Distinguished in Carondelet Canal & Nav. Co. v. Louisiana, 233 U. S. 372, 58 L. Ed. 1005, 34 Sup. Ct. 627, holding judgment of State court in suit by State to recover canal property, improvements and appurtenances, reserving claim to triangular strip, not appurtenant, for further proceedings is final and reviewable.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Long-Bell Lumber Co. v. Moses, 239 U. S. 626, 60 L. Ed. 473, 36 Sup. Ct. 162, Northern Trust Co. v. Illinois, 234 U. S. 749, 58 L. Ed. 1575, 34 Sup. Ct. 673, De Bearn v. De Bearn, 225 U. S. 695, 56 L. Ed. 1261, 32 Sup. Ct. 834, and Meyers v. Samuels, 223 U. S. 716, 56 L. Ed. 627, 32 Sup. Ct. 521, all dismissing for want of jurisdiction.

222 U. S. 187–190, 56 L. Ed. 156, 32 Sup. Ct. 47, MISSOURI & K. I. RY. CO. V. OLATHE.

Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to review judgment of State court which gives no effect to subsequent law, which it is asserted impaired obligation of contract of franchise, but bases decision on grounds independent of that law, that right claimed was not conferred by contract.

Approved in Missouri & Kansas Interurban Ry. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U. S. 191, 56 L. Ed. 159, 32 Sup. Ct. 47, following rule; Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Behrman, 235 U. S. 170, 59 L. Ed. 180, 35 Sup. Ct. 62, ordinance of New Orleans relating to construction of belt railroad is not void as impairing obligation of contract based on former ordinance, as contract was subject to suspensive condition and event on which obligation was to arise did not happen; Cross Lake Shooting etc. Club v. Louisiana, 224 U. S. 639, 56 L. Ed. 928, 32 Sup. Ct. 577, decree of State court avoiding conveyance by board of commissioners of levee district on ground of lack of authority of commissioners to convey until instrument had been executed by State officers, does not give effect to acts of 1902, repealing earlier acts so as to present question of impairment of contract obligations.

222 U. S. 191, 56 L. Ed. 159, 32 Sup. Ct. 47, MISSOURI & K. I. RY. CO. v. OLATHE.

Not cited.

222 U. S. 191–198, 56 L. Ed. 159, 32 Sup. Ct. 42, MARTIN v. WEST.

Where vessel collides with bridge which is essentially land structure used as aid to commerce on land, tort is nonmaritime.

Approved in Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 60, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1157, 58 L. Ed. 1212, 34 Sup. Ct. 733, holding admiralty jurisdiction extends to cause of action against stevedoring company for injury to employee through negligence in failing to secure hatch on vessel lying in navigable waters; Swayne v. Barsch, 226 Fed. 588, 141

C. C. A. 337, denying admiralty jurisdiction of action for personal injury occurring on dock while person is engaged in discharging vessel, and holding Oregon Employers' Liability Law is applicable.

Distinguished in Latta & Terry Construction Co. v. Raithmoor, 241 U. S. 175, 60 L. Ed. 940, 36 Sup. Ct. 514, upholding admiralty jurisdiction of libel in rem against vessel for damages caused by collision with incompleted beacon in navigable waters to be used as aid to navigation; Southern Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia etc. R. Co., 196 Fed. 550, holding owner of drawbridge across Potomac River is liable for injury to barge striking projecting pier.

Statute of Washington (Code, sections 5953, 5954), giving lien upon vessels, whether domestic or foreign, and whether engaged in intrastate or interstate commerce, although it may incidentally interfere with use of vessel in interstate commerce, is not void as in conflict with regulation of Congress or as offending against commerce clause of Constitution.

Approved in Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 409, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, 57 L. Ed. 1546, 33 Sup. Ct. 729, holding State may, in absence of congressional action, regulate intrastate rates of interstate carrier, although relations between interstate and intrastate rates are thereby disturbed; Koontz v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 220 Mass. 289, L. R. A. 1915D, 838, 107 N. E. 974, upholding statute providing for attachment by trustee process, as applied to attachment of interstate shipment of goods in hands of interstate carrier; Commonwealth v. Breakwater Co., 214 Mass. 14, 17, 100 N. E. 1037, 1038, upholding statute of 1907, as amended in 1909, requiring inspection of steam boilers except those under jurisdiction of United States, as applied to boiler on barge used exclusively in tide water; Rosenbush v. Bernheimer, 211 Mass. 154, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1317, 97 N. E. 987, upholding attachment by trustee process of cases of shoes in possession of interstate carrier.

222 U. S. 199–204, 56 L. Ed. 163, 32 Sup. Ct. 44, UNITED STATES v. CONGRESS CONSTR. CO.

Jurisdiction of Circuit Court is in issue in sense of Act of 1891, section 5, wherever power of court to hear and determine cause, as defined or limited by Constitution of United States, is in controversy, and direct writ of error lies where jurisdiction of Circuit Court, in view of statutory provisions bearing upon place of bringing action, was in issue.

Approved in Male v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 240 U. S. 101, 60 L. Ed. 546, 36 Sup. Ct. 353, refusing to dismiss appeal from Federal District Court presenting question of jurisdiction on ground that since dismissal by court below for want of jurisdiction, controversy has become moot by reason of dismissal on merits by State court; Louisville etc. R. R. Co., v. Western Union Tel. Co., 234 U. S. 372, 58 L. Ed. 1358,

34 Sup. Ct. 810, holding on direct appeal under Judicial Code, § 238, suit to annul judgments of special courts of eminent domain is suit to remove cloud from title based upon remedial statute within Judicial Code, § 57, and is cognizable in Federal District Court in district where property is situated, although neither of parties reside in district; Darnell v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 225 U. S. 245, 56 L. Ed. 1074, 32 Sup. Ct. 760, dismissing direct writ of error to review judgment of Circuit Court dismissing action to recover excess freight charges from nonresident railroad because declaration contained no averment that commerce commission had sustained right to reparation; Chase v. Wetzlar, 225 U. S. 83, 56 L. Ed. 993, 32 Sup. Ct. 659, holding under Act of 1891, § 5, direct appeal to Supreme Court lies, although bill was dismissed for want of proof of property within jurisdiction of Circuit Court as required in case of absent defendants by Act of 1875, § 5, and not because of want of power of Circuit Court as Federal Court; Easton v. Chicago Hotel Co., 231 U. S. 738, 58 L. Ed. 461, 34 Sup. Ct. 317, dismissing for want of jurisdiction.

Distinguished in Farrugia v. Philadelphia etc. Ry. Co., 233 U. S. 353, 58 L. Ed. 997, 34 Sup. Ct. 591, dismissing direct writ of error to review decision of District Court granting nonsuit in action under Federal Employers' Liability Act because evidence did not show employee was engaged in interstate commerce.

Under act of 1894, as amended in 1905, action on public contractor's bond given under such act is within exclusive jurisdiction of Circuit Court in district in which contract was to be performed, and such Circuit Court has authority to obtain jurisdiction of defendants through service of process in other districts.

Approved in Baker Contract Co. v. United States, 204 Fed. 394, 122 C. C. A. 560, holding act of 1905 authorizing suit to enforce materialman's lien against public contractor to be brought in name of United States requires suit to be brought in district in which contract was to be performed, and court of such district has jurisdiction to issue process for service in another district on nonresident defendants; In re Hawley, 194 Fed. 752, holding Federal Circuit Court has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce materialman's lien against public contractor giving bond under act of 1905, and unliquidated claim for materials is not provable under Bankruptcy Act against estate in bankruptcy of public contract.

Limited in United States v. Marshall, 225 Fed. 762, 141 C. C. A. 26, holding provision of act of 1905 authorizing materialman to intervene in suit by United States on public contractor's bond, or, if no suit is brought by United States, to bring suit in name of United States in district in which contract was to be performed, does not require United States to bring action against contractor and surety in such district.

Act of 1894, as amended in 1905, requires single action to be brought on
bond of public contractor, and that all demands for labor or material shall
be adjudicated in such action.

Approved in United States v. Stannard, 206 Fed. 329, holding pro-
vision for notice in act of 1905 relating to action to enforce liens for
materials and labor against public contractor's bond is mandatory,
creating condition precedent to right to sue on bond; People v. Metro-
politan Surety Co., 211 N. Y. 115, 105 N. E. 101, claim of material-
man not reduced to judgment in Federal court as required by act of
1905, cannot be asserted in insolvency proceedings in State court
against surety on public contractor's bond.

Right of citizen to enforce public contract. Note, 49 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 1195.

Right of United States to maintain civil action. Note, Ann. Cas.
1912D, 515.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Illinois Surety Co. v. United States, 240
U. S. 223, 60 L. Ed. 615, 36 Sup. Ct. 324, holding action under act of
Congress of 1894, as amended in 1905, against surety on public con-
tractor's bond is one at law; National Surety Co. v. United States, 228
Fed. 580, holding District Court has jurisdiction of action by creditor
on contractor's bond, though brought on law side of court, especially
as Judicial Code, § 274a, added by amendment of 1915, provides for
amendment of pleadings to conform them to proper practice; United
States v. Wells, 203 Fed. 148, issues in action at law by creditor on
public contractor's bond under act of 1905, may be referred by consent
of parties to referee as arbitrator, whose report may be made basis of
judgment.

222 U. S. 204-209, 56 L. Ed. 165, 32 Sup. Ct. 37, UNITED STATES EX
REL. TURNER v. FISHER.

Notice to attorney of Creek freedmen, given few hours before hearing
of motion to strike their names from rolls on ground that enrollment had
been secured by perjury, was not such notice as afforded due process of law.

Approved in Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 245, 279, 289, 46 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 796, 142 N. W. 620, 632, 645, holding removal of insurance com-
missioner by Governor was denial of due process where notice was given
one hour before proceedings and reasonable opportunity to testify and to
be heard by counsel was denied.

Mandamus is not writ of right, but issues to remedy wrong, not to pro-
mote one, and will not be issued in aid of those who do not come into court
with clean hands.

Approved in Lane v. Duncan Townsite Co., 44 App. D. C. 67, denying
mandamus to compel Secretary of Interior to issue patent to deceased
Indian.

Power of courts to enforce ministerial duties of heads of departments. Note, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 417, 435.

222 U. S. 210-214, 56 L. Ed. 168, 32 Sup. Ct. 38, BANKER BROTHERS CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA.

Sale of goods in his own State by agent of manufacturer in another State is not interstate nor immune from State taxation.

Approved in Corey v. Independent Ice Co., 207 Fed. 462, holding in stockholders' suit under Sherman Anti-trust Act, allegations that ice company is cutting ice in New Hampshire, transporting it to Boston and selling it in Boston, are insufficient to show that corporation is engaged in interstate commerce.

Where sale of article manufactured in another State is intrastate, it does not become interstate from fact that purchaser pays freight from place of manufacture.

Approved in State v. Gross, 76 N. H. 308, 82 Atl. 535, holding sale of liquor was intrastate and in violation of Public Statutes, c. 112, where contract, payment and delivery were made in State, and fact that purchaser paid express charges was immaterial.

Automobile distribution contracts. Note, L. R. A. 1915B, 110.

222 U. S. 215–221, 56 L. Ed. 171, 32 Sup. Ct. 39, UNION PACIFIC R. R. Co. V. UPDIKE GRAIN CO.

Carrier cannot refuse to pay owner of elevator located on other roads compensation for elevating grain similar to that paid to owners of elevators located on its own road because of failure to return cars within arbitrary and unreasonable time fixed by carrier, but elevator company must return cars within reasonable time in order to be entitled to compensation.

Approved in Elwood Grain Co. v. St. Joseph etc. Ry. Co., 202 Fed. 849, 121 C. C. A. 153, holding void contract of interstate railroad to. pay elevator company specified amount per car on grain received from stations on its line, passing through elevator, not allowed to all elevators, nor included in filed tariff schedules; dissenting opinion in Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. United States, 200 Fed. 794, majority holding fact that sugar refiners who are owners of terminals were paid for lightering their own product after it had become product of purchasers by delivery to carrier at terminal was not giving of rebate within meaning of Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.

Distinguished in Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. United States, 200 Fed. 792, fact that sugar refiners who are owners of terminals are paid for lightering their own product after it has become product of purchasers by delivery to carrier at terminal is not giving of rebate within meaning of Interstate Commerce Act.