Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

nue.

[ocr errors]

43,

Federal estate tax, see Internal Reve-, nels. . . All officers, operators, and

employees

will continue in the Deduction from Federal estate tax, see performance of their present duties, reportInternal Revenue, 22.

ing to the same officers as heretofore and 12. A property tax cannot be said to be on the same terms of employment,” does imposed by a state statute exacting an ad- not leave the telegraph company open to ditional transfer tax upon certain bonds suit for damages resulting from negligent and other obligations held by a resident delay in the transmission of a message decedent at his death, upon which neither while under government control. Western the general property tax nor an optional U. Teleg. Co. v. Poston, 256 U. S. 662, 41 stamp tax has been paid for a fixed period, Sup. Ct. Rep. 598,

65: 1157 merely because the existence of the statute 4. The provision in the contract of may induce the owners of such property to October 9, 1918, between the Postmaster present it for taxation, nor can the law be General and the Western Union Telegraph deemed to impose a penalty merely because Company, that "the Postmaster General the decedent's estate may, under it, be re-shall pay, or save the owner harmless from, quired to pay more for taxes than the de- all expenses incident to or growing out of ceased would have paid if he had presented the possession, operation and use of the his property for taxation. Watson v. State property taken over during the period of Comptroller, 254 U. S. 122, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. Federal control. He shall also pay or save

65: 170 the owner harmless from all judgments or

decrees that may be recovered or issued TELEGRAPHS.

against, and all fines and penalties that Municipal license tax on telegraph com- may be imposed upon it by reason of any

pany as affecting interstate com- cause of action arising out of Federal con-
merce, see Commerce, 19.

trol or anything done or omitted in the Imposing special burden on telegraph possession, operation, use or control of its

company as affording due process property during the period of Federal con-
of law, see Constitutional Law, 34. trol, except judgments or decrees founded

on obligations of the owner to the PostGovernment operation.

master General of the United States," 1. A telegraph company is not liable merely provides indemnity, and does not for damages resulting from negligent delay make the company liable for damages rein delivering a message while its telegraph sulting from negligent delay in delivering system was, pursuant to the joint resolu- a message while under government control. tion of Congress of July 16, 1918, and the Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Poston, 256 C. S. proclamation of the President of July 22, 662, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598, 65: 1157 1918, in the exclusive possession and con- Messages. trol of the Federal government, and was Mental anguish as damages, see Dambeing operated by the Postmaster General.

ages, 2. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Poston, 256 U. S. Burden of proof as to motive of trans662, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598,

65: 1157

mitting message outside state, see 2. The provision in the proclamation

Evidence, 8. of the President of July 22, 1918, taking 5. Since the amendment of June 18, over the telegraphs, that “until and except 1910, to the Interstate Commerce Act, so far as said Postmaster General shall bringing telegraph and cable companies from time to time by general or special within the operation of that act, and proorders otherwise provide, the owners, man-viding that telegraph and cable messages agers, board of directors, receivers, officers, may be classified into day, night, repeated, and employees of the various telegraph and unrepeated, letter, commercial, press, govtelephone systems shall continue the opera- ernment, and such other classes as are just tion thereof in the usual and ordinary and reasonable, and different rates be course of the business of said systems, in charged for the different classes of mes. the names of their respective companies, sages, the sender of an unrepeated cableassociations, organizations, owners, or man- gram from a foreign country is, without ager, as the case may be,” does not leave assent in fact, bound as a matter of law the telegraph companies open to suit for by the provision in the company's lawfully damages resulting from negligent delay in established tariff, limiting liability for misthe transmission of a message while under take in transmission of unrepeated cablegovernment control. This provision is in grams to the amount of the company's no way inconsistent with holding that the share of the tolls collected, where such tarPresident took possession of and operated iff offers alternative rates for repeated and the telegraph systems, as distinguished unrepeated cable messages, since any deviafrom taking over the companies and oper- tion from the lawful rate would violate the ating them. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Pos- statutory requirement of equality and uniton, 256 U. S. 662, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598. formity of rates. Western U. Teleg. Co. v.

65: 1157 Esteve Bros. & Co. 256 U. S. 566, 41 Sup. 3. The Postmaster General's order of Ct. Rep. 584,

65: 1094 August 1, 1918, that "until further notice 6. Any, liabilty to the addressee of a the telegraph and telephone companies telegram which might arise because of the shall continue operation in the ordinary motive with which the telegraph company course of business through regular chan-1 transmitted the message between two points

in the same state over a route passing, tannin and still less chlorophyl, and what. through another state would not be a lia- ever of cola nut is employed furnishes but bility for an intrastate transaction that a small part of the caffein that is now the never took place, but for the unwarranted only element having appreciable effect, is conduct of the company and the resulting not such misrepresentation as debars the loss. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Speight, 254 owner of the trademark, which has acquired U. S. 17, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep: 11, 65: 104 a secondary significance, indicati his

product alone, from equitable relief against TERMINAL RAILWAYS.

infringers, where, whatever may have been See Master and Servant, 10.

true of earlier advertising, the public is

now told that it must not expect and will TERRITORIES.

not find cocaine, and everything tending to As to license tax, see License, 2-5. suggest cocaine effects except the name and

the picture of the leaves and nuts has been TIDE LANDS.

eliminated. Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. 254 Riparian rights in, see Waters, 5-11. U. S. 143, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113, 65: 189

5. Both the account of profits and the TORTS.

damages in a suit for the infringement of Injunction against tortious aets, see a registered trademark, brought in a fedInjunction, 4-10.

eral district court without diversity of Injury to employees, see Master and citizenship, are limited to the date when Servant.

notice was given of the registered mark,

by the Trademark Act of February 20, TRADEMARK.

1905, § 28, which makes it the duty of the Final decree in trademark cases, see registrant to give notice to the public by Appeal and Error, 1.

attaching certain specified words or abbreInjunction against infringement, see In-viations to the trademark, or to the recepjunction, 14, 15.

tacle wherein the article is inclosed, and 1. A secondary meaning of a

trade provides that “in any suit for infringement mark, indicating the owner's product by a party failing so to give notice of regisalone, may be acquired by long use, so as

tration no damages shall be recovered exto entitle it to protection in equity against cept on proof that the defendant was duly infringement, whatever may have been the notified of infringement and continued the original weakness of such trademark. Coca- same after such notice,” notwithstanding an Cola Co. v. Koke Co. 254 U. S. 143, 41 Sup earlier notice calling on the defendant to Ct. Rep. 113,

65: 189

discontinue the unfair competition and in2. The right of plaintiff to equitable fringement on our rights," and the wilful relief against infringement of his' trade character of defendants' wrongdoing. Stark mark, where that is contested on the

Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Co. v. Stark, 255

65: 496 ground of his own fraudulent misrepre | U. S. 50, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221, sentations to the public, must be judged by the facts as they were when the suit

TRADE UNIONS. was begun, not by the facts of a different

Injunction against, see Injunction, 9. condition and an earlier time. Coca-Cola

See also Monopoly. Co. v. Koke Co. 254 U. S. 143, 41 Sup. Ct.

TRADING WITH ENEMY. Rep. 113,

65: 189

See War. 3. The right to relief against palpable fraud by imitation of a trademark for

TRANSFER. a beverage will not be denied on the ground that the beverage itself had for

Of cause, see Removal of Causes. merly been sold under the false representation that it contained cocaine after that

TRANSFER TRAINS. element had been eliminated, where all

See Master and Servant, 10. such deception had ceased before the suit

TREATIES. was brought, and the public had been

Effect on aliens, see Aliens. warned by advertising that it must not expect to find that drug in it, merely be

•Effect on right to seize enemy property, cause of the possibility that, here and

see War, 12. there, an ignorant person might call for

1. Treaties are to be interpreted upon the drink with the hope of incipient co- the principles which govern the interprecaine intoxication. Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke tation of contracts in writing between inCo. 254 U. S. 143, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113, dividuals, and are to be executed in the

65: 189 utmost good faith, with a view to making 4. The continued use of the trademark effective the purposes of the contracting Coca-Cola and a label containing a picture parties, and all parts of the treaty are to of coca leaves and cola nuts, in connection receive a reasonable construction, with a with a beverage which originally contained view to giving a fair operation to the whole. cocaine, but in which coca leaves are now Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U. S. 433, 41 Sup. Ct. used only after they have been subjected Rep. 158,

65: 344 to a drastic process that removes from them 2. While the question of the construcevery characteristic substance except a little tion of treaties is judicial in its nature, and courts, when called upon to act, should TROVER. be careful to see that international engage- Conversion by carrier, see Carriers, 11. ments are faithfully kept and observed, the construction placed upon a treaty and con- TRUSTS. sistenty adhered to by the executive de- Trustees in bankruptcy, see Bankruptcy. partment of the Federal government, Income tax on testamentary trustee, charged with the supervision of foreign rela

see Internal Revenue, 10, 15. tions, should be given much weight. Sulli. Incidental relief in establishing trust, v. Kidd, 254 U. S. 433, 41 Sup. Ct.

see Judgment, 2. Rep. 158,

65: 344 Monopolistic trust, see Monopoly.

van

TRIAL,

Creation; termination. Error in instructions, see Appeal and 1. An agreement between railway comError, 64, 65.

panies entering a city for the purchase, Error in directing verdict, see Appeal construction, and maintenence of terminal and Error, 66.

facilities at the joint expense of the railRight to trial by jury, see Jury. way companies, to be held and used in comAs to stipulation, see Stipulation.

mon, followed by the incorporation of a As to witnesses, see Witnesses.

terminal company which was to exercise all

its powers in accordance with the terms Question for jury.

and spirit of such agreement, the convey. 1. A railway company sued for dam- ance to it of all the ierminal properties by ages for personal injuries received in the deeds absolute in form, and the issuance of Republic of Panama does not get less than stocks and bonds in payment, establish a it is entitled to when the court, in view of trust under which the terminal company contradictory testimony from lawyers on

was vested, as trustee, with complete legal the two sides, leaves to the jury the ques. title, but without beneficial ownership, subtions whether, under the law of Panama, ject to the duty to maintain and operate the the exercise by the railway company of due

property and exercise all its corporate care in the selection of its employees re- powers for the common use and benefit of lieves it from liability in damages for in the proprietary railway companies. Chi. juries resulting from the negligence of such cago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Des Moines Union employees, and whether, under such law, R. Co. 254 U. S. 196, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 81, damages for physical pain are recoverable.

65: 219 Panama R. Co. v. Pigott, 254 U. S. 552, 41

2. No particular form of words is es. Sup. Ct. Rep. 199,

65: 400

sential to create a trust, provided there be 2. It is for the jury to decide whether reasonable certainty as to the property, the proper care required a railway company to objects, and the beneficiaries. Chicago, M. have a flagman or gate at a much frequented & St. P. R. Co. v. Des Moines Union R. Co. street crossing, the view of which was par- 254 U. S. 196, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 81, 65: 219 tially obstructed by a hedge, and to have 3. If the subject of a trust be a legal a lookout when an engine is backing a car interest in property, and capable of legal over the crossing, and to give warning by transmutation, the trust is not perfectly bell or whistle. Panama R. Co. v. Pigott, created unless the legal interest be actually 254 U. S. 552, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 199, 65: 400 vested in the trustee. Chicago, M. & St. P.

3. Extreme youth of a child who was R. Co. v. Des Moines Union Ř. Co. 254 U. S. run over when attempting to cross a rail. 196, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 81,

65: 219 road at a street crossing may justify the

4. It is not necessary that the trust be court in permitting the jury to attribute

expressed in the same instrument that his misfortune to the railway company's transfers the title to the trustee. Various conduct alone, whatever difficulties there instruments may be read together in order might be in the case of an older person. to ascertain the intention to establish the Panama R. Co. v. Pigott, 254 U. S. 552, 41 trust. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Des Sup. Ct. Rep. 199,

65: 400 Moines Union R. Co. 254 U. S. 196, 41 Sup. 4. The fact that plaintiff, in a suit upon Ct. Rep. 81,

65: 219 an assigned claim in which the defense is

5. A working agreement between a terchamperty and maintenance, moved, as did minal company and the proprietary railway the defendant, for a directed verdict, did companies which had created it to carry not preclude him from also asking to go out a trust to maintain and operate the to the jury if the court held a contrary view terminal property, and exercise all its corconcerning the evidence, and such request porate powers for the common use of the should have been granted where some sub- | railway companies, at their joint expense, stantial evidence strongly tended to show which agreement fixed the terms upon which that the assignment was taken in extin- the terminal property should be managed guishment of an existing indebtedness, and and the terminal services performed for a not for mere speculation upon the outcome specified terms of years, and provided for of intended litigation. Sampliner v. Motion the allotment of the stock of the terminal Picture Patents Co. 254 U. S. 233, 41 Sup. company to the proprietary companies,--did Ct. Rep. 79,

65: 240

not set aside the trust, or place a time

limit upon it. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. TRIAL DE NOVO.

v. Des Moines Union R. Co. 254 U. S. 196, See Appeal and Error, 52.

41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 81,

65: 219

see

or

ess.

6. It would require a clear case to war- , UNITED STATES. rant a court of equity in declaring that the Federal operation of railroads generaltrustees of an express trust, in the very

ly, see Carriers, 2-4. course of their administration of the trust, Claims against, see Claims. had acquired a dominant interest in the Condemnation of property by, trust property, and in effect a discharge

Eminent Domain. of the trust, through mere inattention or Liability to interest, see Interest, 1. even negligence, not raising an estoppel or Conclusiveness of judgment as to, see amounting to laches, on the part of the

Judgment, 12. parties beneficially interested, their Right to trial by jury in suit against executive oflicers. Chicago, M. & St. P. R.

United States, see Jury, 1. Co. y. Des Moines Union R. Co. 254 U. S. Imputing laches to United States, see 196, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 81,

65: 219

Limitation of Actions, 1. Dealing with trust estate.

Party to suit against Indians, see Par7. Officers and directors of a terminal

ties, 2. company which was created by certain rail- Private land claims, see Private Land way companies entering a city to carry out

Claims. a trust to maintain and operate the cor- Public Lands of, see Public Lands. porate property, and exercise all its cor

Officers and agents. porate powers for the common use and benefit of the proprietary railway companies

Bribery of rederal officers or person exto whom was apportioned all the terminal

ercising official function, see Bribcompany's capital stock, could only pur

ery.

Jurisdiction of suit founded on tort of chase such stock subject to all qualifications arising out of such trust that pertain to the

Federal officer, see Claims, 1, 2. property and franchises of the terminal

Trading with Indians, see Indians, 2, 3. company. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v.

Enjoining action of Land Department, Des Moines Union R. Co. 254 U. S. 196,

see injunction, 13. 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 81,

65: 219

Return of marshal, see Writ and ProcRights of beneficiaries.

1. The United States Shipping Board 8. Rents, switching, and other terminal Emergency Fleet Corporation, controlled charges which a term mal company created and managed as it was by its own officers, by certain railway companies to carry out

and appointing its own servants and agents, a trust to maintain and operate a terminal who became directly responsible to it, must property and exercise all

its corporate

be regarded as an entity separate from the powers for the common use and benefit of

United States, notwithstanding the ownerthe proprietary railway companies received ship by the government of all its capital from outside railway companies and others stock, and a person employed by such Fleet should be credited to the proprietary rail. Corporation as an inspector is not an agent way companies upon a wheelage basis, the of the United States, within the meaning trust agreement providing that, in making of the Criminal Code, § 41, which forbids

an officer or up the net cost of maintenance and opera- any person from acting as lion chargeable to the proprietary lines on agent of the United States in the transaca wheelage basis, there shall be deducted tion of business with a business concern the amount, if any, which other railway with which he is connected as member, companies may be under obligation to pay oflicer, or agent, or in which he has a by virtue of contracts for the use of said pecuniary interest. United States v. Strang, property or parts thereof. Chicago, M. & 254 C. S. 491, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165, 65:368 St. P. R. Co. v. Des Moines Union R. Co. Suits by. 254 l'. S. 196, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 81, 65: 219

Right to maintain creditors' bill, see Liability of trust estate.

Creditors' Bill. 9. For proper professional services ren

2. The United States, though without dered and expenses incurred in promoting pecuniary interest in the relief sought, may legislation that has for its object and effect maintain a suit to enforce statutory •and the rescue of substantial property interests administrative restrictions on the disposal for a class of beneficiaries under a trust of and leasing of allotments to Indians who a public nature it is equitable to impose a have not been fully emancipated, but are charge for reimbursements and compensa

still wards of the United States. La Motte tion upon the interests of those beneficiaries v. United States, 254 U. S. 570, 41 Sup. Ct. who receive the benefit the same as if a like Rep. 204,

65: 410 result had been reached through successful Immunity from suit. litigation in the courts. Winton v. Amos,

3. A suit by a railway company to 255 U. S. 373, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, 65: 684 enjoin the Secretary of the Interior and the

Commissioner of the General Land Office UNFAIR COMPETITION.

from canceling a selection of indemnity Injunction against, see Injunction, 14, lands under a railroad land grant, which 15.

the Land Department had ordered canceled See also Trademark.

solely on the ground that land selected

had, before approval by the Secretary of UNIFORMITY.

the Interior, been included in a subsequent In tax measures, see Taxes, 2, 3. temporary executive withdrawal for

a (On

water-power site, is not one against the jury appropriated for the specific purpose', United States, not maintainable without its and of 88 3732 and 5503, and of the Aci ot consent, but is one to restrain such officers June 30, 1906, that no act shall be confrom canceling a valid indemnity selection strued to authorize the execution of a conthrough a mistaken conception of their au- traet involving the payment of money in thority, and thereby casting a cloud on the excess of appropriations made by law unless plaintiff's title. Payne v. Central P. R. Co. such act shall, in specific terms, declare un 255 U. S. 228, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 314, 65: 598 appropriation to be made, or that a

4. The objection of government controi , tract may be executed. Sutton v. United of the railroads cannot defeat jurisdiction States, 256 U. S. 575, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 363, of a suit upon a reparation order of the

65: 1099 Interstate Commerce Commission where the 7. An unauthorized payment to a govshipments for which reparation was al. ernment contractor may be deducted from lowed moved prior to the taking over of the payments thereafter made to the same conrailroads by the government, since, under tractor for work under a wholly different the provision of § 10 of the Federal Rail contract. Sutton v. United States, 256 ['. road Control Act, "Actions at law or suits S. 575, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563, 65: 1099 in equity may be brought by and against - implied contracts. such carriers, and judgments rendered as 8. The United States does not impliednow provided by law; and in any action at ly promise to compensate persons engaged aw or suit in equity against the carrier, in stock raising for the destruction oi their no defense shall be made thereto upon the business, or the loss sustained through the ground that the carrier is an instrumental- enforced sale of their cattle, the result of ity or agency of the Federal government.” the inundation of their lands by the conVicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. Anderson-Tully struction of a dam which arrests flood Co. 256 Ü. S. 408, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524, waters. Bothwell v. United States, 254 L'. S. 65: 1020 231, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 74,

65: 238 Priority as creditor.

9. No contractual obligation on the part Appellate jurisdiction in suit under of the United States to pay for anti-hog.

Lever Act, see Appeal and Error, 9. cholera serum, anti-cholera virus, and serum 5. The United States, having been giv- blood, seized without agreement to pur. en by U. S. Rev. Stat. § 3466, priority over chase by agents of the Bureau of Animal other creditors of an insolvent debtor, is Industry, and thereafter destroyed, can be entitled to such priority, as against a sure implied from the provisions of the Act of ty on the debtor's bond to the government, March 4, 1915, that, in case of an emerfor the amount of its claim remaining un- gency arising out of the existence of certain paid after the surety has paid the full | contagious or infectious diseases of aniamount of the liability on the bond, al- mals, which, in the opinion of the Secretary though by $ 3468, when a surety pays to the of Agriculture, threatens the live-stock inUnited States the money due upon a bond, dustry, he may expend a specified sum, such surety is given like priority for the which sum is thereby appropriated, or so recovery of the money as is secured to the much thereof as he deems to be necessary, United States. While the priority given the in the arrest and eradication of any such surety by such statute attaches as soon as disease, including the payment of claims the obligation upon the bond is discharged, growing out of past and future purchases it cannot ripen into enjoyment unless or un- and destruction, in co-operation with the til the whole debt que the United States states, of animals affected by, or exposed 9 satisfied. United States v. National Sure- to, or of materials contaminated by or excy Co. 254 U. S. 73, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 29, posed to, any such disease. Great Western

65: 143 Serum Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 240, Contracts generally.

41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 65,

65: 243 Appropriations for work already done, 10. No government official can, by his see Appropriations.

acts or omissions, render the United States 6. The making of a contract binding liable as upon an implied contract for work the government to pay more than the done by a government contractor after amount appropriated was not within the the appropriation therefor was exhausted, power of the Secretary of War, under where no such official could have rendered the River and Harbor Act of July 25, 1912, the United States liable for such work by making an appropriation for completing a express contract. Sutton v. United States, specified improvement, and providing in § 256 U. S. 575, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563, 8 that whenever the appropriations made

65: 1099 or authorized to be made for the completion 11. The subsequent use by the govern. of any river and harbor work shall prove ment of excavation work in a navigable insuficient therefor, the Secretary of War channel, done by a government contructor inay, in his discretion, on recommendation after the appropriation therefor was er. of the Chief of Engineers, apply the funds hausted, does not imply a promise to pay 60 appropriated or authorized to the prose for such excess work if, at any time there. cution of the work.--especially in view of after, Congress should appropriate money the provisions of U. S. Rev. Stat. $ 3733. to be applied in completing the improve. that no contract for any public improvement. Sutton v. United States, 236 ('. S ment shall bind the government to pay a 575, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563,

65: 1099 larger sum than the amount in the Treas- 12. Approriations by Congress for the

« ForrigeFortsett »