216 U. S. 56-77, 54 L. Ed. 378, 30 Sup. Ct. 232, PULLMAN CO v. KANSAS EX REL. COLEMAN.

Kansas statute requiring foreign corporation to pay charter fee of specified per cent of capital stock representing property in State and outside of State as condition precedent to transacting local business is void as applied to foreign corporation engaged in interstate commerce.

Approved in Sault Ste. Marie . International Transit Co., 234 U. S. 341, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 574, 58 L. Ed. 1341, 34 Sup. Ct. 826, holding ordinance requiring license fee for operating ferry-boats to Canadian shore void as burden on foreign commerce; Harrison v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 232 U. S. 333, L. R. A. 1915F, 1187, 58 L. Ed. 626, 34 Sup. Ct. 333, holding Oklahoma statute prohibiting foreign corporation transacting business in State from asserting in court citizenship other than that of State, and providing for revocation of charter upon filing of removal petition, void as to corporation engaged in interstate commerce; Atchison etc. Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 223 U. S. 285, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1050, 56 L. Ed. 438, 32 Sup. Ct. 216, holding tax imposed by Colo. Sess. Laws 1907, c. 211, upon capital stock of foreign corporation, most of whose property is without State, is void; Herndon v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 158, 54 L. Ed. 978, 30 Sup. Ct. 633, holding void Missouri act of 1907, amending Rev. Stats., § 1075, requiring interstate trains to stop at junction points; Ludwig v. Western Union Tel. Co., 216 U. S. 163, 54 L. Ed. 430, 30 Sup. Ct. 280, holding provision of Wingo Act of Arkansas of 1907 requiring foreign corporation to pay license tax measured by capital stock, employed in State or elsewhere, for privilege of transacting intrastate business, is void; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mississippi R. R. Commission, 229 Fed. 254, 255, holding void Mississippi act of 1912 (Acts 1912, c. 102), imposing tax and prohibiting operation of interstate railroad without paying tax and obtaining license; Texas etc. Ry. Co. v. United States, 205 Fed. 387, holding order of Texas commission reducing rates on intrastate shipments below compensatory rate in order to secure advantage to dealers in State over competitors in other States, is void as burden on interstate commerce; Haskell v. Cowham, 187 Fed. 407, 410, 109 C. C. A. 235, holding void Okl. Laws 1907, c. 67, prohibiting crossing of highways beneath their surface by pipelines used to transport natural gas to points outside of State; Shepard v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 184 Fed. 770, 771, 773, 774, 793, holding void Minnesota acts of 1907, reducing intrastate passenger and freight rates, as necessarily burdening interstate commerce; Zikos v. Oregon etc. Nav. Co., 179 Fed. 903, upholding Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908; State v. Hodges, 114 Ark. 163, 169 S. W. 945, upholding act of 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 744), revoking authority of foreign corporation to transact business in State upon its removal of cause to Federal court; H. K. Mulford Co. v. Curry, 163 Cal. 281, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288, 125 Pac. 239, 240, 241, holding void provisions of Civ. Code, § 409, and Pol. Code, § 416, subd. 4, imposing upon foreign corporation license tax

measured by capital stock; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gifford, 25 Idaho, 203, 206, 209, 136 Pac. 1133, 1134, 1135, upholding statute of 1912 imposing license tax measured by capital stock, as applied to intrastate business of foreign corporation engaged in both local and interstate business; Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. McLean, 245 Ill. 332, 137 Am. St. Rep. 322, 92 N. E. 250, holding foreign corporation manufacturing cement in State of domicile and selling it in State through agents may sue in State courts, though it has not complied with Hurd's Rev. Stats. 1909, c. 32, § 67g, relating to foreign corporations; Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. v. Commonwealth, 218 Mass. 567, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 214, 106 N. E. 314, upholding Foreign Corporation Tax Law of 1909, c. 490, pt. 3, § 56; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. State, 107 Miss. 599, 65 South. 882, holding void provision of Laws 1908, c. 122, prohibiting foreign corporation. from engaging in intrastate commerce upon removal of cause to Federal court; State ex rel. General Elec. Co. v. Alderson, 49 Mont. 32, 34, 140 Pac. 83, holding Rev. Codes, § 165, imposing fees for recording and filing certificates of foreign corporations applies only to corporations conducting intrastate business; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Swindelhurst, 47 Mont. 125, 126, 130 Pac. 967, holding Rev. Codes, § 165, imposing fees for filing articles of incorporation and certificates of increase of capital stock, void as applied to foreign corporation engaged in interstate commerce; E. D. Clough & Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 77 N. H. 227, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1195, 90 Atl. 865, holding valid defense in action by shipper to recover rates on interstate shipment in excess of those permitted by State statute, that rates charged were rates filed under Interstate Commerce Act; Hirschfeld v. McCullagh, 64 Or. 516, 130 Pac. 1132, holding void L. O. L., § 6707 (Sess. Laws 1903, p. 43, § 5), imposing tax upon capital stock of foreign corporation, irrespective of whether it is employed in State; State v. Northern Express Co., 80 Wash. 310, 141 Pac. 758, upholding Laws 1907, c. 54, imposing privilege tax upon gross receipts of express company for privilege of transacting intrastate business.

Explained in Albert Pick & Co. v. Jordan, 169 Cal. 9, 10, 14, 15, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 1237, 145 Pac. 509, 510, 511, upholding license tax, measured by capital stock, imposed upon foreign corporation for privilege of doing business within State.

Distinguished in Kansas City etc. Co. v. Botkin, 240 U. S. 231, 234, 60 L. Ed. 619, 620, 36 Sup. Ct. 262, upholding Kan. Laws 1913, c. 135, imposing tax on corporation for privilege of transacting business in State, which tax is measured by amount of paid-up capital stock, as applied to domestic corporation; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Pennsylvania, 238 U. S. 146, 59 L. Ed. 1241, 35 Sup. Ct. 829, upholding Pennsylvania act of 1895 levying annual tax of two per cent upon gross premiums received in State by insurance company; Baltic Min. Co. v. Massachusetts, 231 U. S. 82, 85, 58 L. Ed. 133, 134, 34 Sup. Ct. 15, upholding Massachusetts Statute of 1900, c. 490, imposing on certain

classes of foreign corporations excise tax measured by authorized capital, but limited to specific sum; Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 400, 401, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, 57 L. Ed. 1542, 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; Southern Ry. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 413, 414, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247, 54 L. Ed. 540, 30 Sup. Ct. 287, holding State may not impose additional franchise tax, not imposed upon domestic corporation, upon foreign corporation which has already come into State in compliance with laws and has acquired property of fixed and permanent character; Brown v. Pittsburgh Life etc. Co., 10 Ala. App. 619, 65 South. 701, upholding provision of Code 1907, § 2089, as amended 1909, § 4, imposing tax upon foreign insurance companies of certain percentage of gross premiums received in State; Baltic Min. Co. v. Commonwealth, 207 Mass. 383, 93 N. E. 831, and S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 212 Mass. 37, 42, 49, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 805, 98 N. E. 1057, 1059, 1063, both upholding Stats. 1909, c. 490, pt. 3, § 56, requiring foreign corporation to pay excise tax measured by capital stock; Atlas Powder Co. v. Goodloe, 131 Tenn. 508, 510, 514, 516, 175 S. W. 552, 553, 554, upholding Acts 1909, c. 504, imposing tax measured by capital stock on foreign corporation engaged in selling powder within State.

Validity of statute providing that foreign corporation shall not re

move action brought against it into Federal court. Note, Ann.
Cas. 1912C, 1160.

Imposition of license tax or fee on foreign corporation. Notes,
Ann. Cas. 1916C, 1250; Ann. Cas. 1913C, 815, 816.

Right of State to forbid exportation of natural resources. Note,
35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1197.

216 U. S. 78-84, 54 L. Ed. 390, 30 Sup. Ct. 230, CINCINNATI N. O. & T. P. R. R. CO. v. SLADE,

Miscellaneous. Cited in Devou v. Cincinnati etc. Ry. Co., 220 U. S. 605, 55 L. Ed. 605, 31 Sup. Ct. 718, and Hubbard v. Worcester Art Museum, 220 U. S. 605, 55 L. Ed. 606, 31 Sup. Ct. 718, both dismissing for want of jurisdiction.

216 U. S. 84-91, 54 L. Ed. 393, 30 Sup. Ct. 224, CONLEY v. BALLINGER. While United States maintains and protects Indian use or occupation of land against others, it is bound only by honor and not by law, and government cannot be supposed to have abandoned its attitude of protection, nor is its good faith broken by change in disposition of Indian lands believed by Congress to be for welfare of Indians.

Approved in Alabama v. Schmidt, 232 U. S. 174, 58 L. Ed. 558, 34 Sup. Ct. 301, holding State statute disposing of school lands conveyed

to State by Enabling Act does not impair obligation of contract of Enabling Act.

There is no question as to the complete legislative power of the United States over land of the Wyandottes while it remained in their occupation before their quitclaim to the United States.

Approved in Mosier v. United States, 198 Fed. 58, 117 C. C. A. 162, holding Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906 did not render inoperative in State, act of Congress of 1897 making it offense to sell or furnish liquor to Indians.

216 U. S. 92-101, 54 L. Ed. 396, 30 Sup. Ct. 225, KING v. WEST VIRGINIA.

Where Supreme Court has determined constitutionality of State statute, question is not open, and cannot be made basis of writ of error.

Approved in Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 456, 54 L. Ed. 837, 30 Sup. Ct. 568, following rule; Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U. S. 155, 157, 55 L. Ed. 155, 156, 31 Sup. Ct. 171, upholding provisions of Revenue and Taxation Act of Kentucky of 1906; Sheffey v. Davis Colliery Co., 204 Fed. 342, denying right of land owner failing to enter land for taxes to maintain action to recover land from purchaser at void judicial sale; King v. Buskirk, 196 Fed. 304, 116 C. C. A. 119, holding under W. Va. Code 1900, c. 105, §§ 6, 18, decree in suit by State for sale of land for nonpayment of taxes is conclusive as to title of purchaser and right of original owner to redeem land; Straus v. Foxworth, 16 N. M. 451, 117 Pac. 833, holding tax certificate issued under Acts 1899, c. 22, § 31, vests title in purchaser.

Construction and effect of decree of State court, how far it bound State and whether or not it bound parties subsequently coming in, were matters of State procedure alone.

Approved in Moss v. Ramey, 239 U. S. 547, 60 L. Ed. 431, 36 Sup. Ct. 185, holding decision of highest State court is controlling as to whether appellate court may correct interlocutory decree upon first appeal when same case with same parties again comes before it; Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U. S. 444, 56 L. Ed. 1156, 32 Sup. Ct. 739, holding Circuit Court of Appeals should have followed State court's construction of will as giving testator's son estate in fee subject to defeat only by failure to leave lineal descendant; Lewers v. Atcherly, 222 U. S. 295, 56 L. Ed. 206, 32 Sup. Ct. 94, affirming decree of Supreme Court of Hawaii adjudicating title to real estate.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Venner v. Denver Union Water Co., 219 U. S. 583, 55 L. Ed. 346, 31 Sup. Ct. 472, Hunter v. South Carolina, 219 U. S. 583, 55 L. Ed. 346, 31 Sup. Ct. 470, and Glos v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 599, 57 L. Ed. 375, 33 Sup. Ct. 112, all dismissing for want of jurisdiction.

216 U. S. 102–115, 54 L. Ed. 402, 30 Sup. Ct. 372, BABBITT v. DUTCHER. Books and records of bankrupt corporation pass, upon adjudication, to trustee, and in absence of adverse holding, bankruptcy court may compel delivery to trustee in summary proceeding.

Approved in In re Schmick Handle & Lumber Co., 233 Fed. 449, holding bankruptcy court having fund within its jurisdiction may summarily adjudicate disputed rights thereto; Orinoco Iron Co. v. Metzel, 230 Fed. 44, 46, 144 C. C. A. 338, holding bankruptcy court in Ohio may enjoin suit in District of Columbia to establish trust maleficio in indemnity fund held by government for benefit of creditors; In re Wegman Piano Co., 228 Fed. 62, holding bankruptcy court having possession of property has jurisdiction to determine conflicting claims to property; Stone-Ordean-Wells Co. v. Mark, 227 Fed. 978, 142 C. C. A. 433, holding execution creditor adverse claimant who could not, in absence of proof of insolvency at time of levy of execution, be compelled to pay money to bankrupt's trustee in summary proceeding; Courtney v. Shea, 225 Fed. 361, 140 C. C. A. 382, holding trustee cannot in summary proceeding compel bankrupt and wife to pay money deposited in bank in wife's name and stock in building association, and compel executor of bankrupt to pay for stock in building association, but must resort to plenary action; In re Goldstein, 216 Fed. 888, 133 C. C. A. 91, holding claim. based upon transfer antedating bankruptcy was of a class requiring plenary suit; Galbraith v. Robson-Hilliard Grocery Co., 216 Fed. 844, 845, 133 C. C. A. 46, holding bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine validity of lien of mortgage on property in another State; Shea v. Lewis, 206 Fed. 880, 881, 124 C. C. A. 537, denying summary jurisdiction to try wife's title to bankrupt's property; In re Cantelo Mfg. Co., 201 Fed. 159, 160, holding claim of title, not based on transfer prior to possession, to property in possession of bankruptcy court, may be determined in summary proceeding; In re Logan, 196 Fed. 687, holding bankruptcy court has jurisdiction in summary proceeding to determine claim not asserted prior to bankruptcy; In re Denson, 195 Fed. 855, holding bankruptcy court has jurisdiction in summary proceeding to compel restoration of property of bankrupt sold after filing of petition to one chargeable. with knowledge of fraudulent transaction; In re Alexander, 193 Fed. 754, holding receiver in bankruptcy may maintain summary proceeding to set aside sale and recover property sold by bankrupt to his attorney and by attorney to another person; McEldowney v. Card, 193 Fed. 481, holding suit by trustee in bankruptcy to recover for breach of contract by him with defendants is not within jurisdiction conferred by Bankruptcy Act, § 23a; In re Rathman, 183 Fed. 919, 927, 106 C. C. A. 253, denying jurisdiction of bankruptcy court to determine in summary proceeding adverse claim of mortgagee antedating bankruptcy; Clay v. Waters, 178 Fed. 393, 21 Ann. Cas. 897, 101 C. C. A. 645, holding bankruptcy court having jurisdiction of money in possession of bankrupt at time of adjudication with part of which real estate was purchased