Lockwood v. Exchange Bank, 190 U. S. 294, distinguished in Chicago, B.
& Q. Ry. Co. v. Hall, 511.

Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, distin-
guished in Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Briggs, 82.

United States v. Heinszen, 206 U. S. 370, distinguished in MacLeod v.
United States, 416.

Western Tie & Timber Co. v. Brown, 196 U. S. 502, distinguished in
Continental Trust Co. v. Chicago Title Co., 435.

CASES FOLLOWED.

Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453, followed in Bauer v. O'Donnell, 1.
American Sugar Refining Co. v. United States, 211 U. S. 155, followed
in United States v. Prentis, 604.

Anderson v. Connecticut, 226 U. S. 603, followed in Morse v. Brown, 604.
Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, followed in McGovern v. New York,
363.

Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, followed in
Harrington v. Atlantic & Pacific Telegraph Co., 607.

Backus v. Fort Street Depot, 169 U. S. 557, followed in McGovern v.
New York, 363.

Bank v. Lanier, 11 Wall. 369, followed in National Safe Deposit Co. v.
Hibbs, 391.

Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 401, followed in Wheeler v. Denver, 342.
Board v. Glover, 161 U. S. 101, followed in Ashon v. Conservation Com-
mission of Louisiana, 606; Leong Mow v. Conservation Commission
of Louisiana, 606.

Boise Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U. S. 276, followed in Singer Sewing
Machine Co. v. Benedict, 481.

Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, followed in United States v. Chand-
ler-Dunbar Co., 53.

Brown v. Alton Water Co., 222 U. S. 326, followed in Harrington v.
Atlantic & Pacific Telegraph Co., 607.

Carter v. Roberts, 177 U. S. 496, followed in Harrington v. Atlantic &
Pacific Telegraph Co., 607.

Cary Mfg. Co. v. Acme Flexible Clasp Co., 187 U. S. 427, followed in
Harrington v. Atlantic & Pacific Telegraph Co., 607.

Chamber of Commerce v. Boston, 217 U. S. 189, followed in United States
v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 53; McGovern v. New York, 363.
Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, followed in Mc-
Govern v. New York, 363.

Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559, followed in

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 317.

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 426,
followed in Oregon R. R. & N. Co. v. Martin, 606.

Cleveland Electric Ry. Co. v. Cleveland, 204 U. S. 116, followed in Detroit
United Ry. v. Detroit, 39.

Fisher v. Baker, 203 U. S. 174, followed in Harper v. Victor, 605.
Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713, followed in United States v.
Chandler-Dunbar Co., 53.

Henry v. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1, followed in Bauer v. O'Donnell, 1.

Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245, followed in Wilson v. United States, 604.
Kansas City Star Co. v. Julian, 215 U. S. 590, followed in Brown v.
Washington, 603.

Kauffman v. Wooters, 138 U. S. 285, followed in Missouri, K. & T. Ry.
Co. v. Goodrich, 607.

Kaukauna Co. v. Green Bay Canal, 142 U. S. 254, followed in United
States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 53.

Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276, followed in United States ex rel. v.
Prentis, 604.

Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, followed in Nash v. United States,
373.

Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288, followed in Harrington v.
Atlantic & Pacific Telegraph Co., 607.

Maxwell Land Grant Cases, 121 U. S. 325, followed in Campbell v. North-
west Eckington Co., 561.

Metropolitan Co. v. Kaw Valley District, 223 U. S. 519, followed in
Harrington v. Atlantic & Pacific Telegraph Co., 607.

Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, followed in Ashon v. Conservation Com-
mission of Louisiana, 606; Leong Mow v. Conservation Commission
of Louisiana, 606.

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, followed in Barrett v.
Indiana, 26.

National Bank v. Burkhardt, 100 U. S. 686, followed in American Na-
tional Bank v. Miller, 517.

Newport Bank v. Herkimer Bank, 225 U. S. 178, followed in Continental
Trust Co. v. Chicago Title Co., 435.

New York County Bank v. Massey, 192 U. S. 138, followed in Studley v.

Boylston National Bank, 523.

Plested v. Abbey, 228 U. S. 42, followed in Degge v. Hitchcock, 162.
Railroad Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, followed in St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co.
v. Burckett, 603.

Re Tampa Suburban R. R. Co., 168 U. S. 583, followed in Shipp v.
Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 623.

Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U. S. 365, followed in Gorman v. Littlefield, 19.
Rogers v. Jones, 214 U. S. 204, followed in Brown v. Washington, 603.
Ross v. Oregon, 227 U. S. 150, followed in Lem Woon v. Oregon, 586.
Slocum v. New York Life Ins. Co., 228 U. S. 364, followed in Pedersen
v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 146.

Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bourman, 212 U. S. 538, followed in Shipp v.
Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 623.

Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Howell, 224 U. S. 577, followed in Chicago,
R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 317.

Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242, followed in St. Louis S.
W. Ry. Co. v. Burckett, 603.

The Germanic, 196 U. S. 589, followed in Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v.
Brown, 317.

Union Trust Co. v. Westhus, 228 U. S. 519, followed in Colorado & N.
W. R. R. Co. v. United States, 605; Harrington v. Atlantic &
Pacific Telegraph Co., 607.

United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53, followed in Lewis
Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Briggs, 82; McGovern v. New York, 363.
United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, followed in Harrington v. Atlantic
& Pacific Telegraph Co., 607.

United States v. Miller, 223 U. S. 599, followed in St. Louis S. W. Ry.
Co. v. Burckett, 603.

United States v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525, followed in United States v.
lanta Journal Co., 605.

At-

Vigil v. Hopp, 104 U. S. 441, followed in Campbell v. Northwest Ecking-
ton Co., 561.

York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, followed in Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v.
Goodrich, 607.

CERTIFICATE.

See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 3.

CERTIFICATES OF STOCK.

See BANKRUPTCY, 2, 3, 4, 5;
STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS.

CERTIORARI.

1. Nature of remedy; anticipation as to use.

The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, and in deciding that
it will not issue in a particular case this court does not anticipate
in what cases exceptional facts may call for its use. Degge v.
Hitchcock, 162.

2. Scope of writ in Federal jurisdiction.

The

scope of the writ of certiorari as it exists at common law has not
been enlarged by any statute in the Federal jurisdiction, and cases
in which it has issued under statute from state courts to state offi-
cers are not controlling in the Federal courts. Ib.

3. Scope of writ; breadth of application.

While the original scope of the writ of certiorari has been enlarged so
as to serve the office of a writ of error, it has always run from court
to court or to such boards, tribunals and inferior jurisdictions whose
findings and decisions had the quality of a final decision and from
which there was no appeal or other method of review. Ib.

4. To review ruling by Federal executive officer.

This is apparently the first case in which a Federal court has been
asked to issue a writ of certiorari to review a ruling by an executive
officer of the United States Government. Ib.

5. Not available to review decision of Postmaster General as to issuance of
fraud order.

The decision of the Postmaster General that a fraud order shall issue is
not the exercise of a judicial function, and if the decision is beyond
his jurisdiction the party injured may obtain relief in equity; the
order cannot be reviewed by certiorari. Ib.

See JURISDICTION, A 10, 11.

CHARTERS.

See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 1, 3, 4.

CHATTEL MORTGAGE.
See RECORDATION OF INSTRUMENTS, 2.

CHIPPEWA INDIANS.

See INDIANS, 6, 7.

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
See JURISDICTION, A 10, 11.

CIRCUIT COURTS.

See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1;

ATTACHMENT;
JURISDICTION, C.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

1. Interest on; exemption; exclusion of subordinate agencies.

The exemption of the United States from payment of interest on

claims in the absence of authorized engagement to pay it does not
extend to subordinate governmental agencies. National Home v.
494.

Parrish,

2. Interest; exemption; governmental agency not within.
While no rule is now laid down for all governmental agencies, this
court holds that the National Home organized under statute, now
§ 4825, Rev. Stat., is not exempt from payment of interest. Ib.

CLASSIFICATION FOR REGULATION.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9, 10, 11, 13;
MAILS, 1, 2.

CLASSIFICATION FOR TAXATION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 14;
TAXES AND TAXATION.

COLLATERAL ATTACK.

See BANKRUPTCY, 16.

COLLUSION.

See JURISDICTION, D 2.

COMMERCE.

1. Control of; Federal or state; how determined.

It is the essential character of the commerce, not the accident of local
or through bills of lading, which determines Federal or state control
thereover. Louisiana Railroad Comm. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co.,
336.

2. Character as interstate or foreign.

Commerce takes its character as interstate or foreign when it is actually
started in the course of transportation to another State or to a for-
eign country. Ib.

3. Character as interstate and foreign; effect of shipment on local bills of
lading for initial journey.

In this case staves and logs intended by the shippers to be exported to

foreign countries and shipped from points within the State to a
seaport also therein from which they were to be exported were
in interstate and foreign commerce notwithstanding they were
shipped on local bills of lading for the initial journey and were sub-
ject to interstate and not intrastate charges, and within Federal
and not state jurisdiction. Ib.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.