Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

225 U.S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court.

No. 267. W. H. BYLES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, 1. STATE OF ARKANSAS. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. April 18, 1912. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. A. C. Lyon for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Hal L. Norwood for the defendant in error.

No. 402. JUSTO ARMSTERDAM ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. Felix PUENTE ET AL. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico. April 22, 1912. Dismissed with costs, on, motion of counsel for the appellants. Mr. N. B. K. Pettingill, Mr. H. P. Leake and Mr. Il'. 1'. Robbins for the appellants. Mr. Frederic D. M¢Kenney, Mr. John Spalding Flannery and Mr. Myer Cohen for the appellees.

No. 628. THE CITIZENS' SAVING & TRUST COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. C. C. FOERSTNER, TRUSTEE, ETC. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. April 22, 1912. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the appellant. Mr. Thomas H. Hogsett for the appellant. No appearance for the appellee.

No. 237. SAMUEL LOEB, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, 1. THE STATE OF GEORGIA. In error to the Court of Appcals of the State of Georgia.' April 25, 1912. Disinissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Jackson H. Ralston for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Thomas S. Felder for the defendant in error.

11ay 27. Judgment of dismissal vacated and case restored to docket.

Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 225 U.S.

No. 241. John F. HANSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. Emil GUSTAFSON.' In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. May 1, 1912. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. John F. Hanson, pro se. No appearance for the defendant in error.

No. 245. JACOB OPPENHEIMER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. May 2, 1912. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. Mr. Henry G. W. Dinkelspiel for the plaintiff in error. No appearance for the defendant in error.

1 May 13. Judgment of dismissal vacated and case restored to docket.

INDEX

ACTIONS.

Recovery for negligence precluded in action against carrier on special con-

tract for prompt delivery.
Where plaintiff sues only on a special contract for prompt delivery by

specified train, and there is no count for negligence as a carrier
only, his claim for damages based on such negligence is not pre-
sented, and cannot be considered, on the record. Chicago & Allon
R. R. Co. v. Kirby, 155.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 19, 21; JURISDICTION, H 4;
INDIANS, 2;

LOCAL LAW (N. Y.).

ACTS OF CONGRESS.

ADMIRALTY.-Harter Act of Feb. 13, 1893, 27 Stat. 445, c. 105 (see

Admiralty, 1, 2): The Jason, 32.
BANKRUPTCY.-Act of July 1, 1898, 30 Stat. 544 (see Bankruptcy):

Henderson'v. Mayer, 631. Act of June 7, 1878,20 Stat. 99, c. 160
(see Jurisdiction, A 13): Kyle v. Hammond, 692. Act of March 2,
1867, 14 Stat. 517, c. 176 (see Bankruptcy, 3): Henderson v.

Mayer, 631.
CRIMINAL LAW.-Act of March 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1088, c. 321 (see

Criminal Law, 23, 24, 25): Johnson v. United States, 405. Act of
Jan. 15, 1897, 29 Stat. 487, c. 29 (see Criminal Law, 30): Ib. Rev.
Stat., $ 1032 (see Words and Phrases): 1b. Sections 5339, 5345
(see Criminal Law, 30): Ib. Section 5440 (see Criminal Law, 4, 5,

6, 7, 10, 12, 13): Brown v, Elliott, 392.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.-Code of March 3, 1901 (see Criminal Law,

24, 25, 30; Statutes, A 3): Johnson v. United States, 405. Sec-

tion 919 (see Jury and Jurors): Ib.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Act of April 22, 1908, 35 Stat. 65, c. 149 (see

Jurisdiction, A 5, 6): Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Duvall, 477.
IMMIGRATION.--Act of March 26, 1910, 36 Stat. 263 (see Immigration,

1, 5, 8): Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 460. Act of Feb. 20, 1907, 34

Stat. 898, c. 1134 (see Immigration, 2, 5, 8): 1b.
INDIANS.-Act of March 1, 1895, 28 Stat. 693 (see Indians, 8, 9, 13;

Statutes, A 4): Ex parte Webb, 663. Act of Jan. 30, 1897, 29
Stat. 506, c. 109 (see Indians, 5, 6, 7): Clairmont v. United States,

[ocr errors]

551. Act of July 23, 1892, 27 Stat. 260, c. 234 (see Indians, 5): 1b.
Treaty of May 30, 1860, 12 Stat. 1129 (sce Indians, 15, 16):
Kindred v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 582. Act of June 30, 1834,
4 Stat. 729, c. 161 (sec Statutes, A 9): Clairmont v. United States,

551.
INDIAN TERRITORY. -Act of Feb. 18, 1901, 31 Stat. 794, c. 379 (see

Territories): Shulthis v. McDougal, 561.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-Act of June 18, 1910, 36 Stat. 539, c. 309

(see Courts, 4): Darnell v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 243. Hep-
burn Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591 (sce Interstate
Commerce, 13): Southern Ry. Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co., 99.
Elkins Act of Feb. 19, 1903, 32 Stat. 847, c. 708 (see Interstate
Commerce, 4, 5): Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Kirby, 155. Act of
Feb. 4, 1887, 24 Stat. 379, c. 104 (sec Interstate Commerce, 7, 17):
Interstate Com. Comm. v. Ballimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 326; (sce
Interstate ('ommerce, 19): Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Kirby,
155; (see Jurisdiction, F 3, 5, 6): Procter & Gamble v. United

States, 282; Ilooker v. Knapp, 302.
JUDICIARY.-Act of March 3, 1911, 36 Stat. 1087, c. 231, $ 210 (see

Appeal and Error, 3; Injunction, 1): United States v. Baltimore &
Ohio R. R. Co., 306. Section 237 (s.e Jurisdiction, A 14): Creswill
v. Knights of Pythias, 246. Section 207 (sce Jurisdiction, F 1,5):
Procter & Gamble v. United States, 282; Hooker v. Knapp, 302.
Section 210 (sce Jurisdiction, F 10; Practice and Procedure; 1):
United States v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 306. Act of June 18,
1910, 36 Stat: 539, c. 309 (scu Appeal and Error, 3): Ib.; (see
Jurisdiction, F 1, 3, 4); Procter & Gamble v. United States, 282;
Hooker v. Knapp, 302. Act of April 14, 1906, 34 Stat. 116, c. 2627
(sec Jurisdiction, B 2): United States Fidelity Co. v. Bray, 205.
Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517; (see Jurisdiction, A 7,
8, 9, 11, 12): Ohio R. R. Commission v. Worthington, 101; United
States Fidelity ('o. v. Bray, 205; Chase v. Welzlar, 79; Darnell v. Il-
linois Central R. R. CO., 243; Kyle v. Hammond, 692; (see Jurisdic-
tion, B 2): United States Fidelity Co. v. Bray, 205. Section 5 (see
Appeal and Error, 2): Alississippi R. R. Commission v. Louisville
& Nashville R. R. Co., 272. Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470,
c. 137 (see Jurisdiction, A 9;C 3, 5, 7): Chase v. Wetzlar, 79. Rev.
Stat., $ 709 (sce Jurisdiction, A 1-6): Seaboard Air Line Ry. y.
Duvall, 577; (see Jurisdiction, A 14): Creswill v. Knights of Pythias,
OKLAHOMA. --Act of June 16, 1906, 34 Stat. 267, c. 3335 (see Indians,

246.
NATÚRALIZATION.-Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 596, c. 3592 (see Con-,

stitutional Law, 25; Naturalization, 1, 6): Johannessen v. United
States, 227. Rev. Stat., $ 1994 (see Aliens, 3): Low Wah Suey v.
Backus, 460.

8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18): Ex parte Webb, 663.
PATENTS.-Rev. Stat., $ 4921 (see Patents, 5): Westinghouse Co. v.

Wagner Mfg. Co., 604.
PILOTAGE.-Act of Feb. 28, 1871, 16 Stat. 440, c. 100, $ 51 (sce Pilot-

age, 4): Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 187. Rev. Stat.,

88 4401, 4444 (see Pilotage, 3, 4): 1b.
PUBLIC LANDS.-Act of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489, c. 120, 82 (see

Indians, 15, 17): Kindred v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 582; (sec
Public Lands, 9): 1b. Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 482, c. 152
(see Public Lands, 10, 11, 13): Stalker v. Oregon Short Line, 142.
Act of June 16, 1880, 21 Stat. 287, c. 244, § 2 (see Public Lands,
1, 2, 3, 4, 7): United States v. Colorado Anthracite Co., 219. Rev.

Stat., 88 2347-2352 (see Public Lands, 5, 6, 7): 16.
PURE FOOD AND DRUGS Acr.-Act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. 768,

c. 3915 (see Constitutional Law, 3; Interstate Commerce, 14;
Pure Food and Drugs Act): Savage v. Jones, 501.

ADMIRALTY.

1. General average agreement; validity under Harter Act; right of recovery

under.
A general average agreement inserted in bills of lading, providing that

if the owner of the ship shall have exercised due diligence to make
the ship in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped
and supplied, the cargo shall contribute in general average with
the shipowner even if the loss resulted from negligence in the
navigation of the ship, is valid under the Harter Act, and entitles
the shipowner to collect a general average contribution from the
cargo-owners in respect to sacrifices made and extraordinary
expenditures incurred by him for the common benefit and safety
of ship, cargo and freight subsequent to a negligent stranding.
The Jason, 32.

2. Contribution; right of cargo-owner under 8 3 of Harter Act.
Under $ 3 of the Harter Act, the cargo-owners under the same circum-

stances have a right of contribution from the shipowner for,
sacrifices of cargo made subsequent to the stranding for the com-
mon benefit and safety of ship, cargo and freight. Ib.

3. Contribution; right of cargo-owner in respect of general average sac-

rifices of cargo.
Under the same circumstances the cargo-owners cannot recover con-

tribution from the shipowner in respect of general average sacrifices

VOL. CCXXV-46

« ForrigeFortsett »