The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation - BestLightNovel.com
You’re reading novel The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 114 online at BestLightNovel.com. Please use the follow button to get notification about the latest chapter next time when you visit BestLightNovel.com. Use F11 button to read novel in full-screen(PC only). Drop by anytime you want to read free – fast – latest novel. It’s great if you could leave a comment, share your opinion about the new chapters, new novel with others on the internet. We’ll do our best to bring you the finest, latest novel everyday. Enjoy
[302] 22 Stat. 162, -- 4 (1882).
[303] 38 Stat. 803, -- 5 (1915).
[304] 43 Stat. 936, 941 (1925); 28 U.S.C.A. -- 1349.
[305] 3 Stat. 195, 198 (1815).
[306] 4 Stat. 632, 633, -- 3 (1833).
[307] 12 Stat. 755, 756, -- 5 (1863).
[308] 28 U.S.C.A. -- 1442 (a) (1).
[309] 100 U.S. 257 (1880).
[310] 1 Wheat. 304 (1816).
[311] 6 Wheat. 264 (1821).
[312] 100 U.S. 257, 264. _See also_ The Mayor of Nashville _v._ Cooper, 6 Wall. 247 (1868).
[313] Lovell _v._ City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938).
[314] Stoll _v._ Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165 (1938).
[315] Indiana ex rel. Anderson _v._ Brand, 303 U.S. 95 (1938).
[316] Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. _v._ Oklahoma, 303 U.S. 206 (1938).
[317] Adam _v._ Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 164 (1938).
[318] United Gas Public Service Co. _v._ Texas, 303 U.S. 123, 143 (1938).
[319] 279 U.S. 159 (1929).
[320] Lane _v._ Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 274 (1939). It is fairly obvious, of course, that whether State courts have exceeded their powers under the State Const.i.tution is not a federal question. This rule was applied in Schuylkill Trust Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 302 U.S. 506, 512 (1938), where it was contended that instead of construing a State statute, the courts had actually amended it by a species of judicial legislation prohibited by the State const.i.tution.
[321] United States _v._ Ravara, 2 Dall. 297 (1793).
[322] Bors _v._ Preston, 111 U.S. 252 (1884).
[323] Ames _v._ Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 111 U.S. 449, 469 (1884).
[324] 280 U.S. 379, 383-384 (1930).
[325] 11 Wheat. 467 (1826).
[326] 135 U.S. 403, 432 (1890).
[327] Ex parte Gruber, 269 U.S. 302 (1925).
[328] 1 Stat. 73 (1789).
[329] _See_ W.W. Willoughby, The Const.i.tutional Law of the United States, III, 1339, 1347 (New York, 1929).
[330] Willoughby, _op. cit._, III, 1339.
[331] 1 Stat. 73, -- 9 (1789).
[332] Justice Was.h.i.+ngton in Davis _v._ Brig Seneca, 21 Fed. Cas. No.
12,670 (1829).
[333] The "Vengeance," 3 Dall. 297 (1796); The "Schooner Sally," 2 Cr.
406 (1805); The "Schooner Betsey," 4 Cr. 443 (1808); The "Samuel," 1 Wheat. 9 (1816); The "Octavia," 1 Wheat. 20 (1816).
[334] New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. _v._ Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 386 (1848).
[335] Waring _v._ Clarke, 5 How. 441 (1847); Ex parte Easton, 95 U.S. 68 (1877); North Pacific S.S. Co. _v._ Hall Brothers M.R. & S. Co., 249 U.S. 119 (1919); Grant Smith-Porter s.h.i.+p Co. _v._ Rohde, 257 U.S. 469 (1922).
[336] Sheppard _v._ Taylor, 5 Pet. 675, 710 (1831).
[337] New England M. Ins. Co. _v._ Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, 31 (1871).
[338] Knapp, Stout & Co. _v._ McCaffrey, 177 U.S. 638 (1900).
[339] Atlee _v._ Northwestern Union P. Co., 21 Wall. 389 (1875); Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236 (1872).
[340] O'Brien _v._ Miller, 168 U.S. 287 (1897); The "Grapeshot" _v._ Wallerstein, 9 Wall. 129 (1870).
[341] New Bedford Dry Dock Co. _v._ Purdy, 258 U.S. 95 (1922); North Pac. S.S. Co. _v._ Hall Bros. M.R. & S. Co., 249 U.S. 119 (1919); The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438 (1819).
[342] New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. _v._ Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344 (1848).
[343] Ex parte Easton, 95 U.S. 68 (1877).
[344] Andrews _v._ Wall, 3 How. 568 (1845).
[345] Janney _v._ Columbia Ins. Co., 10 Wheat. 411, 412, 415, 418 (1825), cited by Justice Story in The "Tilton," 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,054 (1830).
[346] 95 U.S. 68, 72 (1877).
[347] The "Belfast" _v._ Boon, 7 Wall. 624 (1869).
[348] Ex parte Garnett, 141 U.S. 1 (1891).
[349] The "City of Panama," 101 U.S. 453 (1880); _see also_ Kenward _v._ "Admiral Peoples," 295 U.S. 649 (1935); The "Harrisburg," 119 U.S. 199 (1886). Although a suit for damages for wrongful death will not lie in the courts of the United States under the general maritime law, admiralty courts will enforce a State law creating liability for wrongful death. Just _v._ Chambers, 312 U.S. 383 (1941).
[350] The "Raithmoor," 241 U.S. 166 (1916); Erie R. Co. _v._ Erie & Western T. Co., 204 U.S. 220 (1907). _See also_ Canadian Aviator _v._ United States, 324 U.S. 215 (1945).
