BROKERS. Recovery of usurious interest received by na- See “Principal and Agent."

tional bank from bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," $ 6.

BUCKET SHOP. & l. National banks.

*One who was notified that shares of stock in Internal revenue taxes on transactions in, se a national bank had been transferred into his "Internal Revenue." name, although he had in fact no interest therein, and who indorsed the certificates in blank, but took no steps to have the stock transferred

BULK STOCK LAWS. to the name of the true owner, cannot avoid liability for an assessment thereon made by the Fraudulent transfers of stock in bulk by in comptroller to meet the debts of the bank after solvent corporation, see “Bankruptcy," § 4. its insolvency.-Kenyon v. Fowler (C. C. A.) 107.


Setting aside fraudulent conveyances, See "Disorderly House."


"Fraudulent Conveyances," § 1.



See “Shipping.”
See “Gaming."


Carriage of goods by vessels, see "Shipping, See "Bills and Notes."

$ 3. Carriage of passengers by vessels, see "Ship

ping," $ 4. BILL OF LADING.

Enforcement of railroad rate laws by attorne

general, see "Attorney General." See "Shipping," $ 3.

Jurisdiction of United States court to determin

constitutionality of state statutes regulatin

railroad rates, see "Courts," $ 2. BILL OF REVIEW.

Laws authorizing carriers to establish rates a

conferring legislative powers, see "Constitu See "Equity," § 4.

tional Law," $ 2. Laws fixing passenger rates as denying equa

protection of law, see “Constitutional Law, BILLS AND NOTES.

§ 5.

Laws requiring shippers to pay published rate § 1. Presentment, demand, notice, and

as denying due process of law, see "Constitu protest.

tional Law," $ 6. *A notice of protest held sufficient.-Derham v. Restraining enforcement of freight and passen Donohue (C. C. A.) 385.

ger rates, see "Injunction," $ 3. Right of action for death of passenger, se

"Death," $ 1. BOARDS.

Supplemental pleading in suit to restrain en

forcement of state statutes fixing freigh Board of general appraisers, see "Customs Du

rates, see "Equity," $ 3. ties," $ 3.

8 1. Control and regulation of commor

carriers. BONDS.

In so far as Elkins Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708 See “Bail.”

32 Stat. 847, $ 1 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905 Multifariousness in pleading in suit by bond- p. 599), providing for punishment of corporat

carriers in granting, and corporate shippers in holder, see "Equity," $ 3. Municipal bonds, see "Municipal Corporations,” knowingly accepting, rebates or discrimination § 1.

from legal rates and tariffs, it was notre

pealed by Hepburn Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591 of mail carriers, see "Post Office," $ 1.

34 Stat. 584, but, so far as it provided for th

punishment of such acts when not knowingly BREACH.

done, it was repealed.-Great Northern Ry. Co

v. United States (C. C. A.) 945. Liability of sleeping car company for breach The special saving clause in Hepburn Ac of contract, see "Carriers," $ 3.

June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, § 10, held Of contract, see "Contracts," $ 3.

not to supersede the general saving clause ir *Point annotated. See syllabus.

ev. St. § 13 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 6], as preliminary injunction pending trial on

the effect on existing penalties, forfeitures, merits in order to preserve the status quo to nd liabilities of a repealing act.-Great North- prevent irreparable injury and to avoid a mul'n Ry. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 945. tiplicity of suits.-Southern Ry, Co. v. McNeill Preliminary injunctions to restrain the put- (C. C.) 756. ng into effect of a statute fixing maximum Laws N. C. 1907, p. 252, c. 217, to prevent tes of passenger fare on railroads denied to unjust discrimination in freight rates and to wait a demonstration of the reasonableness or fix the maximum charges therefor, and act nreasonableness of such rates by actual trial March 11, 1907, to extend and enlarge the powr_a reasonable length of time.—St. Louis & er of the corporation commission, are not self. F. R. Co. v. Hadley (C. C.) 220.

executing.–Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. A preliminary injunction granted restraining C.) 756. le putting into effect of Act Minn. April 18, Revisal N. C. 1905, $ 2567, subsec. 9, giving 107 (Laws 1907, p. 313, c. 232), fixing rates for railroads the right to make passenger rates le carrying of commodities by railroads within within a limit of five cents a mile, was repealle state on the ground that such rates, if en- ed by Laws 1907, p. 675, c. 469, § 7, extending rced, in connection with reductions in both and enlarging the powers of the railroad comommodity and passenger rates made by prior mission.--Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. O.) ets, would on the showing made be confiscatory. 756. Perkins y. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 445 ;

Revisal N. C. 1905, $ 2567, subsec. 9, giving ennedy v. Great Northern Ry. Co., Id.; Woodard v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., IX., Livs railroads the right to charge the maximum pas gston v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., Id.; Brew implication section 1099, subd. 1, imposing on

senger fare of five cents a mile, repealed by er v. Chicago, St. P., M. & 0. Ry. Co., Id.; the railroad commission the duty of making hillaber v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., Id.; freight and passenger rates.-Southern Ry. Co. umbird v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., v. McNeill (C. C.) 756. 1.; Barrows v. Minneapolis, St. P. & s. s. 1. Ry. Co., Id.; Carle v. Chicago, R. I. & P.

Laws N. C. 1907, p. 252, c. 217, regulating y. Co., Id.; James v. Great Northern Ry. Co., freight and passenger rates, does not repeal 1.

other laws not inconsistent therewith at the Where a state enacted successive regulations Revisal N. c. 1905, $ 2618.-Southern Ry. Co.

date of the passage of the act of 1907, except rates to be charged by railroads on intrastate v. McNeill (C. C.) 756. usiness, each of which necessarily affected the rnings of the railroad companies, the validity

A railroad, though not entitled to earn profit such regulations, as to whether they are un on every mile of road or article carried, is en. onstitutional as confiscatory, is to be considered titled to earn a reasonable profit on its entire eparately, the first without reference to the intrastate business.--Southern Ry. Co. v. Mcabsequent ones and the latter with reference Neill (C. C.) 756.

the effect of those previously enacted.-Per Experiments to ascertain whether the reduced ins v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 445; rates would be harmful or beneficial are never Cennedy v. Great Northern Ry. Co., Id.; Wood- justifiable where the facts presented show only ard v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Id.;a moderate income under the former law and a ivingston v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., Id. ; strong probability of scant earnings of deficienrewster v. Chicago, St. P., M. & 0. Ry. Co.,cy under the reduced rates.-Seaboard Air Line 1.; Shillaber v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., Řy. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama 1.; Humbird v. Chicago Great Western Ry. (C. C.) 792. 0., Id.; Barrows v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. M. Ry. Co., Id. ; Carle v. Chicago, R. I. &

*The basis of calculations as to reasonable. Ry. Čo., Id. ; James v. Great Northern Ry. ness of rates charged by a railroad determined.

-Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Com

mission of Alabama (C. C.) 792. The North Carolina railroad commission being quired by Revisal 1905, $ 1106, to make rail As the Constitution forbids rates to be fixed ad rates subject only to the limitation pre- unreasonably low, the court, when asked to cribed by Laws N. C. 1907, p. 252, c. 217, held enjoin enforcement of the rate legislation, as in ecessary parties to a suit to restrain the en- violation of the Constitution, must ascertain rcement of such chapter for unconstitutional- the facts on which the reasonableness of the y.-Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. C.) 756. rates depends.-Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Revisal N. C. 1905, § 1082, held not to inter- Railroad Commission of Alabama (c. c.) 792. re with a railroad's remedy by injunction in Mode of arriving at the effect on the reveases where rates fixed by the corporation com- nues of corporations of statutes reducing rates ission, etc., were claimed to be invalid as con- determined. -Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railscatory.-Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. C.) road Commission of Alabama (C. c.) 792. 56.

Under Section 6, Interstate Commerce Act In a suit to restrain the enforcement of Laws Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 380 [U. S. Comp. 1. C. 1907, p. 252, c. 217, providing for rail- St. 1901, p. 3156], as amended by Act June ad rates alleged to be confiscatory, the court, 9, 1906, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591, a provision in

a prima facie case being made in favor a passenger ticket making it nontransferable complainant, held authorized to continue a when no such limitation is shown by the sched

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

0., Id.

ule published and filed by the company is un- another car.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Fishe lawful and void, and the company cannot main-(C. C. A.) 68; Scott v. Louisville & N. R. Co tain a suit in equity based thereon to enjoinid. transfers of such tickets.–Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Hamburger (C. C.) 849; Merchants' & the night, made necessary on account of the ol

Requiring passengers to change cars durin Miners' Transp. Co. v. Same, Id.; Pennsylvania struction of the road by a wreck ahead, whic R. Co. v. Same, Id.

necessitated the removal of the passengers froi A shipper is chargeable with knowledge of a sleeper into an ordinary day coach, held ng the lawful rate on his shipment, where it has to render a railroad company liable in damage been published and filed as required by law, for breach of contract.-Louisville & N. R. C and where it is accessible to the public, un

v. Fisher (C. C. A.) 68; Scott v. Louisville less he was misled after using proper diligence N. R. Co., Id. to ascertain such rate.- United States v. Stand

*A railroad company cannot be held answer ard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305.

able to a passenger in damages because of ma The number of offenses committed by a

ters which are ordinary incidents of travel, suc shipper under Elkins Act Feb. 19, 1903, C.

as exposure to drafts from windows opened by 708, 32 Stat. 817 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. or at request of, other passengers.-Louisvill 1905, p. 599], through agreements for illegai & N. R. Co. v. Fisher (O. C. A.) 68; Scott concessions in rates, determined.—United States Louisville & N. R. Co., Id. V. Standard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305.

*A passenger who had alighted from a rai On the trial of a shipper charged with hav- road train at a station and was killed by ar ing obtained a concession from the lawful other train on a șide track after his own trai published rate on interstate shipments, in vio

had departed held to have ceased to be a pa lation of the federal statute, the fact that senger prior to his death.–Payne v. Illino another railroad may have had a published Cent. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 73. rate approximately as low as that received *The relation of carrier and passenger hel is immaterial.—United States v. Standard Oil not to exist between a carrier and an employ Co. (D. C.) 305.

of a circus company so as to entitle the latte

to recover for injuries sustained in a collisio § 2. Carriage of goods.

between two sections of a circus train on whic *A contract by a railroad company to lease he was riding.-Clough v. Grand Trunk Wester the use of its tracks, motive power, and operat- Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 81. ing employés for the transportation of a circus train, stipulating that the railroad company

*Where a passenger was put off from a rai shall not be liable for any injuries from what road train of defendant at a place half a mil soever cause to any person using the train, from a station and between two tunnels, an held not contrary to public policy.-Clough v. walked back through one of the tunnels unt Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 81. near the station, when he turned the other wa

and was killed while passing through the secon *A carrier or a warehouseman is liable in tunnel, which was long and dark, the proximat trover for the wrongful delivery of goods cause of his death was not the negligence ! intrusted to it for shipment or storage, but such defendant in putting him off at a dangerou right of action may be waived by any action place, conceding such negligence, but his ow which ratifies the delivery, and thereby deprives voluntary act in turning back after he had pas the carrier or warehouseman of the right to ed such danger to a place of safety, for whic recover over against the person to whom the defendant could not be held liable.-Gwyn delivery was made.-A. D. Blowers & Co. v. Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 8 Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 935.

*In an action for death of a passenger, evi *A shipper held to have ratified the unauthor- dence that she was a passenger, and that he ized delivery of goods by a carrier made with death resulted from an accident to the trair out collecting drafts for the price, by obtain- held sufficient to establish a prima facie cas ing part payment from the consignee and ac-of negligence on the part of the carrier cepţing his notes for the remainder, which pre- servants.-Hopper v. Denver & R. G. R. Cd cluded a recovery against the carrier for con- (C. C. A.) 273. version.-A. D. Blowers & Co. v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 935.

CAUSE OF ACTION. § 3. Carriage of passengers.

A sleeping car company which sells accom- See “Action.” modations in its cars between points on a railroad to passengers of the railroad company, the cars being hauled by the railroad company in its

CHALLENGE. trains under a contract between the two companics is not liable to a passenger for breach of To juror, see "Jury," $ 1. contract because the car in which such passenger is riding is diverted by the railroad company on account of a wreck, and does not reach

CHANCERY. the passenger's point of destination, in consequence of which he is compelled to change into See "Equity.”

*Point annotated. See syllabus.


CLUBS. ee "Shipping," § 1.

Construction of national agreement for the

government of base ball clubs, see "Contracts,"


COLLECTION. Offect as preference by bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," 8 4.

Of taxes, see "Taxation," $ 2. 1. Rights and remedies of creditors. *A chattel mortgage, though invalid as to

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. ubsequent creditors, as regards a stock in rade, because the mortgagor was allowed to Right of educational corporation to raise conell therefrom without accounting for the pro

stitutional question as to taxation of its lands, eeds, held not invalid, on that account, as to

see "Constitutional Law," $ 1. eams covered thereby, and retained by the nortgagee.-In re Davis (D. C.) 671.

COLLISION. *A chattel mortgage on a stock in trade held valid as to subsequent creditors because of sl. Vessels in tow. ne mortgagor being allowed to sell therefrom *One of two tugs meeting, each with tows, rithout accounting for the proceeds.-In re held solely in fault for collisions caused by her avis (D. C.) 671.

failing to make allowance for the sagging of her tows, in consequence of which a schooner

which was overtaking the other tow was pocketCHECKS.

ed and compelled to change her course in ex

tremis.-The Richmond (C. C. A.) 112; The Bosee "Bills and Notes."

well (Id.); The Iowa (Id.): The James W. El

well (Id.); The Powell (Id.). CIRCUIT COURTS.

*A tug with a schooner in tow on a hawser held on the evidence solely in fault for a colli

sion between her tow and a meeting schooner ee "Courts," $ 2.

in Delaware Bay at night. The Marie Palmer

(D. C.) 894; The James McCaulley, Id.; The CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.

Blanche Hopkins, Id.

*A collision between a steamship passing ee "Courts," $ 2.

down the Delaware river and a tow which was coming up, but started to cross the channel,

held due to the fault of both the steamship CITATION.

and tug for negligent and improper navigation.

--The Algeria (D. C.) 902; The Ellen S. Jenee “Process."

nings, Id.; The Bailey, Id.; The Majestic, Id.

§ 2. Lights, signals, and lookouts. CITIES.

*A schooner held in fault for a collision with

a steamer in Chesapeake Bay in the night, on ee "Municipal Corporations."

the ground that, while becalmed, she had been drifted from her course by the tide, and failed

to exhibit a white or flare-up light astern to the CITIZENS.

steamer which, in her then position, was an over

taking vessel and could not see her side lights. ee "Aliens."

- The Baltimore (C. C. A.) 405. itizenship ground of jurisdiction of United States courts, see "Courts," $ 2.

§ 3. Narrow channels, harbors, rivers, qual protection of law, see “Constitutional

and canals. Law," 8 5.

A steamship which attempted to pass through a channel which was obstructed by another steam

er engaged in pulling her tow off the ground, CIVIL RIGHTS.

without the latter's assent, held solely in fault

for a resulting collision.-The Waverley (D. C.) ee "Constitutional Law," $ 5.



To sustain adverse possession, see “Adverse Posgainst estate of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy,"

session. gainst school district, see "Schools and School

COMBINATIONS. Districts," $ 1. f patent, see "Patents," $ 4.

See “Monopolies,” § 1. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

[ocr errors]


between the states, and between the states and

foreign nations, to their employés, is within th Between courts, see "Courts," $ 3.

constitutional power of Congress to regulate in terstate and foreign commerce, and applies to

carriers engaged in foreign commerce by sea COMMERCE.

making such a carrier liable for an injury to ar

employé resulting from the negligence of hi Arbitration between interstate carrier and em- fellow servants. Lancer v. Anchor Line (D. C.

ployés, see "Arbitration and Award,” $81, 3. 433. Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Carriers"; "Shipping."

COMMERCIAL PAPER. Restraining enforcement of order of interstate

commerce commission, see “Injunction," § 3. See “Bills and Notes.” 8 1. Power to regulate in general. Interstate Commerce Act Feb. 4, 1887, C.

COMMISSION. 104, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154], and Elkins Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708, Jurisdiction of United States court to restrair 32 Stat. 847 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. corporation commission from enforcing stati 599], held constitutional.- United States v. law as suit against state, see “Courts," $ 2. Standard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305.

Railroad commission, see "Carriers," 1. § 2. Subjects of regulation.

Restraining enforcement of order of interstate Where a railroad company published and fil

commerce commission, see “Injunction," § 3. ed a schedule of rates between points on its line within a state, and also procured and

COMMISSIONERS. filed as its own the schedules of rates of a terminal company for the carriage of proper- Special commissioner in bankruptcy, see “Bank ty from one of such points into another state, and made contracts for through carriage, and

ruptcy,” $ 5. collected the freight therefor, it was an in- Special commissioners in proceedings for dis terstate carrier as to such shipments, and the

charge of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 14. lawful rate was the sum of the rates shown by Verification of bill for injunction before com the two schedules.-United States v. Standard

missioner of deeds, see "Injunction," $ 3. Oil Co. (D. C.) 305. *That a defendant made contracts for the

COMMISSIONS. through carriage of interstate shipments, and settlements therefor, solely with one railroad of trustee in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy,' company, although such shipments passed over § 8. the lines of other companies also, sufficiently proves a common arrangement between the carriers for a continuous carriage.-United

COMMON CARRIERS, States v. Standard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305.

See "Carriers." *A connecting railroad carrier, over whose line an interstate shipment passes, is engaged in interstate commerce with respect to each

COMMON LAW. shipment and subject to the law regulating the same, although its line may lie wholly within Arbitration, see “Arbitration and Award," $ 1. one state.—United States v. Standard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305.

COMMON SCHOOLS. § 3. Means and methods of regulation.

*Under its constitutional power to regulate See "Schools and School Districts,” $ 1. commerce, Congress may lawfully impose conditions upon the granting of clearance to vessels

COMPENSATION. as a means of enforcing immigration regulations.

- International Mercantile Marine Co. v. Stran- of agent, see “Principal and Agent," § 1. ahan (C. C.) 428; Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. of trustee in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy,' v. Same, Id.

$ 8. A city ordinance prohibiting the distribution Salvage, see "Salvage," § 1. of handbills or circulars on the streets held not an interference with interstate commerce as

COMPETENCY. against a concern doing business in another state and desiring to distribute circulars adver- of jurors, see "Jury," § 1. tising such business. - International Text-Book Of witnesses in general, see “Witnesses,” $ 1. Co. v. Inhabitants of City of Auburn (C. C.) 986.

COMPLAINT. The federal employers' liability act of June 11, 1906, 34 Stat. 232, c. 3073, relating to the li- In criminal prosecutions, see "Indictment and ability of common carriers engaged in commerce Information.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

« ForrigeFortsett »