6. Controversy within meaning of statutes defining jurisdiction of Circuit
Courts.
An unsatisfied, justiciable claim of some right involving the jurisdictional
amount made by a citizen of one State against a citizen of another State
is a controversy or dispute between the parties within the meaning of
the statutes defining the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court (acts of
March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 1, 18 Stat. 470; March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1,
24 Stat. 552; August 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1, 25 Stat. 433), and such
jurisdiction does not depend upon the denial by the defendant of the
existence of the claim or of its amount or validity. Re Metropolitan
Railway Receivership, 90.
In this case there being such a claim, and the requisite diversity of citizen-
ship, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction although the defendant ad-
mitted the facts and the liability, waived the objection that the com-
plainants were not entitled to equitable relief, and joined in the request
for appointment of receivers. Ib.
8. Possession of property; exclusiveness of jurisdiction resulting from; effect
of sale of property.
The possession of property in the Circuit Court carries with it the exclusive
jurisdiction to determine all judicial questions concerning it, and that
jurisdiction continues after the property has passed out of its posses-
sion by a sale under its decree to the extent of ascertaining the rights
of, and extent of liens asserted by, parties to the suit and which are
expressly reserved by the decree and subject to which the purchaser
takes title; and any one asserting any of such reserved matters as
against the property must pursue his remedy in that Circuit Court and
the state court is without jurisdiction. Wabash Railroad v. Adelbert
College, 38.
D. OF THE FEDERAL COURTS GENERALLY.
See IMMIGRATION, 2.
E. OF STATE COURTS.
See COURTS, 2.
F. ADMIRALTY.
See ADMIRALTY.
Priority and exclusiveness of jurisdiction of court having possession of property.
The taking possession by a court of competent jurisdiction of property
through its officers withdraws that property from the jurisdiction of
all other courts, and the latter, though of concurrent jurisdiction, can-
not disturb that possession, during the continuance whereof the court
originally acquiring jurisdiction is competent to hear and determine
all questions respecting the title, possession and control of the prop-
erty. Under this general rule ancillary jurisdiction of the Federal
courts exists over subordinate suits affecting property in their posses-
sion although the diversity of citizenship necessary to confer juris-
diction in an independent suit does not exist. Wabash Railroad v.
Adelbert College, 38.
See LOCAL LAW (NEW MEX.).
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.
See ANTI-TRUST ACT;
CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 16;
STATUTES, A 7.
LAND DEPARTMENT.
See PUBLIC Lands, 2.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 6, 7, 13.
LEGISLATIVE POWERS.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 23.
LIBERTY OF CONTRACT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2, 6.
LIBERTY OF TRADE.
See ANTI-TRUST ACT, 1.
See STATES, 3, 4;.
TAXES AND TAXATION, 8, 16.
See COURTS, 1, 2;
COURT OF CLAIMS;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 1, 2.
LIQUORS.
See CORPORATIONS, 2;
INDIANS, 4, 5;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 3.
Arizona: Rev. Stat. of 1901, par. 725; acknowledgment of deeds (see Prac-
Lewis v. Herrera, 309.
Colorado. Secs. 340, 341 of Laws of Colorado of 1881; taxing interests in
unpatented mining claims, etc. (see Taxes and Taxation, 10). Elder
v. Wood, 226.
Michigan. Indeterminate sentence law of 1903 (see Constitutional Law,
8, 10). Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 481.
New Mexico. Attachment; title acquired by purchaser through sale under
alias writ. This court holds, following the construction of the Supreme
Court of New Mexico of the statutes of that Territory, that there is
no authority in New Mexico for the issuing of an alias writ of attach-
ment, and that levying upon property under such a writ gives the
court no jurisdiction thereover, and the purchaser acquires no title
through sale under such a levy. Crary v. Dye, 515.
Oklahoma. 1. Discretionary power of court to impose terms upon a defendant
as condition to permitting him to answer after entry of judgment by default.
Under pars. 3983, 3984, §§ 105, 106, Code of Civil Procedure of Okla-
homa Territory, of 1893, providing for the entry of judgment by de-
fault and giving the court power in opening the default to impose such
terms as may be just, the court may, without abusing its discretion,
in an action for divorce in which the husband defendant is flagrantly
in default, impose as terms in granting him leave to answer that he pay
within a specified period to the plaintiff a reasonable sum for alimony
and counsel fees which had already been allowed, and in case of his
failure so to do judgment for the relief demanded in the complaint
may properly be entered against him. (Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409,
distinguished.) Bennett v. Bennett, 505.
2. Measure of damages for wrongful conversion of personal property.
While there may be a general rule that in actions for torts an allow-
ance for interest is not an absolute right, under par. 2640, § 23 of the
Oklahoma Code of 1893, the detriment caused by, and recoverable for,
the wrongful conversion of personal property is the value of the prop-
erty at the time of the conversion with interest from that time. Drumm-
Flato Commission Co. v. Edmisson, 534.
3. Direction of verdict-Setting aside verdict for want of answer to in-
terrogatory improvidently submitted. Where the local statute provides,
as does par. 4176, § 298 of the Oklahoma Code of 1893, that on re-
quest the court may direct the jury to find upon particular questions
of fact, the verdict will not be set aside because the jury fails to answer
an interrogatory improvidently submitted in regard to a fact which
was only incidental to the issue. Ib.
4. Evidence; production of books of entry. Under par. 4277, § 399 of
the Code of Civil Procedure of Oklahoma of 1893, the original books
of entry must be produced on the trial; their production before the
notary taking the deposition of the witness who kept the books is not
sufficient, and copies made by the notary cannot be used where the
objecting party gives notice that the production of the books them-
selves will be insisted upon. Ib.
Oregon. Hours of labor for women (see Constitutional Law, 12). Muller
V. Oregon, 412.
Tennessee. Assessment law of 1903 (see Constitutional Law, 3). Jetton
v. University of the South, 489. Taxation; act of 1903, ch. 258 (see
Constitutional Law, 1, 13). Darnell & Son v. Memphis, 113.
Virginia. Condemnation of land (see Practice and Procedure, 2). Hairs-
ton v. Danville & Western Railway, 598.
MASTER AND SERVANT.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 2, 3;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6, 16;
STATUTES, A 7.
MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
See LOCAL LAW (Okla., 2).
1. Notice; object of preliminary notice of claim-Right of one having knowl-
edge of prior location to relocate claim for himself.
The object of requiring the posting of the preliminary notice of mining-
claims is to make known the purpose of the discoverer and to warn
others of the prior appropriation; and one having actual knowledge
of a prior location and the extent of its boundaries, the outlines of
which have been marked, cannot relocate it for himself and claim a
forfeiture of the original location for want of strict compliance with all
the statutory requirements of preliminary notice. Yosemite Mining
Co. v. Emerson, 25.
2. Forfeiture of claim; effect of violation of miners' rule.
Quare, and not decided, whether a forfeiture arises simply from a violation
of a mining rule established by miners of a district which does not
expressly make non-compliance therewith work a forfeiture. Ib.
See ESTOPPEL, 2;
JURISDICTION, A 13;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 10-12.
MORALITY.
See STATUTES, A 4.
MORTGAGES.
See TAXES AND TAXATION, 2.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
State regulation of; limitation on power as to.
Speaking generally, and subject to the rule that no State can set at naught the provisions of the National Constitution, the regulation of municipal corporations is peculiarly within state control, the legislature determining the taxing body, the taxing districts, and the limits of taxation. Braxton County Court v Tax Commissioners, 192.
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4, 5, 18.
NATIONAL BANKS.
See TAXES AND TAXATION, 14.
NATIONAL COMITY.
See TREATIES.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.
See ADMIRALTY.
NEZ PERCE INDIANS.
See INDIANS, 5.
NOTICE.
See COPYRIGHT;
MINES AND MINING, 1.
An office commonly requires something more than a single transitory act to call it into being. Carrington v. United States, 1.
Citations in; limitation of approval.
In citing approvingly, as to the particular point involved in this case, cases
|