Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/600

 574 INDEX. INSURANCI Reinsurance hen a well known meaning, ad, a the uual compact of re- insurance hen been understood in the cemmerelal world for many yea, the tinbility of the reinsurer is not affected by the insolvency of the - insured cempany cr by the inability o! the Itter to fulfill ita own con- tracts with the original insured; and in this caec the compact, notwith- standing it refers to iosec paid, will be construed to cever loasec payable by the reinsured company; and, in a suit b.y the receiver of tlmt comlmy on the cempact, the fact of its insolvency and non-payment of the r/sk reinsuld doce not constitute a defense. Allemansia lnsunznc Co. v. Firzrnen's Inzuranc Co., 326. INTEREST. ,g CONSTITUTIONAL LAw, 5, 12. INTERNATIONAL LAW. Adoption of   gore'nmental pouer aecting its character ns a tort. The ceurtz will not declare an act to he z tot in violation of the law of antions or of a treaty of the United States when the Executive, Congeese and the treaty-making power have all adopted it. O'P, eilly d Camara v. Br0ok, 45. INTERSTATE COMMERCE. .' 1. Discrimination in rate; term "der. ice" defined. A device to obtain rebates tb' he within the prohibition of the lnteretto Commerce Ac of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 857, and tile Elkins Act of February 19, 1903, 32 Slat. 847, need not neeestrily be fraudulent. The term "device" a,s used in those statutes includes nny plan or con- trivance whereby merchandise is transported for less than the published rte, or any other advantage is given to, or discrimination practiced in favor of, the shipper. Armour Packin Co. v. United State, 56. 2. Dirimr in vale, z; conslructlon o! ElAine Act. In construing the Eikin Act i, will be read not only lit the light of the pre- vious legislation on tile same shject, but also of the pnrpoe which Congr had in mind in enact in it--to require :ll shippers to be t retel alike and to pay one rate as established, published aml poted. (New Haven Railroad Co. v. Interdate C'ornmer Commission, 200 U.S. 361, 391.) lb. . Scope o! Interstate Commerce .Ict; traportatirn embraced by. The Interstate Commerce Act crabs. wes the whole field of interstate com- merce; it does not exempt stch forvlgn commerce as is cortical on a through bill of laAing, but, in teruls appli,s to the truneportation of property shipped from apy place in tile 1nited tates to a foreign country and crried from scl Idce to  port of tcanshipment. lb. 4. Contracts/or carrla,at published rates subfed to chonge in roles. There is no provision in he Elkins ),ct exempting pc�ial contracts from

�