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.-1-Thenson-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 ground that such suit is in fact one against cordance with the requirement of the state law. enforcement are made parties defendant, on the it has its principal office as designated in its

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 state

*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., la.; 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

, & s/ . Co., 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. C.) 445; Kennedy v. Great tion.-Ex parte Bick (C. C.) 908. Northern Ry. Co., Id.; Woodward v. Chicago,

*A resident of the District of Columbia, alM. & St. P. Ry. Co., Id.; Livingston v: Chicago though not a citizen of a state within the con& 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 sought in the original suit; the citizenCarle v. Chicago, R. I. & P: 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. Č.) 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.--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.7. 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 Štat. 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 subpæna 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.


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.3 1. Parties to offenses.

The Mary S. Bradshaw (D. C.) 696. *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 § 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 $ 2. 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- July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule L, par. 390

The provision for "trimmings" in Tariff Act arations used as applications to the *

30 Stat. 187 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1670] teeth, such as

dentifrices, includes goods manufactured for use as a trim not specially provided for.”—United ming and intended to be so used without

fur States v. Park & Tilford (C. C.) 143.

ther manipulation.-Naday & Fleischer v. Unit Wall pockets made from pasteboard, on which ed States (C. C.) 303. lithographic prints have been pasted, are not Pulverized corundum, which is not produced dutiable as lithographic prints,” under Tariff from sand, is not "sand, crude or manufactured, Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M, par. within the meaning of 'Tariff Act July 24, 1897 400, 30° Stat. 188 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. c. 11, $ 2, Free List, par. 671, 30 Stat. 201 1672], but as manufactures of paper under para- [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1688].-F. W. Myers graph 407, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, & Co. v. United States (C. C.) 502. p. 1673].-Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United

Pulverized corundum is dutiable as_ground States (C. C.) 144.

emery by similitude under Tariff Act July 24 Goods cheaply appliquéd, 40 per cent. of 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 419, 30 Stat which were sold with the appliqué feature re- 191 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1674).-F. W moved because they were more salable in that Myers & Co. v. United States (C. C.) 502. condition, held dutiable nevertheless as "ap As to the two provisions in paragraph 456 pliquéd” articles, under Tariff Act July 24, Tariff Act Oct. 1, 1890, c. 1244, § 1, Schedule 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule L, par. 390, 30 Stat. N, 26 Stat. 601, 'for (1) "japanned calfskins' 187 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1670].-A. A. and (2) "dressed upper leather, Vantine & Co. v. United States (C. C.) 149.

* japanned leather," held, that the for As to certain fabrics that were cheaply ap mer is limited to japanned skins which are not pliquéd, which resulted in their being subject upper leather: - United States v. Bittel, Tepe to the lower rate of duty provided on ap- & Eilers (C. C.) 554. pliquéd” articles, held, that as the majority § 3. Entry and appraisal of goods were sold in the appliquéd condition, and they

bonds, and warehouses. were not appliquéd solely to obtain the lower It was error for the Board of General Ap rate of duty, the appliquéd feature should not praisers to admit in one case evidence taken in be disregarded in the classification of the goods a previous case on somewhat different mer under the tariff act.--A. A. Vantine & Co. v. chandise, when such admission was objected t United States (C. C.) 149.

by counsel in the later case.-Knauth, Nacho The term "manufactured," rather than & Kuhne v. United States (C. C.) 144. "waste," includes articles produced incidental The Circuit Court may attach very sligh ly to the manufacture of other articles, where weight to evidence admitted before the Board o they are themselves ready for use.—Shallus v. General Appraisers, though it is made compe United States (C. C.) 213.

tent by Customs Administrative Act June 10 Tin disks produced incidentally in the manu- 1890, c. 407, 8 15, 26 Stat. 138 [U. S. Comp facture of cans but being ready for use with St. 1901, p. 1933]. —Knauth, Nachod & Kuhn out further treatment are not "waste,” with v. United States (C. C.) 144. in the meaning of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. Merchandise dutiable under paragraph 388 o 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 463, 30 Stat. 194 [U. Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule I s. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1679), but articles "whol- 30 Stat. 186 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1670] ly or partly manufactured from tin plate,” with was claimed to be dutiable under paragrap in the meaning of Schedule C, par. 140, 30 387, but its language showed that the latte Stat. 162 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1639).- paragraph was meant. Held, that it should b Shallus v. United States (C. C.) 213.

construed as referring to the latter.-Leerburge Under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, v. United States (C. Č.) 146. Schedule A, scammony resin is dutiable as a A protest, contending for assessment unde drug advanced in value or condition under the right paragraph but under the wrong sub Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, division of the paragraph and at the wron par. 20, 30 Stat. 152 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. rate, held to refer sufficiently to the correc 1628] rather than as a medicinal preparation classification, under Customs Administrativ under paragraph 67, 30 Stat. 154 [U. S. Comp. Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, $ 14, 26 Stat. 13 St. 1901, p. 1631]. - United States v. Martin [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933].-Leerburger (C. C.) 264.

United States (C. C.) 146. 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,

DAMAGES. § 2, Free List, par. 509, 30 Stat. 196 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1682], but are dutiable un

Damages for particular injuries. der section 1, Schedule N, par. 411, 30 Stat. Breach by buyer of contract for sale of good 190 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673], as bristles see "Sales," $ 2.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

Infringement of patent, see "Patents,” g 5

Injuries to cargo, see "Shipping,” g § 3.
§ 1. Inadequate and excessive damages. In discharging vessel, see "Shipping," $ 5.

*In an action for injuries to a servant, a Laches, see “Equity,” s 2.
verdict in favor of plaintiff for $5,200 held not
excessive.- Dover v. Gloucester Electric Co. (C.
C.) 256.

§ 2. Pleading, evidence, and assessment. Of deed, see "Escrows."

An affidavit of defense attempting to plead a Of goods by carrier, see “Carriers,” g 2.
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.

See “Shipping," $ 5.

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.

See "Witnesses."
Of passenger on vessel, see "Shipping,” 88 4, 6.
§ 1. Actions for causing death.

Evidence considered, and held insufficient to
warrant a finding that the killing of a person Salvage awards as in case of, see "Salvage,”
by a train on a side track at a station was

§ 2
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.
*To justify the submission to the jury of a Exemption to bankrupt as wearing apparel, see

"Bankruptcy," $ 10.
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.
*Facts held sufficient to show pecuniary in-

jury on the part of a father to entitle him to
recover for the wrongful killing of his daughter. In bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy,” 88 9–15.
-Hopper v. Denver & R. G. R. Co. (C. Č. A.)
*Under Mills' Ann. St. Colo. & 1508, where an

adult female, a passenger on defendant's train,
was killed by the negligence of defendants Punishment for criminal offense, see “Criminal
servants, and died leaving neither husband, Law," $ 3.
child, nór mother surviving, a right of action
under such section vested in her father.-Hopper
v. Denver & R. G. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 273.


*An owner of property or an agent of such
DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. owner who knowingly rents the same to another

to be used as a bawdy house, the keeping of
See "Bankruptcy"; "Fraudulent Conveyances.” 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.

*Although Pen. Code, Alaska, $ 128, express-
Trust deeds, see "Mortgages."

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
See "Libel and Slander."

the house was in fact kept and used for such
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

purposes. Such evidence need not, however, be

EMINENT DOMAIN. direct, but may be circumstantial.-Botts v. United States (C. C. A.) 50.

$ 1. Nature, extent, and delegation of *Although Pen. Code Alaska, $ 128, express

power. ly makes common fame competent evidence in *A corporation's right of eminent domain is support of an indictment for keeping a bawdy not a property right which it can convey by house for purposes of prostitution, such evidence deed.-Contra Costa Water Co. v. Van Rensalone is not sufficient proof to warrant a con- selaer (C. C.) 140. viction, but there must be some evidence that 2. Proceedings to take property and the house was in fact kept and used for such

assess compensation. purposes.-Hall v. United States (C. C. A.) 52.

Where pending condemnation proceedings the

petitioner transferred its franchises, property, DISSOLUTION.

and rights to another corporation organized

for the same purpose, the latter was entitled to Of corporation, see "Corporations,” $ 4.

substitution as the petitioner in such proceeding under Code Civ. Proc. Cal. $ 385.-Contra Costa

Water Co. v. Van Rensselaer (C. C.) 140. DISTRIBUTION. Of estate of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy,” s 7.


See "Master and Servant."
Ground of jurisdiction of United States courts,

ENTRY. see “Courts,” $ 2.

Of appearance by attorney, see "Attorney and DOCKS.

Client," $ 1.

Of imported goods, see_“Customs Duties,” $ 3. See "Wharves."

On public lands, see "Public Lands," 8 1. DOMICILE.

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL. Residence as ground of as ground of jurisdiction,

jurisdiction, see See “Estoppel,” $ 1. "Courts," $ 2. DONATIONS.

See “Gifts."

Equitable estoppel, see "Estoppel," $ 1.
Laches in bringing action for infringement of


trade-mark, see “Trade-Marks and TradeDUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Names," $ 3.

Laches in issuance of execution by United See "Constitutional Law," $ 6.

States, see "United States," § 1.

Particular subjects of equitable jurisdiction and DUTIES.

equitable remedics.

See "Fraudulent Conveyances”; “Injunction”; Customs duties, see "Customs Duties."

"Specific Performance"; "Trusts.” Excise duties, see "Internal Revenue.”

Relief against judgment, see "Judgment," $ 2.

Restraining waste, see "Waste.".

Suit by bondholder against city to enforce

trust, see "Municipal Corporations," $ 1. A man who climbs a telephone pole in the Suits for infringement of patents, see "Patrightful performance of his duty is not charged ents," § 5. with knowledge that its rightful use is for un- $ 1. Jurisdiction, principles, and maxinsulated wires carrying a dangerous current of

ims. electricity.–Dover y. Gloucester Electric Co.

*A bill held not to state a cause of action (C. C.) 256.

cognizable in a federal court of equity for the *In an action for injuries to a telephone line- reason that on the facts alleged complainant man by a shock from an uninsulated electric had a complete and adequate remedy at law.wire, whether he was negligent in failing to Martin v. Wilson (C. C. A.) 97. discover the defect and danger held for the jury. *Where all the desks in controversy purchased - Dover y. Gloucester Electric Co. (C. C.) 256. by a school district from complainant were pur

chased under a single contract, and complainELKINS ACT.

ant's claim was allowed only in part, complain

ant could not maintain a suit in equity to comSee "Carriers," $ 1.

pel payment of the full amount in order to pre*Point annotated. See syllabus.


« ForrigeFortsett »