20. States; application of Sixth and Eighth Amendments.
The Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Federal Constitution do not
limit the power of the State. Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 481.
21. States; effect of Fourteenth Amendment to limit power of State in dealing
with crime.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution does not limit
the power of the State in dealing with crime committed within its own
borders or with the punishment thereof. But a State must not de-
prive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial
justice. Ib
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 5;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 15.
22. Conflict of provisions of Constitution.
Where fundamental principles of the Constitution are of equal dignity,
neither must be so enforced as to nullify or substantially impair the
other. Dick v. United States, 340.
23. Construction of Constitution; consideration to be given widespread and
long continued belief concerning a fact affecting a limitation of.
The peculiar value of a written constitution is that it places, in unchanging
form, limitations upon legislative action, questions relating to which
are not settled by even a consensus of public opinion; but when the
extent of one of those limitations is affected by a question of fact
which is debatable and debated, a widespread and long continued belief
concerning that fact is worthy of consideration. Muller v. Oregon, 412.
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES.
See STATUTES, A.
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
See HABEAS CORPUS.
Construction of contract relating to distribution of estate of decedent.
An agreement made between the owners of a half interest in property in
Manilla, who were ultimate heirs of the deceased owner of the other
half interest, and the widow of such decedent, who was his usufructuary
heiress, provided for the sale of the property at a specified price, and
that after certain payments the "remainder" should be paid to the
widow, on her giving the usual usufructuary security. Held, that the
agreement concerned a settlement of the rights of the parties to the
property left by decedent and did not contemplate transferring any
interest in the property from the other owners to the widow, and that
the word "remainder" referred only to the remainder of the half
interest of her testator and not to the balance remaining of the pro-
ceeds of the share of the other owners.
Calvo v. De Gutierrez, 443.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2-6, 18; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 4, 8;
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 3;
CONVERSION OF PROPERTY.
See LOCAL LAW (OKLA., 2).
Notice of copyright-Foreign publications.
The requirement of the Copyright Act of June 18, 1874, c. 301, § 1, 18
Stat. 78 (Rev. Stat. § 4962), that notice shall be inserted in the several
copies of every edition, does not extend to publications abroad and
sold only for use there. United Dictionary Co. v. Merriam Co., 260.
1. Forfeiture of charter by state action not violative of Federal Constitution.
The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction of Virginia, made after
a hearing that a corporation of that State had violated the liquor laws
of the State, and that in pursuance of statutory provisions the charter
rights and franchises of the club ceased without further proceedings,
held, in this case not to have violated any right belonging to the club
under the contract or due process clauses of the Constitution of the
United States. Cosmopolitan Club v. Virginia, 378.
2. Forfeiture of charter-Impairment of charter contract by enforcement of
police regulation.
The charter of a private corporation may be forfeited or annulled for the
misuse of its corporate privileges and franchises, and its forfeiture or
annulment, by appropriate judicial proceedings, for such a reason would
not impair the obligation of the contract, if any, arising between the
State and the corporation out of the mere granting of the charter.
The charter granted to a club, held, in this case, not to amount to such
a contract that the club could disregard the valid laws subsequently
enacted by the State, regulating the sale of liquor. Ib.
See EQUITY, 1;
TRADE-NAME, 1, 2.
1. Federal and state-Presumption that Federal court respected decisions of
state courts in determining property rights.
It will be presumed that the Circuit Court, in determining the validity of
liens affecting property in its possession, will consider the decisions of
the courts of the State in which the property is situated with that
respect which the decisions of this court require. Wabash Railroad
v. Adelbert College, 38.
2. Invasion of court's possession of property.
Where property is in possession and under the control of the Federal court,
the declaration of a lien upon that property is a step toward the inva-
sion of the court's possession thereof and is equally beyond the juris-
diction of the state court as an order for the sale of the property to
satisfy the lien would be. Wabash Railroad v. Adelbert College, 609.
3. State and Federal; questions for state court in respect of property in posses-
sion of Federal court.
In a proceeding in the state court, the ascertainment of the amount due,
whether judgment can be rendered, and the issuing of execution against
a corporation, whose property is under the control of the Federal court,
are questions exclusively for the state court and may be regarded as
independent of the proceedings for the enforcement of the lien. Ib.
See BANKRUPTCY, 2;
IMMIGRATION, 1, 2;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES;
JUDICIAL NOTICE;
JURISDICTION;
LOCAL LAW (Okla., 1);
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE;
RECEIVERS, 2;
Power of Court of Claims under act of May, 1902, 32 Stat. 207.
The Court of Claims was not precluded by the recitals in the act of May,
1902, 32 Stat. 207, 243, referring this case to it, from examining into
the facts and determining whether the claimant's lien referred to in the
act as a prior lien was or was not a prior lien and basing its decision
upon the actual facts found. Blacklock v. United States, 75.
Right of owner of land condemned to complain after acceptance of award.
The objection, taken by a property owner in a condemnation proceeding
for a part of his property, that, under the statute, his entire property
must be condemned, is waived and cannot be maintained on appeal, if
he accepts the award made by the commissioners in the condemnation
proceeding and paid in by the condemnors for the parcel actually con-
demned. After an award has been made and accepted the proceeding
is functus officio. Winslow v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 59.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 17;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2, 10, 11, 17.
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYÉ.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 2, 3;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6;
EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 8.
1. Power, by summary process, to compel repayment to receiver of assets of
corporation wrongfully taken.
A court of equity has power by summary process, after due notice and
opportunity to be heard, to compel one who, in violation of an in-
junction order of which he had knowledge, has taken assets of a cor-
poration in payment of indebtedness to repay the same to the receiver.
Bien v. Robinson, 423.
2. Subrogation-Superiority of equity of surety on contractor's bond given
under act of August 13, 1894, over that of assignee of contractor.
The equity of the surety on a bond given by a contractor under the act of
August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278, who by reason of the contractor's de-
fault has been obliged to pay material-men and laborers, is superior.
to that of a bank loaning money to the contractor, secured by assign-
ments of amounts to become due. In such a case the surety is sub-
rogated to the rights of the contractor, but the bank is not. Henning-
sen v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 404.
The defense in an equity suit that the complainant has not exhausted his
remedy at law, or is not a judgment creditor, may be waived by de-
fendant, and when waived- -as it may be by consenting to the ap-
pointment of receivers-the case stands as though the objection never
existed. Re Metropolitan Railway Receivership, 90.
See PUBLIC Lands, 2;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 1, 14.
1. Right to assert; want of knowledge essential.
One claiming to have been influenced by the declarations or conduct of
another in regard to expending money on real estate must, in order to
assert estoppel against that person, not only be destitute of knowledge
of the true state of the title, but also of any convenient and available
means of acquiring knowledge in regard thereto; where the condition
of the title to real property is known to both parties, or both have the
same means of ascertaining the truth, there can be no estoppel. Crary
v. Dye, 515.
2. Assertion of title by one whose mining property has been sold under void
attachment.
One whose mining property was sold under a void attachment held in this
case not to have been estopped from asserting his title to the property
as against the vendee from the purchaser at the sheriff's sale by reason
of statements made by him to such vendee prior to the final payment.
Held also in this case that the actions and declarations of the owner of
a mining claim sold under a void attachment did not amount to an
abandonment of his claim so that he could not reassert his title to the
property as against the purchaser at the sale of his vendee. Ib.
See TAXES AND Taxation, 5.
|