Volume 207 — United States Reports

■ This suit was commenced in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Utah by the United States Mining Company, claiming to be the owner-of certain mining property, and .praying that its title thereto be quieted and the defendant restrained from taking' any ore therefrom. Jurisdiction was founded on diverse citizenship.

<p>APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p>Argued simultaneously with No. 115.1</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SURROGATES’ COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK AND STATE OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>This is a writ of error from this court to the Surrogates’ Court of the County and State of New York to review a judgment entered in that court in pursuance of ap order of the Court of Appeals of that State. The judgment assessed a succession taK upon the personal estate of Albert Tilt, deceased, upon the ground that he was at the time of his death a resident of the State of New York. Before the assessment of the tax the estate of Tilt, who died testate, was fulíy administered in the courts of New Jersey, where the will was probated. In the course of the administration all the personal property, after paying debts, taxes and charges of administration, was distributed by the executors to the beneficiaries under the will. A reversal of the judgment of the. Surrogates’ Court is sought for the reason that it did not give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of the State of New Jersey, as required by the Constitution and laws of the United States.</p>

<p>PETITION FOR MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AND THE HONORABLE SOLOMON H. BETHEA AS JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ETC.</p> <p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.</p> <p>The facts arfe stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE. STATE OP SOUTH CAROLINA.</p> <p>The facts, which involve the constitutionality of a statute of South Carolina providing for penalty on common carriers for not promptly adjusting damage claims, are stated'in the opinion.</p>

Held: upon any showing made by this record, to be unconstitutional as depriving the plaintiff in. error of its property without due process of law. Upon these grounds alone, and independent of any otüer question discussed, he joins in a judgment of affirmance. Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice Moody, having been of counsel, did not sit in . this case.

The firm of A. McCoy & Company, a banking copartnership at Rensselaer, Indiana, was composed of Alfred McCoy and Thomas McCoy, and on July 11, 1904, the copartnership and its individual members were respectively adjudicated bankrupts.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Habeas corpus is an appropriate proceeding for determining whether one held under an extradition warrant is a fugitive from justice; and he should be discharged if he shows by competent evidence, ^overcoming the presumption óf a properly issued warrant, that he is not a fugitive from the demanding State.</p> <p>A faithful, vigorous enforcement of the constitutional and statutory pro- ' visions relating to fugitives from justice is vital to the harmony and welfare of the States; and provisions of the Constitution should not be so narrowly interpreted as to enable offenders against the laws of a State to find a permanent asylum in the territory of another State. Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S. 222.</p> <p>A person, held in custody as a fugitive from justice under an extradition warrant in proper form which shows upon its face all that is required by law to be shown as a prerequisite to its being issued, should not be discharged unless it clearly and satisfactorily appears that he is not-a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States.</p> <p>Where the requisition is based on an indictment for a crime committed on a certain day, without specifying any hour, the .accused does not overcome the prima facie case by proof that, he was not at the place of the crime for a part of that day, the record not disclosing the hour of the crime, and it appearing that the accused might have been at the place named during a part of the day.</p> <p>On writ of error to review a final judgment in' habeas corpus proceedings this court must" determine by the record whether' the state court erred and its decision cannot be controlled or affected by an apparent admission of defendant in error that certain affidavits annexed to the petition were used without objection as evidence.</p> <p>This court takes judicial knowledge of facts known to every one as to the distance between two neighboring cities and the time necessary to travel from one to the other. .</p>

<p>Amado v. United States, 195 U. S. 172, followed as to when this court cannot review the .final judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico in a-criminal case.</p> <p>Where the jurisdiction of this court to reyiew a judgment of the Supreme Court of a Territory depends on the presence of a Federal question the mere assertion of a Federal right indubitably frivolous and without color of merit is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction, nor in such a case has this court jurisdiction to pass upon other questions non-Federal in nature, and the judgment will not be affirmed but the writ of error dismissed. While the contention that a local law of Porto Rico passed in 1904, changing the boundaries of the judicial districts, was void because in conflict with § 33 of the act of April 12, 1900, so that no district courts have existed since that time, presents a formal Federal question, it is frivolous and without color of merit and therefore insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico under § 35 of that act.</p> <p>Where, at the request of the accused, the question of the voluntary nature of a written confession has been submitted to the jury no constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment has been asserted and denied and errors assigned on that subject do not present any Federal question or furnish any basis for the jurisdiction of this court.</p>

<p>CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.</p> <p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED' STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p> <p>The facts, which involve the construction of § 18 of the Immigration Act of 1903, are stated in the opinion.</p>

of the present case which, by the law of Ohio, is to be taken as indicating the point actually in judgment: “No action can be maintained in the courts of this State upon a cause of action for wrongful death occurring in another State, except where the- person wrongfully killed was a citizen of the State of Ohio.” 73 Ohio St. 1 .

Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907), is a landmark case that confirmed the supreme sovereignty of a state over its municipalities.

The Webster Coal and' Coke Company commenced an action at law in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, defendant, to recover damages for its alleged violation of the Interstate Commerce Act of February 4,1887, by discriminating against plaintiff in the allowance of freight rates on coal and coke. The defendant pleaded not guilty.

<p>Decided on authority of preceding case.</p>

In a civil action brought by the County of Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, in 1901, against Shoener, the present plaintiff, for the amount of certain fees alleged to have been collected by him, as the clerk of a Quarter Sessions Court, but withheld by him from the county treasury, a judgment was rendered in favor of the county for $18,245. That judgment was affirmed upon appeal by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on May 4th, 1903. Schuylkill County- v. Shoener, 205 Pa. St. 592.

Held: in respect to patent rights, that with few exceptions “any conditions which are not in their very nature illegal with regard to this kind of property, imposed by the patentee and agreed to by the licensee for the right to manufacture or use or sell the article, will be upheld by the courts,” it is unnecessary to consider how far a stipulation in a contract between the owner, of a patent right and the purchaser…

<p>Stare ’decisis is a wholesome doctrine, and, while not of universal application, is especially applicable to decisions affirming the validity of securities authorized by statute. Such decisions should he regarded as conclusive even as to those not strictly parties so as to prevent wrong • to innocent holders who purchased in reliance thereon.</p> <p>Where bonds of a county have been declared valid in a suit of which tire county had knowledge, and was heard although not a party thereto, while the question may not' be res judicata as against the county in a subsequent.suit in which it is a party, under the doctrine of stare decisis the question should_ no longer be considered an open one.</p> <p>The decisions of this court in Utter v.t Franklin, 172 U. S. 416, and Mwfpky v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95, adhered to under the doctrine of stare decisis.</p>

Upon a bill filed on behalf of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana entered a decree perpetually enjoining the petitioners herein and four' other ticket brokers, engaged in business in the city of New Orleans, from dealing in non-transferable round trip tickets issued at reduced rates for passage over the lines of railway of the complainant on account of the United Confederate Veterans’…

Held: in this case that the purchase having been made by the Secretary of War through the Division of Insular Affairs, the contract was on.behalf of the United States, notwithstanding the statement - that the price was to be paid from Philippine funds.

The appeals in the above numbers involve the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia (25 App. D. C. 582, sub nom. Waggaman v. Earle), which modified the decree of the Supreme Court confirming the-report of an auditor. The action was brought by the appellees against the administrator of Earle’s estate for an accounting, and after issue joined it was referred to an auditor to state the account upon the pleadings and proof placed before him.

Held: the. act was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as denying to the plaintiff the equal protection of the laws. . 127 Fed. Rep.- 206 . The case was taken by writ of érror to the Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judgment was affirmed for-the reason that the act was an illegal discrimination against patented articles. 145 Fed. Rep. 344 .

The facts, which involve the liability of certain banks in Kentucky to be assessed' for back taxes under the revenue law of the State of Kentucky,, are stated in the opinion.

The facts are stated in the opinion. In determining whether a Federal question was decided adversely to plaintiff in error, this court will act only upon the record of the court below; and of that record the petition for writ of error or the assignment of errors made in the state court - forms no. part.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284 (1907), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the seizure by the United States marshal in a copyright case of certain pictures under a writ of replevin did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.

Held: that from the evidence the jury might have found that the defendant was negligent. The- question whether the plaintiff herself was guilty of contributory negligence presents somewhat greater difficulty. There was room to stand between the two cars and escape contact with either. But the margin of safety was narrow and left little allowance for the infirmities of mankind.

The railroad company, plaintiff in error, brings the case here to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina, which granted a mandamus to compel the company to stop certain of its through trains running • between Jersey City, New Jersey, and Tampa, Florida, at a station on its road called Latta, in the State of South Carolina, near the boundary line between that State and the State of North Carolina.

This is a direct appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of North Dakota, sustaining the constitutionality of a statute of that State, requiring the manufacturers of mixed paints to label the ingredients composing them. The statute is as follows: “An Act to prevent the adulteration of and deception in the sale of white lead and mixed paints. “Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of-the State of North Dakota: 1.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion;</p>

<p>Where a ease is brought up from the Circuit Court on the ground that the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States is involved, the record must show that the question was raised for the consideration of the court'below; and, under § 10 of the act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 695, this rule applies to writs of error to review judgments of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.-</p> <p>A complaint, sufficiently clear to the mind of a person of rudimentary intelligence as to what it charges the defendant with, informs the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and a conviction thereunder is not in that respect without due process of law under the Philippine bill of rights.</p> <p>A motion for rehearing in the lower court on grounds set out in the assignment of error, but which was denied, cannot be relied on as properly-raising 'the Federal question necessary to give this court jurisdiction. McMillan v. Ferrum Mining Co., 197 IJ. S. 343.</p> <p>This court is not called upon to consider errors argued but not assigned. O’Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323.</p>

<p>ERROR' TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co., 207 U.S. 375 (1907), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a copyright holder is limited to one action to collect infringing copies and statutory damages because the act's remedies are penal and must be observed without construction. Additionally, the United States is not required to be a party to copyright infringement litigation.

. APPEALS PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OP KANSAS. The ultimate question ini these cases is the validity of Ordinance No. 402 of the city of Hutchinson, which took effect March 17, 1897, and by which the Water, Light and Gas Company claims to have, for the period of twenty years from such date, the exclusive right and privilege of supplying the city and its inhabitants with water, and with light, heat and power by means of electricity and gas.

Held: “An.application to enter may be received during the time allowed for appeal from a judgment of cancellation, subject to such appeal, but should not be made of record until the rights of the former entryman are finally determined.”- In the latter the Secretary said (p. 426): “The ant of May 14, 1880, 21 Stat. 140 , granting to a successful contestant the preference right of entry, and the act 'of July 26, 1892, 27…

' This case comes to us from a state court and our jurisdiction is invoked on the ground of a law of the State charged to work an impairment of the obligation of a contract.

Held: that an indictment for conspiracy to suborn perjury related to statements under § 2 of the Timber and Stone Act and not in respect to making of final proofs.

This writ of error brings up for review a, judgment of the Supreme • Court of the State of Vermont, affirming a judgment of the County Court of the County of Chittenden, adjudging the plaintiff in error, a corporation, hereinafter called the company, in contempt and fining it $3,000, for the collection of which it was ordered that execution should issue.

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying water rights of American Indian reservations. This doctrine was meant to clearly define the water rights of indigenous people in cases where the rights were not clear. The case was first argued on October 24, 1907, and a decision was reached January 6, 1908. This case set the standards for the United States government to acknowledge the vitality of indigenous water rights, and how rights to the water relate to the continuing survival and self-sufficiency of indigenous people.

<p>Appeal from the Court of Claims.</p>

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

<p>In error to the Supremo Court of the State of California.</p>

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

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

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

<p>In error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.</p>

<p>In error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin.</p>

<p>In error to the Court of Appeals, of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.</p>

<p>In error to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, State- of Missouri.</p>

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

<p>Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.</p>

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

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

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.</p>

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

<p>Appeals from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma Territory.</p>

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

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

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

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of- the United States for Porto Rico.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona.'</p>

<p>Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.</p>

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

<p>Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.</p>

<p>On a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.</p>

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

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