Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

court is unconstitutional because it takes away the right of trial by jury, and establishes a court unknown to the constitution, although plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of that court from fear that otherwise it might lose the right to demand compensation. Great Falls Manuf'g Co. v. Garland, 631.

37. Under Rev. St. U. S. § 707, providing that "an appeal to the supreme court shall be allowed on behalf of the United States from all

as security for a loan. - Calhoun v. Lanaux, 1345.

42. It is too late to import a federal question into a case for the first time by a petition for a writ of error in this court, filed in the supreme court of the state, after a final decision on the merits.-Id.

Creditors' Bill.

CRIMINAL LAW.

judgments of the court of claims adverse to the See Fraudulent Conveyances.
United States, and on behalf of the plaintiff
in any case where the amount in controversy
exceeds three thousand dollars," the court,
being adverse to the claimant on the merits,
cannot render judgment against the United
States pro forma, for the purpose of an ap-
peal to the supreme court on a question, be-
cause it would affect a class of cases.-United
States v. Gleeson, 502.

Supreme court of District of Colum-
bia.

38. Act Cong. March 3, 1863, relating to the supreme court, District of Columbia, was taken from Code Proc. N. Y. 1851-52, and should be construed in conformity with the interpretation placed upon it by the courts of New York, rather than tested by the law of Maryland prevailing in the District previous to the reorganization of the supreme court by the act of congress.inland & Sea-Board Coasting Co. v. Hall, 397.

Following state practice.

39. Under Rev. St. U. S. § 916, providing that, in the enforcement of judgments in common-law causes in the federal courts, only such remedies shall be pursued "as are now provided in like causes by the laws of the state" or if provided by subsequent laws, are adopted by rule of court, the issuance of an execution against the sureties on a staybond, in accordance with a subsequent law of the state, which had not then been adopted by the federal courts, was void.-Lamaster v. Keeler, 197.

40. Where, on a former trial in the state court, it had been ruled that plaintiff's evidence did not show that he was at the time of the accident traveling either from necessity or for charity; and he subsequently took a nonsuit, and brought his action in the United States circuit court, on the same evidence the circuit court, following the state court, properly refused to submit the question of necessity or charity to the jury.-Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 974.

Conflicting state and federal jurisdiction.

41. The fact that the United States circuit court has appointed receivers of a consolidated association does not deprive the state dated association does not deprive the state court of jurisdiction of a proceeding by mandamus, at the instance of a subscriber to stock of the association, to compel the recorder of mortgages, on the ground that the stock subscribed for has been fully paid, to cancel the record of a mortgage given to secure the subscription, which mortgage has been pledged by the association to the state

See, also, Extradition; Habeas Corpus;
Jury; Witness.

Offenses against election law, see Elections
and Voters.

postal laws, see Post-Office.

Appeal-Review.

1. When the accused escapes, while a suit of error is pending, the case will be stricken from the docket, unless he is brought within the jurisdiction of the court below during the term.-Bonahan v. Nebraska, 1390.

2. Where the information contains several counts, and there is a general verdict for the informants, and no motion is made to have the government elect on which of the counts it claims a verdict, and on appeal it appears that the bill of exceptions does not contain all the evidence, it is sufficient if any one of the counts is good.-Friedenstein v. United States, 838.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

See Treaties, 1, 2.
Classification.

1. Swedish iron nail-rods should be classified as a description of "rolled and hammered iron not otherwise provided for," and not as "bar-iron, rolled or hammered, comprising flats less than three-eighths of an inch or more than two inches thick, or less than one inch or more than six inches wide. "- Worthington v. Abbott, 562.* Violation of laws.

2. Act Cong. June 22, 1874, c. 391, § 12, provides that any person who shall, with intent to defraud the revenue, make or attempt to make any entry of imported merchandise, by means of any fraudulent or false invoice, or who shall be guilty of any willful act or omission by means whereof the United States shall be deprived of the lawful duties, shall for each offense be fined or imprisoned, etc., shall be forfeited. Held, that the forfeiture and in addition to such fine, such merchandise may be enforced by proceedings in rem independently of the criminal prosecution.-Origet v. United States, 8+6.

Information.

3. Informations of seizure for forfeitures are civil proceedings in rem, and controlled by Rev. St. U. S. § 954, providing that no judgment or other proceeding in civil causes "shall be arrested or reversed for any defect

or want of form * * * except those which, | It is competent for the importer to show that in cases of demurrer, the party demurring the appraisement was void by evidence that specially sets down, together with his de- the examination was not conducted as remurrer, as the cause thereof. "- Friedenstein quired by law.-Id.; Id. v. United States, 838.

4. Under act Cong. June 22, 1874, c. 391, § 16, (18 St. 189,) providing that in all proceedings for forfeitures under the customs revenue laws, it shall be the duty of the court to submit to the jury for special finding the question "whether the alleged acts were done with an actual intention to defraud the United States," a verdict "that_the_goods_ were brought in with intent to defraud the United States" is sufficient, without stating that the "acts alleged" in the information were done with such intent. - Origet v. United States,

846.

11. Where the complaint alleges that defendant, as collector, exacted more than the true amount as duty on certain goods, and the answer alleges that the amount collected was the amount properly due according to the rate of duty imposed by law on the goods in question, the fact that the duty was assessed on the theory that the goods contained wool, does not prevent defendant from showing that, though they contained no wool, they were liable on other grounds to the amount of duty collected.-Herrman v. Miller, 1090. Action to recover payments.

5. Act Cong. June 22, 1874, c. 391, § 16, pro12. A reliquidation of customs duties based vides that in all proceedings for forfeitures not on a reappraisement of the value of the under the customs revenue laws it shall be merchandise by the local appraiser, but a the duty of the court to submit to the jury change in the rate of duty, and by a disallowfor special finding the question whether the ance of a discount, and made more than one alleged acts were done with an actual inten-year after settlement without protest, will tion to defraud the United States. Held, not sustain an action to recover back the exthat it is not necessary to aver in the infor- cess, such settlement being final and conclumation that the alleged acts were done with sive under act June 22, 1874, § 21, (18 St. U. such intention, nor that the judgment should S. 190.)-Beard v. Porter, 556. recite that such finding was rendered.-Friedenstein v. United States, 838; Origet v. Same,

846.

[blocks in formation]

Appraisement.

8. In an action to recover an alleged excess of duties exacted by a collector, it is competent for the importer to prove the appraisement void by showing that the merchant appraiser was not "familiar with the character and value of the goods in question," as required by Rev. St. U. S. § 2930.-Oelbermann v. Merritt, 151; Mustin v. Cadwalader, 158.

9. The evidence of a merchant appraiser, appointed under Rev. St. U. S. § 2930, to value the goods imported, is admissible to show that the appraiser did not possess the qualifications required by that section, and to show the extent and character of the examination made.-Id.; Id.

10. Rev. St. U. S. § 2901, provides the manner in which an examination of imported goods shall be conducted on appraisement.

13. Under Rev. St. U. S. § 3011, providing for the recovery of duties illegally exacted, no recovery can be had when the duty was paid after the importer had received the goods, although paid under protest.-Porter v. Beard,

554.

14. Under Rev. St. § 3012, providing for a bill of particulars in suits for recovery of duties illegally exacted, the declaration need not show that the action was brought within the time limited by statute. - Beard v. Porter, 556.

15. Under Rev. St. U. S. § 2499, providing that non-enumerated articles which bear a similitude to any article enumerated as dutiable, shall be subject to the duty charged on the enumerated articles which they most resemble, the question of similitude, in an action against a collector for collecting an excessive duty, is one of fact for the jury, when the goods in question resemble more than one enumerated article.-Herrman v. Miller, 1090. Collectors.

16. Plaintiff's trunk, on her arrival at the port of New York, was examined by the custom-house officials, and erroneously decided to contain dutiable articles, and was therefore detained on the dock, in accordance with the regulations of the custom-house, until it could be sent to the public store for appraisement. Before it could be removed it was destroyed by fire. In an action against the collector of the port to recover its value, held, that defendant, being a public officer, was not chargeable with the negligence or misconduct of his subordinates in the course of their employment, in the absence of evidence that such subordinates were incompetent or were improperly selected.-Robertson v. Sichel, 1286. Construction of laws.

17. Rev. St. U. S. § 2907, and act June 22, 1874, § 14, (18 St. 189,) providing that, in determining the dutiable value of imports, there shall be added to the invoice price the cost of

transportation from the place of growth, pro- | or provided for in the act, quilts composed of duction, or manufacture to the place of ship-cotton and eider-down, or silk and eider-down, ment, apply only to cases where the place of growth, production, or manufacture is in the same country as the place of shipment, and not to cases where the import comes from one country, and is transported into, and shipped to the United States, from another country.Robertson v. Downing, 1328.

18. Under act Cong. March 3, 1883, (22 St. 489, 525,) which took effect July 1, 1883, and provided that all imported goods which may be in public stores or bonded warehouses on the day when this act shall go into effect shall be subjected to no other duty on entry for consumption than if the same were imported after that day, goods on a vessel entered at port June 30, 1883, and remaining thereon in charge of a customs officer preliminary to their removal, are dutiable only under such act, though not entered in bond until July 7, 1883. -Hartranft v. Oliver, 958.

Classification.

19. In an action to recover customs duties, a charge to the jury, where all the evidencé showed that the goods were "trimmings," that it is the use to which articles are chiefly adapted, and for which they are used, which determines their character within the meaning of this act; that they will therefore determine to what use these articles in question are chiefly devoted; if they are hat-trimmings, and used for making and ornamenting hats, then the rate of duty imposed was excessive, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover; if they are chiefly used for other purposes, the defendants must recover,-fairly presents the question, under 22 St. U. S. § 512, which provides for a duty on trimmings used for making or ornamenting hats.-Hartranft v. Langfeld, 732.

20. In an action to recover customs duties claimed to have been illegally imposed on goods claimed to be "trimmings used for making or ornamenting hats," the refusal of an instruction in accordance with Rev. St. U. S.

2499, which provides that, if a non-enumerated article equally resemble two enumerated articles, it shall pay the highest duty imposed on either, is immaterial where the jury finds that the goods belonged to an enumerated class.-Id.

21. Goods composed of 80 per cent. goat's hair and 20 per cent. cotton, such as brilliantines, lustrines, alpacas, and mohairs, which prior to 1870 had not come to be specifically known in this country as women's dress goods, are assessable for duty under act Cong. July 14, 1870, $21, as amended by act 1871, (16 St. 592,) providing for duties on hair-cloth known as "crinoline cloth," and "on all other manufactures of hair not otherwise herein provided for;" and not under act of March 2, 1867, (14 St. 561,) relating to duties on women's dress goods composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, hair of the alpaca, goat, or other like animal. -Arthur's Ex'rs v. Butterfield, 714.

22. Under act Cong, March 3, 1883, (22 St. 488,) relating to the duty on cotton and silk goods, and placing eider-down on the free-list, and levying a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem on all manufactured articles not enumerated

the eider-down in each case being the component material of chief value, are dutiable, on importation into the United States, at 20 per cent. ad valorem, as manufactured articles not enumerated.-Hartranft v. Sheppard, 920.

23. Act Cong. March 2, 1867, c. 197, (14 St. 561,) imposes (section 2) the following duties: "On woolen cloths, woolen shawls, and all manufactures of wool of every description made wholly or in part of wool, not herein otherwise provided for, 50 cents per pound, and, in addition thereto, 35 per cent. ad valorem. On flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit goods, balmorals, woolen and worsted yarns, and all manufactures of every description composed wholly or in part of worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other like animals, except such as are composed in part of wool," different duties. Held, that knit stockings, composed in part of wool, were dutiable under the first clause of section 2.-Miller v. Vietor, 1225.

24. Tissue paper for making letter-press copies of written matter is within the clause imposing a duty of 35 per centum ad valorem "on all other paper not otherwise provided for," and not within the clause providing for "paper, * printing, unsized, used for books and newspapers exclusively, 20 per centum ad valorem. Rev St. U. S. § 2504, Schedule M.-Lawrence v. Merritt, 1099.

*

*

[ocr errors]

DAMAGES.

For infringement, see Patents for Inventions, 53-57.

In condemnation proceedings, see Eminent Domain, 2.

Neglect in sending message, see Telegraph Companies, 1.

For breach of contract.

1. In an action for a breach of contract to deliver iron the plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the market price at the date of the refusal to fulfill the contract.-Roberts v. Benjamin, 393. Evidence.

2. Under a contract of agistment, where the defendant agreed to preserve the hides of all steers which should die, in order to recover damages for the non-delivery of the hides, their value must be shown.-Teal v. Bilby, 239.

[blocks in formation]

caused the intestate's death, or how his body | designated depositary, and requiring any came to be found there, it is error to direct the jury to find for plaintiff, the proof not showing that the intestate lost his life in consequence of the collision.-Providence & S. S. S. Co. v. Clare, 1094.

Of streets.

DEDICATION.

Certain streets having been dedicated as terminating at a river, the river bed in front was, by legislative authority, filled in below high-water mark, and the land so formed, described by metes and bounds, was deeded by the state, for value, to defendants, who had also succeeded to the title of the dedicator. Held, that the title to the filled-in land, being derived directly from the state, was not affected by the dedication, and that the streets terminated at the former high-water mark. City of Hoboken v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 643.

[blocks in formation]

Acknowledgment.

check therefor to specify "the account for which it is drawn," the depositary is not bound to keep a separate account for each bankrupt's estate, but checks so drawn must be paid out of any funds then to the credit of the court.-Id.

[blocks in formation]

Board of public works.

1. The Ballard Pavement Company made verbal propositions to the vice-president of the board of public works of the District of Columbia for laying street pavements, and received a writing, signed by the assistant secretary of the board, reciting and accepting the company's proposition. There was no evidence that the assistant secretary was aunor that the vice-president was authorized to thorized by the board to execute this writing, make a contract for the work, nor that the board ever ratified it. Held, that the alleged act of February 21, 1871, § 37, providing that contract did not meet the requirements of the

lic works shall be in writing, and shall be signed by the parties making the same, and a copy thereof shall be filed in the office of the secretary of the district. "-Brown v. District of Columbia, 1314.

1. The signature of one of the grantors in a deed was expressly attested by only one wit-"all contracts made by the said board of pubness, but the justice who took his acknowledgment signed, together with such witness, a memorandum in the deed in reference to an interlined word, and also certified in taking the acknowledgment that the person making it was "the individual described in and who 2. Under 16 St. U. S. 423, c. 62, §§ 15, 37, "to executed the within instrument." Held a provide a government for the District of Cosufficient attestation by two witnesses.-Cul-lumbia," which requires that all contracts by bertson v. H. Witbeck Co., 1136.

2. Under How. St. Mich. § 5660, providing that where an acknowledgment of a deed is taken in another state the clerk certifying to the official character of the officer shall also state that the deed was "executed and acknowledged according to the laws of such state," such certificate by the clerk sets at rest any question as to the validity of the form of the acknowledgment in such deed.

-Id.

DEPOSITARIES.

Payment of checks.

1. When money is deposited with a designated depositary of the United States to the credit and in the name of a federal court, as provided by Rev. St. U. S. § 995, checks drawn by the court, and specifying, according to section 996, the cause in which they are drawn, must be paid out of the account generally; and naming the cause in the check is merely a memorandum for the benefit of the court, and not a direction to the bank to pay it out of any particular fund.-State Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 521.

2. Under rule 28 in bankruptcy, providing that all money received on account of any bankrupt's estate shall be deposited with one

and forbids the allowance of extra compensathe board of public works shall be in writing, tion, plaintiff, who had contracted to do certain grading, excavating, and refilling at specified prices, cannot claim additional compensation for grading or excavating stone or rock, where the contract was silent on that subject, and the work to be done not limited to earth free from stone or rock, though the journal of the board contained an entry that the chief engineer had been notified to allow larger pay therefor, as such entry formed no part of the contract, and the prices stated in the latter were evidently fixed upon the supposed average character of the work.-Barnard v. District of Columbia, 1202.

Erroneous payment of warrant.

3. Plaintiff indorsed in blank certificates of the board of public works of the District of Columbia, and delivered them to another to secure a debt. Afterwards, hearing that such other had absconded, and knowing that the certificates were negotiable, he gave oral notice to the president and treasurer of the board, and protested against their payment. The board being afterwards abolished, a commission which succeeded it, after giving public notice, examined all such claims, including these certificates, which were presented

by other persons, and allowed; plaintiff making no appearance. Held, that he could not recover, as he was negligent in indorsing over in blank the certificates merely as security, and in giving imperfect notice on discovering the fraud.-Gleason v. District of Columbia, 1118.

4. Where the board of audit passes upon a claim for breach of contract with the board of public works of the District of Columbia, and marks it "disallowed," it is the same as "rejected," within the meaning of the act of June 16, 1880, § 8, (21 St. 284, 286,) providing that "no claim shall be presented to or considered by the court of claims under the provisions of this act which was rejected by the board of audit;" and the fact that the amount of damages claimed before the court of claims is larger than that presented to the board of audit is of no importance, where the contract relied on is the same.-Brown v. District of Columbia, 1314.

DIVORCE.

By act of legislature, see Constitutional Law, 1.

Rights of divorced parties.

The act of congress, Sept. 27, 1850, which conferred title to lands in Oregon territory on certain settlers, required four years' residence on and cultivation of the land before the settler should become the grantee, and that, if he were married, the title, at the end of that time, should inure to the benefit of himself and wife in equal parts. Plaintiff's father settled on land under the act, as a married man, but, before the four years had expired, was divorced from his wife, plaintiff's mother, whose share, under the act, he claims as her heir. Held, that the right of the wife to onehalf of the lands settled was not vested, and was defeated by the divorce.-Maynard v. Hill,

723.

EJECTMENT.

Title to maintain.

1. Neither the certificate of location issued by the register of the local land-office, nor the receiver's receipt, upon final proof, are sufficient evidence of title to support ejectment in the United States courts, though a different rule may prevail in the state courts by statutory provision.-Langdon v. Sherwood, 429.

2. În ejectment, by one claiming by prior possession under color of title, where the evidence fails to show continuous possession to the time when dispossessed by defendant, plaintiff cannot recover.-Sabariego v. Maverick, 461.

Defenses.

3. A patent from the United States, under which plaintiff in ejectment claims, may be attacked in such action by showing that the land covered by it was a portion of a Mexican grant which had previously been conveyed by the Mexican authorities to a private person, and that said conveyance had been confirmed by the United States land commissioners, and, on appeal, by the district and supreme courts;

[ocr errors]

and that, therefore, the officers of the government had no authority to issue the patent. WAITE, C. J., dissenting. -Doolan v. Carr, 1228. Judgment.

4. In ejectment, a finding and judgment embraced in a single order stated that the court * * * finds for the plaintiffs, and orders and adjudges that they are entitled to and shall have and recover of defendant the possession of so much of said lot," etc. The description following included only a part of the land in litigation. Held, that the finding was for only that part of the land which was described in the judgment, and not a general finding for plaintiffs.-Morgan v. Eggers, 1041.

ELECTIONS AND VOTERS. Jurisdiction in offenses against election laws, see Habeas Corpus.

Offenses against election laws.

1. The acts of congress and the statutes of Indiana make it a criminal offense for an inspector of elections or other election officer, to whom is committed the safe-keeping and delivery to the board of canvassers of the pollbooks, the tally sheets, and the certificates of the votes, at an election for a member of congress, to fail or omit to perform this duty of safe-keeping and delivery.-Ex parte Coy, 1263.

2. In an indictment in a court of the United States for a conspiracy to induce these officers to omit such duty, that the documents mentioned might come to the hands of improper persons, who tampered with and falsified the returns, it is not necessary to allege or prove that it was the intention of these conspirators to affect the election of the member of congress who was voted for at that place, the returns of which were in the same poll-books, tally-sheets, and certificates with those for state officers.-Id.

3. The authority of congress to protect the poll-books which contain the vote for a member of congress, from the danger which might arise from the exposure of these papers to the chance of falsification, or other tampering, is beyond question, and this danger is not removed because the purpose of the conspirators was to falsify the returns as to state officers found in the same poll-books and certificates, and not those of the member of congress.-Id.

EMINENT DOMAIN.

Public improvements, see Municipal Corporations.

Procedure-Waiver of errors.

1. In condemnation proceedings by the United States, objections that the survey and map made by the secretary of war were not sufficiently accurate, and that the notice published by the attorney general was defective, are waived by instituting proceedings in the court of claims to obtain pay for the land taken. -Great Falls Manuf'g Co. v. Garland, 631.

« ForrigeFortsett »