DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11-22; PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 5;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2.
DUTIES ON IMPORTS. See MANDAMUS, 3, 4, 6; STATES, 11;
UNITED STATES, 3.
1. Community ownership of property; repugnance to public policy. Where the State has chartered a society as one of "religious men living in community," a provision in its constitution for commu- nity ownership, with renunciation of individual rights in private property during continuance of membership, with freedom of withdrawal, is not invalid as opposed to the public policy of, but is directly sanctioned by, the State creating the society. St. Benedict Order v. Steinhauser, 640.
2. Community ownership of property; validity of agreement as to. An agreement to live in community and renounce individual rights of property, but with a right to withdraw at any time invades no con- stitutional right; nor, in this case, does it transgress any statute of the State of New Jersey which chartered the society with which the agreement is made. Ib.
3. Community ownership of property; validity under Constitution and public policy of agreement as to.
In this case held that an agreement made by a member of a religious order chartered as a society of religious men living in community that his individual earnings and acquisitions, like those of other members, should go into the common fund, included his earnings from copyrights of books; and also held, that as such agreement contained a right to withdraw at any time there was no infringe- ment of any right protected by the Constitution of the United States nor was it against the public policy of the State of New Jersey which granted the charter to the society. Ib.
EMINENT DOMAIN.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 23, 39.
VOL. CCXXXIV-51
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYÉ.
See ADMIRALTY, 2;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 31;
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.
Assumption of risk; effect of act on common law doctrine. By the Employers' Liability Act the defense of assumption of risk re- mains as at common law, save in those cases mentioned in § 4 where the violation by the carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employés contributed to the accident. Southern Ry. Co. v. Crockett, 725.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11, 12, 18, 24-35; PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 2.
See BILLS AND NOTES, 3;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 1;
Benefit of testimony; who entitled.
A party is entitled to the benefit of all the testimony in the case from whatever source it comes; and, although having the burden of proof, need not prove any fact otherwise established. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. National Rice Co., 80.
1. Claim of impairment of Federal right; when precluded by decision of state court.
The criticism that a police statute requires a carrier to comply with
conditions beyond its control and, therefore, deprives it of its prop- erty without due process of law, is not open in this court if the state court has construed the statute as not so requiring the carrier. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 280.
2. Not involved in obstruction of non-navigable stream wholly within State. There is no Federal right involved in the obstruction, or use by private owners, of a non-navigable stream wholly within a State. Illinois v. Economy Power Co., 497.
3. Deprivation of Federal right; effect of refusal of state court to allow filing of amended pleading.
In this case held, that defendant had not been deprived of Federal rights because the state court had refused to allow him to file an amended pleading and relitigate a question already decided by setting up alleged violations of Federal rights. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Higdon, 592.
1. Right to maintain under common law.
At common law the right to maintain a public ferry lies in franchise.
Port Richmond Ferry v. Hudson County, 317.
2. Right to maintain, in England and in this country.
In England such a ferry could not be set up without the King's license, and, in this country, the right has been made the subject of legis- lative grant. Ib.
3. Transportation by; unrelated character of; regulation of.
Questions in respect to ferries such as the one involved in this case, generally imply transportation for a short distance, generally be- tween two specified points, unrelated to other transportation, thus presenting situations essentially local and requiring regulation ac- cording to local conditions. Ib.
4. Regulation by State; limitations upon power.
A State being able to exercise the power to regulate ferries, it follows that it may not derogate from the similar authority of another State; its regulating power therefore extends only to transactions within its own territory and to ferriage from its own shores. Ib.
5. Regulation of rates on boundary ferry; power of respective States. Rates of ferriage fixed by one State from its own shore on a boundary ferry do not preclude the other State from fixing other rates if rea- sonable with respect to the ferry maintained on its side. Ib.
6. Regulation of rates on boundary ferry; power of State as to round trip tickets.
Although the state court has not construed an ordinance fixing rates of ferry on a boundary ferry as requiring the issuing of round trip tickets, and this court does not so construe it, the ordinance may be valid as limiting the amount which may be charged if such trip tickets are issued; and so held in this case. Quare as to whether State may require round trip tickets to be issued on a boundary ferry. Ib.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 1, 13, 14; TREATIES.
FIFTH AMENDMENT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 23, 39.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
See CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 3-6; STATES, 1.
See PUBLIC LANDS, 3, 5, 7, 15.
FOREIGN COMMERCE. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
See BILLS AND NOTES, 1, 2, 3; LOCAL LAW (N. Mex.);
PUBLIC LANDS, 1, 4, 21.
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 36, 37, 38.
1. Legislative and judicial functions in respect of legislation. The responsibility for the justice and wisdom of legislation rests with Congress and it is the province of the courts to enforce, not to make, the laws. United States v. First National Bank, 245
2. Legislative and not judicial; application of police statute.
It is for the legislature to determine to what classes a police statute shall apply; and unless there is a clear case of discrimination the courts will not interfere. Keokee Coke Co. v. Taylor, 224. INDIANS, 10;
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1;
CONGRESS, POWERS OF;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 5; MANDAMUS, 3.
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS.
1. Legislative; questions of policy within.
Questions of policy are for the legislature and not for this court to determine. International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 199.
2. State and Federal; effect on power of former of investigation of subject by latter.
The intent of Congress to supersede the exercise of the police power of
« ПретходнаНастави » |