Volume 190 — United States Reports

Zier & Company, a corporation located at New Albany, Indiana, engaged in the boiler manufacturing business, was hopelessly insolvent on and prior to December 30, 1902, and some thousands of dollars had been drawn from its treasury by the manager of its affairs for the purpose of making certain payments, of .which $3100 had been paid to Ryerson & Son, a corporation of Chicago, Illinois, and a large creditor of the Zier Company,- previously to December 30, and $9600 was on…

<p>ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Whitaker Wright applied to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari on March 20, 1903, by a petition which alleged: (L) That he was a citizen of the United States restrained of his liberty by the Marshal of the-United States for the Southern District of New York, by virtue of a warrant dated March 16, 1903, issued by Thomas Alexander,- “ United States Commissioner for the Southern District of New…

<p>Report of commissioners appointed to ascertain, retrace, re-mark, and reestablish the real, certain and true boundary line between the States of Tennessee and Virginia from White Top Mountain to Cumberland Gap confirmed.</p> <p>A compact having been entered into by the States of Tennessee and Virginia expressed in concurrent laws of said States which received the consent of Congress, this court modifies the line delineated, in the report of the commissioners as to so much thereof as is affected thereby, and that portion of the line is determined, fixed and established in accordance with'such compact.</p> <p>The commissioners having ascertained and recommended the straight line from the end of the “diamond-marked” compact line of 1801-1803 to the corner of the States of North Carolina and Tennessee as the true boundary line between the States of Virginia and Tennessee between those two points, this court approves and adopts such recommendation.</p>

<p>While section 12 of the act of Congress of September 19, 1890, forbade the construction'or extension of piers, wharves, bulkheads, or other works, beyond the harbor lines established under the direction of the Secretary of War, in navigable waters of the United States, “ except .-under such regulations as may be prescribed from time to time by him” it does not follow that Congress intended in such matters to disregard altogether the wishes of the local authorities. Under existing enactments the right of private persons to erect structures in a navigable water of the United States that is entirely within the limits of a State is not complete and absolute without the concurrent or joint assent of both the Federal government and the state government. Cummings v. City of Chicago, 188 ' U. S. 410, arid Willamette Bridge Co.y. Match, 125 U. S. 1, followed..</p>

Held: in-our former opinion, to. be taken as the law of North Carolina, because so declared by the Supreme Court of that State when the bonds were issued, and therefore . as the law by which the rights of thé parties were to be determined.

TutsT case involves the construction of-the act of Congress passed May 14, 1890, entitled “An act to provide for townsite entries of lands in what is known as£ Oklahoma,’ and for other purposes.” 26 Stat. 1Ó9, c. 207. ' ... As the purpose and scope-of the act can be ascertained only by examining all of its provisions, it is, here given in full “ § 1.

Held: and at which this bribery took place, was such an election; and that therefore under such general power this statute and this indictment can be sustained. The difficulty with this contention is that Congress has not by this section acted in the exercise of such, power.

<p>The placing on hoard vessels in the United States and bound for foreign ports of lubricating oils manufactured from imported rape seed on which duty has been paid and which oils are for use in, and to be consumed by the vessels is not such an exportation of the oils as entitles the sellers to drawbacks under § 22 of the act of August 28, 1894, reenacted as § 30 of the act of July 27, 1897.</p> <p>This has been the uniform construction of the department charged with the execution of the statute.</p> <p>Where the burden is placed upon the citizen, if there be a doubt it must be resolved in favor of the citizen; but as the right to drawbacks is a privilege granted by the government any doubt as to the construction of the statute must be resolved in favor of the government..</p>

This action was commenced in the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia on December 31-, 1891, to recover the sum of $3715 as license fees alleged to.be due the city'for the six preceding years. The case was removed by the defendant to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On December 21,1898, 30 Stat. 755, 763, Congress passed an act entitled “ An act to amend tbe laws relating to American seamen, for tbe protection of sucb seamen and to promote commerce.” Tbe material portion thereof is found in section 24, wbicb amends section 10 of chapter 121 of tbe laws of 1884, so as to read: “ Sec. 10.' (a) That it shall be, and is hereby, made unlawful in any case to pay any seaman wages in advance of the time when he has actually earned the same, or…

Held: in the State where such township shall be situated.” Section 10 of the act of February 22, 1889, for the admission of Washington and other Territories into the Union, 25 Stat. 679 : “ That upon the admission of each of saidlStates into the Union sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township of said proposed States, and where such sections, or any parts thereof, have been sold or otherwise disposed of by…

This was a bill in equity filed by the United States, in the Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, to compel a reconvey-anee by the railroad company, as the successor and assignee of the Oregon Central Eailroad Company, of certain lands within the indemnity limits of the land grant to such company of July 25, 1866, 14 Stat. 239, for which land one John W. Hines, on November 22, 1853, seventeen" years before the definite location of the line of the road, had filed a…

This was a petition by Mankichi for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his release -from the Oahu convict prison, where he is confined upon conviction for manslaughter, in alleged violation of the Constitution, in that he was tried upon an indictment not found by a grand jury, and convicted by the verdict of nine out of twelve jurors, the other three dissenting from the verdict.

Held: following the cases of United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625 , and Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U. S. 283 , that an inheritance- tax was not one upon property but upon the succession.

Mifflin v. R. H. White Co., 190 U.S. 260 (1903), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the authorized appearance of a work in a magazine without a copyright notice specifically dedicated to that work transfers that work into the public domain. Its opinion was also applied to the next case, Mifflin v. Dutton.

Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265 (1903), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the authorized appearance of a work in a magazine without a copyright notice specifically dedicated to that work transfers that work into the public domain.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.</p> <p>This controversy concerns the validity of an asserted title, by adverse possession, to a portion of the right of way in Wadena County, Minnesota, granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, its successors and assigns, by the second section of the act of Congress, approved July 2,1864. 13 Stat. 365. The plaintiff in error, the Northern Pacific Railway Company, a corporation of the State of Wisconsin, acquired the railroad and property of the former named company on or about August 31, 1896, by purchase at a sale under foreclosure of certain mortgages.</p> <p>By the first section of the act of 1864, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company was created a corporation, and was empowered to construct and maintain a continuous railroad and telegraph line from a point on Lake Superior to some point on Puget Sound. In the second section of the act it was provided, among other things, as follows :</p> <p>“ And he it further enacted, That the right of way through the public lands be, and the same is hereby, granted to said Northern Pacific Eailroad Company, its successors and assigns, for the construction of a railroad and telegraph as proposed ; and the right, power, and authority.is hereby given to said corporation to take from the public lands, adjacent to the line of said road, material of earth, stone, timber, and so forth, for the construction thereof. Said way is granted to said railroad to the extent of two hundred feet in width on each side of said railroad where it may pass through the public domain, including all ■ necessary ground for station buildings, workshops, depots, machine shops, switches, side tracks, turntables and water stations ; and the right of way shall be exempt from taxation within the Territories of the United States. . . .”</p> <p>Section 3 created a large land grant to secure the construction and continuous maintenance of the road. Construction was to be supervised by commissioners appointed by the President. (Sec. 4.) Section 5 provided how the road must be built, and that the company should not charge the government higher rates than individuals. The fight of eminent domain' •ivas conferred’ by section 7. In section 8 conditions of the grant in .respect to the commencement and completion of the construction of the road were enumerated. Section 9 reserved the right to Congress to complete the road. Section Id secured to all the people of the United States the right to subscribe for its stock. Section 11 made it a post road subject to the use of the United States for government service, and subject to such regulations as Congress might impose respecting charges for government transportation. The remaining provisions • of the act dealt with the mode of acceptance of the grant, the" powers and duties of the board of directors and other' officers of the company, the payments of cash assessments and other subjects. We need, only further particularly refer, however, to section 18, wherein.it was provided that the railroad company, previous to commencing the construction of its road, should obtain the consent of the legislature of any State through which any portion of its line might pass. Such consent was duly given by the State of Minnesota.</p> <p>Tbe company signified its acceptance in writing, as provided in the act. In November, 1871, the line of road was definitely located and a duly approved map was' filed showing said definite location. This line crossed the northwest quarter of section 24, township 184 north, of range 35, west of the fifth principal meridian, Minnesota. At that time, as well as prior thereto, said "quarter section was public land, to which the United States had full title, and the same was not reserved or otherwise appropriated, nor had any entries or filings or applications to make entry or filing thereon been made. During the years 1870 and 1871 the railroad was duly constructed through the section referred to, and the portion of the road thus constructed was thereafter duly accepted by the President.</p> <p>In December, 1878, and February, 1882, homestead entries-were, initiated on said northwest quarter of section 24, and on November 30, 1885, and July 24, 1889, patents, which purported to convey the whole of each forty-acre subdivision, were issued to Abner Townsend and George II. Brown, respectively. Subsequently, in 1886 and 1888, the title to- said northwest quarter was conveyed to the defendant in error, Minerva Townsend. During the occupancy of the homesteaders they cultivated up to the line of the ordinary and snow fences of the railroad, situated respectively fifty and one hundred feet from the center of the track, and. such occupancy continued a sufficient length of time to constitute a title by adverse posses-' sion under the limitation statutes of Minnesota. Demand was-made by the railroad company for possession of that portion of. the quarter .section which was within the granted right of way, and upon non-compliance an action of ejectment was brought in a court of the State of Minnesota to recover possession of the disputed ground. The case rvas -tried by the court without a.jury. Lengthy findings of fact were m.ade, and as. a conclusion of law the court found that the railroad company was entitled to the possession of the premises described, and entered judgment accordingly.</p> <p>On appeal, the Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed the judgment of the trial court. 84 Minnesota, 152. The cause was then brought, to this court.</p>

Held: that' where a rate was based on an error of fact, which was not complained of before, or acted on by, the Commission, and had been corrected by the carriers long before the decision below, and the corrected rate had been in force for a long period, it was not necessary to revise the decree of the court below, which was in all other respects correct, so as to secure a continuance of the corrected rate.

Held: there was no error in admitting evidence: 1. That about the time of the fire and the passing of the locomotive which it was charged occasioned the fire, other fires were observed near the track and the cotton. Grand Trunk B: Co. v. Bichardson, 91 IT. S. 454. 2.

In this proceeding, .upon certain questions being certified by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for decision by this court, a writ of certiorari was allowed, and the entire record has been brought up for consideration.

This is an appeal , from the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals -for the Ninth Circuit, affirming the decree of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of California, sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to the bill of complainant, and dismissing the same. The questions arise under the act of J une 4, 1897, making appropriations for the sundry civil expenses of, the Government, etc. 30'Stat. 11, 36.

The relator, plaintiff in error, filed its petition in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, asking for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant, the.

Held: notice whereof was to be given in the newspapers, and elections for directors should be held at the same time both in Alabafna and in Tennessee.. This court held, thát by reason of the particular language used in the act, there was a separate original Alabama corporation formed; that the sections, taken altogether, made it a corporation created as well as controlled by the State of Alabama.

Held: that as to the amount payable for her own support it was not a contingent liability provable under the bankruptcy act, and the contract was not of such a nature as would permit the obligor to be discharged from the obligations thereunder by a discharge in bankruptcy.

Held: that it was not the duty of the Coiirt of Claims under tbe act of 3.885 *354 to investigate and determine'tlie rights of each individual of a class, hut only to determine the validity and amount of a claim with a specification of ownership sufficient to identify the claim itself for the payment of which an appropriation might thereafter be made, and the particular individuals of the class would be matter for…

The petitioner filed his ámended petition in the Court of Claims in August, 1892, in which he asked to recover from the United States over five hundred and thirty thousand dollars on the grounds therein set forth. There was a demurrer to the amended petition by the United States on the ground that it did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, 37 0. Cl. 233, and the plaintiff has appealed to this court. .

The United States, by leave of court, duly filed in this court its original bill in equity against the State of Michigan, to which bill the defendant has filed a demurrer substantially for want of equity, and also because it appears therefrom that the complainant has been guilty of gross laches in regard to the matters therein set forth.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of thy court.</p>

Held: in a suit by a stockholder of the corporation in behalf of himself and all other stpckh'olders, to restrain the performance of an- ultra vires agreement, that it was not necessary that' the directors should be made parties. . It was said by the Vice Chancellor: “ The act that, is sought to be re-' strained is the act of the company. It is quite sufficient if there .is an order restraining the company.

Held: the sum of six thousand .dollars as such trustee for the benefit of the bondholders under and by virtue of the law and the orders of the'board of commissioners of the county, aud for the sole purpose of paying off and discharging the interest due on the bonds as set out in the bill. The decree also'appointed a receiver for said sum, and ordered that said I. W. Snuggs pay the same to the receiver.

Held: “A conveyance of one acre of, land can never be made by any legal construction to carry another acre' by way of incident or appurtenance to the first.” Such is the. doctrine laid, down in 2 Met. 147 ; 8 Met. 260 ; 10 Pet. 25 ; 15 John. 447 . If this were an action of ejectment it would be barred by the statüte of limitation on account of the twenty years’ adverse possession. Vandugan v. TIepner, 45 Indiana, 589.

Held: as to the difficulty of determining titles, “ We do not think that this argument ab inconvenienti is sufficient to justify an abandonment of the rules of the common law.” And see also Gouver-neur v. Rational Ice Co., 134 N. Y. 355 ; Lamprey v. The State, 52 Minnesota, 181; Kirkpatrick v. Yates, 45 Missouri App. 335; Grand 'Rapids Ice Co. v. S. Grand Rapids lee Co., 102 Michigan, 227; Olson v. Iluntamer, 6 So.

<p>There is a distinction between foreign States and foreign citizens. Congress did not mean to exclude a sovereign power Which sees fit to submit its case to our courts from the right to appeal to the court of last resort. Under section 6 of the act of 1891 the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is not made final where one of. the parties is a foreign State.</p> <p>Where the 'parties to a controversy have submitted the maitter to a commission of three who have the power to, and do resolve tliat all decisions shall be by majority vote, an awárd.by a majority is sufficient and effective. • .</p> <p>In an arbitration between a sovereign State and a railroad company and affecting public concerns, whatever might be the technical rules for arbitrators dealing with a private dispute,- neither party can defeat the operation of the submission after receiving benefits thereunder, by withdrawing, or by adopting the Withdrawal of its nominee, after the discus- . • 8ions have been closed. .,']■■■</p> <p>Where a foreign State grants acoiicéssionto build a railroad toan individual who assigns it- and pthiir contracts connected' therewith to a corporation and thereafter the State forfeits and Cancels the concession but agrees, as a compromise,"tq take over the. road r as far as built and pay the actual expense of construction, it is prop'er in estimating such expenses to allow the office and. traveling expenses and salaries of the officers, but not the cash paid by the corporation for the contract and concession or the amounts paid to the officers of the corporation for securing the agreement to submit the matter to arbitration.</p>

<p>CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that the action of the trustee undid the satisfaction of record of the judgments and they were not a bar which would prevent the creditor from proving its claim against the estate in the hands of the trustee. The case is stated in the opinion of tbe court. Mr. Freedom Hutchinson and Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for appellant. *553 Mr. Roland Gray for appellees.

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts.</p>