the vein crosses both end lines,but extends to | NATIONAL BANKS. 87 9. A compromise of a dispute as to a mining claim, whereby an action to determine the right thereto is dismissed, in consideration of an interest in the ground when thereafter patented by the applicant, is not invalid, in the absence of any statutory prohibition. St. Louis, M. & M. Co. v. Montana M. Co. MORTGAGE. 320 See also EVIDENCE, 5; INTERVENTION. 1. A mortgage of domestic animals covers their increase, although it is silent as to them. Northwestern Nat. Bank v. Freeman, 307 2. A chattel mortgage of a given number of articles out of a larger number may be valid as against those who know the facts. Id. 3. The record of a chattel mortgage to other mortgagees is not notice to an assignee of a subsequent mortgage, but he is chargeable with notice of the record of a prior mortgage on the same property by the same mortgagor to his assignor. Id. 4. Foreclosure of a railroad mortgage by collusion between bondholders and stockholders for the purpose of destroying the interests of unsecured creditors may be set aside on their application as a fraud. Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. 1130 Co. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. See ATTORNEYS; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 10, 21; CONTRACTS, 1, 11-13; COURTS, 12, 14: EMINENT DOMAIN, 1; EQUITY, 4; ESTOPPEL; LANDLORD AND TENANT; LIS PENDENS; STATUTES, 1, 6; TAXES, 4, 6; TRIAL, 5; WATERS, 11, 12. MURDER. See also CRIMINAL LAW, 2. 1. A limitation of municipal indebtedness is not violated by a contract for a supply of water or gas at an annual rental, merely because the aggregate of the rentals exceed during the life of the contract may Walla Walla v. the limit of indebtedness. 341 Walla Walla Water Co. See BANKS, 1-7; EQUITY, 2; TAXES, 8-12. Habeas corpus; power of Federal Highways. See STREET RAILWAYS. impose restraints or conditions 118 67 92 67 67 See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 24, 30; IN- See CLERKS; EVIDENCE, 10, 11; HABEAS OKLAHOMA. See PUBLIC LANDS, 5. 2. A statute requiring a municipality to See COMMERCE, 3, 5, 8; FOOD. Guth- PREFERENCES. See EVIDENCE, 7-11, 19; PUBLIC LANDS, 4. The Hoffman patent, 450,124, for a supporting rack or shelf for books, composed of metallic strips with a re-entrant bend or PRESUMPTIONS. recess in its front edge for the insertion of the hand, with rollers projecting above and in front of each side or recess,-is invalid for lack of invention, as every element of the combination described is found performing the same function in some one or more of the prior devices. Office Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. PENALTIES. See RAILROADS. PLEADING. 1058 See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 70; EVI- 1. A cross bill is properly allowed to be filed for the return of property delivered under an illegal lease, where the complainant has alleged an election to terminate the lease, and also alleged its invalidity and offered to do what the court should decree to be just. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. 108 2. An averment that the establishment by a city of competing waterworks would injure the value of the property of a water company, and deprive it of rentals which the city had agreed to pay, need not specifically state how such damage would be done. Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co. 341 PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. See also CORPORATIONS, 2, 3; LIBEL, 1; One who acquires title through an agent is chargeable with the latter's fraud in the transaction. McIntire v. Pryor, 606 PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. See also EVIDENCE, 11. 1. In an investigation of a Mexican land title, the court of private land claims is not limited to the dry, technical rules of a court of law, but may inquire and establish that which equitably was the land granted by the government of Mexico. Ely v. United States, 142 2. A Mexican grant should not be sustained by the court of private land claims for more than the amount purchased, petitioned, and paid for, when all the proceedings contemplate a sale of that quantity only. United States v. Maish, 150 3. Sustaining the validity of a Mexican grant to the extent of the land paid for is but carrying out the spirit of the treaty, the obligations of international justice, and the duties imposed by the act creating the court of private land claims, where the grant was of a specified quantity of land, in a certain place, at a certain price per sitio. Ely v. United States, 142 163 Camou v. United States, 246 4. The mere fact that a Mexican land grant is narrower than the limits of the outboundaries does not prevent the court of private land claims, through the aid of a commissioner, surveyor, or master, from determining exactly what did equitably pass under the grant. Ely v. United States, 2. A secret equity in securities pledged by a person who had been empowered to do so by a corporation cannot be set up by it as against the pledgee. POLICE POWER. See COMMERCE, 14. POSTOFFICE. Id. See also BANKS, 9; INDICTMENT, 2. The fact that a letter stolen from the mails was a decoy addressed to a fictitious person is not a defense to an indictment under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 5467, when the letter had been delivered into the jurisdiction of 142 6. The power of an intendant to convey public lands was recognized by the govern 7. A sale of land by the intendant of Sonora, and Sinaloa in 1821, which was completed by title issued by the commissary.general and by the payment of the purchase price into the public treasury, and which was never questioned by the Mexican government, should be recognized as valid by the court of private land claims. Id. 8. Pueblo and mission lands in Mexico seem, when abandoned, to have become, under the laws existing in 1844, a part of the public domain of the nation, which could not be granted by officers of a state. Faxon v. United States, 151 9. The departmental treasurer of Sonora did not in 1844 have the power to determine by his sole authority that abandoned mission lands were of the temporalities, and that their value was not over $500, entitling him to sell them. Id. PROCESS. See WRIT AND PROCESS. See BILLS And Notes. PROPERTY. 10. The decree of Santa Anna on November 25, 1853, while he was temporary dictator and shortly before the Gadsden treaty PROMISSORY NOTES. was made with him by the United States, whereby he declares that alienations of public lands by the several states without approval of the general government are null, will not preclude the recognition of such a claim which had become a vested right at the time of his decree, when the grantee was never disturbed in his possession, nor any adjudication made of the nullity of his grant on account of such decree. Camou v. United States, Perrin v. United States, 163 169 PRIZE. See also BLOCKADE, 3; EVIDENCE, 19, 20. See CLAIMS, 8. See CONFISCATION, 1, 2; WATERS, 6. PUBLIC CONTRACT. See CONTRACTS, 2-5, 10-12. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 1169 See also CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 29, 30; 1. The exaction from the owner of private property of the cost of a public im1. Probable cause for the seizure of a ves-provement in substantial excess of the spesel as prize exists when there are circum-cial benefits accruing to him is, to the extent stances sufficient to warrant suspicion, of such excess, a taking, under the guise of though they may not prove sufficient to war- taxation, of private property for public use rant condemnation. The Olinde Rodrigues, without compensation. Norwood v. Baker, 1065 2. The capture of a vessel while dismantled and lying by the bank of a river when made by the naval forces of the United States, although under the general control of the War Department is not deemed to have been made by the Army instead of the Navy. Oakes v. United States, 1169 3. A vessel purchased by the confederate government from an agent of the owner although without the owner's authority, consent, or knowledge, is not when captured by the United States within the provisions of the act of Congress of March 3, 1800, providing for the restoration to the owners of private vessels recaptured from the enemy as there can be no recapture where there has been no capture. Id. 4. Restitution of a vessel seized as prize for attempting to break a blockade may be made without damages and subject to payment of costs and expenses when there was probable cause to seize the vessel, and after warning she had approached so near the der a mistaken notion of the law and with U. S., BOOK 43. 80 1. A patent for public lands granted un 1261 clared by the act of Congress of March 2, 1889, did not operate by relation to revest in the United States title to timber which had been cut prior to the act of forfeiture, so as to give the United States a right of action against a trespasser who cut the timber. United States v. Loughrey, 420 out authority is void. Morris v. United States, 946 2. Relief against a patent for land issued by inadvertence and mistake can be granted to one who, being duly qualified and entitled, offered to enter the land, and on the denial of his offer instituted a contest, which was pending when the patent issued. Duluth & 12. The title to timber cut prior to forIron Range R. Co. v. Roy, 820 feiture on land granted by the act of Con3. A party cannot defend against a pat-gress of June 3, 1856, to the state of Michient for land, duly issued upon an entry made gan, to aid in the construction of railroads, in the local land office, on the ground that subject to a condition subsequent that unhe was in actual possession of the land at sold lands should revert to the United States the time of the issue of the patent.. John- if the roads were not completed within ten son v. Drew, 88 years, is in the state, and not in the United States. Id. 4. The failure of a pre-emption claimant to make proof and payment within the time required by U. S. Rev. Stat. § 2267, forfeits his right without any cancelation_on records. Northern P. R. Co. v. De Lacey, the PUBLIC POLICY. PUEBLO. See PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS, 8. See DUTIES, 9. 5. An honorably discharged soldier was not entitled to go into Oklahoma territory PUNCTUATION. before the designated time, and make a valid entry of a homestead therein, notwithstanding the general restriction by virtue of the act of Congress of March 2, 1889, § 12, providing that the rights of honorably discharged Union soldiers and sailors shall not be abridged. Calhoun v. Violet, 614 8. The occupation and survey of lands with intent to locate a town site thereon, but without filing a plat or obtaining the adoption of the town site or a patent therefor until after a railroad is located thereon, does not prevent the land from being a part of the public domain for the purposes of a grant to the railroad company. Id. See CLOUD ON TITLE. As Carriers, see CARRIERS. See also COMMERCE, 16, 17; CONSPIRACY, 3-5; CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 13, 14, 22, 33; EVIDENCE, 5; INTERVENTION; LANDLORD AND TENANT, 2; MORTGAGE, 4; PUBLIC LANDS, 6-10, 12; REAL PROPERTY, 1; TAXES, 13-15. The legislature has power to provide a penalty for the failure of a railroad company to prevent the escape of fire from its locomotives without prescribing any specific duty, but leaving to the corporation the selection of the means it deems best therefor. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, RATES. 909 See CARRIERS, 3-6; CONSPIRACY, 3-5; REAL PROPERTY. See also INDIANS, 2. ed to a railroad company on condition of its 1. A provision that certain rights grantestablishing a terminus at a certain point 178 shall cease if the terminus is abandoned cre9. The right to repayment of the excess of $1.25 per acre given by the act of Con-ates a resolutory condition. New Orleans v. Texas & P. R. Co. gress of June 16, 1880, where the double minimum price has been paid for land afterwards found not to be within the limits of a railroad land grant, does not extend to a case in which the lands were at the time of the payment within the limits of such a grant and ceased to be so only because the grant was forfeited. Medbury v. United States, 779 10. Valid entries can be made under the desert land act, of land within the place limits of a land grant to railroad corporations. United States v. Ingram, 465 2. An ordinance giving the right to ex tend railroad tracks from a depot at a designated terminus to certain points, in consideration of the obligation to establish its terminus at that place, creates a suspensive condition or a condition precedent. RECEIVERS. Id. See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 16, 24-27; 1. The claim of an equity or lien on prop 11. The forfeiture of a land grant de-erty held by an officer of a corporation to se cure a debt to himself does not defeat the jurisdiction of a court which has appointed a receiver for the corporation in a suit to which the officer is a party, after hearing on due notice and appearance, to order him to turn over such property to the receiver. Tinsley v. Anderson, 91 2. A receiver in a Federal court who voluntarily goes into a state court cannot question the right of that court to determine the controversy between himself and the other party. Grant v. Buckner, 430 3. A counterclaim or set-off comes within the spirit of the act of Congress of August 13, 1888, allowing a receiver of a Federal court to be sued in a state court without leave of the court appointing him. Id. RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. RECITAL. See GIFT. RECORD. REFERENCE. See ARBITRATION, 2; CONTRACTS, 4. 3. An appropriation act authorizing the attorney general to offer rewards relieves officers who earn such rewards from the provisions of earlier statutes denying extra conpensation to officers. Id RIPARIAN RIGHTS. See BOUNDARIES, 2, 3; COURTS, 17; RIVERS. See WATERS. SALVAGE. 1. An agreement to pay one fourth the value of a vessel as salvage, although it gives very large compensation for the work which actually proves necessary to be done, will not be considered unconscionable or exorbitant, when it was made after the refusal by the master of an offer to do the work for such salvage as the court should award, and after receiving bids, and full advice from the owners of the vessel and their agent, who came to the vessel and saw her situation, and when ger. The Elfrida, See APPEAL AND ERROR, IV.; INDIANS, the vessel was in fact never in imminent dan2. 413 2. A salvage contract for stipulated compensation, dependent upon success within a limited time, although the amount may be much larger than a mere quantum meruit, will not be set aside unless corruptly entered into, or made under fraudulent representations, a clear mistake, or suppression of important facts, in immediate danger to the RELEASE. See DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION. REMOVAL OF CAUSES. See ACTION OR SUIT, 5, 6; APPEAL AND ship, or under other circumstances amountERROR, 22, 53. REPEAL. See STATUTES, 5. RES JUDICATA. See JUDGMENT. RESOLUTORY CONDITION. RESTITUTION. See PRIZE, 4. RESTRAINT OF TRADE. RETAIL. See COMMERCE, 8. REVIVOR. ing to compulsion, or unless its enforcement would be contrary to equity and good conscience. Id. SANTA ANNA. See PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS, 10. SCHEDULE. See CARRIERS, 6. SEALED VERDICT. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 71; JUDGMENT, 10. SEAL FISHERIES. 1. The right to take fur seals under a so-called lease from the government, which is expressly subject to such regulations of the business as the United States may make, does not entitle the lessee to any damages for a reduction of the catch allowed by the regula See ACTION OR SUIT, 5, 6; CONFLICT OF tions for which a reduction of rentals is proLAWS, 1. |