« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 202 U. S.
CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY
THE COURT FROM APRIL 17 TO MAY 28, 1906.
No. 243. MARY JOSEPHINE SCANNELL ET AL., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. COTE BLANCHE COMPANY ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. April 18, 1906. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Branch K. Miller for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Alexander Porter Morse, Mr. M. J. Foster and Mr. Charlton R. Beattie for defendants in error.
No. 231. THE DRAKE & STRATTON COMPANY, LIMITED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. John MANWARING. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. April 18, 1906. Dismissed, per stipulation. Mr. Thomas J. Davis for plaintiff in error. Mr. Roger S. Powell for defendant in error.
No. 257. GEORGETOWN AND TENNALLYTOWN RAILWAY COMPANY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ELIZABETH B. SMITH, ADMINISTRATRIX, ETC. In error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. April 23, 1906. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. J. J. Darlington for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
No. 768. FRANCISCO RIVERA alias PANCHETO, APPELLANT, v. JOSE URRUTIA, WARDEN, ETC. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico. May 28, 1906. Docketed and dismissed with costs, on motion of The Solicitor General for the appellee. No one opposing.
1. Nature of suit as one against the United States.
A suit brought by a Chippewa Indian on behalf of himself and other mem-
bers of his tribe against the Secretary of the Interior, to enjoin him
from executing the act of June 27, 1902, and to compel him to account
under the act of January 4, 1889, in regard to sale and disposition of
lands, the title to which is still in the Government, is in effect a suit
against the United States, and in the absence of any waiver on the part
of the Government of immunity from suit, the courts have no juris-
diction of such a suit. (Oregon v. Hitchcock, 292 U. S. 60 followed;
Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373 distinguished.) Naganab v.
2. Nature as suit against State within meaning of Eleventh Amendment.
A suit brought by a railway company against the members of a state rail-
way commission to restrain them from interfering with complainant's
property and interstate business under a state statute alleged in the
bill to be unconstitutional as imposing burdens on interstate com-
merce is not a suit against the State within the meaning of the Eleventh
Amendment. McNeill v. Southern Railway Co., 543.
CONGRESS, B 3;
LOCAL LAW (Porto Rico).
ACTS OF CONGRESS.
ALIEN CONTRACT LABOR Law of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1218, 88 21, 25
(see Aliens): Pearson v. Williams, 281.
BANKRUPTCY, Act of 1898, § 23 (see Jurisdiction, C 4): Bush v. Elliott.
477. Sec. 67f (see Bankruptcy, 1): First National Bank v. Staake, 141.
COURT OF CLAIMS, Tucker Act (see Admiralty, 1): United States v. Cornell
Steamboat Co., 184.
CRIMINAL LAW, Act of July 20, 1840, 5 Stat. 394, and $ 800, Rev. Stat.
(see Criminal Law, 1): Sawyer v. United States, 150.
Cuba, Act of December 17, 1903 (see Customs Duties): Franklin Sugar
Co. v. United States, 580.
CUSTOMS DUTIES, Rev. Stat. § 2899 (see Bonds, 1): United States v. Diecker-
hoff, 302. Sec. 2977 (see Customs Duties, 2): Franklin Sugar Co. v.
VOL. CCII -40
United States, 580. Secs. 2984, 3689 (see Admiralty, 2): United States
v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 184. Customs Administrative Act of Decem-
ber 15, 1902, 32 Stat. 753, $ 20 (see Customs Duties, 2): Franklin
Sugar Co. v. United States, 580.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Acts of February 12, 1901, 31 Stat. 767, 774 and
February 28, 1903, 32 Stat. 909 (see Congress, B 3): Millard v. Roberts,
FEES OF SOLICITORS, Rev. Stat. $ 824 (see Costs, 2): Missouri v. Ilinois,
INDIANS, Cherokee Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 726, as construed by act
of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 996 (see Indians): United States v. Cherokee
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (see Carriers): Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v.
JUDICIARY, Rev. Stat. $ 639, sub-sec. 1, and acts of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat.
470; March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 556 and August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433
(see Jurisdiction, C 5): O'Conor v. Texas, 501. Rev. Stat. $ 709 (see
Jurisdiction, A 3): Hulbert v. Chicago, 275. Rev. Stat. $ 714 (see
Courts, 6): James v. United States, 401. Appropriation Act of 1895
(see Courts, 8): Ib.
NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. $ 5139 (see National Banks, 3): McDonald
v. Dewey, 510. National Bank Acts (see Jurisdiction, A 5): Merchants'
Nat. Bank v. Wehrmann, 295.
OFFICERS OF GOVERNMENT, Rev. Stat. § 1782 (see Congress, B 1; Criminal
Law, 6, 7, 8, 9; Jurisdiction, E): Burton v. United States, 344.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691 (see Philippine Islands):
Lincoln v. United States, 484.
PORTO Rico, Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, $ 34 (see Local Law): Perez
v. Fernandez, 80.
PUBLIC LANDS, Acts of June 27, 1902, and January 4, 1889 (see Action, 1);
Naganab v. Hitchcock, 473.
RECOVERIES ON FORFEITURES, Rev. Stat. $ 961 (see Bonds, 2): United
States v. Dieckerhoff, 302.
SWAMP LANDS, Acts of September 28, 1850, 9 Stat. 519, and March 12,
1860, 12 Stat. 3 (see Jurisdiction, A 8): Oregon v. Hitchcock, 60.
TARIFF Act of July 24, 1897 (see Customs Duties, 1): United States v.
American Sugar Co., 563.
See STATUTES, A 1.
See TESTAMENTARY Law, 1.
1. Salvage; jurisdiction of Court of Claims of claim against Government.
While a claim for salvage of Government property based on services ren-
dered without request of any officer of the Government does not arise
upon any contract, express or implied, it is properly one for unliquidated
damages in a case not sounding in tort, in respect to which the claimant
would be entitled to redress in the admiralty court if the United States
were suable, and, under the Tucker Act, the Court of Claims, or the
proper District Court where the claim is for less than $1,000, has juris-
diction of a suit therefor. United States v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 184.
2. Salvage; recovery from Government for salving merchandise subject to
refund of duties paid.
The successful salving of undelivered merchandise on which duties have
been paid, but which the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized by
88 2984, 3689, Rev. Stat., to refund if the goods were lost, entitles the
salvors to recover from the Government a reasonable salvage, equal to
that recovered on the private property saved at the same time, on the
amount of duties which the Government would have been under obliga-
tion to refund had the merchandise been lost. In such a case it will be
assumed that the duties will be refunded, and the claim therefor will
be regarded as a liability, although $2984 is permissive and
tory in form. Ib.
3. Jurisdiction of courts; application of equitable principles.
Although courts of admiralty have no general equity jurisdiction, and
cannot afford equitable relief in a direct proceeding for that purpose,
they may apply equitable principles to subjects within their juris-
ADMISSION OF STATES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
See Local Law (OKLA.).
CRIMINAL LAW, 9;
Deportation under Contract Labor Law-Sufficiency of hearing.
The Secretary of Commerce and Labor, has a right under $ 21 of the act
power, and its decisions do not constitute res judicata in a technical
Pearson v. Williams, 281.
See JURISDICTION, C 5.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
See JURISDICTION, A 1, 2; C 1.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
See COURTS, 5;
CRIMINAL LAW, 10;
Local Law (Ill.);
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 3; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.
APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC MONEY.
Character of appropriation as one for governmental purposes or private use.
An act of Congress appropriating money to be paid to railway companies
to carry out a scheme of public improvements in the District of Co-
lumbia, and which also requires those companies to eliminate grade
crossings and erect a union station, and recognizes and provides for
the surrender of existing rights, is an act appropriating money for
governmental purposes and not for the private use exclusively of
those companies. Millard v. Roberts, 429.
ARBITRATION AND AWARD.
See NATIONAL BANKS.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1, 2;
Local Law (Porto Rico).
1. Attachment; loss of preferential character by institution of bankruptcy
Under $ 67f of the bankruptcy law of 1898 attachments obtained within
four months of filing the petition on property which in the absence of
the attachment would pass to other persons, and to which the bank-
rupt has only a bare legal title, may be preserved for the general benefit
of the estate, and whatever the trustee realizes thereon may be dis-
tributed among the body of the creditors. The lien is valid, but it
loses its preferential character in favor of the attaching creditor by
the institution of the bankruptcy proceedings. First National Bank
v. Staake, 141; McHarg v. Staake, 150.