LIBEL AND SLANDER.
See JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 5.
Superiority of lien of attaching creditor of tenant on machinery placed on
leased property.
In this case, held that the lien of the attachment of a creditor of the
tenant on machinery placed by the tenant on a sugar Central in
Porto Rico is superior to the claim of the transferee of an unre-
corded lease, even though the lease required the tenant to place
the machinery on the property. Valdes v. Central Altagracia, 58.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1-4, 11.
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15.
LIQUORS.
See INDIANS, 1, 5–14.
California. Pilotage; Political Code, §§ 2468, 2466, 2432 (see Pilotage,
5). Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 187.
Ordinance of South Pasadena regulating billiard halls (see Consti-
tutional Law, 15). Murphy v. California, 623.
District of Columbia. Drawing jury; § 919 of Code (see Jury and
Jurors). Johnson v. United States, 405.
Georgia. Landlord and tenant; landlord's lien (see Bankruptcy, 2, 4).
Henderson v. Mayer, 631.
Indiana. Regulation of sales of food for stock (see Constitutional
Law, 3, 11). Savage v. Jones, 501.
Iowa. Regulation of sales of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs
(see Constitutional Law, 13). Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright,
540.
Massachusetts. Practice regarding determination of mental capacity
of jurors (see Common Law). Jordan v. Massachusetts, 167.
New York. General Corporation Law; validity of contracts of foreign
corporations. As construed by the Court of Appeals of that State,
§ 15 of the General Corporation Law of New York does not make
contracts of a foreign corporation which has not complied with its
provisions absolutely void, but merely disables the corporation
from suing thereon in the courts of the State. David Lupton's
Sons v. Automobile Club, 489.
North Carolina. Transportation of freight by common carriers (sce
Interstate Commerce, 13). Southern Ry. Co. v. Burlington Lumber
Co., 99.
Porto Rico. Landlord and tenant; immobilization of property. Under
the general law of Porto Rico, machinery on property by a tenant
does not become immobilized; when, however, a tenant places
it there pursuant to contract that it shall belong to the owner, it
becomes immobilized as to that tenant and his assigns with notice,
although it does not become so as to creditors not having legal
notice of the lease. Valdes v. Central Altagracia, 58.
Virginia. Tolls and toll-roads (see Constitutional Law, 9). Norfolk
Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 264.
1. Carriage; regulation demanded by public policy.
Public policy requires that the mail be carried subject to postal regu-
lations, and that the Department and not the railroad shall, in the
absence of contract, determine what service is needed and the con-
ditions under which it shall be performed. Atchison, Ț. & S. F.
Ry. Co. v. United States, 640.
2. Carriers of; regulations to which subject.
A railroad company, not required so to do by its charter, is not bound
to furnish postal cars of the kind demanded or to accept terms
named by the Postmaster General, but if it does carry the mail, it
does so as an agency of the Government and subject to the laws
and the regulations of the Department. Ib.
3. Railroads; right to extra compensation when employing unauthorized
A railroad company cannot, by using a larger railway postal car than
that authorized by the Department, recover the greater value of
the car. Ib.
4. Postmaster General; power in respect of establishment of postal lines.
The Postmaster General can establish full railway postal lines, and
as the greater includes the less, he can also establish half lines; he
can abolish between two points a full line in one direction and a
half line in the other. Ib.
See COURTS, 3;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 6.
MARITIME LAW.
See ADMIRALTY;
PILOTAGE.
MARRIAGE.
See ALIENS, 2, 3, 4.
MARRIED WOMEN.
See ALIENS, 2, 3, 4;
IMMIGRATION, 5.
MARYLAND.
See BOUNDARIES.
MASTER AND SERVANT.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 9.
MORTGAGES AND DEEDS OF TRUST.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 24, 30.
1. Certificate of citizenship; power of Congress to authorize proceeding to
Congress may authorize direct proceedings to attack certificates of
citizenship on the ground of fraud and illegality; and § 15 of the act
of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 596, 601, c. 3592, providing for such
cases, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress under Art. I, § 8
of the Constitution of the United States. Johannessen v. United
States, 227.
2. Certificate of citizenship; conclusiveness of.
The foundation of the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by judgment
is that both parties have had their day in court, Southern Pacific
R. R. Co. v. United States, 168 U. S. 1, 48; and where a certificate
of naturalization was issued without the Government appearing
there is no estoppel against it, nor is such a certificate conclusive
against the public. Ib.
3. Certificates; annulment for fraud.
Certificates of naturalization, like patents for land or inventions, when
issued ex parte can be annulled for fraud. Ib.
4. Certificates; judicial review; how conducted.
How the judicial review of a certificate of naturalization should be
conducted rests in legislative discretion. Ib.
5. Certificates; conclusiveness of; quære as to.
Quare as to the conclusive effect of a certificate of naturalization issued
after appearance and cross-examination by the Government. Ib.
6. Certificates; power of court of equity in respect of; quære as to.
Quare: Whether, in the absence of statute such as the act of June 29,
1906, a court of equity could set aside, or restrain the use of, a
certificate of naturalization. Ib.
7. Concellation of certificate; nature of act providing for.
An alien has no legal or moral right to retain citizenship obtained
solely by fraud, and an act permitting the cancellation of a certifi-
cate so obtained is not a punishment but simply nullifies that which
the party had no right to. Ib.
See ALIENS, 2, 3, 4;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 25;
JUDGMENTS ANd Decrees, 1.
1. Railroad crossings; care exacted of one going upon or over.
The law requires of one going upon or over a railroad crossing the
exercise of such care for his own protection as a reasonably prudent
person ordinarily would take in the same or like circumstances, in-
cluding the use of his faculties of sight and hearing. Flannelly v.
Delaware & Hudson Co., 597.
2. Railroad crossings; care in use; when question for jury.
Whether such care has been exercised is generally a question of fact
for the jury, especially if the evidence be conflicting or such that
different inferences may reasonably be drawn from it. Ib.
3. Railroad crossings; when question of negligence in use of, one for jury.
In this case, held that the evidence on the question of contributory
negligence of a woman crossing a dangerous railroad crossing was
properly submitted to the jury, and that there was evidence from
which the jury could well have found, as they did, that she was not
negligent. Ib.
See ACTIONS;
JURISDICTION, A 5, 6.
See PRACTICE And Procedure, 7.
OFFENSES.
See CRIMINAL LAW.
OKLAHOMA ENABLING ACT.
See INDIANS, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18.
ONUS PROBANDI.
See FRAUD;
JURISDICTION, C 3, 4;
PATENTS, 3, 5, 10.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 14–17;
ORIGINAL PACKAGES.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 3.
Want of necessary party; when motion to dismiss for, will not prevail;
appearance of State affecting.
Although a State may not be named as a party in the original proceed-
|