extraordinary 1. Mandamus is an remedial process which is awarded not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion. Ex parte Skinner & Eddy Corp. 265 U. S. 86, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 446, 68: 912 Existence of other remedy. 2. Mandamus does not lie at the suit of a minister of a foreign government to prevent further proceedings in an admiralty suit to enforce a lien for supplies furnished a government vessel, where the objection was made and overruled in the trial court, since the sole remedy is the direct one to review the decision. Ex parte Transportes Maritimos do Estado, 264 U. S. 105, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, 68: 580 To court. 4. A rule with respect to the retirement of Naval officers which, by order of the President, was stricken from the Naval regulation and embodied in instructions to Naval retiring boards, has no binding effect upon the Secretary of the Navy so that nonobservance of it by him can be made the basis of a proceeding in mandamus to compel its observance. Denby v. Berry, 263 U. S. 29, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 74, 68: 148 5. That the Secretary of the Navy gave a wrong reason for a ruling with respect to the retirement of a Naval Reserve officer is not a ground for requiring him by mandamus to revoke the order. Denby v. Berry, 263 U. S. 29, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 74, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Monopoly by, see Monopoly, 2–6. MARINE INSURANCE. See Insurance, 5, 6. 68: 148 MARITIME CONTRACTS. See Admiralty, 4. MARITIME LIENS. Mandamus against further proceedings in admiralty to enforce lien for supplies after judgment, see Mandamus, 2. MASTER AND SERVANT. Application of workmen's compensation acts to maritime injuries, see Admiralty, 1, 2. Equal protection of laws as to, see Constitutional Law, 22, 23. Due process in limiting night labor of women employees, see Constitutional Law, 47. Court's review of legislation as to night Compensation of Federal employees, see When relation exists. See also Evidence, 11. 1. The rule imposing the duty on owners to unload heavy freight does not prevent an owner employed by the train conductor to assist in unloading freight from a car which is to accompany the train from being an employee within the protection of the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Burtch, 263 U. S. 540, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165, 68: 433 Liability of master to servant. 2. The failure of a railroad company to enforce a rule requiring owners to unload heavy freight will not prevent recovery by an owner employed by the conductor to assist in unloading it, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, for injuries received while so employed, if such failure neither caused nor contributed to cause the injury. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Burtch, 263 U. S. 540, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165, 68: 433 -Under Federal employers' liability act. Contributory negligence of servant dis obeying state statute, see post, 10. 3. The unloading of an interstate shipment by an employee of a railroad company is so closely related to interstate transportation as to be practically a part of it, and brings the employee within the protection of the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Burtch, 263 U. S. 540, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165, 68: 433 4. To bring a railroad employee within the protection of the Federal Employers' Liability Act he must, at the time of his injury, be engaged in interstate transportation, or in work so closely related to it as to be practically a part of it. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Burtch, 263 U. S. 540, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165, 68: 433 -under Federal safety appliance acts. 5. An employee cannot recover under the Federal Safety Appliance Act if the failure to comply with its requirements is 11. That a fireman on a locomotive which stopped before reaching a grade crossing, and then proceeded before the engineer had positively ascertained that it could proceed in safety, as required by a state statute, might have prevented a collision at a crossing with a train on the other road had he looked out for the crossing train, which was approaching on his side of the track. will not permit recovery against the railroad company for death of the engineer, whose disobedience of the statute caused the collision. Frese v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 263 U. S. 1, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, 68: 131 not the proximate cause of the accident, him positively to ascertain that the way resulting in his injury, but he may recover was clear and that the train could safely reif the failure to comply with the require- sume its course before proceeding over the ments of the act is the proximate cause of crossing. Frese v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. the accident resulting in injury to him 263 U. S. 1, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, 68: 131 while in the discharge of his duty, although Fellow servants and their negligence. not engaged in an operation in which the safety appliances are specifically designed to furnish him protection. Davis v. Wolfe, 263 U. S. 239, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 64, 68: 284 6. A freight conductor injured by the defective condition of a grab iron to which he was holding while directing the movement of a train engaged in interstate commerce may hold the railroad company liable for the resulting injury, under the provisions of the Federal Safety Appliance Act, although such act makes it unlawful for any railroad engaged in interstate commerce to use any car not provided with secure grab irons for greater security to men "in coupling or uncoupling cars." Davis v. MAXIMS. Wolfe, 263 U. S. 239, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 64, 68: 284 7. The running of a train containing a car with air brakes out of order past a repair station by cutting the car out of the air line without changing its position in the train is a violation of the Act of March 2, 1893, requiring that not less than a prescribed percentage of cars in a train should have power brakes used and operated by the engineer, and "all power-braked cars in such train which are associated together with" such prescribed number "shall have their brakes so used and operated," although the required percentage of cars remains in operation. New York C. R. Co. v. United States, 265 U. S. 41, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 436, 68: 892 8. The act of Congress and order of the Interstate Commerce Commission with respect to the equipment of trains with power brakes should be liberally construed, to relieve trainmen of the labor and danger involved in the use of hand brakes to control the speed of trains, and to promote the safety of trains and of persons and property thereon. New York C. R. Co. v. United States, 265 U. S. 41, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 436. 68: 892 Contributory negligence of servant. 9. A state statute requiring the stopping of trains approaching grade crossings, and requiring those in charge of them positively to ascertain that the way is clear before proceeding to cross, applies in an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act to recover for death of an engineer killed at a grade crossing because of disobedience of the statute. Frese v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 263 U. S. 1, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, 68: 131 10. No recovery can be had against a railroad company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for death of a locomotive engineer through collision of his train with that of another company at a grade crossing, where, although he stopped his train before reaching the crossing, he disobeyed a statute of the state requiring 1. De minimis non curat lex. Missouri ex rel. Burnes Nat. Bank v. Duncan, 265 U. S. 17, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427, 68: 881 2. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. United States ex rel. Baldwin Co. v. Robertson, 265 U. S. 168, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 508, 68: 962 3. Obsta principiis. Missouri ex rel. Burnes Nat. Bank v. Duncan, 265 U. S. 17, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427, 68: 881 4. The equities being equal, the law must prevail. Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co. 264 U. S. 182, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 266, 68: 628 5. The first in time is best in right. Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co. 264 U. S. 182, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 266. 68: 628 MISBRANDING. Of food, see Food and Drugs, 3. MISTAKE. petition of machine-made glass, only a small portion of the product is hand made, and the hand workers have become reduced in number so as to be insufficient to man all Court's duty as to obvious mistake in factories at once, the purpose being to se statute, see Courts, 7. MODE OF REVIEW. MONOPOLY. Strike as violation of anti-trust act, 1. Interstate commerce includes the in- 2. The withdrawal by a wholesale merchant of his patronage from a manufacturer upon the latter's refusal to pay such wholesaler a commission on sales made to a retailer in the territory covered by him who does a small percentage of wholesale business, and refusal to abstain from making further sales direct to such retailer, is not an unfair method of competition within the provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Federal Trade Commission v. Raymond Bros.-Clark Co. 263 U. S. 565, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 162, (Annotated) 68: 448 3. A trader engaged in an entirely private business may freely exercise his own individual discretion as to the persons with whom he will deal. Federal Trade Commission v. Raymond Bros.-Clark Co. 263 U. S. 565, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 162, (Annotated) 68: 448 cure employment for all men throughout 6. The act of members of a body com- MORTGAGE, Federal jurisdiction of suit by assignee of note secured by, see Courts, 26. MOTOR VEHICLES. See Taxicabs. MOVING PICTURE FILMS. Manufacture and sale of, as interstate MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Impairing contract obligations as to Liquors. Grant of power to fix rates, see Statutes, 8. Powers generally. Power over streets, see Railroads. 4. The mere fact of a violent rise in the price of sugar in sales for future delivery on an exchange, without any economic justification or explanation, is not sufficient to establish a combination or conspiracy by 1. Charter authority to a municipal the corporation operating the exchange and corporation to establish and build sewers its members to restrain interstate and for- and regulate the same does not include eign trade in sugar, in violation of the Anti-power to regulate rates for the use of sewers trust Acts. United States v. New York built by another. Opelika v. Opelika Sewer Coffee & Sugar Exch. 263 U. S. 611, 44 Sup. Co. 265 U. S. 215, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517, Ct. Rep. 225, 68: 475 68: 985 5. No combination in unreasonable restraint of trade, in violation of the Act of July 2, 1890, is effected by an arrangement between manufacturers and laborers in the hand-blown glass industry by which the established wage scale is issued to one set of factories for the first half of the year and to another set for the second half, with the result that the respective classes, not being able to secure labor, must be idle on half the time, where, because of the com Contracts. Following state decisions as to, see Existence of contract for gas rates, Authority to contract for rates for public service, see Public Utilities, 2-7. 2. A legislature without constitutional power to make an irrevocable grant of privileges to a public service corporation may confer power upon a municipal cor-, NOTES (Editorial) INDEX TO. poration to enter into a contract conferring such privileges, so that the municipality cannot, of its own motion, recede from the grant. Opelika v. Opelika Sewer Co. 265 U. S. 215, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517, 68: 985 3. A contract by a city, in consideration of the construction, maintenance, and operation of an adequate waterworks system by a private corporation, to recognize the exclusive right of the corporation to maintain and operate such system for a definite time, and to purchase the entire plant at a price to be fixed in a specified manner at the conclusion of the period, should it decide not to grant an extension, -is valid. Superior Water, Light & Power Co. v. Superior, 263 U. S. 125, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 82, 68: 204 For general Index to Notes in this Later notes in 67 L. ed. or in this vol- Action or suit. See Carriers; Constitutional Law. Aliens. Who are "white persons" within the meaning of the Federal naturalization acts. 67:199 Who are "merchants" within the meaning of the immigration laws. 67:969 Provisions of Federal Constitution invocable by aliens independently of treaty. 68: 255 Appeal and error. When Federal question is raised in time to sustain the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court over state courts. 67: 557 Appellate review in Federal Supreme Court of decisions in state courts in cases presenting questions of impairment of contract obligations. 67: 884 Application to appellate court for a temporary restraining order pending appeal from an order or decree denying an injunction. 67: 217 Attorney and client. See Champerty. Automobiles. See Constitutional Law. See also Conflict of Laws; Constitutional Law. Validity of statute or ordinance requiring commodities to be sold in a specified quantity or weight. 68: 814 Construction and effect of the act of Congress of October 23, 1918, chap. 194, making it a crime to conspire to present for payment, or obtain payment of, a fraudulent claim against a corporation in which the United States is a stockholder. 68: 137 1263 |