ALIEN.

2. In 1870, aliens residents in California, had the same rights as citizens,
to hold and enjoy real estate. Griffith v. Godey, 89.

Certain unsecured creditors of a railroad company in Alabama instituted
proceedings in equity, in a court of that State, on behalf of them-
selves and of all other creditors of the same class who should come in
and contribute to the expenses of the suit, to establish a lien upon
the property of that company in the hands of other railroad corpora-
tions which had purchased and had possession of it. The suit was
successful, and the court allowed all unsecured creditors to prove
their claims before a register. Pending the reference before the reg-
ister the defendant corporations bought up the claims of complainants,
and other unsecured creditors. Thereupon the solicitors of com-
plainants filed their petition in the cause to be allowed reasonable
compensation in respect of the demands of unsecured creditors (other
than their immediate clients), who filed their claims under the decree,
and to have a lien declared therefor on the property reclaimed for the
benefit of such creditors. The suit between the solicitors and such
defendant corporations was removed to the Circuit Court of the
United States: Held, (1) Within the principle announced in Trustees
v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527, the claim was a proper one to be allowed
(2) It was, also proper to give the solicitor a lien upon the property
brought under the control of the court by the suit and the decree
therein, such lien being authorized by the law of Alabama. (3) That
under the circumstances of this case the amount allowed by the court
below was excessive. Central Railroad v. Pettus, 116.

BAIL.

A territorial statute which authorizes an appeal by a defendant in a crimi-
nal action from a final judgment of conviction; which provides that
an appeal shall stay execution upon filing with the clerk a certificate

of a judge that in his opinion there is probable cause for the appeal;
and further provides that after conviction a defendant who has ap-
pealed may be admitted to bail as of right when the judgment is for
the payment of a fine only, and as matter of discretion in other cases;
does not confer upon a defendant convicted and sentenced to pay a
fine and be imprisoned, the right, after appeal and filing of certificate
of probable cause, to be admitted to bail except within the discretion
of the court. Clawson v. United States, 143.

BOND.

See CASES OVERRULED OR QUALIFIED, 1, 2.

CALIFORNIA.

1. The provision in the act admitting California, "that all the navigable
waters within the said State shall be common highways and forever
free, as well to the inhabitants of said State, as to the citizens
of the United States, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor,"
does not deprive the State of the power possessed by other States,
in the absence of legislation by Congress, to obstruct a navigable
water within the State, by authorizing the erection of a bridge over
it. Carduell v. American Bridge Co., 205.

2. That provision aims to prevent the use of the navigable streams by private
parties to the exclusion of the public, and the exaction of tolls for
their navigation. Ib.

See ALIEN.

CASE.

See ACTION ON THE CASE.

CASES AFFIRMED OR FOLLOWED.

Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, was carefully considered, and is again
affirmed. Tucker v. Masser, 203.

Railroad Co. v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 126, distinguished. Leavenworth Rail-
road Co. v. United States, 92 U. S. 733, explained. Winona & St. Peter
Railroad v. Barney, 618.

Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, distinguished. Hardin v. Boyd, 756.

See JURISDICTION, A, 7 ;
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 2;

TAX AND TAXATION, 3.

CASES OVERRULED OR QUALIFIED.

1. The ruling in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, that the legislature of Texas,
while the State was owner of the bonds there in suit, could limit
their negotiability by an act of legislation, with notice of which all
subsequent purchasers were charged, although the bonds on their
face were payable to bearer, overruled. Morgan v. United States, 476.
2. The ruling in that case, that negotiable government securities, redeem-
able at the pleasure of the government after a specified day, but in
which no date is fixed for final payment, cease to be negotiable as
overdue after the day when they first become redeemable, limited
to cases where the purchaser acquires title with notice of the defect,
or under circumstances discrediting the instrument, such as would
affect the title of negotiable demand paper purchased after an unrea-
sonable length of time from the date of the issue. Ib.

CHARTER PARTY.

See SHIPS AND SHIPPING, 1, 2.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

See CONTRACT, 3, 4;

ESTOPPEL, 8;

EVIDENCE, 1.

COLORADO.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, B, 4;

MINERAL LANDS.

COMMON CARRIER.

A person travelling on a railroad in charge of mails, under the provision
of § 4000 Rev. Stat., does not thereby acquire the rights of a passen-
ger, in case he is injured on the railroad through negligence of the
company's servants. Price v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 218.

CONDITION PRECEDENT.

See SHIPS AND SHIPPING, 2, (1).

CONFISCATION.

1. The well established rule in Louisiana that where a mortgage contains
the pact de non alienando, the mortgagee may enforce his mortgage by

proceedings against the mortgagor alone, notwithstanding the aliena-
tion of the property, applies to an alienation by condemnation in pro-
ceedings for confiscation, and as against the heirs at law of the person
whose property is confiscated. Shields v. Schiff, 36 La. Ann. 645, ap-
proved. Avegno v. Schmidt, 293.

2. The heirs at law of a person whose life interest in real estate was con-
fiscated under the act of July 17, 1862, take, at his death, by descent,
and not from the United States, under the act. lb.

CONFLICT OF LAW.

1. The principle that in actions at law the laws of the State shall be re-
garded as rules of decision in the courts of the United States, § 721
Rev. Stat., and that the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes
of proceedings in such cases shall conform as near as may be to those
of the courts of the States in which the courts sit, § 914, is applicable
only where there is no rule on the same subject prescribed by act of
Congress, and where the State rule is not in conflict with any such
law. Ex parte Fisk, 713.

3. The statute of New York, which permits a party to a suit to be ex-
amined by his adversary as a witness at any time previous to the trial
in an action at law, is in conflict with the provision of the Revised
Statutes of the United States which enacts that "The mode of proof
in the trial of actions at common law shall be by oral testimony and
examination of witnesses in open court, except as hereinafter pro-
vided." 861. Ib.

3. None of the exceptions afterwards found in §§ 863, 866 and 867 pro-
vide for such examination of a party to the suit in advance of the trial
as the statute of New York permits. Ib.

4. The courts of the United States sitting in New York have no power,
therefore, to compel a party to submit to such an examination, and no
power to punish him for a refusal to do so. Ib.

5. Nor can the United States court enforce such an order made by a State
court before the removal of the case into the Circuit Court of the
United States. Ib.'

CONSPIRACY.

See ACTION ON THE CASE.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

A. OF THE UNITED STATES.

1. The general grant of legislative power in the Constitution of a State
does not authorize the legislature, in the exercise either of the right
of eminent domain, or of the right of taxation, to take private prop-

erty, without the owner's consent, for any but a public object. Cole
v. La Grange, 1.

2. A statute of a State, authorizing any person to erect and maintain on
his own land a water-mill and mill-dam upon and across any stream
not navigable, paying to the owners of lands flowed damages assessed
in a judicial proceeding, does not deprive them of their property
without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment of the Constitution of the United States. Head v. Amoskeag
Manufacturing Co., 9.

3. A municipal ordinance prohibiting from washing and ironing in public
laundries and wash-houses within defined territorial limits, from ten
o'clock at night to six in the morning, is a purely police regulation,
within the competency of a municipality possessed of the ordinary
powers. Barbier v. Connolly, 27.

4. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution does not impair the
police power of a State.
го.

5. The doctrine that, in the absence of legislation by Congress, a State
may authorize a navigable stream within its limits to be obstructed
by a bridge or highway, reasserted, and the former cases to that
effect referred to. Cardwell v. American Bridge Co., 205.

6. An act making water rates a charge upon lands in a municipality prior
to the lien of all encumbrances, does no violation, so far as it affects
mortgages on such lands made after the passage of the act, to that por-
tion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which declares
that no State shall deprive any person of property without due proc-
ess of law. Provident Institution v. Jersey City, 506.

7. It is not necessary in this case to decide as to the effect of such act
upon mortgages existing at the time of its enactment: but even in
that case the court is not prepared to say that it would be repugnant
to the Constitution. Ib.

8. The ruling in Barbier v. Connolly, ante, 27-that a municipal ordinance
pr. hibiting from washing and ironing in public laundries and wash-
houses within defined territorial limits, from ten o'clock at night to
six in the morning, is a police regulation within the competency of a
municipality possessed of ordinary powers-affirmed. Soon Hing v.
Crowley, 703.

9. It is no objection to a municipal ordinance prohibiting one kind of
business within certain hours, that it permits other and different
kinds of business to be done within those hours.

Ib.

10. Municipal restrictions imposed upon one class of persons engaged in
a particular business, which are not imposed upon others engaged in
the same business and under like conditions, impair the equal right
which all can claim in the enforcement of the laws. Ib.

11. When the general security and welfare require that a particular kind
of work should be done at certain times or hours, and an ordinance
is made to that effect, a person engaged in performing that sort of