ment of Mexico as continuing after its sepa- | port as to constitute a flagrant disregard of ration from Spain Ely v. United States, her duty to shun it. The Olinde Rodrigues, 142

1065 7. A sale of land by the intendant of 5. A claimant who moves on the captor's Sonora, and Sinaloa in 1821, which was com- proofs only for the discharge and restitution pleted by title issued by the commissary.gen- of a vessel seized as prize cannot, on the deeral and by the payment of the purchase vial of his motion, demand as matter of price into the public treasury, and which right that the cause be opened again to alwas never questioned by the Mexican govern- low him to make proofs.

Id. ment, should be recognized as valid by the

6. A libel alleging that the seizure of a court of private land claims.

Id. vessel "was made for the reason that said 8. Pueblo and mission lands in Mexico steamer was used by and with the knowledge seem, when abandoned, to have become, uno and consent of the owner in aiding the presder the laws existing in 1844, a part of the ent rebellion against the United States con. public domain of the nation, which could not trary to the act of August 6, 1861," suffi. be granted by officers of a state. Faxon v. ciently alleges that she was so used with the United States,

151 knowledge and consent of her owner as well 9. The departmental treasurer of Sonora as that she was seized for that reason. Oakes did not in 1844 have the power to determine v. United States,

1109 by his sole authority that abandoned mission lands were of the temporalities, and that PROBABLE CAUSE. their value was not over $500, entitling him

See PRIZE, 1. to sell them.

Id. 10. The decree of Santa Anna on Novem


See WRIT AND PROCESS. ber 25, 1853, while he was temporary dicta. tor and shortly before the Gadsden treaty PROMISSORY NOTES. was made with him by the United States,

See BILLS AND NOTES, whereby he declares that alienations of public lands by the several states without ap- PROPERTY. proval of the general government are null, will not preclude the recognition of such a

See CLAIMS, 8. claim which had become à vested right at

PROPRIETARY. the time of his decree, when the grantee was never disturbed in his possession, nor any

See CONFISCATION, 1, 2; WATERS, & adjudication made of the nullity of his grant PUBLIC CONTRACT. on account of such decree. Camou v. United

See CONTRACTS, 2-5, 10–12. States,

163 Perrin v. United States,


See also CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 29, 30;

See also BLOCKADE, 3; EVIDENCE, 19, 20.

1. The exaction from the owner of pri

vate 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

443 2. The capture of a vessel while disman- 2. A special assessment upon abutting tled and lying by the bank of a river when property by the front foot, without taking made by the naval forces of the United special benefits into account, for the entire States, although under the general control of cost and expense of opening a street, includthe War Department is not deemed to have ing, not only the amount to be paid for the been made by the Army instead of the Navy. land, but the cost and expenses of the proOakes v. United States,

1169ceedings, is a taking of private property for 3. A vessel purchased by the confederate public use without compensation. Id. government from an agent of the owner al- 3. By resorting to a state court to obthough without the owner's authority, contain relief from an assessment and from any sent, or knowledge, is not when captured by personal liability provided for by an unconthe United States within the provisions of stitutional statuto, a nonresident does not the act of Congress of March 3, 1800, provid. thereby in any manner consent or render ing for the restoration to the owners of pri. himself liable to a judgment against him vate vessels recaptured from the enemy as providing for any personal liability. Dewey there can be no recapture where there has v. Des Moines,

065 been no capture.


PUBLIC LANDS. 4. Restitution of a vessel seized as prize

See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 35, 36; for attempting to break a blockade may be

CLAIMS, 6; COURTS, 3, 4; Taxes, 13; made without damages and subject to pay

WATERS, 7, 8. ment of costs and expenses when there was probable cause to seize the vessel, and after 1. A patent for public lands granted unwarning she had approached so near the der a mistaken notion of the law and withU. S., BOOK 43. 80


out authority is void. Morris v. United States,


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,


12. The title to timber cut prior to forfeiture on land granted by the act of Con

3. 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, years, is in the state, and not in the United States. Id.


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 & Iron Range R. Co. v. Roy,


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 the records. Northern P. R. Co. v. De Lacey,


5. An honorably discharged soldier was not entitled to go into Oklahoma territory 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,


6. The grant of land by the act of Congress of July 2, 1864, was not blotted out with respect to an intervening pre-emption claim by the resolution of Congress adopted May 31, 1870, making a further grant. Northern P. R. Co. v. De Lacey,


7. The fact that only 25 feet in width of its right of way has been occupied for railroad purposes, under a grant of 200 feet on each side of the track, does not prevent the railroad company from claiming the full width of the grant as against persons who had occupied the premises for the purpose of making a townsite location thereof, but had not acquired a right thereto as against the railroad company when the road was built. Northern P. R. Co. v. Smith,


[blocks in formation]


COURTS, 6; WATERS, 13, 14.


See also INDIANS, 2.

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.

ed to a railroad company on condition of its 1. A provision that certain rights grantestablishing a terminus at a certain point


shall cease if the terminus is abandoned cre


9. 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. gress of June 16, 1880, where the double Texas & P. R. Co. 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,


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

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.



See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 16, 24-27;

ure a debt to himself does not defeat the ju. 3. An appropriation act authorizing the isdiction of a court which has appointed a attorney general to offer rewards relieves sceiver for the corporation in a suit to officers who earn such rewards from the pro hich the officer is a party, after hearing on visions of earlier statutes denying extra consue notice and appearance, to order him to pensation to officers.

Id. urn over such property to the receiver. firsley v. Anderson,

91 RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 2. A receiver in a Federal court who vol. See BOUNDARIES, 2, 3; COURTS, 17; intarily goes into a state court cannot ques

DAMS; EMINENT DOMAIN, 2; WATERS, ion the right of that court to determine the ontroversy between himself and the other RIVERS. party. Grant v. Buckner,


See WATERS. 3. A counterclaim or set-off comes within the spirit of the act of Congress of August

SALVAGE. 13, 1888, allowing a receiver of a Federal 1. An agreement to pay one fourth the court to be sued in a state court without value of a vessel as salvage, although it gives leave of the court appointing him. Id. very large compensation for the work which

actually proves necessary to be done, will not RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. be considered unconscionable or exorbitant, See INDICTMENT,

when it was made after the refusal by the

master of an offer to do the work for such RECITAL.

salvage as the court should award, and after See GIFT.

receiving bids, and full advice from the own

ers of the vessel and their agent, who came to RECORD.

the vessel and saw her situation, and when See APPEAL AND ERROB, IV.; INDIANS, the vessel was in fact never in imminent dan2. ger. The Elfrida,


2. A salvage contract for stipulated comREFERENCE.

pensation, dependent upon success within a See ARBITRATION, 2; CONTRACTS, 4.

Îimited time, although the amount may bo

much larger than a mere quantum meruit, RELEASE.

will not be set aside unless corruptly entered See DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.

into, or made under fraudulent representa.

tions, a clear mistake, or suppression of imREMOVAL OF CAUSES.

portant facts, in immediate danger to the See ACTION OR SUIT, 5, 6; APPEAL AND ship, or under other circumstances amount. ERROR, 22, 53.

ing to compulsion, or unless its enforcement

would be contrary to equity and good conREPEAL.


Id. See STATUTES, 6.









1. The right to take fur seals under a

so-called lease from the government, which RETAIL.

is expressly subject to such regulations of the See COMMERCE, 8.

business as the United States may make, does

not entitle the lessee to any damages for a REVIVOR.

reduction of the catch allowed by the regulaSee ACTION OB SUIT, 5, 6; CONFLICT OF tions for which a reduction of rentals is pro LAWS, 1.

vided. North American Commercial Co. v. United States,


2. In reducing the number of seals which 1. An offer of a reward for an arrest by may be taken by a lesses of the government a deputy marshal is not contrary to public in the Pribyloff islands, in the exercise of the policy, when the reward is offered on behalf power reserved to him, it is immaterial of the government. United States v. Mato whether the Secretary of the Treasury acts thews,

738 on his own judgment, or in compliance with 2. Deputy marshals are not excluded from the will of the government as expressed by

Id. a general offer of a reward for an arrest, the treaty with Great Britain. when the offer is made under direction of the 3. The original provisions for a maximum attorney general by authority of a statuto number of seals to be taken by a lessee, and giving him discretion to offer such rewards. a proportionate reduction of the fixed rentals Id.' in case of a limitation, made by the act of


Congress of 1870, is not done away with by dock, which happens purely by accident and implication by the act of May 24, 1874, which without any fault or negligence on the part removes the restrictions imposed by U. S. of anyone engaged in carrying or discharging Rev. Stat. 881960, 1962, concerning the the cargo, is the proximate cause of damage months during which seals may be taken and to cargo, which follows from the immediate the number to be taken on or about each is. inflow of sea water; and such damage is not land respectively.

Id. occasioned by the perils of the sea, within 4. No reduction of the per capita amount exceptions in the bill of lading.

Id to be paid for each sealskin taken and 4. A ship sailing when the weather is shipped by a lessee of the government can be fair is not unseaworthy because ports be made on account of the limitation by the tween decks, which are tightly closed with Secretary of the Treasury of the number of glass, are not also covered with inner covers seals that may be killed, although by U. s. or dummies of iron, when these have been Rev. Stat. § 1962, a proportionate reduction provided for such purpose, and because the of the rents reserved may be made where the hatches are battened down, when these would lease provides for an annual rental of $60,- be opened in two minutes by knocking out 000 and in addition thereto for a certain sum the wedges, and there is no cargo stowed for each skin taken and shipped, as this is against the ports, or anything else to prevent in the nature of a bonus or addition to the or embarrass access to them in case a change stated consideration.

Id. of weather should make it necessary or

proper to close the iron shutters. The Sil. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. via,


5. A schooner was in fault for excessive

speed in case of a collision with a steamer, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR.

when she was sailing at a speed of 7 miles See COURTS, 4.

per hour, through a fog, in waters where

other vessels were frequently met, and her SECRETARY OF TREASURY.

fog horn was heard by the steamer but once. See SEAL FISHERIES, 2.

or possibly twice, while, if the vessels had

been proceeding at the speed required by law, SEQUESTRATION.

their signals would have been exchanged so See APPEAL AND ERROR, 24.

many times that the locality and course of

each would have been made clearly known SERVICE.

to the other, and there would have been sufSee WRIT AND PROCESS.

ficient time to take proper steps for avoiding

the collision. The Chattahoochee, 801 SET-OFF.

One half the rent paid to a receiver by

one who took a lease from him rather than
to be dispossessed, but who is subsequently

SINKING FUND. adjudged to be the owner of one half the es

See CONTRACTS, 12. tate, may be set off against the rent there after accruing for the half that is subject to

SLANDER. the receiver. Grant v. Buckner,







1. Neglect in not closing iron covers of See FOOD
the ports of a ship is a fault or error in the
navigation or in the management of the SONORA.
ship, within the meaning of the exemption See PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS, 7, 9.
from liability for errors in navigation or
management, made by $ 3 of the Harter act.



See STATUTES, 1. 2. Damage to cargo, attributable, not to a peril of the sea, but to the explosion of a part SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE of the cargo after the ship has ended her voy. See EQUITY, 4. age and has been finally and intentionally moored at the dock, there to remain until her SPEED. cargo is taken out of her, is not to be consid.

See SIIIPPING, 6. ered as "occasioned by accidents of navigation,” within the meaning of a bill of lading: STAMPS. The G. R. Booth,


See INDICTMENT, 2. 3. An explosion of a case of detonators, making a hole in the ship's side below the STAMP TAX. water, while a ship is being unladen at the See INTERNAL REVENUE, 2, 4.



PORATIONS; INTERNAL REVENUE, 4. A suit to restrain officers of a state

STREET RAILWAYS. from taking any steps, by means of judicial proceedings, in execution of a state statute 1. Power to confer an exclusive privilege to which they do not hold any special relafor the use of a street by a street-railway tion, is really a suit against the state within company is not inherent in the city council the prohibition of the 11th Amendment of of Detroit. Detroit Citizens' Street R. Co. the Federal Constitution. Fitts v. McGhee, v. Detroit R. Co.

67 535

2. An exclusive right of a street-railway

company to use a street cannot be conferred STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

by a city under the Michigan tram-railway See EQUITY, 1.

act, providing that the corporations formed

for such purposes shall have the exclusive STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

right to use and operate any railways conSee LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.

structed, owned, or held by them, provided

that they shall not construct a railway STATUTES.

through the streets of any town or city withSee also ATTACHMENT, 3; COURTS, 5, 23; out the consent of the municipal authorities. REWARD, 3.

Id. 1. A statute creating a special tribunal SUBMISSION OF CONTROVERSY. for claims against a municipal corporation See ARBITRATION, 2. which have no legal, but only an equitable or moral, obligation, does not regulate praotice SUGAR BOUNTIES. in courts of justice, within the meaning of

See BOUNTIES, 2. a provision restricting local or special laws. Guthrie Nat. Bank v. Guthrie,

796 SUMMONS. 2. In whatever language a statute may be See WRIT AND PROCESS. framed, its purpose must be determined by its natural and reasonable effect. Collins v. SWAMP LAND. New Hampshire,

60 See COURTS, 4. 3. A statute taken from another state will be presumed to be taken with the mean

TAXES. ing it had there. Henrietta Min. & M. Co.

See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 29; CONSTI: v. Gardner,


TUTIONAL LAW, 16, 31, 32; CONTRACTS, 4. A statute authorizing state coupons

2, 3; COUPONS; EMINENT DOMAIN, 1; to be received for all taxes is not altogether


REVENUE; JUDGMENT, 6, 7; STATUTES, void because certain special taxes and dues

4. are, by the existing state Constitution, required to be paid in cash. McCullough v. 1. The state may tax the average numVirginia,

392 | ber of refrigerator cars used by railroads 5. A rightful judgment against the state within the state but owned by a foreign corgives a vested right which cannot be taken poration which has no office or place of busiaway pending writ of error, by a repeal of ness in the state, and employed as vehicles the statute which authorized the state to be of transportation in the interchange of intersued.


state commerce. American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall,

899 6. A city charter authorizing a contract for a water supply, without providing for an

On corporation. election to ratify it, although it does provide

2. A franchise or business tax on the for such an election as a condition of the amount of capital stock employed by a corerection of waterworks by the city, super- poration within the state is not invalid besedes a general statute which requires such cause a portion of its business is the impor. an election to ratify a contract for a water tation and sale of articles in original pack. supply Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Wa- ages. New York, Parke, D. & Co., v. Rob

323 ter Co.

erts, 341

3. A tax on a corporation or its property STIPULATION.

is not a legal equivalent of a tax on the stock See JUDGMENT, 8.

in the names of the stockholders. Owens. boro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro,


On bridge. STOCK.

4. A bridge over the Ohio river between See CORPORATIONS; DAMAGES, 1; Tax Indiana and Kentucky is subject to taxation ES, 2, 3, 10.

in a Kentucky city, so far as it is within the

city boundaries, although they extend to lowSTOCK AND PRODUCE EXCHANGE. water mark on the Indiana side. Henderson See INTERNAL REVENUE, 4. Bridge Co. v. Henderson,


5. The fact that a bridge over the Ohio STOCKHOLDERS.

river was ereoted under the authority or See CORPORATIONS.

with the consent of Congress, and is used for

« ForrigeFortsett »