3. The erection, pursuant to the direction of the government officer in charge, of a temporary liftspan, which was the most feasible and least expensive substitute which could be employed after an accident during the performance of a contract to reconstruct and remodel a government bridge over the Mississippi river had carried away a substantial part of the unfinished drawspan, together with the false work supporting the old structure, was contemplated by the contract, so as to preclude extra compensation therefor, where the immediate opening of navigation, which would have been seriously interrupted by the restoration of the false work, was imminent, and the contract, although containing many minute stipulations looking to uninterrupted railway service across the bridge, with no express requirement as to the navigability of the river, had fixed a date for the completion of the draws pan sufficiently early ordinarily to insure noninterruption of navigation. Phoenix Bridge Co. v. United States, see Courts, 17, 18. Effect of state receivership on jurisdiction of Federal court, see Courts, 26-28. Following decision of state court as to construction of corporate charter, see Courts, 33. Proper Federal district for suit against, see Courts, 37. Judicial notice of Federal incorporation, see Evidence, 2. Fraud in purchase of stock by director, see Fraud. Legislative regulation of rates of gas Winding up of insolvent mutual life in- Roman Catholic Chuch as corporation, Exemption from franchise tax, see Municipal regulation of water rates, Rules for practice and procedure, 1074. 1. An author of a painting, who, not being a citizen or subject of a foreign state with which the United States has copyright relations, is excluded by the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 1107, chap. 565, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3406), § 13, from the benefits of copyright, cannot convey such right to a person whose citizenship is such Service of process on foreign corporaas to satisfy the provisions of that section. tion, see Writ and Process, 2-4. Bong v. Alfred S. Campbell Art Co. 979 Effort to secure action by a corporation, 2. The action of the President is a condi- its directors or shareholders, need not be tion of the right of a foreign citizen to the inade and set forth with the particularity benefits of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 required by equity rule 94, in order to Stat. at L. 1107, chap. 565, U. S. Comp. the corporation and its corporate lessee to sustain a bill filed by shareholders against Stat. 1901, p. 3406), § 13, giving the right obtain an accounting for unpaid rentals, of copyright to citizens of a foreign state where a majority of the directorate of the when such state permits to citizens of the former corporation, to whose interest it United States the benefit of copyright on was to assert the right to payment and substantially the same basis as its own citi- demand it, were, and had been for many zens, or is a party to an international agree years, officers, directors, and employees of ment which provides for reciprocity in the the other company, to whose interest it granting of copyright, by the terms of which was to deny indebtedness and resist payagreement the United States may, at its ment, and the latter company and its dipleasure, become a party, the existence of rectors and officers controlled a working such condition to be determined by the majority of the stock vote of the other President by proclamation, made from time corporation. Delaware & H. Co. v. Albany to time, as the purposes of the act may & S. R. Co. require. Bong v. Alfred S. Campbell Art CORRESPONDENCE. Co. 862 979 As evidence, see Evidence, 14. COSTS. 2. A court of equity ought not to interCosts of the receivership should not be fere by injunction with state legislation assessed against the complainant on revers-fixing gas rates before a fair trial has been ing the order appointing the receiver, where made of continuing the business under the receivership has gone on pending the such rates, where the rates complained of appeal, but such costs should be paid out of show a very narrow line of division bethe fund realized in court. Palmer tween possible confiscation and proper reguTexas, lation, as based upon the findings as to the value of the property, and the division depends upon variant opinions as to value and upon the results in the future of operating under such rates. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. COUNTIES. V. 435 Bonds in aid of railroad, see Bonds, 3, 4. Estoppel by recital in county bond, see Bona fide purchaser of county bonds, 382 3. The courts should not enjoin the enforcement of a municipal ordinance fixing maximum water rates on the ground that such ordinance is invalid under U. S. Const., 14th Amend., as confiscatory, unless the confiscation is clearly apparent. Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co. 371 table Indian lands is still in the govern4. The fact that the legal title to allotment does not defeat the jurisdiction of a court over a suit to compel the Secretary of the Interior to undo, as wholly unwarPurchasing bonds pending suit on, see ranted and unauthorized by law, his action COUPONS. Lis Pendens. COURT OF CLAIMS. in summarily erasing from the approved rolls of citizenship in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, the name of one who Review of finding of facts, see Appeal has received an allotment certificate and and Error, 87. Jurisdiction of, see Claims. COURTS. Appellate jurisdiction, see Appeal and Effect of appearance to give jurisdic- Clerk of court, see Clerks. lateral attack on judgment, see Mandamus to courts, see Mandamus. is in possession of the land. Garfield v. 168 6. A finding of the Land Department in favor of a homestead entry in a contest with persons claiming to have been occupants of the premises as a town site, which rests, not solely upon the fact that the application for the homestead entry was filed a few hours before that of the trustee rather chiefly on the priority of the homefor the occupants of the town site, but Power to punish criminally act autho- steader's equitable rights, must be regarded as conclusive by the Federal Supreme Court, rized by other state, see States, 1.-especially where such finding is reinforced Full faith and credit to territorial stat- by the judgments of the state courts,-unute fixing proper district for suit, less there is the clearest and most consee Statutes, 14. Province of court and jury, see Trial, vincing evidence of mistake or injustice. Removal of case from state to Federal court, see Removal of Causes. 2-5. Appointment of new trustee, see Trusts, 1. Jurisdiction of suit against United Relation to other departments of gov-in the limits of the judicial power, and is ernment. 1. The case must be a clear one before the courts should be asked to interfere by injunction with state legislation regulating gas rates, in advance of any actual experience of the practical result of such rates. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 382 totally inconsistent with the power to regulate the management of the street railway in this respect, which is ultimately vested by Haw. Rev. Laws, § 843, and Session Laws, 1905, act No. 78, in the executive authorities. Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Co. v. Hawaii, 186 Jurisdiction based on nature of case. 8. An allegation in a bill that a municipal ordinance providing for the summary seizure and destruction of food in cold storage when unfit for human consumption violates U. S. Const. 14th Amend., because it provides neither for notice nor for an opportunity to be heard before such seizure and destruction, presents, although unfounded, a constitutional question within the original jurisdiction of the Federal circuit court. North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago. 195 9. Allegations in a bill to enjoin the enforcement, as in violation of U. S. Const., 14th Amend., of an order of a state railroad commission, that such commission was not vested with power to make that order, do not defeat the jurisdiction of a Federal circuit court because, in such case, the action of the commission is not that of the state, where the bill sets up several entirely separate Federal questions, some of which are directed to the invalidity, on various constitutional grounds, of the state statute under the supposed authority of which the order was made, and some of which are founded upon the terms of the order. Siler v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 753 Siler v. Illinois C. R. Co. 760 and one-half months under the order of the 12. The jurisdiction of a Federal circuit Des Moines v. Des 958 13. A Federal circuit court, having properly obtained jurisdiction of a suit by reason of the Federal questions set up by the bill, has the right to decide all the questions in the case, even though it decides the Federal questions adversely to the party raising them, or even if it omits to decide them at all, but decides the case on local or state questions only. Siler v. Louisville & N. R. Co. Siler v. Illinois C. R. Co. Jurisdiction based on citizenship. 753 760 As affecting finality of judgment of circuit courts of appeals, see Appeal and Error, 26. having controversies with other individual citizens of that state might, in their discretion, have the use of its corporate name in order to create cases apparently within the jurisdiction of the Federal Southern Realty Investment Co. v. Walker, 14. An action brought by a South Dakota corporation against a citizen of Georgia, in a Federal circuit court sitting in the latter state, will be dismissed under the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. at L. 470, 472, chap. 137, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 508, 10. A suit to compel the specific perform-511), § 5, as collusive, where such corporaance by a carrier of its agreement to issue tion is merely the agent of Georgia attorfree passes annually to the complainants is neys, who brought it into existence as a cornot brought within the original jurisdic-poration that individual citizens of Georgia tion of a Federal circuit court as one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, within the meaning of the act of August 13, 1888 (25 Stat. at L. 434, chap. 866, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 509), by allegations in the bill that the refusal to comply with the contract is based upon the provisions of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 892), and that such act does not prohibit the giving of passes under the circumstances of the case, and, if construed as having such effect, violates U. S. Const., 5th Amend., by denying due process of law. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Motley, 126 11. A suit against the governor and certain officers of the national guard of a state, founded on imprisonment for two court. 346 15. Incorporation in Nevada by direction of a California corporation, for the sole purpose of having the matters in dispute between such California corporation and another corporation of that state determined in a Federal rather than in the state court, must be regarded as an attempt collusively where they were pending and undetermined, to make a party plaintiff simply for the purpose of creating a case cognizable by the Federal court, which, under the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. at L. 470, 472, chap. 137, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 508, 511), 5, requires the dismissal of the suit, where the new corporation assumes to be the owner of the property rights which the old company had asserted only that it may have a standing in the Federal court as a litigant in respect of those rights, and the old corporation can con trol the conduct of the suit brought by the new corporation at any time up to the date of the decree, and can require the new corporation, in the event of a decree in its favor, to transfer the benefit of such decree to the old corporation without any new or valuable consideration. Miller & Lux v. East Side Canal & Irrig. Co. 189 16. A suit to declare and enforce a lien oncertain interests in distributive shares of the property of a decedent in the hands of an ancillary administrator is not within the provision of U. S. Rev. Stat. § 629, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 503, governing Federal jurisdiction of suits by assignees of choses in action, because plaintiff's right is derived from an heir whose citizenship is the same as that of such administrator, where the plaintiff, who sues as administratrix, and who is a citizen of a different state from the defendant administrator, is suing primarily on the obligation of such heir to her intestate, to secure which a lien was given upon such heir's distributive share. Ingersoll v. Coram, Jurisdiction of insular courts. 208 Establishing provisional court for 17. A corporation created by a decree of the Spanish Crown for charitable purposes, and limited in its field of operations to Porto Rico, does not continue, after the ratification of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, to be a citizen or subject of Spain, within the meaning of the act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 953, chap. 812), § 3, extending the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States for Porto Rico to controversies where the parties or either of them are citizens or subjects of a foreign state. Martinez v. La Asociacion de Señoras Damas del Santo Asilo de Ponce, 22. The undivided interests of the joint owners and holders of the bonds and couPons on which suit is brought may be united for the puropse of making up the amount necessary to give jurisdiction to a Federal circuit court. Green County v. Thomas, Conflict of jurisdiction. 343 As between state court and court of Conclusiveness of judgment as between Removal of case from state to Federal court, see Removal of Causes. What court may determine right to remove case from state to Federal court, see Removal of Causes, 1, 2. Power to punish criminally act authorized by other state, see States, 1. Enjoining state officers in Federal court, see States, 3, 4. 23. A Federal circuit court, if properly appealed to, cannot decline, on the ground of discretion or comity, to take jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin the enforcement of state statutes fixing gas rates which are asserted to violate the Federal Constitution. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 382 24. Injunctive relief against railway pas 679 18. A charitable corporation created by decree of the Spanish Crown to operate in Porto Rico is not a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 953, chap. 812), 3, extending the jurisdiction of the district court for Porto Rico to contro-senger rates as fixed by the Virginia State versies where the parties or either of them are citizens of the United States, but, since the enactment of the act of April 12, 1900 (31 Stat. at L. 77, chap. 191), establishing a civil government for Porto Rico, is, if a citizen of any country, a citizen of Porto Rico. Martinez v. La Asociacion de Señoras Damas del Santo Asilo de Ponce, 679 19. A controversy between a Porto Rican and a Spaniard furnishes the diversity of citizenship which the order establishing the Corporation Commission may be granted by a Federal court if such rates are confisca tory, although, for some purposes, the com mission is a court, since proceedings to establish rates are legislative, and therefore U. S. Rev. Stat. § 720, U. S. Comp. Stat. are not comprehended by the provision of 1901, p. 581, forbidding Federal courts from enjoining proceedings in state courts, which provision looks to the character of the proceedings, not the character of the body. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. 150 25. A Federal circuit court, on principles of comity, should not entertain a suit by which injunctive relief is sought against railway passenger rates as fixed by the Virginia State Corporation Commission, in advance of the appeal to the highest state court from the order fixing the rates, which is given by the state Constitution as of right to any aggrieved party. Prentis v. At150 lantic Coast Line Co. 26. Jurisdiction of a state court of the property of a foreign corporation attaches so as to prevent interference on the part of a Federal court when a receiver of the property of such corporation has been appointed, the judicial process served, and the receiver duly qualified, although such receiver has not taken actual possession of the property. Palmer v. Texas, 435 27. The jurisdiction of a state court over the res, acquired by the appointment and qualification of a receiver of the property of a foreign corporation, is not lost, so as to permit interference on the part of a Federal court, because of an appeal with supersedeas from the order appointing the receiver, where the state courts hold that the effect of the appeal and supersedeas bond is merely to suspend the order appointing the receiver pending the determination of the appeal. Palmer v. Texas, 435 28. The possible danger of prosecutions and interference pending an appeal with supersedeas from an order of a state court appointing a receiver of the property of a foreign corporation whose permit to do business in the state has been forfeited for violating the state anti-trust laws will not justify a Federal court in interfering with the state court's custody of the res, acquired by the appointment and qualification of the receiver. Palmer v. Texas, 435 29. The jurisdiction of a Federal circuit court of a controversy between citizens of different states, presented by a bill which seeks to declare and foreclose an attorney's lien upon certain interests in the distributive shares of the property of a decedent within the district, is not defeated because the settlement of the estate is pending in a state probate court, where no interference with that court is sought or decreed, and rights between the parties arising from their transactions and contracts are adjudged and are decreed to be redressed only when the probate court shall have finished its functions. Ingersoll v. Coram, Rules of decision. 208 Following state court decisions on writ of error, see Appeal and Error, 6167. 30. The Federal Supreme Court will adopt the view of the officers concerned with the administration of the law respecting a public improvement, concurred in by the court in which condemnation proceedings were conducted, and apparently, also, by the territorial supreme court, as to which of two sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes governs the appointment of commissioners, 34. The meaning and construction of a policy of insurance issued by a New York ried out in that state, as declared by the company, , and both executed and to be carhighest court of the state, is of most persuasive influence, even if not of binding force, in the Federal courts, in the absence of any Federal question arising in the case. Equitable L. Assur. Soc. v. Brown, Court rule regulating appearance. 682 35. A rule of a Federal circuit court which treats as a general appearance a special appearance by a party sued in the wrong Federal district, made solely for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction, without stating that, if the purpose for which be sanctioned or sustained by the court, such special appearance is made shall not he will appear generally in the case, is invalid, as substantially impairing his right under the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 826, chap. 517, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, P. 488), § 5, to appear specially and object to the jurisdiction of the court, and bring an adverse decision directly to the Supreme Court for review. Davidson Bros. Marble Co. v. United States ex rel. Gibson, Full faith and credit to territorial statute fixing, see Statutes, 14. 36. A suit brought in the name of the United States under the act of August 13, 1894, on the bond of a public contractor, for the benefit of a person furnishing materials and labor for the construction of a public work, is governed by that part of the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 552, chap. 373), as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888 (25 Stat. at L. 434, chap. 866, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 508), which provides |