JURISDICTION-Continued.

parties or counsel. United States v. Hamburg-Ameri-
can Co.....

This court cannot pass on questions which have become
moot as inevitable legal consequence of flagrant European
War. Id.

III. Of Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judgments of Circuit Court of Appeals in bankruptcy pro-
ceedings final except on certiorari under act of 1915. Central
Trust Co. v. Lueders.

Decision of Circuit Court of Appeals not final where contro-
versy involves Constitution or act of Congress. Christianson
v. King County...

Judgment otherwise final under § 128, Jud. Code, cannot be
reviewed under § 24, Jud. Code, if statement that cause of
action arises under Constitution and law of United States is
merely formal. Norton v. Whiteside...

IV. Of District Courts.

PAGE

466

11

356

.. 144

Of suit by railway company against members of state com-
mission to enjoin enforcement of order if bill and affidavits
clearly show arbitrary or confiscatory action and overcome
presumption of reasonableness. Phoenix Ry. v. Geary. ... 277
Since passage of act June 25, 1910, District Court has no
jurisdiction of action to determine heirs of allottee Indian
dying during trust period. Hallowell v. Commons.
More than one complainant each having tax of forty dollars
assessed against him cannot unite and maintain jurisdiction
even if the aggregate of the claims exceeds $3,000-the
amount in controversy cannot be so made up. Rogers
v. Hennepin County.....

Jurisdictional amount involved in suits for injunction to
abate nuisance or continuing trespass tested by value of
object to be gained by complainant and not mere expense of
abatement; and if value of business is over $3,000, District
Court has jurisdiction. Glenwood Light Co. v. Mutual
Light Co....

District Court of district into which liquor is shipped has
jurisdiction over offenses under § 240, Criminal Code.
United States v. Freeman.

506

583

121

117

Suit for royalties reserved on sale of patent rights is not suit
arising under patent law and District Court does not have
jurisdiction on that ground under § 24, Judicial Code, nor
in this case under Rev. Stat., § 4915 or 4918, or in equity un-
der act of February 9, 1883. Briggs v. United Shoe Co..... 48

JURISDICTION-Continued.

Where allegations of bill show mere breach of contract on
part of state officers there is no real and substantial con-
troversy as to effect of Federal Constitution and District
Court does not have jurisdiction on that ground. Manila
Investment Co. v. Trammell. . . . . . .

PAGE

... 31

District Court has jurisdiction of action to enjoin enforce-
ment of order of state railroad commission where bill shows
arbitrary or confiscatory action. Phoenix Ry. v. Geary... 277
V. Of Interstate Commerce Commission. See Inter-
state Commerce Commission.

VI. Of Court of Claims.

Rule that Court of Claims has not jurisdiction of actions
founded on torts based on policy imposed by necessity that
governments not liable for unauthorized wrongs inflicted by
officers on citizens even though in discharge of official duties.
Basso v. United States...

Congress has wisely reserved to itself the right to give relief
where claim founded on torts of officer of United States. Id.
Schillinger v. United States, 155 U. S. 163, subsisting author-
ity for rule that Court of Claims has not jurisdiction of claim
founded on wrongful act of officer of United States. Id.
VII. Of State Courts.

Highest court of State ultimate judge of extent of its juris-
diction; unless Federal right denied its decision conclusive
here. Dayton Coal Co. v. Cincinnati Ry.....

Failure to resort to existing ample administrative remedies
under state law to review assessment is non-Federal ground
sufficient to sustain judgment of state court refusing to en-
join collection of tax. Mellon v. McCafferty. . . .
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 . . . .

602

446

134

496

Where territory has authority to establish rule as to escheat
it has power to establish tribunals with jurisdiction and
procedure; and if other proceedings are established, as in
Washington, by probate court, decree of office found is not
necessary. Christianson v. King County. ...
... 356
Decree of probate court of King County, Washington, suffi-
cient to sustain escheat as being within its jurisdiction. Id.

JURY AND JURORS:

Whether continuing to use defective apparatus instead of

JURY AND JURORS-Continued.

PAGE

another which might be unsafe amounts to contributory
negligence question for jury. Seaboard Air Line v. Horton 595
Reasonable reliance by employé on promise of reparation
and continuance in employment not contributory negligence
as matter of law and question in this case properly submitted
to jury. Id.

Where in case under Employers' Liability Act, there was
testimony that plaintiff was engaged in interstate com-
merce, and court charged that burden of proof was on
plaintiff to show it, question properly left to jury. Southern
Ry. v. Lloyd..

Burden of proof as to assumption of risk on employer and
unless sustained question properly submitted to jury.
Kanawha v. Kerse..

See Employers' Liability Act; Instructions to Jury.

KANSAS:

Statute requiring counties to reimburse cities of first class
but not of other classes for rebates allowed for prompt pay-
ment of taxes not unconstitutional under due process or
equal protection provision of Fourteenth Amendment.
Stewart v. Kansas City...

Contracts of conditional sale must be recorded. Bailey v.
Baker Ice Co.

KENTUCKY:

Imposing taxes on premiums collected on life insurance
policies of residents of Kentucky in pursuance of statute of
that State after company ceased doing business unconsti-
tutional denial due process of law. Provident Savings Ass'n
v. Kentucky...

KNOWLEDGE. See Assumption of Risk; Judicial Knowl-
edge.

LABOR:

Alien is entitled to earn livelihood and continue employment
unmolested and is entitled to protection in equity in absence
of adequate remedy at law; and unjustifiable interference
of third parties is actionable even if employment is at will.
Truax v. Raich.....

Alien admitted to United States under Federal law has
privilege of entering and abiding in any State and as in-
habitant of State is entitled under Fourteenth Amendment

to equal protection of law as any person within the juris-

496

576

14

268

103

33

LABOR-Continued.

diction of the United States" and this includes right to earn
living which was purpose of amendment to secure. 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. Id.

Although employment is at will of employer and employé it
is not at will of third parties. Id.

The power to control immigration-to admit or exclude
aliens-is vested in Federal Government and the States
may not deprive admitted aliens of right to earn living or
require employers only to employ citizens. Id.

In order to protect citizens of United States in employment
against non-citizens States may not require employers to em-
ploy only specified percentage of aliens-such a statute, as in
Arizona of December 14, 1914, denies aliens equal protection
of laws even though allowing employment of some aliens. Id.
Section 14, Labor Law 1909, New York, providing that only
citizens of United States be employed on public works and
that preference be given to citizens of New York, not un-
constitutional. Heim v. McCall ...

Crane v. New York.

Neither a municipality nor one contracting therewith, nor
a taxpayer on its behalf, can assert proprietary rights of an
individual against the State in determining who shall be
employed on public works authorized by the State. Id.
State may establish as public policy, with which courts are
not concerned, what class of labor shall be employed on its
public works. Id.

LACHES:

A right may be waived or lost by failure to assert it at the
proper time. Atlantic Coast Line v. Burnette...

LAND GRANTS. See Public Lands; Northern Pacific

Railway.

LAW AND FACT:

Decisions of immigration officers conclusive on questions of
fact, other findings reviewable. Gegiow v. Uhl..
Difference between appeal and error is not mere form but is
substantial; former involves questions of law and fact and
latter is limited to questions of law. Gsell v. Insular Customs
Collector...

PAGE

175

195

199

3

93

LAW AND FACT-Continued.

A general contention that trial court should have directed
verdict involves whole case and law and fact may become so
commingled as to make latter depend on former. Texas &
Pacific Ry. v. Bigger..

LAW GOVERNING:

PAGE

330

It would be miscarriage of justice to recover upon a statute
not governing the case and in a case the statute declares
was commenced too late. Atlantic Coast Line v. Burnette.. 199
Holding by highest court of State that State Workmen's
Compensation Act established comprehensive plan for
relief of workmen included therein regardless of fault, is ex-
clusive notwithstanding it did not expressly repeal statute
giving right of action for death, is binding on Federal courts;
and so held as to Washington statute. Northern Pacific
Ry. v. Meese..

614

548

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..
Homestead rights in land are creation of the States in which
lands are situated and validity and operation of mortgages
thereon are determined by laws of State as construed by
courts of the State. Moody v. Century Savings Bank...... 374
LEGISLATION:

Rule that State may recognize degrees of evil, and adopt
legislation accordingly applies to matters concerning which
State may legislate. Truax v. Raich ..

3333

As an organized political division of United States, a Terri-
tory only possesses such powers as Congress confers upon it
and a legislature cannot provide for escheat unless author-
ized, but authority to legislate on all rightful subjects of
legislation includes escheats as in case of Organic Act of
Washington Territory. Christianson v. King County...... 356
See Congress; Construction.

Act of March 3, 1891, establishing six-year limitation for
actions by United States to annul patents is part of public
land laws and does not refer to suits to annul patents for
Indian allotments. La Roque v. United States.

62