Determination of controversies relative to property, its ownership and liens
thereon.
The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction of a proceeding in the nature of a
plenary action brought by the trustee to determine controversies in
relation to property held by the bankrupt or by other parties for him,
and the extent and character of liens thereon; and this applies to a suit
brought against parties claiming possession of goods in the bankrupt's
store, as warehousemen, under a nominal lease of the store from the
bankrupt. A receiver in bankruptcy is appointed as a temporary
custodian and it is his duty to hold possession of property until the
termination of the proceedings or the appointment of the trustee, and
meanwhile the bankruptcy court has possession of the property and
jurisdiction to hear and determine the interests of those claiming liens
thereon or ownership thereof, and this jurisdiction cannot be affected
by the receiver turning the property over to any person without the
authority of the court. Whitney v. Wenman, 539.
F. OF FEDERAL COURTS GENERALLY.
1. Powers in support of jurisdiction.
A Federal court exercising a jurisdiction apparently belonging to it, may
thereafter, by ancillary suit, inquire whether that jurisdiction in fact
existed, and may protect the title which it has decreed as against all
parties to the original suit and prevent any of such parties from re-
litigating questions of right already determined. Riverdale Mills v.
Manufacturing Co., 188.
2. Conclusiveness of judgment entered in case where jurisdiction based on
admitted diverse citizenship.
Where parties litigate in a Federal court whose jurisdiction is invoked on
the ground of diverse citizenship, alleged and admitted, the judgment
or decree which is entered is conclusive and cannot be upset by either
of them in any other tribunal on the mere ground that diverse citizen-
ship did not actually exist. In an ancillary suit a party to the original
action cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in the
original action on the ground that its admission of citizenship was an
error and that a correct statement would have disclosed a lack of
jurisdiction. Ib.
3. Diverse citizenship Corporations-When court will regard substantial
rights rather than mere matter of organization.
Although where two corporations of the same name, chartered by different
States, exist and there has been no merger, the corporations are sep-
arate legal persons, the court may, where the circumstances as in this
case justify it, look beyond the formal and corporate differences
and regard substantial rights rather than the mere matter of organi-
zation.
4. Yielding of jurisdiction for trial elsewhere-Election to remove—Rights of
defendant.
The rule that where jurisdiction has attached to a person or thing it is
exclusive in effect until it has wrought its function is primarily a right
of the court or sovereignty itself. The sovereignty where jurisdiction
first attaches may yield it, and this implied custody of a defendant by
his sureties cannot prevent it, although the bail may be exonerated by
the removal. Where the court consents, the Government may elect
not to proceed on indictments in the court having possession of the
defendant and may remove him to another district for trial under
indictments there pending. Whether such election exists without the
consent of the court, not decided. Beavers v. Haubert, 77.
Mississippi. Corporations (see Corporations). Wells Company v. Gas-
tonia Company, 177.
Missouri. Liquor inspection law (see Interstate Commerce). Pabst Brew-
ing Co. v. Crenshaw, 17.
New York. Labor law, section 110 (see Constitutional Law, 2).
v. New York, 45. Evidence by physicians, sections 834, 836, Code Civil
Procedure (see Contracts). Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 508.
North Carolina. Practice (see Corporations). Wells Company v. Gastonia
Company, 177.
Pennsylvania. Administration of property of absentees, statute of 1885,
Public Laws, p. 155 (see Constitutional Law, 5). Cunnius v. Reading
School District, 458. Taxation, act of June 8, 1891 (see Taxation, 1).
Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 341.
Utah. Ditch law (see Constitutional Law, 4). Clark v. Nash, 361.
Virginia. (See Pilotage, 1.) Thompson v. Darden, 310.
Washington. Exemptions-Laws of 1897, p 70, relative to proceeds of life
insurance, held not in conflict with state constitution. The statute of the
State of Washington, Laws of 1897, p. 70, exempting proceeds or avails
of all life insurance from all liability for any debt, is not in conflict with
the constitution of that State as construed by its highest court and
exempts the proceeds of paid-up policies, and endowment policies,
payable to the assured during his lifetime. Holden v. Stratton, 202.
See GARNISHMENT.
Power of Postmaster General to regulate railway mail contracts.
The Postmaster General is given the power to arrange the railway routes
upon which the mail is to be carried, and to adjust and readjust com-
pensations, subject only to limitation of ascertaining the rate by average
weight of mails. There is nothing in § 4002, Rev. Stat., which requires
the abrogation of a prior contract when an extension is made beyond
the terminal of an established route or which precludes provision for
the extension alone. While a contract may not be forced upon a rail-
way it may accept and become bound by the action of the Post Office
Department. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. United States, 385.
See CRIMINAL LAW.
MANDAMUS.
See JURISDICTION, A 8.
MINERAL LANDS.
See JURISDICTION, A 12;
PUBLIC LANDS.
MORTGAGE.
See BANKRUPTCY, 3.
1. National character of-Control of Congress.
National banks are quasi-public institutions, and for the purpose for which
they are instituted are national in their character, and, within con-
stitutional limits, are subject to control of Congress, and not to be
interfered with by state, legislative or judicial action, except so far as
Congress permits. Van Reed v. Peoples' National Bank, 554.
2. Exemption from attachment.
Under § 5242, Rev. Stat., a national bank, whether solvent or insolvent, is
exempt from process of attachment before judgment in any suit, ac-
tion or proceeding in any state, county or municipal court, Pacific
National Bank v. Mixter, 124 U. S. 721, nor can a state court acquire
jurisdiction over a national bank situated in another State by the
process of attaching property within its jurisdiction under § 4 of the
act of July 12, 1882. Ib.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.
See PILOTAGE, 1.
Pioneer patent-Latitude of expression in making claim-Infringement.
A greater degree of liberality and a wider range of equivalents are per-
mitted where the patent is of a pioneer character than when the inven-
tion is simply an improvement, although the last and successful step,
in the art theretofore partially developed by other inventors in the
same field. The patent involved in this case for the unhairing of seal
and other skins, while entitled to protection as a valuable invention,
cannot be said to be a pioneer patent. In making his claim the in-
ventor is at liberty to choose his own form of expression and, while
the courts may construe the same in view of the specifications and the
state of the art, it may not add to or detract from the claim. As the
inventor is required to enumerate the elements of his claim no one is
the infringer of a combination claim unless he uses all the elements
thereof. Where the patent does not embody a primary invention but
only an improvement on the prior art the charge of infringement is not
sustained if defendant's machines can be differentiated. Cimiotti
Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Ref. Co., 399.
PATENT FOR LANDS.
See JURISDICTION, A 12;
TREATIES.
PAYMENT.
See GARNISHMENT.
1. State regulation; power of Congress to permit-Validity of Virginia law.
Congress has power to permit, and by the act of 1789 and § 4235, Rev.
Stat., has permitted, the several States to adopt pilotage regulations,
and this court has repeatedly recognized and upheld the validity of
state pilotage laws. The Virginia pilot law is not in conflict with
§ 4237, Rev. Stat., prohibiting discriminations because it imposes
compulsory pilotage on all vessels bound in and out through the capes,
and does not impose it on vessels navigating the internal waters of the
State; nor can this objection be sustained on the ground that the
navigation of the internal waters of Virginia is more tortuous than that
in and out of the capes. Thompson v. Darden, 310.
2. State law; grounds for avoidance by Federal court.
If a state pilot law does not conflict with the provisions of the Federal
statutes in regard to pilotage this court cannot avoid its provisions be-
cause it deems them unwise or unjust. Ib.
Collections of quotations of prices as—
s-Effect on property rights of limited dis-
semination-Effect of illegal nature of acts concerned.
The Chicago Board of Trade collects at its own expense quotations of prices
offered and accepted for wheat, corn and provisions in its exchange and
distributes them under contract to persons approved by it and under
certain conditions. In a suit brought by it to restrain parties from using
the quotations obtained and used without authority of the Board, de-
|