Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Followed in Moore v. Holliday, 4 Dill. 53, F. C. 9,765, to same effect; State Board v. Morris, etc., R. Co., 49 N. J. L. 222, 7 Atl. 840, States not concluded by similar provision.

Taxation. Legislature having provided method of assessment of State tax, by company's charter, it must be followed until another be appointed, p. 230.

Courts.- Decision of highest court of State, as to whether or not method pursued in assessment and collection of taxes is in conformity with law of State, is controlling in Federal courts, p. 231.

Approved and principle applied in Hawes v. Contra Costa W. Co., 5 Sawy. 289, F. C. 6,235, citing cases, adopting decision of State court as to water company's obligation to furnish free water to municipality; Reclamation District v. Hagar, 6 Sawy. 570, 4 Fed. 369, collecting authorities, following State court's construction of statutes as to assessment of district; Daniels v. Case, 45 Fed. 845, following State court's ruling as to validity of tax deed; Van Matre v. Sankey, 148 Ill. 552, 39 Am. St. Rep. 201, 36 N. E. 631, 23 L. R. A. 670, collecting authorities, and holding binding the construction of local statutes by court of another State; Perry v. Wheeler, 12 Bush, 552, reviewing authorities, and following decision of board of reference of Episcopal church, as to matters within its Jurisdiction; Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N. Y. 236, 28 Am. Rep. 143, holding decree of divorce, by another State court. binding, the parties having been citizens.

22 Wall. 231-238, 22 L. 799, FRENCH v. HAY.

Contracts - Judgments. Where party executed assignment of certain judgments, in consideration of $5,000, and a power of attorney to dispose of same, transaction was at most an executory agreement to assign, and transmission of title and payment were intended to be contemporaneous, p. 236.

Distinguished in Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 U. S. 267, 34 L. 929, 11 S. Ct. 319, where transaction was held to be sale, with reservation of security.

Contracts. Rule that in equity time is generally not considered as of essence of the contract, is inapplicable in case of offer that requires acceptance to make a contract, p. 236.

Equity. Bill alleging assignment of judgments, and that assignor has wrongfully collected same and now holds money for use of complainant, shows a complete remedy at law; bill not being for discovery, aid of equity is not needed, p. 237.

Judgment. Since no one but owner of judgments may cause valid acknowledgments of satisfaction to be made, satisfaction caused to be entered by owner's assignor does not affect former's rights p. 238.

Bankruptcy. In order to bring security for debt given within four months of bankruptcy, within prohibition of bankruptcy law, it is necessary that all prescribed conditions should occur, p. 177.

Doctrine relied upon in Harmanson v. Bain, 1 Hughes, 201, F. C. 6,072, dismissing bill to set aside fraudulent transfers for want of necessary parties; Matthews v. Westphal, 1 McCrary, 447, 48 Fed. 665, holding chattel mortgage given more than four months prior to filing of petition not fraudulent; So. Car. Loan, etc., Co. v. McPherson, 26 S. C. 438, 2 S. E. 271, holding failure to record mortgage did not make it fraudulent within meaning of bankruptcy act.

Bankruptcy.- Exchange of securities within four months is not fraudulent preference within meaning of bankruptcy act, if security given up is a valid one when exchange is made, and of equal value with one substituted for it, pp. 177, 178.

Applied in Sawyer v. Turpin, 91 U. S. 121, 23 L. 237, sustaining substitution of chattel mortgage for bill of sale, though latter was never recorded; Douglass v. Vogeler, 6 Fed. 57, holding exchange of mortgages valid as against assignee; Hutchinson v. Murchie, 74 Me. 191, substitution of mortgage for bill of sale affecting same property; Stewart v. Hopkins, 30 Ohio St. 532, holding payment of mortgage by insolvent not a preference where mortgage gave full security; Colt v. Sears Com. Co., 20 R. I. 65. 37 Atl. 312, holding transfer of indebtedness and securities to another not fraudulent preference; Akers v. Rowan, 33 S. C. 474, 12 8. E. 173, 10 L. R. A. 716, and n., where mortgage was merely renewed, held valid.

Distinguished in Morey v. Milliken, 86 Me. 481, 30 Atl. 108, holding replacing of securities already lost not an exchange, and, therefore, fraudulent.

Bankruptcy.-Assignee in bankruptcy takes estate subject to rights, legal and equitable, of all other parties, p. 178.

Cancellation of instruments.- Equity will annul cancellation of notes, etc., and revive securities, where there has been failure of consideration, fraud, or mistake, p. 178.

Usury. If security, fatally tainted with usury, and founded upon prior one free from it, but given up and cancelled, is declared void, prior one will be revived, p. 179.

Approved and followed in Quint v. First Nat. Bank, Каи. App. 58 Pac. 1012, holding usurious interest in renewal notes did not affect legal interest previously charged; Rountree v. Brinson, 98 N. C. 110, 3 S. E. 748, allowing plaintiff to recover on former debt, though bond sued on was usurious; dissenting opinion in Frederick Inst. v. Michael, 81 Md. 508, 32 Atl. 342, 33 L. R. A.

636, and n., majority holding surety's obligation on original note discharged by substitution of securities with knowledge of debtor's financial condition.

22 Wall. 180-198, 22 L. 863, THE ELGEE COTTON CASES.

War. No one is allowed to sue in Court of Claims for proceeds of captured or abandoned property, unless he can prove ownership, his right to proceeds, and that he never gave aid or comfort to the Rebellion, p. 186.

Affirmed in Scudder v. Ames, 142 Mo. 243, 43 S. W. 675, action over same subject-matter.

Sale. Whether property passes or not is dependent upon intention of parties to contract to be gathered from its language, p. 187.

Cited with approval in Hatch v. Oil Co., 100 U. S. 136, 25 L. 558, holding intention proved that title to staves should pass upon being piled and counted; Byles v. Colier, 54 Mich. 6, 19 N. W. 567, holding title might have passed without delivery, and even though further inspection was necessary; Rail v. Little Falls, etc., Co., 47 Minn. 425, 50 N. W. 472, holding property in logs vested without delivery or payment.

Sale. When by agreement vendor is to do anything to goods to put them into deliverable state, performance of those things shall be taken as condition precedent to vesting of property p. 188. Cited in Commonwealth v. Greenfield, 121 Mass. 41, holding title to liquor did not pass until delivered at L.

Sale. Where anything remains to be done to goods to ascertain price, as by weighing, measuring, etc., performance of these things shall be condition precedent to transfer of property, although individual goods are ascertained, e. g., cotton to be paid for when weighed, pp. 188, 189.

Followed in Blackwood v. Cutting, etc., Co., 76 Cal. 217, 218, 18 Pac. 251, 9 Am. St. Rep. 203, 204, holding no sale until apricots could be identified and weighed or measured; New England, etc., Co. v. Standard, etc., Co., 165 Mass. 329, 52 Am. St. Rep. 518, 43 N. E. 112, collecting authorities, holding title to wool did not pass until separated from larger mass.

Sale. Where buyer is by contract bound to do anything, as consideration, either precedent or concurrent, on which passing of property depends, title will not pass until condition be fulfilled, though buyer has possession, p. 188.

Applied in Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 U. S. 266, 34 L. 929, 11 S. Ct. 319, executed contract of sale of stock with reservation of security by vendor: Hull v. Pitrat, 45 Fed. 100, holding conveyance

Cited in Hay v. Washington, etc., R. R., 4 Hughes, 329, F. C. 6,255a, satisfaction of judgment made without consideration is nudum pactum.

Miscellaneous.- Miscited in Hardraker v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 165, 19 S. Ct. 126, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 4 Woods, 388, 13 Fed. 795, and Loomis v. Carrington, 18 Fed. 99.

22 Wall. 238-250, 22 L. 854, FRENCH v. HAY.

Removal of cause.- Objection that removal of cause to Federal court was not in compliance with statute, when not made until all evidence has been taken, and nearly three years elapsed, comes too late, pp. 244, 245.

Cited and applied in Martin v. Baltimore & O. R. R., 151 U. S. 688, 689, 38 L. 317, 14 8. Ct. 539, affirming 8. C., 35 Fed. 173, reviewing authorities, objection to time of filing petition deemed waived if first raised in Supreme Court; Newman v. Schwerin, 61 Fed. 871, 22 U. 8. App. 393, and First Nat. Bank v. Society, 80 Fed. 582, 42 U. 8. App. 517, collecting cases, holding objection to time of filing petition waived, when first raised in Court of Ap peals; arguendo, in Deford v. Mehaffy, 13 Fed. 488, holding bond given on removal subject to amendment; Whelan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 35 Fed. 863, 1 L. R. A. 74, and n., refusing trial upon allegations of petition for removal as to local prejudice; Powers V. Chesapeake, etc., Ry. Co., 65 Fed. 134, 135, where plaintiff, having dismissed as to resident defendants, was estopped to object to time of filing petition.

Appearance. Defendant having filled answer, verified by himself, and signed by his attorney, this was an appearance, and placed him within jurisdiction of the court, p. 245.

Judgments.- Final decree of State court, affirmed upon appeal, held conclusive of rights of parties as to everything covered by it, and unaffected by action of State or Federal court in subsequent progress of case, p. 245.

Cited in Rodgers v. Pitt, 96 Fed. 670, holding, in case of concur rent jurisdiction, court first acquiring complete jurisdiction entitled to proceed.

Equity. Where final decree, covering entire original case, subsisted, further relief sought could be reached, if at all, only by supplemental bill; it was gross error to allow amendment, p. 246.

Equity. Amendment of a bill gives defendant right to answer, as if he had not answered before, p. 246.

Approved in Blythe v. Hinckley, 84 Fed. 244, vacating decree taken pro confesso, where bill was subsequently amended.

Equity. Amended bill is esteemed part of original bill and con tinuation of the suit; but one record is made, p. 246.

Approved in Excelsior, etc., Co. v. Brown, 74 Fed. 324, 42 U. S. App. 55, reviewing cases, holding Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of bill as amended; Blythe v. Hinckley, 84 Fed. 244, vacating de cree, taken pro confesso, where bill was subsequently amended.

Equity. Amendment is sometimes of such character as to be regarded as independent graft upon original case and beginning of new lis pendens, p. 246.

Equity. Unless waived, new process is necessary, upon supplemental bill and bill of revivor, but not upon amended bill as to defendants already before court; they are bound to take notice of filing of amended bills, as of any other proceedings in the case pp. 246-247.

22 Wall. 250-253, 22 L. 857, FRENCH v. HAY.

Removal of causes.- Bill to enjoin proceedings in State court, after transfer of cause to Circuit Court, is auxiliary and dependent in its character, p. 252.

Cited in Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 498, 26 L. 498, straining proceedings under judgment rendered after transfer.

Removal of causes.- Where cause is properly transferred from State to Federal court, decree previously rendered in State court vacated and bill dismissed, a party to the cause may be enjoined from proceeding under said decree, though beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal court, pp. 252, 253.

Approved and applied in Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 498, 26 L. 498, restraining proceedings under judgment rendered after the transfer; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ford, 35 Fed. 173, Abeel v. Culberson, 56 Fed. 333, and President, etc. v. Merritt, 59 Fed. 7, enjoining further proceedings in State court, after removal; Wadley v. Blount, 65 Fed. 676, collecting authorities, and restraining prosecution of indictment; Central Trust Co. v. Western, etc., R. Co., 89 Fed. 29, restraining proceeding in State court to nullify decree of Federal court; Pickett v. Ferguson, 45 Ark. 189, 55 Am. Rep. 549, restraining party from prosecuting suit in another State; dissenting opinion in Johnson v. Brewers' Fire Ins. Co., 51 Wis. 585, 9 N. W. 661, majority holding judgment, rendered after improper refusal to transfer, valid, unless set aside aside or reversed.

Distinguished in Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 270, 38 L. 985, 14 8. Ct. 1022, reviewing authorities, and holding State court had no Jurisdiction to enjoin certain libellants; Wagner v. Drake, 31 Fed. 852, Frishman v. Insurance Co., 41 Fed. 449, and Sinclair v. Pierce, 50 Fed. 852, refusing to enjoin, where jurisdiction of Federal court was doubtful; Cœur D'Alene Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Spalding, 93 Fed. 282. refusing to enjoin State court, record not having been filed in Circuit Court; White v. Hold, 20 W. Va. 814, awarding mandamus to compel judge to proceed with case, removal having been

« ForrigeFortsett »