See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3;
EQUITY, 2, 3, 4, 7;
COMMERCE, Act of February 4, 1887, § 15, as amended in 1906 (see Courts, 15): Balto. & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 481 (see Interstate Commerce Commission, 6): Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 452. Section 23 added in 1889 and § 15 as amended in 1906 (see Mandamus, 6): Balto. & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 481. Hepburn Act of June 29, 1906, § 15 (see Commerce, 4): Interstate Commerce Commission v. Stickney, 98.
CONSPIRACY, Rev. Stat., § 5440 (see Criminal Law, 2): United States v. Stevenson (No. 2), 200.
COPYRIGHTS, Act of July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 212 (see Copyrights, 2): Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co., 182.
CUSTOMS, Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 1890, § 9, 26 Stat.
131 (see Customs Law, 1): United States v. Mescall, 26. Tariff act of July 24, 1897, § 297, 30 Stat. 151 (see Customs Law, 2): Komada v. United States, 392.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT of June 11, 1906, 34 Stat. 232 (see Em- ployers' Liability Act): El Paso & Northeastern Ry. Co. v. Gu- tierrez, 87.
IMMIGRATION, Act of February 20, 1907, 34 Stat. 898 (see Statutes
A 4): United States v. Stevenson, 190. Section 4 (see Criminal Law, 2): Ib.
INDIANS, Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388 (see Indians, 2, United States v. Celestine, 278. Act of May 8, 1906, 34 Stat. 182 (see Indians, 4): Ib.
JUDICIARY, Act of 1789 (see Courts, 1): Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank Co., 33. Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 47, as amended by act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, corrected by act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433 (see Jurisdiction, C 2): Macon Grocery Co. v. 621
Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 501. Act of March 3, 1891, § 5, 26 Stat. 826, as amended January 20, 1897, 29 Stat. 492 (see Jurisdiction, A 4, 5, 6): Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 437; The Steamship Jefferson, 130. Act of February 11, 1903, § 1, 32 Stat. 823 (see Jurisdiction, A 3): Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 216; Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 226. Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1246 (see Jurisdiction, A 1, 2): United States v. Corbett, 233. Rev. Stat., 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 7, 8, 9, 11, 13): El Paso & Northeastern Ry. Co. v. Gutierrez, 87; Sylvester v. Washington, 80; First National Bank v. Estherville, 341; Scully v. Squier, 144; Kansas City Star Co. v. Julian, 589. Rev. Stat., § 914 (see Courts, 12): Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 437 (see Practice and Procedure, 5): Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Kirven, 252. NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat., § 5209 (see Criminal Law, 4, Jurisdic- tion, A 2, Statutes, A 2): United States v. Corbett, 233. Rev. Stat., § 5311 (see Statutes, A 2): Ib.
OLEOMARGARINE, Act of May 9, 1902, § 6, 32 Stat. 193 (see Statutes, A 7): United States v. Union Supply Co., 50.
PHILIPPINE ORGANIC ACT of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691 (see Jurisdic-
tion, A 10): Reavis v. Fianza, 16. Section 22 (see Philippine Islands, 1): Ib. Sections 28 and 45 (see Philippine Islands, 2, 3): Ib.
PUBLIC LANDS, Act of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489 (see Public Lands, 4): Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Harris, 386. Oregon Donation Act of September 27, 1850, 9 Stat. 496, as amended July 17, 1854, § 2, 10 Stat. 305 (see Public Lands, 6): Sylvester v. Washington, 80. Rev. Stat., § 2387 (see Jurisdiction, A 11; Public Lands, 5): Scully v. Squier, 144.
PUBLIC WORKS, Labor and Material Law of February 24, 1905, 33 Stat. 811, amending act of August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278 (see Public Works, 1, 3): Mankin v. Ludowici-Celadon Co., 533.
1. Jurisdiction of case involving salvage service to vessel in dry dock. Salvage service, over which a court of admiralty has jurisdiction, may
arise from all perils which may encompass a vessel when on waters within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and this includes services rendered to a vessel undergoing repairs in dry dock and in danger of being destroyed by fire which origi- nated on land. The Steamship Jefferson, 130.
2. Jurisdiction over vessel in dry dock.
A vessel used for navigation and commerce does not cease to be a
subject of admiralty jurisdiction because temporarily in a dry dock without water actually flowing around her. Ib.
ALIEN CONTRACT LABOR. See CRIMINAL LAW, 2; STATUTES, A 4.
ALLOTTEE INDIANS.
See INDIANS, 2, 4.
See PLEADING, 2;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 1.
1. Propriety of method of bringing up judgment of Supreme Court of Philippine Islands.
Writ of error and not appeal is the proper method to bring up to this court a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands in cases affecting title to land in Court of Land Registration. (Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 U. S. 449.) Tiglao v. Insular Government, 410.
2. When writ of error actually brought.
A writ of error is not actually brought until filed in the court which rendered the judgment, and the same rule is applicable to ap- peals. (Credit Company v. Arkansas Central Railway, 128 U. S. 261.) Old Nick Williams Co. v. United States, 541.
3. Time for taking appeals from one Federal court to another. The statutory time for taking appeals from one Federal court to another is prescribed by act of Congress and must be calculated accordingly; it cannot be extended by order of the court. Ib.
4. Delay in filing writ not excused by delay in settling bill of exceptions. Assignment of errors does not require the previous settlement of the
bill of exceptions, and failure to file the writ within the statutory time is not excused because there was delay on the part of the trial judge in settling the bill. Ib.
5. Scope of review on writ of error where rights depend upon validity of a deed under an act of Congress.
On a writ of error where the rights of the parties depend upon the
validity of a deed under an act of Congress this court is con- fined to the question of validity under the statute and the effect of the deed, if valid, upon the later rights and acquisitions of the grantor is a matter of local law; and, in this case, the court will not disturb the assumption of the state court that a settler giving a valid deed before patent perfected the title and obtained the patent on behalf of his grantee or else that the patent enured to the benefit of the grantee. Sylvester v. Washington, 80.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION. See JURISDICTION.
APPLIED CASES. See CASES APPLIED.
APPROVED CASES.
Sce CASES APPROVED.
ASSESSMENT OF STOCK. See NATIONAL BANKS.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR See APPEAL AND ERROR, 4;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2, 3.
Attendance at court; notice of proceedings presumed.
Attorneys of record are supposed to be present during the terms of the court in which their causes are pending, and are chargeable with notice of proceedings transpiring in open court. Dam &c. Co. v. United States, 266.
BANKRUPTCY.
See BANKS AND BANKING, 5; FEDERAL QUESTION.
1. Securities; duty of bank to return on refusal to use as requested. When a bank refuses to do the particular thing requested with securi-
ties delivered to it for that purpose only, it is its duty to return the securities and no general lien in its favor attaches to them. Hanover Bank v. Suddath, 110.
2. Lien of bank on securities deposited with it for a particular purpose. The fact that a bank has in its possession securities which were sent
to it for a particular purpose and which it is its duty to return to the sender, does not justify its retaining them for any other purpose under a banker's agreement giving it a general lien on all securities deposited by the sender. Ib.
3. Lien of bank on securities Construction of agreement.
A banker's agreement giving a general lien on securities deposited by its correspondent will not be construed so as to give it a broad meaning beyond its evident scope and in conflict with the precepts of duty, good faith and confidence necessary for commercial transactions; nor will a printed form prepared by the banker be so extended by the construction of any ambiguous language. Ib.
4. Securities; retention for purpose other than that intended. Implied
In this case it was held that the retention by a bank of securities for a purpose different from that for which they were sent by its correspondent could not be predicated on the consent of the latter, and that inaction of the correspondent could not be con- strued as consent. Ib.
5. Right of bank to set off overdraft of bankrupt against paper sent it for discount and wrongfully retained. Where a bank, after refusing to discount paper sent to it by the insolvent for that purpose, has retained the paper, it cannot, as against general creditors, set off against that paper, or its proceeds, the bankrupt's overdraft although made after such refusal and pending the retention of the paper. Hanover Bank v. Suddath (No. 2), 122.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 4.
CAR DISTRIBUTION.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 2-7; MANDAMUS, 7.
See COMMERCE, 1–6.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 2-7.
« ForrigeFortsett » |