open for the admission of light, but capable of being speedily got at
and closed if occasion should require; and any subsequent neglect in
not closing the iron covers is a "fault or error in navigation or in the
management of the vessel," within the meaning of section 3 of the act
of Congress of February 13, 1893, c. 105, known as the Harter Act.
The Silvia, 462.
6. Section 3 of the Harter Act applies to foreign vessels. Ib.
The decrees in the several cases are modified by striking from them the
words referred to in the application of the appellants, and set forth in
the opinion of the court. Smyth v. Ames, 361.
See MANDATE.
1. A description in a chattel mortgage of a given number of articles or
animals out of a larger number is not sufficient; but such a mortgage
is valid against those who know the facts. Northwestern Bank v.
Freeman, 620.
2. A purchaser of personal property, which is mortgaged, is charged with
knowledge of every fact shown by the records, and is presumed to
know every other fact which an examination, suggested by the records,
would have disclosed.
3. Under the rule that the incident covers the principal, a mortgage of
domestic animals covers the increase of such animals, though it be
silent as to such increase.
CASES AFFIRMED OR FOLLOWED.
Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, followed.
Del Monte Mining Co. v. Last Chance Mining Co., 171 U. S. 55, followed.
Clark v. Fitzgerald, 92.
Ely's Administrator v. United States, 171 U. S. 220, followed. United States
v. Maish, 242.
Camou v. United States, 171 U. S. 277, followed. Perrin v. United States,
Mining Co. v. Tarbet, 98 U. S. 463, affirmed. Walreth v. Champion Min-
White v. Berry, 171 U. S. 366, followed.
King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404, followed.
King v. Panther Lumber Co.,
Reusens v. Lawson, 91 Virginia, 226, followed. King v. Mullens, 404.
Hopkins v. United States, 171 U. S. 578, followed. Anderson v. United
States, 604.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6;
JURISDICTION, A, 1, 13;
MINERAL LAND, 8, 10;
1. Where an undertaking on one side is in terms a condition to the stipu-
lation on the other, that is, where the contract provides for the per-
formance of some act, or the happening of some event, and the
obligations of the contract are made to depend on such performance
or happening, the conditions are conditions precedent; but when the
act of one is not necessary to the act of the other, and the loss and in-
convenience can be compensated in damages, performance of the one is
not a condition precedent to the performance of the other. New
Orleans v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 312.
2. It being shown by the record that the railway terminus from which the
extension along Claiborne street was to be made was never constructed,
and that the crossing from Westwego to the land in front of the park
was also never established, but, on the contrary, that the company ex-
tended its road down the river to Gouldsboro, where it made its main
crossing, the right to the extension and the right to the use of the
batture no longer obtains. Ib.
3. The suspensive condition, by which the rights of the company under
the original ordinance were held in abeyance, operates also upon the
lease, and the mere payment of rent did not change the nature of the
suspensive condition, or work an estoppel. Ib.
CONFEDERATE STATE LEGISLATION.
1. Transactions between persons actually residing within the territory
dominated by the government of the Confederate States were not
invalid for the reason only that they occurred under the sanction of
the laws of that government or of any local government recognizing
its authority. Baldy v. Hunter, 388.
2. Within such territory, the preservation of order, the maintenance of
police regulations, the prosecution of crimes, the protection of prop-
erty, the enforcement of contracts, the celebration of marriages, the
settlement of estates, the transfer and descent of property, and similar
or kindred subjects, were, during the war, under the control of the
local governments constituting the so called Confederate States. Ib.
3. What occurred or was done in respect of such matters under the author-
ity of the laws of these local de facto governments should not be disre-
garded or held invalid merely because those governments were organized
in hostility to the Union established by the National Constitution; this,
because the existence of war between the United States and the Con-
federate States did not relieve those who were within the insurrection-
ary lines from the necessity of civil obedience, nor destroy the bonds
of society, nor do away with civil government or the regular adminis-
tration of the laws, and because transactions in the ordinary course
of civil society as organized within the enemy's territory, although
they may have indirectly or remotely promoted the ends of the de facto
or unlawful government organized to effect a dissolution of the Union,
were without blame "except when proved to have been entered into
with actual intent to further invasion or insurrection." Ib.
4. Judicial and legislative acts in the respective States composing the so
called Confederate States should be respected by the courts if they
were not "hostile in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the
authority of the National Government, and did not impair the rights
of citizens under the Constitution." Ib.
5. Applying these principles to the present case, the court is of opinion
that the mere investment by Hunter, as guardian, of the Confederate
funds or currency of his ward in bonds of the Confederate States
should be deemed a transaction in the ordinary course of civil society,
and not, necessarily, one conceived and completed with an actual in-
tent thereby to aid in the destruction of the Government of the
Union.. lb.
1. Oleomargarine has, for nearly a quarter of a century, been recognized in
Europe and in the United States as an article of food and commerce,
and was recognized as such by Congress in the act of August 2, 1886, c.
840; and, being thus a lawful article of commerce, it cannot be wholly
excluded from importation into a State from another State where it
was manufactured, although the State into which it was imported
may so regulate the introduction as to insure purity, without having
the power to totally exclude it. Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 1.
2. A sale of a ten pound package of oleomargarine, manufactured, packed,
marked, imported and sold under the circumstances set forth in detail
in the special verdict in this case, was a valid sale, although made to
a person who was himself a consumer; but it is not decided that this
right of sale extended beyond the first sale by the importer after
its arrival within the State. Ib.
3. The importer had not only a right to sell personally, but he had the
right to employ an agent to sell for him, and a sale thus effected was
valid. lb.
4. The right of the importer to sell does not depend upon whether the
original package was suitable for retail trade or not, but is the same,
whether made to consumers or to wholesale dealers, provided he sells
in original packages. Ib.
5. Act No. 21 of the legislature of Pennsylvania, enacted May 21, 1885,
enacting that "no person, firm or corporate body shall manufacture
out of any oleaginous substance, or any compound of the same, other
than that produced from unadulterated milk or of cream from the
same, any article designed to take the place of butter or cheese pro-
duced from pure unadulterated milk, or cream from the same, or of
any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese, nor shall sell or offer
for sale, or have in his, her or their possession with intent to sell the
same as an article of food" and making such act a misdemeanor,
punishable by fine and imprisonment, is invalid to the extent that
it prohibits the introduction of oleomargarine from another State,
and its sale in the original package. 1b.
6. Following the decision in Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, the court holds
that the statute of New Hampshire prohibiting the sale of oleomar-
garine as a substitute for butter, unless it is of a pink color, is invalid,
as being, in necessary effect, prohibitory. Collins v. New Hampshire, 30.
7. The right to equal protection of the laws is not denied by a state court
when it is apparent that the same law or course of procedure would be
applied to any other person in the State under similar circumstances
and conditions. Tinsley v. Anderson, 101.
8. The act of the legislature of North Carolina of January 21, 1891, must
be regarded as an act providing for the inspection of fertilizers and
fertilizing materials in order to prevent the practice of imposition on
the people of the State, and the charge of twenty-five cents per ton as
intended merely to defray the cost of such inspection; and as it is com-
petent for the State to pass laws of this character, the requirement of
inspection and payment of its cost does not bring the act into collision
with the commercial power vested in Congress, and clearly this can-
not be so as to foreign commerce, for clause two of section ten of
article one expressly recognizes the validity of state inspection laws,
and allows the collection of the amounts necessary for their execution;
and the same principle must apply to interstate commerce. Patapsco
Guano Co. v. North Carolina, 345.
9. The act of the legislature of Missouri of April 8, 1895, Missouri Laws
1895, page 284, providing that " comparison of a disputed writing with
any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine shall
be permitted to be made by witnesses, and such writings and the
evidence of witnesses respecting the same may be submitted to the
court and jury as evidence of the genuineness or otherwise of the writ-
ing in dispute," is not ex post facto, under the Constitution of the
United States, when applied to prosecutions for crimes committed
prior to its passage. Thompson v. Missouri, 380.
10. The system established by the State of West Virginia, under which
lands liable to taxation are forfeited to the State by reason of the
owner not having them placed or caused to be placed, during five
consecutive years, on the proper land books for taxation, and caused
himself to be charged with the taxes thereon, and under which, on
petition required to be filed by the representative of the State in the
proper Circuit Court, such lands are sold for the benefit of the school
fund, with liberty to the owner, upon due notice of the proceeding,
to intervene by petition and secure a redemption of his lands from the
forfeiture declared by paying the taxes and charges due upon them,
is not inconsistent with the due process of law required by the Con-
stitution of the United States or the constitution of the State. King
v. Mullins, 404.
11. The statutes of the State of New York, providing that "every cor-
poration, joint stock company or association whatever, now or here-
after incorporated, organized or formed under, by or pursuant to law
in this State or in any other State or country and doing business in
this State, except only saving banks and institutions for savings,
life insurance companies, banks, foreign insurance companies, manu-
facturing or mining corporations or companies wholly engaged in
carrying on manufactures or mining ores within this State, and agri-
cultural and horticultural societies or associations, which exceptions,
however, shall not include gas companies, trust companies, electric
or steam heating, lighting and power companies, shall be liable to
and shall pay a tax as a tax upon its franchise or business into the
state treasury annually, to be computed as follows:" and that "the
amount of capital stock which shall be the basis for tax . . . in the
case of every corporation, joint stock company and association liable
to taxation thereunder shall be the amount of capital stock employed
within this State," as construed by the highest court of that State,
are not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. New
York v. Roberts, 658.
12. It must be regarded as finally settled by frequent decisions of this
court, that, subject to certain limitations as respects interstate and
foreign commerce, a State may impose such conditions upon permit-
ting a foreign corporation to do business within its limits as it may
judge expedient; and that it may make the grant or privilege de-
pendent upon the payment of a specific license tax, or a sum propor-
tioned to the amount of its capital used within the State. lb.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
1. In no way, and through no channels, directly or indirectly, will courts
allow an action to be maintained for the recovery of property delivered
under an illegal contract, where, in order to maintain such recovery, it
is necessary to have recourse to that contract; but the right of recovery
must rest on a disaffirmance of the contract, and is permitted only
because of the desire of courts to do justice, as far as possible to the
party who has made payment or delivered property under a void agree-
ment, which in justice he ought to recover, and no recovery will be
|