Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

893

HASELTINE v. CENTRAL BANK (No. 2). 183 U. S. 132--137

note, usurious interest cannot be set off against principal debt, though State statutes provide such counterclaim may be pleaded.

Effect of national bank's taking or reserving illegal interest. Note 56 L. R. A. 675, 697.

Remedy given by Revised Statute, section 5198, to recover penalty for payment of usurious interest, is exclusive.

Approved in Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Gadsden, 191 U. S. 456, 48 L. Ed. 258, 24 Sup. Ct. 130, holding question of usurious interest paid on note held by national bank is governed by remedy of Rev. Stats., § 5198, though arising on foreclosure of mortgage; Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U. S. 436, 46 L. Ed. 270, 22 Sup. Ct. 200, holding vessel which has been launched under contract to build cruiser for Russia is Russian ship of war within treaty of 1832, for apprehension of deserters; First Nat. Bank v. American Nat. Bank, 173 Mo. 158, 72 S. W. 1060, holding Federal question raised directly by record where answer pleads want of power in bank under National Banking Act to bind itself to pay draft of another; Ervin v. First Nat. Bank of Lenoir, 161 N. C. 47, 76 S. E. 531, bank requiring debtor to renew indebtedness from time to time and to pay eight per cent on some payments and seven per cent on others is guilty of usury; Grove v. Great Northern Loan Co., 17 N. D. 359, 138 Am. St. Rep. 707, 116 N. W. 347, purchase of real estate is not entitled to have usurious mortgage set aside under statute not declaring usurious contract void, but merely providing for recovery of penalties; Anderson v. Tatro, 44 Okl. 221, 144 Pac. 361, where note containing usurious interest is indorsed by payee to bank and borrower pays note to bank, he cannot maintain action, under section 3, article IX, of Constitution, against payee for double amount of interest paid to bank; First Nat. Bank of Mill Creek v. Langston, 32 Okl. 800, 124 Pac. 310, in action against national bank to recover penalty for charging usurious interest, where all evidence shows first payment of such interest was within two years, failure to instruct as to time of usurious transaction was not error; McCarthy v. First Nat. Bank of Rapid City, 23 S. D. 276, 21 Ann. Cas. 437, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 335, 121 N. W. 855, holding right of action for penalty arises upon application of payment on note to usurious interest with consent of maker, and action is barred by two year statute of limitations; First Nat. Bank v. Hunter, 109 Tenn. 95, 70 S. W. 371, holding where usury has been charged and received by national bank in discounting notes remedy of Rev. Stats. U. S., § 5198, is exclusive.

Distinguished in Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Donnell, 195 U. S. 374, 49 L. Ed. 241, 25 Sup. Ct. 49, under Rev. Stats., § 5197, national bank liable to forfeiture for compounding oftener than law allows, though total interest less than sum allowed; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Donnell, 172 Mo. 409, 72 S. W. 931, holding interest on renewing indebtedness at seven per cent in interest due on old note is usurious by Rev. Stats., 1899, § 3706.

183 U. S. 138-144, 46 L. Ed. 120, 22 Sup. Ct. 72, STORTI v. MASSACHUSETTS.

Question of construction of State statute is for State court.

Approved in Connella v. Haskell, 158 Fed. 287, 87 C. C. A. 111, denying release on habeas corpus of person convicted under territorial law of Oklahoma; St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 132 Fed. 639, State board's assessment of railroad property at higher percentage than other property does not give Federal court jurisdiction.

Writ of habeas corpus will seldom be substituted for writ of error. Approved in Hall v. Johnson, 186 U. S. 480, 46 L. Ed. 1259, 22 Sup. Ct. 943, and Bissert v. Hagon, 183 U. S. 694, 46 L. Ed. 393, 22 Sup. Ct. 935, both reaffirming rule; Re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 182, 50 L. Ed. 986, 26 Sup. Ct. 602, habeas corpus denied person convicted in District Court of bringing intoxicants into Indian country; Carfer v. Caldwell, 200 U. S. 296, 50 L. Ed. 489, 26 Sup. Ct. 264, Federal habeas corpus denied prisoner held for contempt in refusing to testify before legislative investigating committee; Rogers v. Peck, 199 U. S. 436, 50 L. Ed. 261, 26 Sup. Ct. 87, and Ex parte Rogers, 138 Fed. 963, habeas corpus denied where petitioner sentenced to be executed after three months in solitary confinement was continued after reprieve; In re Dowd, 133 Fed. 749, 753, habeas corpus denied prisoner held for contempt of State Supreme Court, judgment being reviewable by writ of error; In re Laing, 127 Fed. 216, holding court has power and right to award writ of habeas corpus for release of officers of Federal court indicted in State court; Ex parte Reaves, 121 Fed. 861, holding where parties agree that facts set forth in petition are true, demurrer to return taken as admission of truth of facts. Distinguished in In re Marmo, 138 Fed. 203, application to district judge for habeas corpus is appealable to United States Supreme Court though without merit if imprisonment in violation of Federal Constitution alleged; West Virginia v. Laing, 133 Fed. 889, 66 C. C. A. 617, habeas corpus granted where petitioner arrested on murder charge for shooting, as he thought, in self-defense, while acting as member of posse comitatus. When a prisoner may be released on habeas corpus after judgment and sentence. Note, 87 Am. St. Rep. 201.

Under section 761, Revised Statutes, judge may proceed in summary manner to determine facts and law in habeas corpus case.

Approved in Matterd of Gregory, 219 U. S. 213, 55 L. Ed. 189, 31 Sup. Ct. 143, judgment of court of District of Columbia that acts of accused were within statutory definition of gift enterprise is not reviewable on habeas corpus; Ex parte Gytl, 210 Fed. 924, holding in habeas corpus proceedings that Department of Labor had no authority to order alien migrating from Austria to Canada and from Canada to United States to be deported to Austria, and ordering deportation to Canada; Ex parte Blodgett, 192 Fed. 78, denying habeas corpus to review decision of State Supreme Court affirming conviction for crime, where claim is made that

895

PINNEY V. NELSON.

183 U. S. 144-151 accused was deprived of due process of law by overruling of plea of former acquittal; Erickson v. Hodges, 179 Fed. 180, 102 C. C. A. 443, under Rev. Stats., § 755, Federal court may dismiss petition for habeas corpus without issuing writ or order to show cause; Haas v. Henkel, 166 Fed. 624, under section 760, Rev. Stats., judge hearing writ of habeas corpus may permit writ to be traversed at hearing in order to raise issues of fact; Ex parte Martinez, 66 Tex. Cr. 69, 145 S. W. 994, holding evidence insufficient to show person convicted of murder was prevented from giving notice of appeal by duress, and denying habeas corpus to release him.

183 U. S. 144–151, 46 L. Ed. 125, 22 Sup. Ct. 52, PINNEY v. NELSON.

In order to impair obligation of contract, law must be passed subsequent thereto.

Approved in Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 206, 47 L. Ed. 445, 23 Sup. Ct. 279, holding where law imposing tax was in force before deposit in question was made, it cannot impair obligation of contract; Diamond Glue Co. v. United States Glue Co., 187 U. S. 615, 47 L. Ed. 332, 23 Sup. Ct. 207, upholding Wis. Stats. 1898, §§ 1770b, 4978, prohibiting operation of foreign corporation without filing charter, as to contracts thereafter made; Oshkosh Water-Works v. Oshkosh, 187 U. S. 446, 47 L. Ed. 253, 23 Sup. Ct. 237, holding contract of August, 1891, cannot be impaired by amendment to charter made in March of that year.

Alteration of stockholders' liability as impairment of contract obligation. Note, L. R. A. 1915B, 798.

Charter contract of corporation organized in one State to do business ir another is made with reference to laws of latter State.

Approved in Thomas v. Wentworth Hotel Co., 158 Cal. 279, 280, 139 Am. St. Rep. 120, 110 Pac. 943, 944, and Thomas v. Matthiessen, 232 U. S. 235, 58 L. Ed. 584, 34 Sup. Ct. 312, both holding stockholders of corporation organized in Arizona under charter authorizing corporation to do business in California are subject to liability for corporate debts imposed by section 322 of Civil Code of California; Williamson v. Majors, 169 Fed. 764, 95 C. C. A. 186, holding deed of trust on real property in Mississippi given to secure debt contracted by dealing in futures in cotton void under Mississippi Code of 1892; Nelson v. Bank of Fergus County, 157 Fed. 167, 13 Ann. Cas. 811, 84 C. C. A. 609, holding amendment to Montana statute of 1903 changing time for filing of report is not retrospective within prohibition of State Constitution, as applied to debts contracted before its enactment; London etc. Bank v. Block, 117 Fed. 905, holding franchise of foreign banking corporation to do business in California is taxable therein; Tropico Land etc. Co. v. Lambourn, 170 Cal. 45, 148 Pac. 211, foreign corporation organized to transact business within State, transacting business in State and holding meetings of directors in State is within State and not within proviso of section

1493, Code of Civil Procedure, authorizing claimant having no notice by reason of being out of State to present claim any time before decree of anstribution; Turner v. Markham, 155 Cal. 573, 102 Pac. 276, holding stockholder of corporation organized under Arizona law cannot sue on behalf of corporation for personal injury resulting from misrepresentation of promoters in sale of stock; Peck v. Noll, 154 Cal. 353, 354, 355, 97 Pac. 866, stockholders of corporation organized in Nevada to transact business in California are liable for corporate debts contracted in California, although under Nevada Constitution corporators of domestic corporations are not individually liable for corporate debts; Keystone Driller Co. v. Superior Court, 138 Cal. 745, 72 Pac. 401, holding stockholders in nonresident corporation, doing business in California, who are themselves citizens of such State, are presumed to know its laws; Holmes v. Jewett, 55 Colo. 198, 134 Pac. 669, dismissing suit by minority stockholder of foreign corporation to set aside deed of mining claim given to trustee; In re Rogers' Estate, 148 Mich. 308, 119 Am. St. Rep. 677, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1134, 112 N. W. 933, mortgages, notes, land contraets and papers representing property within State belonging to nonresident decedent are subject to inheritance tax imposed by act of 1903; Swedish etc. Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 89 Minn. 111, 94 N. W. 222, holding law governing pledges of grain is law of State wherein grain is situated.

Distinguished in Thomas v. Matthiessen, 192 Fed. 496, 498, 113 C. C. A. 101, provisions of California Constitution, article XII, §§ 3 and 15, do not make nonresident stockholder of foreign corporation operating hotel in California, liable for debts of corporation incurred in California, where charter exempts stockholder from liability for corporate debts; State v. New Orleans Warehouse Co., 109 La. 72, 33 South. 85, holding foreign railway's right to operate in State will not be taken away because its charter powers are broader than State laws allow.

Presumption as to knowledge of foreign law. Note, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 1073.

Right to enforce stockholders' liability outside of State of incorporation. Note, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 908, 909.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Kansas City etc. Ry. Co. v. State of Texas, 241 U. S. 651, 60 L. Ed. 1222, 36 Sup. Ct. 553, dismissing for want of jurisdiction.

183 U. S. 151-176, 46 L. Ed. 128, 22 Sup. Ct. 62, DOOLEY v. UNITED STATES.

Act of Congress of 1900 taxing exports from United States to Cuba is valid.

Approved in United States v. Heinszen, 206 U. S. 379, 11 Ann. Cas. 688, 51 L. Ed. 1101, 27 Sup. Ct. 742, upholding act of 1906 legalizing and ratifying imposition and collection of duties by United States in Philippine Islands prior to March 8, 1902.

897

14 DIAMOND RINGS v. UNITED STATES. 183 U. S. 176–185

Provision of Constitution prohibiting tax on exports to foreign country has no application to Porto Rico.

Approved in Faber v. United States, 221 U. S. 658, 55 L. Ed. 898, 31 Sup. Ct. 659, holding Philippines are not foreign country and reduction of tariff rates on articles imported from Cuba are not to be based on rates on same articles imported from Philippines; United States v. Hvoslef, 237 U. S. 13, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 286, 59 L. Ed. 819, 35 Sup. Ct. 459, holding tax on charter-party which is practically bill of lading for entire cargo of vessel for foreign port is tax on export and invalid; United States v. Chavez, 199 Fed. 519, indictment charging accused with transporting munitions from one point in El Paso to another, with intent to transfer them to Mexico, did not charge violation of joint congressional resolution No. 89, of 1912, forbidding export of munitions to Mexico.

Power to regulate interstate commerce, if unrestrained, would destroy unity sought by Constitution (dissenting opinion).

Approved in dissenting opinion in Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 372, 47 L. Ed. 507, 23 Sup. Ct. 333, majority holding carriage of lottery tickets by interstate express carrier between States is interstate commerce within prohibitory power of Congress.

183 U. S. 176–185, 46 L. Ed. 138, 22 Sup. Ćt. 59, FOURTEEN DIAMOND RINGS V. UNITED STATES.

From date of ratification of treaty of Paris, Philippine Islands became part of United States.

Approved in Dooley v. United States, 183 U. S. 158, 163, 46 L. Ed. 132, 134, 22 Sup. Ct. 65, 67, upholding Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, imposing duties upon imports into Porto Rico from New York, such not being duty upon exports within Constitution; Lincoln v. United States, 202 U. S. 496, 50 L. Ed. 1118, 26 Sup. Ct. 728, and Lincoln v. United States, 197 U. S. 428, 49 L. Ed. 818, 25 Sup. Ct. 455, both holding order of President of July 12, 1898, inapplicable to goods shipped to Manila from New York after ratification of treaty with Spain, April 11, 1899; The Alta, 136 Fed. 519, 69 C. C. A. 289, foreign built vessel owned by United States citizen entering United States port from Manila not subject to tonnage duty as entering from foreign port.

Distinguished in dissenting opinion in Lincoln v. United States, 202 U. S. 500, 50 L. Ed. 1120, 26 Sup. Ct. 728, order of President of July 12, 1898, inapplicable to goods shipped to Manila from New York after ratification of treaty with Spain, April 11, 1899.

Constitutional inhibition on tax against exports to foreign country does not apply to Philippines.

[ocr errors]

Approved in Faber v. United States, 157 Fed. 141, and Faber v. United States, 221 U. S. 658, 55 L. Ed. 898, 31 Sup. Ct. 659, both holding Philippines are part of United States within meaning of treaty with Cuba of Dog di din jud

XVIII+57 ̧...

28

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »