217 U. S. 114–127, 54 L. Ed. 688, 30 Sup. Ct. 496, SOUTHWESTERN OIL CO. v. TEXAS.

Objections that severity of penalties renders statute taxing wholesale dealers in oil void as denial of equal protection of law is not open in civi suit to recover taxes so imposed.

Approved in Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi, 217 U. S. 443, 54 L. Ed. 831, 30 Sup. Ct. 535, upholding anti-trust statute of Mississippi, section 5002, Code, in suit in equity and not to enforce penalties, without determining whether penalties are excessive, where penalty provisions are separable.

Effect of partial invalidity of statute. Note, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 31, 32:

Statute of Texas of 1905 imposing occupation tax on dealers in coal and mineral oils is not void as denial of equal protection of law because similar tax is not imposed on wholesale dealers in other articles.

Approved in Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U. S. 366, 60 L. Ed. 690, 36 Sup. Ct. 378, upholding Florida statute of 1913 imposing special license taxes on merchants using profit-sharing coupons and tradingstamps; Singer Sewing Mach. Co. v. Brickell, 233 U. S. 315, 58 L. Ed. 979, 34 Sup. Ct. 493, upholding Alabama license tax on sewing-machines as to agencies of foreign corporations carrying on intrastate business and holding it inapplicable as to agencies carrying on interstate business; Ohio River etc. Ry. Co. v. Dittey (Ohio Tax cases), 232 U. S. 591, 58 L. Ed. 745, 34 Sup. Ct. 372 (affirming 203 Fed. 548), upholding Ohio statute of 1911 imposing excise tax of four per cent on gross intrastate earnings of railroads and taxing other public utilities at lower rates; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 56, 54 L. Ed. 929, 30 Sup. Ct. 676, upholding Indiana Employers' Liability Statute of 1893 subjecting railroad employees to special rule as to doctrine of fellow-servant; Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky, 217 U. S. 573, 574, 54 L. Ed. 887, 30 Sup. Ct. 578, upholding Kentucky act of 1906 imposing license tax on persons compounding, rectifying, adulterating or blending distilled spirits, but not taxing distillers of whisky; Singer Sewing Mach. Co. v. Brickell, 199 Fed. 657, 658, upholding Alabama statute of 1911 imposing tax upon sales of sewing-machines by itinerant dealers, while exempting sales at regularly established places of business; The Michigan Telephone Tax Cases, 185 Fed. 638, upholding Michigan acts of 1909 taxing telephone and telegraph companies on ad valorem basis and exempting companies whose gross receipts within State for fiscal year did not exceed five hundred dollars; State v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 153 Iowa, 713, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 821, 133 N. W. 900, upholding Code Supplement of 1907, § 5028b, as amended by Acts of 33d General Assembly, c. 222, prohibiting buyers of specified products from discriminating between different localities for purpose of destroying competitor; S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 212 Mass. 46, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 805, 98 N. E. 1061, upholding statute

of 1909 requiring foreign corporation to pay annual excise tax of onefiftieth of one per cent of par value of capital stock, tax not to exceed two thousand dollars; In re Opinion of the Justices, 211 Mass. 623, 99 N. E. 295, House Bill, No. 2247, prohibiting person engaged in general business from entering into combination to destroy competitor is within police power of State; Sonsmith v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 173 Mich. 86, 138 N. W. 359, upholding Public Acts of 1909 withdrawing from common carrier defenses of fellow-servant, assumed risk, and contributory negligence in actions for injuries to employees; City of St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 263 Mo. 445, 457, 174 S. W. 90, 95, upholding ordinance imposing on street railroads license fee for each car used in transporting passengers to amount of one mill for each pay passenger; State v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Or. 449, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 179, 123 Pac. 44, upholding statute of 1907 imposing tax on gross earnings of oil companies doing business in State, as section 4 does not exempt residents of State and there is no discrimination between residents and nonresidents; Commonwealth v. Pflaum, 236 Pa. 302, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1287, 84 Atl. 845, act of 1909 prohibiting use of sulphur dioxide in confectionery is not void because retail dealers selling under guaranty from manufacturer or wholesale dealer are exempt from prosecution.

Constitutional questions raised by the enactment of compulsory workmen's compensation acts based upon State insurance funds, and compensation acts modeled after British compensation act of 1906. Note, 10 N. C. C. A. 19.

217 U. S. 127-136, 54 L. Ed. 695, 30 Sup. Ct. 488, UNITY BANKING & SAVING CO. v. BETTMAN.

Not cited.

217 U. S. 136-150, 54 L. Ed. 698, 30 Sup. Ct. 476, ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. v. ARKANSAS.

State statute requiring railroad to distribute cars for shipment in manner to compel it to pay heavy penalties in connection with interstate business imposes burden on interstate commerce.

Approved in Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 402, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, 57 L. Ed. 1542, 33 Sup. Ct. 729, in absence of congressional action State may regulate intrastate rates of interstate carrier, although relations between interstate and intrastate rates are thereby disturbed; Hampton v. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 227 U. S. 467, 468, 57 L. Ed. 599, 33 Sup. Ct. 263, dismissing suit by railroad to enjoin actions to recover penalties for violation of Arkansas statute of 1907 requiring railroad to furnish cars promptly to shippers and without discrimination, where suit is brought to test validity of statute under commerce clause of Federal Constitution and no interference with interstate commerce is shown.

Distinguished in Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Mulberry Hill Coal Co., 238 U. S. 279, 59 L. Ed. 1308, 35 Sup. Ct. 760, Illinois statute of 1913 requiring railroad to furnish cars within reasonable time after demand is not void as interference with interstate commerce; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Michigan R. R. Commission, 236 U. S. 635, 59 L. Ed. 758, 35 Sup. Ct. 422, order of State railroad commission requiring two railroads to make physical connection for transfer of intrastate business is not void as interference with interstate commerce; Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta Sand etc. Co., 135 Ga. 45, 68 S. E. 812, upholding Storage Rule, No. 9, of Georgia Railroad Commission, adopted under authority of act of 1905; Chandler v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 257 Ill. 83, 100 N. E. 152, section 22 of Statute of 1911, requiring railroad to furnish cars within reasonable time, does not burden interstate commerce and is not void.

217 U. S. 150-157, 54 L. Ed. 705, 30 Sup. Ct. 474, TODD v. ROMEU. Not cited.

217 U. S. 157–179, 54 L. Ed. 708, 30 Sup. Ct. 463, DAVIS v. CLEVELAND, C. C. & ST. L. R. R. CO.

Fact that writ of error was sued out from Circuit Court of Appeals to Circuit Court and dismissed is not bar to jurisdiction of Supreme Court to review judgment of Circuit Court on question of its jurisdiction as Federal court.

Approved in Exchange Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Warsaw-Wilkinson Co., 185 Fed. 488, 107 C. C. A. 587, where judgment was reversed and procedendo was awarded, case should have been remitted to court below for further proceedings consistent with decision rendered.

Nonresident defendant not personally served may appear specially in Federal Circuit Court to contest control of court over property attached. Approved in Big Vein Coal Co. v. Read, 229 U. S. 39, 57 L. Ed. 1056, 33 Sup. Ct. 694, special appearance in Federal court to object to jurisdiction does not give court jurisdiction to issue attachment; McLaughlin Bros. v. Hallowell, 228 U. S. 292, 57 L. Ed. 841, 33 Sup. Ct. 465, in action for breach of warranty in sale of goods against copartnership, nonservice of copartnership (as distinguished from individual partners) was not waived by presentation of removal petition, and remanding order denying jurisdiction was not based on such nonservice; Lowe v. Swinehart Tire etc. Co., 211 Fed. 167, foreign corporation appearing specially and procuring vacation of attachment on ground that attachment papers did not state cause of action is not precluded from moving to dismiss action for want of jurisdiction; dissenting opinion in Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 183 Fed. 948, 106 C. C. A. 269, majority holding judgment of Circuit Court dismissing action for want of jurisdiction of subject matter after special verdict is rendered in trial on merits and pending motion for

judgment on verdict, is reviewable on writ of error by Circuit Court of Appeals.

Distinguished in Western Life Indemnity Co. v. Rupp, 235 U. S. 272, 59 L. Ed. 224, 35 Sup. Ct. 37, State court ruling that defendant, by permitting judgment in his favor to be reviewed on merits at instance of plaintiff without cross-appeal to object to ruling overruling motion. to quash return of summons, waived objection to jurisdiction of person, does not violate due process clause; Smith v. Reed, 210 Fed. 972, jurisdiction cannot be acquired by Federal court of nonresident defendant by attachment of his property within district and publication of summons in accordance with State law; Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 183 Fed. 941, 106 C. C. A. 269, judgment of Circuit Court dismissing action for want of jurisdiction of subject matter after trial on merits and pending motion for judgment on verdict is reviewable on writ of error by Circuit Court of Appeals.

Cars of foreign railway coming into State in interstate transportation through agency of other carriers are subject to attachment under State laws.

Approved in International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 588, 58 L. Ed. 1483, 34 Sup. Ct. 944, fact that corporation is engaged solely in interstate commerce does not render it immune from ordinary process of State courts; Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 410, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, 57 L. Ed. 1546, 33 Sup. Ct. 729, in absence of congressional action, State may regulate intrastate rates of interstate carrier, although relations between interstate and intrastate rates are thereby disturbed; Martin v. West, 222 U. S. 198, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 592, 56 L. Ed. 163, 32 Sup. Ct. 42, upholding sections 5953, 5954 of Washington Code creating and providing for enforcement of liens against vessels for nonmaritime torts, as applied to foreign vessel engaged in interstate commerce; McKinnel v. Landon, 209 Fed. 308, 126 C. C. A. 226, foreign corporation engaged in interstate and local commerce may be adjudged guilty of violating State anti-trust laws order to pay fine, its license canceled and receiver of its property appointed; McKinney v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 206 Fed. 779, appointment by State court of receiver of property in State of foreign corporation engaged in interstate commerce is not interference with right to transact interstate commerce; Sumner Lumber Co. v. Deen, 65 Fla. 153, 61 South. 243, holding attachment proceedings gave court jurisdiction of property and defective affidavit could be amended; Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 179 Ind. 33, 34, 100 N. E. 340, 341, upholding Indiana Statutes of 1908, § 5280, requiring railroad locomotives and cars to be equipped with grab-irons or handholds in the sides or ends thereof; Rosenbush v. Bernheimer, 211 Mass. 150, 154, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1317, 97 N. E. 986, 988, upholding statute providing for attachment by trustee process, as applied to attachment of interstate shipment of goods in hands of interstate carrier; Starkey v.

Cleveland etc. Ry. Co., 114 Minn. 33, L. R. A. 1915F, 880, 130 N. W. 542, upholding garnishment of debt made up of traffic balances arising out of interstate commerce; Board of Health v. Schwarz Bros. Co., 84 N. J. L. 502, 87 Atl. 148, upholding provision of act of 1910 for licensing of slaughter-houses where meat is intended only for export; James v. Lake Shore etc. Ry. Co., 4 Tenn. Civ. 313, 316, fact that action begun by attachment within six months was abated on plea of railroad is no answer to action brought six years afterward, which is barred by limitation in bill of lading to effect that action for injury must be brought within six months.

Distinguished in Pullman v. Linke, 203 Fed. 1019, 1020, sleeping-car waiting at junction with its passengers to be picked up by through train was instrumentality of interstate commerce and not subject to attachment under State writ; Koontz v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 220 Mass. 288, L. R. A. 1915D, 838, 107 N. E. 974, interstate railroad having cars of nonresident railroad in actual use under agreement in force at time of service of process should not be subjected to expense of unloading and redistributing contents of cars by trustee process.

Attachment or garnishment of foreign railroad car. Note, L. R. A. 1915D, 838, 840, 841.

Where debt garnishable. Note, L. R. A. 1915F, 881.

217 U. S. 180-189, 54 L. Ed. 721, 30 Sup. Ct. 470, CHICAGO, ST. P. M. & O. R. R. CO. v. UNITED STATES.

Not cited.

217 U. S. 189-195, 54 L. Ed. 725, 30 Sup. Ct. 459, BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. BOSTON.

Federal Supreme Court accepts State court's construction of State statute as to condemnation of land.

Approved in De Biasi v. Normandy Water Co., 228 Fed. 240, following New Jersey court's construction of New Jersey Workmen's Compensation Act of 1911 and Death Act of 1848, and holding that on death of employee administrator could not maintain action against employer under Death Act where nothing had been done to prevent application of section 2 of Workmen's Compensation Act, nor under latter act where decedent's only dependents were nonresident aliens.

Where land condemned is subject to servitudes, parties in interest are not deprived of property without due process of law because each is awarded value of his interest in property.

Approved in Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 451, 452, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, 57 L. Ed. 1563, 33 Sup. Ct. 729, property of railroad cannot be valued for basis for rate-making at price above other similar property solely by reason of fact that it is used as railroad; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 76, 80, 57 L. Ed. 1080, 1082, 33 Sup. Ct. 667, owner of separate parcel of land is not entitled to additional value resulting as part of compre