Co. v. United States, 423. Section 237 (see Appeal and Error, 4):
Bolens v. Wisconsin, 616 (see Jurisdiction, A 11-14): Marshall v.
Dye, 250; John v. Paullin, 583; Bolens v. Wisconsin, 616; Straus
v. American Publishers' Ass'n, 222. Section 239 (see Practice and
Procedure, 1): Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 399.
tions 292, 294, 297 (see Judicial Code): Street & Smith v. Atlas
Mfg. Co., 348. Section 299 (see Jurisdiction, C 2): Springstead v.
Crawfordsville Bank, 541.
NATIONAL BANKS.-Rev. Stat., § 5219 (see National Banks, 1, 3, 4, 9,
11): Clement National Bank v. Vermont, 120; Amoskeag Savings
Bank v. Purdy, 373. National Bank Act (see National Banks, 7):
Clement National Bank v. Vermont, 120.
NATURALIZATION.-Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 596 (see Naturaliza-
tion, 1, 10): Luria v. United States, 9; Mulcrevy v. San Francisco,
669. Section 15 (see Naturalization, 4-9): Luria v. United States, 9.
PUBLIC LANDS.-Act of Sept. 28, 1850, 9 Stat. 919 (see Public Lands,
8): Little v. Williams, 335. Act of July 1, 1862 (see Public Lands,
6, 7): Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Laramie Stock Yards Co., 190;
Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Snow, 204. Act of March 3, 1891 (see
Public Lands, 1): Buchser v. Buchser, 157. Act of June 24, 1913,
37 Stat. 138 (see Public Lands, 7): Union Pacific R. R. Co. v.
Laramie Stock Yards Co., 190; Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Snow, 204.
PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT of 1906 (see Pure Food and Drugs Act):
United States v. Antikamnia Co., 654.
RAILROADS.-Acts of June 24, 1912, July 2, 1864, July 1, 1862 (see
Railroads, 2, 7): Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Laramie Stock Yards
Co., 190; Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Snow, 204.
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT of March 2, 1893, as amended March 2, 1903
(see Safety Appliance Act): Pennell v. Philadelphia & Reading
Ry., 675.
SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES.-Act of February 8, 1899, 30 Stat. 822 (see
Actions, 8): Pullman Co. v. Croom, 571.
TRADE-MARK ACT of February 20, 1905 (see Judicial Code, 3; Jurisdic-
tion, A 2, 3): Street & Smith v. Atlas Mfg. Co., 348.
ADMINISTRATION.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1.
ADMIRALTY.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 6.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
See EJECTMENT, 1, 2;
PUBLIC LANDS, 7.
AGENCY.
See INSURANCE, 1;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 7.
ALLOTMENTS.
See INDIANS, 1-4.
AMBIGUITIES.
See CONTRACTS, 1;
LOCAL LAW (Porto Rico).
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.
Fifth. See EMINENT DOMAIN, 1;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 5, 19.
Fourteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
JURISDICTION, A 17;
RATE REGULATION, 1, 2.
Seventh.-See NATURALIZATION, 9.
AMENDMENTS.
See STATUTES, A 1.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
See JURISDICTION, C 1, 2.
ANTI-TRUST ACT.
See JURISDICTION, G 4;
RESTRAINT Of Trade.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
1. Who entitled to review of decision of state court.
Only those having a personal, as distinguished from an official, interest
can bring to this court for review the judgment of a state court on
the ground that a Federal right has been denied. (Smith v.
diana, 191 U. S. 138.) Marshall v. Dye, 250.
2. Who entitled to review of decision of state court.
Whether the State Board of Elections shall submit a new state con-
stitution to the electors of a State in accordance with a state stat-
ute, concerns the members of the board in their official capacity
only, and a judgment of the state court that they refrain from so
doing concerns their official and not their personal rights and this
court will not review such judgment. Ib.
3. Right to prosecute error where State and not relator real party plaintiff.
Where the relator has no authority to sue except by consent of the
State, and he is a mere agent for calling judicial authority into
activity for protection of general public rights, and not for redress
of individual wrongs, the State is the real party plaintiff and the
relator has no power without its consent to prosecute error to this
court. Bolens v. Wisconsin, 616.
4. Right to prosecute error where State real party plaintiff and does not
Where, in such a case, the State does not consent that the relator
prosecute error the writ will be dismissed; the case is not within
Rev. Stat., § 709 (Judicial Code, § 237), and this court has not
jurisdiction. Ib.
5. Writ of error; when to lower state court; quære as to.
Quare, whether in this case the writ of error should not have run to
the lower state court, the higher court having refused to transfer
the cause for review; but the Chief Justice of the State having al-
lowed the writ prior to the decision of this court in Norfolk Turn-
pike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264, it will not be dismissed. Mul-
crevy v. San Francisco, 669.
6. Perfecting appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals in admiralty cause; suffi-
ciency of apostles on appeal; dispensing with payment of clerk's fees.
When the appellant in a cause in admiralty causes to be printed and
presented to the Circuit Court of Appeals under the act of Feb-
ruary 13, 1911, printed copies of the apostles on appeal, each of
which contains a printed index of the contents thereof and is pre-
pared and printed under a rule of the lower court adopted in pur-
suance of the said act, the Circuit Court of Appeals is authorized to
hear and determine the cause on such copies and to dispense with
the requirement of the payment of fees to its clerk by the appellant
as prescribed by its rules and which are the same as those prescribed
by this court under the act of February 19, 1897. Rainey v. Grace
& Co., 703.
7. Indexing record; fee of clerk of Circuit Court of Appeals; effect of act of
The first section of the act of February 13, 1911, sets aside by implica-
tion the provision of the fee bill prescribed by this court so far as it
relates to the fee to the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals for
indexing the record when the same has already been properly
printed and indexed in pursuance of a rule of the lower court. Ib.
See JURISDICTION;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE;
RATE REGULATION, 1, 2.
APOSTLES ON APPEAL.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 6.
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.
See TRIAL.
ARMY AND NAVY.
See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
ARREST OF JUDGMENT.
See PLEADING, 3, 4, 5.
ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
See TAXES AND TAXATION, 3, 6.
ASSIGNMENT.
See BANKRUPTCY, 16;
BONDS, 2.
AUTOMATIC COUPLERS.
See SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.
BAILMENT.
See BANKRUPTCY, 19.
1. Administration of estate; examination under § 21a of act.
The estate of the bankrupt is in process of administration after the
petition has been filed and a receiver appointed and an examination
may be ordered at any time thereafter under § 21a of the Bank-
ruptcy Act. Cameron v. United States, 710.
2. Examination of bankrupt; perjury in; prosecution for; effect of § 7 of
act.
Section 7 of the Bankruptcy Act does not prevent a prosecution for
perjury in the giving of testimony by the bankrupt; the immunity
applies to past transactions concerning which the bankrupt is ex-
amined. (Glickstein v. United States, 222 U. S. 139.) Ib.
3. Advances made to bankrupt; right to recover back.
These cases are distinguished from Gorman v. Littlefield, 229 U. S. 19,
and other cases in which there was a specific res which identified the
fund and separated it from the general mass of the estate. National
City Bank v. Hotchkiss, 50.
4. Advances made to bankrupt; right to recover back.
A general creditor may increase the bankrupt's estate by his advances
and lose the right to take them back. Ib.
5. Liens on bankrupt's estate; bona fides; superiority of right of lienor over
that of general creditors.
Where the goods never would have come into the bankrupt's hands,
had he not promised to give a lien thereon to one making the ad-
vances necessary for obtaining them, there is no reason why the
rights of general creditors without liens should intervene to defeat
security given in good faith and before there was any knowledge of
insolvency. National City Bank v. Hotchkiss, ante, p. 50, distin-
guished. Greey v. Dockendorff, 513.
6. Liens on bankrupt's estate; effect of secrecy to invalidate.
Secrecy of a lien on goods purchased by advances made by the lienor
does not invalidate it where there was no active concealment or any
attempt to mislead anyone interested to know the truth, nor does
merely keeping silent in such case create an estoppel. Ib.
7. Liens, exemption from; effect of act of 1867 as amended by act of 1873.
A state constitution cannot exempt property from existing liens nor
can Congress give such constitution greater effect; and so held that
under the Bankruptcy Act of 1867 as amended by the act of
March 3, 1873, c. 235, 17 Stat. 577, a homestead in Georgia was not
exempted from liens which had attached prior to the bankruptcy,
notwithstanding provisions in the Georgia constitution to that
effect. (Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 610.) Kener v. La Grange Mills,
8. Preferences; deposit in bank as; right of set-off.
A deposit made after the bank's officers have forbidden payment of
|