Imagens da página



or of title, for the statutory period, extinguishes

the title of the excluded owner, and bars his reSee "Negligence.”

covery even against a defective title.-East TenInsurance against, see "Insurance."

nessee Iron & Coal Co. v. Wiggin (C. C. A.) 446. Accounting.

Between partners, see “Partnership."

For attachment, see "Attachment."

See "Limitation of Actions"; "Removal of See "Principal and Agent."

For infringement of patent, see “Patents for In-

Particular actions, see "Deceit"; "Specific Per-

Aliens held in custody for deportation under formance."

the contract labor laws, by virtue of a warrant

of the secretary of the treasury which does not Adequate Remedy at Law.

contain their names, or any names idem sonans,

may be discharged on writ of habeas corpus.See “Equity.”

United States v. Amor (C. C. A.) 885.

Immigrants held in custody under a warrant ADMIRALTY.

of the secretary of the treasury, for the purpose See, also, ”“: "Collision"; "Demurrage"; "Marine rival here, under the contract labor laws, can

of deportation, within one year from their arInsurance”; “Maritime Liens”; “Salvage”; í not be released by writ of habeas corpus.-Unit"Shipping"; "Wharves.”

ed States v. Arteago (C. C. A.) 883. Sickness of a party, unexpectedly preventing his attendance at the hearing or advising with

Ancillary Suits, his proctor, is sufficient reason for permitting him to take evidence pending an appeal.—The See “Courts.” Glide (C. C. A.) 719; Hudson v. Grafilin, Id. Where, in defense of a libel by a pilot to re

Anticipation. cover fees from a vessel which had rejected his See "Patents for Inventions." services, it was pleaded that libelant, after signaling an offer of services, hauled down the signal, and sailed away, thus preventing the

APPEAL. ship from taking him, held that, on failure of the evidence to sustain this claim, respondent Costs on appeal, see "Costs." was not entitled to prove that other pilots also In admiralty, see "Admiralty." offered their services at the same time, and that the vessel would have been subjected to serious

Where the judgment on a mandate of an apinconvenience in order to take libelant.-Mar- pellate court does not conform to such mandate, shall v. The Earnwell (D. C.) 228.

or determines questions not covered thereby, it is subject to review by appeal or writ of error.

-Metcalf v. City of Watertown (C. C. A.) 859. ADVERSE POSSESSION.

An order made by a district judge, in vacaUnder the Tennessee statute of adverse pos. amending section 7 of the act of March 3, 1891

tion, before the act of February 18, 1895, session, disabilities cannot be cumulated.--East (26 Stat. 826, c. 517), went into effect, which Tennessee Iron & Coal Co. v. Wiggin (C. C. A.) dissolves a temporary restraining order, made 446.

on an intervening petition, is not appealable.A void grant of land from the state and a Denver & R. G: R. Co. v. Walker (C. C. A.) 23. void sheriff's deed are both sufficient color of title under the Tennessee statute.-East Tennes

An order, made in an action of claim and desee Iron & Coal Co. v. Wiggin (c. c. A.) 446. livery, under the North Carolina Code, directing

C. , Under the Tennessee statutes (Mill. & V. marshal from the possession of a sheriff, upon a Code, $$ 3459-3461), adverse possession, with col. requisition to replevy them, to be returned to V.68F.-65


such sheriff, is not a final order, and is not re

APPEARANCE. viewable.-Porter v. Davidson (C. C. A.) 257. A claim that a verdict in an action of eject

A petition for removal, expressed to be made ment includes lands not claimed in the declara- by attorneys appearing for that purpose only, is tion, such claim

having been presented on a mo- not a general appearance.-Kinne v. Lant (C. C.) tion for a new trial, does not present a question 436. reviewable on error.-Robinson v. Dewhurst (C. The objection that a suit between citizens of C. A.) 336.

different states is brought in the wrong district Rule 13 of the circuit courts of appeals (11 is waived by a general appearance, and is not C. C. A. ciii.) does not apply to bonds where no raised by a demurrer_after such appearance.supersedeas is asked or granted. – Wheeling Noonan v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (C. C.) 1. Bridge & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Cochran (C. C. One who intervenes in a pending suit to proA.) 141.

tect a supposed interest cannot avoid the effect An assignment of errors made up by basing of a judgment against him, by limiting his apan assignment on every exception taken is pearance and disclaiming an intention to become equivalent to a general assignment.-Florida a party to the suit.-Frank v. Wedderin (C. C. Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Bucki (C. C. A.) 864.

A.) 818. Under rule 11 of the circuit court of appeals

The objection that a suit in the circuit court, for the Fifth circuit, an assignment of error when the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenwhich merely alleges error in making certain ship of the parties, is not brought in the district decrees is insufficient, and will be stricken out where either the plaintiff or the defendant reon motion.-Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Cut- sides, is waived by a general appearance or ting (C. C. A.) 586.

pleading to the merits, and the court can proceed

to hear and determine the cause.-Hoover & Where a court trying a case without a jury Allen Co. v. Columbia Straw-Paper Co. (C. C.) makes a general finding, no errors in giving or 945. refusing instructions, asked to control such finding, can be reviewed on error. - Board of

Com'rs of Kearney County v. McMaster (C. C. For patent, see “Patents for Inventions."
A.) 177.

An appellate court having expressed the opinion that a special master's allowance appeared ARBITRATION AND AWARD. on the face of the record to be excessive, the matter was heard again in the lower court be- In Virginia no relief against an award made fore a master, and the special master testified pursuant to a submission in pais can be obto the value of his services. The contestants, tained except in equity; and, when the amount however, offered no evidence as to the character of loss under an insurance policy has been fixed or amount of service. Held, that on subsequent by an award, no evidence of greater loss, or appeal a somewhat reduced allowance made be- that the arbitrators were not competent, can be low will not be disturbed.-Florida Cent. & P. received, in an action on the policy.-Robertson R. Co. v. Cutting (C. C. A.) 586.

v. Scottish Union & National Ins. Co. (C. C.)

173. Findings of fact by the trial court upon conflicting evidence will not be reversed unless

Assignment. clearly in conflict with the preponderance of Of errors, see “Appeal.” the evidence.-Latta v. Granger (C. C. A.) 69.

One H. leased from plaintiff a lot in the Hot Assignment for Benefit of CredSprings reservation, Ark., but was subsequently ousted by the United States under claim of

itors. superior title. He then leased the lot from the United States, and afterwards purchased it

, ac- See “Insolvency.” cording to an award made by the commissioners appointed to adjust conflicting land claims in

Assumption of Risks. the reservation. Act March 3, 1877 (19 Stat. 377). Afterwards plaintiff obtained a decree See “Master and Servant.” against Hi's grantees, declaring that they held the title in trust for him, and requiring conveyance thereof. On appeal, the supreme court

ATTACHMENT. confirmed plaintiff's title, but reversed the decree because the account of rents

, and profits affidavit for attachment that defendants have

There is no inconsistency in alleging in an had not been properly stated, saying, in substance, that rents and profits 'should not be al disposed of their property, and that they are lowed prior to the commencement of the suit. about to dispose of the same, for the word and that no increased rent should be allowed "property," as used in statutes enumerating the on account of improvements. Held, that this grounds of attachment,

does not mean all of decree merely directed the circuit court to ascer defendant's property. --Salmon y. Mills (C. C. tain the fair rental value, and plaintiff was not A.) 180. entitled to have the rents measured by the terms

Award. of the original lease from him to H.-Latta v. Granger (C. C. A.) 69.

See "Arbitration and Award."

BANKS AND BANKING. There was no law or public policy in Missis

sippi in 1886 to prevent a foreign ecclesiastical Where money is paid to a national bank on corporation from taking a devise to charitable account of a subscription to a proposed increase uses.-White v. Keller (c. C. A.) 796. of stock, to be held in trust till the subscription is fully paid and the increased stock legally is

Charter Party. sued, and before the increase has been fully paid or the comptroller has issued a certificate declar- See “Shipping.” ing the increase, the bank becomes insolvent, and passes into the hands of a receiver, the person paying such money does not become a

CHINESE. stockholder of the bank.-McFarlin v. First Nat.

The right of a Chinaman to readmission to the Bank of Kansas City (C. C. A.) 868.

United States because he had been engaged as

a merchant therein is governed by Act Nov. 3, Bastards.

1893, though he departed from the country be

fore that act was passed.-United States v. Loo See "Descent and Distribution."

Way (D. C.) 475.
Bill of Lading.

Act Sept. 13, 1888, § 12, having been enacted

subject to ratification of a treaty with China See "Shipping.'

which was never ratified, is of no effect; and the right of a Chinese to enter the United States

may be tried in proceedings of arrest, though Bill of Review.

the collector has decided that he was entitled to

enter.- United States v. Loo Way (D. C.) 475. See "Equity.” BONDS.

Circuit Court of Appeals.

See "Courts."
See, also, “Indemnity."
Of city, see “Municipal Corporations."

Of guardian, see "Guardian and Ward."

See "Writs."
On appeal, see "Appeal.”
Where a bond is given conditioned that one

Citizenship. who has proposed to furnish the government As affecting federal jurisdiction, see "Courts." three separate kinds of supplies shall not with. As ground for removal of cause, see "Removal draw his proposal, and shall execute a contract of Causes." if it is accepted, it is no breach of the condition that such person fails to execute a contract to

City. furnish only one of such kinds of supplies, his proposal for which alone is accepted.-- United See “Municipal Corporations." States v. McAleer (C. C. A.) 146.


STATES. Evidence of, see "Evidence."

In an action against the United States under Cancellation.

the act of March 3, 1887, where the facts are

undisputed, a written opinion, substantially findOf patent, see "Patents for Inventions."

ing the facts, and giving judgment, is sufficient, though there is no separate statement of facts

found and conclusions of law. United States Carriers. .

v. Tinsley (C. C. A.) 433. See "Railroad Companies”; “Shipping."

Classification. CHAMPERTY AND MAINTE- Of imports, see “Customs Duties." NANCE.

Collateral Attack. A patentee made an assignment of his patent, upon an agreement that the assignee should On judgment, see "Judgment." prosecute suits against infringers at his own expense, and divide the recovery with the pat

Collateral Suits. entee. Held, that such agreement constituted champerty.-Keiper v. Miller (C. C.) 627. Jurisdiction, see “Courts."


COLLISION. The rule against perpetuities cannot be in- Between steamers. voked to defeat a devise to charitable uses.- Article 21 of the international rules, requiring White v. Keller (C. C. A.) 796.

steamships to keep to the starboard side in narthe other.-The Plymothean (C. C. A.) 395; A tug took two barges abreast from a slip in Id.; Claimants of The Victory v. Canton Ins.

row channels, applies to navigable coast waters the flood tide, ordered one to "single out," so as communicating directly with the ocean, as in to be towed astern of the other. In doing so, the case of the Elizabeth river, leading to Nor- the barge got adrift and injured other vessels. folk harbor.- The Plymothean' (c. c. A.) 395; Held, that the tug was solely in fault for not Canton Ins. Co. v. Claimants of The Victory, "singling out” in the slip, and, after going out, Id.; Claimants of The Victory v. Canton Ins. for attempting to do so too near the shore, in Co. Id.

the strong crossing tide.-The Blanche L. (D. Steamships colliding in Elizabeth river hela C.) 939; The Thompson, Id.; Fisher 1. The both in fault, one especially for keeping to the Henry A. Crawford, Id.; Morris v. Same, Id.; port side of the channel in violation of interna- Bresette v. Same, Id.

v. tional rule 21, and both for obstinately pursuing A large steamer leaving her dock in the North their courses until collision became inevitable. river to round down stream held in fault for a -The Plymothean (C. C. A.) 395; Canton Ins. collision with the tow of a tug which was comCo. v. Claimants of The Victory, Id.; Claim- ing down the river on her starboard hand, beants of The Victory v. Canton Ins. Co., Id. cause she failed to observe rule 19, which gave

Only a dire emergency will excuse a steamer the tug the right of way.-The Eldorado (D. C.) navigating a harbor from complying with rule 940; Clyde Steamship Co. v. The Florence, Id. 16, which requires

her to keep out of the way of Fog. another steamer with which she is on crossing courses, when the latter is on her starboard

A sailing vessel, provided at the commencehand. - Norfolk & C. R. Co. v. The City of Ches- ment of her voyage with a mechanical fog horn ter (D. C.) 574.

in good order, and with a good mouth horn,

held to have complied with the requirements of The fact that a steam ferryboat colliding with prudence and of sailing rule 12; and, the mea tug was about to make her slip after crossing chanical horn having become disabled by accithe East river held a special circumstance quali-dent, she was not in fault, where the mouth fying the rule requiring her, as the favored ves- horn was being properly sounded at the time of sel, to maintain her speed.-The Dakota (C. C. collision. The Trave ic. C. A.) 390; Law v. A.) 507; Walsh v. Brooklyn & N. Y. Ferry Co., North German Lloyd, Id. Id.

Where a sail lighter, proceeding down the Between steamers and sailing vessels. East river, became enveloped in a fog when

Where a schooner and a steamer, approaching abreast of Governor's Island and in the usual on nearly opposite courses, about head and head, track of ferryboats, held, that it was her duty to collided, on a clear night, after both sheering in haul nearer the island out of the course of ferrythe same direction, and nearly at the same time, boats, and that she was alone in fault for colheld, that both were in fault,--the steamer for lision with a ferryboat, which was running at inattention and bad lookout, and for not

taking moderate speed, and which heard no fog horn.timely measures to leave a reasonable margin; Briggs v. The Whitehall (D. C.) 1022. the schooner for incorrectly locating the steam- There is no rule of navigation requiring ferryer by reason of the master's viewing her from boats in New York harbor to cease running durthe starboard side of his own vessel, and for ing a fog.–Briggs v. The Whitehall (D. C.) making the change of course. Montvet y. The 1022. Dorian (D. C.) 1018.

Mutual fault. A steamship colliding with a sailing vessel about five minutes after entering a foz bank; entitled to complete indemnity. - The Plymo

In cases of mutual fault, cargo owners are held in fault because she had reduced her speed thean (C. C. A.) 395; Canton Ins. Co. v. Claimonly to about 15 knots.- The Trave (C. C. A.) ants of the Victory,'ld.; ("laimants of the Vic390; Law v. North German Lloyd, Id.

tory v. Canton Ins. Co., Id. A steamer meeting a schooner at night on nearly opposite courses, held in fault because Damages. she did not allow sufficient margin for the usu- The measure of damages for injuries to a vesal and necessary variation in the schooner's sel owned by a city held to be the reasonable course through yawing or leeway.-Henderson cost of repairs, without regard to the actual v. The City of St. Augustine (C. C. A.) 393; amount paid therefor under a contract made by St. Augustine Steamship Co. v. Henderson, Id. advertisement for bids and the acceptance of the

only bid offered; especially as there was no surTugs and tows.

vey on notice, as usual, nor any ascertainment A schooner which left her slip at Jersey City, of probable damages before acceptance of the with her stern down the river, and in wearing bid. --The Mattie Newman (D. C.) 1017; City round, with an off-shore breeze, to go down of New York v. The Robert Hadden, Id. stream, struck, about mid-river, a tow going up stream on a hawser from a tug, held in fault one is much the graver, the liability of each may

In cases of mutual fault, where the fault of for dilatoriness and inattention in not effecting be measured by the degree of its fault. Held a reasonably speedy turn; the tug also held in therefore, that damage to cargo should first be fault for lack of attention to the schooner's slow_turn, and delay in hauling away.-Bar compensated from the proceeds of the vessel ney Dumping-Boat Co. v. The John T. Williams most in fault, any deficiency to be supplied by

(D. C.) 938; Applegate v. The R. J. Moran, Id. Canton Ins. Co. v. Claimants of The Victory,

v the East river, and, when a little way out in Co., Id.


Color of Title.

Local and special laws.

An act authorizing a named municipality to See "Adverse Possession."

issue bonds without submitting the question to

a vote of the electors is a special act, conferComity.

ring corporate powers, and invalid, under Const. See "Courts."

Ohio, art. 13, § 1.-German-American Iny. Co.

of New York v. City of Youngstown (C. C.) 452. Commerce.

Due process of law. Regulation of, see "Constitutional Law."

The California irrigation laws (St. 1887, p.

29 et seq.) held void under the constitution of the Community Property.

United States, because they provide for taking

private property for a use which is not "public, See "Husband and Wife."

and because the method of proceeding results in a taking without due process of law.-Bradley

v. Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. (C. C.) 948. CONFLICT OF LAWS.

Regulation of commerce. A contract between an Ohio corporation and The Michigan statute (Act No. 182 of 1891, a resident of Michigan, which, after being exe as amended by Act No. 79 of 1893) imposing cuted by the latter in Michigan, and counter- a "franchise fee" on foreign corporations is signed there by the agent of the corporation, is void as a regulation of interstate commerce, as approved at the corporation's main office in Ohio, applied to foreign corporations engaged in sellpursuant to a provision, contained in it, that it ing their wares by itinerant agents in Michigan. should not be valid unless so approved, is made - Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Holder (C. C.) 467. in Ohio.-Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Holder (C.

An ordinance imposing a license tax upon “evC.) 467.

ery express company having an office in the city A devise of real estate takes effect on the of A., Virginia, and receiving goods

* death of the testator, and is not postponed till and forwarding them to points within the state proof of the will in the state where the land of Virginia, or receiving goods. * * * withsies.-White v. Keller (C. C. A.) 796.

in the state of Virginia, and delivering them in A gift of "property and effects” in the residu- the city of A.," is repugnant to the interstate ary clause of a Louisiana will is sufficient to

commerce law, and is void. -Webster V. Bell pass real estate in Mississippi.-White v. Kel- (C. C. A.) 183. ler (C. C. A.) 796.

The Virginia act (Acts 1889–90, $$ 108, 109)

imposing a license tax upon agents for the sale CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

of manufactured implements by retail does not violate the constitution of the United States, as

a regulation of commerce.-American Harrow A court cannot declare a law void on the Co. v. Shaffer (C. C.) 750. ground that it is wrong, unjust, or oppressive, or violates the genius of our institutions.-For-goods into another in car-load lots, and its

Where a corporation of one state sends its sythe v. City of Hammond (C. C.) 774.

agents carry the goods from a central point The provision in the constitution of California about the country, selling and delivering directforbidding an officer of an incorporated commonly to purchasers, such agents are not selling by carrier from engaging in the business of trans- sample, nor engaged in interstate commerce.portation as a common carrier over the com- American Harrow Co. v. Shaffer (C. C.) 750. pany's works does not apply to the act of a railroad officer in having his own freight carried Taxation. over the company's road.-Bucksport & E. R. R. The act of Indiana of March 6, 1893, relating Co. v. Edinburgh & S. F. Redwood Co. (C. C. to taxation, violates no provision of the constiA.) 972.

tution of the state or of the United States.The legislature of a state whose constitution Western Union Tel. Co. v. Henderson (c. C.) denies power to the legislature to create, en

588. large, or contract municipal bodies by special The Virginia act (Acts 1889-90, 88 108, 109) act, and requires such changes to be made by imposing a license tax upon agents for the sale general laws, may give the courts power to de- of manufactured implements by retail does not termine whether the conditions fixed by law for violate article 10, § 1, of the constitution of Virsuch creation, enlargement, or contraction exist. ginia, providing that taxation shall be equal.-Forsythe v. City of Hammond (C. C.) 774. American Harrow Co. v. Shaffer (C. C.) 750.

The laws of the United States providing for The levy of a tax, however unjust, is not a the issuance, trial, and disposition of proceed taking of property without due process of law ings by habeas corpus (Rev. St. 753–761) are or without just compensation, nor is a tax unthe supreme law of the land. They extend to constitutional because its proceeds may be used every foot of its soil, and are controlling in to pay a debt exceeding a constitutional limit.matters within the bounds of federal jurisdic- Forsythe v. City of Hammond (C. C.) 774. tion. A judgment of acquittal thereunder by a federal court will, as to the issues involved, pro

Contract Labor Law. tect the relators from prosecution elsewhere.Kelly v. State of Georgia (D. C.) 652.

See "Aliens."

« AnteriorContinuar »