of Missouri, is to be construed in the light of extrinsic facts; and, as
so construed, its object was not to add territory to the State but to
substitute the Missouri River as a practical boundary, so far as
possible, instead of an ideal line along a meridian. Ib.

3. Missouri and Kansas-Title to island in Missouri River.

The result of this decision is that an island in the Missouri River west of
the centre of its main channel, as that channel now exists, belongs
to Kansas, notwithstanding such island is east of the original
boundary line of Missouri. Ib.

CARRIERS.

See INTERSTATE COMMERCE;

RATE REGULATION;

STATUTES, A 4.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Barney v. City of New York, 190 U. S. 430, distinguished in Siler v.
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 175.

Ex parte Nebraska, 209 U. S. 436, distinguished in In re Winn, 458.
In re Pollitz, 206 U. S. 323, distinguished in In re Winn, 458.

Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425, distinguished
in Leeds & Catlin v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 325.

Rafael v. Verelst, 2 Wm. Bl. 983, 1055, distinguished in American Banana
Co. v. United Fruit Co., 347.

Siemens v. Sellers, 123 U. S. 276, distinguished in Leeds & Catlin v.
Victor Talking Mach. Co., 301.

South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, distinguished in Murray
v. Wilson Distilling Co., 151.

United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310, distinguished in United States v.
Dickinson, 92.

CASES FOLLOWED.

Boston Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Co., 188 U. S. 632, followed in In re
Winn, 458.

Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590, followed in Murray v. Wilson Distilling
Co., 151.

Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. R. R., 133 U. S. 233, followed in Murray
v. Wilson Distilling Co., 151.

Ceder v. Arts, 213 U. S. 223, followed in Hurley v. Atchison, Topeka &
➤ Santa Fe Ry. Co., 126.

De la Rama v. De la Rama, 201 U. S. 303, followed in Strong v. Repide,

419.

Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11, followed in Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Sowers, 55.

Dowell v. Appelgate, 152 U. S. 327, followed in Chesapeake & Ohio Ry.
Co. v. McCabe, 207.

Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3, followed in Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Ry. Co. v. Sowers, 55.

Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449, followed in In re Winn, 458.

Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283, followed in Selliger v. Ken-
tucky, 200.

Harriman v. Interstate Com. Comm., 211 U. S. 407, followed in United
States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 366.

In re Moore, 209 U. S. 490, followed in In re Winn, 458.

Insurance Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44, followed in Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Calhoun, 1.

Knights Templar Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, 187 U. S. 197, followed in
United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 366.

Leeds & Catlin v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 213 U. S. 301, followed in
Same v. Same, 325.

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, followed in In
re Winn, 458.

McLean v. Railroad Co., 203 U. S. 38, followed in Atchison, Topeka &

Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Sowers, 55.

Miner's Bank v. Iowa, 12 How. 1, followed in Atchison, Topeka & Santa
Fe Ry. Co. v. Sowers, 55.

New Haven Railroad v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 361,
followed in United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 366.

Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359, followed in Macfadden v. United
States, 288.

Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173, followed in Chesapeake & Ohio Ry.
Co. v. McCabe, 207.

Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, followed in Leeds & Catlin v. Victor
Talking Mach. Co., 301.

Stewart v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R., 168 U. S. 445, followed in Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Sowers, 55.

Traction Co. v. Mining Co., 196 U. S. 239, followed in Chesapeake & Ohio
Ry. Co. v. McCabe, 207.

Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, followed in Keller v. United States, 138.
United States v. Bitter Root Co., 200 U. S. 451, followed in Equitable Life
Insurance Co. v. Brown, 25.

United States v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370, followed in United States v. Mason,
115.

United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, followed in Keerl v. Montana, 135.
U. S. Fidelity Co. v. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U. S. 306, followed in David-
. son Marble Co. v. Gibson, 10.

CERTIORARI.

1. Right to, of United States, in criminal case. Act of March 3, 1891, con-
strued.

The writ of certiorari cannot be granted under the act of March 3, 1891,
c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, in a criminal case at the instance of the United
States whatever the supposed importance of the questions in-
volved. United States v. Sanges 144 U. S. 310, distinguished.
United States v. Dickinson, 92.

2. Right to, of United States, in criminal case. Act of March 2, 1907, con-
strued.

The act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, giving an appeal to the
Government in certain criminal cases cannot be extended beyond
its terms, or construed so as to extend the power of certiorari under
the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, to bring up a criminal
case for the correction of mere error at the instance of the United
States. Ib.

3. Power of this court to issue.

The power of this court to issue the writ of certiorari under § 14 of the

Judiciary Act of 1789, now § 716, Rev. Stat., is not a grant of appel-
late jurisdiction to review for correction of mere error. Ib.

CIRCUIT COURTS.
See JURISDICTION, C;

REMOVAL OF Causes.

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
See JURISDICTION, B.

CITIZENSHIP.
See JURISDICTION, D;
PORTO RICO, 1, 2.

CLOUD ON TITLE..
See INJUNCTION, 3.

COMBINATIONS.

See PATENTS, 1–5, 11–13.

COMITY.

See COURTS.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

1. Due process of law; effect of erroneous decision to deny.

When parties have been fully heard in the regular course of judicial

proceedings an erroneous decision does not deprive the unsuccessful
party of his property without due process of law within the meaning
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bonner v. Gorman, 86.

2. Due process of law; quære as to application of provision of Fourteenth
Amendment.

Quære, and not decided, whether the due process provision of the Four-
teenth Amendment in itself forbids a State from putting one of its
citizens in second jeopardy. Keerl v. Montana, 135.

See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 5.

Equal protection of the law. See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 6.

3. Judicial powers of United States What amounts to suit against State
within inhibition of Eleventh Amendment.

Purchases made by state officers of supplies for business carried on by

the State are made by the State, and suits by the vendors against

the state officers carrying on or winding up the business are suits
against the State and, under the Eleventh Amendment, beyond the
jurisdiction of the Federal courts; and so held as to suits against
commissioners to wind up the State Liquor Dispensary of South
Carolina. Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 151.

4. Same.

A bill in equity to compel specific performance of a contract between
an individual and a State cannot, against the objection of the State,
be maintained in the Federal courts. (Christian v. Atlantic &
N. C. R. R., 133 U. S. 233.) Ib.

5. Legislative powers of Congress. Full faith and credit to acts, etc., of
Territories.

Under the provisions of the Constitution which declare the supremacy

of the National Government, Congress has power to enact, as it has
done by §§ 905, 906, Rev. Stat., that the same faith and credit be
given in the courts of the States and Territories to public acts,
records, and judicial proceedings of the Territories as are given to
those of the States under Art. IV, § 1 of the Constitution. (Embry
v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3.) Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.
Sowers, 55.

See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 6.

6. Personal rights; double jeopardy; mistrial resulting from disagreement of
jury not ground for plea of.

Where a state court has the right to discharge the jury if it satisfactorily
appear after a reasonable time that a disagreement is probable, and
the state court so finds after the jury has been out for twenty-four
hours, and discharges the jury, the result is a mistrial and the ac-
cused cannot on a subsequent trial interpose the plea of once in
jeopardy by reason thereof, United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579;
and so held in regard to a trial in Montana where the jury had been
discharged under § 2125, Penal Code of that State. Keerl v.
Montana, 135.

7. States; exemption from suit in Federal courts.

The consent of a State to be sued in its own courts by a creditor does
not give that creditor the right to sue in a Federal court. (Chandler
v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590.) Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 151.

8. Same.

Although by engaging in business a State may not avoid a preëxisting
right of the Federal Government to tax that business, the State
VOL. CCXIII-31