JURISDICTION-Continued.
II. Jurisdiction of Federal Courts; in Contempt.
1. Basis of power of federal courts to punish summarily for
contempt committed in their presence is to secure from ob-
struction in performance of judicial duties; element of ob-
struction must clearly appear. Ex parte Hudgings.... 378
2. Perjury in facie curia is not punishable as contempt
apart from obstructive tendency; District Court may not
adjudge witness guilty of contempt because in court's opin-
ion he is wilfully refusing to testify truthfully. Id.
III. Jurisdiction of this Court.
1. Constitutional Question affording jurisdiction must be
substantial and properly raised below. Sugarman v. United
States.
2. Irregularities. May decline to dismiss on ground that
writ of error and citation were not made returnable in time,
when irregularity had color of authority from court below.
Beaumont v. Prieto....
3. Mandate. Effect of mandate allowing further proceed-
ings after reversal. Arkadelphia Co. v. St. Louis S. W. Ry.. 134
(2) Original.
4. Habeas Corpus. Where this court declined leave to file
petition for habeas corpus, because of competency of other
courts to afford relief, motion for leave to apply for
writ to District Court denied, as superfluous. Ex parte
Tracy...
5. Id. Where District Court exceeded its power in commit-
ting witness for contempt, original jurisdiction in habeas
corpus properly invoked. Ex parte Hudgings ...
6. Mandamus can not be directed to Circuit Court of Ap-
peals to control proceedings in case remanded to District
Court and pending exclusively in latter. Ex parte Wagner.. 465
7. Interlocutory Proceedings for accounting in District
Court will not be forbidden upon ground that disposition of
other proceedings before this court may possibly render ac-
counting nugatory and useless expense. Id.
(3) Over Circuit Court of Appeals. See 12, 17, infra.
8. Alaska. Under §§ 134, 247, 241, Jud. Code, when case in-
volving constitutional as well as other issues is taken from
District Court for Alaska to Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, judgment of latter court not reviewable by
writ of error but only by certiorari. Alaska Pacific Fish-
Alaska..
Alaska Salmon Co. v. Alaska..
9. Federal Question; Mining Law.
Court to determine extralateral rights between patented
mining claims, complaint averred that construction and
application of §§ 2322-2332, Rev. Stats., were involved,
set up discovery, location and patent of plaintiffs' claim,
and, to meet defect of location notice under state law,
averred possession and working of plaintiffs' claim for
more than 5 years from date of discovery, the limitation
period provided by § 2332. Held, that latter allegations
were part of plaintiffs' case, and involved construction and
application of § 2332, and hence judgment of Circuit Court
of Appeals was reviewable in this court by appeal. Butte &
Superior Co. v. Clark-Montana Co....
10. What is State Law. Orders of state commission fixing
railroad rates are laws within Jud. Code, § 238, allowing
direct review when state law is claimed to be unconstitu-
tional. Arkadelphia Co. v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. . . . . . .
11. Supplementary Proceedings assessing damages on injunc-
tion, taken after reversal by this court, are part of main
cause and reviewable by this court directly. Id.
12. Exclusive Jurisdiction. When diverse citizenship is
absent and jurisdiction of District Court is based solely
upon ground that suit arises under Constitution, appeal
will not lie to Circuit Court of Appeals, but only, and ex-
clusively, to this court. Raton Water Works Co. v. Raton. 552
13. Federal Question. To empower this court to review
judgment of District Court as involving Constitution,
under Jud. Code, § 238, writ of error must present sub-
stantial constitutional question, properly raised below.
Sugarman v. United States..
JURISDICTION-Continued.
(5) Over Court of Claims. See VI, infra.
14. Finding that delay by Government in approving con-
tract was reasonable is a finding of ultimate fact, binding on
this court unless made without evidence or inconsistent with
other facts found. Hathaway & Co. v. United States....
15. Afterthought. Contention that sufficient credit of time
not allowed for extra work held not reviewable in this court,
it not having been made in Court of Claims. Id.
16. Lack of Finding. When Court of Claims fails to state
what contract was between claimant and Government, this
court cannot find it from facts which do not establish con-
tract as matter of law. Del., Lack. & W. R. R. v. United
States..
(6) Over District Court for Alaska. See III, 8, supra.
17. Provisions of Jud. Code governing review of cases com-
ing from Alaska are to be construed in light of their legisla-
tive history and of Judiciary Act of 1891. Alaska Pacific
Fisheries v. Alaska..
Alaska Salmon Co. v. Alaska.
(7) Over Supreme Court of Philippines. See I, 2, supra.
18. Local Law. This court will not disturb decision on local
question of contract, unless clearly wrong. Beaumont v.
Prieto ..
19. Treaty Cases. Appeal from Supreme Court of Islands
perfected before Act of 1916, is governed by § 248, Jud.
Code, which gives this court jurisdiction in all cases in
which any treaty is involved. Compañia General v. Alham-
bra Cigar Co.....
20. Id. Decision that name is geographical and descriptive
term not subject to registration as trade-name under law
before or since cession of Islands, that its use was not un-
fair competition, and that suit was not for infringement
of trade name, held not to involve Treaty of Paris of 1898.
Id.
21. Local Question; Value in Dispute. Judgment which
denied right of Public Utility Commissioners to require
Manila street car company to give free transportation to
JURISDICTION-Continued.
detectives, based upon construction of franchise ordinance,
held not reviewable under Jud. Code, § 248, before amend-
ment of 1916, (1) as not involving Constitution or any
statute, treaty, title or privilege of United States, and
(2) because value in controversy did not exceed $25,000.
Public Utility Commrs. v. Manila Elec. R. R. Co....
22. Rights and Immunities. Under § 237, Jud. Code, as
amended, denial of rights and immunities under Federal
Employers' Liability Act reviewable only by certiorari. Chi-
cago & G. W. R. R. v. Basham...
23. Finality; Rehearing. Under § 237, as amended, judg-
ment must be final; judgment is not final until petition
for rehearing disposed of by state court. Id.
24. Id. Limitation. When petition for rehearing enter-
tained in state court, judgment not final for purposes of
review until petition denied or otherwise disposed of, and
3 months' limitation of Act 1916 begins to run from that
time. Citizens Bank v. Opperman
25. Cases Reviewable. Classes of cases to which, under Act
1916, power to review judgments from state courts by writ
of error is limited. Id.
26. What is State Law. Regulation of state board of health,
upheld by state court under state pure food law, is state leg-
islation in ascertaining relation to federal food law. Corn
Products Refg. Co. v. Eddy....
27. Id. Order of state commission, under legislative author-
ity, requiring railroad to restore a siding, is state law within
Constitution and acts of Congress regulating jurisdiction of
this court. Lake Erie & W. R. R. v. Public Utilities Comm. 422
28. Error or Certiorari. When decision of state court upholds
state statute in conflict with valid law of United States, re-
view is by writ of error. New Orleans & N.E. R. R. v. Scar-
let..
t......
29. Local Question. Objections based on manner of laying
out improvement district, and on alleged failure to conform
with city charter, raise only local questions. Withnell v.
Ruecking Constr. Co...
30. Id. Examining Whole Record. For determining whether
error was prejudicial, this court will examine whole record,
leaving state questions to the decision of state courts in eases
coming from them. Yazoo & M. V. R. R. V. Mullins..
31. Raising Federal Question. Under Jud. Code, § 237, as
amended, this court cannot consider claim of federal right
not made in state court at proper time and in proper manner
under state practice and which was denied consideration on
that ground. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson....
32. Federal Question. Exercise of independent judgment by
courts of one State in construing charter granted by another
raises no federal question, if no statute or decision of the
other State, construing the charter, was pleaded or put in
evidence. Id.
33. Concurrent Findings; Negligence. In absence of man-
ifest error, concurrent findings by state courts that evidence
of negligence in case under Federal Employers' Liability Act
is insufficient to go to jury, will not be reëxamined. Gillis v.
N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R...
515
IV. Jurisdiction of Circuit Court of Appeals. See III, (3);
6, 12, 17, supra.
1. When diverse citizenship absent and jurisdiction of Dis-
trict Court based upon ground that suit arises under Con-
stitution, appeal will not lie to Circuit Court of Appeals, but
only, and exclusively, to this court. Raton Water Works
Co. v. Raton...
2. In cases from Alaska. See Alaska Pacific Fisheries v.
Alaska..
V. Jurisdiction of District Court. See II, 2; III (4);
supra; Bankruptcy Act.
1. Constitutional Questions, not devoid of merit, suffice as
basis for jurisdiction in District Court, however decided.
Columbus Ry. & Power Co. v. Columbus..
2. Habeas Corpus; Custody of Infant. No jurisdiction in ha-
beas corpus to determine and award custody of infant at suit
of alien against citizen of State of forum, when only question
is which of parties is the mother. Matters v. Ryan....
|