5. Cherokees-Right of participation in award.

The Eastern and Emigrant Cherokees are not entitled to their demand
of one-fourth of the entire sum awarded, but only to per capita pay-
Iment with the Eastern Cherokees. Ib.

1. Undelivered cars; status of, under commerce clause of Constitution.
The interstate transportation of cars from another State which have not
been delivered to the consignee, but remain on the track of the railway
company in the condition in which they were originally brought into
the State, is not completed and they are still within the protection of
the commerce clause of the Constitution. McNeill v. Southern Rail-
way Co., 543.

2. Burdens on-Power of State as to regulation of place, time and manner
of delivery of goods moving in channels of interstate commerce.
While a State in the exercise of its police power may confer power on an
administrative agency to make reasonable regulations as to the place,
time and manner of delivery of merchandise moving in channels of
interstate commerce, any regulation which directly burdens inter-
state commerce is a regulation thereof and repugnant to the Federal

Constitution, and so held that an order of the North Carolina Cor-
poration Commission requiring a railway company to deliver cars
from another State to the consignee on a private siding beyond its
own right of way was a burden on interstate commerce and void.
Quare whether such an order applicable solely to state business would
be repugnant to the due process clause of the Constitution. Ib.

3. Scope of injunction against state interference.

An injunction granted by the final decree should not be broader than the
necessities of the case require and if broader than that it will be modi-
fied, as in this case, by this court. Ib.

See CARRIERS.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4.

JUDGES.

See COURTS, 6, 7, 8.

JUDGMENTS AND DECREES.
See JURISDICTION, B 2.

JURISDICTION.

A. OF THIS COURT.

1. Amount in controversy; determination of; interest on judgment as ele-
ment of.

Where jurisdiction of a writ of error to review a judgment of the District
Court of the United States for Porto Rico depends on amount, the
judgment itself is the test and it is insufficient if for $5,000 and costs
although it carries interest. Ortega v. Lara, 339.

2. Appeals from Circuit Court of Appeals in habeas corpus.
Final orders of the Circuit Court of Appeals may be brought to this court,
of right, only where the matter in dispute exceeds $1,000, and there is
no appeal where, as in a habeas corpus proceeding, no amount is in-
volved. Whitney v. Dick, 132.

3. Sufficiency of setting up right under Constitution.
The mere claim in objections to confirmation of a rule in a proceeding in
the County Court to confirm an assessment for paving a street that the
act under which the assessment was made was unconstitutional as
depriving the objector of due process of law, never afterwards brought
to the attention of the trial court or of the Supreme Court of the State,
is not a sufficient compliance with § 709, Rev. Stat., in setting up a
right under the Constitution of the United States to give this court
jurisdiction to review the judgment on writ of error.
Hulbert v.
Chicago, 275.

4. Sufficiency of raising of Federal question.

It is too late to raise the Federal question by a statement in the writ of

5.

error and petition for citation that constitutional rights and privi-
leges were involved and decided by the highest court of the State
against plaintiff in error, even if the Chief Justice of that court allowed
the writ. Ib.

Where a national bank sued for debts of a partnership, shares of which it
had taken as security and afterwards acquired in payment of the
debt, sets up at every stage of the suit its intention of relying on the
banking law of the United States, it cannot be required in the first
instance to anticipate the specific and qualified form in which the
immunity finally was denied; and if in addition thereto there is a
certificate of the state court to the effect that it was material to con-
sider the question of the bank's power under the banking law to be-
come liable for the debt and that the decision was against the bank,
this court has power on writ of error to review the judgment. Mer-
chants' Nat. Bank v. Wehrmann, 295.

6. Involution of Federal question in action to recover real estate, for purpose
of review on writ of error.

In an action to recover real estate, part of a grant from a former sovereign,
defenses based on adverse possession, estoppel, construction of state
statutes, and the effect of judgments of the state court in other actions,
neither the validity nor the construction of any treaty of the United
States or the validity of the grant being challenged, do not present
Federal questions which give this court jurisdiction to review the
judgment on writ of error. O'Conor v. Texas, 501.

The act of Congress admitting Louisiana having given that State all islands
within three leagues of her coast, and the subsequent act of Congress
admitting Mississippi having purported to give that State all islands
within six leagues of her shore, and some islands within nine miles of
the Louisiana coast being also within eighteen miles of the Mississippi
shore, although the apparent inconsistency is reconcilable, the basis
of a boundary controversy involving to each State pecuniary values
of magnitude, exists; and such a controversy between the two States
in their sovereign capacity as States and having a boundary line sepa-
rating them justifies the exercise of the original jurisdiction of this
court. Louisiana v. Mississippi, 1.

8. Original. Of action by State against Federal executive officers.
In the absence of any act of Congress waiving immunity of the United
States or consenting that it be sued in respect to swamp lands, either
within or without an Indian reservation, or of any act of Congress
assuming full responsibility in behalf of its wards, the Indians, affect-
ing their rights to such lands, this court has no jurisdiction of an action

brought by a State against the Secretary of the Interior and Com-
missioner of the General Land Office to enjoin them from patenting
to Indians lands within that State, claimed by the State under the
swamp land acts. The fact that the action is brought by a State
against the Secretary of the Interior, who is a citizen of a different
State, does not give this Court jurisdiction as the real party in in-
terest is the United States. Oregon v. Hitchcock, 60.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 10;

LOCAL LAW (PORTO RICO, 4).

B. OF CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.

1. Power to issue writs of habeas corpus.

The Circuit Court of Appeals is a court created by statute and is not en-
dowed with any original jurisdiction; and as there is no language in
the statute which can be construed into a grant of power to issue a
writ of habeas corpus, unless it be one in aid of a jurisdiction already
existing, that court is not authorized to issue original and independent
writs of habeas corpus. Whitney v. Dick, 132.

2. To issue writs of certiorari.

Although the Circuit Court of Appeals may possess the power, which has
been exercised by this Court, to issue independent writs of certiorari,
and although it may sometimes be proper in special cases to end litiga-
tion by summary process, yet as a rule the ordinary procedure for
attacking a judgment in a criminal case is by writ of error, and, where
the only question is whether the Federal courts have jurisdiction to
punish the crime, charged, in this case selling of liquor in the Indian
country, and there is no necessity of prompt action to uphold National
authority the writ of certiorari should not have been issued. Ib.

C. OF CIRCUIT COURTS.

1. Amount in controversy.
Although the dispute which was the origin of the controversy involved
less than $2,000, where the controversy presented by the bill involves
the right of enforcement of statutory penalties against complainant
of over $2,000, and also its right to carry on interstate business within
the State, which is worth more than $2,000, the Circuit Court has
jurisdiction so far as the amount in controversy is concerned. Mc-
Neill v. Southern Railway Co., 543.

2. Nature of controversy where diversity of citizenship does not exist—Raising
Federal question.

Where diversity of citizenship does not exist a suit can only be maintained
in the Circuit Court of the United States on the ground that it arises
under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it does not
so arise unless it really and substantially involves a controversy as
to the effect or construction of the Constitution or some law or treaty
of the United States on the determination whereof the result depends.
This must appear from plaintiff's statement of his own claim and can-

not be aided by allegations as to defenses which may be interposed.
In this case held that as a bill to quiet title the jurisdiction of the
Circuit Court could not be sustained by reason of allegations that
defendant's adverse claims to the surface and subterranean waters
of the Los Angeles river were based on an erroneous construction of
the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the act of March 3, 1851, and cer-
tain state acts and city ordinances. Devine v. Los Angeles, 313.

3. Of suit to remove cloud on title.

Nor can such jurisdiction be maintained of the suit as one to remove cloud
on title, as a bill in equity will not lie to dispel mere verbal assertions
of ownership or to adjudge state statutes and charters unconstitutional
and void. If the statutes and charters are unconstitutional they are
void and cannot constitute a cloud on title. Ib.

4. Of action by trustee in bankruptcy where bankrupt might have sued. Im-
materiality of citizenship of trustee.

Where by reason of the amount involved and the diverse citizenship exist-
ing the bankrupt might have sued the defendant in the Circuit Court
of the United States, independently of the bankruptcy proceedings,
under § 23 of the act of 1898 that right is preserved to the trustee,
and the citizenship of the latter is wholly immaterial to the jurisdiction
of the court in such a case. Bush v. Elliott, 477.

5. On removal of action brought by State in its own courts against an alien.
As subsection 1 of section 639, Rev. Stat., was repealed by the act of March 3,

1875, 18 Stat. 470, and, as the purpose of the act of March 3, 1887,
24 Stat. 556, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433,
was to limit the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts, a petition for re-
moval of an action brought by a State in its own courts against an
alien was properly denied. O'Conor v. Texas, 501.

6. Case arising under Constitution and laws of United States.
Where complainant's bill discloses an intention by the municipality to de-
prive complainant-a water supply company-of rights under an
existing contract by subsequent legislation, and the city cannot show
any inherent want of legal validity in the contract, or any such dis-
regard of its obligations by complainant as would absolve the city
therefrom, the case is one arising under the Constitution of the United
States, the Circuit Court has jurisdiction, and a direct appeal lies to
this court. Vicksburg v. Waterworks Co., 453.

D. OF DISTRICT COURT.

District Court of Porto Rico; where parties subjects of King of Spain.
The District Court of the United States for Porto Rico has jurisdiction
when the parties on both sides are subjects of the King of Spain. Or-
tega v. Lara, 339.