« ForrigeFortsett »
construction or completion of a project for quantities," from a ship channel, which creating a navigable channel in accordance make final the decision of the government with the designs and specifications of a engineer officer in charge as to quality named corporation which had abandoned its and quantity of work, require the contracown effort to obtain the desired channel tors to observe his instructions, and proclearly implies that Congress intended to vide that modifications of the work in give an experimental patented construction character and quality, whether of labor or embodied in such designs and specifications materials, are to be agreed upon in writa fair trial, and justifies the inference of ing, and, unless so agreed upon or a disposition, but not a contract, to pay pressly required in writing, no claim shall for the use of the patented form of con- be made therefor, such contractors may restruction if it should prove to be valuable. cover from the government for the extra Haupt v. United States, 254 U. S. 272, 41 work (including the loss to them while Sup. Ct. Rep. 66,
65: 266 waiting for the government engineer to lo13. The United States cannot be held cate such work) of excavating limestone liable as upon a quantum meruit to the rock and limestone bedrock in such chanowner of a patent for the use which he nel, pursuant to the order of the governclaims the government made of his inven- ment engineer who, over the contractors' tion in creating a navigable channel, where protest that such materials were not innot only did the construction as ultimately cluded in the contract, and in opposition completed, which produced the desired chan- to their request for the fixing of an extra nel, not embody any of the devices of the price, insisted upon the removal of such patent, but there is nothing from which a materials, stating that if the contractors promise by the government to pay for the did not remove the same they would be use of such devices can reasonably be im- declared in default, that the work would plied. Haupt v. United States, 254 U. S. be taken from them, be done and charged 272, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66,
65: 266 to them, and be paid for from the retained - construction and obligation.
percentages for the
work already per14. No intention to bind the government formed, and if the percentages were not for any amount in excess of that appropri- sufficient for that purpose they and their ated by Congress for completing an im bondsmen would be proceeded against, since provement can be deduced from provisions the conduct of such officer was repellent of in a contract for doing the work at unit appeal or of any alternative but submission rates for dredging soft material and for to his orders, with its consequences. United excavating rock that, within the limits of States v. L. P. & J. A. Smith, 256 U. S. 11, available funds, the United States reserves 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 413,
65: 808 the right to require the removal of such yardage as will complete the work, be it UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, more or less than the quantities estimated. See Supreme Court of the United States. Sutton v. United States, 256 U. S. 575, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563.
65: 1099 VENDOR AND PURCHASER. - extra work; loss.
Judicial sale, see Judicial Sale. 15. If, through mistake of the government's representatives, more work is done VENUE. and work is continued for a longer period See Courts, 15-18. than was contracted for or authorized, the expenses of superintendence incident to the VERDICT. mistake should be borne by the government, Right to go to jury as affected by askand the contractor should not be made to
ing for directed verdict, see Trial, suffer by the depletion of the appropria
4. tion. The fund otherwise available for work actually performed should be applied VESSEL. to that purpose. Sutton v. United States,
Matters as to shipping, see Shipping. 256 U. S. 575, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563,
VOLSTEAD ACT. 16. A government contractor cannot re
See Intoxicating Liquors. cover damages from the United States, occasioned by delays ordered by the government, where the contract gave large discre.
VOTERS. tion to the United States to suspend per
See Elections. formance, or change the work or material, providing for a compensating extension of WAIVER. time for performance, and in addition ex
Of claim against United States, see pressly declared. “No claim shall be made
Claims, 7, 8. or allowed to the contractor for any dam
Of objection to suit in wrong Federal ages which may arise out of any delay
district, see Courts, 15, 16. caused by the United States." Wells Bros.
Of unlawful search and seizure, see Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 83, 41 Sup.
Search and Seizure, 9. Ct. Rep. 34,
65: 148 17. Despite provisions in contract | WAR. with the United States for excavating Freedom of speech or press in war time, "sand, g uvel, and boulders, all in unknown
see Constitutional Law, 74.
Trial by court-martial, see Courts-Mar- Property Custodian,” to which the amendtial.
atory Act of November 4, 1918, added, after War excess profits tax, see Internal the requirements of transfer, the words, “or Revenue, 18.
the same may be seized by the Alien Prop1. The requisition of a British ship erty Custodian, and all property thus acin British waters by the British govern- quired shall be held, administered and disment for war use cannot be said to have posed of as elsewhere provided in this act,” been invalid for lack of a formal warrant, claim, for a return of the property and for
provision being made in § 9 for immediate where, following the usual practice, never suit, in which case the property is to be redisapproved, the requisition order was contained in the custody of the Alien Property municated to the shipowner by a telegrain, Custodian, or in the Treasury of the United and the government treated the telegraphic States, to abide the result. Central Union order as effective by using the ship as a war Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. transport for more than six months, and
Ct. Rep. 214,
65: 403 compensating the owner accordingly: Texas Co. v. Hogarth Shipping Corp. 256 0.9 619; provision of the Trading with the Enemy
6. The natural interpretation of the 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612,
65: 1123 Trading with enemy; enemy property Act of November 4, 1918, that the sole relief
Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by the 2. The Trading with the Enemy Act, and remedy of any person having any claim whether taken as originally, enacted on to any property transferred to the Alien October 6, 1917, or as thereafter amended by the Acts of March 28, 1918, November Property Custodian, or required so to be, 4, 1918, July 11, 1919, and June 5, 1920, the terms of the act, is that it refers to the
or seized by him, shall be that provided by is strictly a measure, and finds its sanction in the constitutional provision em. the filing of a claim for a return of the
remedies expressly provided by § 9, viz., powering Congress to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make property and the bringing of suit, and that rules concerning captures on land and water. property required to be transferred, and Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 41 Sup: not that the resort by the Custodian to the
property seized, stand on the same footing. Ct. Rep. 293,
courts instead of to force opens to the per3. There can be no doubt that Congress has power to provide for an immediate son who has declined to obey the order of seizure in war times of property supposed the statute, or who has prevented a seizure. to belong to the enemy, as it could provide
a right by implication to delay what the for an attachment or distraint, if adequate statute evidently means to accomplish at
Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan. provision is made for a return in case of
65: 403 mistake. As it can authorize a seizure in 254 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214, pais, it can authorize one through the help
7. A proceeding brought by the Alien of a court.
Property Custodian under the Trading with Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214, the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, § 17, to
obtain possession of property as being that 4. A demand by the Alien Property
of an alien enemy, gives nothing but the Custodian under the Trading with the preliminary custody, such as would have Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, for the de- been gained by seizure, although the prop. livery to him of property to which he is ertv is to be conveyed to him, and by the entitled, may be enforced by the Federal amendatory Act of March 28, 1918, he is district courts under $ 17 of that act, giv- vested with all the power of a commoning to those courts jurisdiction to make all law trustee in respect of all property other such orders and decrees as may be necessary
than money which has been or shall be, or and proper to enforce the provisions of the which has been or shall be required to be, act. Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan. conveyed to him, and is given the power 254 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214, 65: 403
to sell and manage the same as though he 5. The determination of the Alien
were absolute owner, since this act did not Property Custodian that certain property repeal $ 9. of the earlier aet, which prois liable to seizure as being that of an
vides for the immediate filing of a claim alien enemy must, whether right or wrong: ing of suit, the property, in case of snit,
for a return of the property and the bring. be deemed conclusive in a possessory action brought by that oficer to obtain im- to be retained in the custody. of the Cusmediate possession, the President having todian or in the Treasury of the l'nited delegated his authority to him under the States, to abide the result. Central Union Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6. Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 41 Sup.
65: 403 1917, S 5. and the act providing in $ 7 c Ct. Rep. 214, that. "if the President shall so require, any
8. A determination by the Alien Propmoney or other property owing or belonging erty Custodian that certain property is to or held for,' by on account of, or on enemy-owned must be regarded as the act behalf of, or for the benefit of an enemy of the President, within the meaning of or ally of an enemy not holding a license the Trading with the Enemy Act of October granted by the President hereunder, which 6, 1917, in view of the provision of $ 5 the President after investigation shall de. of that act, authorizing the President to termine is so owing or so belongs, or is so exercise any of the powers with which he held, shall be conveyed, transferred, as is invested
that ac respecting the sioned, delivered or paid over to the Alien I sequestration, custody. and disposal of
enemy property through such officer or tion. Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 41 officers as he shall direct, and of the orders Sup. Ct. Rep. 293,
65: 604 of the President, committing to the Alien 13. A corporation not owning or having Property Custodian the administration of any interest in property seized and pro§ 7 c of the act, including the power to posed to be sold as enemy property under determine, after investigation, whether the Trading with the Enemy Act of October property was enemy-owned. Stoehr v. Wal- 6, 1917, is not in a position to criticize lace, 255 U. S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293, or attack the sale; and a stockholder suing
65: 604 in the right of the corporation is in no 9. Congress, in time of war, may au- better position. Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. thorize and provide for the seizure and S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293, 65: 604 sequestration, through executive channels, Effect on constitutional guaranties. of property believed to be enemy-owned, 14. The mere existence of a state of if adequate provision be made for a return war could not suspend or change the operin case of mistake. Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 ation upon the power of Congress of the U. S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 203, 65: 604 guaranties and limitations of U. S. Const.,
10. Shares of stock standing in the name 5th and 6th Amendments, as to delegating of one who is neither an enemy nor an legislative power to
and juries, ally of an enemy could, consistently with penalizing indefinite acts, and depriving due process of law, be seized and required citizens of the right to be informed of the to be transferred to the Alien Property nature and cause of accusations against Custodian in virtue of a determination by them. United States v. L. Cohen Grocery that official in an ex parte administrative Co. 255 U. S. 81, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, proceeding that they belonged to an alien
65: 516 enemy, conformably to the provisions of Tedrow v. A. T. Lewis & Son Dry Goods Co. the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 255 U. S. 98, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303, 65: 524 6, 1917, since such act distinctly reserves Kinnane v. Detroit Creamery Co. 255 U.S. to any claimant who is neither an enemy 102, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304, 65: 531 nor an ally of an enemy, a right to assert C. A. Weed & Co. v. Lockwood, 255 U. S. and establish his claim by a suit in equity, 104, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305, 65: 532 unembarrassed by the precedent executive G. S. Willard Co. v. Palmer, 255 U. S. 106, determination, and provides that, pending 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305,
65: 534 the suit, which the claimant may bring as Oglesby Grocery Co. v. United States, 255 promptly after the seizure as he chooses, U. S. 108, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 306, 65: 535 the property is to be retained by the Alien Property Custodian to abide the result, and, WAR DEPARTMENT. if the claimant prevails, is forthwith to be Approval of obstruction to navigation, returned to him. Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U.
see Commerce, 6-9. S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293,
65: 604 11. No such an interest in shares of WAREHOUSEMEN. stock in a domestic corporation, which were Effect of placement and notice to conseized by the Alien Property Custodian
signee on carrier's liability for loss under the Trading with the Enemy Act of
of freight, see Carriers, 5. October 6, 1917, as the property of a Ger- Storage of intoxicating liquors, see Inman corporation, as entitles another do
toxicating Liquors. mestic corporation in whose name the stock stands to demand that such shares be freed | WARRANTS. from the seizure, was given to the latter Search warrants, see Search and Seizcorporation by a pre-war contract between it and the German corporation, where such contract was not prompted by commercial WASTE. motives, nor based on an estimate of mutual Wasting gas, see Gas. advantages, and was not intended as a genuine transaction, but was made to avoid in WATERS. convenience which otherwise might ensue Admiralty jurisdiction over, see Adfrom a state of war; the parties intending
miralty. to leave the beneficial ownership in the As state boundary, see Boundaries. German corporation, and not pass it to the Taking tide lands by condemnation prodomestic corporation. Stoelır v. Wallace,
ceedings, see Eminent Domain. 255 U. S. 239, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293, 65: 604 Enjoining discharge of sewage into har12. Treaty provisions which relate only
bor, see Injunction, 5. to the rights of merchants of either coun: Right to wharf out, see Waters, 4, 10. try, residing in the other when war arises. Navigability. are inapplicable to a controversy as to
Federal control of navigable waters and whether the beneficial ownership of prop.
navigation, see Commerce, 4-10. erty seized and proposed to be sold under
Following decision of state court as to, the Trading with the Enemy Act of October
see Courts, 27. 6, 1917, as the property of a German cor- 1. The fact that artificial obstructions poration, is in truth in an American cor- in a stream exist, capable of being abated poration under a pre-war contract between by due exercise of the public authority, such corporation and the German corpora- | does not prevent the stream from being re
garded as navigable in law, if, supposing paired in so doing no right of the upland them to be abated, it be navigable in fact owners, whose land is thereby separated in its natural state. Economy Light & P. from all contact with the water. Seattle v. Co. v. United States, 256 C. S. 113, 41 Sup. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 409, 65: 847 Ct. Rep. 237,
65: 500 2. The test of navigability of a river is 8. A conveyance of tidelands from the whether it, in its natural state, is used or is state of Washington gives the grantee no capable of being used as a highway for com- rights of any sort beyond the boundaries of merce over which trade and travel is or may the grant. A right of
to the be conducted in the customary modes of navigable channel over intervening land trade and travel on water. Navigability in above or below low water must arise from the sense of the law is not destroyed because a grant by the owner of the intervening the watercourse is interrupted by occasional property. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. natural obstructions or portages, nor need 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500 the navigation be open at all seasons of the 9. The rule of the Washington law year or at all stages of the water. Economy that upland, tideland, or shore land, in its Light & P. Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. natural condition, is without appurtenant 113, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 409,
65: 847 rights of any sort beyond the boundaries Relative rights of state and United of the property, applies as well when the States.
lands are filled tidelands abutting on a Federal control of navigable waters and natural waterway deepened and confined.
navigation, see Commerce, 4-10. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 3. The right of the United States in the 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237,
65: 500 navigable waters within the several states 10. The clearly defined policy of the is limited to the control thereof for pur- state of Washington not to zrant riparian poses of navigation; and, subject to that rights in navigable waters prevents the right, each state became, upon its organi- | Federal courts, in the absence of a decision zation as a state, the owner of the navigable of the highest state court to the contrary, waters within its boundary and of the land from inferring an implied grant to the under the same. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. grantees of filled tidelands of a right of Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, access over intervening property to the
65: 500 navigable channel, even conceding the truth 4. The establishment of pierhead lines of the assumption that such grants were by the United States in a navigable water-made conformably to a development project, way did not create any riparian right to which was an artificial creation; that land wharf out, as against the state. Such lines was 'artificially made up to a bulkhead; merely fixed the point beyond which piersi that, at some distance beyond, a navigable might not extend, and the lines so fixed, channel was artificially created out of an although acted upon by the erection of unnavigable stream; that between the bulkpiers, could be changed by the United States head and the channel are shoals which preat any time. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. vent full use of waterside lots in connection 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500 with navigation unless wharves are erected; Relative rights of public and individ- that when the original grant was made no ual.
provision in the law authorized leasing those Following decision of state court as to shoals for docking purposes, but, on the con
riparian rights, see Courts, 28. trary, the whole waterway was reserved by 5. The state of Washington, being the statute forever from sale or lease; and that absolute owner of the tidelands within its the plat by reference to which all lots were boundaries and of the waters over them, is sold showed a pierhead line at the point free, in conveying such lands, either to of navigable water.. Seattle v. Oregon & grant with them rights in the adjoining W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. water area, or completely to withhold such 237,
65: 500 rights. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 11. State officials had no power, under U. S. 56, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 65: 500 the law of Washington, to establish pier
6. Under the law of the state of Wash- head lines when platting tidelands. Seattle ington a conveyance by the state of uplands v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, 41 abutting upon a natural navigable water. Sup. Ct. Rep. 237,
65: 500 way grants no right of any kind, either in land below high-water mark, or in, to, or
WHITE, EDWARD DOUGLASS. over the water, except the limited preferential right conferred by statute upon the
In memoriam, see Appendix, IV. ante, owner of the upland to purchase the shore p. 1199. land if the state concludes to sell the same. Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co. 255 U. S. 56, WILLS. 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237,
65: 500 Devise by Indian allottee, see Indians, 7. So complete is the absence of
11, 20. riparian or littoral rights in the owner of Powers given by, see Powers. lands bordering on navigable waters in the state of Washington that the state may, WITNESSES. subject to the superior rights of the United Competency, States, wholly divert a navigable stream 1. The rule that excludes the wife of and sell the river bed, and yet have im- an accused from testifying in his behalf in
the Federal courts applies although her | Classification. Director General of Railevidence is offered simply to contradict the roads v. Viscose Co. 254 U, S. 499, 41 testimony of particular witnesses for the Sup. Ct. Rep. 151,
65:372 government, who testified to certain mat- Conspiracy. Duplex Printing Press Co. ters as having happened in her presence. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 41 Sup. Ct. Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 C. S. Rep. 172,
65:349 189, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 98, (Annotated) Creditor. Pierce v. United States, 255 U.
65: 214 S. 398, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305, 65: 697 Privilege,
Damnum absque injuria. Minneapolis, Self-incrimination of accused,
St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. v. Washburn Criminal Law, 4.
Lignite Coal Co. 254 U. S. 370, 41 Sup. 2. An involuntary bankrupt does not, Ct. Rep. 140,
65:310 by filing schedules of assets and liabilities Debt. Pierce v. United States, 255 C. S. without objection, waive his constitutional 398, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 365, 65: 697 privilege to refuse to answer questions re- Deliver. Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit specting them that might tend to incrimi- Co. 254 U. S. 88, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31, nate and degrade him. Arndstein v. Mc
65:151 Carthy, 254 U. S. 71, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 26, Delivery. Pere Marquette R. Co. v. J. F.
65: 138 French & Co. 254 U. S. 538, 41 Sup. Ct. Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 379, 41 Rep. 195,
65:391 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136,
65: 314 Dope. Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. 254 C. S. 3. The constitutional protection against 143, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113, 65:189 self-incrimination was not removed by the Elections. Newberry v. United States, provision in § 7 of the Bankruptcy Act of 256 U. S. 232, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 469, July 1, 1898, that no testimony given by
65:913 the bankrupt shall be offered in evidence Endeavor. United States v. Russell, 255 against him in any criminal proceeding, U. S. 138, 41 Sup. ('t. Rep. 260, 65: 553 since this provision could not and would End lines. Silver King Coalition Mines not prevent the use of his testimony to Co. v. Conkling Min. Co. 256 U. S. 18, search out other testimony to be used in 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426,
65:811 evidence against him his property. Fugitive from justice. Hogan v. O'Neill, Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71, 41 255 U. S. 52, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 222, Sup. Ct. Rep. 26, (Annotated) 65: 138
Hoarding. l'nited States L. Cohen WORDS AND PHRASES.
Grocery Co. 256 U. S. 81, 41 Sup. Ct. Maxims, see Maxims.
65:516 Accrued. Cochran United States, Imposed. Cochran v. United Statey, 254 254 U. S. 387, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 166,
U. S. 387, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 166, 65:319
65:319 Income. Merchants Loan & T. Co. v. United States v. Woodward, 256 U. S. Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509, 41 Sup. Ct. 632, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 615, 65: 1131 Rep. 386,
65:751 Adjacent. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 527, 41 v. Woodbury, 254 U. S. 357, 41 Sup. Sup. Ct. Rep. 390,
65: 758 Ct. Rep. 114,
Invested capital. La Belle Iron Works Adverse. United States ex rel. Hall v.
v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 41 Sup. Payne, 254 U. S. 343, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep.
Ct. Rep. 528,
65:295 Kept. Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co. Adverse claimant. Galbraith v. Vallely, 254 U. S. 88, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31, 256 U. S. 46, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 415,
65:151 65:823 Less.
Friedman v. United States, 255 ('. Any. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. United S. 468, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 380, 65:735
States, 256 U. S. 610, 41 Sup. Ct. Mailable matter. United States ex rel. Rep. 617,
65:1118 Milwaukee Social Deinocratic Pub. Co. Bias. Berger v. United States, 255 U. S. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 41 Sup. Ci. 22, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 230, 65:481 Rep. 352,
65:704 Bolts. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Mechanical mixtures. United States v.
J. F. Hasty & Sons, 255 U. S. 252, 41 Ætna Explosives Co. 256 U. S. 402, 41
65:1013 Bona fide purchaser. Pere Marquette R. Mixture. United States v. Ætna Explo
Co. v. J. F. French & Co. 254 U. S. sives Co. 256 U. S. 402, 41 Sup. Ct. 538, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 195, 65:391 Rep. 513,
65: 1013 Boycott. Duplex Printing Press Co.
V. Moneyed capital. Merchants Nat. Bank Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 41 Sup. Ct. v. Richmond, 256 U. S. 635, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172,
65:1135 Capital. Merchants Loan & T. ('o. More. Friedman v. United States, 253 l.
Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509, 41 Sup. Ct. S. 468, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 380, 65:735 Rep. 386,
65:751 National banking associations. AmeriChemical mixtures. United States
can Bank & T. ('0. v. Federal Reserve Etna Explosives Co. 256 U. S. 402, 41 Bank, 256 U. S. 350, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. Sup. Ct. Rep. 513, 65:1013 499,
65:983 65 L. ed.