CONTRACTS.-Act of April 23, 1904, 33 Stat. 268 (see Contracts, 4):
Barry v. United States, 47.
COPYRIGHTS.-Rev. Stat., § 4952 (see Patents, 8): Bauer v. O'Don-
nell, 1.
CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1246, c. 2564 (see
Jurisdiction, A 12): United States v. Adams Express Co., 381.
CRIMINAL LAW.-Rev. Stat., § 5440 (see Anti-Trust Act, 4): Nash v.
United States, 373.
CUSTOMS DUTIES.-Act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. 636, c. 3912 (see
Philippine Islands, 5): MacLeod v. United States, 416.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.-Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1062, c.
546 (see District of Columbia, 1): District of Columbia v. Petty,
593.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.-(See Employers' Liability Act): St.
Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. Seale, 156.
EXTRADITION.-Act of August 3, 1882, § 3, 22 Stat. 215, c. 378 (see
Extradition, 7, 8): Charlton v. Kelly, 447.
HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS.-Rev. Stat., § 4825 (see Claims Against the
United States, 2): National Home v. Parrish, 494.
HOURS OF SERVICE LAW of March 4, 1907, 34 Stat. 1415, c. 2939 (see
Hours of Service Law): St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. McWhirter,
265.
INDIANS.-Act of January 14, 1889, 25 Stat. 642, c. 24 (see Indians, 2,
6, 7): United States v. Mille Lac Chippewa Indians, 498. Rev.
Stat., § 2139, as amended by acts of July 23, 1892, 27 Stat. 260,
c. 234, and January 30, 1897, 29 Stat. 506, c. 109 (see Indians, 5):
United States v. Wright, 226.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591
(see Interstate Commerce, 2): United States v. Adams Express Co.,
381. Act of February 4, 1887, 24 Stat. 379, c. 104 (see Interstate
Commerce, 2): Ib.
JUDICIARY.-Judicial Code of 1911, § 237 (see Jurisdiction, A 5): St.
Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. McWhirter, 265. Act of March 3,
1893, 27 Stat. 751, c. 225 (see Bankruptcy, 9, 15): Robertson v.
Howard, 254. Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517 (see Prac-
tice and Procedure, 10): Chicago, R. 1. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 317.
Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, c. 373, as amended August 13,
1888, 25 Stat. 433, c. 866 (see Attachment, 2, 3): Big Vein Coal Co.
v. Read, 31. Act of April 7, 1874, 18 Stat. 27, c. 80, § 2 (see Juris-
diction, A 9): Citizens' National Bank v. Davisson, 212. Rev. Stat.,
§ 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 1, 2, 3): Dill v. Ebey, 199; (see Jurisdic-
tion, A 4, 5): St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. McWhirter, 265. Sec-
tion 723 (see Jurisdiction, A 1): Dill v. Ebey, 199; (see Jurisdiction,
D3): Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Benedict, 481; (see Courts, 1):
Dill v. Ebey, 199.
Co. v. Read, 31. Chapter 18 (see Courts, 1): Dill v. Ebey, 199.
MAILS.-Act of August 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 539, c. 389 (see Mails, 3):
Section 915 (see Attachment, 2): Big Vein Coal
Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan, 288.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.-Act of March 3, 1909, 35 Stat. 815, c. 264 (see
Navigable Waters, 6): United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 53.
Act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. 1151, c. 425 (see Res Judicata):
United States v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 244.
OKLAHOMA ENABLING ACT of June 16, 1906, 34 Stat. 267, c. 3335 (see
Indians, 5): United States v. Wright, 226.
PATENTS.-Rev. Stat., § 4884 (see Patents, 8): Bauer v. O'Donnell, 1.
PUBLIC LANDS.-Act of July 22, 1854, 10 Stat. 308, c. 103 (see Public
Lands, 3): Bond v. Barela, 488.
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.-Act of August 24, 1912, § 2, 37 Stat. 539,
c. 389 (see Constitutional Law, 16): Lewis Publishing Co. v. Mo
gan, 288.
RECLAMATION ACT of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, c. 1093 (see Reclama-
tion of Arid Lands): Swigart v. Baker, 187.
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS of March 2, 1893, 27 Stat. 531, c. 196, and
March 2, 1903, 32 Stat. 943, c. 976 (see Safety Appliance Acts):
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 317.
TARIFF ACT of October 1, 1890, § 36, 26 Stat. 567, c. 1244 (see Criminal
Law): United States v. Shelley, 239.
GENERALLY.-See INDIANS, 1.
ADMINISTRATION.
See BANKRUPTCY, 9, 20.
AMENDMENT OF PLEADING.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 1.
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION
Fifth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16;
EMINENT DOMAIN;
First.-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16;
Fourteenth.-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
1. Construction; attitude of court.
This court can see no reason for reading into the Sherman Act more
than it finds there. Nash v. United States, 373.
2. Criminal provisions; conspiracy; sufficiency of indictment.
It is not necessary for an indictment under the Sherman Act to allege
or prove that all the conspirators proceeded against are traders.
(Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274.) Ib.
3. Criminal provisions; conspiracy; indictment; sufficiency of evidence
under.
Where the indictment under the Sherman Act alleges numerous
methods employed by the defendants to accomplish the purpose to
restrain trade, it is not necessary, in order to convict, to prove
every means alleged, but it is error to charge that a verdict may
be permitted on any one of them when some of them would not
warrant a finding of conspiracy. Ib.
4. Criminal provisions; conspiracies within; sufficiency of indictment.
The Sherman Act punishes the conspiracies at which it is aimed on the
common law footing and does not make the doing of any act other
than the act of conspiring a condition of liability. In this respect
it differs from § 5440 and the indictment need not aver overt acts
in furtherance of the conspiracy. Brown v. Elliott, 225 U. S. 392,
distinguished. Ib.
5. Criminal provisions; uncertainty as to prohibitions.
In many instances a man's fate depends upon his rightly estimating,
that is as the jury subsequently estimates it, some matter of degree,
and there is no constitutional difficulty in the way of enforcing the
criminal provisions of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act on the ground of
uncertainty as to the prohibitions. Ib.
1. Appeal from Circuit Court of Appeals; sufficiency of involution of con-
stitutional questions.
While the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in a case where diverse
citizenship exists may also rest upon the fact that the case is one
arising under the Constitution of the United States, in which case
there is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, that is not the case where the alleged infractions of the Con-
stitution are without color of merit, or are anticipatory of defend-
ant's defense. Denver v. New York Trust Co., 123.
2. Finality of decree for purposes of.
The test of finality of a decree for the purposes of appeal to this court
is the face of the decree itself, and unless it is final the appeal will
not lie. Paducah v. East Tennessee Telephone Co., 476.
3. Finality of decree continuing injunction, for purposes of appeal.
A decree which continues an injunction against a municipality unless
it adopts an ordinance specified therein held not final prior to the
passage of the ordinance or declaration not to do so, and appeal
dismissed as premature. Ib.
EXTRADITION, 11; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.
APPEARANCE.
See ATTACHMENT, 1, 4.
1. Naval officers; retirement of; pay to which entitled.
A naval officer who had been retired under § 23 of the act of 1861 for
disability not originating in the line of duty and afterwards trans-
ferred to the three-quarter pay list under § 1558, Rev. Stat., by
authority of a special act of Congress, held, not entitled to advanced
pay to which officers retired on account of wounds or disability
incident to the service are entitled under the act of June 29, 1906.
Morse v. United States, 208.
2. Naval officers; retirement; effect of special act of Congress to change
status.
There being nothing in the record to show that any injustice was done
by the Retiring Board in retiring an officer of the navy for dis-
ability not originating in the line of duty, a special act of Congress
subsequently passed for his relief and placing him on a list by
which he receives increased pay, will not be construed as one re-
lieving him from wrong and injustice and giving him the benefits
of officers retired for disabilities incident to the service. Ib.
ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS.
See RECLAMATION OF ARID LANDS;
STATUTES, A 2.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK.
See INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY, 1.
1. Jurisdiction of Circuit Court to issue.
A Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction to issue an
order of attachment in a case where no personal service can be had
upon the defendant and where there has been no personal appear-
ance in the action. Big Vein Coal Co. v. Read, 31.
2. Jurisdiction of Circuit Court; effect of § 915, Rev. Stat., and act of
March 3, 1887, as amended.
Neither under § 915, Rev. Stat., nor under any provision of the act
of March 3, 1887, as amended August 13, 1888, can the auxiliary
remedy by attachment be had in a Circuit Court of the United
States where that court cannot obtain jurisdiction over the de-
fendant personally. Ib.
3. Jurisdiction of Federal courts to grant; non-service of defendant; effect
of act of March 3, 1887, as amended.
This court will not construe an amendment to the judiciary statute
as making such a radical change as granting a new remedy unless
provision is clearly made for making the remedy effective; and so
held, that as Congress did not in the act of March 3, 1887, as
amended August 13, 1888, make any provision for service by pub-
lication, the act will not be construed as giving jurisdiction to
Federal courts to grant attachments in cases where the defendant
cannot be served. Ib.
4. Jurisdiction of Federal courts to grant; effect of special appearance of
defendant.
In the Federal courts an appearance may be made for the sole purpose
of raising jurisdictional questions without thereby submitting to
the jurisdiction of the court over the action; and where, as in this
case, no issue involving the merits was made, a special appearance
to object to the jurisdiction does not give the court jurisdiction to
issue an attachment. Ib.
5. Incidental nature of; power of Federal courts to issue.
An attachment is still but an incident to a suit and unless jurisdiction
can be obtained over the defendant, his estate cannot be attached
in a Federal court. Ib.
1. Assets; property wrongfully converted as.
No creditor of the bankrupt can demand that the estate of the bank-
rupt be augmented by the wrongful conversion of property of an-
other, or the application to the general estate of property which
never rightfully belonged to the bankrupt. Gorman v. Littlefield,
2. Brokers; right of customers to stock certificates; materiality of identity
of certificates.
Where the trustee of a bankrupt broker finds in the estate certificates
|