, and who
does this openly to the knowledge of the opposing party, is as
much bound by the judgment and as fully entitled to avail him-
self of it as an estoppel against an adverse party, as he would be
if he had been a party to the record. (Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall.
1.). Ib.
4. Res judicata; effect of judgment as against State not party to suit in
which rendered.
The judgment in a suit between claimants of an estate and the ad-
ministrator does not conclude the rights of the State claiming an
escheat so long as it is not a party and has not been allowed to
intervene on its own behalf. McClellan v. Carland, 268.
JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE POWERS.
See GOVERNMENTAL POWERS, 2.
JURISDICTION.
A. OF THIS COURT.
1. Amount in controversy that directly and not that contingently involved.
Jurisdiction to review, when dependent on amount, is determined by
the amount directly and not contingently involved in the decree
sought to be reviewed. Wallach v. Rudolph, 561.
A writ of error will not lie to review a judgmert of the Court of Ap-
peals of the District of Columbia confirming assessments for less
than $5,000, even though plaintiff in error may be contingently
liable in case the judgment stands for other assessments exceeding
$5,000, in the same proceeding on other lots disposed of pending
the proceeding. Ib.
3. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.-When Federal right set up and denied.
Where the constitutional defenses asserted in the answer, and em-
braced in the instructions asked and refused, in an action for
penalties for violating an order of a state commission are not con-
fined to the reasonableness of the order as such, but also challenge
the power of the State to inflict the penalty at all under the cir-
cumstances disclosed by the answer, the judgment does not rest
on grounds of local law alone, but a Federal right has been set up
and denied which gives this court jurisdiction to review the judg-
ment under § 709, Rev. Stat. St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. Arkansas, 136.
4. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.; rights under authority of United States not
involved in claim to use of waters of Los Angeles River.
The decision of the state court in this case was put upon the effect of
|