requiring certain kind of ink does not, without proof, warrant injunction; Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. The Fair, 118 Fed. 610, holding manufacturer selling patented article to jobber without restriction cannot by notice posted on such article render selling thereof below certain price an infringement; United Shoe Mach. Co. v. La Chapelle, 212 Mass. 480, 481, 482, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 715, 99 N. E. 291, 292, holding monopoly of shoe machinery was formed by combination among several owners of patents of competing devices; Straus v. American Pub. Assn., 177 N. Y. 476, 69 N. E. 1107, 1108, holding invalid agreement between booksellers not to sell any book copyrighted or not to any dealer who would not maintain net prices; dissenting opinion in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 61, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 880, 56 L. Ed. 669, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, majority holding restriction on sale of patented article that it be used only in connection with certain unpatented articles made by vendor held valid and breach thereof constituted infringement; dissenting opinion in Straus v. American Publishers' Assn., 193 N. Y. 500, 86 N. E. 526, majority holding agreement between publishers of copyrighted books and others, to maintain fixed prices, was not subject to State statute against monopolies.

What are illegal combinations within Sherman Anti-trust Act. Note, 2 Ann. Cas. 959.

Illegal trusts under modern anti-trust laws. Note, 64 L. R. A. 713,
714.

Right of vendor of commodity to control price on resale by vendee.
Note, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 84.

Validity of contract regulating price at which articles shall be re-
sold. Note, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 401.

186 U. S. 95-113, 46 L. Ed. 1070, 22 Sup. Ct. 776, MURPHY v. UTTER. Change in members of loan commission between filing of petition for mandamus and granting of writ against them does not abate proceeding, the board being a continuing body.

Approved in Marshall v. Dye, 231 U. S. 255, 58 L. Ed. 207, 34 Sup. Ct. 92, holding suit against State board of elections would be continued against successors in office of members when suit commenced; Gouhenour v. Anderson, 35 Tex. Civ. 571, 81 S. W. 105, county commissioners proper parties to action after resignation.

Authority of public officer to complete bond issue after repeal of statute authorizing issue. Note, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 407.

A later act on same subject covering same and other provisions repeals earlier.

Distinguished in Bird v. United States, 187 U. S. 125, 47 L. Ed. 103, 23 Sup. Ct. 45, holding criminal prosecution for murder pending when act creating Criminal Code for Alaska was passed (1899), within "general jurisdiction of District Court."

Arizona act of 1887 creating board of loan commissioners to refund territorial debt was repealed by act of Congress of 1890 embodying same act in substance.

Approved in Honolulu Rapid Transit etc. Co. v. Wilder, 211 U. S. 142, 53 L. Ed. 123, 29 Sup. Ct. 44, franchises granted by Hawaiian government between July 7, 1898, and September 28, 1899, were not made acts of Congress by adoption by Organic Act of 1900, so as to exempt them from territorial taxation; United States v. Wood, 168 Fed. 442, holding sections 2 and 3 of Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 were repealed by provisions of act of 1888 on same subject providing different penalty; Erwin v. State, 116 Tenn. 90, 93 S. W. 78, and Malone v. Williams, 118 Tenn. 463, 121 Am. St. Rep. 1002, 103 S. W. 817, both holding statute entitled as act to amend city charter, embodied new charter and repealed existing charter.

Distinguished in Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 155 Fed. 953, 84 C. C. A. 93, holding section 1 of Elkins Act not repealed by Hepburn Act.

Every word or clause used in a statute is presumed to have a meaning of its own independent of other clauses.

Approved in In re Toledo Portland Cement Co., 156 Fed. 87, construing phrase "engaged in manufacturing" as used in Bankruptcy Act.

Where it has been decided in a former suit that it was duty of loam commission to fund bonds in question, they could not set up objections to validity of bonds existing and known to them when original answer filed and before former case decided.

Approved in Board of County Commrs. of Santa Fe v. Territory of New Mexico, 215 U. S. 303, 54 L. Ed. 206, 30 Sup. Ct. 111, defense which might have been pleaded to merits cannot be urged against mandamus to enforce judgment against county for tax levy to pay bonds; Vail v. Territory of Arizona, 207 U. S. 204, 52 L. Ed. 170, 28 Sup. Ct. 107 (affirming Territory v. Vail, 10 Ariz. 142, 85 Pac. 653), holding where county bonds declared valid in suit in which county was heard though not party, question was not open in subsequent suit against county; Sherman v. Ward, 9 Ariz. 330, 83 Pac. 357, holding decision of Supreme Court of United States on former trial was binding as to all questions arising on record which may have been decided therein.

186 U. S. 114-126, 46 L. Ed. 1080, 22 Sup. Ct. 765, BEYER v. LE FEVRE. It is duty of appellate court to examine record and if it finds that the conclusions are wholly unwarranted by the testimony it will set aside the verdict and direct a re-examination.

Approved in De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U. S. 309, 50 L. Ed. 768, 26 Sup. Ct. 485, Federal Supreme Court not bound to accept conclusions of lower courts as to facts; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 428, 103 N. W. 505, judgment, notwithstanding verdict of jury on question of undue influence will not be directed except in very clear cases.

Rule of Federal courts is that will of person of sound mind and memory is not to be set aside on evidence tending to show only possibility or suspicion of undue influence.

Approved in Kultz v. Jaeger, 29 App. D. C. 307, Robinson v. Duvall, 27 App. D. C. 544, Stant v. American Security etc. Co., 23 App. D. C. 29, Ginter v. Ginter, 79 Kan. 739, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1024, 101 Pac. 641, and In re Williams Estate, 185 Mich. 121, 151 N. W. 738, all following rule; Kennedy v. Bates, 142 Fed. 57, 73 C. C. A. 237, applying rule where heirs seek to set aside deed from parent to favored child; Meyer v. Jacobs, 123 Fed. 912, holding fact that daughter attendant upon mother at time of death had great influence over her will not warrant setting aside will for undue influence; Madre v. Gaskins, 39 App. D. C. 28, upholding deed of aged woman to companion; Magaw v. Huntley, 36 App. D. C. 35, upholding deed of trust executed by aged woman for missionary society; Hoepner v. Bell, 35 App. D. C. 537, 539, reversing judgment against heir filing caveat on ground of undue influence for error in instructions; Kennedy v. Dickey, 100 Md. 164, 68 L. R. A. 317, 59 Atl. 666, testamentary capacity will be presumed; Stewart v. Lyons, 54 W. Va. 678, 47 S. E. 447, undue influence to avoid will, must overcome free agency of testator.

Jurisdiction of equity to set aside will for fraud. Note, 18 Ann. Cas. 808, 809.

186 U. S. 126-135, 46 L. Ed. 1085, 22 Sup. Ct. 740, FELSENHELD V. UNITED STATES.

Congress may provide that package of any article which it subjects to tax and on which it requires stamp shall contain only article subject to tax.

Approved in Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U. S. 361, 60 L. Ed. 688, 36 Sup. Ct. 376, upholding State license tax on merchants using profit-sharing coupons and trading stamps; Ripper v. United States, 178 Fed. 29, 101 C. C. A. 152, upholding provision of oleomargarine law of 1886 limiting retail dealers to sale in original stamped packages not exceeding ten pounds; United States v. Gallant, 177 Fed. 283, upholding statute making it felony to refill cask of distilled spirits without destroying stamps and brands thereon, though failure inadvertent; State v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 96 Kan. 625, 152 Pac. 784, holding act of Congress removing interstate character and protection from liquor shipped into State to be used in violation of its laws was valid exercise of commerce power.

186 U. S. 135–142, 46 L. Ed. 1090, 22 Sup. Ct. 802, BOWKER v. UNITED STATES.

Admiralty decree disposing of counterclaim but not passing on libelant's cause of action, is not final for purposes of appeal.

Approved in Smith v. Iverson, 203 U. S. 586, 51 L. Ed. 329, 27 Sup. Ct. 784, dismissing for want of jurisdiction; Sheppy v. Stevens, 200 Fed. 948,

1109

WARD v. JOSLIN.

186 U. S. 142-153 119 C. C. A. 330, holding judgment sustaining demurrer to one of two causes of action not reviewable until issues of second cause determined; Buffalo Specialty Co. v. Vancleef, 217 Fed. 95, quaere, whether, under Equity Rule 30, decree dismissing bill on merits, after cross-suit filed, was reviewable by appeal before adjudication of cross-suit.

186 U. S. 142-153, 46 L. Ed. 1093, 22 Sup. Ct. 807, WARD v. JOSLIN. Where case is tried by court without jury, its findings are conclusive, though open to contention that there was no evidence on which they could be based.

Approved in Lake v. Bonynge, 232 U. S. 715, 58 L. Ed. 812, 34 Sup. Ct. 330, following rule; Felker v. First Nat. Bank, 196 Fed. 202, 116 C. C. A. 32, upholding findings where question of lack of evidence to support them not presented; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com., 194 Fed. 458, holding in suit by carriers to annul order lowering rates, whether there was evidence to sustain finding of commerce commission was question of law for court; Howe v. Parker, 190 Fed. 746, 111 C. C. A. 466, holding whether there was evidence to sustain finding in controversy before Land Department was question of law, and error in decision giving patent to wrong party was remediable in equity; Union County Nat. Bank v. Ozan Lumber Co., 179 Fed. 712, 103 C. C. A. 584, holding question of law whether evidence supports findings was properly raised by each party submitting to trial court declaration in his favor; United States Fidelity etc. Co. v. Board of Commrs. of Woodson County, 145 Fed. 151, 76 C. C. A. 114, determining when sufficiency of evidence to sustain finding and judgment reviewable; Barnsdall v. Waltemeyer, 142 Fed. 417, 73 C. C. A. 515, where there is special finding weight of evidence not reviewable; Eureka County Bank v. Clarke, 130 Fed. 326, 64 C. C. A. 571, appellate court precluded from weighing evidence to determine if findings of fact were justified.

Stockholder sued on default judgment against corporation on ultra vires contract may insist on invalidity of contract.

Approved in George v. Wallace, 135 Fed. 293, 68 C. C. A. 40, stockholders having ratified contract of directors, not entitled to claim action was ultra vires; United States Savings & L. Co. v. Convent of St. Rose, 133 Fed. 359, 66 C. C. A. 416, where borrowing stockholder which was a corporation, received benefit from contract, it is estopped from alleging contract was ultra vires; Guaranty Trust Co. v. North Chicago St. R. Co., 130 Fed. 813, 65 C. C. A. 65, where extension of lease by directors is ultra vires, stockholders not estopped; Crissey v. Morrill, 125 Fed. 884, 60 C. C. A. 460, holding creditor who recovered judgment against corporation of several bonds may, in proceeding against stockholder on motion, show when statute begins; State v. De Mattos, 88 Wash. 48, 152 Pac. 726, holding consent judgment against city not res adjudicata as to power to consent thereto.

Distinguished in Jenson v. Toltec Ranch Co., 174 Fed. 90, 98 C. C. A. 60, holding officers and stockholders of corporation are estopped, under facts, to deny authority of managing agent to borrow money and secure payment by conveyance of property of corporation; Kipp v. Miller, 47 Colo. 612, 135 Am. St. Rep. 236, 108 Pac. 169, holding stockholders of State bank, which, ultra vires, established branch banks without capital, who received dividends, were estopped to deny liability to creditors of branch banks; Henley v. Myers, 76 Kan. 729, 738, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 779, 93 Pac. 170, 173, holding statute providing method for enforcing liability of stockholders in actions by receiver applied to stockholders at time of enactment; Johnson v. Stebbins etc. Realty Co., 177 Mo. 601, 76 S. W. 1026, holding voluntary grantee with knowledge of facts is privy to judgment against grantor and cannot set up defenses thereto; Rogers v. Stag Mining Co., 185 Mo. App. 670, 171 S. W. 679, holding, under statutes, stockholders were liable on judgments against corporation for torts.

Judgment against corporations-Effect of as against stockholder.
Note, 97 Am. St. Rep. 470.

Right to enforce stockholders' liability outside of State of incorpo-
ration. Note, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 911.

Judgments of the courts of other States. Note, 103 Am. St. Rep.

328.

Supreme Court cannot interfere with discretion of trial court in denying new trial.

Approved in Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Deselms, 212 U. S. 181, 53 L. Ed. 464, 29 Sup. Ct. 270, following rule.

186 U. S. 153–157, 46 L. Ed. 1100, 22 Sup. Ct. 805, NESBITT v. UNITED STATES.

Not cited.

186 U. S. 157-168, 46 L. Ed. 1102, 22 Sup. Ct. 798, WILLIAMS v. GAYLORD.

The essence of construction is the extension of the meaning of a statute beyond its letter; and construction by State court of State statute will be followed by Federal courts.

Approved in Columbia Box Co. v. Saucier, 213 Fed. 312, 129 C. C. A. 656, holding decision of State court that State statute abolished defense of assumption of risk was binding on Federal court, though statute contained no words expressly to that effect; Roberts etc. Shoe Co. v. Dower, 208 Fed. 273, 125 C. C. A. 470, following State court's construction of State Factory Act; State Trust Co. v. Kansas City etc. R. Co., 129 Fed. 460, ruling of Court of Appeals of Missouri, not being highest court of that State, not binding on Federal court.