2. Spanish grants; title of United States.

Whether the original grant made in 1739 by royal authority of Spain

was in severalty or communal, whatever was unallotted passed into the public domain of the United States upon the acquisition of the Territory. Ib.

3. Spanish grants; confirmation by act of July 22, 1854; title passed by. In this case held that the confirmation of a Spanish grant under the act of July 22, 1854, on the application of a town claiming to be the owner, passed the title to that town unburdened with any trust for heirs or grantees of persons named in the original petition and royal decree. Ib.

Illegality where per se reasonable and lawful.

A rate may be per se reasonable and lawful and yet illegal as discriminatory against a shipper or a locality. Portland Ry. Co. v. Oregon Railroad Commission, 397, 414.

See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 6, 7;

STATES.

RATIFICATION.

See PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 5, 6.

REAL PROPERTY.

1. Conveyances under decree of court; defective; sufficiency to pass title. Deeds made by a public officer in pursuance of a decree of the court which are defective in form by reason of a mistake made by such public officer will pass the title to the property intended to be conveyed, as harmful consequences should not fall upon purchasers, who, in reliance upon apparent regularity have paid their money for the property. Camp v. Boyd, 530.

2. Ground rents defined.

The term "ground rents" as used in the deeds and proceedings involved in this case did not import merely the rents that were to accrue during the residue of a 99 year lease renewable forever, but included the reversion as well, it appearing that the entire beneficial interest of the owner of the ground rents and the reversion were undoubtedly the subject of the sale and within the contemplation of the buyer and seller. Ib.

See BANKRUPTCY, 9, 15, 16;

EQUITY, 1, 4;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 8.

RECLAMATION OF ARID LANDS.

1. Cost of irrigation projects; assessment of; expense of maintenance during Government-held period; act of 1902 construed.

The history of the Reclamation Act of 1902 shows that it was the intent of Congress that the cost of each irrigation project should be assessed against the property benefited and that the assessments as fast as collected should be paid back into the fund for use in subsequent projects without diminution. This intent cannot be carried out without charging the expense of maintenance during the Government-held period as well as the cost of construction. Swigart v. Baker, 187.

2. Cost of irrigation projects; legislative construction of act of 1902. Subsequent legislative construction of a prior act may properly be

examined as an aid to its interpretation: and so held that statutes passed since the Reclamation Act of 1902 indicate that Congress has construed the provisions of that act as authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to assess cost of maintenance as well as of construction of irrigation projects upon the land benefited. Ib.

3. Cost of irrigation projects; construction of act of 1902. The repeated and practical construction of the Reclamation Act of 1902 by both Congress and the Secretary of the Interior, in charging cost of maintenance as well as construction, accords with the provisions of the act taken in its entirety and is followed by this court. Ib.

RECORDATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

1. Statutory origin of laws.

Registration laws are of statutory origin, and, in each case, the applicable statute determines what instruments are to be recorded and where and what the effect is of failure to record. First National Bank v. Keys, 179.

2. Re-recordation; effect to require, of act creating new district in Indian Territory.

An act of Congress creating a new district in the Indian Territory and

establishing a clerk's office therein, and which does not expressly so provide, does not require a chattel mortgagee to re-record his instrument in the new clerk's office. Ib.

3. Transfer of records; right of parties not affected by failure of public officer to perform duty as to.

Where the duty of transferring records of instruments from one clerk's office to another newly established is placed upon the clerk, rights of persons under such instruments are not lost on account of the failure of the clerk to comply with the statute. Ib.

RED LAKE RESERVATION.

See INDIANS, 7.

REGISTRATION.

See RECORDATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

REMEDIES.

Power of court to grant; presumption against.

Constant failure to apply for a particular remedy suggests that it is due to conceded want of power in the courts to grant it. Degge v. Hitchcock, 162.

See ATTACHMENT;
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 4;
CERTIORARI; JURISDICTION, D 3, 4;
LOCAL LAW (Colo.).

REMOVAL OF CAUSES.

1. Proceeding in nature of process.

Removal proceedings are in the nature of process to bring the parties before the Federal court. Mackay v. Uinta Co., 173.

2. Proceedings for; regularity; waiver of defects.

The defendant may waive defects in removal proceedings if jurisdiction actually exists, and if he does so the court will not of its own motion inquire into the regularity of the proceedings. Ib.

3. Functions of state and Federal courts.

While issues of fact arising on the controverted allegations in a petition for removal are only triable in the Federal court, the state court may deny the petition if it is insufficient on its face. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Dowell, 102.

4. Joinder of defendants; fraudulent; motive of plaintiff immaterial. Mere averment that a resident defendant, in this case an employé of small means, is fraudulently joined with a non-resident defendant of undoubted responsibility for the purpose of preventing removal by the latter, is not sufficient to raise an issue of fraud in the absence of other averments of actual fraud. The motive of plaintiff in such a case is immaterial; if the right of joinder exists he can exercise it. Ib.

5. Joinder of defendants; propriety question for state court.

If the state court so decides, a plaintiff may joint tort-feasors even though the liability of one is statutory and the liability of the other rests on the common law. Ib.

6. Joinder of defendants; plaintiff's election.

If plaintiff alleges that the concurrent negligence of both defendants caused his injury, he may join them in one action; and if he do so the fact that he might have sued them separately furnishes no ground for removal. Ib.

7. Joinder of defendants; propriety question for state court.

Whether or not defendants are jointly liable depends on plaintiff's averments in the statement of his cause of action, and it is a question for the state court to decide. Ib.

RENTS.

See REAL PROPERTY, 2.

RESERVATIONS.

See INDIANS, 2, 7.

RES JUDICATA.

Effect of decree in equity dismissing, on merits, action to have bridge declared obstruction to navigation, as res judicata in criminal proceeding for failure to remove bridge.

A judgment dismissing, on the merits, an equity action brought by the Secretary of War against a railroad company to declare a bridge over a navigable stream to be an unreasonable obstruction and to require its removal under the act of March 3, 1899, on the ground that the provisions of the act did not apply, held, in a criminal trial on an indictment charging the same party with violating the penal provisions of the said act, to be res judicata and decisive of the question. United States v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 244.

See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 2.

RESTRAINING ORDERS.

See INJUNCTION.

RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

See ANTI-TRUST Act, 2, 3, 4, 5.

RESTRAINT UPON ALIENATION.
See WILLS, 1, 2.

RETIREMENT.

See ARMY AND NAVY.

RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

See NAVIGABLE WATERS, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16.

RIVERS.

See NAVIGABLE WATERS.

SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.

Negligence of carrier; when charge sustained.

Under the Safety Appliance Acts the failure of a coupler to work at

any time sustains a charge of negligence on the part of the carrier. (C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559.) Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 317.