ACCOUNTING.
See EQUITY, 1.
Joinder of principal and servants as defendants in action for tort. A railroad corporation may be jointly sued with the engineer and con- ductor of one of its trains when it is sought to make the corporation liable only by reason of their negligence, and solely upon the ground of the responsibility of a principal for the act of his servant, though not personally present or directing and not charged with any con- current act of negligence. Alabama Southern Ry. v. Thompson, 206.
See BONDS;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20;
CORPORATIONS;
JURISDICTION, B 5;
LOCAL LAW (Ariz.) (N. C.); NUISANCE, 2;
REAL PROPERTY; REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES, Rev. Stat. § 3477 (see Jurisdiction, A 10): Nutt v. Knut, 12.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Sherman Act (see Contracts,): Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Bay, 179. 24 Stat. at L. 379, chap. 104, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3154 (see Interstate Commerce, 1): New Haven R. R. v. In- terstate Com. Com., 361; sections 3 and 5 (see Interstate Commerce, 2): Southern Pacific v. Interstate Com. Com., 536.
JUDICIARY, Rev. Stat. § 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 9, 10): Rector v. City De- posit Bank, 405; Nutt v. Knut, 12. Section 720 (see Constitutional Law, 20): Gunter v. Altantic Coast Line, 273. Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 443, c. 355 (see Jurisdiction, A 1): Albright v. Sandoval, 9. Act of August 13, 1888, § 1 (see Jurisdiction, B 5): Kolze v. Hoadley, 76.
PORTO RICO, Foraker Act of April 12, 1900 (see Local Law): Serralles v. Esbri, 103.
PUBLIC LANDS, Acts of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 556; February 12, 1896, 29 Stat. 6; and March 2, 1896, 29 Stat. 42 (see Public Lands, 5): Southern Pacific v. United States, 311, 354. Atlantic & Pacific R. R. Land Grant Act of July 27, 1866 (see Public Lands, 1): Howard v. Perrin, 71. Rev. Stat. § 891 (see Public Lands, 3): Ib.
PUBLIC WORKS, Act of August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278 (see Bonds): Hill v. American Surety Co., 197.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES, Act of March 3, 1887, August 13, 1888 (see Removal of Causes, 1): Alabama Southern Ry. v. Thompson, 206; Cincinnati & Texas Pacific Ry. v. Bohon, 221.
WAR REVENUE ACT of 1898 (see Taxation, 6): United States v. Cuba Mail S. S. Co., 488. Act of May 12, 1900: Ib.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
See LOCAL LAW (ARIZ.); TITLE, 2.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. See JURISDICTION, A 1.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
Damages awarded on affirmance.
Award of ten per cent damages, in addition to interest and costs, on affirm- ance of judgment. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Birch, 612.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9;
APPEARANCE.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 18.
ASSIGNEE.
See JURISDICTION, B 5.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. See JURISDICTION, A 10.
1. Preference Application by clearing house of credit item to payment of claims of other banks against insolvent bank.
Where a bank fails and the clearing house having notice of such failure
returns all of the debit items to the other banks it cannot apply the credit item to payment of claims of other banks against the insolvent bank; under the provisions of the bankrupt act forbidding preferences, it is its duty to pay those funds over to the trustee in bankruptcy. Rector v. City Deposit Bank, 405; Rector v. Commercial National Bank, 420.
2. Proof of claim as prima facie evidence of its allegations. Bankruptcy proceedings are more summary than ordinary suits, and a
sworn proof of claim against the bankrupt is prima facie evidence of . its allegations in case it is objected to. Whitney v. Dresser, 532.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1; NATIONAL BANKS.
BONA FIDE PURCHASER.
See PUBLIC LANDS, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Of contractors on public works; right of recovery on.
The act of August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278, was passed, as its title declares, for the protection of persons furnishing materials and labor for the con- struction of public works, and nothing in the statute, or in the bond therein authorized, limits the right of recovery to those furnishing material or labor to the contractor directly; but all persons supply- ing the contractor with labor or materials in the prosecution of the work are to be protected. The rule which permits a surety to stand upon his strict legal rights does not prevent a construction of the bond, with a view to determining the fair scope and meaning of the contract. Such statutes are to be liberally interpreted and not to be literally construed so as to defeat the purpose of the legislature. Under the circumstances of this case a materialman, who had complied with the provisions of the statute as to filing notice, was entitled to re- cover from the surety company on a bond given under the statute al- though the materials were furnished to a subcontractor and not directly to the contractor. Hill v. American Surety Co., 197. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 15; JURISDICTION, B 1.
Obstruction of watercourse-Rights of railroad company to bridge as against those of public to use of watercourse.
The rights of a railroad company to a bridge over a natural watercourse crossing its right of way, acquired under its general corporate power are not superior and paramount to the right of the public to use that watercourse for the purpose of draining lands in its vicinity in accordance with plans adopted by a drainage commission lawfully constituted under the Farm Drainage Act. Although the opening under a bridge constructed by a railroad company may be sufficient at the time to pass all water flowing through the watercourse, there is an implied duty on the part of the company to maintain an opening adequate and effectual for such an increase in the volume of water as may result from lawful and reasonable regulations established by appropriate public authority from time to time for the drainage of lands on either side of the watercourse. In this case the proper drain-
age of the land in the district being impossible without the removal of a railway bridge over the natural watercourse into which the lands drained and the construction of a bridge with a larger opening for the increased volume of water, held, that it is the duty of the railway com- pany, at its own expense, to remove the present bridge, and also (unless it abandons or surrenders its right to cross the creek at or in that vicinity) to erect at its own expense and maintain a new bridge in conformity with regulations established by the Drainage Commis- sioners, under the authority of the State; and such a requirement, if enforced, will not amount to a taking of private property for public use within the meaning of the Constitution, nor to a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Drainage Commissioners, 561.
BURDEN OF PROOF.
See NEGLIGENCE.
Ex parte Crouch, 112 U. S. 178, applied in Drury v. Lewis, 1.
Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, followed in Mead v. Portland, 148. Chesebrough v. United States, 192 U. S. 253, followed in United States v. Cuba Mail S. S. Co., 488.
Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, followed in Strickley v. Highland Boy Min- ing Co., 527.
Damon v. Hawaii, 194 U. S. 154, followed in Carter v. Hawaii, 255. Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215, followed in Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Deer, 176.
Rector v. City Deposit Bank, 200 U. S. 405, followed in Rector v. Commercial National Bank, 420.
Security Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 200 U. S. 446, followed in Travelers Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 450.
Smith v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 592, 600, followed in Martin v. Texas, 316. Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States, 200 U. S. 341, followed in Same v. Same, 354.
CERTIFICATE.
See JURISDICITON, A 11.
CHALLENGES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9.
CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES.
See JURISDICTION, A 10.
1. Contracts-Power of State to alter or destroy municipal corporation, the exercise of which impairs the obligation of contracts.
The power of the State to alter or destroy its municipal corporations is not, so far as the impairment of the obligation clause of the Federal Consti- tution is concerned, greater than the power to repeal its legislation; and the alteration or destruction of subordinate governmental divisions is not the proper exercise of legislative power when it impairs the obliga- tions of contracts previously entered into. Graham v. Folsom, 248.
2. Contracts-Duty of courts to prevent impairment of obligation. Courts cannot permit themselves to be deceived; and while they will not inquire too closely into the motives of the State they will not ignore the effect of its action, and will not permit the obligation of a contract to be impaired by the abolition or change of the boundaries of a munici- pality. Where a tax has been provided for and there are officers to collect it the court will direct those officers to lay the tax and collect it from the property within the boundaries of the territory that con- stituted the municipality. Ib.
See CORPORATIONS, 4;
GRANTS, 2;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2.
3. Deprivation of property-Exercise by State of right of eminent domain. There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment which prevents a State in carrying out its declared public policy from requiring individuals to make to each other, on due compensation, such concessions as the public welfare demands; and the statute of Utah providing that eminent domain may be exercised for railways and other means to facilitate the working of mines is not unconstitutional (Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, followed). Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 527.
« ForrigeFortsett » |