peach testimony of Chinese that he was born in United States; Ng You Nuey v. United States, 224 Fed. 343, 140 C. C. A. 26, Fong Ping Ngar v. United States, 223 Fed. 524, 139 C. C. A. 71, and Bak Kun v. United States, 195 Fed. 55, 115 C. C. A. 55, all upholding finding that Chinese person was not born in United States; United States v. Yuen Pak Sune, 183 Fed. 267, and United States v. Hoy Way, 156 Fed. 248, both holding burden of proof on Chinese, though claiming to be citizen.

Miscellaneous. Cited in In re Grant, 143 Fed. 663, petition to review order of referee in bankruptcy will not be considered unless filed within a reasonable time.

186 U. S. 202, 46 L. Ed. 1026, 22 Sup. Ct. 895, CHIN YING ▼. UNITED STATES.

Adjudged in conformity with Chin Bak Kan v. United States, 186 U. S. 193, 46 L. Ed. 1121, 22 Sup. Ct. 891.

Cited in United States v. Yuen Pak Sune, 183 Fed. 267, ordering deportation of Chinese person.

186 U. S. 202-205, 46 L. Ed. 1127, 22 Sup. Ct. 899, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DENVER V. KLUG.

Supreme Court jurisdiction of appeal depends upon act of March 3, 1891. Approved in Columbia Ironworks v. National Lead Co., 127 Fed. 101, 64 L. R. A. 645, 62 C. C. A. 99, holding appeal on question whether corporation is principally engaged in manufacturing or mercantile pursuits lies to Circuit Court of Appeals; Hutchinson v. Otis, Wilcox & Co., 123 Fed. 16, 18, 19, 20, 59 C. C. A. 94, holding Circuit Court of Appeals decision on petition to revise proceedings of District Court in matter of law is not appealable to Supreme Court.

Distinguished in Elliott v. Toeppner, 187 U. S. 335, 47 L. Ed. 213, 23 Sup. Ct. 136, holding judgment that person is not a bankrupt entered by bankruptcy court in jury trial reviewable only by writ of error.

Apart from section 25, of Act of 1891, Circuit Courts of Appeals have same revisory powers as in other cases.

Approved in Holden v. Stratton, 191 U. S. 119, 48 L. Ed. 119, 24 Sup. Ct. 47, holding certiorari proper method for obtaining review of decision of Circuit Court of Appeals revising proceedings in District Court; Burleigh v. Foreman, 125 Fed. 220, 60 C. C. A. 109, holding appeal lies under section 24a, Bankruptcy Act of 1898, to Circuit Court of Appeals from bankruptcy court's decision on separate matter arising between interveners; Hutchinson v. Otis, Wilcox & Co., 123 Fed. 17, 59 C. C. A. 94, holding Act of 1891, § 6, does not authorize appeal from Circuit Court of Appeals on decision on petition to revise District Court's rulings in bankruptcy proceedings.

District Court has jurisdiction to determine that alleged bankrupt is, not within class to which Bankruptcy Act is applicable and appeal does not lie from order dismissing involuntary petition on that ground.

1117

CLARK v. HERINGTON.

186 U. S. 206-212 Approved in Savings Deposit Bank etc. Co. v. Loeser, 209 U. S. 542, 52 L. Ed. 918, 28 Sup. Ct. 760, dismissing appeal for want of jurisdietion; First Nat. Bank v. Chicago Title etc. Co., 198 U. S. 288, 49 L. Ed. 1054, 25 Sup. Ct. 693, no appeal lies from decree of District Court in bankruptcy proceedings and jurisdiction of Circuit Court of Appeals confined to revision in matter of law; Lucius v. Cawthon-Coleman Co., 196 U. S. 152, 49 L. Ed. 426, 25 Sup. Ct. 214, erroneous decision against claim of bankrupt to property as exempt does not create question of jurisdiction proper to sustain direct appeal; Kyle v. Hammond, 192 Fed. 560, 113 C. C. A. 31, remedy of petitioner, on dismissal of petition to review decision in bankruptcy for want of jurisdiction, is by mandamus or certiorari; Exploration Mercantile Co. v. Pacific Hardware etc. Co., 177 Fed. 834, 101 C. C. A. 39, whether petition in involuntary bankruptcy alleges act of bankruptcy is reviewable by Circuit Court of Appeals; In re New England Breeders' Club, 169 Fed. 588, 95 C. C. A. 84, holding District Court had jurisdiction to pass on motion to vacate adjudication of bankruptcy made on ground that party is not within class provided for in Bankruptcy Act; In re T. E. Hill Co., 159 Fed. 76, 86 C. C. A. 263, holding on filing petition for involuntary bankruptcy of corporation and service of process, court acquired jurisdiction to appoint receiver; Morgan v. First Nat. Bank, 145 Fed. 469, 76 C. C. A. 236, validity of trust deed executed within four months of institution of proceedings raises question of law reviewable by Circuit Court of Appeals; Dickas v. Barnes, 140 Fed. 852, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 654, 73 C. C. A. 261, appeal improperly taken from decree in bankruptcy will not be treated as petition for revision; Liddon & Bro. v. Smith, 135 Fed. 45, 67 C. C. A. 517, distinguishing "bankruptcy proceedings" from controversies arising out of settlement of estates of bankrupts reviewable by Circuit Court of Appeals; T. E. Hill Co. v. Contractor's Supply etc. Co., 249 Ill. 307, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 456, 94 N. E. 545, holding District Court had jurisdiction to determine that alleged bankrupt is not within class provided for by Bankruptcy Act.

Distinguished in Fidelity Trust Co. v. Gaskell, 195 Fed. 868, 115 C. C. A. 527, holding court could review decision of District Court denying its power in exercise of ancillary jurisdiction to determine ownership. of proceeds of goods sold as property of bankrupt.

Appellate jurisdiction of Federal court in bankruptcy proceedings.
Note, 16 Ann. Cas. 1018.

186 U. S. 206-212, 46 L. Ed. 1128, 22 Sup. Ct. 872, CLARK v. HERINGTON. Land Department's approval cannot give railway right to land open only under settlement laws.

Approved in Southern Pacific R. R. v. United States, 189 U. S. 452, 47 L. Ed. 900, 23 Sup. Ct. 569, holding since Southern Pacific took no interest in land within twenty-mile limit, because of forfeiture to United States, company cannot claim adjoining land as indemnity; Wilson v.

Southern Pacific R. Co., 150 Cal. 734, 89 Pac. 1090, where railroad got no title to land within twenty-mile strip of grant, it could not take adjoining strip outside under claim of indemnity.

186 U. S. 212–223, 46 L. Ed. 1132, 22 Sup. Ct. 820, BIENVILLE WATER SUPPLY CO. v. MOBILE.

Court will take judicial notice of its own records, and on principle of stare decisis may examine and consider decision in former suit involving same question.

Approved in De Galard v. Safe Deposit etc. Co., 233 U. S. 32, 58 L. Ed. 836, 34 Sup. Ct. 584, dismissing appeal where it was previously determined in other cases that questions decided afforded no ground of jurisdiction; Dimmick v. Tompkins, 194 U. S. 548, 48 L. Ed. 1114, 24 Sup. Ct. 780, declaring right to take judicial notice of former proceedings had by party to proceedings now before court; Sequatchie etc. Coal etc. Co. v. Tennessee Coal etc. Co., 131 Tenn. 229, 174 S. W. 1124, following prior decision adjudicating title to land in controversy; State v. Savage, 105 Tex. 472, 151 S. W. 533, taking judicial notice of prior decision that local option election, in which bond in question was given, was valid.

Law will not permit splitting up into separate suits different grounds for same relief.

Approved in United States v. California etc. Land Co., 192 U. S. 359, 48 L. Ed. 479, 24 Sup. Ct. 267, holding dismissal on ground of estoppel of bill by United States to avoid land patents defeats subsequent bill to enjoin allotment of same land to Indians.

Municipal contracts are subject to legislative control.

Approved in City of Sioux Falls v. Farmers' Loan etc. Co., 136 Fed. 728, 69 C. C. A. 373, grant of franchise to water company by municipal corporation raises no implied contract that city will do no act to reduce value of franchise; Tampa v. Tampa Water Wks. Co., 45 Fla. 627, 34 South. 640, constitutional or statutory provisions that charters granted shall be subject to alteration, amendment or repeal, become part of contracts made in form of charters; dissenting opinion in Tampa Waterworks Co. v. Tampa, 199 U. S. 243, 244, 50 L. Ed. 173, 26 Sup. Ct. 23, majority holding municipality cannot by contract with water company lose right to establish reasonable rates.

Distinguished in Farmers' Loan etc. Co. v. Meridian, 139 Fed. 674, grant of franchise to water company precludes city from constructing competing works while contract in force.

Where charter empowers State to charter other companies to furnish city with water, water company took charter with notice that it had no exclusive right.

Approved in City of Joplin v. Southwest Missouri Light Co., 191 U. S. 158, 48 L. Ed. 130, 24 Sup. Ct. 45, holding nonexclusive municipal grant under Mo. Laws 1891, p. 60, of electric-light franchise for twenty years,

1119

NOTES ON U. S. REPORTS. 186 U. S. 224-238

raises no implied contract that city will not build plant; Town of Glenwood Springs v. Glenwood Light etc. Co., 202 Fed. 681, L. R. A. 1915C, 438, 121 C. C. A. 88, grant and contract of town with water company for water supply held not to exclude town from right to construct waterworks in competition with company; Town of New Decatur v. American Telephone etc. Co., 176 Ala. 552, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 875, 58 South. 632, holding void ordinance requiring removal from streets of telephone lines placed there under previous valid ordinance; Milo Electric Light etc. Co. v. Sebec Dam Co., 109 Me. 432, 84 Atl. 943, legislative amendment to charter of dam company considered and held valid; dissenting opinion in Avondale Land Co. v. Shook, 170 Ala. 388, 54 South. 270, majority holding legislature could not authorize corporation by majority vote of stockholders to amend charter so as to create new contract for stockholders.

Establishment and regulation of municipal water supply. Note, 61
L. R. A. 84.

Right of municipality to establish competing water plant. Note,
L. R. A. 1915C, 445.

186 U. S. 224-230, 46 L. Ed. 1137, 22 Sup. Ct. 889, HARDY v. UNITED STATES.

Grant or denial of application for continuance is within discretion of trial court, and will not be reviewed, except when it is clearly shown that discretion was abused.

Approved in McClendon v. United States, 229 Fed. 526, Itow v. United States, 223 Fed. 28, 138 C. C. A. 439, and Latham v. United States, 210 Fed. 160, 127 C. C. A. 9, all holding such discretion not abused.

The date named in indictment for crime of murder is not an essential averment.

Approved in Hume v. United States, 118 Fed. 696, 55 C. C. A. 407, holding wrong date in indictment for fraudulent devising scheme to defraud by use of mails is immaterial; United States v. Howard, 132 Fed. 336, omission of date in indictment for subornation of perjury under Rev. Stats., § 5393, is one of form only; Rinker v. United States, 151 Fed. 756, 81 C. C. A. 379, indictment for sending obscene matter through mails need only show offense committed before finding of indictment and within statute of limitations.

186 U. S. 230-238, 46 L. Ed. 1140, 22 Sup. Ct. 905, JENKINS v. NEFF. Finding of facts by State court are conclusive with Supreme Court. Approved in Thayer v. Spratt, 189 U. S. 353, 47 L. Ed. 849, 23 Sup. Ct. 579, holding Supreme Court will not review evidence upon which State court's findings of fact rest; Kaufman v. Tredway, 195 U. S. 273, 49 L. Ed. 192, 25 Sup. Ct. 33, questions of fact determined by verdict of jury not open to review in Federal Supreme Court.

Questions considered by Federal Supreme Court in reviewing judgments of State courts. Note, 63 L. R. A. 577.

New York statute of 1893 considered and held to place trust companies on equality with banks, in respect to interest only, and to give no other banking powers; State method for taxing them was not violative of section 5219, Revised Statutes.

Approved in State of New York v. Purdy, 231 U. S. 391, 58 L. Ed. 282, 34 Sup. Ct. 114, holding New York statutes taxing shares in national banks did not violate limitations of section 5219, Rev. Stats.; Des Moines Nat. Bank v. City of Des Moines, 153 Iowa, 339, 133 N. W. 768, construing statute as to determination of value of shares in national banks for taxation.

Discrimination against shareholders in national banks, in assessing shares. Note, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 948.

186 U. S. 238-256, 46 L. Ed. 1144, 22 Sup. Ct. 881, CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TEL. CO. v. MANNING.

Where Court of Appeals makes complete disposition of controversy, leaving to trial court only ministerial duty of entering final decree, such decree is final and appealable.

Approved in Robert Moody & Son v. Century Sav. Bank, 239 U. S. 376, 60 L. Ed. 340, 36 Sup. Ct. 112, and Rio Grande etc. Ry. Co. v. Stringham, 239 U. S. 47, 60 L. Ed. 138, 36 Sup. Ct. 6, both holding judgment of appellate court leaving nothing to discretion of trial court was appealable; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 37, 48 L. Ed. 866, 24 Sup. Ct. 563, construing proviso in act of February 19, 1903, to authorize direct appeal from Circuit Court in proceeding to compel production of evidence before Interstate Commerce Commission.

Legislature is presumed to have had full knowledge of situation in enacting a statute, and in interpreting it court may consider journals and records of legislature relating to its enactment.

Approved in Connole v. Norfolk etc. Ry. Co., 216 Fed. 825, 826, construing Ohio Workmen's Compensation Act of 1913, § 51; Woolcott v. Shubert, 217 N. Y. 221, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 726, 111 N. E. 831, construing act of 1913, amending civil rights law; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. State, 135 Ga. 562, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 20, 69 S. E. 733, holding it is not presumed that statute regulating locomotive headlights was intended by legislature to regulate interstate commerce; Levy v. State, 161 Ind. 258, 68 N. E. 175, upholding presumption that legislature acted with knowledge of situation in passing act prohibiting transient merchants from doing business without license; State v. Harden, 62 W. Va. 338, 350, 58 S. E. 725, 730, applying rule in construing statute for town government.

Language of statute regulating business of public nature, carried on by private corporations for private benefit will not be broadened by impli« cation.