allegations as to exemplary damages does not harm defendant
if the court instructs the jury that only compensatory, and not
exemplary, damages can be recovered. San Juan Light & Transit
Co. v. Requena, 89.
2. Objectionableness; considerations in determining.
Although an instruction may be subject to criticism standing alone,
it may be unobjectionable if read in the light of what preceded
and what followed it. Ib.
INTERNATIONAL COMPACTS.
See JURISDICTION, A 1, 4.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
1. Alaska as a Territory of the United States.
Alaska is a Territory of the United States within the meaning of § 1
of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended June 29, 1906, 34
Stat. 584, c. 3591. Interstate Com. Comm. v. Humboldt S S. Co.,
474.
2. Alaska as a Territory of the United States.
Even if "Territory of the United States" as used in § 1 of the Inter-
state Commerce Act as amended includes only organized Terri-
tories, Alaska falls within its meaning. (The Steamer Coquitlam,
163 U. S. 346; Binns v. United States, 194 U. S. 486; Rassmussen
v. United States, 197 U. S. 516.) Ib.
3. Accounting by carriers; power of Commission to prescribe mode.
Section 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act gives the Commission
ample authority to require accounts to be kept by carriers in the
manner prescribed by the Commission. Interstate Com. Comm.
v. Goodrich Transit Co., 194.
4. Accounting by carrier doing both inter- and intrastate business; power
of Congress to require.
A statute requiring a carrier doing both interstate and intrastate busi-
ness to render accounts of all of its business is not beyond the
power of Congress as a regulation of intrastate commerce.
5. Accounting by carrier as to both inter- and intrastate business; right to
require.
Carriers partly by land and partly by water may be required to keep
accounts of all their traffic, both interstate and intrastate, under
the provisions of § 20 of the act of June 29, 1906. Ib.
6. Business of carriers of which Commission is to be informed under § 20
of act of 1906.
Under § 20 of the act of June 29, 1906, the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission is to be fully informed of all business conducted by a
carrier of interstate traffic; and this includes all operations of
such carriers, whether strictly transportation or not; in this case
held to include amusement parks operated by a carrier of inter-
state commerce partly by land and partly by water. Ib.
7. Carriers embraced within act of 1906.
Carriers partly by railroad and partly by water under a common ar-
rangement for a continuous carriage are as specifically within the
term of the Interstate Commerce Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat.
584, c. 3591, as any other carrier named therein. Ib.
Such carriers are subject to the provisions of the act authorizing the
Commission to require a system of accounting. Ib.
Such carriers, while engaged in carrying on traffic under joint rates
with railroads filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission,
are bound to deal upon like terms with all shippers availing of the
rates and are generally subject to the Interstate Commerce
Act. Ib.
10. Rate regulation; effect of Hepburn Act on power of Commission over
railroads in Alaska.
The Hepburn Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591, extended the
provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act to interterritorial
commerce and for the first time gave to the Commission the
power to fix rates. In so doing it made the act completely com-
prehensive, and the power given to the Commission superseded
the power of the Secretary of the Interior to revise and modify
rates of railroads in Alaska given by § 2 of the act of May 14,
1898, 30 Stat. 409, c. 299. Interstate Com. Comm. v. Humboldt
S. S. Co., 474.
11. Restraint on; effect of contract in regard to use of patent.
Although a contract in regard to use of a patent may include inter-
state commerce and restrain interstate trade, if it involves only
the reasonable and legal conditions imposed under the patent
law, it is not within the prohibitions of the Sherman Act. (Bement
v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70.) Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 1.
12. State interference with; prohibition of transportation of natural gas as.
Natural gas after severance from the soil being a commodity which
may be dealt in like other products of the earth and a legitimate
subject of interstate commerce, no State can prohibit its being
transported in interstate commerce beyond the lines of the State,
and the act of Oklahoma attempting so to do is an unconstitu-
tional interference with interstate commerce as held in this case,
221 U. S. 229. Haskell v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 217.
13. State interference with; discrimination against corporations doing
interstate business.
A State may by proper legislation regulate the removal from the earth
of natural gas by the owner thereof, but may not discriminate
against corporations doing an interstate business by denying
them the right to cross highways of the State while domestic
corporations engaged in the same business are permitted to use
the highways. Ib.
14. State regulation of interstate trade.
Regulations in a state statute which may be valid as to individuals
and domestic corporations engaged in business wholly within the
State are not applicable to corporations engaged in doing the
same business in interstate commerce when the statute expressly
forbids such commerce; this court will not therefore direct that
regulations of that nature become applicable to the latter class of
such corporations because the prohibition has been declared un-
constitutional as an interference with interstate commerce. Ib.
15. State interference; effect of statute imposing liability on railroads for
injuries to employés.
The fact that a state statute imposing liability on railway companies
for injuries to employés covers acts of negligence in respect to
subjects dealt with by the Federal Safety Appliance Act does not
amount to an interference with interstate commerce. Missouri
Pacific Ry. Co. v. Castle, 541.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 2;
CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 24;
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 2;
JURISDICTION, F;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 1;
CONSTITUTIONal Law, 7;
RESTRAINT OF TRADE;
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS;
STATES, 3;
STATUTES, A 7.
COMMISSION.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE;
JURISDICTION, E, F.
Allegations; what not essential.
Where the intervenor has not legal title and is not claiming against an
admitted prior equity as a purchaser without notice, allegations of
ignorance of facts not admitted and not finally established are not
essential. Leary v. United States, 567.
See TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES, 1, 2.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8, 26.
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES.
1. Essentials to validity; jurisdiction; who to determine.
It is essential to the validity of a judgment that the court rendering
it have jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties; but it
is for the highest court of a State to determine its own jurisdiction
and that of the local tribunals. Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 270.
2. Construction of decree declaring state statute unconstitutional in so
far as it prohibits or burdens interstate commerce.
A decree of this court must be read in view of the issues made and the
relief sought and granted; and a decree declaring a state statute
unconstitutional so far as it prohibits, or is a burden upon, inter-
state commerce will not be construed as preventing the enforce-
ment of such legislation as is legitimately within the police power
of the State and not in conflict with the Federal Constitution.
Haskell v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 217.
See BANKRUPTCY, 7;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5,
JURISDICTION, H;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 3,
14, 15, 20;
QUO WARRANTO
JUDICIAL CODE.
See JURISDICTION, A 5, 6, 7;
STATUTES, A 9.
JURISDICTION.
A. OF THIS Court.
1. Of appeal involving rights resting on international compact; effect of
act of 1891 to confer.
In construing the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891, the intent of
Congress will be considered, and it was manifestly to permit
rights and obligations resting on international compacts and their
construction to be passed on by this court. Altman & Co. v.
United States, 583.
2. Of direct appeal from Circuit Court under § 5 of the act of 1891.
Where jurisdiction of the Circuit Court involves only the questions
of fact whether the defendant corporation was doing business
within the jurisdiction and the person served was its agent, those
questions can be brought by direct appeal to this court under § 5
of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891. Herndon-Carter Co.
v. Norris & Co., 496.
3. Of direct appeal from Circuit Court in revenue case.
This court will entertain a direct review of the judgment of the Circuit
Court under § 5 of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891, in a
revenue case which involves not only questions of classification
and amount of duty thereunder, but also questions as to the con-
stitutionality of a law of the United States or the validity or con-
struction of a treaty under its authority. Altman & Co. v. United
States, 583.
4. Of direct appeal from Circuit Court where case rested on reciprocal
agreement entered into under § 3 of Tariff Act of 1897.
Where the importer throughout has insisted that the merchandise is
dutiable at the rate fixed by a reciprocal agreement entered into
by the United States under § 3 of the Tariff Act of 1897, there is a
direct appeal to this court under § 5 of the Circuit Court of Ap-
peals Act of 1891, provided such agreement is a treaty. Ib.
5. Of appeal from Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia; § 299 of
Judicial Code construed.
Section 299 of the Judicial Code of March 3, 1911, 36 Stat. 1087, c. 231,
saving suits pending on appeal, does not give the right of appeal
from judgments of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
in cases covered by the statutes repealed by the Judicial Code and
in which the cause of action accrued prior to January 1, 1912, but
which were not decided by the Court of Appeals until after that
date. Washington Home for Incurables v. American S. & T. Co.,
486.
6. To review judgment of Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia;
$250 of Judicial Code construed.
The jurisdiction of this court to reëxamine final judgments or decrees
VOL. CCXXIV-46
|