12. When judgment of state court rests on non-Federal grounds sufficient
to sustain it.
Where an act of Congress providing for sale of real estate by a marshal
does not define a good and valid description, the question of suf-
ficiency of description is one of general law; and so held in regard
to § 4 of the act of February 16, 1839, c. 27, 5 Stat. 317, referring
to time and place for making judicial sales in Mississippi; and
further held that even if the time and place of sale were wrong
under the statute, this court had no jurisdiction as the judgment
rested on plaintiff's failure to deraign a title and other non-
Federal questions sufficient to sustain it. Ib.
13. Quære as to sufficiency of raising of Federal question for purpose of.
Quare: Where a petition to the highest court of the State for rehear-
ing asserts that a Federal question had been set up in the brief
and arguments is simply denied with the statement that no
Federal question had been raised in that court, whether this
court has jurisdiction to review the judgment on writ of error.
Smithsonian Institution v. St. John, 19.
14. Declination of jurisdiction.
This court cannot decline jurisdiction. when it is plain that the fair
result of a decision of the state court is to deny a constitutional
right. (Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226.) Ib.
15. To review judgment in condemnation proceeding.
Writ of error to review judgment of the state court in a condemnation
proceeding dismissed without opinion for want of jurisdiction.
Thomas v. South Side Elevated Ry. Co., 496; Yadkin River Power
Co. v. Whitney, 503.
16. Of appeal in bankruptcy matter.
An appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals in a bankruptcy matter
dismissed without opinion on authority of Coder v. Arts, 213
U. S. 223. Logan v. Farmers' Deposit Nat. Bank, 500.
17. Certificate from Circuit Court of Appeals; sufficiency of.
Certificate dismissed on the authority of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
Railway Company v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444. Chicago, Burling-
ton & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Williams, 492.
The Circuit Court has not jurisdiction of a suit against a number of
delinquent taxpayers for assessment work where the assessment
due from each taxpayer is less than two thousand dollars. Granite
Bituminous Paving Co. v. Landis, 504.
The publication of a portrait with a statement thereunder imports
that the original of the portrait makes the statement even if
another name be attached to the statement. Wandt v. Hearst's
Chicago American, 129 Wisconsin, 419; Morrison v. Smith, 177
N. Y. 366, approved on this point. Peck v. Tribune Company, 185.
2. Publication of portrait as.
A woman, whose portrait is published in connection with an endorse-
ment of a brand of whiskey may be seriously hurt in her standing
with a considerable portion of her neighbors and she is entitled to
prove her case and go to the jury. Ib.
3. Mistake or ignorance as excuse for.
Publication of the portrait of one person with statements thereunder
as of another, by mistake, and without knowledge of whom the
portrait really is, is not an excuse. A libel is harmful on its face,
and one publishing manifestly hurtful statements concerning an
individual does so at his peril; and, if there is no justification
other than that it was news or advertising, he is liable if the
statements are false or are true only of some one else. See Morasse
v. Brochu, 151 Massachusetts, 567. Ib.
4. Degree of harm resulting from false statement to render it libellous.
An unprivileged falsehood need not entail universal hatred to con-
stitute a cause of action; to be libellous a statement need not be
that the person libelled has done or said something that every
one, or even a majority of persons in the community, may regard
as discreditable; it is sufficient if the statement hurts the party
alluded to in the estimation of an important and respectable
part of the community. Ib.
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
See COURTS, 2, 3, 4.
See COMMERCE;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 3.
Arkansas. Conditional sales (see Vendor and Vendee, 2). Bryant v.
Swofford Bros., 279.
California. Civil Code, §§ 1633, 1634. Notice in administration pro-
ceedings (see Constitutional Law, 9). Goodrich v. Ferris, 71.
Georgia. Notary public as magistrate (see Extradition, 2). Compton
v. Alabama, 1.
Kentucky. Stats. 1903, § 1307. Intoxicating liquors (see Constitu-
tional Law. 3). Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 218.
Massachusetts. Acts of 1904, ch. 333, and acts of 1905, ch. 383.
Height of buildings (see Constitutional Law, 13). Welch v.
Swasey, 91..
Porto Rico. 1. Mortgage of an interest in a succession. In Porto Rico
one can mortgage an interest in a succession after it has accrued
notwithstanding it has not been actually assigned or delivered
to the mortgagor; this is not prohibited by article 108 of the
mortgage law, nor are articles 110, 111 of that law applicable
thereto. Cabrera v. American Colonial Bank, 224.
2. Contracts; admissibility of evidence to vary. The provisions of
the Spanish Civil Code, which was in force in Porto Rico until
1902, to the effect that the obligations of a contract must be
complied with according to their terms and that evidence can-
not be, introduced to vary them are practically the same as the
principles of the common law and are subject to similar well-
recognized exceptions. Ib.
3. Estates of decedents-Effect of waiver of benefit of inventory-
Liability of succession. The effect under the law of Porto Rico
of an heir waiving the benefit of inventory is to make him per-
sonally liable for the debts of the succession without limit, as
under the early law of Rome, of England and of France; but,
after the inheritance is divided, the liability of the succession
is at an end and gives place to personal liability of each heir for
the whole debt to the extent of the assets received by him, if
accepted with benefit of inventory, or otherwise in full. Ubarri
v. Laborde, 168.
4. Same. Ubarri v. Laborde, ante, p. 168, followed to effect that
after a succession in Porto Rico has been divided the liability of
the heirs is personal; and, even if the suit can be maintained
against the succession, private property of the heirs cannot be
attached to answer for the judgment. Laborde v. Ubarri, 173.
Texas. Act of April 24, 1905, ch. 163 (see Jurisdiction, A 9). Mis
souri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 502.
Limitation of actions (see Courts, 2, 3). Dupree v. Mansur, 161.
See CONTEMPT of Court, 5, 6.
MAGISTRATES.
See EXTRADITION, 2.
1. Not substitute for writ of error.
Mandamus is not a proper substitute for a writ of error.
2. Not available to review adjudication in bankruptcy.
Where the bankruptcy court in adjudicating a corporation a bankrupt
is called upon to decide, and does decide, a question of fact, or of
mixed law and fact, that adjudication cannot be reviewed by pro-
ceedings in mandamus. (Re Pollitz, 206 U. S. 323; Re Winn, 213
U. S. 458.) Matter of Riggs, 9.
Mandamus to the bankruptcy court to dismiss proceedings in bank-
ruptcy against a corporation because the petition failed to show
that the principal business of the bankrupt was trading, printing,
publishing, mining, manufacturing or a mercantile pursuit, re-
fused. Ib.
4. To contral action of executive officer. When performance of duty
administrative and when involving exercise of discretion.
If the reference by Congress to the Secretary of the Treasury to as-
certain the amount due to a claimant and pay the same requires
the exercise of discretion the courts cannot control his decision,
Riverside Oil Company v. Hitchcock, 190 U. S. 316; but where
the statute simply requires him to ascertain the amount, accord-
ing to certain prescribed rules, the duty is administrative; and,
the amount being ascertained according to those rules, the courts
can by mandamus compel the Secretary to issue his warrant
therefor. Parish v. MacVeagh, 124.
The history of the litigation and legislation in regard to the claim of
Parish against the United States for damages on contract for ice
made in 1863 for use of armies in the field reviewed and held that
under the act of February 17, 1903, c. 559, 32 Stat. 1612, directing
the Secretary of the Treasury "to determine and ascertain the full
amount which should have been paid to Parish if the contract had
been carried out in full without charge or default by either party"
and to issue his warrant therefor, no judicial duty devolved upon
the Secretary, nor has the Secretary power to determine what
was right or proper but only the administrative duty of ascer-
taining the amount and paying the same; and, the amount having
|