Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Package Mfg. Co., 104 Minn. 21, 115 N. W. 752, where inventor and associates executed contract assigning patents, in suit by inventor to reform contracts associates are indispensable parties; Walrath v. Board of Commrs., 18 N. M. 107, 134 Pac. 206, contractor is indispensable party to suit by taxpayer to enjoin county commissioners from paying for work performed under contract to construct courthouse and jail.

[ocr errors]

Distinguished in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Pac. Co., 123 Fed. 599, holding connecting carriers are not necessary parties in suit by interstate commerce commission against initial carrier to prevent routing of freight; City Water Supply Co. v. Ottumwa, 120 Fed. 311, holding in suit by taxpayer against city to prevent creation of debt beyond limit by contract, the third party is not indispensable party; Wilson v. American Palace Car Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 264, 58 Atl. 196, in suit by stockholder of nonresident corporation against resident corporation and others, others need not be served when outside jurisdiction.

Federal court, acting as court of equity, will dismiss suit where indispensable parties are beyond its jurisdiction.

Approved in Hyams v. Old Dominion Co., 113 Me. 345, 93 Atl. 902, and Hyams v. Old Dominion Co., 204 Fed. 684, 686, both dismissing suit by minority stockholder in New Jersey corporation to restrain Maine corporation holding majority of stock, from voting stock at election of directors of New Jersey corporation, as latter corporation is indispensable party and is beyond court's jurisdiction; McAulay v. Moody, 185 Fed. 146, suit by two nonresident co-owners of note against makers, who are residents of Oregon, and co-owner refusing to sue, who is resident of Montana, is without jurisdiction of Federal court in Oregon, as co-owner in Montana is indispensable party and cannot be sued in that district.

When State may invoke original jurisdiction of United States
Supreme Court. Note, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 528, 531.

184 U. S. 247-257, 46 L. Ed. 520, 22 Sup. Ct. 350, UNITED STATES v. ST. LOUIS & M. V. TRANSPORTATION CO.

Officers of United States vessel held negligent in anchoring it in improper position in violation of port rules.

Approved in Jolivet v. Seattle, 226 Fed. 965, municipality controlling waters of harbor is liable for negligence, and suit for damages is within admiralty jurisdiction; The Vera, 224 Fed. 1011, holding vessel was in fault for two collisions between three vessels for anchoring too near channel and outside of limits prescribed by harbor master, where she interfered with maneuvers of other vessels; The Wilbert L. Smith, 217 Fed. 983, holding both vessels in fault for collision, tug for excessive speed and failure to maintain lookout, and schooner for violation of anchorage ordinance and rule as to fog signals; Compagnie De

997

STUDEBAKER v. PERRY.

184 U. S. 258-269 Navigation Française v. Burley, 183 Fed. 168, pilots towing French bark into part of Tacoma harbor where anchorage is forbidden are liable for damages paid by bark for injuries to another steamer in collision; The Strathleven, 213 Fed. 977, 130 C. C. A. 381, steamship obstructing channel in violation of harbor regulations is in fault for collision, but tug is also in fault for not stopping when steamship is seen drifting across channel; The Georgia, 208 Fed. 646, vessel anchored in thick fog is solely in fault for collision for violation of Inland Rules requiring bell to be rung rapidly for five seconds at intervals of not more than one minute; The Margaret J. Sanford, 203 Fed. 334, 335, steamer anchoring near channel and drifting in manner to obstruct channel is solely in fault for collision with tug towing scows, for disregard of rights of other vessels to use channel in violation of State and Federal law; The Etruria, 139 Fed. 928, tug casting barge loose in Hudson River opposite New York City when thick fog, liable for resulting collision; The Amiral Cecille, 134 Fed. 678, anchored vessel held in fault for collision when anchored without permit in unusual part of harbor.

Distinguished in The Job H. Jackson, 144 Fed. 900, vessel anchored on calm night in middle of channel mile wide as result of collision not liable for subsequent collision if carrying lights; The Northern Queen, 117 Fed. 914, holding tug and tow not at fault for anchoring in fairway, where density of fog made it unsafe to proceed to other anchorage.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Francisco v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 149 Fed. 355, 9 Ann. Cas. 628, 79 C. C. A. 292, judgment of nonsuit at request or consent of plaintiff not reviewable on writ of error at his suit.

184 U. S. 258-269, 46 L. Ed. 528, 22 Sup. Ct. 463, STUDEBAKER V. PERRY. Controller of Currency, acting under national banking laws, may validly make more than one assessment upon shareholders of insolvent national bank.

Approved in Smith v. Brown, 187 U. S. 637, 47 L. Ed. 344, 23 Sup. Ct. 845, reaffirming rule; McClaine v. Rankin, 197 U. S. 159, 49 L. Ed. 705, 25 Sup. Ct. 410, personal liability of national bank shareholder not contractual within Wash. Code, § 4800, subd. 3, limiting time to bring action; Rankin v. Barton, 199 U. S. 232, 50 L. Ed. 167, 26 Sup. Ct. 29, State statute of limitations does not run against personal liability of national bank shareholder until assessment by controller of currency; Rankin v. Miller, 207 Fed. 608, in suit by receiver of national bank to enforce stockholders' liability, controller's order making assessment sued on reciting necessity therefor, was conclusive; Lyons v. Westwater, 173 Fed. 113, bank's receiver is not entitled to enforce payment of accommodation note, where it is not necessary to pay creditors after enforcement of stockholders' liabilities; Aldrich v. Bingham, 131 Fed. 365, father's transfer of stock of solvent national bank to infant children does not relieve him for assessment after bank's in

solvency; Whittemore v. People, 227 Ill. 472, 10 Ann. Cas. 44, 81 N. E. 433, fact that auditor and treasurer for forty years so construed statute as to authorize treasurer to pay to himself from treasury, costs and expenses incurred in collection and disbursement of registered bond funds, is no defense to suit to recover funds; Rankin v. Ware, 88 Kan. 25, 127 Pac. 532, in suit by receiver to enforce stockholders' liability of insolvent national bank, making of assessment by controller and directing receiver to collect it, is conclusive.

Distinguished in Pepper v. Springfield Institution for Savings, 218 Fed. 815, 816, 134 C. C. A. 502, refusing to enforce assessment of fortynine per cent on stockholders of failed national bank, where original assessment of hundred per cent has not been annulled.

Effect given by courts to contemporaneous practical construction of unambiguous statute. Note, 10 Ann. Cas. 52, 53.

184 U. S. 270-290, 46 L. Ed. 534, 22 Sup. Ct. 484, TERLINDEN v. AMES. Decision in extradition proceedings, of magistrate having jurisdiction, and who has before him competent legal evidence to establish criminality, cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus.

Approved in Lincoln v. Power, 241 U. S. 652, 60 L. Ed. 1222, 36 Sup. Ct. 721, Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 456, 457, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 397, 57 L. Ed. 1278, 1279, 33 Sup. Ct. 945, and McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U. S. 524, 525, 57 L. Ed. 332, 333, 33 Sup. Ct. 146, all following rule; Elias v. Kamirez, 215 U. S. 407, 54 L. Ed. 256, 30 Sup. Ct. 131, holding evidence was sufficient to authorize extradition for forgery under treaty with Mexico, and reversing judgment discharging petitioner on habeas corpus; Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 85, 50 L. Ed. 98, 25 Sup. Ct. 760, refusal of Federal Circuit Court to grant certiorari ancillary to habeas corpus not assignable error; Wright v. Henkel, 190 U. S. 57, 47 L. Ed. 954, 23 Sup. Ct. 784, holding writ of habeas corpus cannot serve as writ of error, but court may examine into jurisdiction of committing magistrate; Ex parte Jim Hong, 211 Fed. 76, 127 C. C. A. 569, Chinese arrested in exclusion proceedings before commissioner is not entitled to discharge on habeas corpus on ground that he possessed certificate of residence as merchant entitling him to remain; Ex parte Zentner, 188 Fed. 348, holding evidence in extradition proceedings for forgery committed in foreign country, was sufficient to authorize extradition; Haw Moy v. North, 183 Fed. 92, 105 C. C. A. 381, dismissing petition for habeas corpus to release Chinese person held for deportation, where copies of warrant of arrest and proceedings were not annexed to petition, and not substantially stated therein; Pereles v. Weil, 157 Fed. 421, discharging on habeas corpus person committed by commissioner to be held for trial for defrauding government, where evidence does not support finding of probable cause; United States v. Tyndale, 116 Fed. 822, 54 C. C. A. 324, holding, in absence of legislation, money found on dead body floating on high seas is to be paid

999 HUGULEY MFG. CO. v. GALETON C. MILLS. 184 U. S. 290–296

over to State statutory administrator; Ex parte Ramirez, 11 Ariz. 258,. 90 Pac. 323, discharging on habeas corpus person held for extradition, where there was no legal evidence to prove commission of crime charged; dissenting opinion in People .v. Hyatt, 172 N. Y. 207, 92 Am. St. Rep. 727, 64 N. E. 835, majority holding action of State Governor in issuing warrant for extradition cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus. Extradition proceedings. Note, 112 Am. St. Rep. 106, 107, 108, 113, 114.

Habeas corpus to review errors or irregularities in proceedings.
Note, 11 Ann. Cas. 1051.

Right, in reviewing extradition proceedings, to be heard upon merits.
of charge. Note, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 940.

Question of existence of extradition treaty is political one.

Approved in Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 474, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 397,, 57 L. Ed. 1285, 33 Sup. Ct. 945, affirming judgment surrendering person for extradition to Italy, where Executive Department has waived right to abrogate treaty with Italy for refusal of Italy to observe it with reference to Italian subjects.

Laws of German empire, relative to offense of forgery, considered in determining whether offense was extraditable.

Approved in In re Taylor, 118 Fed. 197, holding in extradition proceedings court determines for itself whether place of alleged offense was within territorial limits of demanding government.

184 U. S. 290-296, 46 L. Ed. 546, 22 Sup. Ct. 452, HUGULEY MFG. CO. v. GALETON COTTON MILLS.

Where jurisdiction of Circuit Court is invoked solely on ground of diversity of citizenship, judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals is final.

Approved in Harding v. Hart, 187 U. S. 638, 47 L. Ed. 344, 23 Sup. Ct. 846, reaffirming rule; Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 294, 53 L. Ed. 802, 29 Sup. Ct. 490, judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals in criminal case is final; Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 212 U. S. 479, 53 L. Ed. 612, 29 Sup. Ct. 341, judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals is not final where constitutional right is claimed in complaint and jurisdiction does not depend on diversity of citizenship alone, but where constitutional right is raised at trial for first time judgment is final; Mississippi R. R. Commission v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 203 U. S. 342, 51 L. Ed. 214, 27 Sup. Ct. 90, in suit to enjoin enforcement of order of railroad commission requiring interstate trains to stop at small town, where complaint alleges diversity of citizenship and interference with interstate commerce and transportation of mails, judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals is not final; Ayres v. Polsdorfer, 187 U. S. 589, 47 L. Ed. 315, 23 Sup. Ct. 197, holding judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals not reviewable where case rested on diverse citizenship, although constitutional questions became involved; Cary Mfg. Co. v. Acme Flexible Clasp

[ocr errors]

Co., 187 U. S. 428, 47 L. Ed. 245, 23 Sup. Ct. 211, holding writ of error not maintainable to judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals in suit resting on diverse citizenship; Love v. Busch, 142 Fed. 432, 73 C. C. A. 545, Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction where bill alleging diverse citizenship involves validity of State statute regulating liquor traffic; dissenting opinion in Ex parte France, 176 Ind. 128, 95 N. E. 535, majority holding provision of acts of 1911 that decision of appellate court shall be final within jurisdiction conferred on it, is invalid as withdrawing revising power from Supreme Court.

Circuit Court of Appeals does not render final judgment where cause rests partially on Constitution.

Approved in Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 407, 409, 48 L. Ed. 499, 24 Sup. Ct. 378, 379, holding suit to recover tax paid under protest, under War Revenue Act of 1898, depending upon construction and constitutionality thereof, may be reviewed in Supreme Court.

Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court is exclusive in suits arising solely under Constitution, laws, and treaties of United States; but presence of other questions gives Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction.

Approved in In re Can Pon, 168 Fed. 482, 93 C. C. A. 635, Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of appeal from Circuit Court involving validity of rules of Department of Commerce and Labor, where appeal also involves other questions; Wright v. MacFarlane & Co., 122 Fed. 775, 58 C. C. A. 570, holding, under Judiciary Act of 1891, appeals from Hawaiian courts, based on constitutional questions, are exclusively for Supreme Court; California Oil etc. Co. v. Miller, 115 Fed. 1017, 52 C. C. A. 681, dismissing appeal on motion in case depending solely upon construction of Federal laws; Owensboro v. Owensboro Water-Works Co., 115 Fed. 323, 53 C. C. A. 146, holding Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction of cause resting on ground disclosed in pleadings that State statute contravenes Federal Constitution.

Distinguished in Filhoil v. Maurice, 185 U. S. 110, 46 L. Ed. 828, 22 Sup. Ct. 561, holding complaint in ejectment against individual, alleging ouster in violation of Federal laws and French treaty, states no Federal question warranting appeal to Supreme Court; Harris v. Rosenberger, 145 Fed. 451, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 762, 76 C. C. A. 225, Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review Circuit Court decision enjoining execution of fraud order under Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 2749.

Intention of Act of 1891 was to distribute appellate jurisdiction and to permit appeal to one court only.

Approved in Grand Trunk etc. Ry. Co. v. Reddick, 160 Fed. 899, 88 C. C. A. 80, in action for wrongful death, where Federal jurisdiction depends upon diversity of citizenship, defeated defendant may go directly to Supreme Court on question of jurisdiction, but cannot present merits to that court for review as Circuit Court of Appeals has exclusive and final jurisdiction in that respect.

« ForrigeFortsett »