Co. _v._ McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908).
[106] Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. _v._ Goldsboro, 232 U.S. 548, 558
(1914).
[107] Treigle _v._ Acme Homestead Asso., 297 U.S. 189, 197 (1933);
Liggett (Louis K.) Co. _v._ Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111-112 (1928).
[108] Pennsylvania Coal Co. _v._ Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922). _See also_
Welch _v._ Swasey, 214 U.S. 91, 107 (1909).
[109] Noble State Bank _v._ Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 110 (1911).
[110] Erie R. Co. _v._ Williams, 233 U.S. 685, 700 (1914).
[111] New Orleans Public Service Co. _v._ New Orleans, 281 U.S. 682, 687
(1930).
[112] Abie State Bank _v._ Bryan, 282 U.S. 765, 770 (1931).
[113] Meyer _v._ Nebraska, 262 U.S. 300, 399 (1923).
[114] Jacobson _v._ Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); Zucht _v._ King,
260 U.S. 174 (1922).
[115] Buck _v._ Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
[116] Minnesota _v._ Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270 (1940).
[117] Lanzetta _v._ New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939).
[118] 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
[119] 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
[120] Ibid. 534. Even this statement was a dictum. Inasmuch as only
corporations and no parents were party litigants, the Court in fact
disposed of the case on the ground that the corporations were being
deprived of their "property" without due process of law.
[121] Waugh _v._ Mississippi University, 237 U.S. 589, 596-597 (1915).
[122] Hamilton _v._ University of California, 293 U.S. 245, 262 (1934).
_See also_ p. 768.
[123] 16 Wall. 36 (1873).
[124] 165 U.S. 578, 589.--Herein liberty of contract was defined as
follows: "The liberty mentioned in that [Fourteenth] Amendment means not
only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical
restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to
embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his
faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work
where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue
any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all
contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying
out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned."
[125] 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1915).
[126] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. _v._ McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 567, 570
(1911); Wolff Packing Co. _v._ Court of Industrial Relations, 262 U.S.
522, 534 (1923).
[127] Holden _v._ Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898).
[128] Miller _v._ Wilson, 236 U.S. 373 (1915); Bosley _v._
|