States and after completion the Secretary of War is to take charge
of the canal, does not make the United States responsible, prior to
completion, where Congress has expressly declared that the canal
will only be accepted after completion, and that the local author-
ities shall meanwhile assume all responsibility in connection there-
with. Ib.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 6, 14, 16, 26-36;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 1, 2, 9, 10, 11.
REAL PROPERTY.
See DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION, 2.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 36, 38, 39.
See BANKRUPTCY, 5, 6, 8;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 32;
CORPORATIONS, 10.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 12.
Duty of counsel in dealing with case.
In presenting petitions for rehearing a duty rests upon counsel to deal
with the case as it is disclosed by the record. Chapman & Dewey
v. St. Francis Levee District, 667.
RELEASE OF SURETY.
See CONTRACTS, 6, 7, 8.
RELIGIOUS BODIES.
See ECCLESIASTICAL BODIES.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 25;
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
See JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 1.
RESERVATIONS.
See INDIANS, 6, 7.
RES JUDICATA.
See CORPORATIONS, 7;
JURISDICTION, A 17.
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
1. Combinations in, within meaning of Sherman Law.
The Sherman Law, as construed by this court in the Standard Oil Case,
while not reaching normal and usual contracts incident to lawful
purposes and in furtherance of legitimate trade, does broadly con-
demn all combinations and conspiracies which restrain the free
and natural flow of trade in the channels of interstate commerce.
Eastern States Lumber Asso. v. United States, 600.
2. Combinations in; action of association of retail dealers calling members'
attention to actions of wholesale dealers.
Held in this case that the circulation of a so-called official report among
members of an association of retail dealers calling attention to
actions of listed wholesale dealers in selling direct to consumers,
tended to prevent members of the association from dealing with the
listed dealers referred to in the report, and to directly and unrea-
sonably restrain trade by preventing it with such listed dealers,
and was within the prohibitions of the Sherman Law. Ib.
3. Combinations in; effect of agreement among retail dealers not to deal
with wholesaler.
While a retail dealer may unquestionably stop dealing with a whole-
saler for any reason sufficient to himself, he and other dealers may
not combine and agree that none of them will deal with such whole-
saler without, in case interstate commerce is involved, violating the
Sherman Law. Ib.
See FEDERAL QUESTION, 2;
JURISDICTION, A 12, 13;
NAVIGABLE WATERS.
1. Construction; considerations in.
This court has heretofore construed the letter of the Safety Appliance
Act in the light of its spirit and purpose as indicated by the title no
less than by the enacting clauses and that guiding principle should
be adhered to. Southern Ry. Co. v. Crockett, 725.
2. Locomotive headlights not within.
None of the safety appliance statutes enacted by Congress relate to or
regulate locomotive headlights. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia,
280.
3. Vehicles contemplated by.
Although the original Safety Appliance Act may not have applied to
vehicles other than freight cars, the amendment of 1903 so broad-
ened its scope as to make its provisions, including those respecting
height of draw-bars, applicable to locomotives other than those
that are excepted in terms. Southern Ry. Co. v. Crockett, 725.
4. Vehicles to which provision of 1903 as to height of draw-bars applicable.
By the amendment of 1903 to the Safety Appliance Act the standard
height of draw-bars was made applicable to all railroad vehicles
used upon any railroad engaged in interstate commerce, and to all
other vehicles, including locomotives, used in connection with
them so far as the respective safety devices and standards are
capable of being installed upon the respective vehicles. Chicago
&c. Ry. Co. v. United States, 196 Fed. Rep. 882, approved. Ib.
SAFETY DEVICES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 32;
LEGISLATIVE POWER;
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
See ACTIONS, 1;
PUBLIC LANDS, 17.
1. Controversies between; rules of procedure applicable.
The ordinary rules of legal procedure applicable to cases between in-
dividuals cannot be always applied to controversies between States
involving grave questions of law determinable by this court under
the exceptional grant of jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution.
Virginia v. West Virginia, 117.
2. Controversies between; leave to file supplemental answer in Virginia v.
West Virginia.
In this case the defendant State is permitted to file a supplemental
answer, the averments in which are to be considered as traversed
by the complainant State, and the subject-matter of the supple-
mental answer is referred to the Master before whom previous
hearings were had with directions to report at the commencement
of the next term of this court. Ib.
3. Power to extend operations of its statutes beyond its borders.
A State may not extend the operation of its statutes beyond its borders
into the jurisdiction of other States, so as to destroy and impair the
right of persons not its citizens to make a contract not operative
within its jurisdiction and lawful in the State where made. New
York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 149, 166.
4. Power to regulate business of licensed foreign corporation outside of its
borders.
The power that a State has to license a foreign insurance company to
do business within its borders and to regulate such business does
not extend to regulating the business of such corporation outside of
its borders and which would otherwise be beyond its authority. Ib.
5. Power to extend operation of its statutes beyond its borders; effect of
Missouri statute regulating loans on life insurance.
A statute of Missouri regulating loans on policies of life insurance by
the company issuing the policy, held not to operate to affect a
modifying contract made in another State subsequent to the loan
by the insured and the company neither of whom was a resident or
citizen of Missouri. Ib.
6. Power to regulate railroads engaged in interstate commerce.
In the absence of legislation by Congress, the States may exercise their
powers to secure safety in the physical operation of railroad trains
within their territory, even though such trains are used in interstate
commerce. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 280.
In regulating interstate trains as to matters in regard to which Con-
gress has not acted, a State may not make arbitrary requirements
as to safety devices; but its requirements are not invalid as inter-
fering with interstate commerce because another State, in the ex-
ercise of the same power, has imposed, or may impose, a different
requirement. Ib.
8. Power to legislate to affect conduct in territory within exclusive jurisdic-
tion of United States.
A State cannot legislate so as to affect conduct outside of its jurisdic-
tion and within territory over which the United States has exclu-
sive jurisdiction. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown, 542.
9. Power to determine conduct of telegraph company in another State.
A State may not determine the conduct required of a telegraph com-
pany in transmitting interstate messages by determining the con-
sequences of not pursuing such conduct in another State. Ib.
|