JURISDICTION-Continued.

record sought to be eliminated as a cloud are essential parts
of cause of action and must be alleged in bill. Id.

4. Rule is same in respect of suits to remove clouds under
§ 6115, Montana Codes, 1907, as distinguished from suits to
quiet title under § 6870. Id.

See Public Lands, 18-19.

(2) Removal and Remand. See III, (5), 12, supra.

5. Conclusive effect of order of remand. Yankaus v. Felten-
stein.....

6. Case arising under Federal Employers' Liability Act
cannot be removed to District Court upon ground of diver-
sity of citizenship. Southern Ry. v. Puckett..

....

PAGE

127

571

(3) Parties and Diverse Citizenship. See IV, (2), 6, supra.
7. Where judgment is held by trustee for benefit of all bond-
holders secured by his mortgage, he is necessary party to
suit by majority of them to enforce judgment; and if he be
made defendant without adequate cause, he must be re-
aligned as plaintiff. Hamer v. New York Rys. Co........ 266

(4) Ancillary Suits.

8. Where District Court's decree of foreclosure and sale
makes no provision concerning money judgment outstand-
ing against defendant, which District Court did not con-
sider because defendant's liability under it was not absolute
when claims were presented in the foreclosure proceedings,
subsequent suit in that court to enforce the judgment as
lien on the property foreclosed is not ancillary to the fore-
closure proceedings. Hamer v. New York Rys. Co........ 266
9. Reference made without authority by District Court after
dismissal of bill pursuant to mandate of this court, for pur-
pose of determining claims under an injunction bond, held
not to afford basis for ancillary suit by railroad defendant
to enjoin persons from asserting in state courts their right
to regain excess rates collected by such company under
protection of the injunction. St. Louis, I. Mt. & So. Ry. v.
McKnight...

(5) After Mandate Dismissing Bill.

10. As to absence of jurisdiction in District Court to de-
termine claims under an injunction bond after reversal of

368

JURISDICTION-Continued.

its decree by this court and issuance of this court's mandate
to dismiss bill. Id.

(6) Enjoining Interstate Commerce Commission.

11. Order of Commission assigning cause for hearing upon
issue of reparation not an order in sense of § 1 of Commerce
Court Act, and District Court has no jurisdiction to enjoin
hearing. United States v. Illinois Cent. R. R....

V. Jurisdiction of State Courts.

Over foreign corporations. See I, supra.

(1) Duty to Hear.

1. Violation of due process for state supreme court to re-
verse case and render judgment absolute against party who
succeeded in trial court, upon a proposition of fact ruled to
be immaterial at trial and concerning which he had there-
fore no opportunity to introduce evidence. Saunders v.
Shaw..

(2) Personal Injuries in Federal Work on Federal Reservation.
2. State court has jurisdiction of subject-matter of an ac-
tion for personal injuries incurred in work under a federal
contract performed on federal reservation, such action being
transitory. Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon...

(3) Quo Warranto to National Bank.

3. Under § 11 (k), Act of Dec. 23, 1913, establishing Federal
Reserve Board, supreme court of State may entertain pro-
ceedings in nature of quo warranto, at instance of its attorney
general, to test whether conduct of bank in acting as trustee,
etc., is" in contravention of state or local law." First Natl.
Bank v. Union Trust Co......

(4) As to Orders of Interstate Commerce Commission.

4. Suit by State to enjoin carriers from advancing intra-
state rates without first complying with state regulations is
not a suit, beyond the jurisdiction of state court, "to en-
force, set aside, annul, or suspend in whole or in part" an
order of Interstate Commerce Commission, where order
covers the proposed advances in part only, is not mentioned
in bill and is not relied on in answer as justifying them all.
American Express Co. v. Caldwell..

PAGE

82

317

68

416

617

JURISDICTION-Continued.

VI. Jurisdiction of Courts of District of Columbia.

1. Enjoining Secretary of the Interior. Santa Fe Pac. R. R.
v. Lane..

PAGE

492

2. Mandamus to Secretary of the Interior.
lund. ...

Lane v. Hog-

174

3. Mandamus to Commissioner of Patents. Ewing v.
Fowler Car Co....

1

VII. Local Law. Following State Constructions. See
III, (4); III, (7), (a); IV, (1), supra.

1. Conclusive effect of construction of state statutes by
supreme court of State. See Louisiana v. Jack.... . .
Greene v. Louis. & Interurban R. R...

397

499

522

555

191

Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. Greene
Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Greene..

Missouri Pac. Ry. v. McGrew Coal Co.

2. In absence of authoritative decision of supreme court of
State to contrary, contemporaneous construction of state
constitution by act of the legislature, which is reasonable in
itself and designed to accomplish obvious purpose of con-
stitutional provision in question, should be followed by this
court. Van Dyke v. Geary...

3. Persuasive force of construction given a state enactment
by state attorneys general in its administration. Louisiana
v. Jack.

4. What documentary matter should be filed with declara-
tion in action in state court upon sister state judgment, a
local question. Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Cherry ..

5. In controversy in state courts over right of one corpora-
tion to condemn lands of another, existence of petitioning
corporation, right to condemn, inability to agree on com-
pensation and necessity for appropriation are matters de-
pending on local law. Cuyahoga Power Co. v. Northern
Realty Co...

39

397

25

300

As to force given to construction of act of Congress by Land
Department and adoption of it by Congress through later
enactment. Santa Fe Pac. R. R. v. Lane.

492

See also West v. Rutledge Timber Co...

90

JURISDICTION-Continued.
VIII. Conclusions of Fact, Judicial and Administrative.
1. Upon the effect of findings by Dawes Commission in en-
rolling Indians. See United States v. Wildcat..

2. Binding force of conclusions of state assessing board when
free from fraud and based on fair hearing. See Taxation.

3. Strong presumption in favor of rates fixed by experienced
administrative board after full hearing.

PAGE

111

Darnell v. Ed-

564

388

Cf. Miss. R. R. Comm. v. Mobile & Ohio R. R..

4. Concurrent findings of state trial and appellate courts as
to fact of negligence not overturned by this court in absence
of clear error. American Express Co. v. U, S. Horse Shoe

Co.....

58

Southern Ry. v. Puckett.

571

See Interstate Commerce Acts, I; Patents for Inven-
tions.

JURY. See Instructions to Jury.

KENTUCKY. See Taxation.

LABOR UNIONS:

Enjoining. See Equity, 21.

LAND DEPARTMENT. See Public Lands.

LANDS. See Indians; Public Lands.

LIMITATIONS. See Employers' Liability Act, (7); Public
Lands, 12.

LIVESTOCK:

Limited liability contracts for transportation of. See Inter-
state Commerce Acts, II.

MANDAMUS. See Parties, 3.

1. Mandamus will not lie to compel Commissioner of Pat-
ents to declare interference where applicant for patent ad-
mits his invention was made subsequent to date upon
which another application for same invention was filed, and

MANDAMUS-Continued.

concedes priority and utility of the other's invention by
adopting his claims in an amended application. Ewing v.
Fowler Car Co. . . . . .

2. Priority of invention is determinable by suit in equity
between the parties, not by mandamus against Commis-
sioner in attempt to control administrative discretion con-
ferred upon him by R. S., § 4904. Id.

3. Mandamus lies where duty sought to be enforced is plain
and nondiscretionary and situation exigent. Lane v. Hog-
lund.

4. Does not lie to control District Court upon jurisdictional
question-as to its duty to remand a case removed from a
court of another State-when other modes of reviewing its
decision (writ of error or certiorari) are provided by statute;
and inconvenience and expense to the party do not alter
rule. Ex parte Park Sq. Automobile Station...

MARITIME CASES. See Admiralty; Constitutional Law,
II.

MASTER AND SERVANT. See Employers' Liability Act;
Hours of Service Act; Safety Appliance Act; Work-
men's Compensation Laws.

PAGE

1

174

412

Suit to enjoin former employee from using or disclosing
secret processes. Du Pont Powder Co. v. Masland........ 100

MINERAL LANDS. See Public Lands, (5).

MORTGAGE. See Bonds.

Making deed of trust to trustee in foreign State and pro-
viding for payment of bonds there does not render corpora-
tion liable to suit on bonds in that State. Toledo Rys. & Lt.
Co. v. Hill .. . ..

49

MOTION TO QUASH:

Proper mode of attacking service and jurisdiction thereon
depending in District Court. Meisukas v. Greenough Coal
Co.....

54

MULTIFARIOUSNESS. See Equity, 1.