Volume 238 — United States Reports

The facts, which involve the validity of orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission establishing rates on coal and also requiring the carrier to furnish certain switching facilities to connecting carriers, are stated in the opinion.

Held: in harmony with the general current of authority, that a debt is discharged even though not scheduled. . . . But it will be seen that under the act of 1867 debts not scheduled were not excepted from the operation of discharge, while under the bankruptcy act of 1898 they are. . . .

The facts, which involve the constitutionality of the reciprocal demurrage law of Kansas of 1905 under the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the validity under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution of a conviction for selling liquor without a state license, and the construction of the Wilson Act of 1890, are stated in the opinion. Section 15 of the Statute of Pennsylvania, commonly called the Brooks Law, applies as the sale took place in Pennsylvania. The sale must be made in the county where the defendant' holds a license and in the regular course of business.

The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the due process and impairment of contract provisions of the Federal Constitution of a statute of Missouri requiring owners of railroads to afford outlets for water across their rights of way, are stated urthe opinions The Act of Missouri, of March 14, 1907, is an ex post facto law; it also impairs the contract between State and railroad. The act takes property without due process or compensation.

Held: upon a construction of the ¡applicable statutes, that the prosecution upon the charges contained in the indictment was limited by the section thus invoked, and not by § 1044, Rev. Stat.

Held: knew or should have known and had reasonable cause to believe, that a preference was thereby given and intended, and knew or should have known that Steeie Miller & Company was at said time insolvent, and that the effect of the mailing, the receipt and acceptance and substitution of said bills of lading was to enable the said Scheuch & Company or the said Bank of Mulhouse to obtain payment of its said draft; and your…

The facts, which involve the validity of a conviction and sentence in the Philippine Islands and the extent to which the conviction van be- reviewed on habeas corpus, are stated in the opinion. ' This court has jurisdiction of this appeal. The Supreme Court discussed and decided the cause and released the prisoner upon a misapprehension and an unwarranted assumption as to what took place in the trial court.

Held: under the provisions of title 'National Banks/ Revised Statutes, to-enjoin the Comptroller of the Currency, or any receiver acting under his direction, as provided by said title.

The facts, which involve the title to land in Hawaii, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court to review judgments of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia under § 250, Judicial Code, are stated in the opinion.

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. '</p> <p>The facts, which, involve the constitutionality under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute of Pennsylvania taxing the gross premiums on life insurance policies issued within the State, are stated in the opinion.</p> <p>The assumption by a state court of a fact not in evidence as a basis for decision is a denial of due process of law.</p> <p>The tax sought to be collected is a property tax, and as such cannot be collected. .</p> <p>The construction given to the act of 1895 deprives, the society of its property without due process of law.</p> <p>A State may not impose on a foreign corporation seeking to enter its borders such conditions as deprive it of rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.</p> <p>In support of these contentions, see AUgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436; Atchison (fee. Ry. v. O'Connor, 223 U. S. 280; Atlantic & Pac. Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160; Chi., B. & Q. R. R. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226; Pennsylvania v. Rulings, 129 Pa. St. 317; Pennsylvania v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 104 Pa. St. 89; Pennsylvania v. Standard Oil Co., 101 Pa. St. 119; Pennsylvania v. Westinghouse Co., 151 Pa. St. 265; Del., ■ Lack. & West. R. R. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U. S. 341; Fargo v. Hart, 193 IT. S. 490; Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 IT. S. 276; Firemen's Association v. Scranton, 217 Pa. St. 585; Frawley v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co., 124 Fed. Rep. 259; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 IT. S. 196; Harrison v. St. L. & San Fran. R. R., 232 IT.- S. 318; Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth, 87 Pa. St. 173; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Louisville Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, 188 IT. S. 385; Ludwig v. West. Un. Tel. Co., 216 IT. S. 146; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Girard Life Ins. Co., 100 Pa. St. 172; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 234 IT. S. 149; Old Wayne Life Ass'n v. McDonough, 204 IT. S. 8; Postal Tel. Co. v. Taylor, 192 IT. S. 64; West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 IT. S. 1; West. Un. Tel. Co. vj Frear, 216 Fed. Rep. 199; see also Acts of April 11, 1868, Pennsylvania cited,'P. L. 83; 1873, P. L. 20; 1874, P. L. 109; 1879, P. L. 112; 1889, P. L. 420;. 1895, P. L. 408; 1911, P. L. 607.</p>

The facts, which involve questions of title to land in Muskogee Creek Nation Indian Territory awarded by the townsite commission and the construction of the laws of descent applicable to the property, are . stated in the opinion.

The facts, which involve the validity under the impairment of obligation provision of, and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to, the Federal Constitution of an ordinance of the City of Des Moines fixing ninety cents as the price of gas in that city, are stated in the Opinion. At the time in question the City of Des Moines had the power to establish reasonable rates to be charged by appellant for gas sold and distributed in the city.

Held: quoting constructions of the Supreme Court of Michigan, that the legislation involved authorized the making of a contract between the City and the Street Railway-Company, which the City undertook to abrogate by subsequent ordinances; and the fact that the legislature had not attempted to interfere with the rights of the Street Railway Company in Detroit was stated, and the extent of its power to interfere with the…

<p>ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.</p> <p>The facts, which involve the question of whether the plaintiff in error had been properly served with process so as to give the District Court jurisdiction of the. action, are stated in the opinion,</p>

The facts, which involve the construction and application of § 2569a of the statutes of Kentucky in regard to local option and of the Act of Congress known as the Webb-Kenyon Law, are stated in the opinion. A citizen of Kentucky has the constitutional right to possess and use intoxicating liquors. The cases in the Court of Appeals of Kentucky upheld this right as well as the cases in other States.

Held: in fixing the equitable proportion of West Virginia, that her part of the principal should be placed on a three per cent, basis as of July 1,1891, with three per cent, per annum interest from that date, and with four per cent, per annum interest from July 1,1861, to July 1,1891, making a total of interest to July 1, 1915, of $8,178,307.22 and the total of the debt $12,393,929.50.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ARKANSAS;</p> <p>The facts, which involve the construction and application of the Safety Appliance Act in an action for injuries based upon the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.</p> <p>The cause should have been removed to the Federal court. Gains'v. Fuentes, 92U. S. 10,17; Gavinv. Vance, 33 Fed. Rep. 84, 85; In re Woodbury, 98 Fed. Rep. 833, 837; Harrison v. St. L. & S. F. R. R., 232 U. S. 318; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 327; Reagan v. Farmers L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 391; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 279; Sharon v. Terry, 33 Fed. Rep. 337, 355; State v. Coosaw Mining Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 804, 810; Van Brimmer v. Tex. & Pac. Ry., 190 Fed. Rep. 394, 399.</p> <p>The coal car had been withdrawn from commerce. C. & N. W. R. R. v. United States, 168 Fed. Rep. 236; Delk v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry., 220 U. S. 580, 585; Erie R. R. v. United States, 197 Fed. Rep. 287; III. Cent. R. R. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473; Nor. Car. R. R. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248; Siegel v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R., 178 Fed. Rep. 873; Southern Ry. v. Snyder, 187 Fed. Rep. 492, 497; Taylor v. Bos. & Me. R. R., 188 Massachusetts, 390; United States v. Erie Ry., 212 Fed. Rep. 853, 855; United States v. Louis. & Nash. R..R., 156 Fed. Rep. 195; United States v. Rio Grande & W. Ry., 174 Fed. Rep. 399.</p> <p>The absence of the coupler was not the proximate cause of injury. A'., T. & S. F. Ry. v. Calhoun, 213 U. S. 1; Beach on Con. Neg. (2d ed.), § 31; Broom’s Legal Maxims, | 215; C., B. & Q. Ry. v. Richardson, 202 Fed. Rep. 836; Cooley on Torts, pp. 68-71; Cole v. G. S. & L. Soc., 124 Fed. Rep. 113.; 3 Elliott on Railroads (Original ed.), § 1310; Gill v. Railway Co., 160 Fed. Rep. 260; Gilbert v. Railway Co., 128 Fed. Rep. 529; Henry v. St. L., K. C: & N. Ry., 76 Missouri, 288, 293-4; Logan v. Railway Co., 129 S. W. Rep. 575; Lyddy v. Louis. & Nash. R. R., 197 Fed. Rep. 524; Midland Valley Ry. v. Fulgham, 181 Fed. Rep. 91; Pennell v. Penna. R. R., 231 U. S. 675, 679; Ray’s Negligence of Imposed Duties (Personal), 133; Shearman & Redfield on Negligence (5th ed.), §§ 25 and fob; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. v. McWhirter, 229 ü. S. 265, 280, 282; 1 Thompson’s Comm, on Neg. (2d ed.), § 45; Webb’s Pollock on Torts (Enlarged Am. ed.), 29; Watson on Damages for Pers. Inj., §§ 33-35; 1 White on Pers. Inj., §§ 20-39.</p> <p>Deceased’s negligence was cause of his death — assumption of risk. Butler v. Frazee, 211 U. S. 459, 465; Gibson v. Ches. & Ohio R. R., 215 Fed. Rep. 27; Ches. & Ohio R. R. V. Hennessey, 96 Fed. Rep. 713; C., R. I. & P. Ry. v. Shipp, 174 Fed. Rep. 353; C., R. I. & P. Ry. v. Jackson, 178 Fed. Rep. 832; Erie Ry. v. Kane, 118 Fed. Rep. 223; Int. & Gr. N. Ry. v. Story, 62 S. W. Rep. 130; III. Cent. R. R. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473; III. Cent. R. R. y. Hart, 176 Fed. Rep. 245-247; Jackson v. Mo. Pac. Ry., 104 Missouri, 448; Riley v. Louis. & Nash. R. R., 133 Fed. Rep. 904; Schweig v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 216 Fed. Rep. 750; Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 II. S. 492; Southern Ry. v. Crockett, 234 U. S. 725; St. L. & S. F. R. R. v. Dewees, 153 Fed. Rep. 56; Suttle v. C. O. & G. Ry., 144 Fed. Rep. 668; Tex. & Pac. Ry. v. Bousman, 212 IT. S. 536, 541.</p> <p>The members of both crews were fellow servants. Allen v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 174 Fed. Rep. 779; Beutler v. Grand Trunk Ry., 224 IT. S. 85; III:-Cent. R. R. v. Behrens, 233 IT. S. 473.</p> <p>With a safe and dangerous course open to him, deceased selected the dangerous one. Hirsch v. F. B. Bread Co., 150 Mo. App. 162, 174; Moore v.. Railway Co., 146 Missouri, 572, 582; Smith v. F. N. Box Co., 193 Missouri, 716.</p> <p>Plaintiff, as the wife of deceased, was an incompetent witness. Cash v. Kirkham, 67 Arkansas, 318; Dé Beaumont v. Webster, 71TFed. Rep. 226; De Roux v. Girard', 112 Fed. Rep. 89; Jarvis v. Andrews, 80 Arkansas, 277; Luken v. L. &’M. S. Ry.,248 Illinois, ,377; Morris v. Norton, 75 Fed. Rep. 912; Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Watson, 30 Fed. Rep. ,653; Nunely v. Becker, 52 Arkansas, 520; Page v. Burnstine, 102 IT. S. 664; Park v. Lock, 48 Arkansas, 133; Rainwater v. Harris, 51 Arkansas, 401; Rush v. Prescott & N. W. Ry., 83 Arkansas, 210; Williams v. Waldon, 82 Arkansas,' 138; Wilson v. Edwards, 79 Arkansas, 69; Whitney v. Fox, 166 IT. S. 664.</p> <p>The testimony of witnesses Daniel and Woalum was also incompetent. Gutridge v. Mo. Pac. Ry., 94 Missouri, 468,472-3.</p> <p>Defendant's motion to require plaintiff to elect on which cause .of action she would prosecute should have been sustained. Thornton, Fed. Empl. Acts (2d ed.), § 104; Andrews v. Hartford &c. Ry., 34 Connecticut, 57; American R. R. v. Berch, 224 U. S. 547; Casey v. Transit Co., 205 Missouri, 721; Cooley on Torts (2d ed.), 309; Daubert v. Western Meat Co., 139 California, 480; Edwards v. Gim- . bel, 202 Pa. St. 30; 3 Elliott on Railroads, § 1375; Fulgham v. Midland Valley Ry., 167 Fed. Rep. 660; Fithian v. Railway Co., 188 Fed. Rep. 842; Gulf, C. & S. Ry. v. Mc-Ginnis, 228 U. S. 173; Garrett v. Railway Co., 197 Fed. Rep. 715; Hendrix v. Am. Exp. Co., 138 Kentucky, 704, 709; Hartigan v. So. Pac: Ry., 86 California, 142; Little-wood v. Mayor of New York, 89 N. Y. 24; Legg v. Britton, 64 Vermont, 652; Mich. Cent. R. R. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59; Munro v. Dredging Co., 84 California, 515; McCafferty v. Penna. Ry., 193 Pa. St. 339; Si. L., I. M. & So. Ry. v.,Hesterley, 228 U. S. 702; Strode v. St. L. Transit Co., 197 Missouri, 616; Shearman & Redfield on Neg. (5th ed.), § 140; Walsh v. Railway Co., 173 Fed. Rep. 494.</p> <p>Intestate was engaged in an act of interstate commerce. North Carolina R. R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 383; Pedersen v. Del., Lack. & W. R. R., 229 U. S. 149; St. L., S. F. & T. Ry. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 157; Chicago Jet. Ry. v. King, 169 Fed. Rep. 372.</p> <p>The defective coal car was engaged at the time of the injury in interstate commerce. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Voelker, 129 Fed. Rep. 522; Southern Ry. v. United States, 222 U. S. 100; Delk v. St. L. & S. F. R. R., 220 U. S. 580; Erie R. R. v. Russell, 106 C. C. A. 160; Johnson v. So. Pac. Co., 196 U. S. 1.</p> <p>The coal car in question did not comply with the provisions of the Act of 1893 or of 1910.</p> <p>As to the Act of 1910 see Sen. Rep. No. 250, 61st Cong. 2d sess., p. 3; St. L., I. M. & So. By. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281.</p> <p>The intestate was not guilty of contributory negligence and did not assume risk of employment. See Employers’ Liability Act of 1908, 35 Stat. 65.</p> <p>■ Action for loss of service and pain and suffering of intestate survived to his personal representative under the amendment of 1910, and see Mich. Cent. By. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59; St. L. & S. F. B. B. v. Conarty, 106 Arkansas, 421.</p> <p>The defective condition of the coal car was proximate and primal cause of intestate’s death, and the evidence of defendant in error was competent. St. L. & S. F. B. B. v. Fithian, 106 Arkansas, 491; Giles v. Wright, 26 Arkansas, 476; United States v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37; 1 Greenleaf, §§ 348-350.</p> <p>The evidence of Woolum and Daniels was also competent. 1 Greenleaf, 14th ed., § 440; Eastern Transp. Line v. Hope, 95 U. S. 297; West. Coal Co. v. Berberich, 36 C. C. A. 368; Washington v. Baillie, 92 U. S. 331; Union Ins. Co. v. Smith, 124 U. S. 405; Tex. &Pac. By. v. Watson, 190 IT. S. 23.</p> <p>The trial court had jurisdiction. 36 Stat. 1094; Mondou v. N. Y., N. H. & H. By., 223 IT. S. 1; Southern By. v. Smith, 205 Fed. Rep. 360; Yazoo & M. V. B. B. v. Wright, 207 Fed. Rep. 281.</p> <p>The instructions of the trial court as given were correct. Mich. Cent. By. v. Vreeland, 227 IT. S. 59.</p> <p>The writ of error was improperly granted, no Federal question was raised that has not been adjudicated. Mich. Cent. By. v. Vreeland, 227 IT. S. 59; Delk v. St. L. & S. F. B. B., 220 U.' S. 580; Johnson v. So. Pac. Co., 196 IT. S. 1; St. L., I. M. & So. By. v. Taylor, 210 IT. S. 281.</p>

The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment recovered in the state court by a shipper of coal for damages sustained through unlawful discrimination by the carrier in allowing and paying rebates to other shippers, are stated in the opinion. The judgment below should be reversed. See Louisiana R. R. Comm. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry., 229 U. S. 336; Mitchell Coal Co. v. Penna. R. R., 230 U. S. 247; Ohio R. R. Comm. v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101; Penna.

Held: that: A brakeman on an intrastate car in a train consisting of both intrastate and interstate cars who is engaged in cutting out the intrastate car so that the train may proceed on its interstate business, is while so doing engaged and employed in interstate commerce and may maintain an action under the Employers’ Liability Act. 158 App. Div. 891 , affirmed.

<p>The Conformity Act — Rev. Stat., § 914 — does not apply to the power of the court to inquire into the conduct of jurors. The courts of each jurisdiction, state and Federal, must be in a position to adopt and enforce their own self-preserving rules.</p> <p>While Rev. Stat., § 914, does not apply in this case, this court recognizes the same policy that has been declared by that court and by the courts in England and in most of the States of the Union, that the testimony of a juror may not be received to prove the misconduct of himself or his colleagues in reaching a verdict.</p> <p>The rule, endorsed by this court in this ease, that a juror may not impeach his own verdict is based upon controlling considerations of public policy which in such cases chooses the lesser of two evils.</p> <p>While jurors should not reach a verdict by lot, or, as in this case, by averaging the amounts suggested by each, the verdict may not be set aside on the testimony of a juror as to his misconduct or that of his colleagues.</p> <p>2Ó6 Fed. Rep. 263, affirmed.</p>

The facts, which involve the construction and application of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the validity of a verdict and judgment in an action thereunder against the carrier, are stated in the opinion. It was competent for defendant to show violation of its rules by plaintiff at the time of his injury. The Supreme Court of North Carolina committed error in confining the trial to the single issue of damages.

The facts, which involve the liability of a carrier for failure to furnish cars to a coal mining corporation located on its line, are stated in the opinion. The case should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction; Congress has preempted the field. The reasonableness of carriers’ practices is for the Commission, especially in cases of discrimination, or of inadequacy of carriers’ total car supply.

■The facts, which involve the construction and applica- . tion of the Curtis Act and the Original Creek Agreement and the disposition of an allotment made by the Dawes Commission to the heirs of a Creek Indian after the death of the allottee, are stated in the opinion.

The facts, which, involve the validity of a verdict and judgment for damages recovered by an employe of a carrier, are stated in the opinion.

The- facts, which involve the title to property conveyed by a United States patent and the construction of such patent and the amount of land conveyed thereby, are stated in the opinion. . The action is possessory, and no question of title is involved, or can be decided, because not in issue.

The facts, which involve the power of a State Railroad Commission to require a carrier to erect weighing scales at stations, and the validity of an order of the Minnesota Railroad and Warehouse Commission, are stated in the opinion. -, The order' of the Commission requiring the railway company to install the scales in question for the convenience of stockmen and farmers in connection'with private transactions deprives the railway company of its property without due process…

Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915), was a United States Supreme Court decision that found certain grandfather clause exemptions to literacy tests for voting rights to be unconstitutional. Though these grandfather clauses were superficially race-neutral, they were designed to protect the voting rights of illiterate white voters while disenfranchising black voters. The 1870 ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution barred each state from denying the right to vote on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". In response, several Southern states, including Oklahoma, established constitutional provisions designed to effectively disenfranchise African Americans voters without explicitly violating the Fifteenth Amendment.

Myers v. Anderson, 238 U.S. 368 (1915), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held Maryland state officials liable for civil damages for enforcing a grandfather clause. Grandfather clauses exempted voters from requirements such as poll taxes and literacy tests if their grandfathers had been registered voters, and were largely designed to exempt white voters from restrictions intended to disenfranchise former black slaves and their descendants. Despite striking down the Maryland law as discriminatory, the court noted that economic discrimination in the form of property requirements should be presumed to be "free from constitutional objection." Myers was a companion case to Guinn v.

The facts, which involve the construction and application of § 5508, Rev. Stat., and § 19 of the Penal Code, are stated in the opinion. Congress may, by appropriate legislation, protect any right or privilege arising from, created or secured by, or dependent upon, the Constitution of the United States.

This writ brings up for review a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon decreeing the forfeiture of the unsold portion of certain lands granted by Congress to certain railroad companies and quieting the title of the United States, thereto.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court to review the judgments of the state court under § 237, Judicial Code, are stated in the opinion. The writ of error should not be dismissed. The judgment below should not be affirmed off motion. The writ of error was sued out in good faitja and the grounds asserted in support of it are not frivolous.. The questions raised are serious, important and far-reaching.

Held: in cases not materially different in this respect. Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343 ; Cook v. Marshall County, 196 U. S. 261 ; Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192 , 199-201.

The facts, which involve the right of a shipper of coal to recover damages from a carrier for alleged inadequate and discriminatory car service, and the construction of the statute of Pennsylvania and of the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act applicable thereto, are . stated in the opinion. The state court was without jurisdiction to entertain action. Cars for coal sold f. o. b. mines are vehicles of interstate transportation.

The report and order of the Commission awarding reparation discloses sufficient findings of fact on which the award is based. The measure of damages is proper. The Commission’s report on rehearing is based on report of original hearing. There was no error in the trial court, but the Circuit Court of Appeals erred. Allen v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 16 I. C. C. 293; Baer Bros. v. Denver & R. G. R. R., 233 TÍ. S. 479; Burton v. Driggs, 87 XJ.

The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute of Arkansas relating to telephone companies, are stated in the opinion. As to the construction of the Act of March 31,1885, see Cumberland Telephone Co. v. Kelly, 160 Fed. Rep. 316; Pacific Telephone Co. v. Railway, 66 Maryland, 399; Plummer v. Hattelstead, 117 N. W. Rep. 680; Smith v. Telephone Co., 158 S. W. Rep. 980; Hockett v. State, 105 Indiana, 250; Cent. Union Tel.

Tn 1911 the State of Wisconsin passed a statute imposing a penalty upon Sleeping Car Companies if, — the lower berth being occupied — the upper berth was let down before it was actually engaged. Suit was brought against the plaintiff in error for the recovery of the statutory penalty, based on the fact that on the night of August 11, 1911, James T. Hall boarded the Company’s sleeping car at Portage, Wisconsin.

Held: or sold under judicial process, the carrier cannot thereafter be held responsible for yielding to what must then be treated as vis major. In the present case the carrier, in recognition of its duty to give notice, instructed the agent at Madisonville to notify Ford of the pendency of the suit.

The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment for damages for personal injury in ah action under the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

The appellee was chartered not only as a Railroad Company, but was authorized to mine and sell coal. The Commodity Clause of the Hepburn Act of 1906 made it unlawful for the carrier to haul its own coal beyond the limits of the State of Pennsylvania, and desiring to continue the business of mining and transporting coal, the Railroad adopted a plan under which it was to make a sale and divest itself of title to the coal, at the mouth of the mines, before transportation began.

This was an action of ejectment brought by the United States against the Hiawassee Lumber Company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina to recover a tract of land situate in Clay County, in that District and State, described as follows: “Grant No. three thousand, one hundred and ten, containing five thousand acres, and beginning at a chestnut on the top of Tusquita Ball [Tusquita Bald] on the Mason County Line, and runs east…

Held: in this case, to have failed in-«ase of the death of the beneficiary • within the period specified both' as to the stock and the dividends and that the trustee was bound to return the stock to the donor and that it did not pass to the heirs or personal representative of the beneficiary. ln/construing(a declaration of trust, in this case in form of a Utter and phrased in simple language, the guiding principle is to…

Held: that the owner was not entitled to an instruction that the jury must exclude from their estimate of market value subsequent to the construction any enhancement from the facilities furnished to the property by the structure *587 itself, in the absence of any direct evidence as to whether any such enhancement exists.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict and judgment for damages for personal injuries obtained in an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion. No Federal question arises in the denial of the petition for removal. There was no denial of any Federal question or immunity in the refusal to direct a verdict for plaintiff in error. There was no denial of any Federal right in refusing instructions.

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

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

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

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

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

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington.</p>

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

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.</p>

<p>In error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota. -</p>

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

<p>In error to the United States Circuit Cotut of Appeals for the Third Circuit.</p>

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

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

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

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

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.</p>

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

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