Volume 248 — United States Reports

Held: where the shipper labeled the product “inedible,” asserting it was not intended for food purposes, but retained no control of the use and declined to certify, as required by regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, that it was suitable for industrial purposes only, and in’capable of being used as food by man. 232 Fed. Rep. 694 , affirmed.

Held: That the libelant as a co-belligerent had a right to maintain the suit against the respondent, an 'alien enemy, and that jurisdiction should not be declined as an act of discretion. P. 21..

<p>The contention that a contract of agency to sell real estate was void because federal lands, under homestead entry, were included, presents no federal question where the state court found they were not included and the record supports the finding.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE, SUPREME COURT -.OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion. ..</p>

Held: where the purpose was to supply a roadbed for a trunk line, necessitating expenditure by the grantee. . P. 28. A'grant of a railroad right of way to a corporation, or to perpetual trustees holding for corporate uses, does not need words of succession to be perpetual. Ib.

<p>The right of individuals to sue a State depends entirely on the consent of that State;</p> <p>Whether an amendment of the Ohio constitution (Art. I, § 16, as amended 1912) gives such consent directly or requires legislation to put it into effect, held a question of local law, in no sense involving rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ■ of individuals suing the State for damage to property.</p> <p>■ The Fifth Amendment relates to federal action only.</p> <p>Upon error to a state court, this court, finding no substantial federal question, will dismiss, sua sponte, denying a motion to affirm. ■</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM T&É DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion. ,</p>

Held: That the obligation to secrecy was not confined to devices which wen/secret, or to inventions by the United States, but extended to such as were furnished — communicated with certainty — , and designated for secrecy, by the United States, even where the design was subsequently worked out by employees of the manufacturer. Pp. 43-48.

Held: (construing the Act of 1875, supra, and the Act of March 3, 1899, relating to rights of way in forest reservations,) (1) That the right of the railroad,- to the full 200 feet, was superior to the right of one who held under the mining claim until the land was thrown open and who then settled, and ultimately obtained patent, under the Homestead Law,' although his homestead right was initiated before the company…

Held: That technical error committed at the close of the trial in requiring plaintiff to elect whether it would rely on the first or second section of the act (whereupon it elected the second without asking to amend,) was harmless. P. 60* : (2) That instructions pointing out that §2 extends to attempts to monopolize were advantageous rather than harmful to plaintiff, P. 62.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Dividends of earnings by subsidiaries to a company holding all their stock and controlling them in conducting a single enterprise, the result of the transfers being merely that the main company became the holder of debts in'the business, previously due from one subsidiary to another, held not taxable as income under the Income Tax Act of October 3, 1913, where the earnings were accumulated before the taxing year and had practically become capital. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 330.</p>

<p>A chancery receiver has no authority to sue in the courts of a foreign jurisdiction to recover demands or property therein situated. Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322. P. 76.</p> <p>. Certain Alabama laws, relating to the administration of the assets of insolvent banking and other corporations (Code, 1907, §§ 3509, 3511,3512,3560), held not to vest title in the receiver so as to enable him to sue in the District Court in another atate without an ancillary appointment. P. 77.</p>

Held: in view of the circumstances at time of the enactment and its subsequent construction, that'the reservation included adjacent deep waters; and that a fish net constructed therein by defendant 600 feet beyond high tide line, and whose operation might materially reduce the supply of fish accessible to the Indians, was subject to abatement at the suit of the United States. P. 89. 240 Fed. Rep. 274 , affirmed.

Held: that A, upon entering B’s field with notice of the situation, had no equity to enjoin B as an infringer, but was estopped. P. 103. 226 Fed. Rep. 545 , affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion. The jurisdiction of the Interior Department respecting a homestead entry is not digested until' the patent is issued. [Citing Land Decisions.] ■ The doctrine of relation is inapplicable in the construction of the statute. Debts contracted after final entry but before patent are within the intention no less ' than the clear letter. Wallowa National' Bank v. Riley, 29 Oregon, 289; Watson v. Voorhees, *14 Kansas, -254; Doran v. Kennedy, 237 IT.

<p>•The territorial limits of Kentucky extend across the Ohio River- to low-water mark on the Indiana side, and no limitation on the power of Kentucky to protect fish within those limits by proper legislation resulted from the establishment of concurrent jurisdiction by the Virginia Compact.J</p>

The case is stated in- the opinion. Mr. Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, and Mr. Egbert S. Oakley, Assistant Attorney /General of the State of Minnesota, in a separate brief on behalf of that State, contended: It is for the state legislatures to prescribe how property is to t>e assessed and to provide ,the remedies by means of which the payment of- the taxes levied shall be accomplished.

Held: that there was no ground for implying a promise to compensate the owner; that his cause of action, if'any, was in tort; and that an action by him against the ■ United States was not within the jurisdiction of the District Court under the Tucker Act. Hill v. United States, 149TJ. S. 593, followed. United-States v. Lyndh, 188 U. 8.445,.and United Stales v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316 , distinguished.'' P. 128.

United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918), also referred to as the Spearin doctrine, is a 1918 United States Supreme Court decision. It remains one of the landmark construction law cases. The owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an owner provides to a general contractor. The contractor will not be liable to the owner for loss or damage which results solely from insufficiencies or defects in such information, plans and specifications. The Supreme Court wrote: "Where one agrees to do, for a fixed sum, a thing possible to be performed, he will not be excused or become entitled to additional compensation, because unforeseen difficulties are encountered.

Held: that an arrangement between the insurers and the shipper, whereby the former loaned to the latter the amount of a loss caused by the carrier’s negligence, to be repaid only in so far as the shipper recovered from the carrier, otherwise to operate in effect as absolute payment under the'policies, and whereby, as security, the shipper pledged such prospective recovery and .the bills of lading and agreed to prosecute…

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion-</p>

Held: that there was no ground to question the good faith of the legislature in enacting the .law under which the fees were charged. P. 164. Upon the question whether an inspection of gasoline served to promote public safety and protect against fraud and imposition, concurrent findings of state trial and supreme courts held conclusive.

Held: that the tax was not on the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce, but on the property in the county. P. 167. In an action to enforce the tax, if the valuation was excessive and burdensome to interstate commerce, the company, under. Nevada Rev. Laws,. 1912, § 3664, was entitled to prove the facts arid secure a reduction, but in this case it failed to do so. P. 168.

Held: that the father’s share of Seminole lands, subsequently allotted; did not descend to the mother or' the daughters. 53 Oklahoma, 728, reversed. The' case is stated in the opinion. *170 Mr. C. Dale'Wolfe, for plaintiff in error, submitted. Mr. Samuel Herrick, with .whom Mr. Jokn S. Severson was on the brief, for defendants in error.

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

<p>, A certificate under Jud. Code, § 239, Rule 37, must state the facts ■■ •pertinent to the questions certified, and this cannot be dispensed witfi by reference to the transcript and briefs in the Circuit Court of Appeals, which are no„part of the record in this court. , ■</p> <p>■A certifica^ which fails to comply with the'rule in this respect must be dismissed. ' .</p> <p>■Certificate dismissed. '</p>

Held: not to apply to advancements made to alien seamen shipping abroad on a foreign vessel, pursuant to contracts valid under the foreign law; and that such advancements may be allowed for in paying such seamen in a port of the United States.

The cases are stated in the opinion. A contract cannot be. given legal effect in a court of the United States which is contrary todhe declared public policy, of the United States; and this rule is not .affected by the fact that the objectionable parts of the contracts ■ have been éxecuted and that those remaining are innocuous. Hope v. Hope, 8 DeG. M. & G. 731; The Kensing-ton, 183 U. S/263. The policy of a State is evidenced by its constitution • and laws.

International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case, is a 1918 decision of the United States Supreme Court that enunciated the misappropriation doctrine of federal intellectual property common law: a "quasi-property right" may be created against others by one's investment of effort and money in an intangible thing, such as information or a design. The doctrine is highly controversial and criticized by many legal scholars, but it has its supporters. The INS decision recognized the doctrine of U.S.

Held: that this court had no jurisdiction' to review the judgment, because it was based on considerations of state law' sufficient to sustain it without reference to the federal questions. Writ of error to review 197 Alabama, 384, dismissed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. G. W. L. Smith for plaintiff in error. No brief filed for defendant in error.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

The case is stated in the opinion. Subsection 6 of § 51, Kentucky Civil Code,1 affords due process of law and is not violative of the Federal Constitution. "Due process of law” is not susceptible of any restricted definition, but can be adapted to the changing conditions of-society and business. Any legal proceeding which is consonant with natural justice in the light of present conditions affords due process of law. It does not require adherence to fixed rules of procedure.

Held: That the product was within the prohibition of § 12725. P. 302. (2) That, as so construed and applied, the statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 303.

Held: that the,contract was maritime, and that the California statute of frauds' Requiring a writing for agreements not to be performed within a year was therefore inapplicable in defense. P. 312. 235 Fed. Rep. 385 , affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: In view of the conditions giving rise to the act and the report of the Senate Committee, that the .practice of collecting the price at destination, as a condition to delivery, was the evil aimed at. P. 327. (2) That such collections when made by an agent of the seller constituted the offense no less than when made by a common, carrier or its agent. .

Held: that, under the law of New Jersey, there was a grant of the fee, subject to a rent charge, and that the lands were taxable against the grantee and its assigns as owners. P. 331. 208 Fed. Rep. 854 , affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. John M. Enright, with whom Mr. Merritt Lane was on the briefs, for appellant.

Held: that an agreement that C would furnish a suitable foundation so as not to delay G was imported, which was not dependent on C’s fault or the rights of the Government under the main con *335 tract, and that G was not confined to the remedy of time extension and reimbursement, but could treat the contract as broken and sue for the breach. P. 340.

Held: That a decision sustaining a demurrer was based upon á con *350 struction of § 215 of the Criminal Code, and was reviewable under the Criminal Appeals Act. (2) That the indictment charged a “scheme or artifice to defraud,” etc., within the meaning of said § 215. Reversed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Kearful for the United States.

Held: that there was no cause of action; for a sovereignty,' on general principles, is not liable for injuries resulting from mob violence or failure to keep the peace; and neither the wrong of the Treasurer nor any duty under the lease created such liability here. P. 357.

Held: consistent with the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to a local corporation, having the usual powers of a board of trade, which weighed grain- and issued weight certificates, for a charge, at the request of its members; (2) not a burden on interstate commerce as applied to grain received from or shipped to points without the State; (3) not' superseded by or in conflict…

<p>Under § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended September 6, 1916, a judgment of a state court based on a construction, but not denying the validity, of a treaty, is not reviewable by writ of error from this court.</p>

Held: a legitimate effect of-a valid exercise of the police power, not impairing the obligation of the contract or depriving the consumer of property without due process. 145 Georgia, 658, affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. R. Douglas Feagin and Mr. Rudolph S. Wimberly, for plaintiff in error, submitted. Mr Oliver C. Hancock was also on the brief.

Held: that the carrier was relieved of the obligation to carry and need not secure transportation by other means or. refund the prepaid freight. P. 385.

Held: that the carrier was relieved of the duty to transport the goods and need not refund the prepaid freight. Allanwilde Transport Corp. v. Vacuum Oil Co., ante, 377. P. 391. 253’Fed. Rep. 182, affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. William C. Cannon, with whom Mr. R. L. von Bernuth was on the brief, for petitioner: Freight is not earned.until the vessel "breaks ground” or starts upon her voyage.

Held: that the carrier was not obliged to'refund the freight. Allanwilde Transport Corporation v. Vacuum Oil Co., ante, 377; International Paper Co. v. The Grade D. Chambers, ante, 387. P. 398. The case is stated in the opinion.

Held: that the tract was subject to state taxation in the hands of the grantees, for by taking their title under the Act of 1908 they took subject to its conditions and policy. P. 402. The Act of May 27, 1908, supra, granting the right of alienation, invades no right of the Indian in making the exercise of that right a surrender of the exemption from taxation. P. 404.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that the condition of the Texas Pacific grant was inapplicable to the grant made by the same act to the Southern Pacific. 229 Fed. Rep. 717 , affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Fred Beall for appellant. Mr. J. Mack Love was also on the brief. - Mr. Charles R. Lewers and Mr. Wm. F. Herrin for ap-pellees.

Held: -that the District Court had jurisdiction and might properly proceed with the case, and that its holding to that effect did not involve the validity or construction of a treaty. P. 419. Writ of error dismissed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Frank G.'Morris for plaintiff in error: .

Held: That the Amendment applied, not being limited to cases of importation for commercial purposes; (2) that, as so construed, it is within the power of Congress under the commerce clause. P. 427. Reversed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, with whom Mr. Charles S. Coffey was on the brief, for the United States. No appearance for defendant in error.

Held: That the latter declaration must be construed as referring only to trips wholly on the franchise lines (p. 435); (2) that if its enforcement would result in a deficit to the company, as alleged, the ordinance violated the due process clause.

<p>EEEOE TO THE CIECUIT COUET OF APPEALS FOE THE NINTH CIECUIT. •</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: properly refused, since the apprehension of irreparable loss appeared fanciful and all objections against the act could be raised in the condemnation proceedings. Id. Affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. ..

<p>Under Jud. Code, § 237, as amended September 6,1916, a writ oferror does not lie to a judgment of a state court holding the state Workmen’s Compensation Law inapplicable to a case of personal injuries governed by the maritime law and holding the Act of October 6, 1917, which changes the rule in that regard, inapplicable retrospectively.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: within the police power; and that it does not deprive a citizen and resident of another State, desiring to act as such broker in South Carolina, of liberty or property, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, or discriminate against him, in violation of § 2 of Article IV of the Constitution. Pp. 467-8. 1. 04 S. Car. 501 , affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion.

Held: that the exchange of services may extend to those rendered by a telegraph company for a railway company beyond the line of the railway and those rendered by the railway company for the telegraph company beyond the line of the telegraph; and may be arranged upon the basis of reciprocal advantage, without regard to the rates chargeable fo” similar.services to the public. P. 474. 176 App. Div. 910 ; 242 Fed.

The case is stated in the opinion. The right to tax to the Bank of California the Mission State Bank shares is implied by the California Supreme Court solely upon the ground that its existence is essential to an exertion of the power to tax the Mills National Bank shares. The court does not deny that the shares of the state bank are personal property; nor does it find any express authority in the federal statute permitting the State to tax them to the Bank of California.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.</p>

Held: where storage of those substances in tanks-was necessary to a company’s business of selling them, and the plant could not be moved without expense and loss of profits. The fact that tire'tanks were moved to their present position at the city’s request did not import a contract not to require further removal for the public welfare; nor would such a contract be effective.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia.</p>

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

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

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.-</p>

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

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.</p>

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

<p>Error to the Surrogate’s Court, New York County, State of New York.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.</p>

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

<p>Appeal from the District Court of thé United States for the District of Arizona.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of- Appeals of the State of Georgia.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Superior Court of the State of Massáchusetts.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, of the State of California.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court' of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.</p>

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

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

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

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

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky.</p>

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

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.</p>

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

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

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia.</p>

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

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

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p>

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

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

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.</p>

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

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p>

<p>Certiorari to'the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.</p>

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

<p>Error to the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fifth Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas.</p>

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

<p>Appeal from and in error to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme'Court of the State of South Carolina.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme^ Court of the State of Delaware.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland.</p>

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

<p>Error, to the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota.</p>

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

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

<p>Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota.</p>

<p>Error to the Appellate Court for the Second District of the State of Illinois.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.</p>

<p>Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.</p>

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

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

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia.</p>