James Bradley Thayer.

Cases on constitutional law (Volume 1) online

. (page 1 of 163)
Online LibraryJames Bradley ThayerCases on constitutional law (Volume 1) → online text (page 1 of 163)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook











Copyright, 1895,
Br Jau£3 Bradley Thateb.


University Press:
John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, U. S. A.


In preparing this book I have had chiefly in mind the wants
of my own classes at the Harvard Law School ; of these and
students elsewhere who follow similar methods of study. I should
have been glad to make it more serviceable to others by intro-
ducing headnotes, were this consistent, in my opinion, with its
best usefulness for the main purpose in hand.

It is nearly a year now since the first part of the book appeared.
I am led to hope that the completed work may help to promote a
deeper, more systematic, and exacter study of this most interesting
and important subject, too much neglected by the profession.
It appears to me that what scientific men call the genetic method
of study, which allows one to see the topic grow and develop
under his eye, — a thing always grateful and stimulating to the
human faculties, as if they were called home to some native and
congenial field, — is one peculiarly suited to the subject of Con-
stitutional Law. For, while this is a body of law^ — of law in a
strict sense, as distinguished from constitutional history, politics,
or literature, since it deals with the principles and rules which
courts apply in deciding litigated cases ; and while, therefore, it
is an exact and technical subject ; yet it has that quality which
Phillipps, the writer on Evidence, alluded to when he said, in
speaking of the State Trials, that " The study of the law is en-
nobled by an alliance with history." The study of Constitutional
Law is allied not merely with history, but with statecraft, and
with the political problems of our great and complex national life.

In this wide and novel field of labor our judges have been
pioneers. There have been men among them, like Marshall,
Shaw, and Rufiin, who were sensible of the true nature of their
work and of the large method of treatment which it required,
who perceived that our constitutions had made them, in a limited
and secondary way, but yet a real one, coadjutors with the



Other departments in the business of government; but many
have fallen short of the requirements of so great a function,
Even under the most favorable circumstances, in dealing with
such a subject as this, results must often be tentative and tem-
porary. Views that seem adequate at the time, are announced,
applied, and developed; and yet, by and by, almost unperceived,
they melt away in the light of later experience, and other doc-
trines take their place.

Nothing else can bring home to a student the existence and the
nature of this process, the large scope of the questions presented,
and the true limitations of the legal principles that govern them,
with anything like the freshness, precision, and force, and I might
add also the fascination, which accompany the orderly tracing of
these things in the cases.

I find a pleasure in tliinking that these volumes are appearing
in the twenty-fifth anniversary year of the accession of Dean
Langdell to his chair as a professor at the Harvard Law School.
The method of legal study with which his name is associated, re-
garded as a mere mode of investigation, was indeed no novelty
at all ; lawyers have always known well enough the necessity
of following it in working out their problems. But Dean
Langdell, early in life, had the sagacity to apply it in his own
self-instruction in law, and in his greatly valued help of fellow-
students ; and when he came back to the school as a professor,
he had the coui'age and the foresight to intix»duce here the same
method of study, and to lay down for himself a mode of instruc-
tion which rigorously drove his pupils to adopt it.

Of teaching there has never been at this school any prescribed
method. There never can be, in any place where the best woik
is sought for. Every teacher, as I have said elsewhere, '• in law, as
in other things, has his own methods, determined by his own
gifts or lack of gifts, — methods as incommunicable as his tem-
perament, his looks, or his manners." But as to modes of study,
a very different matter, Dean Langdell's associates have all come
to agree with him, where they have ever differed, in thinking,
so far at least as our system of law is concerned, that there is
no method of preparatory study so good as the one with which his
name is so honorably connected, —^ that of studying cases, care-
fully chosen and arranged so as to present the development of
principles. Doubtless, tlie mode of study must greatly affect


the mode of teaching; if students are to prepare themselves by
studying cases, their teachers also must study them, Aud, more-
over, while good teaching will differ widely in its methods, there
is at least one thing in which all good teaching will be alike ; no
teaching is good which does not rouse and " dephlegmatize " the
students, — to borrow an expression attributed to Novalis, —
which does not engage as its allies, their awakened, sympathetic,
and co-operating faculties. As helping to that, as tending to secure
for an instructor this chief element of success, I do not think
that there is or can be any method of study which is comparable
with the one in question.

In order to keep this collection within the compass of two vol-
umes and yet do anything like justice to the subject, I have selected
only the leading titles, and have given to these a fairly full treat-
ment, choosing as the text, for obvious reasons, so far as practi-
cable, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
I have preferred to make the two volumes as large as they could
well be, with any regard to convenient use, and to pack them
closely, rather than to take the much easier course of letting the
work run over into three or four volumes. In doing this, it has
been necessary, almost always, to omit the arguments of counsel.
Other omissions are mentioned or sufficiently indicated.


Law School of Harvard Universitt.
March 12, 1895.



Part I.





.... 1-47

Section I. Preliminary • • .« onr.

Section II Written Constitutions in the United States 48-200


1. Constitution of the United States 213-265

2. State Constitutions


The Jurisdiction of the United States 266-3-9


1. Text of the Constitution of Massachusetts (1779-1780) 381-400

2. Articles of Confederation (1778-1781)

3 Constitution of the United States (1787-1789) and its


4. Passages from all State Constitutions (other than

Massachusetts) preceding that of the United

.... 415-433

5. Passages from the Colonial Charters of Connecticut

(1662) AND Rhode Island (1663) 433, 434

6. Passages from the «onstitution of Colorado (1876) . 434-448

7. Passages from the Constitution of Colombia .... 44


Paet II.
chapter iv.


Citizenship. — Fundamental Civil and Political Rights. —
The Later Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States 449-692.


Unclassified Legislative Power. — The so-called Police

Power 693-944

Part III.

The Right of Eminent Domain 945-1189


Taxation 1190-1431

Part IV.

Ex Post Facto and Retroactive Laws 1433-1533

CHAPTER ix::""

State Laws Impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . 1534-1782


' The Regulation of Commerce, — Foreign, Interstate, and

with the Indian Tribes 1783-2191

Money. — Weights and Measures 2192-2273

War, — Insurrection. — ^Military Law 2274-2420

INDEX 2421-2134


In this Table each case which has the names of two parties is entered twice, that is to
say, under both names, — except where these are identical. Ejectment cases are entered a
third time, under the name of the fictitious party. As regards cases in the notes, mere
citations are omitted. Cases that are cited in the text of another case and somewhat fully
stated or explained, are sometimes entered in the Table.

Ableiran v. Booth 479 n.
Adams v. Chic, Burl., & No. R. R.

Co. 1137
^tna L. I. Co., Pleasant Township v. 16

Alabama v. Nashv. &c. Ry. Co.

797 n., 2075 n.

Smith a. 797, 20(J8

Alger, Com. v. 69.3

Allen, Darcy v. 15

Hewlett V. 944 n.

V. Inhab. of Jay 1212

Mech. Sav. Bk. v. 1505

Ailing, Sherlock v. 1973

Almy V. Cal. 1924

Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter 350

Anioskeag Co., Head y. 760

Amy Warwick, The 23.39

Anderson, Terry v. 672

Anonymous 11

Application of Senate 181

Apthorp, Portland Bank v. 1416

Arensberg, People v. 2180

Arkansas, Beers v. 1556

Ash V. The People 1274

Asher v. Texas 2063 n.

Assessors, The, Van Allen v. 1358

Austin V. Cem. Ass. 1749 n.


Babcock, Crease v. 1642

Bacheller, Phoenix Nat. Bk. v. 1612 n.

Bain, Wells v. 228

Baker, U. S. v. 258

Baldwin v. Hale 1610 n.

Ball, Daniel, The, 1930

Ball, Kimmish v. 757 n.

B:i]timore, Barney v. 350 n.

V. Radecke 864

Mayor, &c. of, Barron v. 449

Baltimore & Oh. R. R. Co., Marye

V. 2132

Wash. & Bait. Tpk. Co. t>. 1641 n.

Baltimore & N. Y. R. R. Co., Stock-
ton V. 2067 n., 2162
Bank of Commerce v. N. Y. City 1357
Bank Ky., Briscoe v. 1840 n.
Bank v. Supervisors 1351 n.
Bank of Commerce v. N. Y. City 1357
Banks, The, v. The Mayor 1851 n.
Bank Tiix Vase 1357
Barber, Minn. v. 2112
Barbier v. Connolly 623
Barney v. Baltimore 350 n.
Barron v. Mayor, &c. of Bait. 449
Bartemeyer v. Iowa 632
Bayard, Den d., v. Singleton 78
Beasley, Burlington v. 1241 n.
Beecher, Evergreen Cem. Ass. u. 1004
Beer Co. v. Mass. 757
Beers v. Arkansas 1656
Belfast, The 1822 n.
Bell's Gap R. R. Co. v. Pa. 1407
Bennett, Dennv v. 1610 n
Bertholf v. O'R'eilly 168 n., 725
Biddle, Green v. 1553 n.
Billings, Prov. Bank v. 1623
Binghamton Bridge 1753
Bird, Cora. v. 1563 n.
Birm. Min. R. R. Co. v. Parsons 850
Blackbird Creek Marsh Co., Will-
son V. 1837
Blacker, McPherson v. 158 n.
Blake, Loughborough i'. 349 n.
Bliss, Gary Library v. 1043, 1580
Bloomington, Gridley v. 828
Board of Wardens, Cooley v. 1879,
1963 n., 2191
Bohm V. Metr. Elev. Ry. Co. 11.30 n.
Boit, DeLovio v. 1822 n.
Bolles, Eustis v. 1538
Bollman & Swartwout, Ex parte, 2372,

2374 n.
Bonham's Case 48 n.

Booth, Ableman v. 479 n.

Borden, Luther i-. 192, 254, 2352, 2391
Bostick V. The People 1275 n.

Boston, Dorgan v. 1296



Boston, Lowell v.
Norris v.
Parks r.
Roberts i'.


968 n.
576 n.

Boston, Cone, & Mont. E. R., Ea-
ton V. 1064

Boston & Lowell R. R. Co. v. Salem
&L. R. R. Co. 977

Boston & Roxbury Mill Corp. v. New-
man 1005

Boston Water Power Co. v. Bost. &
Wore. R. R. Co. 969

Boston & Wore. R. R. Co., Bost. W.
P. Co. V. 969

Bowman v. Chic. &c. Ry. Co. 2080, 2109
V. Middleton 53 n.

Bovle V. Zacharie 1609 n.

Braceville Coal Co. v. People 923

Bradshaw, Rogers v. 984

Bremen, Garbade v. 146 n.

Krieger v. 149

Brennan v. Titusville 2156

Brevoort i: Grace 882

Brewer, Inhab. of. Brewer Brick
Co. I'. 1218

Brick Co. v. Inhab. of Brewer 1218

Brickett v. Haverhill Aqued. Co. 1183

Bridge Co., Cardwell v. 2009 n.

V. U. S. 1719, 2153

Bridgeport, Farist Steel Co. v. 1031 n.

Brigantine William, U. S. v. 1786

Brilliante, Tlie 2339

Brimmer v. Rebman 2118 n.

Briscoe r. Bk. Ky. 1840 n.

Bristol, N. Y. &c. R. R. Co. v. 687, 1773 n.

Brockton, Kingman v. 1029 n.

Bronson v. Kinzie 1645

V. Rodes 2215

Brookhaven, Chrisman v. 576 n.

Brooklyn, Gnest v. 1295 n.

Mayor of, People v. 1286

Brown v. Houston 1773, 2022

V. Md. 1826, 1852, 1925, 1960

Man. Co.. State r. 1406 _n.

Brummell, Lehew v. 574

Buddi;. N.Y. 671,804

Buffalo East Side R. R. Co. v. Buff.
St. R. R. Co. 1738

Buffalo St. R. R. Co. v. Buff. East
Side R. R. Co. 1738

Bull, Calder r. 890, 1435

Bunljury, Wcimer v. 1203

Burgess v. Seligman 1545 n.

Burlington r. Beasley 1241 n.

Butchers' Un., &c. Co. v. Cresc. City,
&c. Co. 537

Butz V. Muscatine 1546 n.

Byrne, Adm'rs of, v. Adm'rs of
"Stewart 154


Calder v. Bull
Caldwell V. Texas
California, Almy v.

890, 1435


California v. Cent. Pac. R. R. Co. 1394,


Hooper v. 2137 n.

Hurtado v. 616

Callan v. Wilson 358

Callender v. Marsh 1048

Cambridge, Howe v. 1308

Camden, &c. Ry. Co., West Jersey

Ry. Co. v. 1157 n.

Camp, Olmstead v. 1011 n.

Campbell v. Hall 40

Can. So. Ry. v. Gebhard 1610

Cannon, People v. 841

Canter, Am. Ins. Co. v. 350

Cardwell v. Bridge Co. 2009 n.

Carleton v. Rugg 680 n.

Carter, Com. v. 836

V. Thurston 1935 n.

Carthage v. Frederick 831

Gary Library v. Bliss 104.3, 1580

Cast Plate Manufs, Gov. & Co. of,

V. Meredith 1045

Caton, Commonwealth v. 55

Cavendish, in the Matter of 12

Cem. Ass. Austin v. 1749 n.

Central Pac. R. R. Co., Califor-
nia 1-. 1394, 2163

V. Gallatin 1693

Chamberlain, City of Norfolk v. 1294 n.
Charles River Bridge v. Warren

Bridge 1553 n., 1628, 1759 n.

Charleston, Jenkins v. 1267 n.

Murray i'. 1267 n.

Weston V. 1346

Charlotte, &c. R. R. Co. v. Gibbes 684
Cherokee Trust Funds 591 n.

Chicago, Escanaba Co. v. 2002

Harman v. 2011 n.

V. O'Brien 830 n.

Rigney v. 1085

V. Taylor 1083

Transp. Co. v. 1081

Chicago, Burl., & North. R. R. Co.,

Adams v. 1137

Chicago, Burl., &c. R. R. Co. v. Iowa

1978 n.
Chicago &c., Ry. Co., Bowman v. 2080

Lawrence v. 1975

V. Minnesota 660, 1749 n.

Peik V. 1975

Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co. v. Wellman 170
Chirac v. Chirac 373 n.

Chisliohn v. Georgia 205

Chrisman i-. Brookhaven 576 n.

Christensen, Crowley v. 798

Church V. Kelsey 1554 n.

Chy Lung i\ Freeman 1965 n.

Civil Rights Cases 554

Clark r. Clark 1513

Mitchell V. 2402

N. 0. V. 1529

U. S. V. 2413

Clinton v. Engelbrecht 357

Close, Fifield r. 1375

Clymer, Norris v. 145 n.




Coe V. Errol 2033

Cohens v. Virginia 285

Cole V. La Grange 1240 n.

Collector, The, p. Day 1378

Collier v. Frierson 202

Coni'rs V. Moesta 1025 n.

People V. 1190, 13G3

Com'rs of Erie Co., Dobbins v. 1352

Com'rs of Immigration v. No. Germ.

Lloyd 1961

Com. i'. Alger 093

V. Bird 1563 n.

V. Carter 830

V. Caton 55

V. Coving. Bridge Co. 1753 n.

V. Gilbert 890

Green v. 177

V. Man. Co. 917

V. King 1935 n.

Com Nat. B'k v. 1363 n.

V. Perry 918

V. Smith 155 n.

V. Westinghouse Co. 1397 n.

V. Wyman 1497 n.

Com. Kentucky v. Dennison 195 n.

Com. Mass., Plumley v. 2173

Compagnie Ge'n. Trans., People v. 1967 n.

Conn. Riv. Co., Holyoke W. P. Co. v.

1015 n.
Conn. Rlv. Lumb. Co., Harrigan v. 1934 n.
Conn. Riv. R. R. Co. v. Co. Com'rs

of Franklin 1179

Connolly, Barbier v. 623

Converse, In re 681

Conway v. Taylor's Ex'r. 1906, 2170

Cook V. Pa. 1989

People V. 1693 n.

Cooley V. Board of Wardens 1879, 1963 n.,

Coombs, U. S. V. 1822 n.

Cooper V. Telfair 105

Corbett, Donnelly v. 1609 n.

Corfield ('. Coryell 453, 1824

Coryell, Corfield v. 453, 1824

Coster, Ti.le Water Co. v. 1302

County of Mobile v. Kimball 1997

County of Pike, Douglass v, 1545 n.

County (Com'rs, Norwich v. 1194

County Com'rs of Franklin, Conn.

Riv. R. R. Co. V. 1179

Covington Br. Co., Com'rs v. 1753 n.

Covington, &c. Br. Co. v. Ky, 1978 n.,

Craig V. Missouri 2199

Crandall v. Nevada l.']64

Crease v. Babcock 1642

Crenshaw, The 2-3.39

Cresc. City, &c. Co., Butcher's Un.,

&c. Co. V. 5.37, 1773

Crowninshield, Sturges v. 268, 1582,

1601 n.
Crovrley v. Christensen 798

Crutcher v. Ky. 2135

Cummings v. Mo. 1446



Daniel Ball, The 1930

Darcy v. Allen 15

Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward 1564,

1579 n.

Dash V. Van Kleeck 1498

Davenport, Fulton v. 1203 n.

Sinnot v. 1900

Davidson v. N. O. 610

Davis c. Mayor N. Y. 1731 n.

Davis, Parker v. 2237

Davis, Raleigh & G. R. R. Co. v. 992

Davis, Tennessee v. 316

Day, The Collector v. 1378

V. Savadge 50 n.

Decatur, III. Cent. R. R. Co. v. 1310

De Cuir, Hall v. 1981

Delaware, &c. Ry. Co., Koch v, 1079

Deliesseline, Elkison v. 1849 n.

De Lovio v. Boit 1822 n.

Den d. Bayard v. Singleton 78
Den d. Murray v. Hoboken, &c. Co. 600

Dennis, Vicks. R. R. Co. v. 1078

Dennison, Com. Ky. v. 195 n.

Denny v. Bennett 1610 n.

Dering, State v. 869

Detroit, Paul v. 1026 n.

Devoe v. Penrose Ferry Br. Co. 1894 n.

Dewitt, U. S. V. 735

Dinsman v. Wilkes 2406

Divine, State v. 851

Dix, West Riv. Br. Co. v. 976

Dobbins v. Com'rs of Erie Co. 1352

Donnelly v. Corbett 1609 n.

Dorgan v. Boston 1296

Dorrance, Vanhorne's Lessee v. 94

Douglass, /)( re 1524 n.

V. Co. of Pike 1545 n.

Doyle, Str. Ry. Co. v. 1159

Drake v. Earhart 1059 n.

Draper, People v. 165

Dred Scott v. Sandford 354 n.

Drew, Pierce v. 11.33
Dubuque, Gelpcke v. 1541, 1547

Duncan, Johnson v. 2.354

V. Mo. 1474 n.

Dunham, Ins. Co. v. 1822 n.

Dupre, /n re 732

Dyke Board, K. v. 148

Dynes v. Hoover 2333


Eakin r. Raub 133

Earhart, Drake v. 1059 n.

East Tenn., &c. R. R. Co., Pickard v.

1682 n.
Eaton V. Bost , Cone, & Mont. R. R. 1064
Edwards v. Kearzey 1652 n.

Eiienbecker v. Plym. Co. 673

Ela r. Smith 2279

Elk V. Wilkins 587

Elkison v. Deliesseline 1849 n.

Eilzey, Hepburn v. 348



Emert v. Mo. 2160 n.
Emery, Hooper v. 1209
Emmons, Minn. & St. L. Ry. v. 1773 n.
Engelbreclit, Clinton v. 357
Eugerman, U. S. r. 1183 n.
Errol, Coe v. 2033
Escanaba Co. r. Chicago 2002
Esse.x Co., Hazen v. 1012
Eustis V. Bolles 1538
Evans, Minn. & St. L. Ry. v. 1773 n.
r. Myers 2195 n.
Evanston, Stubbings v. 967
Evergreen Cem. Ass r. Beeclier 1004
Evergreen Ry. Co., Borough of Mill-
vale i: 1094 n.
Ewer, People v. 837


Fairchild i;. St. Paul 965

Fall River, Wat. Reserv. Co. v. 1015 n.
Farist Steel Co. r. Bridgeport 1031 n.

Farmer s <ico. Bank r. Smith 1589 n.

Farmer's Loan &c. Co., Reagan r. 1745,

2190 n.
Farris c. Henderson 1944 n.

Fegeiy et uL, Weaver i;. 2195 n.

Fenno, Veazie Bank v. 1334

Ferguson i-. Gies 573 n.

Ferry Co.. Tugwell v. 2022 n.

Ferreira, U. S. v. 105 n., 160

Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park 1762

Fickleii V. Shelby Co. 2143

Fifield v. Close


Fifih Nat. Bk., N. Y. Elev. R. R. v. 1119 n.

Flngg, People v. 1196

Flanders, Rich v. 1517
Fletcher i-. Peck 114, 1552 n.

I'. R. I. 1851

Fobes r. Rome, Watert., & Ogd. R.

R. Co. 1115 n.

Fong Yu(' Ting v. U. S. 374

P'orbes, Lynch i\ 1041
Foreign Held Bonds, State Tax on 12-38

Forster v. Scott 1187

V. For.ster 1526

Forty-three Gallons, U. S. v. 373 n.

Foster, Lewis !. 1511 n.

Franklin, Franklin Needle Co. v. 1223 n.

Franklin Needle Co. v. Franklin 1223 n.

Frederick, Cartilage v. 831

Fredericks. Sproule v. 250

Freeman. Chy Lung v. 1965 n.

Pre i gilt Co., Greenwood i>. 1710

Fri.Tson, Collier i: 262

Fnelirinc, Reinken v. 832

Fiilkcr, State v. 2100 n.

FMiltr, R. H. Co. V. 1952 n.

Fulton r. Davenport 1203 n.


Gage, >Lich. Co. i'.
Gage County, Wagner v.

1992 n.

Gallatin, Centr. Pac. R. R. Co. v. 1693
Garbade v. Bremen 146 n.

Gardner v. Newburgh, Trustees of 979
Garland, Ex jnirte 1453 n.

Garrett v. Lake Rol. El. Ry. Co. 1144 n.
Garrison r. N. Y. 1554 n.

Garza, Neilson v. 1969

Gebhard, Can. So. Ry. v. 1610

Gelpcke v. Dubuque 1541, 1547

Geofrey v. Riggs 373 n.

Georgia, Chisholm v. '295

So. Ca. V. 1894 n.

V. Stanton 201

Worcester v. 583

Gibbes, Charlotte, &c. R. R. Co. v. 684
Gibbons i: Ogden 266, 269, 730, 1799,

Gibbons, Ogden v. 1800

Gies, Ferguson v. 573 n.

Gilbert, Com. v. 890

Gillan v. Gillan 1234 n.

Gillson, People v. 169

Gilman v. Pa. 1912

Giozza V. Tiernan 158 n.

Gleason v. McKay 1419

Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pa. 2013, 21G9
Glover, Huse r. 1333 n., 2010 n.

Goddard, Pet'r 825

Godden v. Hales 29

Gordon v. U. S. 188

Goshen v. Stonington . 1506

Grace, Brevoort r. 882

Grand Rapids Booming Co. i'. Jar-
vis 1078 n.
Grand Trunk Ry. Co., Lafarier v. 2056

Maine i". 2139,2147

Gray, Kent v. 1517

Trage.<!er v. 876 n.

Green v. Biddie 1553 n.

V. Commonwealth 177

Green Bay Co., Pumpelly v. 1060

Greenniaii, Juilliard v. 2255

Greenwood r Freight Co. 1710

Gridley v. RIoomington 828

Griswold, Hepburn v. 2222

Groves v. Slaughter 18^,0

Guest V. Brooklyn 1295 n.

Gwaltenev v. Scottish, &c. Timber
Co. ' 1936 n.


Haas, U. S. r. 1909

Hagar r. Reclamation Dist. 1302 n.

Hale, Biildwin v. 1610 n.

Hales, (Jodclen v. 29

Hall, Campbell i: 40

r. DeCuir T.18I

Hali!py !,'. Rapid Tran."!. Str. h\v. Co. 1151
Hamilton, Ham. Gasl. Co. r.

1692 n., 1713 n.

Ga.<il. Co. r. Hamilton 1692 n., 1713 n.

Man. Co., Com. v. 917

Hammett v. Phila. 1045 n., 1.308 n.

Hancock, Savannah v. 1041 n.



Hans V. La.
Happersett, Minor v.
Hardin, Leisy v.
Hannan v. Cliicago
Harmony, Mitchell v.



2104, 2179

2011 n.


Harrigan v. Conn. Riv. Lumber Co.

1934 n.
Harrington, Stoddard v. 1011 n.

Harris v. Jex 1550 n., 2254 n.

Hart V. Henderson 1523

White V. 259

Hartung v. People 1474, 1486

Harvey (;. Thomas 990

Willard v. 1515 n.

Hastings v. Haug 824 n.

Hatch, Willamette Bridge Co. v. 2075
Haug, Hastings i>. 824 n.

Haverhill Aqued. Co., Brickett v. 1183
Hayburn's Case 105 n., 159, 160

Hayes, People v. 1495

Hays V. Kislier 991 n.

Hay ward, McCracken v. 1651 n.

Hazen v. Essex Co. 1012

Head v. Amoskeag Man. Co. 760

Money Cases, The 758, 1340 n.

Heine v. Levee Com'rs Co. 1657

Heineniann, State v. 876 n.

Henderson, Farris v. 1944 n.

Hart V. 1523

('. Mayor of N. Y. 738,1961

Hennick, Stoutenhurgh v. 2098

Hepburn v. Ellzey 348

V. Griswold 2222

Hewlett V. Allen 944

Higginson v. Nahant 1026

Hill, Koehler v. 252

Hinson v. Lott 1926 n.

Hoagland, Wurts v. 768

Hoboken, &c. Co., Den. d. Murray v. 600
Hodges, Ex parte 859

Holiien V. James 882 n.

Holliday, U. S. v 731, 1909

Holman, Watkins i;. 160

Holyoke Water Power Co. v. Conn.

Hiv. Co. 1015 n.

Home of Friendless v. Rouse 1676 n.

Home Ins. Co. v. N. Y. 1399

Hooper v. Emery 1209

V. California 2137 n.

Hoover, Dynes v. 28-33

Hopkins, Wo Lee v. Hi

Yick Wo V. 632 n., 774

Hopt V. Utah 1469 n.

Horn Silver Min. Co. v. N. Y. 1412

Horton, Miller v. 1079 n.

Hot Springs 11. R. Co. v. Williamson

1089 n.
Hotchkiss, Kirtland v. 1268

Houston, Brown (•. 1773, 2022

V. Williams 184

Howe V. Cambridge 1308

Hudson, Talbot v. 1016

Hunt V. Hunt 1566 n.

Hunter's Lessee. Martin v. 123

Hurtado v. California 616

Huse V. Glover 1333 n., 2010 n.

Husen, R. R. Co. r. 753,2182

Hyattsville, Wells v. 1191

Hyde Park, Fertiliz. Co. v. 1762

Hylton V. U. S. 1315


Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Decatur 1310

V. Illinois 1778

Illinois, 111. C. R. R. Co. v. 1778

Munn V. 170, 743

Wabash, &c. Ry. Co. v. 2045

In re Est. of Swift 1271

Petition of U. S. 1185 n.

Phil. & Trenton R. R. Co. 1090

Rahrer 2123

Indiana Nat. Gas Co., Kincaid v. 1107 n.

Ins. Co. V. Dunham 1822 n.

Iowa, Bartemeyer v. 532

Chic, B. &c. R. R. Co. v. 1978 n.

Jacksonville, Toledo, &c. Ry. Co. v. 856

Jacobs, In the Matter of 627

James, Holden v. 882 n.

Jarvis, Grand Rapid Boom. Co. v. 1079 n.

Jay, Inhab. of, Allen v. 1212

Jefferson Bk. i>. Skelly 1676 n.

Jenkins ?•. Charleston 1267

Jessup, Tomlinson v. 1690

Jewett, Wilkins i;. 892

Jex, Harris v. 1550 n., 2254 n.

Johnson v. Duncan 2354

Mississippi v. 196

Sinnickson v. 983 n., 986

U. S. y. 1993

Jones I'. U. S. 364

IJ. S. V. 952

Juilliard v. Greenman 2255

Jumel, La. v. 1559

Justices, Opinion of 178, 221, 223, 270 n.,

901, 905, 2287, 2294


K. V. The Dyke Board 148

Kagama, U. S. v. 363 n., 501

Kansas, Mugler v. 782

V. Ziebold 782

Kearzey, Edwards v. 1652 n.

Keene, Perry i\ 1247

Kelly y. Pittsburgh 1197

Kelsey, Church v. 1554 n.

Kent I'. Gray 1517

Kentnckj', Bk. of Briscoe v. 2i07

Covington, &c. Bridge Co. v. 1978 n.,


Crutch er v. 2135

Kidd V. Pearson 796 n.

Online LibraryJames Bradley ThayerCases on constitutional law (Volume 1) → online text (page 1 of 163)