Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

state from prosecuting proceedings expressly Circuit courts of the United States being based on a state statute to enforce the collection given exclusive jurisdiction of suits relating to of taxes against such lands, on the ground that patents by Rev. St. $ 711 [U. S. Comp. St. such statute as applied to complainant's lands 1901, p. 577], diversity of citizenship between impairs the obligation of a contract with the the parties is not essential to such jurisdiction state exempting such lands from taxation.--Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Electrose University of the South v. Jetton (C. C.) 182. Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 543.

*A federal court of equity has jurisdiction of A federal court is without jurisdiction to ensuits to determine the constitutionality of state tertain a cross-bill by an intervener who could statutes regulating railroad rates which are not have been made a defendant in the original attacked on the ground that the rates fixed are bill without defeating the jurisdiction of the unremunerative to the railroad companies, and court, unless he represents an interest already that their effect if enforced will be to deprive before the court, or claims an interest in propthe companies affected of their property without erty of which the court holds possession.-Newdue process of law, and such suits are ap- ton v. Gage (C. C.) 598; Northern Counties propriate means for determining the question. Inv. Trust, Limited, v. Gage, Id. ---St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Hadley (C. C.) 220.

*Where a state contains more than one fed*A federal court is not without jurisdiction eral judicial district, a corporation of the state of a suit to restrain the enforcement of a state for the purpose of bringing suit or being sued. statute fixing railroad rates, to which the of- in a federal court is, at least prima facie, a ficers of the state who are 'charged with such resident and inhabitant of the district in which enforcement are made parties defendant, on the it has its principal office as designated in its ground that such suit is in fact one against cordance with the requirement of the state law. "

certificate or articles of incorporation in acthe state. Poor v. Iowa Cent.

Ry: Co. (C.C.) - Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vehicle Equip226; Shillaber v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., ment Co. (C. C.) 676. Id. *A suit to enjoin state officers or a

*The corporation commission and the Attorcommission from enforcing a state statute or ney General being specially charged with the regulation fixing maximum railroad rates is not enforcement of Laws N. C. 1907, p. 252, c. 217, one against the state, of which a federal court $ 2, by Revisal N. C. 1905, $$ 1066, 1113, 5380, is prohibited from entertaining jurisdiction by a suit to restrain them from enforcing such act the eleventh constitutional amendment.-Perkins was not a suit against the state within Const. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 445 ; Kennedy U. S. Amend. 11.-Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill v. Great Northern Ry. Co., Id.'; Woodward v. (C. C.) 756. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Id.; Livingston v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., Id.; Brewster, v. from effecting the destruction of property or the

A suit against an individual to prevent him Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., Id.; Shillaber v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., ld.; Hum- impairment of property rights under color of an bird v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., Id.; unconstitutional law is not a suit against the

. Barrows v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. s. M. Ry? I state within Const. U. S. Amend. 11.-SeaCo., Id. ; Carle v. Chicago, R. 1. & P. Ry. Co.; | board Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad CommisId.; James v. Great Northern Ry. Co., Id.

sion of Alabama (C. C.) 792. *A suit to enjoin the enforcement of state en

A Circuit Court of the United States has no actments regulating railroad rates held to be one appellate jurisdiction over a District Court, arising under the Constitution of the United and cannot review its proceedings for any error States, and on that ground within the juris- or irregularity on petition for a writ of habeas diction of a federal court.--Perkins v. Northern corpus where the District Court had jurisdicPac. Ry. Co. (C. O.) 445; Kennedy v. Great tion.-Ex parte Bick (C. C.) 908. Northern Ry. Co., Id.; Woodward v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Id. ; Livingston v. Chicago though not a citizen of a state within the con

*A resident of the District of Columbia, al& N. W. Ry. Co., Id.; Brewster v. Chicago. St. stitutional provision giving the federal courts P., M. & 0. Ry. Co., Id.; Shillaber v. Minne- cognizance of suits between citizens of different apolis & St. L. Ry. Co., Id.; Humbird v: states, may maintain a cross-bill in a suit in Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., Id.; Barrows such a court for relief which is ancillary to v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., Id. ; that cought in the original suit; the citizenCarle v. Chicago, R. I. & Pi Ry, Co., Id.; ship of the parties in such case being imma. James v. Great Northern Ry. Co., Id.

terial.-Ulman v. Jaeger's Adm'r (C. C.) 1011; A complainant held, under the evidence, not to Ross v. Ulman, Id. have changed his citizenship from Pennsylvania to Ohio, so as to entitle him to maintain a suit

*The conformity statute (Rev. St. 914 [U. in a federal court against another citizen of the s. Comp. St. 1901, p. 683]) does not authorize former state.-Harton v. Howley (C. C.) 491.

a federal court to set aside a default judgment

in an action by the United States for a forfei*If there are several coplaintiffs, each must be ture of smuggled goods after the term at which competent to sue, or, if there are several de- it was entered to permit a defense because fendants, each must be liable to be sued in a such practice is authorized in the state courts. federal court to give that court jurisdiction.-1-United States v. One Trunk Containing FourBlunt v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C.) 499.

teen Pieces of Embroidery (D. C.) 651. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

$ 3. Concurrent and conflicting juris- the jurisdiction of the District Court over prosdiction, and comity.

ecutions for the same acts which are made *An action in a federal court against state offenses by Carter's Alaska Code of March 3, tax officers held not an action to enjoin proceed- 1899, 30 Stat. 1253, c. 429; there being no ings of a state court.-University of the South inconsistency between the dual jurisdictions.v. Jetton (C. C.) 182.

Rosencranz v. United States (C. C. A.) 38. *Where bills were tendered for filing in a *An ordinance prohibiting gambling, and prefederal court pursuant to notice previously giv- scribing punishment for the same, enacted by en, and while leave was not then granted be- a town of Alaska under authority conferred by cause of the absence of defendants, restraining Act April 28, 1904, c. 1778, 33 Stat. 529, does orders were issued by the court based thereon, not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction the court obtained jurisdiction over the subject of a prosecution for gambling within the limits matter of the suits from such time, which was of the town instituted under the Penal Code of not ousted by the institution of suit in a state the district, which makes the same a criminal court subsequently, but before the formal filing offense.-Hornstein v. United States (C. C. A.) of the bills.-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Had

48. ley (C. C.) 220.

$ 3. Judgment, sentence, and final

commitment. CREDIBILITY.

*Where it rests in the discretion of the

court to fix the punishment for a criminal ofOf witness, see "Witnesses," $ 2.

fense, after conviction, the court has power to subpoena and examine witnesses or take

into consideration other evidence as to matCREDITORS

ters which may be in aggravation or mitiga

tion of the offense, although not admissible See "Bankruptcy"; "Fraudulent Conveyances." on the issue of guilt or innocence.-United Rights as to chattel mortgage by debtor, see States v. Standard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305. "Chattel Mortgages," § 1.

CROSS BILL.
CREDITORS' SUIT.

See "Equity," $ 3. Jurisdiction of United States court of credit

ors' suit against foreign corporation pending CUSTOMS AND USAGES.

petition in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," $ 9. Remedies in cases of fraudulent conveyances,

The necessity to shut down plaintiff's plant see "Fraudulent Conveyances,” $ 1.

for repairs, caused by a defect known to it at the time it entered into a contract to furnish

defendant's requirements of steel castings for CRIMINAL LAW.

the remainder of the year, held not an "accident

or unavoidable delay” within a custom or usage Bail, see "Bail," $ 1.

excusing plaintiff's performance.-Lima LocoExtradition of persons accused, see "Extradi- motive & Machine Co. v. National Steel Casttion."

ings Co. (C. C. A.) 77. Indictment, information, or complaint, see "Indictment and Information.”

*Evidence of custom or usage, while admis

sible to explain words and phrases used in a Particular offenses.

contract and to annex incidents not excluded, See “Contempt”; “Disorderly House”; “Pros- is inadmissible to contradict the contract.titution."

Lima Locomotive & Machine Co. v. National Acceptance of illegal concessions from carrier, Steel Castings Co. (C. C. A.) 77. see "Carriers," $ 1.

*Where a charter party provides for lay days Receiving in pledge public property from soldier, for loading in specific terms the contract cansee "Army and Navy."

not be affected by any custom of the port.

The Mary S. Bradshaw (D. C.) 696. 3 1. Parties to offenses. | *Under Pen. Code Alaska, $$ 186, 188, which abolish the old distinctions between principal

CUSTOMS DUTIES. and accessory before the fact, one who aids and abets another in the commission of a crime may 8 1. Validity, construction, and operabe charged in the indictment and convicted as

tion of customs laws in general. a principal.-Rosencranz v. United States (C. “Lithographic prints," in Tariff Act July 24, C. A.) 38.

1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M, par. 400, 30 Stat.

188 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1672], is not a 52. Jurisdiction.

term of commercial designation.--Knauth, Nac*Act April 28, 1904, c. 1778, 33 Stat. 529, hod & Kuhne v. United States (C. C.) 144. conferring power on municipalities in Alaska to prohibit certain things and punish the same as § 2. Goods subject to duty, rate, and misdemeanors, and which repeals all prior acts

amount. and parts of acts inconsistent therewith, al- Tooth soap is more specifically enumerated though acted upon by a town, does not affect under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1,

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

Schedule A, par. 72, 30 Stat. 155 [U. S. Comp. | "sorted, bunched or prepared."-J. C. Pushee & St. 1901, p. 1631], relating to "all descriptions Sons v. United States (C. C.) 265. of toilet soap," than in paragraph 70, 30 Stat. 155 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1631], as "prep: arations used as applications to the * * such as teeth, * * dentifrices, not specially provided for."-United States v. Park & Tilford (C. C.) 143.

* * *

* * *

Wall pockets made from pasteboard, on which lithographic prints have been pasted, are not dutiable as "lithographic prints," under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M, par. 400, 30 Stat. 188 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1672], but as manufactures of paper under paragraph 407, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673].-Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United States (C. C.) 144.

Goods cheaply appliquéd, 40 per cent. of which were sold with the appliqué feature removed because they were more salable in that condition, held dutiable nevertheless as "appliquéd" articles, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule L, par. 390, 30 Stat. 187 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1670].-A. A. Vantine & Co. v. United States (C. C.) 149. As to certain fabrics that were cheaply appliquéd, which resulted in their being subject to the lower rate of duty provided on "appliquéd" articles, held, that as the majority were sold in the appliquéd condition, and they were not appliquéd solely to obtain the lower rate of duty, the appliquéd feature should not be disregarded in the classification of the goods under the tariff act.-A. A. Vantine & Co. v. United States (C. C.) 149.

The term "manufactured," rather than "waste," includes articles produced incidentally to the manufacture of other articles, where they are themselves ready for use. Shallus v. United States (C. C.) 213.

Tin disks produced incidentally in the manufacture of cans but being ready for use without further treatment are not "waste," within the meaning of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 463, 30 Stat. 194 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1679], but articles "wholly or partly manufactured from tin plate," within the meaning of Schedule C, par. 140, 30 Stat. 162 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1639].Shallus v. United States (C. C.) 213.

Under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, scammony resin is dutiable as a drug advanced in value or condition under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, par. 20, 30 Stat. 152 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1628] rather than as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 67, 30 Stat. 154 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1631].-United States v. Martin (C. C.) 264.

Bristles tied in bundles, with the butt ends together, are not "crude, not sorted, bunched, or prepared," under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, 82, Free List, par. 509, 30 Stat. 196 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1682], but are dutiable under section 1, Schedule N, par. 411, 30 Stat. 190 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673], as bristles

The provision for "trimmings" in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule L, par. 390 30 Stat. 187 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1670] includes goods manufactured for use as a trim ming and intended to be so used without fur ther manipulation.-Naday & Fleischer v. Unit ed States (C. C.) 303.

Pulverized corundum, which is not produced from sand, is not "sand, crude or manufactured,' within the meaning of Tariff Act July 24, 1897 c. 11, § 2, Free List, par. 671, 30 Stat. 201 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1688].-F. W. Myers & Co. v. United States (C. C.) 502.

Pulverized corundum is dutiable as ground emery by similitude under Tariff Act July 24 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 419, 30 Stat 191 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 16741.-F. W Myers & Co. v. United States (C. C.) 502.

As to the two provisions in paragraph 456 Tariff Act Oct. 1, 1890, c. 1244, § 1, Schedul N, 26 Stat. 601, for (1) "japanned calfskins' and (2) "dressed upper leather, including * * * japanned leather," held, that the for mer is limited to japanned skins which are no upper leather. United States v. Bittel, Tepe & Eilers (C. C.) 554.

of goods

§ 3. Entry and and appraisal bonds, and warehouses. It was error for the Board of General Ap praisers to admit in one case evidence taken in a previous case on somewhat different mer chandise, when such admission was objected to by counsel in the later case.-Knauth, Nacho & Kuhne v. United States (C. C.) 144.

The Circuit Court may attach very sligh weight to evidence admitted before the Board o General Appraisers, though it is made compe tent by Customs Administrative Act June 10 1890, c. 407, § 15, 26 Stat. 138 [U. S. Comp St. 1901, p. 1933].-Knauth, Nachod & Kuhn v. United States (C. C.) 144.

Merchandise dutiable under paragraph 388 o Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule I 30 Stat. 186 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1670] was claimed to be dutiable under paragrap 387, but its language showed that the latte paragraph was meant. Held, that it should b construed as referring to the latter.-Leerburge v. United States (C. C.) 146.

A protest, contending for assessment unde the right paragraph but under the wrong sub division of the paragraph and at the wron rate, held to refer sufficiently to the correc classification, under Customs Administrativ Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, § 14, 26 Stat. 13 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933].-Leerburger United States (C. C.) 146.

DAMAGES.

Damages for particular injuries. Breach by buyer of contract for sale of goods see "Sales," § 2. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

Infringement of patent, see "Patents," § 5
Injuries to cargo, see "Shipping," § 3.
§ 1. Inadequate and excessive damages.
*In an action for injuries to a servant, a
verdict in favor of plaintiff for $5,200 held not
excessive.-Dover v. Gloucester Electric Co. (C.
C.) 256.

§ 2. Pleading, evidence, and assessment.
An affidavit of defense attempting to plead a
claim for damages for breach of contract must
allege facts showing, not only the right to such
damages, but from which the amount can be
ascertained.-Benjamin v. Maloney (C. C.) 494.

DEATH.

DELAY.

In discharging vessel, see "Shipping," § 5.
Laches, see "Equity," § 2.

DELIVERY.

Of deed, see "Escrows."
Of goods by carrier, see "Carriers," § 2.
DEMURRAGE.

See "Shipping," § 5.

DEPOSITARIES.

Liability for death caused by operation of rail- Of deeds delivered as escrow, see "Escrows."
road, see "Railroads," § 2.

Liability of carrier for death of passenger, see
"Carriers," § 3.

Liability of master for death of servant, see
"Master and Servant," § 1.
Of passenger on vessel, see "Shipping," §§ 4, 6.
§ 1. Actions for causing death.

Evidence considered, and held insufficient to
warrant a finding that the killing of a person
by a train on a side track at a station was
due to the negligence of the railroad company
which rendered it liable for his death.-Payne
v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 73.

DEPOSITIONS.

See "Witnesses."

DERELICTS.

Salvage awards as in case of, see "Salvage,"
$2

DIAMONDS.

*To justify the submission to the jury of a
case brought to recover for the death of a
person alleged to have been caused by the negli-
gence of defendant, there must be substantive
proof not only of such negligence, but that it
brought about the injury.-Payne v. Illinois In civil actions, see "Trial."
Cent. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 73.

Exemption to bankrupt as wearing apparel, see
"Bankruptcy," § 10.

*Facts held sufficient to show pecuniary in-
jury on the part of a father to entitle him to

DIRECTING VERDICT.

DISCHARGE.

recover for the wrongful killing of his daughter. In bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," §§ 9-15.
-Hopper v. Denver & R. G. R. Co. (C. Č. A.)
273.

*Under Mills' Ann. St. Colo. § 1508, where an
adult female, a passenger on defendant's train,
was killed by the negligence of defendant's
servants, and died leaving neither husband,
child, nor mother surviving, a right of action
under such section vested in her father.-Hopper
v. Denver & R. G. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 273.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.

See "Bankruptcy"; "Fraudulent Conveyances."

DEEDS.

DISCRETION OF COURT.

Punishment for criminal offense, see "Criminal
Law," § 3.

DISORDERLY HOUSE.

*An owner of property or an agent of such
owner who knowingly rents the same to another
to be used as a bawdy house, the keeping of
which is a misdemeanor, aids and abets the
commission of the offense, and under Pen. Code
Alaska, 188, which provides that in misde-
meanors there are no accessories, is punishable
as a principal.-Rosencranz v. United States

In fraud of creditors, see "Fraudulent Convey- (C. C. A.) 38.

99

*Although Pen. Code, Alaska, § 128, express-
ly makes common fame competent evidence in
support of an indictment for keeping a bawdy
house for purposes of prostitution, such evidence
alone is not sufficient proof to warrant a con-
viction, but there must be some evidence that
the house was in fact kept and used for such

ances.'

Trust deeds, see "Mortgages."

DEFAMATION.

See "Libel and Slander."

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

purposes. Such evidence need not, however, be direct, but may be circumstantial.-Botts v. United States (C. C. A.) 50.

*Although Pen. Code Alaska, § 128, expressly makes common fame competent evidence in support of an indictment for keeping a bawdy house for purposes of prostitution, such evidence alone is not sufficient proof to warrant a conviction, but there must be some evidence that the house was in fact kept and used for such purposes.-Hall v. United States (C. C. A.) 52.

[blocks in formation]

EMINENT DOMAIN.

§ 1. Nature, extent, and delegation of power.

*A corporation's right of eminent domain is not a property right which it can convey by deed.-Contra Costa Water Co. v. Van Rensselaer (C. C.) 140.

2. Proceedings to take property and assess compensation.

Where pending condemnation proceedings the petitioner transferred its franchises, property, and rights to another corporation organized for the same purpose, the latter was entitled to substitution as the petitioner in such proceeding under Code Civ. Proc. Cal. § 385.-Contra Costa Water Co. v. Van Rensselaer (C. C.) 140.

EMPLOYÉS.

See "Master and Servant."

ENTRY.

Of appearance by attorney, see "Attorney and
Client," § 1.

Of imported goods, see "Customs Duties," § 3.
On public lands, see "Public Lands," § 1.

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.

see See "Estoppel," § 1.

A man who climbs a telephone pole in the rightful performance of his duty is not charged with knowledge that its rightful use is for uninsulated wires carrying a dangerous current of electricity.-Dover v. Gloucester Electric Co. (C. C.) 256.

*In an action for injuries to a telephone lineman by a shock from an uninsulated electric wire, whether he was negligent in failing to discover the defect and danger held for the jury. -Dover v. Gloucester Electric Co. (C. C.) 256.

EQUITY.

Equitable estoppel, see "Estoppel," § 1.

Laches in bringing action for infringement of trade-mark, see "Trade-Marks and

Names," § 3.

Trade

Laches in issuance of execution by United
States, see "United States," § 1.

Particular subjects of equitable jurisdiction and
equitable remedies.

See "Fraudulent Conveyances"; "Injunction";
"Specific Performance"; "Trusts."
Relief against judgment, see "Judgment," § 2.
Restraining waste, see "Waste."

Suit by bondholder against city to enforce
trust, see "Municipal Corporations," § 1.
Suits for infringement of patents, see "Pat-
ents," § 5.

§ 1. Jurisdiction, principles, and max

ims.

*A bill held not to state a cause of action cognizable in a federal court of equity for the reason that on the facts alleged complainant had a complete and adequate remedy at law.Martin v. Wilson (C. C. A.) 97.

*Where all the desks in controversy purchased by a school district from complainant were purchased under a single contract, and complainant's claim was allowed only in part, complainant could not maintain a suit in equity to compel payment of the full amount in order to pre*Point annotated. See syllabus.

ELKINS ACT.

See "Carriers," § 1.

« НазадПродовжити »