The case of Anderson v. Dunn 1 declared that representative bodies possess inherently the power to punish for contempt. For sixty years this decision stood unquestioned. The repeated and unqualified declarations of the principle by courts and text writers are to be traced to that case. The case of Kilbourn v. Thompson seems to deny that general and unlimited power exists inherently.2 A city council is not a legislature; nor is it vested with judicial functions; and its members are not chosen with reference to their fitness to exercise such functions. To allow it the right to imprison for refusal to answer any inquiry the whole body or one of its committee may choose to make would be a dangerous invasion of the rights and liberties of the citizen. The legislature cannot confer upon municipal bodies or officers, not courts of justice nor exercising judicial power, authority to imprison and punish without the right of appeal or of trial by jury. 3 conCONTENTS. 1. The clause, in a bill of lading, "shipped in good order tents unknown," acknowledges only fair external appearance; it includes no implication as to quantity, quality, or condition of the article: so that a shipper must prove the actual good condition of the contents. See In actual close con2. In the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1879, § 11, in the phrase "any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action," means the sum named therein, payable by the terms of the instrutact; touching; near. ment itself.5 An action to recover damages for a refusal to accept and pay for merchandise purchased under an members of the pool, or to produce designated books and papers. The House ordered the speaker to issue his warrant, directed to Thompson, the sergeant-atarms, to arrest Kilbourn, who, when brought before the House, still refused to impart the desired information. For this contempt he was committed to the custody of Thompson until he would obey the original subpœna, meanwhile to be confined in the common jail of the District. At the end of forty-five days he was released on a habeas corpus, and at once sued the speaker, the committeemen, and the sergeant-at-arms for forcible arrest, and imprisonment. The members of the House were held protected from prosecution; but a verdict for $60,000 damages was recovered against Thompson. This verdict being set aside as excessive, on the second trial $39,000 were awarded. This sum was reduced to $20,000, and paid by order of Congress, with interest, and costs. See MacArthur & Mackey, 401-32 (1883); 23 St. L. 467; Re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 F. R. 251-53 (1887). 16 Wheat. 204 (1821). 2 Exp. Dalton, 44 Ohio St. 150-53 (1886), cases. 3 Whitcomb's Case, 120 Mass. 123-24, 120-23 (1876), cases, Gray, C. J. 4 Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 283 (1851). Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Blatch. 115 (1862). A relative term; referring to a building, means in close proximity to the same. 4 A building any particular number of feet, as twentyfive, from a detached dwelling, is not "contiguous " to it.5 The charter of a water-works company provided that it should not prevent the city council from granting to persons "contiguous" to the Mississippi river the privilege of laying pipes to the river for their own use. Held, that no lot can be contiguous unless it fronts on the river or is separated only by a public highway, with no private owner intervening, or, possibly, on a block or square so situated. Compare ADJACENT; ALONG. 1 Simons v. Ypsilanti Paper Co., 33 F. R. 193-94 (1888), Brown, J. 2 Shoecraft v. Bloxham, 124 U. S. 730 (1888). 3 L. con-testari, to call to witness. • Arkell v. Commerce Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 193 (1877); 10 Hun, 26. 5 Olson v. St. Paul, &c. Fire Insurance Co., 35 Minn. 433 (1886). New Orleans Water-Works Co. v. Ernst, 32 F. R. 6 (1887), Billings, J., following Water-Works Co. v. Rivers, 115 U. S. 674 (1885), which concerned the St. Charles Hotel, five blocks from the river. Compare New Orleans Water-Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 id. 18 (1888).