State regulation as to liquors shipped from other States held not an interference -Wilson Act-Police power of State.
The malt liquor inspection law of Missouri provides for the inspection of malt liquors manufactured within the State and also for those manu- factured without and held for sale and consumption within the State. The Supreme Court of the State sustained the law deciding among other things that the act does not affect liquors shipped into the State and held there for reshipment without the State, that it does not discrimi- nate in favor of beer manufactured in the State, and that it is not a revenue, but an inspection law. The constitutionality of the law was attacked by a manufacturer of malt liquors without the State as an interference with interstate commerce, and also on the ground that as the amount of the inspection charge far exceeds the expense of in- spection it is a revenue, and not an inspection law and therefore does not fall under permissive provisions of the Wilson Act. Held, a state statute which operates upon beer and malt liquors shipped from other States after their arrival and while held for sale and consumption within the State, is not an interference with interstate commerce in view of the provisions of the Wilson Act. The regulation of the sale of liquor is essentially a police power of the State and a provision in a state law, tending to determine the purity of malt liquors sold in the State, is an exercise of the same power. The purpose of the Wilson Act is to make liquor, after its arrival in a State, a domestic product, and to confer power on the States to deal with it accordingly. The police power is, hence, to be measured by the right of the State to con- trol or regulate domestic products and this creates a state and not a Federal question as respects the commerce clause of the Constitution; and this court cannot review the determination of the state court that the statute involved in this case was not a revenue but an inspection measure. A state regulation, valid under the Wilson Act, as to liquors shipped from another State after delivery at destination is not an interference with interstate commerce because it affects traffic in, and deters shipments of, the article into that State. The rule that state inspection laws, which do not provide adequate inspection and impose a burden beyond the cost of inspection, are repugnant to the commerce clause of the Constitution does not apply to liquors after they have ceased to be articles of interstate commerce under the pro- visions of the Wilson Act. Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw, 17. See TAXATION, 3.
INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
INVENTION.
See JURISDICTION, D;
PATENT FOR INVENTION.
1. Assertion of title under patent from United States insufficient, where juris- diction of Circuit Court rested solely on diverse citizenship.
In an action of ejectment plaintiff pitched his claim solely on a patent from the United States; defendant removed the action to the Circuit Court on the ground of diverse citizenship and obtained a verdict and judg- ment on the plea of prescription after nonsuit on plea of res judicata; the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Held, that the judgment was final and the writ of error must be dismissed. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court rested solely on diverse citizenship, the assertion of title under patent from the United States presented no question in itself conferring jurisdiction, and plaintiff's petition did not assert, in legal and logical form, if at all, the existence of any real con- troversy as to the effect or construction of the Constitution or of any law or treaty of the United States constituting an independent ground of jurisdiction. Bonin v. Gulf Company, 115.
2. Direct review of Circuit Court judgment.
This court has jurisdiction of a writ of error, upon a judgment dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction, when it appears in due form that the ground of the judgment was want of service on defendant and that the plaintiff denied the validity of the removal of the case from a state court. Remington v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 95.
3. Direct appeal from Circuit Court under section 5 of act of March 3, 1891. The authorities, holding that the right of appeal to this court from the
Circuit Court, under § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, is limited to cases where the jurisdiction of the Federal court as a Federal court is put in issue and that questions of jurisdiction applicable alike to the state and the Federal courts are not within its scope, apply to questions arising after a valid service has been made and not to the question of whether jurisdiction has or has not been acquired by proper service. Board of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co., 424.
4. This court can review by appeal under § 5 a judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill on the sole ground that jurisdiction had never been acquired over the defendant, a foreign corporation, for lack of proper service of process. Board of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co., 424; Kendall v. Automatic Loom Co., 477.
5. Direct review of District and Circuit Courts.
Since the passage of the act of March 3, 1891, this court has no jurisdiction
to review judgments or decrees of the District and Circuit Courts, di- rectly by appeal or writ of error, in cases not falling within § 5 of that act. Ex parte Glaser, 171.
6. Final judgment; what constitutes.
Where the judgment of the highest court of a State, in reversing a judg- ment against defendant, does not direct the court below to dismiss the petition but remands the cause for further proceedings, in harmony with the opinion, it is not a final judgment in such a sense as to sus- tain a writ of error from this court. Schlosser v. Hemphill, 173.
7. Jurisdiction under section 709, Rev. Stat.-When Federal question does not arise by reason of violation of Federal statute.
Plaintiff in error contended as defendant in the state court, which overruled the plea, that his notes were void because given in pursuance of a contract which involved the violation of §§ 3390, 3393, 3397, Rev. Stat., providing for the collection of revenue on manufactured tobacco. Held, that as an individual can derive no personal right under those sections to enforce repudiation of his notes, even though they might be illegal and void as against public policy, the defense did not amount to the setting up by, and decision against, the maker of the notes of a right, privilege or immunity under a statute of the United States, within the meaning of § 709, Rev. Stat., and the writ of error was dismissed. Allen v. Arguimbau, 149.
8. Mandamus not granted where lack of jurisdiction of case.
In cases over which this court possesses neither original nor appellate juris- diction it cannot grant mandamus. Ex parte Glaser, 171.
9. Propositions based upon conjecture and not raised below not considered on appeal.
This court will not investigate or decide a proposition which was not raised in the court below and is based upon conjecture, even though the facts suggested might have existed. Thompson v. Darden, 310.
10. Review of judgment of District Court for Porto Rico in criminal cases. Under 8 34, 35 of the Foraker act of 1900, 31 Stat. 85, this court can
review judgments of the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico in criminal cases where the accused claimed and, as alleged, was denied a right under an act of Congress and under the Revised Statutes of the United States. Rodriguez v. United States, 156.
11. Want of jurisdiction to review judgment of state court refusing to restrain collection of unauthorized tax. There is no foundation for the jurisdiction of this court to review the judg- ment of the highest court of a State refusing to restrain the collection of a tax the imposition of which is not authorized by any law of the
State. (Barney v. City of New York, 193 U. S. 430.) Savannah, Thunderbolt &c. Ry. v. Savannah, 392.
12. Writ of error to state court denying rights of locator of mineral claim under sections 3224, 2326, Rev. Stat.
Where the necessary effect of the ruling of the state court is to deny to a locator of a mineral claim the protection of the relocation provisions of § 2324, Rev. Stat., if that section justified the claim based upon it, or if the record shows that the trial court considered that the plaintiff specially claimed and was denied rights under § 2326, Rev. Stat., authorizing an adverse of an application for a patent to mineral lands, a Federal question is involved and the motion to dismiss the writ of error will be denied. Lavagnino v. Uhlig, 443.
13. Writ of error to state court dismissed where judgment below not shown to be based on Federal question—Certificate of Chief Justice of state court insufficient. Where the judgment of the state court rests on two grounds, one involving a Federal question and the other not, and it does not appear on which of the two the judgment was based and the ground, independent of a Federal question, is sufficient in itself to sustain it, this court will not take jurisdiction. The certificate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State on the allowance of the writ of error that the judg- ment denied a title, right or immunity specially set up under the statutes of the United States, cannot in itself confer jurisdiction on this court. Allen v. Arguimbau, 149.
See CONTRACTS;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; PILOTAGE, 2.
B. OF CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
Where the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court has been invoked on the ground of diverse citizenship and plaintiff asserts two causes of action, only one of which involves a right under the Constitution, and the Circuit Court of Appeals decides against him on that cause of action and in his favor on the other, the judgment of that court is final and defendant cannot make the alleged constitutional question on which he has succeeded the basis of jurisdiction for an appeal to this court. Empire Company v. Hanley, 292.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1.
C. OF CIRCUIT COURTS
1. Averment of diverse citizenship in pleadings—Mode of raising question— Residence and citizenship not synonymous—Absence not affecting citizen- ship.
An averment in the bill of the diverse citizenship of the parties is sufficient to make a prima facie case of jurisdiction so far as it depends on citizen-
ship. While under the act of 1789, an issue as to the fact of citizenship can only be made by plea of abatement, when the pleadings properly aver citizenship, it is the duty of the court, under the act of March 3, 1875, which is still in force, to dismiss the suit at any time when its want of jurisdiction appears. A motion to dismiss the cause, based upon proofs taken by the master, is an appropriate mode in which to raise the question of jurisdiction. Residence and citizenship are wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States; and a mere averment of residence in a State is not an averment of citizenship in that State for the purpose of jurisdiction. One who has been for many years a citizen of a State is still a citizen thereof, although residing temporarily in another State but without any purpose of abandoning citizenship in the former. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 141.
2. When held to rest on ground of case arising under Constitution where in- voked on ground of diverse citizenship. Where the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is invoked on the ground of diverse citizenship, it will not be held to rest also on the ground that the suit arose under the Constitution of the United States, unless it really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy as to the effect or construction of the Constitution upon the determination of which the result depends, and which appears on the record by a statement in legal and logical form such as good pleading requires and where the case is not brought within this rule the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final. Empire Company v. Hanley, 292.
See CORPORATIONS; Ante, A 1.
OF DISTRICT COURT. See Bankruptcy, 1.
Under act of March 3, 1887-Royalties for use of invention not recoverable in Court of Claims.
In order to give the Court of Claims jurisdiction under the act of March 3, 1887, the demand sued on must be founded on a convention between the parties—a coming together of minds-and contracts or obligations implied by law from torts do not meet this condition. (Russell v. United States, 182 U. S. 516, 530.) An employé of the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, who at his own cost and in his own time perfected and patented a device for registering impressions in connec- tion with printing presses, which with his knowledge and consent was used for many years by the Bureau, under orders of the Secretary of the Treasury, and who during that period never made any demand for royalties, cannot, under the circumstances of this case, recover such royalties in the Court of Claims on the ground that a contract existed between him and the Government, because, prior to the use of the device by the Government, the Chief of the Bureau promised to have his rights to the invention protected. Harley v. United States, 229. VOL. CXCVIII-39
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan » |