COURT OF CLAIMS-Continued.

Court of Claims has jurisdiction to reform contract for pur-
pose of determining whether the claim if established is a
valid one against the United States. Id.

Finding of Court of Claims that there was no mutual mis-
take in executing releases and that the instrument expressed
intention of United States although claimant had mistaken
its legal rights and that such misapprehension did make the
release a subject for reformation, is binding on this court. Id.
COURTS:

Courts cannot, where will of Congress plainly appears, allow
substantive rights to be impaired under name of procedure.
Atlantic Coast Line v. Burnette..

Courts are not concerned with public policy of State in de-
termining how public work shall be done for it and its munic-
ipalities. Heim v. McCall..

Crane v. New York..

Courts not precluded from construing a document because
its construction is affected by facts not open to dispute.
Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf . . . . .

Allowance, after testimony, of amendment bringing case
specifically under Employers' Liability Act, not beyond dis-
cretionary power of court or denial due process law. Sea-
board Air Line Ry. v. Koennecke...

Provision in Citizenship Act of March 2, 1907, is explicit and
circumstantial that any American woman marrying for-
eigner takes nationality of husband and it would transcend
judicial power to insert limitations or conditions upon dis-
putable considerations. Mackenzie v. Hare.

PAGE

199

175

195

26

352

299

See Jurisdiction; Practice and Procedure; Removal of
Causes.

CREEK INDIANS. See Indians.

CRIMINAL CODE:

Section 32 is not unconstitutional as an interference with
or encroachment on powers of States. United States v. Bar-

now...

Section 240 construed.

CRIMINAL LAW:

United States v.

Freeman

Criminal statute applicable alike to shipments in interstate
and foreign commerce will not be so construed as to render
it futile as to the latter; but, if its words will permit, should

74

117

CRIMINAL LAW-Continued.

PAGE

be construed so as to reach both classes and accomplish
object of its enactment. United States v. Freeman........ 117
Words "to ship" in § 240, Criminal Code, is not used in
sense of "deliver for shipment" making offense completed
on delivering, but refers to continuing act;
and district courts
of State into which goods are shipped have jurisdiction. Id.
Prohibition in § 240, Criminal Code, against shipping in
interstate commerce packages of intoxicating liquor not
marked as prescribed is continuing act, performance of
which is begun when package is delivered to carrier and
completed when it reaches destination. Id.

Offense of falsely personating officer or employé of United
States under Criminal Code, § 32, is complete on the per-
sonation and demanding and obtaining money, even if per-
son defrauded be not financially injured. United States v.
Barnow ...

Prohibition in § 32, Criminal Code, against false personation
of officer or employé of United States not confined to false
personation of particular person but covers any false assump-
tion or pretense of office or employment if done with intent
to defraud and accompanied by specified acts. Id.
United States has power to prohibit false personation of its
officers or false assumption of being an officer or holding a
non-existent office, and legislation to that end does not in-
terfere with or encroach on powers of States and § 32, Crim-
inal Code, is not unconstitutional. Id.

Although statute may only render employer liable to prose-
cution if it operates directly upon employment of employé
and compel his discharge the latter has no adequate relief if
the statute is unconstitutional. Truax v. Raich..
While generally equity has no jurisdiction over criminal
laws, it may, when necessary to safeguard property rights,
restrain criminal prosecutions under unconstitutional stat-
utes. Id.

CURTIS ACT. See Indians.

CUSTOMS:

Procedure for review by this court of judgments of Circuit
Courts of Appeals in customs cases is by appeal and not
by writ of error. Gsell v. Insular Customs Collector.....
Writ of error is inapplicable to review customs cases involv-
ing facts to determine classification of merchandise, and
judgments of Supreme Court of Philippine Islands in cus-

74

33

93

CUSTOMS-Continued.

toms cases must be reviewed by appeal and not writ of
error. Id.

See Philippine Islands.

DAMAGES. See Eminent Domain.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. See Bankruptcy.

DECREES. See Judgments and Decrees.

DELEGATION OF POWER:

Legislature may constitute drainage districts and define
boundaries or delegate authority to local administrative
bodies and unless palpably arbitrary and plain abuse power
does deny due process. Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia Drainage
District...

Propriety of delegating authority by legislature to a court
in the matter of formation of drainage districts is local
question. O'Neill v. Leamer...

See Territories.

DEMURRAGE. See Charter Party.

DENVER. See Colorado.

DEPORTATION. See Philippine Islands.

DEPOSITIONS:

To prove claims against bankrupt's estate. General Order
No. 21 amended.

DES MOINES:

Smoke abatement ordinance not invalid under Iowa stat-
utes or Fourteenth Amendment to Constitution. North-
western Laundry v. Des Moines..

DISCRETION OF COURTS. See Practice and Procedure.

DISTRICT COURT. See Jurisdiction, IV.

DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP. See Jurisdiction; Re-
moval of Causes.

DIVORCE:

In appeals from territorial courts this court follows and sus-
tains application of local law to facts made by courts below
unless constrained to contrary by sense of clear error and
so held in divorce case from Philippine Islands. De Villa-
nueva v. Villanueva,

Jurisdiction of this court; amount in controversy. Id.

PAGE

478

244

623

486

293

DRAINAGE DISTRICTS:

Legislature may constitute drainage districts and define
boundaries or delegate authority to local administrative
bodies, and unless palpably arbitrary and plain abuse of
power, does not deny due process. Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia
Drainage District.

Neither general provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
nor other provisions of the Constitution prevent States from
adopting public policy and establishing drainage districts.
O'Neill v. Leamer.

Propriety of legislature delegating authority to courts in
regard to formation of drainage districts is matter of local
law. Id.

Judgment of state court entitled to highest respect in regard
to local matters such as necessity for drainage districts. Id.
Statutes of Nebraska of 1905 and 1909 establishing drainage
districts and delegating authority to courts and appropriat-
ing property by eminent domain, not unconstitutional under
Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. Id.

If plaintiff in error unsuccessfully contends in state court
that property appropriated for drainage district was essen-
tially for private purpose, without due process of law, this
court has jurisdiction under § 237, Jud. Code. Id.
Action of local administrative body arbitrarily including
land not possibly benefited in drainage district solely for
purpose obtaining revenue therefrom amounts to depriva-
tion of property without due process of law. Myles Salt Co.
v. Iberia Drainage District. . . . .

See Taxes and Taxation.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW. See Constitutional Law, VII.

EMINENT DOMAIN:

May be exercised to establish drainage districts. Houck v.
Little River District. . . . .

On condemnation proceedings, adaptability to purpose for
which land can be most profitably used to be considered
only so far as public would consider it had land been offered
for sale in absence of exercise of eminent domain. Owner is
entitled to value of property taken at time but not what
tribunal at a later date thinks a purchaser would have been
wise to give. New York v. Sage. . .

Owner is entitled to rise in value before the taking not caused
by the expectation of that event. Id.

PAGE

478

244

478

254

57

EMINENT DOMAIN-Continued.

Owner is not entitled to add value resulting from union of
his lot with other lots if union was solely the result of the
exercise of eminent domain. Id.

PAGE

In eminent domain proceedings an award of one dollar does
not deprive owner of property without due process of law if
court recognized right to substantial damage, if any, but
found no damages shown. Provo Bench Canal Co. v.
Tanner
323

In condemnation proceedings in New York although maps
made of parcels and notices posted, the proceeding is not
commenced until petition is filed and a non-resident pur-
chasing before that can remove case into Federal court.
New York v. Sage..

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT:

Scope and operation: Where injury was sustained while
employé was engaged in interstate commerce, responsibility
of carrier governed by Employers' Liability Act, which is
exclusive and supersedes state law, and it is error to submit
case to jury as though state law controlled. C., R. I. & P.
Ry. v. Wright..

Employers' Liability Act as amended in 1910 expressly pro-
vides state court has jurisdiction of actions thereunder, and
no such case removable merely for diverse citizenship.
Southern Ry. v. Lloyd. . . . .

Car from another State merely delayed in State of destina-
tion and finally reaching destination not thereby withdrawn
from interstate commerce and operation of act. Great
Northern Ry. v. Otos..

An employé distributing cars from interstate train and
clearing track for another interstate train is engaged in
interstate commerce. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Koen-
necke.....

57

548

496

349

352

To recover under act carrier must be engaged in interstate
commerce at time of injury and person injured then em-
ployed therein. Shanks v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R....... 556
Exclusive operation of Employers' Liability Act over its
subject to exclusion of state statutes conclusively established
by decisions of this court. Chicago & Rock Island Ry. v.
Devine..

Right of action under: Under Employers' Liability Act action
lies for injury or death resulting in whole or in part from
negligence of carrier. Kanawha Ry. v. Kerse..

52

576