ABANDONMENT.
See ESTOPPEL, 2.
ACCOUNTING.
See INDIANS, 2.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 12.
Representative or class suit; what constitutes.
A suit brought by the holder of some of a series of bonds, the complaint in
which alleges that the suit is brought on complainant's behalf and also
on behalf of all others of like interest joining therein and contributing
to the expenses, and of which no other notice of its pendency is given
to the other bondholders, is not a representative or class suit the judg-
ment in which binds those not joining therein or not privies to those
who do. (Compton v. Jesup, 68 Fed. Rep. 263, concurred in.) Wabash
Railroad v. Adelbert College, 38.
ANTI-TRUST ACT of July 2, 1890 (see Anti-Trust Act, 1): Loewe v. Lawlor,
274.
ARMY, act of March 3, 1883 (see Army and Navy, 1): Carrington v. United
States, 1.
CLAIMS AGAINST United States, act of May, 1902, 32 Stat. 207, 243 (see
Court of Claims): Blacklock v. United States, 75.
COLORADO ENABLING ACT of March 3, 1875, § 4 (see Taxes and Taxation,
10): Elder v. Wood, 226.
COPYRIGHT ACT of June 18, 1874 (Rev. Stat. § 4962), (see Copyright):
United Dictionary Co. v. Merriam Co., 260.
EXTRADITION, Rev. Stat. § 5278 (see Constitutional Law, 14): Bassing
Cady, 386.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, act of August 13, 1894 (see Equity, 2): Henning-
sen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 404.
HAWAII, act of March 3, 1905, c. 1465 (see Jurisdiction, A 9): Notley v.
Brown, 429.
IMMIGRATION, Alien Immigration Act of February 20, 1907 (see Aliens):
United States v. Bitty, 393.
INDIANS, Rev. Stat. § 2139, as amended in 1892 (see Indians, 4, 5): Dick
v. United States, 340. Act of June 21, 1906 (see Indians, 3): The Sisseton
and Wahpeton Indians, 561.
INJUNCTIONS, Rev. Stat. § 718 (see Injunctions, 1): Houghton v. Meyer, 149.
INTERNAL REVENUE, acts of July 20, 1868, and July 13, 1866 (see Taxes
and Taxation, 1): Blacklock v. United States, 75. Rev. Stat. § 3455 (see
Taxes and Taxation, 3): United States v. Graf Distilling Co., 198.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, act of 41887 (see Interstate Commerce, 2): Penn
Refining Co. v. Western N. & Pa. R. R. Co., 208. Act of June 1,
1898 (see Congress, Powers, of, 2): Adair v. United States, 161; (see
Statutes, 7): Ib. Act of June 29, 1906, and Feburary, 1903 (see Stat-
utes, A 9): Great Northern Railway Co. v. United States, 452. Act of
June 1, 1898, § 10 (see Constitutional Law, 16): Adair v. United States,
161. Wilson Act (see States, 4): Phillips v. Mobile, 472; Richard v.
Mobile, 480.
JUDICIARY, acts of March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 1; March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1;
August 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1 (see Jurisdiction, C 6): Re Metropolitan
Railway Receivership, 90. Act of 1891, § 5 (see Jurisdiction, A 6, 7):
United States v. Larkin, 333 (see Jurisdiction, A 8): Bien v. Robinson,
423. Act of 1891, § 6 (see Practice and Procedure, 3): Loewe v. Lawlor,
274. Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564 (see Constitutional Law, 15):
United States v. Bitty, 393. Rev. Stat. § 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 13):
Yosemite Mining Co. v. Emerson, 25 (see Jurisdiction, A 14): Elder v.
Wood, 226 (see Jurisdiction, A 15): Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Wiese,
234 (see Practice and Procedure, 4): Northern Pacific Railway v. Du-
luth, 583. Rev. Stat. § 720 (see Jurisdiction, C 1): Ex parte Simon, 144.
Rev. Stat. § 999 (see Appeal and Error, 1): Missouri Valley Land Co.
v. Wiese, 234.
MINES AND MINING, Rev. Stat. § 2324 (see Jurisdiction, A 13): Yosemite
Mining Co. v. Emerson, 25.
NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. § 5219 (see Taxes and Taxation, 14): First
Nat. Bank v. Albright, 548.
NAVY, Rev. Stat. §§ 1098, 1261 (see Army and Navy, 3): United States v.
Miller, 32. Personnel Act of March 13, 1899: Ib. Rev. Stat. §§ 1261,
1262, and act of June 30, 1882 (see Army and Navy, 4): United States
v. Miller, 32.
PUBLIC LANDS, acts of July 1, 1862, and July 2, 1864 (see Public Lands, 5):
Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Wiese, 234. Act of March 3, 1875, c. 152
(see Public Lands, 6): Minneapolis, St. Paul &c. Co. v. Doughty, 251.
Act of March 3, 1887 (see Public Lands, 1): Missouri Valley Land
Co. v. Wiese, 234. Rev. Stat. § 452 (see Public Lands, 4) Prosser v.
Finn, 67. Timber Culture Act (see Public Lands, 4): Prosser v.
Finn, 67.
STATUTORY REPEAL, Rev. Stat. § 13 (see Statutes, A 8, 9); Great Northern
Railway Co. v. United States, 452.
ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY.
See BANKRUPTCY, 3.
Jurisdiction does not extend to claim for damages to bridge or dock concerning
The admiralty does not have jurisdiction of a claim for damages caused by
& vessel to a bridge or dock which, although in navigable waters, is so
connected with the shore that it immediately concerns commerce upon
land. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, followed, and The Blackheath, 195
U. S. 361, distinguished. Cleveland Terminal R. R. v. Steamship Co.,
316; The Troy, 321.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
See PUBLIC LAnds, 1, 5.
ALIENATION OF LAND.
See INDIANS, 1.
Alien immigration act of 1907-Importation of women for concubinage pro-
The prohibition in the alien immigration act of February 20, 1907, c. 1134,
34 Stat. 898, against the importation of alien women and girls for thé
purpose of prostitution or any other immoral purpose includes the
importation of an alien woman or girl to live as a concubine with the
person importing her. United States v. Bitty, 393.
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.
Fifth
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16.
Sixth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 20.
Eighth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 20.
Fourteenth.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2, 11, 21;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 11, 17.
TAXES AND TAaxation, 8.
ANNUITIES.
See INDIANS, 2, 3.
1. Application of Combinations prohibited by.
The Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 209, has a broader application
than the prohibition of restraints of trade unlawful at common law.
It prohibits any combination which essentially obstructs the free flow
of commerce between the States, or restricts, in that regard, the liberty
of a trader to engage in business; and this includes restraints of trade
aimed at compelling third parties and strangers involuntarily not to
engage in the course of interstate trade except on conditions that the
combination imposes. Loewe v. Lawlor, 274.
2. Combinations in restraint of trade within meaning of.
A combination may be in restraint of interstate trade and within the mean-
ing of the Anti-Trust Act although the persons exercising the restraint
may not themselves be engaged in intrastate trade, and some of the
means employed may be acts within a State and individually beyond
the scope of Federal authority, and operate to destroy intrastate trade
as interstate trade, but the acts must be considered as a whole, and
if the purposes are to prevent interstate transportation the plan is open
to condemnation under the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890. (Swift v.
United States, 196 U. S. 375.) Ib.
3. Labor organizations as combinations within meaning of—Right of one in-
jured by boycott to maintain action under § 7 of act.
A combination of labor organizations and the members thereof, to compel
a manufacturer whose goods are almost entirely sold in other States,
to unionize his shops and on his refusal so to do to boycott his goods
and prevent their sale in States other than his own until such time as
the resulting damage forces him to comply with their demands, is,
under the conditions of this case, a combination in restraint of inter-
state trade or commerce within the meaning of the Anti-Trust Act
of July 2, 1890, and the manufacturer may maintain an action for
threefold damages under § 7 of that act. Ib.
4. Organizations of farmers and laborers not exempted.
The Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, makes no distinction between classes.
Organizations of farmers and laborers were not exempted from its
operation, notwithstanding the efforts which the records of Congress
show were made in that direction. Ib.
1. Writ of error; sufficiency of signing under § 999, Rev. Stat.-Presiding
justice in absence of chief justice.
Where a judge of the highest court of a State, in allowing a writ of error,
adds to his signature "Presiding Judge, etc., in the absence of the chief
judge from the State;" that recital is prima facie evidence that the
chief judge is absent and the judge signing is presiding, and, if not
controverted, the writ of error is properly allowed and the require-
ment of § 999, Rev. Stat., that it must be allowed either by the Chief
Justice of the state court or a justice of this court, is complied with.
Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Wiese, 234; Missouri Valley Land Co. v.
Wrich, 250.
|