the Boston bar in 18 5 1; Reporter of Deci sions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts from 1854 to 1861; appointed in 1864 an Associate Justice, and in 1873 Chief Justice of that court, and in 1881 an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Some of the more interesting opinions drawn up by him while in the Massachusetts court are in Briggs v. Light Boats, 11 Allen, 157, on the exemption of the United States from suit; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 5 39, on the law of charities; Boston v. Richardson, 13 Allen, 146, and 105 Mass. 351, on ancient grants, and on boundaries; Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561, on the effect of war upon private rights; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 208, on sewers; Stone v. Charlestown, 114 Mass. 214, on annexation of towns; Russ v. Alpaugh, 118 Mass. 369, on collateral warranty; Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 344, on liability of municipal corporations to private action; Foster v. Foster, 129 Mass. 559, on consti tutionality of confirmatory statutes; Davis v. Old Colony Railroad, 131 Mass. 258, on contracts ultra vires; Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374, Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243, and Sewell v. Wilmer, 132 Mass. 131, on conflict of laws; and the Opinion of the Justices on Money Bills, 126 Mass. 557. Among the more important judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States, delivered by him, are those on legal tender, in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U. S. 425; on the novelty requisite to support a patent, in Pennsylvania Railroad v. Locomotive Engine Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490; on the status of Indians, in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94; on guardian and ward, and on conflict of laws, in Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, and 114U. S. 218; on the constitutionality of mill acts, in Head v. Amoskeag Manufac
turing Co., 113 U. S. 9; on. wills and ad ministration, and on parties in equity, in MacArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340; on in famous crimes, in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, and Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348; on contracts of shipment, in Norrington v. Wright, 115 U. S. 188, and Filley v. Pope, 115 U. S. 213; on the powers of courts-martial, in Smith v. Whit ney, 116 U. S, 167; on the exemption of property of the United States from taxation by a State, in Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151; on common carriers, in Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Erie Transportation Co., 117 U. S. 312, and in Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397; on the civil law in Louisiana, in Viterbo v. Friedlander, 120 U. S. 707; on debts of towns in New England, in Bloomfield v. Charter Oak Bank, 121 U. S. 1 2 1; on the restriction of equity jurisdiction to questions of property, in In re Saw yer, 124 U. S. 200; on writs of error to State Courts, in New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 18; on the original jurisdiction of the Su preme Court over suits by a State, in Wis consin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265; on capital and income, in Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549; and on jurisdiction over Guano Islands, in Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202. He has delivered very few dissenting opinions, the best known of which are in The Arlington case, United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, and in The Original Package Case, Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100. This list could be extended almost indefi nitely, but it is enough to indicate the importance of his career. To attempt to quote selections from these opinions, or to dis cuss exactly what their importance is, would expand this article to an unseemly length. Most of them are so well known to the pro
