Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

991

LEAGUE v. TEXAS.

184 U. S. 156-162 Kansas City etc. Bridge Co., 117 Ark. 623, 174 S. W. 255, upholding act of 1887 authorizing attorney general to sue for collection of taxes past due under previous levies; City of Orlando v. Giles, 51 Fla. 440, 40 South. 840, holding legislature may change method of collecting taxes and of imposing costs of collection, and city by proceeding under particular act waives right acquired by sale for taxes under previous laws; Gautier v. Ditmar, 204 N. Y. 29, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 960, 97 N. E. 468, Greater New York charter as amended by laws of 1908, authorizing city to sell at public auction liens against lands for taxes and authorizing purchaser to foreclose liens merely provides remedy to enforce payment of taxes and is valid; Tennessee Fertilizer Co. v. McFall, 128 Tenn. 658, 163 S. W. 810, Revenue Act of 1907, providing for assessment of back taxes merely providing remedy for collection of delinquent taxes, is valid; dissenting opinion in The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 45, 48 L. Ed. 85, 24 Sup. Ct. 18, majority holding exclusive admiralty jurisdiction extends to enforcement by proceeding in rem to enforce lien for repairs of canal boat plying on Erie Canal.

Delinquent taxpayer compelling State to enforce payment in court cannot complain because he is charged with expenses of suit.

Approved in Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U. S. 534, 51 L. Ed. 1176, 27 Sup. Ct. 755, imposing upon stockholder additional expense including in estimate expenses incident to enforcement of liability in other States and against other parties does not invalidate assessment; State v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 111 Minn. 37, 126 N. W. 403, upholding State statute providing for payment of interest on delinquent taxes; dissenting opinion in Converse v. Aetna Nat. Bank, 79 Conn. 187, 7 Ann. Cas. 75, 64 Atl. 350, majority holding that provision authorizing court to add to amount of assessment estimated expense of prosecuting future actions for collection of stockholders' double liability added to its burdens and impaired contract.

Fourteenth Amendment contains no prohibition of retrospective legis

lation.

Approved in Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U. S. 153, 55 L. Ed. 154, 31 Sup. Ct. 171, Revenue and Taxation Act of Kentucky of 1906 providing for collection of taxes on property omitted from taxation in years of 1901, 1902 and 1903 is not void as ex post facto; Stickney v. Kelsey, 209 U. S. 422, 52 L. Ed. 865, 28 Sup. Ct. 508, dismissing writ of error where action of court, in sustaining method of proving existence of State law, was ambiguous and plaintiff in error did not show that Federal right was impaired; Adams v. Adams, 211 Mass. 202, 97 N. E. 984, statute of 1905 providing that property of trust estate created by will withdrawn from use by beneficiary's absence from State should be distributed as intestate estate is not invalid because of retroactive effect; Weeks v. Grace, 194 Mass. 300, 10 Ann. Cas. 1077, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1092, 80 N. E. 221, easement acquired by eminent domain is not breach of covenant of grantor that premises are free of incumbrances made by him.

184 U. S. 162–168, 46 L. Ed. 481, 22 Sup. Ct. 477, HATFIELD V. KING. Investigation of charges of misconduct against counsel below should be had before court where wrong was committed.

Approved in Hatfield v. King, 186 U. S. 179, 46 L. Ed. 1112, 22 Sup. Ct. 871, holding Supreme Court will remand cause to Circuit Court for northern district of West Virginia to judge who rendered decree appealed from; Hatfield v. King, 131 Fed. 792, evidence considered and held insufficient to sustain charge of collusion on part of attorney. Distinguished in Union etc. Paper Co. v. Sevigne Bread Wrapper Co., 138 Fed. 416, third party not party to suit determining patent valid cannot have decree set aside for collusion several terms later.

184 U. S. 169–173, 46 L. Ed. 485, 22 Sup. Ct. 450, LYKINS v. MCGRATH. Consent of Secretary of Interior to conveyance by Indian patentee, whose patents prohibited alienation without such consent, may be given after execution of deed and is retroactive.

Approved in Campbell v. Town Co., 69 Kan. 319, 76 Pac. 841, following rule; Henkel v. United States, 237 U. S. 51, 59 L. Ed. 835, 35 Sup. Ct. 536, restrictions on alienation of land allotted to Indians did not prohibit Indian from relinquishing rights to government for reclamation project and selecting other lands; Henkel v. United States, 196 Fed. 347, 116 C. C. A. 165, Indian may, with approval of secretary relinquish to United States right in allotments needed for reclamation project and select other lands; Alamenda Oil Co. v. Kelley, 35 Okl. 527, 130 Pac. 933, oil and gas lease executed by Indian before removal of restrictions on alienation subject to approval of secretary and aproved by secretary after removal of restrictions on alienation in face of protest of lessor, is valid; Godfrey v. Iowa Land etc. Co., 21 Okl. 321, 95 Pac. 803, citizen of Seminole nation, not of Indian blood may, after removal of restrictions on alienation by act of Congress of 1904, before patent is issued, execute deed to that part of his allotment not designated by him as homestead; Western Inv. Co. v. Tiger, 21 Okl. 636, 96 Pac. 604, Indian inheriting fee-simple title to land subject to restriction upon alienation for five years and executing deeds after expiration of five year period, without approval of Secretary of Interior, conveys good title.

Distinguished in Redwine v. Ansley, 32 Okl. 329, 122 Pac. 684, land of deceased allottee after passing to heirs cannot be sold to satisfy debts of allottee contracted before allotment was alienable; Rogers v. Noel, 34 Okl. 241, 124 Pac. 977, 978, deed of Indian allotment before removal of restrictions on alienation is void and confers no title on grantee against heirs of deceased grantor.

184 U. S. 173-198, 46 L. Ed. 487, 22 Sup. Ct. 340, MARANDE V. TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO.

Whether proof was sufficient to go to jury is question of law for court. Approved in Mosheuvel v. District of Columbia, 191 U. S. 252, 48 L. Ed. 170, 24 Sup. Ct. 57, holding where all probative facts are un

993 MINNESOTA v. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. 184 U. S. 199-247

disputed and but one inference can be drawn therefrom, question is for court; Norfolk etc. Ry. Co. v. Hauser, 211 Fed. 571, 572, 128 C. C. A. 167, in action for death of engineer of second engine on coal train resulting from attempt to stop train suddenly to prevent collision, question of negligence in placing small second engine behind larger one with heavy coal train in rear, was for jury; Charlotte Nat. Bank v. Southern Ry. Co., 179 Fed. 775, 103 C. C. A. 261, reversing directed verdict in action to recover value of cotton represented by bills of lading held by bank, where cotton was delivered to other persons; Northport Smelting etc. Co. v. Twitchell, 156 Fed. 646, 84 C. C. A. 355, in action for injury of minor employee by explosion resulting from contact of molten metal with water, question of negligence and contributory negligence was for jury; Payne v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 141 Fed. 340, 72 C. C. A. 487, in action on insurance policy on which agent had paid premium, question of its being bona fide policy for jury; International Text Book Co. v. Heartt, 136 Fed. 133, 69 C. C. A. 127, court should direct verdict for defendant when sued for slanderous words spoken by agent uttered when not performing duty which was limited by contract; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Contourie, 135 Fed. 466, 467, 476, 68 C. C. A. 177, in action for loss of cotton while in defendant's hands, as carrier, it is admissible to show defendant's foreman in charge was habitually drunk; Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Brez, 39 App. D. C. 69, in action for death of passenger on scenic railway, where death may be accounted for by two inferences from facts, issue of negligence is for jury.

Slight deviation does not make carrier liable.

Approved in Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 210U. S. 10, 15 Ann. Cas. 70, 52 L. Ed. 937, 28 Sup. Ct. 607, holding undisputed proof established necessity of change of route during unprecedented Kansas flood of 1903, and railroad was not negligent in sending cattle trains via Kansas City instead of Topeka.

Distinguished in Davis Bros v. Blue Ridge Ry. Co., 81 S. C. 472, 62 S. E. 858, holding in action for injuries to animals that special exemptions in contract of carrier terminate upon material deviation from route.

Liability of carrier of goods or livestock by land for deviation from route. Note, 15 Ann. Cas. 78.

Effect of deviation upon carrier's rights and liabilities. Note, 2 B. R. C. 597.

184 U. S. 199–247, 46 L. Ed. 499, 22 Sup. Ct. 308, MINNESOTA v. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO.

Quaere, whether bill is to enforce penal statute and not maintainable. Approved in Oklahoma v. Gulf etc. Ry. Co., 220 U. S. 300, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 524, 55 L. Ed. 473, 31 Sup. Ct. 437, suit by State to enjoin XVIII-63

railway and express companies from introducing liquor into its territory is to enforce its own penal statutes, and is not within original jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

Three classes of parties to bill in equity are: 1. Formal parties; 2. Necessary parties; 3. Indispensable parties.

Approved in Hawes v. First Nat. Bank of Madison, 229. Fed. 57, where party defendant is indispensable, both by relief prayed for and that granted, and is citizen of same State as two of complainants, Federal court has no jurisdiction.

Court will dismiss bill sua sponte where indispensable parties are not joined.

Approved in Garzot v. Rios De Rubio, 209 U. S. 297, 52 L. Ed. 800, 28 Sup. Ct. 548, suit to set aside agreement adjusting community between widow and children brought after death of widow leaving children by second marriage, although property was derived from first husband, cannot be maintained without making estate of mother and her heirs parties; Washington v. Northern Securities Co., 185 U. S. 255, 46 L. Ed. 897, 22 Sup. Ct. 624, holding leave to file original bill in Supreme Court may be granted without intimating any opinion upon question of jurisdiction; United States v. United Shoe Mach. Co., 222 Fed. 408, holding lessees are indispensable parties to suit charging that consolidation by leases of patented machines and license agreements is violation of Sherman anti-trust law of 1890; Hayden v. Perfection Cooler Co., 217 Fed. 172, failure to join licensees of patents as parties to suit by stockholders to restrain corporation from diverting assets and to cancel licenses is ground for dismissal; Hidden v. Washington-Oregon Corp., 217 Fed. 304, corporate mortgagor is indispensable party to suit to remove mortgage trustee; Hyams v. Old Dominion Co., 209 Fed. 810, 126 C. C. A. 532, where Maine corporation holds majority of stock of New Jersey corporation, minority stockholder of latter cannot maintain bill to restrain holding corporation from voting stock at election of directors of New Jersey corporation without making latter corporation party defendant; Vincent Oil Co. v. Gulf Refining Co., 195 Fed. 437, 115 C. C. A. 336, oil company, assignee of undivided half interest in oil lease and in exclusive possession, is indispensable party to suit to establish validity of prior lease which would invalidate its lease; Mannington v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 183 Fed. 148, where, in suit to which stockholding corporation is not party, it is claimed that corporation cannot, under statute, own stock of another corporation, court cannot declare constitution of corporation issuing stock. illegal on ground that stock was voted at corporate election by holding corporation; United States v. Allen, 179 Fed. 22, 103 C. C. A. 1, Indian allottee is not indispensable party to suit by government, under act of 1908, to set aside conveyances made in violation of restrictions upon alienation; Arkansas Valley etc. Land Co. v. Ft. Lyon Canal Co., 173

995 MINNESOTA v. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. 184 U. S. 199-247

Fed. 604, 97 C. C. A. 551, under Colorado statute right to elect directors is right of stockholders as such, and validity of contract of corporation giving another corporation right to select certain number of directors, cannot be determined in suit in which stockholders are not parties; Farmers' Bank of Cuba City v. Wright, 158 Fed. 844, Federal court's jurisdiction of suit against executors appointed in Iowa to establish claim against estate of their testator is not affected by fact that joint executor, resident of another State was joined but not served, where such executor is not indispensable party under Iowa statute; United States v. Fairbanks, 171 Fed. 339, 96 C. C. A. 229, in suit to establish right to Indian allotment, conflicting claims to same tract may be determined; and adverse claimant is indispensable party; Arkansas S. E. R. Co. v. Union Sawmill Co., 154 Fed. 311, 83 C. C. A. 224, lumber company is indispensable party to suit against corporation organized to build logging road to lumber-mill, to restrain building of road; McConnell v. Dennis, 153 Fed. 550, 82 C. C. A. 501, land owner is indispensable party to suit to enjoin lessee from proceeding under oil and gas lease, where complainant's relief depends upon validity of lease; United States v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 152 Fed. 296, denying motion, in suit against resident conspirator, to vacate order and quash service on nonresident co-conspirators where such order is authorized by Anti-trust Act of 1890; Grand Trunk etc. Ry. Co. v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 141 Fed. 800, 73 C. C. A. 43, where plaintiff seeks to enforce covenant between defendant and third party, latter is necessary party to suit; Young v. Mercantile Trust Co., 140 Fed. 63, bailment contract does not create fiduciary relation giving equity court jurisdiction of suit to enforce it; Weidenfeld v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 129 Fed. 311, 63 C. C. A. 537, in stockholder's suit objecting to ownership of majority of corporation stock by security company formed for that purpose, company is necessary party; Conklin v. United States Shipbuilding Co., 123 Fed. 916, holding no decree can be made directing corporations to transfer and issue new certificates without their being made parties; Talbot J. Taylor & Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 122 Fed. 152, 155, holding stockholder is indispensable party in suit against corporation to enjoin voting of his stock, and must be present; Willis v. Lauridson, 161 Cal. 117, 118 Pac. 535, all stockholders of co-operative business association should be represented in suit by one of them against corporation to enjoin recognition of validity of certain certificates, adoption of by-laws, payment of dividends, and election of increased number of directors; Florida Land etc. Co. v. Anderson, 50 Fla. 513, 39 South. 396, where bill seeks to have conveyance made to defendant set aside as fraudulent, conveyancers are necessary parties; P. H. & F. M. Roots Co. v. Decker, 111 Minn. 461, 462, 127 N. W. 418, 419, in absence of service of summons personally, in State on owner of patent or voluntary appearance of such owner, court cannot determine validity of prior transfer of patent; Disbrow v. Creamery

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »