GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, Acts of August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278, 282, and
January 24, 1905 (see Jurisdiction, C 3): United States Fidelity Co. v.
Kenyon, 349.
INDIANS, Act of August 15, 1894 (see Courts, 12): McKay v. Kalyton, 458.
Act of July 1, 1902 (see Indians, 4): Wallace v. Adams, 415.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Act of February 4, 1887 (see Jurisdiction, A 3;
Practice and Procedure, 2): Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton
Oil Co., 426.
JUDICIARY, Rev. Stat. § 670 (see Courts, 8): American R. R. Co. v. Castro,
453. Rev. Stat. § 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9): Louis-
ville & Nashville R. R. v. Smith, 551; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Abilene
Cotton Oil Co., 426; Newman v. Gates, 89; Western Turf Assn. v. Green-
berg, 359; Osborne v. Clark, 565; McKay v. Kalyton, 458; Hammond
v. Whittredge, 538. Act of March 3, 1875, § 1 (see Jurisdiction, C 5):
Smithers v. Smith, 632. Act of March 3, 1875, § 1, as amended by
Act of August 13, 1888 (see Jurisdiction, A 10): Ib. Act of March 3,
1891, § 5 (see Jurisdiction, A 13): Wecker v. National Enameling Co..
176. Act of April 12, 1900, § 34 (see Courts, 8): American R. R. Co.
v. Castro, 453.
MONTANA ENABLING ACT of February 22, 1889, § 17 (see Public Lands,
3): Haire v. Rice, 291.
NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. § 5143 (see National Banks, 3): Jerome v.
Cogswell, 1.
NAVY, Act of March 3, 1889 (see Army and Navy): United States v. Hite,
343.
NORTHERN Pacific Railroad, Act of July 2, 1864 (see Public Lands, 2):
Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien, 190.
PORTO RICO, Act of April 12, 1900 (see Jurisdiction, A 11): American R. R.
Co. v. Castro, 453.
PUBLIC LANDS, Act of May 10, 1872, §§ 3, 12, 16 (see Mines and Mining, 4):
East Cent. E. M. Co. v. Central Eureka Co., 266. Rev. Stat., par. 2320
(see Mines and Mining, 5): Ib.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES, Acts of March 3, 1887, and August 13, 1888 (see
Condemnation, 3): Mason City R. R. Co. v. Boynton, 570.
RIVER AND HARBOR ACT of 1899 (see Constitutional Law, 13): Union Bridge
Co. v. United States, 364.
1. Jurisdiction of admiralty courts.
Admiralty courts, being free to work out their own system and to finish
the adjustment of maritime rights, have jurisdiction of an action for
contribution for damages paid to third parties as the result of a collision
for which both vessels were in fault. The claim is of admiralty origin.
Erie R. R. Co. v. Erie Transportation Co., 220.
2. Division of damages-Separable claims-Bar of former recovery.
The right of division of damages to vessels when both are in fault and
the contingent claim to partial indemnity for payment of damage to
cargo are separable, and the decree of division in the original suit,
the pleadings in which do not set up such claim for indemnity, is not
a bar to a subsequent suit brought to enforce it. Ib.
3. Division of damages; extent of.
The division of damages in admiralty extends to what one of the vessels
pays to the owners of cargo on the other vessel jointly in fault. Ib.
ADMISSIONS.
See JURISDICTION, C 2.
See PLEADING AND PRACTICE.
1. Right to acquire citizenship-Extension of effect of naturalization to minor
children.
An alien's right to acquire citizenship is purely statutory, and an extension
of the effect of naturalization to minor children of the person naturalized
not included in the statute must come from Congressional legislation
and not judicial decision. Zatarian v. Billings, 170.
2. Status of minor children born and remaining abroad until after parent's
naturalization.
Section 2172, Rev. Stat., and the naturalization laws of the United States,
do not confer citizenship on the minor children of a naturalized alien
who were born abroad and remain abroad until after their parent's
naturalization; such children are aliens, subject as to their entrance to
the United States to the provisions of the Alien Immigration Act of
March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1213, and may be excluded if afflicted with
contagious disease. Ib.
3. Who may be naturalized.
Naturalization acts of the United States have limited admission to citizen-
ship to those within its limits, and under its jurisdiction. Ib.
ALLOTMENTS TO INDIANS.
See COURTS, 7, 12.
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.
Fourteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
JURISDICTION, A 5.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
See JURISDICTION, A 10; C 3, 5.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
1. Review of order punishing for contempt.
An order punishing for contempt made in the progress of the case, when
not in the nature of an order in a criminal proceeding is an interlocutory
order and to be reviewed only upon appeal from a final decree in the
2. Party excepting to rulings of court must show prejudicial error.
The excepting party should make it manifest that an error prejudicial to
him has occurred in the trial in order to justify an appellate court in
disturbing the verdict. Cunningham v. Springer, 647.
FEDERAL QUESTION; JURISDICTION;
PLEADING AND PRACTICE.
Extra pay to which officer of Navy entitled under act of March 3, 1889.
Under the act of March 3, 1889, 30 Stat. 1228, the two months' pay to which
an officer of the Navy is entitled, who was detached from his vessel and
ordered home to be honorably discharged after creditable service dur-
ing the war with Spain, is to be computed at the rate of pay he was
receiving for sea service when detached, and 'not at the rate of his
pay for shore service when he was actually discharged. United States
v. Hite, 343.
ASSESSMENT.
See NATIONAL BANKS, 1;
ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1.
ASSIGNMENT.
See BANKRUPTCY, 6.
1. Actions by and against assignee; bar of statute of limitations—Presumption
of abandonment by assignee.
Where an incorporeal interest of the bankrupt in a contingent remainder
passed to the assignee in bankruptcy under a petition filed in 1878, and
no notice to the trustees was necessary, the fact that the assignee
brought no suit to establish his right to the bankrupt's interest in
the fund for more than two years does not bar his claim thereto under
§ 5057, Rev. Stat.; but under that section all persons who had not
brought suits within two years against the assignee to assert their
rights to the property are barred. Nor will the assignee be presumed
to have abandoned the property simply because he did not sell it;
when, as in this case, he brings an action to protect his interest therein.
Hammond v. Whittredge, 538.
2. Preferences; voidable—Mortgage within four months of petition.
Where the bankrupt, within four months of the petition, mortgages his
property to a creditor having knowledge of his insolvency and there-
after conveys it to a third party subject to the mortgages and the
creditor forecloses and as a result of the transaction obtains a greater
percentage on his claim than other creditors of the same class, the
transaction amounts to a voidable preference and the trustee can
recover from the creditor the value of the property so transferred.
Eau Claire National Bank v. Jackman, 522.
3. Preferences; rights of preferred creditor in suit by trustee to recover value
thereof.
Where there is a voidable preference the creditor receiving it cannot, in a
suit of the trustee in the state court to recover the value thereof, liti-
gate the validity of other claims against the bankrupt and whether
other creditors have received, and not been required to surrender,
preferences. Ib.
4. Preferences; voidable; right of trustee to maintain action to recover.
A trustee in bankruptcy can maintain a suit to recover the value of a void-
able preference without first electing to avoid such preference by notice
to the creditor receiving the preference and demand for its return.
A demand is not necessary where it is to be presumed that it would
have been unavailing. Ib.
5. Trustee's right to recover property obtained in fraud of bankruptcy act.
The right of the trustee in bankruptcy to recover property obtained in
fraud of the bankruptcy act is not varied by how the property would
be administered and distributed between the different classes of cred-
itors; all creditors, whether general or preferred, are represented by
the trustee. Ib.
6. Preferences; priority of claim for wages.
An assignee of a claim of less than $300 for wages earned within three
months before the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy
against the bankrupt is entitled to priority under § 64a when the
assignment occurred prior to the commencement of the proceedings.
Shropshire, Woodliff & Co. v. Bush, 186.
7. Proof of claim; sufficiency of filing.
A trustee in bankruptcy cannot file with himself proof of his own claim
against the bankrupt, nor can the delivery of such proof to his own
attorney for filing with the referee stand, in case of failure of his at-
torney so to do, in place of delivery to the referee. J. B. Orcutt Co.
V. Green, 96.
8. Proof of claim; sufficiency of filing.
The neglect of a trustee in bankruptcy to deliver to the referee claims left
with him for filing is the neglect of an officer of the court and not the
failure of the creditor to file his claim. Ib.
9. Proof of claim; sufficiency of filing.
Presentation and delivery to the trustee, within a year after the adjudica-
tion, for filing with the referee, of proof of claim is a filing within § 57
of the Bankruptcy Act as construed in connection with General Order
in Bankruptcy, No. 21. Ib.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 6.
BILL OF LADING.
See CARRIERS, 2.
Collateral security; estoppel of holder of note crediting collateral thereon to
deny ownership of such collateral.
Where the strict compliance with the terms of a note as to sale of the col-
lateral pledged therewith is waived by the maker, the holder who
accepts the collateral at an agreed price and credits it on the note
is estopped from claiming that he does not become the owner of the
collateral because there was no actual sale thereof as required by the
note. This principle applied when pledgee was a national bank.
Ohio Valley Nat. Bank v. Hulitt, 162.
A broker is not entitled to commissions unless he actually completes the
|