87

to grant free transportation to police officers and refusing to mine its validity with reference to other public officers in reviewconviction for assaulting detective in ejecting him from car for refusal to pay his fare.

Who may raise objection to constitutionality of statute or ordinance.
Note, 19 Ann. Cas. 175.

217 U. S. 455-456, 54 L. Ed. 837, 30 Sup. Ct. 568, FAY v. CROZER.

West Virginia Constitution, providing for forfeiture of lands to State for failure to pay taxes for five years, affords due process of law.

Approved in Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U. S. 155, 157, 55 L. Ed. 155, 156, 31 Sup. Ct. 171, Kentucky act of 1906 providing for summary procedure in assessment and collection of back taxes on land does not deprive purchaser of property without due process, where purchase was made after delinquencies occurred; Snyder v. Upper Elk Coal Co., 228 Fed. 23, 142 C. C. A. 477, holding under West Virginia decisions there can be no privity between former owner and person paying taxes under tax deed even if such deed is void and former owner whose title has been forfeited for failure to pay taxes cannot maintain bill in equity to remove cloud from title; Sheffey v. Davis Colliery Co., 204 Fed. 342, under West Virginia Constitution, art. XIII, § 6, land of nonresident heirs is forfeited for failure to register it and to pay taxes thereon; Straus v. Foxworth, 16 N. M. 451, 117 Pac. 833, tax certificate issued under section 31, chapter 22, of Acts of 1899, providing for sale of property for delinquent taxes without judgment of court vests title in purchaser which cannot be invalidated for irregularities in proceedings leading up to sale.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Daeche v. Bollschweiler, 241 U. S. 641, 60 L. Ed. 1217, 36 Sup. Ct. 446, and King v. Buskirk, 231 U. S. 735, 58 L. Ed. 460, 34 Sup. 316, both dismissing for want of jurisdiction.

217 U. S. 457–461, 54 L. Ed. 838, 30 Sup. Ct. 613, HUTCHINSON V. LOEWY.

Under sections 17 and 18 of Trademark Act of 1905, final decision of Circuit Court of Appeals in suit brought under that act can only be reviewed by certiorari, not by appeal.

Approved in J. A. Scriven Co. v. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co., 223 U. S. 708, 56 L. Ed. 623, 32 Sup. Ct. 518, dismissing for want of jurisdiction; Street v. Atlas Mfg. Co., 231 U. S. 352, 353, 58 L. Ed. 264, 34 Sup. Ct. 73, dismissing appeal as section 297 of Judicial Code did not repeal section 18 of Trademark Act of 1905, and judgments and decrees in trademark cases are reviewable only on certiorari, not on appeal; Diederich v. W. Schneider Wholesale Wine etc. Co., 195 Fed. 38, 115 C. C. A. 37, where parties are citizens of same State, Federal courts have no jurisdiction to determine question of unfair trade.

217 U. S. 461-474, 54 L. Ed. 839, 30 Sup. Ct. 606, KIDD, DATER & PRICE CO. v. MUSSELMAN GROCER CO.

Michigan Sales in Bulk Act of 1905 avoiding, as against creditors, sales in bulk without inventory and actual notice to creditors, is within police power of State, and does not deny equal protection or due process of law. Approved in Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U. S. 343, 60 L. Ed. 1036, 36 Sup. Ct. 561, upholding Michigan act of 1913 imposing license fee upon employment agencies; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 112, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, 55 L. Ed. 117, 31 Sup. Ct. 186, upholding Oklahoma act of 1907 assessing State banks to create Depositors' Guaranty Fund; Boise Assn. of Credit Men v. Ellis, 26 Idaho, 445, L. R. A. 1915E, 917, 144 Pac. 8, upholding Bulk Sales Law, §§ 33323335, Revised Codes; Hirth-Krause Co. v. Cohen, 177 Ind. 3, 6, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 708, 97 N. E. 2, 3, upholding Indiana statute of 1909 prohibiting sales of merchandise in bulk without complying with certain conditions as to inventory and notice to creditors; Dwiggins Wire Fence Co. v. Patterson, 166 Ky. 284, 179 S. W. 227, upholding section 2651a, Kentucky Statutes of 1915, known as "Sales in Bulk Statute"; People v. Brazee, 183 Mich. 263, 149 N. W. 1054, upholding Public Acts of 1913, No. 301, imposing license fee upon employment agencies; Wm. R. Moore Dry Goods Co. v. Rowe & Carithers, 97 Miss. 783, 53 South. 628, upholding bulk sales law of 1908; Wheeler & Motter Merc. Co. v. Moon, 49 Mont. 313, 141 Pac. 668, upholding bulk sales law of 1907, requiring seller to deliver to buyer sworn statement of names and addresses of all of seller's creditors; Steele etc. Co. v. Miller, 92 Ohio St. 128, 110 N. E. 651, upholding Ohio act of 1913, known as bulk sales law, requiring notice to creditors; Kett v. Masker, 86 N. J. L. 99, 90 Atl. 244, upholding Sales in Bulk Act of 1907; Noble v. Ft. Smith Wholesale Grocery Co., 34 Okl. 666, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 455, 127 Pac. 16, upholding Oklahoma bulk sales law of 1908; Motlow v. State, 125 Tenn. 569, 145 S. W. 183, upholding act of 1909 prohibiting manufacture for sale of intoxicating liquor except alcohol of not less than 188 proof for chemical and other specified purposes; State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen, 65 Wash. 188, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 466, 117 Pac. 1111, 2 N. C. C. A. 823, upholding industrial insurance law of 1911 requiring contributions from employers to accident fund for relief of workmen injured in extrahazardous occupations.

Distinguished in Alabama etc. Transp. Co. v. Doyle, 210 Fed. 181, provision of Public Acts of Michigan of 1913 regulating sale of securities within State is void; dissenting opinion in Wiseman v. Tanner, 221 Fed. 711, majority upholding Washington statute of 1914 prohibiting employment agent from receiving fee for furnishing employment or information leading thereto.

Constitutionality of statutes prohibiting sales of merchandise in bulk. Note, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 708.

nstitutionality of bulk sales laws. Note, L. R. A. 1915E, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922.

217 U. S. 475–487, 54 L. Ed. 846. 30 Sup. Ct. 608, SOUFFRONT v. LA COMPAGNIE DES SUCRERIES DE PORTO RICO.

Person, who openly and to knowledge of opposing party, prosecutes or defends action in name of another, or assists in prosecution or defense, to establish his own right or interest is bound by judgment, and may avail himself of it as estoppel against adverse party.

Approved in Cushman v. Warren-Scharf Asphalt Paving Co., 220 Fed. 860, 135 C. C. A. 289, judgment in suit in Federal court to compel city to perform statutory duty in levying assessments to pay for street paving is binding and conclusive on defendants in suit to enforce payment of assessment by property owners, where such owners defended prior action with city's consent and knowledge of paving company.

217 U. S. 488–496, 54 L. Ed. 851, 30 Sup. Ct. 602, OWEN v. DUDLEY & MICHENER.

Not cited.

217 U. S. 497-499, 54 L. Ed. 855, 30 Sup. Ct. 601, H. C. COOK CO. v. BEECHER.

Action on judgment in patent case is not suit upon patent, nor action ancillary to prior suit upon patent, and Federal court has no jurisdiction of such action between citizens of same State.

Distinguished in Cushman v. Warren-Scharf Asphalt Paving Co., 220 Fed. 862, 135 C. C. A. 289, where city, pursuant to mandamus of Federal court, levies assessment to pay debt for street-paving, subsequent suit to enforce payment of assessment by property owners is ancillary to prior action and is within jurisdiction of court without regard to amount involved.

217 U. S. 499-502, 54 L. Ed. 856, 30 Sup. Ct. 600, STOFFELA V. NUGENT. Person by committing fraud does not become an outlaw.

Approved in United States Fire Escape Counterbalance Co. v. Joseph Halsted Co., 195 Fed. 298, assignee of patent assigned in violation of Sherman anti-trust law of 1890 may sue infringer and latter cannot justify wrongful acts by attacking patent transfer.

217 U. S. 502-508, 54 L. Ed. 859, 30 Sup. Ct. 598, JAVIERRE v. CENTRAL ALTAGRACIA.

Specific performance of contract and injunction to prevent delivery of crops elsewhere will not be granted where action for damages will afford adequate relief.

Approved in A. G. Lehman Co. v. Island City Pickle Co., 208 Fed. 1017, denying specific performance of contract to purchase goods for

purpose of reselling where contract is executory at time of seller's breach; Kennon v. Brooks-Scanlon Co., 184 Fed. 988, 106 C. C. A. 665, denying specific performance of contract enforceable only by mandatory injunction covering period of years; Kennon v. Brooks-Scanlon Co., 132 La. 519, 61 South. 556, judgment on demurrer dismissing suit asking for mandatory injunction to compel performance of contract is not res adjudicata of suit setting up same facts and asking for damages.

Distinguished in Texas Co. v. Central Fuel Oil Co., 194 Fed. 14, 15, 114 C. C. A. 21, granting injunction to restrain violation of contract for sale of production of oil wells, although contract extends over term of years, where personal services, skill or judgment are not involved and supervision of court not required.

Specific performance of personal property contracts. Note, Ann.
Cas. 1915D, 788.

217 U. S. 509-524, 54 L. Ed. 861, 30 Sup. Ct. 588, HOLMGREN v. UNITED STATES.

Congress may authorize State courts to admit aliens to citizenship and may authorize prosecution in Federal court for perjury committed in naturalization proceedings whether in State or Federal courts.

Approved in Hayes v. Canada etc. S. S. Co., 184 Fed. 823, 108 C. C. A. 175, granting mandamus to compel United States commissioner to take jurisdiction of proceedings to obtain arrest of judgment debtor on execution issued by Federal court.

Jurisdiction of State court in naturalization proceeding.
Ann. Cas. 1915C, 428, 429.

Note,

Objection to jury taking into jury-room indictment with indorsement thereon of prior conviction of accused, not taken until motion for new trial is not reviewable by writ of error to Federal Supreme Court.

Approved in Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 251, 20 Ann. Cas. 1138, 54 L. Ed. 1029, 31 Sup. Ct. 2, denying motion for new trial in capital case on ground that jury were allowed to separate during trial and during separation read newspaper articles bearing on trial; Southern Ry. Co. v. White, 232 Fed. 144, 146 C. C. A. 336; granting new trial on ground of excessive damages in action for personal injuries is within discretion of trial court and not reviewable; Smith v. United States, 231 Fed. 32, denial of motion for new trial in prosecution for conspiracy to defraud government of customs duties is not error, where court considered supporting affidavits; Andrews v. United States, 224 Fed. 419, 139 C. C. A. 646, denial of new trial in prosecution for conspiracy to import opium is not error although affidavits of newly discovered evidence were filed; National Bank of Commerce v. United States, 224 Fed. 683, 140 C. C. A. 219, denial of motion for new trial in prosecution of disbursing officer for embezzlement, was not error; Pocahontas Distilling Co. v. United States, 218 Fed. 785, 134 C. C. A. 566, holding refusal of new trial in suit for libel against distillery is

91

viewable on writ of error; Kettenbach v. United States, 202 Fed. 120 C. C. A. 505, denial of motion for new trial in prosecution of bank officers for falsifying reports is not reviewable on writ of error; Mitchell v. United States, 196 Fed. 878, 116 C. C. A. 436; ruling on motion for new trial in prosecution in Federal court for misuse of mails is not reviewable on writ of error, even when based on affidavits of matter occurring after submission of case to jury; Hillman v. United States, 192 Fed. 273, 112 C. C. A. 522, holding refusal to receive cumulative affidavits offered in support of motion for new trial, in prosecution for using mails to defraud purchasers of town lots, after motion had been taken under advisement, and trial court was ready to announce decision, was not abuse of discretion.

Objection that indictment having wrong name in one count is insufficient, not taken on demurrer at trial, comes too late in Federal Supreme Court, where substantial rights of accused are not affected.

Approved in Lamar v. United States, 241 U. S. 117, 60 L. Ed. 917, 36 Sup. Ct. 535, indictment charging accused with fraudulent intent under section 32 of Penal Code in pretending to be member of Congress, is sufficient under section 1025, Revised Statutes; Scoric v. United States, 217 Fed. 874, 133 C. C. A. 581, fact that name of defendant charged with others with contempt for violating injunction is omitted, through clerical error, from order entered on petition transferring proceeding to criminal docket for trial, does not invalidate judgment.

While courts should caution juries against too much reliance upon testimony of accomplices and require corroborating testimony, refusal to give instruction assuming that witness was accomplice, where such conclusion was controverted, was not error.

Approved in Mark Yick Hee v. United States, 223 Fed. 735, 139 C. C. A. 262, holding evidence sufficiently corroborates testimony of accomplice to sustain conviction of violation of Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882, 1884 and 1907; Diggs v. United States, 220 Fed. 552, 136 C. C. A. 147, holding in prosecution for violation of White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 that refusal to instruct jury not to place too much reliance upon testimony of accomplices is not reversible error; Fain v. United States, 209 Fed. 533, 126 C. C. A. 347, reversing conviction for conspiracy to make false entries on public lands, where motion to strike out testimony of witness that person making corroborating affidavit for defendant in land contest was "professional contester and ringer" for such defendant was denied; Sykes v. United States, 204 Fed. 913, 123 C. C. A. 205, reversing conviction of burglary on uncorroborated testimony of accomplice, although no motion was made at trial for instructed verdict; Richardson v. United States, 181 Fed. 9, 104 C. C. A. 69, holding refusal to instruct jury not to rely on uncorroborated evidence of accomplices was not error and affirming conviction of cashier of national bank for false entries, where government denies clerks making entries under directions of cashier were accomplices.