« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
dealers, one selling their own domestic wines, and another selling all
intoxicants except domestic wines. (Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe
Co., 184 U. S. 540, distinguished.) Cox v. Texas, 446.
Legislative power. See CONGRESS, B 2.
Personal rights. See CRIMINAL LAW, 4, 5.
5. States; prohibition against prejudice by Congress of claim of particular
As the act admitting Mississippi was passed five years after the act ad-
during its life a similar contract was given to such a person and the
corporation sued in the Court of Claims for reformation of its contract
on ground that the omission was mutual mistake and also for loss of
profits on business diverted to such person. The Court of Claims took
jurisdiction and awarded damages. Held, by this court in reversing
the judgment on the merits, while reformation of the contract is not
an incident to an action at law, and can only be granted in equity
under $ 1 of the act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 505, the Court of Claims
has jurisdiction to reform a contract, and of the money claim under
the contract as it should have been drawn. On the evidence in this
case there was no mutual mistake justifying the reformation of the
contract. United States v. Milliken Imprinting Co., 168.
4. Specific performance, where party has conveyed property to one who is
free from equities.
A judgment for defendant in an action for specific performance based on a
finding of fact, among others, that defendant has conveyed the prop-
erty to an innocent purchaser for value cannot be reversed, as specific
performance is impossible where the party to the contract has con-
veyed the property to one who is free from equities. Halsell v. Ren-
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 2;
CRIMINAL LAW, 9;
Local Law (OKLA.).
CONTRACT LABOR LAW.
See LOCAL LAW (OKLA.).
Incidents of power to mortgage franchises.
The power given under the state law to a corporation to mortgage its fran-
chises and privileges necessarily includes the power to bring them to
sale and make the mortgage effectual, and the purchaser acquires title
thereto although the corporate right to exist may not be sold. Vicks-
burg v. Waterworks Co., 453.
See Local Law (Miss.); STATES;
NATIONAL BANKS; TAXATION, 1.
1. Allowance of costs in original actions between States.
This court has power to allow costs in original actions and in any actions
between States, the successful State may ask for costs or not as it sees
fit, and there is no absolute rule that in boundary cases the costs are
divided. Costs, therefore, are allowed to the defendant in this suit in
which the plaintiff alleged serious pecuniary damage, and framed its
bill like the ordinary bill of a private person to restrain a nuisance.
Missouri v. Illinois, 598.
2. Solicitor's fee for witnesses examined before examiner.
The solicitor's fee of $2.50 for each witness examined before the examiner
and admitted in evidence was properly allowed as fees for depositions
under $ 824, Rev. Stat. Ib.
1. Power to issue mandatory injunction.
Courts have no power to issue a mandatory injunction requiring a mu-
6. Supreme Court of District of Columbia as a court of the United States.
Without deciding whether the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
is or is not an inferior court of the United States within the meaning
of § 1 of Art. III of the Constitution of the United States, it is a court
of the United States within the meaning of g 714, Rev. Stat., the pro-
visions whereof apply to judges of that, and of any other, court of the
United States holding office by life tenure. In so deciding the court
follows the evidently correct construction given to the statute by the
legislative and executive departments of the Government since the
original enactment of the statute. James v. United States, 401.
7. Salary of justice of Supreme Court of District of Columbia during retire-
A justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, retiring during
the year ending June 30, 1893, is entitled to receive during his retire-
ment five thousand dollars per annum that being the salary of the office
as fixed by the appropriation act for the previous year, and the appro-
priation act for the year ending June 30, 1893, while only appropriating
a lump sum for all the justices of the court amounting to four thousand
dollars each will not be construed as reducing the salary to that amount
in view of the subsequent deficiency appropriation act appropriating an
amount sufficient to make the salaries for that year five thousand
8. Power of Congress to retroactively fix salary of justices.
Congress has power wholly irrespective of prior legislation retroactively
to fix the salary payable to a justice of the Supreme Court of the Dis-
trict of Columbia and as the effect of the act of 1895 was a determina-
tion of Congress that the salary of the justices of that court for the
year ending June 30, 1893, was five thousand dollars this court cannot
disregard the retroactive effect of the statute. Ib.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1;
CONGRESS, B 4; Local Law (Porto Rico);
CONTRACTS, 3; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE;
STATUTES, A 2.
COURT OF CLAIMS.
See ADMIRALTY, 1;
COURT AND JURY.
See STATUTES, A 2.
1. Challenges; right of Government to.
The passage of the act of July 20, 1840, 5 Stat. 394, and of $ 800, Rev. Stat.,
granting peremptory challenges to the Government in criminal cases,
has not taken away the right to conditional or qualified challenges when
permitted in the State, and where it has been adopted by the Federal
court as a rule or by special order. The exercise of the right is under
supervision of the court which should not permit it to be used unreason-
ably or so as to prejudice defendant. It is not an unreasonable exercise
of the priviege where, notwithstanding its exercise, neither the Govern-
ment nor the defendant exhausted all of their peremptory challenges.
Sawyer v. United States, 150.
2. Trial; remarks by counsel; cure of impropriety.
While a remark by the District Attorney in summing up that “a man
under such circumstances who could drink a cup of coffee ought to be
hung on general principles,” is improper, if, on protest of defendant's
counsel, the court stops the District Attorney, who apologizes and
withdraws the remark, an exception by defendant is frivolous and
the court is not open to censure for so describing it. Ib.
3. Trial; statement by court constituting error.
There is no reversible error in the court stating in a trial for murder of
several persons that defendant was not charged with the murder of a
person whose name is stated in the bill as having been murdered, the
court also saying that if he was so charged there was no evidence to
support the charge. Ib.
4. Waiver by accused of privilege of silence.
Where defendant takes the stand in his own behalf he waives his constitu-
tional privilege of silence and the prosecution has the right to cross-
examine him upon his evidence in chief with the same latitude as though
he were an ordinary witness as to circumstances connecting him with
the crime, and even if, as claimed in this case, the subject matter of
the cross-examination has no tendency to connect the witness with
the crime if it is plain that there is no injury the exception is not avail-
5. Indictment; sufficiency to acquaint accused with nature and cause of ac-
Where the indictment clearly discloses all the elements essential to the
commission of the offense charged, and the averments are sufficient in
the event of acquittal, to plead the judgment in lieu of a second prosecu-
tion for the same offense, the defendant is informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him within the meaning of the Constitu-
tion and according to the rules of pleading;—and in this case the evi-
dence was sufficient to justify the case being sent to the jury and the
court below did not err in refusing to direct an acquittal, nor was