V. Sixth Amendment.

Jury Trial. Right of jury trial in civil court does not extend to
offense against law of war triable by military commission. Ex
parte Quirin, 1.
VI. Fourteenth Amendment.

Criminal Cases. Due Process. Where one of grounds on which
a general verdict rests is unconstitutional, conviction can not be

sustained. Williams v. North Carolina, 287.
CONTEMPT. See Limitations, 1-2.

What Constitutes. Inducing federal court through misrepresenta-
tions by attorneys to issue decrees effectuating corrupt settlement,

as criminal contempt. Pendergast v. U. S., 412.
CONTRACTS. See Bankruptcy, 3; Claims, 1; Procedure, 4; Taxa-
tion, 5.

1. Government Contract. Rights of Contractor. "Equitable ad-
justment” for extra work; appeal to department head as remedy.
U. $. v. Callahan Walker Co., 56.

2. Id. Effect of delay in commencement of work; consequential
damages; extension of time for completion as "equitable adjust-
ment.” U.S. v. Rice, 61.
CORPORATIONS. See Bankruptcy, 8-9.

Forma Pauperis Statute. Indigent defendant in criminal case not
entitled to verbatim transcript of evidence at public expense.

Miller v. U.S., 192.
COUNSEL. See Constitutional Law, I, 7.
COUNTEROLAIM. See Procedure, 1.
COURTS. See Constitutional Law, I, 4–5; Contempt; Jurisdiction;

War, 1.
CREDIT. See Taxation, 5, 8.
CREDITORS. See Bankruptcy, 8-9.

Rule 4. Power of Circuit Court of Appeals, on petition for
rehearing, to remand cause for settlement of proper bill of excep-
tions. Miller v. U.S., 192.

CRIMINAL LAW. See Conspiracy; Constitutional Law, I, 3-7;
IV, 9-10; V; VI; Limitations, 1–2; Witnesses.

1. Elements of Offense. Willful attempt to evade or defeat
federal tax; sufficiency of evidence of violation of § 145 (b) of
Internal Revenue Code. Spies v. U. S., 492.

2. Forma Pauperis. Rights of indigent defendant on appeal under
forma pauperis statute. Miller v. U. S., 192.

3. General Verdict of Guilty. Can not be sustained where one
of grounds on which it may rest is unconstitutional. Williams v.
North Carolina, 287.

4. Former Jeopardy. Question not determined where earlier
indictment was not part of record. Braverman v. U. S., 49.
DAMAGES. See Claims, 4; Contracts, 2.
DEATH. See Admiralty, 1-2.
DEBTORS. See Bankruptcy.
DECEDENTS. See Constitutional Law, I, 9; IV, 4; Taxation, 6.
DECREE. See Constitutional Law, III; Divorce, 3-4.
DEDUCTIONS. See Taxation, 7-8.
DELAY. See Contracts, 2.
DELEGATION. See Constitutional Law, I, 1.
DELIVERY. See Fair Labor Standards Act, 4.
DEPLETION. See Taxation, 4.
DEPOSIT. See Bankruptcy, 6; Eminent Domain, 2.
DISCRIMINATION. See Constitutional Law, IV, 3–5.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. See Antitrust Acts, 2.
DIVORCE. See Constitutional Law, III.

1. Jurisdiction of Suit. State may alter marital status of spouse
there domiciled. Williams v. North Carolina, 287.

2. Id. Nevada Comp. L. 1929, requiring that plaintiff shall have
“resided” in State for designated period, means domicile. Id.

3. Effect of Decree. Divorce decree is more than in personam
judgment, since it involves marital status of parties. Id.

4. Id. Decree of divorce validly granted in one State is binding
on courts of others. Id.
DOMICILE. See Constitutional Law, III; Divorce, 1-2; Evidence.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY. See Constitutional Law, IV, 10; Criminal

Law, 4.

ing, of such u. s. v. Miller, led to re

DUCES TECUM. See Subpoena.
DUE PROCESS. See Constitutional Law, IV, 1-9.
EMINENT DOMAIN. See Constitutional Law, IV, 7–8; Taxa-
tion, 1.

1. Just Compensation. Exclusion from value, as of date of tak-
ing, of such increase as occurred since authorization of project by
Congress. U. S. v. Miller, 369.

2. Id. Government entitled to recover excess of amount de-
posited under Act of Feb. 26, 1931, over amount of award. Id.

3. Procedure. Federal court follows local law as to procedure
but not as to substantive rights. Id.

4. Id. Disregard by District Court of local practice as to ad-
mission of opinion evidence as to value, not prejudicial error. Id.
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. See Antitrust Acts, 6; Fair Labor

Standards Act, 1-7; Longshoremen's & Harbor Workers' Act, 1-4.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACTS. See Boiler Inspection Act;

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act.
ENEMY. See Aliens; Trading with the Enemy Act; War, 1-6.
ENTIRETY. See Liens, 1.
EQUAL PROTECTION. See Constitutional Law, IV, 3.
EQUITY. See Jurisdiction, II, 16; IV, 1.
EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. See Bankruptcy, 4-5.
ESTATE. See Bankruptcy, 3–5.
ESTATE TAX. See Constitutional Law, I, 9, 11; IV, 4, 6; Liens, 1;

Taxation, 6-7.
ESTOPPEL. See Jurisdiction, I, 4; Patents for Inventions, 4.
EVIDENCE. See Admiralty, 3; Antitrust Acts, 5; Bills of Excep-
tions; Costs; Criminal Law, 1.

Domicile in suit for divorce. Williams v. North Carolina, 287.

Constitutional Law, I, 2, 9; Taxation, 6–7.
EXEMPTIONS. See Antitrust Acts, 6; Fair Labor Standards

Act, 3.
EXONERATION. See Admiralty, 4.
EXTENSION. See Banks; Contracts, 2.

EXTRA WORK. See Contracts, 1.

1. Application of Act. Activities of employee determine.
Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 88; Walling v. Jacksonville
Paper Co., 564.

2. Wholesalers. That wholesaler whose business is intrastate is
in competition with wholesalers doing interstate business immaterial.
Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 564; Higgins v. Carr Bros. Co.,

3. Id. Application of Act to wholesaler not to be implied from
exception of employees of retailers. Walling v. Jacksonville Paper
Co., 564.

4. Activities of Employees. Application of Act to delivery em-
ployees of wholesalers selling intrastate goods procured outside of
State. Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 564; Higgins v. Carr
Bros. Co., 572.

5. Id. Effect of temporary pause of goods at warehouse. Walling
v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 564.

6. Id. Employees as engaged in “process or occupation neces-
sary to production" of oil for interstate commerce. Warren-Brad-
shaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 88.

7. Overtime Compensation. That wages are in excess of statu-
tory minimum, including minimum for overtime, does not in itself
constitute compliance with overtime compensation requirements.


FARMERS. See Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1-2; Bankruptcy

Act, 1-7; Constitutional Law, II, 2, 4.
FINAL JUDGMENT. See Jurisdiction, II, 7–11.
FORECLOSURE. See Bankruptcy, 3-4; Mortgages.
FORFEITURE. See Bankruptcy, 3.
FORMA PAUPERIS. See Costs; Criminal Law, 2; Procedure, 5.
FORMER JEOPARDY. See Constitutional Law, IV, 10; Criminal

Law, 4.
FRAUD. See Claims, 1-4; Contempt.
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. See Constitutional Law, III.
FULL PRIORITY RULES. See Bankruptcy, 9.
GOOD FAITH. See Bankruptcy, 8.

GRAND JURY. See Witnesses.
HABEAS CORPUS. See Jurisdiction, II, 6.

1. Power to Issue Writ. Power of Circuit Court of Appeals
to issue writ as incident to pending appeal. Adams v. U. S. ex rel.
McCann, 269.

2. Id. Availability of writ in Kansas courts to person imprisoned
in violation of rights under Federal Constitution. Pyle v. Kansas,

3. Propriety of Writ. Rule that writ will not serve as an appeal
must be strictly observed. Adams v. U. S. ex rel. McCann, 269.

4. Id. Petition here denied for failure of petitioner to exhaust
remedies under state law. Ex parte Williams, 604.

5. Sufficiency of Petition. Petition to Kansas court sufficiently
alleged deprivation of federal rights, and denial without determining
truth was error. Pyle v. Kansas, 213.

6. Id. Remand to state court without prejudice to design to
achieve greater particularity in allegations. Id.

7. Id. Federal court may refuse writ if proof of facts alleged
would not warrant discharge of petitioner. Ex parte Quirin, 1.

8. Id. Petitioners were in lawful custody for trial by military
commission, and did not show cause for discharge. Id.

9. Procedure. Judgment denying habeas corpus on sole ground
that application had not been made to state courts, vacated where
writ has since been refused by State's highest court. Sharpe v.

Buchanan, 238.
HEALTH. See Antitrust Acts, 2-4.
HEARING. See Constitutional Law, I, 57; V, 8.
HUSBAND AND WIFE. See Constitutional Law, III; Divorce, 1-4.
IMMUNITY. See Witnesses.
INCOME TAX. See Taxation, 1-4, 8-9.
INDEMNITY. See Admiralty, 4.
INDICTMENT. See Criminal Law, 4; Jurisdiction, II, 21.

1. Allegations. Sufficiency of indictment for conspiracy in re
straint of trade and violation of g 3 of Sherman Act. American
Medical Assn. v. U. S., 519.

2. Construction. Indictment charged single conspiracy and sup-
ported general verdict. Id.

« ForrigeFortsett »