231 U.S.

Cases Disposed of in Vacation.

bia. December 15, 1913. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. J. H. Ralston for the appellant. Mr. J. J. Darlington for the appellee.

No. 587. THOMAS C. PERKINS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. ARTHUR C. COFFIN ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut. January 5, 1914. Dismissed, per stipulation of counsel. Mr. Lucius F. Robinson for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. John R. Buck and Mr. John H. Buck for the defendants in

error.

No. 778. W. A. GAINES & COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. THE TURNER-LOOKER COMPANY. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. January 5, 1914. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the appellant. Mr. Jas. Love Hopkins for the appellant. No appearance for the appellee.

CASE DISPOSED OF IN VACATION.

No. 25. THE RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG & POTOMAC RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. In error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. July 15, 1913. Dismissed, pursuant to the 28th rule. Mr. A. Caperton Braxton, Mr. John S. Eggleston, Mr. Alexander Pope Humphrey and Mr. William H. White for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Samuel W. Williams for the defendant in error.

VOL. CCXXXI-49

INDEX.

ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL.
See ACTIONS, 2-7.

ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING.
See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, 1;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 1-7, 12, 29;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 36.

ACTIONS.

1. Right of; who competent to sue; multiplicity of suits.

It is not competent for each individual having dealings with a regulated public utility corporation to raise a contest in the courts over questions which can be settled in a general and conclusive manner. (Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418.) In re Engelhard, 646.

2. Abatement of action to enjoin public officer.

A suit to enjoin a public officer from enforcing a statute is personal, and in the absence of statutory provision for continuing it against his successor, abates upon his death or retirement from office. (United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604.) Pullman Co. v. Croom, 571.

3. Abatement and revival; actions which do not abate.

The only exceptions recognized to this rule are boards and bodies of quasi-corporate character having continuous existence. (Marshall v. Dye, ante, p. 250.) Ib.

4. Abatement by death, of action to enjoin public officer.

Where the only state official, as to whom an injunction against enforcing a state statute has been applied for under § 266 of the Judicial Code and denied, dies pending the appeal, the action abates and the appeal to this court will be dismissed. Ib.

5. Abatement; stipulation against; vacation of order based on. In such a case an order based upon a stipulation continuing the case against the successor of the deceased defendant must and can be vacated, there having been no final judgment in the case. Ib.

6. Abatement by death of public officer sought to be enjoined; effect of
joinder of other officials.

The fact that other officials had been joined as defendants cannot give
this court jurisdiction of an appeal from an order denying an in-
junction applied for under § 266 of the Judicial Code where the
injunction had only been asked against an officer who has died
pending the appeal. Ib.

7. Continuance; effect of change of personnel of board of public officials.
Where a board of public officials is a continuing body, notwithstanding
its change of personnel, as is the case with the State Board of Elec-
tion of Indiana, the suit will be continued against the successors in
office of those who ceased to be members of the board. (Murphy
v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95.) Marshall v. Dye, 250.

8. Substitution of parties; application of act of February 8, 1899.
The act of February 8, 1899, c. 121, 30 Stat. 822, providing for sub-
stituting the successors in office of public officers, applies only to
Federal officials and not to state officials. Pullman Co. v. Croom,
571.

9. Against United States; must rest on contract.

A suit against the Government must rest on contract as the Govern-
ment has not consented to be sued for torts even though committed
by its officers in discharge of their official duties. Peabody v.
United States, 530.

ARMY AND NAVY.-Act of July 5, 1838 (see Claims Against the United
States, 4): Pennington v. United States, 631. Act of March 4, 1907,
34 Stat. 1295 (see Claims Against the United States, 1, 2, 4): Ib.
BANKRUPTCY.-Act of 1867 as amended by act of March 3, 1873 (see
Bankruptcy, 7): Kener v. La Grange Mills, 215. Act of July 1,
1898, § 2 (8) (see Bankruptcy, 18): Kinder v. Scharff, 517. Sec-
tion 7 (see Bankruptcy, 2, 11): Cameron v. United States, 710. Sec-
tion 11d (see Bankruptcy, 17, 18): Kinder v. Scharff, 517. Sec-
tion 21a (see Bankruptcy, 1): Cameron v. United States, 710.
Rev. Stat., § 5057 (see Bankruptcy, 16): Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co.
v. Brewer, 245.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.-Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat.
505 (see Claims Against the United States, 1): Eastern Extension,
A. & C. Telegraph Co. v. United States, 326. Rev. Stat., § 1066
(see Jurisdiction, E 1, 2): Ib.

CONSOLIDATION OF CAUSES.-Rev. Stat., § 921 (see Practice and Pro-
cedure, 26): Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 543.

CORPORATION TAX LAW of August 5, 1909, 36 Stat. 11 (see Corporation
Tax Law): Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 399; United States
v. Whitridge, 144.

CRIMINAL LAW.-Rev. Stat., § 5421; Penal Code, § 29; act of March 3,
1823, 3 Stat. 771 (see Criminal Law, 3, 4): United States v. Davis,
183.

CUSTOMS LAW.-Act of August 5, 1909, 36 Stat. 11 (see Customs Law,
1): United States v. 25 Packages of Panama Hats, 358.
EVIDENCE.-Rev. Stat., § 860 (see Evidence, 2, 3): Cameron v. United
States, 710.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.-Act of August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278 (see
Bonds, 1, 2): United States Fidelity Co. v. Bartlett, 237.

HOURS OF SERVICE LAW of March 4, 1907, 34 Stat. 1415 (see Hours of
Service Law): Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. United States, 112.
INDIANS.-Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, § 5 (see Indians, 1):

Monson v. Simonson, 341. Act of June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 325 (see
Indians, 6): Tinker v. Midland Valley Co., 681.

INJUNCTION.-Act of June 18, 1910, 36 Stat. 539 (see Jurisdiction, C4):
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Garrett, 298. Judicial Code,
§ 266 (see Actions, 4, 6): Pullman Co. v. Croom, 571.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-Act of February 4, 1887, 24 Stat. 379 (see
Interstate Commerce, 11): United States v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R.
Co., 274. Section 20 (see Interstate Commerce, 6, 12, 29): Kansas
City So. Ry. Co. v. United States, 423. Hepburn Act of June 29,
1906, 34 Stat. 584 (see Interstate Commerce, 1, 6, 12, 18, 19, 20):
Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. United States, 423; Delaware, L. & W.
R. R. Co. v. United States, 363.
JUDICIARY.-Circuit Court of Appeals Act of March 3, 1891 (see Judi-
cial Code, 2, 3): Street & Smith v. Atlas Mfg. Co., 348. Act of
February 19, 1897 (see Appeal and Error, 6): Rainey v. Grace &
Co., 703. Act of March 3, 1905, 33 Stat. 1048, § 12 (see Jurisdic-
tion, G 3): John v. Paullin, 583. Criminal Appeals Act of March 2,
1907 (see Jurisdiction, A 4-7): United States v. Carter, 492. Act
of June 18, 1910, 36 Stat. 539 (see Jurisdiction, F): Kansas City
So. Ry. Co. v. United States, 423. Act of February 13, 1911 (see
Appeal and Error, 6, 7): Rainey v. Grace & Co., 703. Judicial
Code, § 128 (see Jurisdiction, A 2): Street & Smith v. Atlas Mfg.
Co., 348. Section 207 (see Jurisdiction, F): Kansas City So. Ry.