criminated against, and were not entitled to reparation for the amounts
paid by them on the barrels. Penn Refining Co. v. Western New York
& Pa. R. R. Co., 208.
2. Rates; liability of connecting carrier for discrimination by initial carrier.
It is the duty of a connecting carrier on a joint through rate to accept the
cars delivered to it by the initial carrier, and it is not thereby rendered
liable for any wrongful discrimination of the initial carrier merely be-
cause of the adoption of a joint through rate, which in itself is reason-
able; nor is such connecting carrier rendered liable for any such wrong-
ful act of the initial carrier by section eight of the Interstate Commerce
Act. Ib.
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES.
Duty of courts as to judgments of other courts.
Courts are not bound to search the records of other courts and give effect
to their judgments, and one who relies upon a former adjudication in
another court must properly present it to the court in which he seeks
to enforce it. Bluthenthal v. Jones, 64.
See ACTIONS;
LOCAL LAW (Okla., 1).
JUDICIAL DISCRETION.
See LOCAL LAW (OKLA., 1).
General knowledge; woman's physical disadvantage.
This court takes judicial cognizance of all matters of general knowledge-
such as the fact that woman's physical structure and the performance
of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage which justifies a
difference in legislation in regard to some of the burdens which rest
upon her. Muller v. Oregon, 412.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 15;
JURISDICTION.
1. Attachment of—Bringing in representative of deceased appellee.
Jurisdiction of this court attaches upon allowance of the appeal and pro-
ceedings are to be taken here to bring in the representative of an ap-
pellee who dies after the acceptance of service of citation. Southern
Pine Co. v. Ward, 126.
2. Appeal or writ of error to review judgment of territorial court.
Nat. Live Stock Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 203 U. S. 296, 305, followed, as to
when jurisdiction of this court to review judgments of the Supreme
Court of the Territory of Oklahoma is by appeal and not by writ of
error. Ib.
3. Appeal from Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although diversity of citizenship is alleged in the bill, if the grounds of the
suit and relief are also based on statutes of the United States, which,
as in this case, are necessarily elements of the decision of the Circuit
Court of Appeals, an appeal lies from the judgment of that court to
this court. Henningsen v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 404.
4. Review of judgment of District or Circuit Court on jurisdictional ground
after affirmance by Circuit Court of Appeals.
Where the Circuit Court of Appeals has already affirmed the judgment of
the District or Circuit Court, a writ of error from this court to the
District or Circuit Court to review the judgment on the jurisdictional
ground, cannot be maintained unless the proceedings in the Circuit
Court of Appeals were absolutely void. United States v. Larkin, 333.
5. Review of judgment of District or Circuit Court on jurisdictional grounds;
when question sufficiently certified.
Ordinarily a formal certificate is essential and it must be made at the same
term at which the judgment is rendered; but where the record shows
that the only matter tried and decided, and sought to be reviewed,
was one of the jurisdiction of the court, the question of jurisdiction is
sufficiently certified. Ib.
6. Review of judgment of District Court on jurisdictional ground—Sufficiency
of involution of jurisdictional question.
District Courts of the United States are the proper courts to adjudicate
forfeitures, and where the plea to the jurisdiction is simply whether.
the particular court has jurisdiction, by reason of the locality in which
the goods were seized, the question involved is not the jurisdiction of
the United States court as such, and the question cannot be certified
to this court under § 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1891; but the case is
appealable to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Ib.
7. Review of judgment of District or Circuit Court on jurisdictional ground—
Question of jurisdiction alone considered-Section 5 of act of 1891 con-
strued.
When the question of the jurisdiction of the District or Circuit Court as a
court of the United States is in issue, and is certified to this court under
§ 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1891, no other question can be considered
and the jurisdiction of this court is exclusive; as to the other classes
of cases enumerated in § 5 the act of 1891 does not contemplate sepa-
rate appeals or writs of error on the merits in the same case and at
the same time to two appellate courts. Ib.
8. Review of judgment of Circuit Court on jurisdictional grounds; when juris-
dictional question involved.
Where the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is questioned merely in respect
to its general authority as a judicial tribunal to entertain a summary
proceeding to compel repayment of assets wrongfully withheld from a
receiver appointed by it, its power as a court of the United States as
such is not questioned and the case cannot be certified directly to this
court under the jurisdiction clause of § 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1891.
Bien v. Robinson, 423.
9. Of appeal or writ of error from territorial court under act of March 3, 1905.
Harrison v. Magoon, 205 U. S. 501, followed to effect that the act of March 3,
1905, c. 1465, 33 Stat. 1035, did not operate retroactively and that this
court has no authority to review judgments of the Supreme Court of
Hawaii, rendered prior to that date, which could not be reviewed under
the previous act. In this case it was held that the writ of error could
not be sustained as to the judgment referred to therein because entered
prior to March 3, 1905, and also that it could not be sustained as to a
judgment in the same suit entered after the writ of error had been sued
out. Notley v. Brown, 429.
10. Writ of error to state court-Sufficiency of involution of Federal questions..
Where the Federal questions are clearly presented by the answer in the
state court, and the decree rendered could not have been made without
adversely deciding them, and, as in this case, they are substantial as
involving the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court over property in its
possession and the effect to be given to its decree, this court has juris-
diction and the writ of error will not be dismissed! Wabash Railroad
v. Adelbert College, 38.
11. Review of action of state court sustaining state statute-Who entitled to raise
constitutional question involved.
Notwithstanding that plaintiff in error's charge of unconstitutionality of a
state statute may not be frivolous, in order to give this court jurisdic-
tion to review the action of the state court sustaining the statute the
question must be raised in this court by one adversely affected by the
decision and whose interest is personal and not of an official nature.
(Smith, Auditor, v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138.) Braxton County Court v.
Tax Commissioners, 192.
12. Review of decision of state court; personal interest to entitle one to such
review.
A county court of West Virginia has no personal interest in the amount
of tax levy made by it which will give this court jurisdiction to review
at its instance the decision of the highest court of that State deter-
mining that the levy is excessive, even though the basis of request
for review is the ground that the reduction of the assessment leaves
the county unable for lack of funds to fulfill the obligations of its con-
tracts. Ib.
13. Under § 709, Rev. Stat.-Denial of Federal right set up—Mining claims.
The determination by the trial court that the locators of a mining claim
had resumed work on the claim after a failure to do the annual assess-
ment work, required by § 2324, Rev. Stat., and before a new location
had been made, and the finding by the highest court of the State that
such determination is conclusive, do not amount to the denial of a
Federal right set up by the party claiming the right to relocate the
claim, and this court cannot review the judgment under § 709, Rev.
Stat. Yosemite Mining Co. v. Emerson, 25.
14. Under 709, Rev. Stat. Adequacy of non-Federal grounds to support
judgment of state court and make it not subject to review here.
Where the Federal question below was whether a tax sale deprived the
owner of his property without due process of law because the notice,
being published on Sunday, was insufficient, and the state court did
not pass on that question but sustained the tax title under the state
statutes making tax deeds prima facie evidence and of limitations,
the non-Federal grounds are adequate to support the judgment and
this court is without jurisdiction to review it on writ of error under
709, Rev. Stat. Elder v. Wood, 226.
15. Under 709. Involution of Federal question.
The contention in the state court that plaintiff in error's title rested on a
patent to his grantor and that prior to the issuing thereof the legal
title had remained in the United States, so that adverse possession
could not be obtained, involves a Federal question, and as in this case
it was not frivolous, and was necessarily decided by the state court,.
and such decision was adverse to the title set up under the United
States, this court has jurisdiction under § 709, Rev. Stat., to review
the judgment. Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Wiese, 234; Missouri
Valley Land Co. v. Wrich, 250.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5;
JURISDICTION, C 1;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 11.
B. OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
See JURISDICTION, A 6.
1. Enjoining proceedings in state court.
Notwithstanding the prohibitive provisions of § 720, Rev. Stat., the Circuit
Court of the United States may have jurisdiction of a suit brought by
a citizen of one State against citizens of another State to enjoin the
execution of a judgment fraudulently entered against him in a state
court which had no jurisdiction by reason of non-service of the sum-
mons, and this court will not determine the merits of such a case on
habeas corpus proceedings brought by one of the defendants committed
for contempt for disobeying a preliminary injunction order issued by
the Circuit Court. Ex parte Simon, 144.
2. Collusion of purposes of jurisdiction--Preference of parties as to tribunal—
Effect of motive for bringing suit.
Where the averments of the bill are true, and there is no question as to the
diversity of citizenship, or any evidence that a case was fraudulently
created to give jurisdiction to the Federal court, the case will not be
regarded as collusive merely because the parties preferred to resort to
the Federal court instead of to a state court; in the absence of any im-
proper act, the motive for bringing the suit is unimportant. Re Metro-
politan Railway Receivership, 90.
3. When order permitting intervention and extending receivership not of
jurisdictional nature.
After the Federal court has properly obtained jurisdiction over a corpora-
tion and has appointed receivers thereof, an order permitting other
parties closely identified therewith to intervene and extending their
receivership over them is not of a jurisdictional nature, and in this case
the discretion was, in view of all the facts, properly exercised. Ib.
4. Diversity of citizenship and not that defendants were engaged in interstate
commerce determines jurisdiction in appointment of receivers.
The mere fact that the defendant is engaged in interstate commerce does
not give the Circuit Court jurisdiction; in cases in which this court
has sustained the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in the appointment
of receivers, jurisdiction existed by reason of diversity of citizenship
and not merely because the defendants were engaged in interstate
Ib.
5. Where no diversity of citizenship but constitutional question involved.
Although all the parties to this action are citizens of the same State the
Circuit Court of the United States had jurisdiction because the case
arises under the Constitution of the United States, as complainant
insists that the tax sought to be restrained is imposed under a state
statute that impairs the obligation of a legislative contract for exemp-
tion from taxation. Jetton v. University of the South, 489.
|