ALASKA, Act of May 17, 1884, 23 Stat. 24 (see Public Lands, 3): RussianAmerican Packing Co. v. United States, 570.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rev. Stat. § 1014 (see Criminal Law; Removal of Causes, 3): Hyde v. Shine, 62.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Comp. Stat. D. C. § 23, ch. 35 (see Criminal Law, 4): Hyde v. Shine, 62.

HABEAS CORPUS, Rev. Stat. § 766 (see Constitutional Law, 3): Rogers v. Peck, 425.

INTERNAL REVENUE, Rev. Stat. §§ 3140, 3232, 3244 (see Internal Revenue, 2): South Carolina v. United States, 437.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Wilson Act of August 8, 1890, 26 Stat. 313 (see States, 10): Foppiano v. Speed, 501.

JUDICIARY, Act of March 2, 1887, 24 Stat. 442, and Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. (see Statutes, A 2): Petri v. Creelman Lumber Co., 487. NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. §§ 5211, 5240, 5241 (see National Banks, 3): Guthrie v. Harkness, 148.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691 (see Constitutional Law, 14; Courts, 7): Trono v. United States, 521.

PUBLIC LANDS, Rev. Stat. § 2262 (see Public Lands, 10): Hafemann v. Gross, 342. Act of March 3, 1891 (see Public Lands, 3, 4, 5): RussianAmerican Packing Co. v. United States, 570. Rev. Stat. §§ 2291, 2292 (see Public Lands, 6; Removal of Causes, 2): McCune v. Essig, 382.

RAILROADS, Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 430 (see Railroads, 1): Union Pacific Co.

v. Mason City Co., 160.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

See EJECTMENT, 1.

AFFREIGHTMENT.

See MARITIME LAW.

AGENCY.

See INTERNAL REVENUE, 2.

AMENDMENT.

See BANKRUPTCY, 1;
PLEADING.

ANCIENT DOCUMENTS.

See EVIDENCE.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

1. Effect of affirmance on both of two grounds upon which judgment below was rested.

A distinct ruling on any question fairly arising in a trial is not obiter dictum, and where the judgment rests upon two grounds, either being sufficient to sustain it, and the appellate court sustains it on both grounds, the ruling on neither is obiter but each is the ruling of the court and of equal validity with the other. Union Pacific Co. v. Mason City Co., 160.

2. Necessity for bill of exceptions or formal certificate on writ of error to review judgment of Circuit Court as to jurisdiction-Sufficiency of writ of error. Where it is plainly apparent on the record that the only matters tried and decided in the Circuit Court were demurrers to pleas to the jurisdiction, and the petition upon which the writ of error was allowed asked only for the review of the judgment which decided that the court had no jurisdiction, no bill of exceptions or formal certificate in respect to the matter decided is required and the writ of error will not be dismissed because authenticated by a judge other than the trial judge, and not made at the term in which the judgment was entered. Petri v. Creelman Lumber Co., 487.

3. Damages awarded on affirmance.

Award of ten per cent damages, in addition to interest and costs, on affirmance of judgment. Wabash Railroad Co. v. Mathew, 605.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4, 14;

COURTS, 1;

CRIMINAL LAW, 3;

HABEAS CORPUS;

JURISDICTION;

PLEADING;
PROHIBITION.

TAXATION, 5.

ASSESSMENT.

See TAXATION, 5.

ASSESSMENT ON STOCK.

See JURISDICTION, A 5;

NATIONAL BANKS, 1.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. Order amending General Order in Bankruptcy No. 35.

It is ordered by the court that General Order in Bankruptcy No. 35 be amended by adding the following sentence to subdivision 4: He may also, pending such proceedings, both in voluntary and involuntary cases, order the commissions of referees and trustees to be paid immediately after such commissions accrue and are earned. (Promulgated December 11, 1905), 617.

2. Power of special master to sue to collect assets of bankrupt. Where the decree appointing a special master gave him express authority to sue to collect all assets of the bankrupt, the fact that he was merely designated as special master did not deprive him of the special powers to sue conferred on him by the decree. Royal Insurance Co. v. Miller, 353.

BANKS.

See NATIONAL BANKS.

BENEFITS.

See TAXATION, 11.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 2.

BONDS.

See PROHIBITION.

BRIDGES.

See RAILROADS, 1.

BURDEN OF PROOF.
See TAXATION, 8.

CABS.

See RAILROADS, 3;

STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, 1.

CAPITAL STOCK.

See JURISDICITON, A 5;

NATIONAL BAnks, 1.

CARRIERS.

See RAILROADS;

TAXATION, 10.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100, distinguished in Trono v. United

States, 521.

Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1, followed in Hyde v. Shine, 62.
Brooklyn City Railroad Co. v. New York, 199 U. S. 48, followed in Twenty-
third Street Ry. Co. v. New York, 53.

Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 62, followed in Dimond v. Shine, 88.

Laramie County v. Albany County, 92 U. S. 307, followed in Kies v. Lowrey,
233.

Metropolitan Street Ry. Co. v. New York, 199 U. S. 1, followed in Twenty-
third Street Ry. Co., v. New York, 53.

Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, 199 U. S. 306, followed in
Gardner v. Michigan, 325.

Russian-American Packing Co. v. United States, 199 U. S. 570, followed
in Royal Packing Co. v. United States, 579.

CERTIORARI.

See COURTS, 3;
TAXATION, 5;

CHARTER PARTY.

See MARITIME LAW.

CITIZENSHIP.

See JURISDICITON, C 1;

NATIONAL BANKS, 2;

REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 1.

CLOUD ON TITLE.

See PARTITION, 3.

COMBINATIONS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2.

COMMERCE.

See STATES, 10.

COMMISSIONS.

See BANKRUPTCY, 1.

COMMON LAW.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 13.

COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY.

See NATIONAL BANKS, 1.

CONFLICT OF LAWS.

See MARITIME LAW;

PUBLIC LANDS, 6.

CONGRESS.
ACTS OF.

See ACTS OF Congress.

POWERS OF.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9;

PUBLIC LANDs, 4.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Commerce clause. See STATES, 10.

1. Contract; limitation of freedom of contract.

Freedom of contract may be limited by a state statute where there are
visible reasons of public policy for the limitation. Minnesota Iron Co.
v. Kline, 593.

2. Contracts and due process of law-Validity of Iowa law relative to combina-
tions of insurance companies.

Section 1754 of the Iowa Code of 1897, prohibiting combinations of insur-
ance companies as to rates, commissions, and manner of transacting
business, is not unconstitutional as depriving the companies of their
property or of their liberty of contract within the meaning of the
Fourteenth Amendment and the auditor of the State will not be en-
joined from enforcing the provisions of the statute. A company law-
fully doing business in a State is no more bound by a general uncon-
stitutional enactment than a citizen of that State. Carroll v. Greenwich
Insurance Co., 401.

See LOCAL LAW (FLORIDA);
STATES, 4;
TAXATION, 2, 3, 9.

3. Due process of law; deprivation of liberty; interference by state authorities
in proceedings in Federal courts.
Statutes should be given a reasonable construction with a view to make
effectual the legislative intent; and the granting by the Governor of a
State of a reprieve to a person sentenced to death in order that an appeal
may be heard in this court, from an order of the District Court dismiss-
ing a petition in habeas corpus proceedings, is not such an interference
by state authorities in a proceeding in the Federal courts in violation
of 766, Rev. Stat., as will make the subsequent confinement and
execution of the prisoner a deprivation of liberty or life without due
process of law. Rogers v. Peck, 425.

4. Due process of law as respects procedure in criminal cases in state courts.
Due process of law, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, does not
require the State to adopt a particular form of procedure. so long as the
accused has had sufficient notice and adequate opportunity to defend
himself in the prosecution, and the State may determine, free from