ing principal against loss through dishonesty of factors and holding provision requiring "frequent audits and inspections" was not void for uncertainty; Gamble-Robinson Co. v. Massachusetts Bonding etc. Co., 113 Minn. 41, 129 N. W. 132, in action by employer on bond to recover shortage of traveling salesman, delay in giving notice was unreasonable; Farmers Bank v. Ogden, 192 Mo. App. 249, 182 S. W. 504, holding surety was not discharged because not notified of act of bank president in indorsing cashier's name to note without authority; Long Bros. Grocery Co. v. United States Fidelity etc. Co., 130 Mo. App. 429, 110 S. W. 31, construing indemnity bond guaranteeing fidelity of employee and holding renewal made on new consideration and on statement disclosing employee was paid by commissions is binding, even if original bond was void for failure to make such disclosure.

Meaning of term "deem" or "deemed." Note, 16 Ann. Cas. 482.

Bank cannot recover on bond where it has not notified surety company of teller's speculations.

Approved in John B. Stevens & Co. v. Frankfort Marine etc. Ins. Co., 207 Fed. 761, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1214, 125 C. C. A. 295, provision in employer's liability policy requiring immediate notice or within ten days at latest did not require notice before assured knew of accident in which employee was injured; Groton Bridge & Mfg. Co. v. Clark Pressed Brick Co., 136 Fed. 33, 68 C. C. A. 577, in action on contract, adjudication on crosscomplaint alleging prior breach by plaintiff bars subsequent action on same facts; National Surety Co. v. Long, 125 Fed. 889, 892, 60 C. C. A. 623, holding recovery against surety company defeated by failure of plaintiff to construct building and keep same free from liens; Hannah v. Steinman, 159 Cal. 153, 112 Pac. 1099, lessee does not waive right to rescind lease of vacant lot for mistake of both parties in believing erection of temporary wooden building would be lawful, by paying rent or by delay where he was not aware of right to rescind and was negotiating for extension of lease justifying erection of another kind of building; American Bonding etc. Co. v. Burke, 36 Colo. 57, 85 Pac. 694, holding bond of surety company may be avoided at its option for misrepresentation in statement required from employer; Knight & Jillson Co. v. Castle, 172 Ind. 106, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 573, 87 N. E. 979, denying recovery on contractor's bond for failure to comply with condition requiring written notice within ten days of act of principal or his employees that might involve loss for which surety is responsible; Warren Deposit Bank v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 116 Ky. 50, 74 S. W. 1114, bank cannot recover on teller's bond where surety company relied on false statement of president as to teller's honesty; Willoughby v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 16 Okl. 556, 560, 561, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 548, 85 Pac. 716, 717, 718, bank cannot recover from surety company on defaulting president's bond issued and accepted on faith of cashier's false statements; dissenting opinion in National Surety Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co., 200 Fed. 698, 119 C. C. A. 91, majority holding notice, twenty days after bank closed, of claim by corporation

929 GUARANTEE CO. v. MECHANICS' ETC. CO. 183 U. S. 402–424

under policy indemnifying it for loss through negligence of treasurer in making deposits after he had notice of bank's insolvency, was sufficient, and allowing recovery.

Distinguished in Long Bros. Grocery Co. v. United States Fidelity etc. Co., 130 Mo. App. 432, 110 S. W. 32, under provision of indemnity bond requiring immediate notice, employer is not required to give notice of fact that employee was drunk and robbed of what employer supposed was his own money; First Nat. Bank v. United States Fidelity etc. Co., 110 Tenn. 23, 100 Am. St. Rep. 765, 75 S. W. 1079, statement by cashier that bookkeeper's books balanced when he had reason to believe they did balance within twenty-one dollars will not defeat recovery on bookkeeper's bond.

Fidelity insurance. Note, 100 Am. St. Rep. 776, 777, 781, 782, 784, 786, 788.

Answers of bank president in statement to guaranty company going on cashier's bond held made when acting for bank.

Approved in Issaquah Coal Co. v. United States etc. Guaranty Co., 126 Fed. 95, 61 C. C. A. 145, holding corporation employer bound by certificate of auditor as to work of assistant treasurer if execution thereof was known by general manager; dissenting opinion in Phenix Ins. Co. v. Guarantee Co. of North America, 115 Fed. 969, 53 C. C. A. 360, majority holding answers to questions of surety company as to rendering balances to customers not an absolute warranty but satisfied by substantial compliance.

Distinguished in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Courtney, 186 U. S. 346, 350, 363, 46 L. Ed. 1196, 1197, 1202, 22 Sup. Ct. 835, 837, 842, holding error in excluding certificate of bank cashier stating that president's duties were satisfactorily performed does not warrant reversal where proper instruction given; United States Fidelity etc. Co. v. Muir, 115 Fed. 267, 268, 53 C. C. A. 56, holding false statement by president made in good faith and without knowledge of directors or authority from them not binding on bank.

Effect of false representation of insured on validity of policy of fidelity or guaranty insurance. Note, 8 Ann. Cas. 609, 610. Character of, and rules governing, contracts by fidelity and guaranty companies. Note, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 517. ·

Miscellaneous. Cited in Cherry v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 205 U. S. 537, 51 L. Ed. 920, 27 Sup. Ct. 790, affirming judgment on authority of principal case; Sullivan v. Rodzuweit, 82 Neb. 660, 118 N. W. 572, holding surety company is insurance company, and may, under section 55 of Code of Civil Procedure, be sued in county where conditions of bond were violated.

XVIII-59

30.

183 U. S. 424-470, 46 L. Ed. 264, 22 Sup. Ct. 195, TUCKER 7. ALEXANDROFF.

Treaty is to be interpreted in spirit of uberrima fides and in manner to carry out its manifest purpose.

Approved in Wright v. Henkel, 190 U. S. 57, 47 L. Ed. 954, 23 Sup. Ct. 785, holding in question of extradition identity of statutes is unnecessary substantial compliance with extradition treaty according to its intent being sufficient; Ex parte Anderson, 184 Fed. 117, 118, construing treaty of 1827 with Norway giving consuls jurisdiction of differences between captain and crew of Norwegian ship and holding local court has no jurisdiction to arrest officers of ship on complaint of seaman, whether before or after his discharge from vessel; Hennebique Const. Co. v. Myers, 172 Fed. 886, 97 C. C. A. 289, holding treaty with Brussels was self-executing and was complete, doing away with interdependence of domestic and foreign patents and of limitation imposed on term of domestic patent for invention previously patented in foreign country.

Ship becomes subject to admiralty jurisdiction at time of launching. Approved in Latta & Terry Construction Co. v. Raithmoor, 241 U. S. 176, 60 L. Ed. 941, 36 Sup. Ct. 514, admiralty has jurisdiction of libel in rem against vessel for damages caused by colliding with incompleted beacon in navigable water.

Distinguished in Johnson Lighterage Co. No. 24, 231 Fed. 366, suit in rem may be maintained against property of foreign government to recover for salvage services rendered in saving it while in possession of lightering company and still in its possession when libeled and seized. Lien for construction of vessel. Note, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 48.

Seamen become obligated to merchant vessels from time they sign shipping articles.

Approved in The Ida G. Farren, 127 Fed. 767, holding libelant was member of crew from time of signing shipping articles and was thenceforth amenable to maritime law of United States.

Distinguished in Commonwealth v. Bartlett, 190 Mass. 151, 76 N. E. 608, defendant charged with enticing member of crew to desert cannot be held where master had not signed shipping articles.

183 U. S. 471-483, 46 L. Ed. 283, 22 Sup. Ct. 176, FLORIDA C. & P. R. E. CO. v. REYNOLDS.

State is not prohibited by Federal Constitution from collecting back taxes on railroad property without collecting back taxes on other property. Approved in Red "C" Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 222 U. S. 392, 56 L. Ed. 244, 32 Sup. Ct. 152, upholding oil inspection law of North Carolina of 1909; Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U. S. 161, 55 L. Ed. 158, 31 Sup. Ct. 171, upholding act of Kentucky of 1906 relating to revenue and taxation providing for collection of back taxes and registration of land titles; Jackson Lumber Co. v. McCrimmon, 164 Fed. 762,

931

FLORIDA ETC. R. R. CO. v. REYNOLDS. 183 U. S. 471-483

upholding laws of Florida of 1907 providing for assessment of property for three previous years where it had escaped taxation, and sale of property for nonpayment of taxes so assessed; State v. Kansas City etc. Bridge Co., 117 Ark. 616, 618, 620, 174 S. W. 253, 254, upholding act of 1887 as amended by acts of 1911 and 1913, providing for collection of back taxes due on property belonging to corporation; Hayes v. Walker, 54 Fla. 172, 44 South. 751, upholding act of 1917 exempting certain described property annexed to existing municipality from tax to pay existing bonded indebtedness; Board of Commrs. of Johnson County v. Johnson, 173 Ind. 85, 89 N. E. 594, upholding act of 1903 authorizing unincorporated bank to deduct deposits from all taxable property while individuals may only deduct indebtedness from credits proper and incorporated banks may deduct value of real estate and tangible property and indebtedness in fixing value of shares taxed to individual owners; Eastern Kentucky Coal Lands Corp. v. Commonwealth, 127 Ky. 717, 106 S. W. 275, act of 1906 providing for collection of taxes on land escaping taxation during years 1901-1905, inclusive, is not void because imposing retrospective taxation; Yazoo etc. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 81 Miss. 114, 32 South. 946, holding State may collect back taxes on property which escaped taxation though same has changed hands; Pennsylvania etc. R. R. Co. v. Hendrickson, 87 N. J. L. 244, 93 Atl. 590, upholding act of 1911 providing for taxation of railroad and canal property omitted from taxation; Harvey Coal etc. Co. v. Dillon, 59 W. Va. 638, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 628, 53 S. E. 943, act of 1905 taxing chattels real to lessee is not void as double taxation.

Distinguished in Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Simon, 56 Fla. 555, 16 Ann. Cas. 1234, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 126, 47 South. 1004, act of 1905 requiring railroads to pay for goods lost in transit and not imposing such burden on other carriers is void; Pennsylvania Tunnel etc. Co. v. State Bd. of Assessors, 84 N. J. L. 51, 87 Atl. 93, where State by legislative enactments has in effect canceled liability to tax, act of 1911, imposing new tax on railroad property omitted from taxation for prior years is violation of constitutional provision for uniform taxation.

Constitutional equality as to corporate, taxation. Note, 60 L. R. A. 339, 346, 354.

Legislature is presumed to act for best interests of State and wrong intent cannot be imputed to it.

Approved in dissenting opinion in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S: 34, L. R. A. 1915C, 960, 59 L. Ed. 454, 35 Sup. Ct. 240, majority holding Kansas statute declaring it misdemeanor for employer to require em ployee not to become or remain member of labor union during time of employment is void.

State may classify for taxation purposes.

Approved in Michigan etc. R. R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U. S. 293, 301, 50 L. Ed. 761, 765, 26 Sup. Ct. 466 (affirming Michigan R. R. Tax Cases,

138 Fed. 233, 239), holding upholding Pub. Acts 1901, No. 173, providing for assessment of railroad property by State board at rate equal to average on other property; Georgia R. R. etc. Co. v. Wright, 125 Ga. 607, 54 S. E. 59, upholding tax on shares of foreign corporation while shares of domestic corporation exempt where taxed in hands of company.

183 U. S. 483-502, 46 L. Ed. 289, 22 Sup. Ct. 165, McCHORD V. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.

Railroad commission cannot be enjoined from establishing rates under statute alleged to be unconstitutional.

Approved in Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Garrett, 231 U. S. 302, 305, 58 L. Ed. 238, 239, 34 Sup. Ct. 48, upholding act of 1900 and order of railroad commission thereunder establishing maximum intrastate freight rates on commodities used by distilleries; Citizens Ins. Co. v. Clay, 197 Fed. 438, foreign fire insurance company is not entitled to injunction to restrain enforcement of State insurance rate law of Kentucky of 1912 creating insurance board with power to fix rates, at least in advance of action of board fixing rates; Hooker v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 188 Fed. 252, dismissing suit by shipper against interstate commerce commission to annul class rates between Cincinnati and Chattanooga; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Siler, 186 Fed. 180, 189, denying injunction to restrain. enforcement of intrastate rates fixed by commission, under authority of McChord Act of 1900, on certain commodities used by distilleries; Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine, 170 Fed. 775, 776, upholding act of Nevada of 1907 creating commission and authorizing it to establish reasonable intrastate freight rates, and denying injunction to restrain commission from establishing rates; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Winnett, 162 Fed. 247, 89 C. C. A. 222, denying injunction to control in advance exercise of power conferred on railroad commission by Constitution and statutes of Nebraska to fix just and reasonable intrastate rates; Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. City of Olathe, 156 Fed. 633, Federal court cannot enjoin passage of municipal ordinance repealing prior ordinance granting franchise to street railroad; Rico v. Snider, 134 Fed. 958, and Glide v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. 24, 81 Pac. 226, both holding equity will not enjoin determination of reclamation district by board of supervisors; Elkins v. Chicago, 119 Fed. 960, holding no Federal question raised by action of city council in adopting committee report finding that franchise expires at certain time and recommending ouster if not renewed; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Railroad Commrs., 63 Fla. 503, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 189, 58 South. 547, refusing to enjoin railroad commission from enforcing order alleged illegal as illegality of order is available as defense in action to enforce order or in action to recover penalty for its violation; dissenting opinion in Sabre v. Rutland R. Co., 86 Vt. 380, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1269, 85 Atl. 707, majority upholding order of commission requiring railroad to construct gates at crossing.