Approved in Bradford v. Territory, 1 Okl. 374, 34 Pac. 68, holding void Stats. Okl., c. 70, art. XVIII, § 22, providing that nine jurors may return verdict; Hess v. White, 9 Utah, 68, 24 L. R. A. 279, 33 Pac. 244, holding valid an act of territorial legislature legalizing such verdict.

Verdict by less than all jurors. Note, 24 L. R. A. 273.

Number and agreement of jurors necessary to valid verdict. Note, 43 L. R. A. 44.

11 Wall, 616–624, 20 L. Ed. 227, THE CHEROKEE TOBACCO.

Indian Territory composes a part of United States.

Approved in Tush-ho-yo-tubby v. Barr, 45 Miss. 197, holding residence in Indian Territory not "without the United States" as meant by statute of limitations.

Indian tribes, residing within territorial limits of United States, are subject to their authority.

Approved in Naganab v. Hitchcock, 25 App. D. C. 207, holding court cannot set aside acts of Congress in dealing with Indian lands even though better way were known; Godfrey v. Iowa Land etc. Co., 21 Okl. 314, 95 Pac. 800, upholding deed made by one of Choctaw tribe of land not declared as homestead; Stuart v. United States, 18 Wall. 87, 21 L. Ed. 817, where allegation of capture by "hostile Indians" was not equivalent to allegation of capture "by an enemy"; dissenting opinion in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 122, 28 L. Ed. 653, 5 Sup. Ct. 56, majority holding Indian who had severed tribal relations was not entitled to vote; In re Mayfield, 141 U. S. 112, 35 L. Ed. 636, 11 Sup. Ct. 940, holding that United States court had no jurisdiction to convict Cherokee for adultery committed in Indian country.

Section 107, Revenue Act of 1868, extends revenue laws as to liquor and tobacco over Indian territories.

Limited in United States v. Forty-three Gallons Whisky, 108 U. S. 497, 27 L. Ed. 806, 2 Sup. Ct. 911, enforcing forfeiture for sale of liquor in Indian country; Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. v. Mingus, 165 U. S. 435, 41 L. Ed. 779, 17 Sup. Ct. 354, holding grant of lands to railroad did not include lands of Indians in territory.

Where there is no ambiguity in a statute there is no room for construction.

Approved in Lewis v. United States, 92 U. S. 621, 622, 23 L. Ed. 514, holding United States entitled to priority of payment, under bankruptcy act of 1867; Marine v. Packham, 52 Fed. 580, 3 C. C. A. 210, construing paragraphs 103 and 104, tariff act of 1890, as to duties on bottles.

Where statute is clear and imperative, reasoning ab inconvenienti is of no avail; duty of courts is to execute it.

Approved in United States v. Chong Sam, 47 Fed. 884, holding, under acts of 1882, 1884 and 1888, Chinaman having domicile in Canada should be returned there.

Constitution, laws of United States, made in pursuance thereof and treaties made under authority of United States, are supreme law of the land.

Approved in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 195, 45 L. Ed. 1055, 21 Sup. Ct. 752, holding upon ratification of treaty of Paris, Porto Rico became United States territory; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 490, 25 L. Ed. 631, holding alien might take property by inheritance, under provision of treaty; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 567, 27 L. Ed. 1034, 3 Sup. Ct. 403, holding that legislation of Congress could be extended to Indians by mere force of treaty; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 607, 40 L. Ed. 825, 16 Sup. Ct. 651, holding exemption from prosecution, provided by interstate commerce act, binding on all courts; Parrott's Chinese Case, 6 Sawy. 371, 1 Fed. 503, holding provision of State Constitution void, as in conflict with treaty; United States v. Berry, 2 McCrary, 67, 4 Fed. 786, holding treaty made with Ute Indians was law of United States.

Treaty in violation of Constitution cannot be held valid.

Approved in dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 370, 45 L. Ed. 1138, 21 Sup. Ct. 819, majority upholding tax levied upon goods coming from Porto Rico.

Treaty may supersede prior act of Congress, and act of Congress may supersede prior treaty.

Approved in Rainey v. United States, 232 U. S. 316, 58 L. Ed. 620, 34 Sup. Ct. 429, upholding tax on foreign-built pleasure yacht even though violative of treaty with Great Britain; Ex parte Webb, 225 U. S. 683, 56 L. Ed. 1256, 32 Sup. Ct. 769, holding United States statutes regarding sale of liquor in Indian Territory must be considered along with laws of Oklahoma; Hijo v. United States, 194 U. S. 324, 48 L. Ed. 996, 24 Sup. Ct. 727, United States not suable under Tucker Act of 1887, on claim for value of use by army of Spanish merchant vessel captured during war; United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U. S. 221, 46 L. Ed. 883, 22 Sup. Ct. 632, construing statute and treaty and holding them not inconsistent; United States v. Billings, 190 Fed. 371, upholding tax on foreignbuilt yacht even though out of commission for year; Gearlds v. Johnson, 183 Fed. 616, 617, 618, 620, holding admission of Oklahoma into Union repealed treaty with Chippewa Indians prohibiting importation of liquor; United States v. United States Express Co., 180 Fed. 1017, allow

ing mandamus compelling express company to ship liquor into Indian territory; Hennebique Const. Co. v. Myers, 172 Fed. 889, 97 C. C. A. 289, and United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Mach. Co., 155 Fed. 845, 84 C. C. A. 76, holding article 4 bis inserted in international convention for protection of industrial property did not extend life of patent previously issued; Territory v. Delinquent Tax List, 3 Ariz, 308, 26 Pac. 312, upholding tax on railroad built across Indian reservation where no treaty excluded territorial jurisdiction; Garfield v. United States, 34 App. D. C. 76, holding Act of Congress (34 Stats. at Large 137, c. 1876), defining citizenship of Cherokee Indians, superseded Cherokee treaty of 1866; Ansley v. Ainsworth, 4 Ind. Ter. 325, 69 S. W. 890, holding Atoka agreement regarding coal within Choctaw nation superseded constitutional agreement; Dukes v. McKenna, 4 Ind. Ter. 165, 69 S. W. 835, holding title to Indian lands in United States so as to warrant delegation of power to Arkansas to grant right of toll-bridges without compensation to Indians; Tuttle v. Moore, 3 Ind. Ter. 721, 64 S. W. 589, upholding law authorizing commissioners to lay out and sell lands in Indian territory for benefit of Indians; Gleason v. Wood, 28 Okl. 507, 114 Pac. 705, holding act of 1908, removing restrictions from Five Civilized Indian tribes rendered them liable to taxation; Higgins v. Brown, 20 Okl. 418, 419, 1 Okl. Cr. 93, 94, 94 Pac. 727, 728, holding crime of murder committed within jurisdiction of United States court for northern district of Indian territory is cognizable in District Court of State after admission of Oklahoma; Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U. S. 511, 41 L. Ed. 246, 16 Sup. Ct. 1078 (reversing 70 Fed. 608), holding act admitting Wyoming revoked Indians' rights to hunt, under treaty; North German Lloyd S. S. Co. v. Hedden, 43 Fed. 22, sustaining exaction of tonnage tax, said to violate treaty with Germany; Clark v. Bates, 1 Dak. 50, 46 N. W. 512, holding nonintercourse law of 1834 was modified by later treaties with Indians; Buckner v. Street, 1 Dill. 250, Fed. Cas. 2098, arguendo.

Distinguished in In re Stixrud's Estate, 58 Wash. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 850, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 632, 109 Pac. 345, refusing to allow tax on inheritance belonging to subject of Sweden as violative of treaty; United States v. Bridleman, 7 Sawy. 251, 7 Fed. 902, holding act admitting Oregon did not repeal 4 Stat. 729, respecting punishment of crimes by whites against Indians and vice versa.

Repugnancy between a treaty and later act of Congress being clear, former must yield.

Approved in Barker v. Harvey, 181 U. S. 488, 45 L. Ed. 967, 21 Sup. Ct. 693, court refusing to enforce treaty with foreign nation; United States government choosing to disregard; United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 623, 26 L. Ed. 870, holding act admitting Colorado repealed treaties with Utes, inconsistent therewith; Head-Money Cases, 112 U. S.

597, 28 L. Ed. 803, 5 Sup. Ct. 253 (affirming 18 Fed. 141), sustaining head-money tax on immigrants, in violation of treaty with Russia; Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S. 247, 32 L. Ed. 929, 9 Sup. Ct. 527, holding Mexican grants of land in California of no effect unless confirmed; Draper v. United States, 164 U. S. 243, 41 L. Ed. 420, 17 Sup. Ct. 103, holding that enabling act of Montana gave State jurisdiction over crimes by Indians; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 271, 42 L. Ed. 743, 18 Sup. Ct. 342, upholding tax on cattle grazed on reservation in Oklahoma; In re Chac Chan Ping, 13 Sawy. 493, 36 Fed. 436, sustaining Chinese exclusion act of 1888; Bartram v. Robertson, 21 Blatchf. 214, 15 Fed. 214, sustaining exaction of duties imposed in violation of treaty; Edye v. Robertson, 21 Blatchf. 468, 18 Fed. 141, upholding act of 1882, imposing tax on foreign immigrants; North German Lloyd S. S. Co. v. Hedden, 43 Fed. 22, sustaining exaction of tonnage tax, said to violate treaty with Germany; dissenting opinion in Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 565, 28 L. Ed. 780, 5 Sup. Ct. 270, majority holding that Chinese restriction act of 1882 did not apply to a Chinaman who left United States in 1880: In re Race Horse, 70 Fed. 608, 613, holding admission of Wyoming did not abrogate rights of Indians to hunt under former treaty; Apis v. United States, 88 Fed. 937, arguendo.

Tenth article of treaty of 1886, between United States and Cherokee Indians, giving Indians certain exemptions from revenue laws, was superseded by one hundred and seventh section of Act of 1868, extending revenue laws, as to liquors and tobacco, over county of that tribe.

Approved in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 566, 47 L. Ed. 306, 23 Sup. Ct. 221, holding congressional act valid, disposing of tribal property.

Limited in United States v. Forty-three Gallons Whiskey, 108 U. S. 497, 27 L. Ed. 806, 2 Sup. Ct. 911, enforcing forfeiture for sale of liquor in Indian country; United States v. Berry, 2 McCrary, 71, 4 Fed. 790, holding Ute reservation, in Colorado, within jurisdiction of United States courts.

Power to redress injury consequent upon the violation of a treaty is with Congress, not the judiciary.

Approved in The La Ninfa, 75 Fed. 518, 21 C. C. A. 434, holding award of board of arbitration binding as law of land.

All laws of general character, passed by Congress, will be considered as not applying to Indian Territory, unless expressly mentioned. Approved in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 100, 28 L. Ed. 645, 5 Sup. Ct. 44, holding Indian who had severed tribal relations not entitled to vote.

Express law creating certain special rights and privileges, e. g., treaty with Indians, is not repealed by implication by subsequent law, couched in general terms, which can reasonably be otherwise construed.

Approved in Castro v. De Uriarte, 16 Fed. 97, holding that extradition provisions of treaty with Spain were not exclusive of Revised Statutes, section 5270.

11 Wall. 624-632, 20 L. Ed. 82, FOURTH NATIONAL BANK v. NEW ORLEANS & CARROLLTON R. R. CO.

Assignment by partner dissolves partnership, but assignee does not become tenant in common with other partners in property of firm.

Approved in Hornaday v. Cowgill, 54 Ind. App. 641, 101 N. E. 1034, holding death of partner ended old partnership, and firm continuing in business was new firm; Karrick v. Hannaman, 168 U. S. 334, 42 L. Ed. 489, 18 Sup. Ct. 138, holding to account one who had excluded his partners from firm business.

Partner is only entitled to his share of what remains after payment of debts and after settlement of accounts between partners, and his successor can acquire no greater interest.

Approved in Moore v. Rawson, 185 Mass. 272, 70 N. E. 66, following rule; Clark v. Lyster, 155 Fed. 518, 84 C. C. A. 27, holding property in partnership deeded by one partner to another retained its individuality so as to support mortgage on same; Line v. McCall, 126 Mich. 505, 85 N. W. 1092, holding mortgagee or assignee of partner's interest can only receive partner's share of surplus after partnership wound up; Beccher v. Stevens, 43 Conn. 592, 75 Fed. 127, where mortgage in question was held not to be one of partner's interest; Sanborn v. Royce, 132 Mass. 596, holding seizure of firm chattels, under process, by creditor of partner, a trespass; Pratt v. McGuinness, 173 Mass. 172, 53 N. E. 380, holding that partner could not assign undivided share in specific personalty of firm; Gaines v. Coney, 51 Miss. 328, holding accounting proper, upon winding up affairs of partnership; In re Spitz, 8 N. M. 631, 34 L. R. A. 607, 45 Pac. 1124, holding exemption law applied only to such amount as remained after debts paid; Rommerdahl v. Jackson, 102 Wis. 448, 78 N. W. 743, holding assignee of certificate representing partner's interest entitled to accounting.

Levy on partnership assets of a writ against one partner only.
Note, 57 Am. St. Rep. 441.

Retiring partner cannot introduce another partner or deprive remaining partners of right to have all partnership property held for partnership purposes.

Approved in Warren v. Taylor, 60 Ala. 224, where mortgage by partners, for one partner's benefit, took precedence as partnership debt.

Assignee of partner's interest has right to enforce a settlement of accounts to ascertain if there is a surplus,