property which he sold to the partnership and was paid for, with-
out returning the price. Ib.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
Courts; power of Philippine Commission; quære.
Quare whether the Philippine Commission has power to enact legis-
lation making any judge liable to civil action for official acts.
Alzua v. Johnson, 106.
1. Demurrer; admissions by; conclusion of law.
A statement that a statutory sale was not sufficiently advertised is a
pure conclusion of law and, in the absence of allegations of fact to
sustain it, is an empty assertion that is not admitted by demurrer.
Straus v. Foxworth, 162.
2. Interdependent statements in.
Statements that the amount of taxes for which the property was sold
was excessive must be read in connection with other statements in
the pleading admitting that the taxes were delinquent and there-
fore augmented by the statutory penalties. Ib.
3. Motions in arrest of judgment.
Motions in arrest of judgment are not favored. Baker v. Warner, 588.
4. Motions in arrest of judgment; sufficiency of pleading; liberal construc-
tion.
In considering a motion in arrest the plaintiff will be given the benefit
of every implication that can be drawn from the pleading liberally
construed; and even if the allegations are defectively set forth or
improperly arranged, if they show facts constituting a good cause
of action the motion will be denied. Ib.
5. Defects in; cure by verdict.
Where the defendant in a suit for libel is put on notice of extrinsic
facts surrounding the publication, and does not demur but joins
issue and goes to trial, a verdict against him cures the defects in
the complaint and a motion to arrest should not be granted. Ib.
6. Defects in; cure by verdict.
The strict rules announced in earlier decisions in this respect have been
modified by modern and more liberal rules of pleading. Ib.
Where the case is here under § 239, Judicial Code, and the whole record
has not been sent up, this court, under Rule 37, deals with the facts
as certified and not otherwise; under such circumstances it answers
only the questions of law certified and does not go into questions
of fact or of mixed law and fact. Stratton's Independence v. How-
bert, 399.
2. Conclusiveness of findings of fact based on admitted principle.
Where the principle on which the amount recovered is based is ad-
mitted, this court will not go behind well warranted findings of fact
in regard to the question of amount. Hermanos v. Caldentey, 690.
3. Conclusiveness of judgment of state court upholding mechanics' lien.
Where the state trial court had upheld a mechanics' lien before the
petition and the trustee in bankruptcy seeks in the Federal court to
prevent the enforcement of the lien, this court will not go behind
the state judgment because exceptions thereto had not been passed
upon owing to the action of those representing the estate. Hobbs v.
Head & Dowst Co., 692.
4. Construction of documents by state court not reviewable.
This court does not sit to revise the construction of documents by the
state courts, even if alleged to be contracts within the protection
of the Federal Constitution. (Fisher v. New Orleans, 218 U. S.
438.) Seattle & Renton Ry. v. Linhoff, 568.
5. Controlling effect of local decisions.
This court is slow to revise the judgment of the highest court of a
Territory on matters of local administration. Alzua v. Johnson,
106.
6. Controlling effect of decision of state court.
A decision of the highest court of a State on a principle of general juris-
prudence is not controlling upon this court. (Kuhn v. Fairmont
Coal Co., 215 U. S. 349.) Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 543.
7. Controlling effect of state court's construction of state statutes.
While this court, in determining whether there is a contract, is not
bound by the construction of the state statutes by the state court,
it will not lightly disregard such construction but will seek to up-
hold it so far as it can consistently with the duty to independently
determine the question. Wyandotte Gas Co. v. Kansas, 622.
8. Controlling effect of state court's construction of state statute.
A construction by the Supreme Court of the Territory that is not
manifestly wrong will not be rejected by this court, and so held as
to a construction of the words "in accordance with this act" as
meaning "under this act.” (Treat v. Grand Canyon Railway Co.,
222 U. S. 448.) Straus v. Foxworth, 162.
9. Controlling effect of local interpretation of state statute; scope of review.
An interpretation by the state court of a state statute is controlling on
this court; and this court determines whether the statute as so de-
limited conflicts with Federal law. Clement National Bank v. Ver-
mont, 120.
10. Controlling effect of territorial court's construction of local statute.
The settled rule of this court is to accept the construction placed by the
territorial court upon a local statute, and not to disregard the same
unless constrained so to do by clearest conviction of serious error.
(Phoenix Railway Co. v. Landis, ante, p. 578.) Work v. United Globe
Mines, 595.
Where, as in this case, it does not appear that manifest error was com-
mitted in the construction and application of the statute of limita-
tion or in determining the sufficiency of a deed to the premises, the
title to which was involved, this court will not reverse the judg-
ment of the territorial court. Ib.
12. Controlling effect of local court's decision as to character of estate in
realty.
Unless the statutes of the United States control, this court follows the
state court as to whether real estate is separate or community
property. Buchser v. Buchser, 157.
13. Following findings concurred in below.
No sufficient reason being shown for departing from it, this court fol-
lows its rule of not disturbing findings made by the Master, the
court of first instance and the Circuit Court of Appeals. Greey v.
Dockendorff, 513.
14. Following lower court's construction of meaning of indictment.
On a direct appeal from an order quashing an indictment this court
assumes the correctness of the meaning affixed to the indictment by
the court below and determines only whether the statute was cor-
rectly construed. United States v. Davis, 183.
15. Following lower court in application of local law.
In the absence of clear conviction of error, this court follows the con-
clusions of the court below in applying the local law. Torres v.
Lothrop, Luce & Co., 171.
16. Following state court's construction of state constitution.
In this case this court follows the construction given by the highest
court of the State to the provisions of the state constitution in
regard to its jurisdiction of cases in which the State is a party or
which are brought by the consent of the State on the relation of an
individual. Bolens v. Wisconsin, 616.
17. Following state court's declaration of policy of State.
The state court having declared the policy of the State as excluding
a constructive obligation to indemnify against the exercise of the
sovereign power of taxation from leases given by the State, this
court will not overthrow it. Trimble v. Seattle, 683.
18. Following determination of executive departments in political matters
relating to Indians.
In reference to all political matters relating to Indians it is the rule of
this court to follow the executive and other political departments of
the Government whose more special duty it is to determine such
affairs. If they recognize certain people as a tribe of Indians, this
court must do the same. United States v. Sandoval, 28.
19. Reluctance to adjudge state statute in conflict with state constitution
before decision by state court.
Unless the case imperatively demands such a decision, this court is
reluctant to adjudge a state statute to be in conflict with the state
constitution before that question has been considered by the state
tribunals to which the question properly belongs. (Michigan Cen-
tral R. R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U. S. 245.) Louisville & Nashville R.
R. Co. v. Garrett, 298.
20. Review of questions for guidance of state court where jurisdiction want-
ing.
Where jurisdiction does not exist this court will not pass upon the
questions involved so that in future cases involving those questions
the state court may be guided by the views expressed by this court
thereon. Bolens v. Wisconsin, 616.
This court, having sustained appellant's contention that the indict-
ment was insufficient, refrains from expressing any opinion on
other contentions of appellant. Summers v. United States, 92.
22. Scope of review; duty to decide questions.
Where appellant with ground challenges the adequacy of the findings of
the court below to sustain the legal conclusions based on them, it is
the duty of this court to consider and decide that question. Van
Syckel v. Arsuaga, 601.
23. Scope of review; construction of contract; effect of involution of con-
struction of state statutes.
The fact that the determination of the question of power of the munic-
ipality to make the contract alleged to have been impaired involves
consideration and construction of the laws of the State does not
relieve this court from the duty of determining for itself the scope
and character of such contract. Wyandotte Gas Co. v. Kansas,
|