involving mechanical operations and producing a new and useful result independently of particular mechanisms for performing such process, and is valid. Ib.
Money paid to the collector of a port under protest, and on the cer- tainty that if not paid clearance to vessels necessarily sailing on definite schedule would be refused, to the great damage of the owner, is paid involuntarily, and can, if unlawfully exacted, be recovered. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 320. See BANKRUPTCY, 1;' COMMERCIAL PAPER, 1.
PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES.
Power of Congress to provide for imposition of penalty-Enforcement of penalty.
The authority, given by Congress in the Alien Immigration Act to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to impose an exaction on a transportation company bringing to the United States an alien immigrant afflicted with a loathsome contagious disease when the medical examination establishes that the disease existed, and could have been detected by medical examination at the time of embarkation, does not purport to define and punish any criminal offense, but merely entails the infliction of a penalty enforceable by civil suit; and it is within the power of Congress to provide for such imposition by an executive officer, and the enforcement is not necessarily governed by the rules controlling the prosecu- tion of criminal offenses. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, distinguished; Hepner v. United States, 213 U. S. 103, fol- lowed. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 320. See ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING;
CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 2; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5, 6;
IMMIGRATION;
JURISDICTION, A 6; UNITED STATES, 2.
PENSION CHECKS.
See BANKS AND Banking, 3; COMMERCIAL PAPER.
1. Jurisdiction of Louisiana over pilotage in Mississippi river. The Mississippi river is a boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana from below the port of Natchez as far north as Louisiana ex-
tends; but below Natchez all the river is wholly within Louisiana, and that State, subject only to the paramount power of Congress, has exclusive jurisdiction over pilotage in the river between points south of Natchez. Leech v. Louisiana, 175.
2. Application of § 4236, Rev. Stat., act of March 2, 1837, relative to employment of pilots.
Section 4236, Rev. Stat., act of March 2, 1837, c. 22, 5 Stat. 153, al- lowing the master of vessels coming in or going out of ports on boundary rivers to employ any pilot licensed by either State, does not apply to pilotage to ports on a river below the point where it becomes a boundary river; and a pilot licensed only by Mississippi has no right to pilot a vessel from the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans. Ib.
3. Quere as to rights of pilots under § 4236, Rev. Stat.
Quare whether under § 4236 a pilot licensed only by Mississippi can pilot & vessel from the Gulf to Natchez. Ib.
PLEADING.
See COURTS, 9;
JURISDICTION, A 2;
MANDAMUS, 3.
1. Nature and scope of power.
The police power is one of the most essential of governmental powers, at times one of the most insistent, and always one of the least limitable. District of Columbia v. Brooke, 138.
2. Power of Congress paramount over that of State.
Generally speaking, the police power belongs to, and is to be exer- cised by, the State, but it must yield to Congress wherever it conflicts with the powers belonging exclusively to Congress. Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 218.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17.
1. Status between ratification of treaty of peace and establishment of civil government.
By the ratifications of the treaty of peace of 1898 with Spain, Porto Rico ceased to be subject to that country and became subject to the legislative power of Congress; but, pending the action of Congress, and the necessary delay in establishing civil govern- ment, there was no interregnum, and the authority, to govern the
territory ceded by the treaty was, by the law applicable to con- quest and cession, under the military control of the President as Commander-in-Chief. (Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164.) Santiago v. Nogueras, 260.
2. Provisional Court; power of military government to establish. The military government in Porto Rico at the time of the ratification of the treaty of peace continued until superseded by the organic act; and it had power to establish the United States Provisional Court, and that court had jurisdiction to render the judgment involved in this case. Ib.
3. Provisional Court; jurisdiction of controversy between subject of Spain and resident of Porto Rico.
Under the provision of the order establishing the Provisional Court of
Porto Rico that it have jurisdiction of controversies between different states and of foreign states, it had jurisdiction of a controversy between a subject of Spain and a resident of Porto Rico. Ib.
4. Provisional court; question of jurisdiction not open in collateral attack.
Whether the court lost jurisdiction, after having properly obtained it, by disregarding rules of procedure is not open in a collateral attack. Ib.
1. Assumption as to insufficiency of evidence in bankruptcy proceed- ing not indulged.
Where the evidence sustaining an application for an adjudication in bankruptcy is not disclosed this court will not assume that it was not sufficient. Matter of Riggs, 9.
2. Following findings of fact concurred in by lower courts. Which is the correct English translation of a will written in the Ha-
waiian language is a pure question of fact, and in this case this court follows its usual course in regard to the findings of fact of both the lower courts and adopts the translation which both found to be correct. Gray v. Noholoa, 108.
3. Deference to construction given by Supreme Court of Territory to statute of Territory.
Where there is doubt as to the construction of a statute of a Territory this court leans towards the construction given by the Supreme Court of the Territory, Copper Queen Mining Co. v. Arizona Board, 206 U. S. 674, and unless there is manifest error this court will not disturb a decision of that court, Fox v. Haarstick, 156 U. S. 674, and in this case this court accepts the decision of the Supreme Court of Arizona in construing a revenue statute of that Territory. English v. Arizona, 359.
4. Effect of failure to seasonably object to technical defect in return. Where no objection was made to a technical defect in the return which could have been rectified by amendment had attention seasonably been called thereto, a party who, as disclosed by the record, was not prejudiced, cannot raise the objection at a later date. District of Columbia v. Brooke, 138.
5. Waiver of constitutional objection when question not made in state court by proper procedure.
A Federal constitutional objection may be waived so far as having the right of review of a judgment in the state court is concerned where the question is not made in the state court by proper procedure. (Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78.) Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. McDonald, 191.
6. Disposition of case on opening of counsel condemned.
The practice of disposing of cases on the opening of counsel is gen- erally an unsafe method of procedure; the case should be de- veloped by the evidence. Hoffman House v. Foote, 172 N. Y. 348, approved. Bong v. Campbell Art Co., 236.
7. Disposition of case on disagreement by this court with determination by lower courts as to amount of compensation to which carrier en- titled; the testimony not having been preserved in record. Where the Interstate Commerce Commission has held, and its order has been affirmed by the Circuit Court and Circuit Court of Ap- peals, that a carrier cannot charge for a service rendered at the request and for the benefit of the shipper any amount in excess
of the actual expense incurred, and fixed a rate less than this court considers reasonable, this court cannot, where the testi- mony has not been preserved in the record, fix a fair and rea- sonable charge, but will reverse the judgments of both courts and remand the case to the former court with instructions to send the matter back to the commission for further investigation and re- port. Southern Ry. Co. v. St. Louis Hay Co., 297.
The service of the summons in this case by delivering the same at de- fendant's usual place of abode into the hands of his wife being strictly in accord with the procedure established by the court, the court had jurisdiction to enter judgment by default. Santi- ago v. Nogueras, 260.
PROCESS AND APPARATUS.
See PATENTS, 4, 5.
Writ of prohibition to prohibit Judges of the District Court from ap- plying any part of proceeds of sale under decrees of admiralty court of same district of vessels belonging to a bankrupt, and surrendered by the receiver for adjudication of the maritime liens, to the payment of the receiver's expenses and commissions
« iepriekšējāTurpināt » |