« PreviousContinue »
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 20;
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
1. Diversity of citizenship of parties-Separability of cause.
For the purposes of determining the removability of a cause, the case
must be deemed to be such as the plaintiff has made it, in good
faith, in his pleadings; and if a plaintiff in a suit for personal in-
juries joined with the foreign corporation one or more of its em-
ployés residents of plaintiff's State a3 defendants, and the state
court holds that the joinder is not improper, the cause is not
separable and cannot be removed into the Federal court. (Ala-
bama & Great Southern R. R. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 206; Rail-
way Co. v. Bohon, 200 U. S. 221.) Southern Ry. Co. v. Miller, 209.
2. Dismissal on removal to Federal court-Right to re-bring action in
After a case properly removable and moved into the Federal court
has been voluntarily dismissed without action on the merits, the
case is again at large and plaintiff may begin it again in any court
of competent jurisdiction, including the state court from which
the first case was removed into the Circuit Court. 16.
See MANDAMUS, 1, 2, 5.
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT.
See FRAUD, 2;
LOCAL LAW (PORTO RICO, 4);
MORTGAGES AND DEEDS OF TRUST, 2.
See CONDEMNATION OF LAND, 6;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 1, 4.
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
See COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7, 8.
See Acts OF CONGRESS;
CRIMINAL LAW, 5.
RIGHT OF WAY.
1. Effect of act of March 3, 1851, in respect of rights acquired under
Spanish and Mexican titles - Right to waters of Los Angeles Rirer.
In this case both parties claim under Spanish or Mexican titles, con-
firmed by proceedings under the act of March 3, 1851, c. 41, 9
Stat. 631. The Federal rights alleged by plaintiff in error to have
been violated by the decision of the state court, so far as concerns
this act, relate to the extent of the right and ownership of the
parties in the use of the Los Angeles River. Plaintiff in error
contended that by its grant it became the owner of riparian rights
without limitations by any right of the city of Los Angeles to use
the water of the river, and that the city by failing to present its
claim for the use of such water to the commission under the act
of 1851 is foreclosed from now asserting them. The state court
held that the city of Los Angeles had the exclusive right to the
water of the Los Angeles River from its source to the most south-
ern part of the city. In dismissing a writ of error to review the
judgment of the state court, held that the act of 1851 was a con-
firmatory act and not one granting titles; that by its terms it did
not originate titles nor make the patents to be issued in pursuance
of decisions of the commission conclusive except upon the United
States. Los Angeles Milling Co. v. Los Angeles, 217.
2. Law governing rights of patentees under act of March 3, 1851.
The extent of riparian rights belonging to pueblos or persons receiv-
ing patents of the United States in pursuance of the decisions of
the commission under the act of March 3, 1851, are matters of
local or general law. Ib.
See RIPARIAN RIGHTS;
STATES, 4, 6.
RULES OF COURT.
Rule 21. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 2.
Rule 35. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 2;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 1-4.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4;
LOCAL Law (PORTO Rico, 1).
SALES IN BULK.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 21, 34.
Sce WRIT AND PROCESS.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
See CONTEMPT OF COURT.
See. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 14.
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.
See CONTRACTS, 7.
See CONTEMPT OF COURT.
SERVICE OF PROCESS.
See JURISDICTION, H.
See STATES, 10.
See JUDGMENTS AND DECRES, 2.
See RIPARIAN RIGHTS, 1.
See JURISDICTION, H.
CONTRACTS, 3, 11, 12;
EXEGUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 1, 2.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 23.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 8, 9;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 21.
1. Boundary lines; rule in adjusting disputes as to.
Boundary disputes between States should be adjusted according to
the facts in the case by the applicablc principles of law and equity,
and in such manner as will least disturb private righis and titles
regarded as settled by the people most affected; and it should be
the manifest duty of the lawmaking bodies of adjoining States to
confirm such private rights in accordance with such principles.
Maryland v. West Virginia, 1.
2. Boundary lines; astronomical correctness; effect of want of.
Even if a meridian boundary line is not astronomically correct, it
should not be overthrown after it has been recognized for many
years and becomes the basis for public and private rights of
3. Boundary between Maryland and West Virginia.
The record in this case sustains the proposition that for many years
the people of Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia, have ac-
cepted as the boundary between Maryland and West Virginia
the line known as the Deakins line, and have consistently adhered
to the Fairfax Stone as the starting point of such line, and that
none of the steps taken to delimitate the boundary since such line
was run in 1788 have been effectual, or such as to disturb the
continued possession of people claiming rights up to such Deakins
line on the Virginia and West Virginia side. Ib.
4. Boundary; right of West Virginia to Potomac River.
West Virginia is not entitled to the Potomac River to the north bank
thereof. (Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 196.) Ib.
5. Boundary line between Maryland and West Virginia; 'scope of decree
The decree in this case should provide for the appointment of commis-
water mark on the south bank of the Potomac River to the inter-
section of the north and south line between Maryland and West
Virginia. Maryland v. West Virginia, 577.
7. Police power; constitutional limitation of.
There are constitutional limits to what can be required of the owners
of railroads under the police power. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v.
8. Prescription in, by efflux of time.
Length of time that raises a right by prescription in private parties,
likewise raises such a presumption in favor of States. Maryland
v. West Virginia, 577.
9. Prescription; effect on State of long-continued possession of territory.
Where possession of territory has been undisturbed for many years a
prescriptive right arises which is equally binding under the prin-
ciples of justice on States and individuals. Maryland v. West
10. Sovereignty; effect of long-continued possession of territory.
Whether long continued possession by a State of territory has ripened
into sovereignty thereover which should be recognized by other
States depends upon the facts in individual cases as they arise.
See COMMERCE, 1;
CONGRESS, POWERS OF;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 4;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 2, PUBLIC LANDS, 1-4;
7, 15, 24, 25, 27, 34, 37; STATUTES, A 5;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 2, 3.
A. CONSTRUCTION OF.
1. Constitutionality; when statute unconstitutional in part invalid in
toto-Rule applied to § 1283, Gen. Lawa Kansas, 1901.
Where a statute is unconstitutional in part the whole statute must
be deemed invalid except as to such parts as are so disconnected
with the general scope that they can be separably enforced; and
so held as to the provisions in g 1283 of the General Laws of
Kansas of 1901 against a foreign corporation maintaining any
action until it has complied with another provision as to filing a
detailed statement which is unconstitutional as to foreign cor-
porations engaged in interstate commerce. International Text-
book Co. v. Pigg, 91.