have been presented. Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Fitzgerald,
3. In deciding adversely to the claim of the plaintiff in error that by rea-
son of the process of garnishment in attachment against the Missouri
Pacific company, in the action removed to the Circuit Court from the
state court, the Circuit Court acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the
moneys due the Construction company from the Pacific company,
the Supreme Court of Nebraska did not so pass upon a Federal ques-
tion as to furnish ground for the interposition of this court. Ib.
4. In appointing a receiver of the Construction company to collect the
amount of the decree against the Missouri Pacific company, the
Supreme Court of Nebraska denied no Federal right of the Missouri
Pacific company. Ib.
5. When a party to an action in a state court moves there for its removal
to the Circuit Court of the United States, and the motion is denied,
and the party nevertheless files the record in the Circuit Court, and
the Circuit Court proceeds to final hearing, (the state court meanwhile
suspending all action,) and remands the case to the state court, the
order refusing the removal worked no prejudice, and the error, in that
regard, if any, was immaterial. Ib.
6. An order of the Circuit Court remanding a cause cannot be reviewed
in this court by any direct proceeding for that purpose. Ib.
7. If a state court proceeds to judgment in a cause notwithstanding an
application for removal, its ruling in retaining the case will be review-
able here after final judgment under Rev. Stat. § 709. Ib.
8. If a case be removed to the Circuit Court and a motion to remand be
made and denied, then after final judgment the action of the Circuit
Court in refusing to remand may be reviewed here on error or appeal.
Ib.
9. If the Circuit Court and the state court go to judgment, respectively,
each judgment is open to revision in the appropriate mode. Ib.
10. If the Circuit Court remands a cause and the state court thereupon
proceeds to final judgment, the action of the Circuit Court is not
reviewable on writ of error to such judgment. lb.
11. A state court cannot be held to have decided against a Federal right
when it is the Circuit Court, and not the state court, which has denied
its possession. Ib.
Whether an instrument is under seal or not is a question for the court
upon inspection; but whether a mark or character shall be held to be
a seal, depends upon the intention of the executant, as shown by the
paper. Jacksonville, Mayport &c. Railway v. Hooper, 514.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4, 5.
A. CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES.
1. When a court of law is construing an instrument, whether a public law
or a private contract, it is legitimate, if two constructions are fairly
possible, to adopt that one which equity would favor. Washington &
Idaho Railroad Co. v. Cœur d'Alene Railway & Navigation Co., 77.
2. When the practice in a department in interpreting a statute is uniform,
and the meaning of the statute, upon examination, is found to be
doubtful or obscure, this court will accept the interpretation by the
department as the true one; but where the departmental practice has
not been uniform, the court must determine for itself what is the true
interpretation. United States v. Healey, 136.
See EMINENT DOMAIN;
JURISDICTION, B, 1.
B. STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES.
See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED
CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 6;
CORPORATION, 1;
CRIMINAL LAW, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11;
EVIDENCE, 3, 5;
HABEAS CORPUs, 1, 2, 5;
JURISDICTION, A, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13;
B, 3; D, 1 to 6.
LIGHT-HOUSE, 1, 2;
NATIONAL BANK;
PUBLIC LAND, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 ;
REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 7;
UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COM-
PANY, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7.
UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
1. The objects which Congress sought to accomplish by the act of July 1,
1862, c. 120, 12 Stat. 489, granting a subsidy to aid in the construc-
tion of both a railroad and a telegraph line from the Missouri River
to the Pacific Ocean, and by the act of July 2, 1864, c. 216, 13 Stat.
356, amendatory thereof, were the construction, the maintenance and
the operation of both a railroad and a telegraph line between those
two points; the governmental aid was extended for the purpose of
accomplishing all these important results; and there is nothing in
subsequent legislation to indicate a change of this purpose. United
States v. Union Pacific Railway Co., 1.
2. The provisions in those acts permitting the railroad company to ar-
range with certain telegraph companies for placing their lines upon
and along the route of the railroad, and its branches, did not affect
the authority of Congress, under its reserved power, to require the
maintenance and operation by the railroad company itself, through
its own officers and employés, of a telegraph line over and along its
main line and branches. Ib.
3. An arrangement between the railroad company and the telegraph
company, such as was permitted by the 19th section of the act of
July 1, 1862, and by the 4th section of the act of July 2, 1864,
c. 220, known as the Idaho Act, could have no other effect than to
relieve the railroad company from any present duty itself to con-
struct a telegraph line to be used under the franchises granted and
for the purposes indicated by Congress. No arrangement of the char-
acter indicated by Congress could have been made except in view of
the possibility of the exercise by Congress of the power reserved to
add to, or amend the act that permitted such arrangement. Ib.
4. It was not competent for Congress under its reserved power to
add to, alter, or amend these acts, to impose upon the railroad com-
pany duties wholly foreign to the objects for which it was created or
for which governmental aid was given, nor, by any alteration or
amendment of those acts, destroy rights actually vested, nor disturb
transactions fully consummated. With the policy of such legislation
the courts have nothing to do. Ib.
5. The provision in the act of August 7, 1888, c. 772, 25 Stat. 382, re-
quiring all railroad and telegraph companies to which the United
States have granted subsidies, to "forthwith and henceforward, by
and through their own respective corporate officers and employés,
maintain and operate, for railroad, governmental, commercial, and all
other purposes, telegraph lines, and exercise by themselves alone all
the telegraph franchises conferred upon them and obligations assumed
by them under the acts making the grants," is a valid exercise of the
power reserved by Congress. Ib.
6. Since the passage of the act of July 24, 1866, c. 230, the provisions of
which were embodied in the Revised Statutes Title LXV., Tele-
graphs, no railroad company operating a post-road of the United
States, over which interstate commerce is carried on, can bind itself,
by agreement, to exclude from its roadway any telegraph company,
incorporated under the laws of a State, that has accepted the pro-
visions of that act, and desires to use such roadway for its line in
such manner as will not interfere with the ordinary travel thereon.
Ib.
7. The agreement of October 1, 1866, between the Union Pacific Railway
Company, Eastern Division, and the Western Union Telegraph Com-
pany gave the telegraph company the absolute control of all telegraphic
business on the routes of the railway company, and consequently
tended to make the act of July 24, 1866, c. 230, 14 Stat. 221, ineffect-
ual and was hostile to the object contemplated by Congress; and,
being thus in its essential provisions invalid, it was not binding upon
the railway company. Ib.
8. The agreements of September 1, 1869, and December 14, 1871, be-
tween the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Atlantic and
Pacific Telegraph Company were void. Ib.
9. The agreement of July 1, 1887, between the Union Pacific Railway
Company and the Western Union Telegraph Company is illegal, not
only to the extent it assumes to give to the telegraph company ex-
clusive rights and advantages in respect of the use of the way of the
railroad company for telegraph purposes, but also because, in effect, it
transfers to the telegraph company the telegraphic franchise granted
it by the United States, which was not permitted by the acts of Con-
gress defining the obligations of railroad companies that had accepted
the bounty of the government. Ib.
10. While the United States might proceed by mandamus against the rail-
way company to compel it to perform the duties imposed by its charter,
it has the further right, in this suit, to ask the interposition of a court
of equity to compel a cancellation of the agreements under which the
telegraph company asserts rights inconsistent with the several acts of
Congress, and the final decree in such a suit may require the railway
company to obey the directions of Congress as given in those acts. Ib.
See WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
UNITED STATES.
See JURISDICTION, C, 3.
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
Although the United States was entitled to retain and apply, as directed by
Congress, all sums due from the Government, on account of the use
by the Telegraph Company, for public business, of the telegraph line
constructed by the Union Pacific Railway Company, the entire absence
of proof as to the extent to which that line was, in fact, so used, ren-
ders it impossible to ascertain the amount improperly paid to, and
without right retained by, the Telegraph Company, and subsequently
divided between it and the Railroad Company. United States v. West-
ern Union Telegraph Co., 53.
See UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 6;
JURISDICTION, A, 1.
|