CONCEALMENT. Provisions relating to particular subjects. See "Carriers," $ 1; "Commerce,” 8.1;. "Cor- *Master and Servant,” § 1; "Telegraphs and Telephones," § 1. § 1. Construction, operation, and en- forcement of constitutional pro- visions. An educational corporation owning lands ex- empt from taxation by the state held entitled provements thereon made by its lessees.-Uni- *For a court of first instance to declare un- constitutional an act of Congress is an exer- cise of judical power which, in cases where no great and immediate financial loss is threaten- al Mercantile Marine Co. v. Stranahan (C. C.) 428; Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Same, Id. The federal courts have power to declare an act of the state or federal Legislature invalid when shown to be repugnant to the Constitution. -Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. C.) 756. § 2. Distribution of governmental pow- ers and functions. 104, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. Stat. 847 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 599], authorizing carriers to establish rates bind- power.- United States v. Standard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305. *The police power held not affected by the exercise of a right to resort to a federal court given by the law of the land.-Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama § 4. Obligation of contracts. reasonable doubt on an accounting.-Great protection of his constitutional rights is not proceeding upon an erroneous construction of the statute, and that properly construed it is not unconstitutional.-University of the South v. Jetton (C. C.) 182. chise had not surrendered its right to fix rates, the subsequent passage of an ordinance estab- lishing rates lower than those specified in the phone company's contract franchise rights.- Los Angeles (C. C.) 554. The state, after foreign corporations have pur- the faith of statutes of the state, cannot im- pair the enjoyment of the vested rights thus Interstate Commerce Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104 acquired to do such business by the exercise of 24 Stat. 379 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154) its prerogative to prevent foreign corporations and Elkins' Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat from doing business in the state. -Seaboard Air | 847 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 599), hell Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Ala- not unconstitutional on the ground that in re bama (C. C.) 792. quiring all shippers to pay the published rates o Where foreign corporations have purchased transportation it deprives them of a natura and leased domestic railroads on the faith of right to make private contract in respect there the statutes of the state, the state cannot pre- to and therefor of their property without du vent such corporation from doing domestic busi- process of law.-United States v. Standard Oi ness in the state.-Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Company (D. C.) 305. Railroad Commission of Alabama (O. C.) 792. $ 5. Equal protection of laws. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS. Section 4 of the North Carolina Act of 1907 (Pub. Laws 1907, p. 250, c. 216), fixing rates See “Trusts,” $ 1. of passenger fare on the railroads of the state, which imposes a penalty of $500 for each violation of the act, is unconstitutional as denying CONTEMPT. to the railroad companies the equal protection of the laws.Ex parte Wood (C. C.) 190. In bankruptcy proceedings, see "Bankruptcy, A city ordinance fixing maximum telephone $ 5. § rates which one company was authorized to Of officer in removing property from posses charge at an amount lower than the rates an- sion of receiver in bankruptcy, see “Bank other company was authorized to charge held ruptcy," § 1. not a denial of the equal protection of the laws Violation of injunction, see "Injunction," $ 4. to the first company.-Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los Angeles (C. C.) 554. § 1. Acts or conduct constituting con The mere fact that different rates were pre tempt of court. scribed for city ordinances for two companies *If a person has actual knowledge of an or operating telephone lines within the city did der of court, he is liable for the consequence not of itself establish unlawful discrimination of violating it, although he has not been formal against either.-Home Telephone & Telegraph ly served with it.-In re Wilk (D. C.) 943. Co. v. City of Los Angeles (c. C.) 554. $ 2. Power to punish and proceeding *Const. U. S. Amend. 14, annuls a statute therefor. providing that the bringing of suit by a foreign *The information in a proceeding for con corporation in a federal court in a state shall tempt is sufficient if it clearly apprises the de forfeit its right to do business in the state.-fendant of the nature of the charge agains Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Com-him, and no particular form is essential.- Aaro: mission of Alabama (C. C.) 792. v. United States (C. C. A.) 833. § 6. Due process of law. *Where a party charged with contempt ap Section 9 of the immigration act of March 3, pears and goes to trial without objection to th 1903 (32 Stat. 1215, c. 1012 [U. S. Comp. St. sufficiency of the information and affidavits b: Supp. 1905, p. 2791), prohibiting the bringing appropriate motion, such objection is waived. in of aliens afflicted with disease, and imposing Aaron v. United States (C. C. A.) 833. penalties for its violation to be enforced by withholding clearance to the vessel, is both in itself and in the practice adopted thereunder consti CONTINUANCE. tutional and a necessary sanitary regulation.International Mercantile Marine Co. v. Strana- Of proceeding to restrain enforcement of rail han (C. C.) 428; Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. road rates, see "Carriers," § 1. Same, Id. Where a city had charter power to fix telephone rates, an ordinance fixing the rates a CONTRACTS. telephone company was authorized to charge was not unconstitutional as depriving the com- Impairing obligation, see "Constitutional Law, pany of its property without due process of § 4. law, because it was passed without notice to Operation and effect of customs or usages, se such company.-Home Telephone & Telegraph "Customs and Usages.” Co. v. City of Los Angeles (C. C.) 554. Operation and effect of gaming laws, see "Gam *After purchase and lease of domestic rail- ing," § 1. road corporations by foreign railroad corpora- Operation and effect of lottery laws, see “Lot tions under the statutes of the state, right of teries," $ 1. the state to interfere with any lawful use of Pleading damages in action for breach of con such property by the foreign corporation, de- tract, see “Damages," § 2. termined. -Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Rail Specific performance, see “Specific Perform road Commission of Alabama (C. C.) 792. ance.' Contracts relating to particular subjects. Ise of right of way, see "Railroads," § 1. Particular classes of express contracts. the rules promulgated thereunder, giving clubs § 3. Performance or breach. *Nothing will excuse performance of a con- Where, after breach of plaintiff's contract to ubmission to arbitration, see "Arbitration and furnish castings under the contract for the Particular classes of implied contracts. *A contract for future sale and delivery held CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT. Of patent, see "Patents," § 5 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.. Of passenger on vessel, see "Shipping," § 4. Of person killed or injured by operation of ances." CONVEYANCES. have been made on a sufficient considera- In fraud of creditors, see "Fraudulent Convey- 2. Construction and operation. Where there is a doubt as to the meaning Where the laws of a state provide that a The provisions of the national agreement for 155 F.-66 Particular classes of conveyances. COPYRIGHTS. § 1. Title, conveyances, contracts, and regulations. Where the author or owner of a painting is CORPORATIONS. Arbitration between railroad company and rail- Arbitration to determine ownership of corporate Attorney of corporation as person affected by | formal compliance with equity rule 94 by a de estoppel, see "Estoppel," § 1. mand on the directors to bring the suit was not Bankruptcy of, see "Bankruptcy," § 9. shown.-Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Min. Co. Combinations to monopolize trade, see "Mo- (C. C.) 869. nopolies," § 1. Construction of contract between domestic railroad corporation and foreign corporation, see "Contracts," § 2. Enforcement of trust in corporate stock, see "Trusts," § 2. Exercise of power of eminent domain, see "Emi- Impairing obligation of license or privilege to Laws relating to suits by foreign corporation as Restraining election of directors of, see "Injunc- Right of educational corporation to raise con- Particular classes of corporations. See "Municipal Corporations"; "Street Railroads." "Railroads"; Insurance companies, see "Insurance." § 2. Officers and agents. *That directors of a corporation are per sonally interested in a contract made with the company, and are to a certain extent to profit by it, does not necessarily condemn the transaction. It merely calls upon them to justify it. -Teller v. Tonopah & G. R. R. (C. C.) 482. *A bill by a minority stockholder to enjoin the carrying out of a contract by the corpora tion held to contain no equity.-Teller v. Tona pah & G. R. R. (C. C.) 482. § 3. Corporate powers and liabilities. § 4. Dissolution and forfeiture of fran chise. *Where a manufacturing corporation has sold its plant, good will, and property, and by the action of its directors and stockholders abandon ed its corporate business and entered upor liquidation, proceeding so far as to make dis Telegraph and telephone companies, see "Tele- tribution of the greater part of its assets among graphs and Telephones." § 1. Members and stockholders. *Stockholders in railroad corporations held to have sufficiently complied with the requirements of equity rule 94 to entitle them to maintain a suit in equity in a federal court against the companies, and the officers of a state, to enjoin the enforcement of and obedience to state statutes regulating rates of carriage. Perkins v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 445; Kennedy v. Great Northern Ry. Co., Id.; Woodward v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Id.; Livingston v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., Id.; Brewster v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., Id.; Shillaber v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., Id.; Humbird v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., Id.; Barrows v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., Id.; Carle v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., Id.; James v. Great Northern Ry. Co., Id. its stockholders, it has no power, over the objec tion of a stockholder, to invest cash which ha been collected and is merely awaiting distribu tion in the stock of another corporation.-Ferr v. Latrobe Steel Co. (C. C.) 161. § 5. Foreign corporations. *A state court of Iowa held not to hav obtained jurisdiction over a foreign railroa company neither owning nor operating any lin of road in the state by service made upon a agent having an office in the state for the pur pose of soliciting business to be done outside where the cause of action had no connectio with such office or agency.-McGuire v. Grea Northern Ry. Co. (C. C.) 230. *The state, unless forbidden by its own Cor stitution or estopped by dealings with particula corporation, or a right has vested in such co poration under the state statutes, may at an time and for any cause exercise its prerogativ of preventing any foreign corporation from d ing a domestic business therein.-Seaboard Ai Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Ala bama (Č. C.) 792. Const. Ala. 1901, § 240, giving foreign co porations right to sue, held to prohibit an court from giving effect to an enactment provi ing that the bringing of a suit by a foreig corporation in the federal court shall ipso fact forfeit its right to do domestic business in th state.-Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroa Commission of Alabama (C. C.) 792. *Point annotated. See syllabus. *A bill of a stockholder in a federal court held to sufficiently negative collusion, although a COSTS. *The laws enacted by a territory subject to disapproval by Congress are not laws of the bankruptcy, see “Bankruptcy," $ 17. United States, and a suit arising under them does not arise under the laws of the United 1. Nature, grounds, and extent of States.- Maxwell v. Federal Gold & Copper right in general. Co. (C. C. A.) 110. In a suit for unfair competition in trade, The conformity act (Rev. St. $$ 914, 915, 916 here the charge made against the defendant [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 684]) empowers a Cir established, but owing to fraudulent repre- cuit Court to use a similar remedy to that proentations made by complainant in respect to vided by a state statute to enforce its judgments, s goods it is not entitled to relief in equity, but does not require it to follow the method either party will be allowed costs.-Moxie prescribed by a state statute in serving a writ erve Food Co. of New England v. Modox of scire facias on a nonresident defendant, if 0. (C. C.) 304. it deems such method insufficient.-Collin County C. A.) 389. The jurisdiction of a national court over a controversy once lawfully acquired includes the ee “Municipal Corporations." power to enforce its judgment or decree, and ounty as trustee for collection of special as- this power may not be destroyed or restrained sessments, see "Trusts," $ 1. by the legislation or lack of legislation of the states.-Collin County Nat. Bank of McKinney, Tex., v. Hughes (C. 0. A.) 389. A Circuit Court of the United States has power ontempt of court, see "Contempt.' to issue its writ of scire facias and to prescribe riminal jurisdiction, see "Criminal Law," § 2. a reasonable method of service thereof without etermination of constitutional question, see the district where the judgment defendant has "Constitutional Law," $ 1. departed therefrom. Such power is derived irection of verdict, see "Trial.” from the Constitution and Rev. St. $ 716 [U. urisdiction of United States court to discharge strained," limited or rendered less efficacious by . , on habeas corpus person imprisoned by state the statutes of a state.-Collin County Nat. court, see “Habeas Corpus," § 1. urisdiction to restrain violation of anti-trust Bank of McKinney, Tex., v. Hughes (C.oc. A.) law, see “Monopolies," $ 1. 389. [andamus to inferior courts, see "Mandamus," The Circuit Court of Appeals has power to $ 1. interfere by mandamus to control the action of endency of action in state court as bar to ac- a circuit court when the question involved retion in United States court, see "Abatement lates to its jurisdiction as a judicial tribunal of and Revival," $ 1. original jurisdiction, having no relation to its emoval of action from state court to United limitation as a national court.-Dowagiac Mfg. States court, see "Removal of Causes." Co. v. McSherry Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 524. eview of decisions, see "Appeal and Error." Ceview on motion for new trial in United States suit to enjoin the enforcement of a municipal A federal court is without jurisdiction of a court in cause tried before referee, see "Refer- ordinance on the ground that such ordinance ence," $ 1. impairs the obligation of a contract or de1. Nature, extent, and exercise of ju- prives the complainant of property without risdiction in general. due process of law, in violation of the Con*Where a court has no jurisdiction, a general stitution of the United States, where the bill adgment for defendant is erroneous, but a alleges that no power had been granted to the adgment of dismissal for want of jurisdiction municipality by the Constitution or Legislature r without prejudice must be entered.-Maxwell of the state to pass such ordinance; the proFederal Gold & Copper Co. (C. C. A.) 110. hibition of the federal Constitution being Act Nev. March 23, 1905 (Laws 1905, p. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. (C. C. against state action only.-City of Louisville v. 19, c. 142), giving a right of action for per- A.) 725. nal injury caused by the wrongful act or neggence of another, supersedes the common law When the jurisdiction of a federal court depplicable to the subject in that state, and, un- pends upon the case being one arising under er the restrictions thereby imposed, an action the Constitution or laws of the United States, pra personal injury received in Nevada the facts necessary to make such a case must hrough the alleged negligence of the defendant be plainly shown upon the record, and it is an only be maintained in a federal or state not enough that such question may arise.-City purt in that state.-Coyne v. Southern Pac. of Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone & Tele0. (C. C.) 683. graph Co. (C. C. A.) 725. 2. United States courts. *An action in a federal court against state *A controversy between a citizen of a state tax officers held not an action against the state. hd a citizen of a territory will not confer juris --University of the South v. Jetton (C. c.) 182. ction.-Maxwell v. Federal Gold & Copper Co. *A federal court has jurisdiction of a suit F. C. A.) 110. by a landowner to restrain revenue officers of a *Point annotated. See syllabus. |