Appellants Brief — Robertson v. Railroad Labor Bd.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

tenet OF Tacha. 656655 ciciion sy ee conte ehe da% 1

Questions of Jurisdiction Certified by the District

MG Chel iareds Scie ware bag OS 2

Argument:

PART ONE.

The District Court Erred in Denying Appellant’s Motion

to Quash the Service of Summons.

I. Under common law principles the District

Court had no authority to send its process out-

side the Northern District of Illinois; the Ju-

dicial Code, Section 51, prohibits it from enter-

taining jurisdiction of a civil suit against an

inhabitant of the Northern-District of Ohio... 4

Summary of opposing contentions........ , 5

The jurisdiction of a court is available only

within the territorial limitations of the dis-

trict for which it is created.............. 7

II. Congress, by Section 310 of the Transporta-

tion Act, did not exercise its admitted power of

granting extra-territorial authority to the Dis-

SE CE akin co a0, pane ance cgraneeennees 17

Admittedly, Congress has the power to ex-

tend the process of the District Courts be-

yond their territorial boundaries.......... 17

ii

PAGE

This Court has never lightly imputed to

Congress an intention of discarding com-

mon law principles or a long established

statutory policy. It has always demanded

that the statute relied upon demonstrate

such an intention in unmistakable and ex-

plicit language .............22ceeseeeeeee 18

To sustain appellee’s interpretation of the

statutory language here in issue it is neces-

sary to make judicial amendments to a num-

ee S| SR enn eine aer ar 21

This court has decided that ‘‘any court”’

used in a statute necessarily means ‘‘any

court of competent jurisdiction’’.......... 25

Other courts have reached the same conclu-

sion as to the statutory meaning of ‘‘any

ee iia we ata’ 32

III. The fundamental principles of statutory con-

struction are opposed to the interpretation of

Section 310 urged by the appellee............ 38

The words ‘‘any court’? having been ju-

dicially defined to mean ‘‘any court of com-

petent jurisdiction,’’ Congress used them

in that sense in Section 310.............. 39

The authority of the Railroad Labor Board

can be made effective without the extraordi-

nary interpretation contended for by the

| ORE eer gee aE nee Er were a 41

The Labor Board’s interpretation of Sec-

tion 310 would result in unjustifiable incon-

venience and expense to defendants. Such

an interpretation will never be sustained

whenever as here, the statutory language is

susceptible of another equally obvious, but

more reasonable interpretation ...... coven. ae

iii

PAGE

When Congress has intended to extend the

authority of a District Court outside its dis-

trict or to alter the general venue provis-

ions, it has always done so in explicit terms ;

this is demonstrated by an examination of

numerous Acts of Congress.............+-- 48

This court will avoid appellee’s construc-

tion because of its effect on other Federal

Cs Pere rere rl rere re eee eae 66

Summary and Conclusion of Part One............ 66

PART TWO.

The District Court Erred in Denying Appellant’s Motion

to Dismiss the Petition of the Railroad Labor Board.

I. The Petition Prays for an Order to Compel Re-

spondent (Appellant) to Appear and Testify

before the Railroad Labor Board, which would

Deprive Him of Liberty and Property Without

Due Process of Law in Violation of the Fifth

dena: bij. a). os oes ia sewers bee me oi ane es i 71

To compel testimony is to deprive the wit-

ness of liberty and property. Such depri-

vation to be constitutional must be justified

by a corresponding public benefit......... 71

Because of the social interest in the admin-

istration of justice, the compulsion of testi-

mony in the determination or enforcement

of legal rights involves no unconstitutional

deprivation .......... 6 cece cece eee eee eee 72

This principle determines the limits of the

duty to testify in the courts...........+..+-- 73

PAGE

The duty to testify before legislative bodies

is limited in accordance with similar prin-

The Supreme Court has decided that admin-

istrative bodies cannot compel testimony

unless thereby legal rights are determined

or enforced

The Brimson Case so holds

The Harriman Case so holds

Federal Trade Commission Cases dis-

Applying the foregoing principles and

precedents, it is evident that for a court to

compel the giving of testimony before the

Railroad Labor Board would be unconsti-

tutional

Il. The Petition of the Railroad Labor Board Did

not Invoke ‘‘Judicial Power’’ to Determine a

‘‘Case’’ or ‘‘Controversy’’ Within the Limita-

tions of Article III of the Constitution

The judicial power does not extend to pro-

ceedings such as those before the Railroad

Labor Board, in which no legal rights can

be determined

Congress cannot extend the judicial power

to matters which are not subject to judicial

Interstate Commerce Commission prece-

dents have no application to the Railroad

PAGE

Ill. The Petition Calls upon the Court to Partici-

pate in the Formulation of a Public Policy, Con-

trary to Ancient Principles.................. 135

The function of the Railroad Labor Board

is to formulate public opinion............ 135

The courts, from time immemorial, have re-

fused to participate in any way in the politi-

cal function of formulating public opinion.. 138

Ce, Br ao, Tes oe da vane os 6 oso baked ae 143

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.

os

Abbotsford v. Johnson, 98 U.S. 440............... 39

Acts of Congress:

Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20,1 Stat. 79 (Ju- -

GREE IED oa 6s ocen a bxKs 8, 10, 13, 18, 19, 34, 40

Act of March 2, 1793, c. 22, 1 Stat. 335; BR. S.

918 (Rule-making power of courts).......... 30

Act of March 2, 1793, ¢. 22, 1 Stat. 335; RB. S.

876 (Subpoenas for witnesses)............. 52

Act of March 3, 1797, ec. 20, 1 Stat. 515; RB. S.

986 (Writs of execution)...............06- 16, 53

Act of February 19, 1799, Secs. 1 and 2, 1 Stat.

OF ASSET ee Rie es beta senda Cevtats 61n

Act of March 3, 1799, Sec. 17, 1 Stat. 743, 748.. 61n

Act of May 20, 1826, c. 124, 4 Stat. 184; R. S.

985 (Writs of Execution)..................

Act of August 23, 1842; R. S. 917.............. 30

Act of March 3, 1849, 9 Stat. 410.............. 61n

Act of March 3, 1851, ec. 43, 9 Stat. L. 635; R. S.

4283, 4284 (Limitation of Vessel-Owner Lia-

MR DY. we ncbndabiend a Uwekwkes 20, 25, 27, 31, 39

Act of January 24, 1857, c. 19, 11 Stat. 155; R. 8.

DOS. vas wbd beads cod bad GUAUL Geel budnkcewes 86

Act of May 4, 1858, Sees. 1 and 2, 11 Stat. 272.. 61n

Act of June 30, 1864, c. 173, 13 Stat. 238; R. S.

BEET cc chs anise oda cen bie Veeeaehess 20

Act of July 8, 1870, c. 230, 16 Stat. 204; R. S.

SG rai Ss BA Pee ie a i as ass 56

Act of May 21, 1872, c. 177, 17 Stat. 136; RB. S.

ES Paes ANW Ss Voie cu ke dass eek 32, 34, 35

Act of June 1, 1872, c. 255, 17 Stat. 198; R. S.

Be Shit ricki bathe keguen cca bnecacus $ou% 37

Act of March 3, 1873, 17 Stat. 508............ 54

Act of June 4, 1880, Sec. 2, 21 Stat. 155........ 62n

Act of June 14, 1880, 21 Stat. 198............. 62n

Act of June 26, 1884, c. 121, Sec. 18, 23 Stat. 57. 20

viii

PAGE

Act of August 2, 1886, c. 840, 24 Stat. 209 (Oleo-

margarine Tax) .........-ssecessscsceeess

Act of February 4, 1887, c. 104; 24 Stat. 379, as

amended (Interstate Commerce Act) :

Bevtion 13..0..5.065'.. 42, 62, 63, 64-91, 92, 94, 101

Daria WE isis ei RO 89

Act of March 3, 1887, Sec. 2, 24 Stat. 488....... 106

Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, Sec. 1, 24 Stat. 552

CPOE 8s oats che RG 14, 31, 34

Ba a. uly 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (Sherman

TF PRS PTR re ag A rg Be 49

NE Dace a <n 639 kbc Aa ee aR eens 49

Act of July 5, 1892, Sec. 4, 27 Stat. 72, 73...... 62n

Act of December 28, 1892, 27 Stat. 409, c. 14.... 120

Act of July 12, 1894, 28 Stat. 102............. 62n

Act of July 18, 1894, Sec. 4, 28 Stat. 115........ 62n

Act of May 4, 1898, 30 Stat. 397............... 62n

Act of March 2, 1901, c. 800, 31 Stat. 877, Sec. 4

(Spanish Claims Act) ...........eseeeeeees

Act of August 5, 1904, 36 Stat. 112 (Corporation

OE MEN a uns) «kn owing aston Men meas abe ae 48

Act of March 4, 1909, ¢. 320, 35 Stat. 1084 (Copy-

Wa BN) 5s oes dale on wise skp Ven awnen Beclen’

Act of April 5, 1910, ¢. 143, 36 Stat. 291........ 20

Act of April 12, 1910, 36 Stat. 29.............. 62n

Act of March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1100 (Ju-

dicial Code) :

eee ee si Oe a A ee PO 19

EES Sa eae pare ate beara 57

UNE ooo. koh dee eats cava aa paene® 58

SU ee og sy gag Nic eae bie kin O kale 57

SEE ac oo is dak Og cha deans cues a 56

SOI, Rs un cleo ee « ees ce ncuaestaceam 55

TE ) Rape are Mee ae ae ee 4, 18

Act of August 23, 1912, c. 351, 37 Stat. 415

(Comm. Industrial Relations) .............. 138

ix

PAGE

Act of July 15, 1913, ¢. 6, 38 Stat. 103, See. 5

(Newlands Act) PES Fe WWE es LO WR Bbc URS 61

Act of October 22, 1913, 38 Stat. 219 (District

Court Jurisdiction BR eb ELE TT oe HENS 0

Act of September 26, 1914, c. 311, 38 Stat. 717

(Federal Trade Commission Act) :

Sees Geis EONAR 51, 105

OR rey: Pies he ey 103, 105

UES do vce eee ee 50, 101, 103, 105

i. ee re ar men ern alarm De 105

Act of October 15, 1914, c. 323, 38 Stat. 730:

(Clayton Act) :

Ee eT eee re ee as Ee 49

8 PO Te PEL EEE PESTS RINE es 50

Act of September 8, 1916, 39 Stat. 756 (Revenue

Fo aeeeare eee ee TELE TET eee TT Ce ee eee 60

Act of September 8, 1916, Title VII, 39 Stat. 797

(Fast OOM): onside icc ike sees es 61

Act of February 5, 1917, 39 Stat. 886 (Immigra-

tiom Inapectind Act) 2 oo 000.00 ces ccdinsscewes 61

Act of March 22, 1919, c. 80, 41 Stat. 300, See.

wei ae gtk a VY } Sea epee 58

Act of February 28, 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 472, as

amended by Act of June 5, 1920, c. 235, Title

III (Transportation Act) ...... 113, 114, 115, 127

NE BE TIPE 5. nin'd 0.4.40 dcbnesgnee asin 134

ee TOD CD). occ kcccsecsvinnswedehodts 41

Section 310..... 5, 40, 45, 48, 63, 95, 101, 131, 134

OGEIONE DEA Fike Wi wn ins ec ane bd Whda che 135

Act of March 9, 1920, Sec. 2, 41 Stat. 528....... 62n

Act of June 5, 1920, ¢. 250, 41 Stat. 988 (Mer-

GE PROTO) 5's 0.6 5 6:0 ce kb0eos chacceeues 19, 20

Act of June 10, 1920, c. 285, 41 Stat. 1063, Sec.

4 Water Power Bet) iw... ecdes echoes 58

Act of February 18, 1922, c. 57, 42 Stat. 388

(Capper-Volstead Act) ..........ceeeeeeeee 57

Act of September 19, 1922, c. 344, 42 Stat. 849

(Subpoenas for Witnesses).............. 53, 62n

x

PAGE

Act of yer 21, 1922, c. 369, 42 Stat. 998,

Sec. 6 (B) (Grain Futures Act)

Act of September 22, 1922, c. 412, 42 Stat. 1023

(Coal Commission) 59, 138

Act of V. Eliz., c. 9, See. 12 (1562)

Acts of VII and VIII William III, c. 3, See. 7 (1695) 75

Adams v. Field, 21 Vt. 256

American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. 8. .

American Decisions, Vol. 100, p. 515

Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204

Attorney General, Matter of, 21 N. Y. Mise. 101....

Augusta, ete., Railroad v. Randolph, 85 Ga. 297....

Bacon, Abridgement, ‘‘Statute’’ I

Bacon, Maxims, Reg. 10, Spedding, Vol. VII, 356.. 48

Barnes, Ez parte, 73 Tex. Cr. 583

Bennett v. Waller, 23 Ill. 97

Bentham, Draft for a Judicial Establishment, Works

of Bentham, Bowring’s Ed., IV, 320 78

Blair v. United States, 250 U. 8. 273

Bloomer v. MeQuewan, 14 How. 539

Board of Commissioners v. Markle, 46 Ind. 96

Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. 633

Borden v. Enterprise Transportation Company, 195

Bourke v. Amison, 32 Fed. 710

Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616

Brotherhood of Clerks v. Pennsylvania Railroad,

Brotherhood of Clerks et al. v. Pennsylvania Rail-

road, Nos. 3118, 3140, C. C. A., Second Circuit,

March Term, 1924

Brown v. Barry, 3 Dall. 365

Bunkers, Ex parte, 1 Calif. App. 61

Burdette v. Abbott, 14 East. 1

Burnham v. Morrissey, 14 Gray (Mass.) 226

Butler v. Boston & 8S. S. S. Co., 139 U. S. 527

xi

PAGE

Catheart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. 280................- 39

Cely v. Griffin, 113 Fed. 981...........-.+-+-++++ 15, 16

Chambers v. Oehler, 107 Ia. 155........-...--+.-- 74, 80

Chapman, In re, 166 U.S. 661.........----+---00e- 86

Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 5 Pet. 1...... 140

Claire Furnace Com v. Federal Trade Commis-

sion, 285 Fed. 936... eektibnaswetbekdnsdexaes 104

Clem v. The State, 33 Ind. 418.................+5- 37

Cohen, Ex. parte, 104 Cal. 524........-.-00--seees 73

Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264................... 120

Coke, Institutes, Vol. 2, p. 200............. ery 46

Commercial Trust Co. v. Miller, 262 U. S. 51...... 140

Commissioner of Patents v. Whitely, 4 Wall. 522.. 140

Commonwealth v. Barry, 98 Ky. 394.............. 79

Commonwealth v. Hartnett, 3 Gray 450............ 39

Congressional Record :

ee Oe er a OOOD, ia a's «cic acts 136

Tel: OF: Bent AO, i GOB... 5.0. cccosinccns. ssi: 136

Wel. OD, Part 4 w. SBB6. 2.222220 cc ccccccss.se. 135

Constitution of the United States:

NP REE 59, 70, 109, 118, 120

Fourth Amendment ............-..----+++- 86, 101

Fifth Amendment ............ 69, 71, 74, 83, 86, 124

i OE ., én 000ness bb ade de dhe suk 59

Countess of Shrewsbury’s Case, 2 How. 8. T. Tr. 769 73

Crosby, Case of, Lord Mayor, 3 Wils. 188.......... 85

Dansereau, Ex parte, XIX, Lower Can. Jurist, 210.. 88

D’Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165................. 16

Daugherty, Ex parte, 229 Fed. 620.............. 87, 88n

Davies, In the Matter of, 168 N. Y. 89......... 73, 75, 76

Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U. S. 680................... 16

Den ex den. Murray v. Hoboken Land Improvement

Company, 18 How. 272 ............-.+0-04-- 121, 124

PAGE

eng, Tak. STH TT, eo. eR 7

Draft for a Judicial Establishment, Bentham, Works

Ob Wak. 2V,. Bees, eek 2h, Vos a ek OM 77

Dudley v. McCord, 65 Ia. 671.................... 74-80

Duke of York’s Claim to the Crown, 5 Rotuli, Par.

Factiva lO ben lk aitleo ab hewn alent s ccirsbuewead 138, 142

East River Towing Co., Matter of the Petition of,

U.S. Sup. Ct., Adv. Ops. p. 130, Oct. Term, 1924.. 19

Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 237 U. S.

PYEERLE CERES TRERT Eee Ped eet eA 63

Eitwell v. Gieber, 38 Fed. 712. 60.6682 608 8050000... 32

Emery’s Case, 107 Mass. 172.................... 88

nr of Pleading and Practice, Vol. 20, p. ve

Endlich, Interpretation of Statutes, par. 178........ 47

English v. Smock, 34 Ind. 115.................... 36, 37

Enterprise, The, 196 Fed. 404.................... 30

Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029........ 108

WOROGS; FU F6; Te 5 iio nn 5% cis Sa cde Sema’ 88

Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco

Co., Adv. Ops. U. 8. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1923, p

DM occ aiiiiguaucus CHILL Oe it, 126

Federal Trade Commission v. Baltimore Grain Com-

NT, es MR aidins 5. 60k sda aA Oh s Dea 102

Fenton v. Hampton, 11 Moore P. C. (Van Dieman’s

REE hie aici aietales dein iodxcrehedk eh Ola 0 ti 88

Fidelity Trust Company v. Norfolk Railroad Com-

Se, Ue RT oid’s A hd arwaled hAbals sich wan ale wd

Finkelstein, Judicial Self Limitation, Harvard Law

Review, VokS7,'p. BOB. 8 ois is hes cena cek 138n

Fiske v. Henarie, 142 U. 8. 459.................... 12

Foster, Federal Practice, Sec. 427................. 15

Frankfurter and Landis, Power of Congress over

Procedure in Criminal Contempts, Harvard Law

MI, VGN, Oe We SEENY 5 2640 oo icc op eed cack eae 89n

Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. 8. 447............. 142

Xiii

PAGE

Gales:v.: Wikter, 10: How. €07 sissies ciniis vie nas weve 65

Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604........... 64

Graham, Ex parte, 3 Wash. 456................ 9, 15, 23

Granada County v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261........ 47

Graustein v. Rutland Railroad Company, 256 Fed.

MT Re GUC s dc EVctee es ude cn dat ute ssans Sasa 67

Griffin v. Ranney, 25 Conn. 239...............08-. 38

Grover, etc., Company v. Florence, etc., Company,

Se VER, CET shoes caus hcchedicns UMCLAS kes

Hale ¥. Henkel, 201-0. 6. 4B. .06 ie 82

Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476.................. 10

Harland v. Telephone Company, 40 Fed. 308....... 13

Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 211

ee Seeere 47, 63, 64, 69, 96, 97, 101, 117, 126, 128

Harvard Law Review:

oS EO OA Pe a A ee, oe er 82

fe AS PCR ee eee 138n

oe oe Ee Ar ere ere re fa ee Peres 89n

i es MR te 2 Brae ea eeeads Skas 87

Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409..................006- 130

Henry v. Henkel, 235 U.S. 219............0.cc000. 86

Herndon v. Ridgway, 17 How. 424................ 34

Herreshoff v. Knietsch, 127 Fed. 492............. 79

Hooper v. California, 155 U. 8. 648............... 47

Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181................. 117n

ae Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. 8S. ps

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.

a 46 nae’ 44, 63, 90, 91, 93, 96, 101, 106, 125, 126, 127

Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States,

WO Be Oe ns ks i pcdinn ese s ta medinh als ben rome 142n

Jackson v. Mobley, 157 Ala. 408.................. 74

Jenks, Ex parte, 141 Ala. 429.................... 79

xiv

PAGE

aagen v. Southern Railway Company, 117 Fed. ,

D ic ccccecsvedd cwnsdcthdevabebe deedhonad<svwy 6

Jones v. Guarantee Company, 101 U. S. 626........ 48

Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100............. 39

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168... .83, 86, 109, 141

King Alexander Jannaeus, Case of, Tractatus, San-

I, TN. a. ob. 0 0:0 06h pate age he sbepeness <p% 138n

Kingdom of Roumania v. Guaranty Trust Co., 244

areas err rrr tr 140

Knights Templars & M. Life Indemnity Co. v. Jar-

gman, 167 UT. B. BOB 6.6 oes ono cccere cde cits oe sss 47, 100

La Abra Mining Company v. United States, 175 U. S.

I So tie soles es a Pei voles ce enseauee Jb HEUTE 120

Landers v. Woodward, 2 Can. 8S. C. R. 158 (Nova

BIB a cdincccccccdaccccndvnddwid ode ssi. ere

Lathrop v. Clapp, 40 N. Y. 328..........-+e0+s008: 73

Latimer v. United States, 223 U.S. 501............ 39

Lawyers’ Reports Annotated (N. S.), Vol. 51, p.1155 73

Lessee of Brewer v. Blougher, 14 Pet. 178.......... 24

Lewis’ Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Vol. IT,

BN TD ooh occncacscesttblathand dbee cemkpaitisa vi

Louisville, ete., Packet Company, In re, 223 Fed.

OR ee ceed as a inane cee eles tee an ath oie id Ao 26, 30

Louisville Underwriters, Jn re, 134 U. S. 488...... 31

Lowe v. Sumner, 69 Mo. App. 637................ 88

Luckenback, The, 26 Fed. 870.............+..2205- 32

Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1............----055: 70, 139

Mary Lord, The, 31 Fed. 416..................... 32

Mason v. Fearson, 9 How. 248................... 39

Mattler v. Shaffner, 53 Ind. 245.................. 36

Maynard Coal Company v. Federal Trade Commis-

sion, Sup. Ct. D. of C., April 19, 1920.......... 104

McCarthy, Ex parte, 29 Calif. 295................ 88

McCool v. Smith, 1 Black. 469................... 39

McKee v. United States, 164 U. 8S. 287............. 65

xv

PAGE

Michigan Law Review, June, 1924, ‘‘Fishing Ex-

peditions by Commissions”? .............0.ee00 104

Mining Co. v. Utilities Co., 26 Ida. 391........... 117n

Mitchell v. Dexter, 244 Fed. 926................. 14

Mossman v. Forrest, 27 Ind. 233.................. 36

Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. 8. 113..................... 74

Murray’s Lessee v. Baker, 3 Wheat. 541........... 65

Nabob of the Carnatic v. East India Company, 1

OR is ee eV OE. is BEG Bh KSEE 139

New York, N. H. and H. Railroad Company v. Inter-

state Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 361...... 43

Norwich and New York Transportation Co. v.

WR GO WIM AOE se Cia decals Sens stags 28, 29

Oates v. First National Bank, 100 U.S. 239......... 65

Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U. S. 297...... 140

Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738... .70,121

Pacific Railway Commission, Jn re, 32 Fed. 241. . .88, 105

Palmer v. Thompson, 20 App. D. C. 273........... 14,15

Panama Railroad v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375...... 18, 20

Parker, Ex parte, 74S. C. 466.................... 88

Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat 380.................. 48

Penoe w,: DON, TV Beane: 7S. os ce se aes 36

Pennock v. ‘Dialogue, 2 Pet. 18...:.............66. 39

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714. ..... 000... eee 16

People ex rel. McMahon v. Board of Excise, 3N. Y.

eS eae Semen tales OWN Pies MEN 05 ak 37

People v. Keeler, 99 N. Y. 219............0-.-e eee: 87

People v. Sanford, 236 Mo, 665..............-..- 117n

Pennsylvania Company, In re, 137 U. S. 451...... 12

Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Railroad Labor Board,

MGM e oa ae. os 69, 112, 117, 119, 135, 136

Phenix Insurance Co., Ex parte, 118 U. 8. 610....... 27

Phillips, Matter of, 70 N. Y. Mise. 8.............-. 82

Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason 35............. 7,8, 12, 15, 45

Plunkett v. Hamilton, 136 Ga. 72................. 117n

Xvi

Porto Rico v. Rosali, 227 U. S. 279

Potter’s Dwarris, Statutory Construction, 274

Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U. 8. 210

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252

Raymond v. Topson, 22 Chan. 430

Reams v. The State, 23 Ind. 111.

Reg. v. Morris (1867), L. R. I. C. R. 90

Reg. v. Overseers, 13 Q. B. D. 339

Rex v. Baines, 25 T. L. R. 79

Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304

Rigg v. Wilton, 13 Ill. 15

Robinson v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Co.,

28 Fed. 340

Ruckmaboye v. Mottichund, 32 Eng. L. & E. 84.... 39

Rugdai, The, 278 Fed. 294

Rules of Practice in Admiralty, Rule 54, Rule

57 29, 30, 31

Ruling Case Law, Volume 28, p. 419, Sec. 3

Ryan v. Carter, 93 U. S. 78

Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116.... 140

Shaw v. National Bank, 101 U. 8. 557 46

Sheriff of Middlesex, Case of the, 11 Ad. and E. 273 85

Simkins, Federal Equity Suit, p. 310

Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700

Slayton, Ex parte, 105 U. S. 461

Smith v. Adams, 130 U. 8. 173 70, 94, 110, 118, 121

Smith v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 245 U. 8.

63, 100, 126

Smith v. Lyon, 133 U. 8. 315

State v. Brewster, 89 N. J. L. 665

State ex rel. Wildman v. Vanderburgh County, 49

36

State v. Frazier, 182 N. W. 551

State v. Frear, 138 Wis. 173

State v. Howat, 107 Kan. 423

XVii

State v. Klene, 276 Mo. 206

State v. Lloyd, 152 Wis. 24

State v. Scott, 89 N. J. L. 658

State v. Turnpike Co., 65 N. J. L. 73

Story, Conflict of Laws, Chapter I, Sec. 8

Stout v. Grant Company, 107 Ind. 343

Sullivan v. Hill, 73 W. Va. 49

Supreme Court in United States History, Warren,

Surgett v. Lapice, 8 How. 48

System Federation No. 90 v. Pennsylvania Railroad,

296 Fed. 220 114

Taft, Chief Justice, Address in Memoriam Chief

Justice White, 257 U. S. xxv-xxvi............ 89n, 132

Taylor v. Connor, 7 Ind. 115

Tiago Railroad v. Blossburg, 20 Wall. 137

Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 34

Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105

Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Telephone Company,

258 Ill. 202

United States ex rel. McIntosh v. Crawford, 47 Fed.

United States v. Barnes, 222 U.S, 513........ 19, 20, 21

United States v. Basic Products Company, 260 Fed.

United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358

United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 556

United States v. Fullhart, 47 Fed. 802

United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U. S. 103

United States v. Kirby, 7 \” Il. 482

United States v. Mayes, 12 Wall. 177

United States v. Mills, 11 App. D. of C. 500

United States v. Mooney, 116 U. S. 104

United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company,

98 U. S. 601

XVili

PAGE

United States v. Sinclair, Sup. Ct. D. of C., July 14,

Vane v. Newcombe, 132 U. 8. 220

Vanriper v. Vanriper, 3 Lane. L. Rev. 155

Walker v. Lea, 47 Fed. 645

Wallace v. Elec. Co., 41 N. D. 418

Walters, Ex parte, 64 Texas Cr. 238

Walters v. Seattle, etc., Railway Company, 48 Wash.

Waters v. Trust Company, 126 Fed. 471

Warren, Supreme Court in United States History,

Vol. 2, p. 460

Wertheim v. Continental Railway, 15 Fed. 116

West Rand Central Gold Mining Company, Ltd., v.

139

The King (1905), 2 K. B. 391

West v. State, 1 Wis. 209

While v. Conover, 5 Blackf. 462

Whitcomb’s Case, 120 Mass. 118

Wigmore: Evidence, Secs. 2175, 2192, 2193

Williams, Jurisdiction and Practice of Federal

Courts, ¢. 2, s. 12

Williams v. State, 125 Ark. 285

Wisner, Ex parte, 203 U. 8. 449

Witmer v. Dist. Ct., 155 Ia. 244

Wulfsohn v. Russian Soviet Socialist Federated Re-

public, 234 N. Y. 372

Yoe v. Hoffman, 61 Kan. 265

Yorkshire Insurance Company v. Clayton, 8 Q. B. D.

Young & Company v. Mayor (1883), 8 A. C. 517....

39