in operation, ready to turn out work under the contract on or before No-
vember 19th.
-Lima Locomotive & Machine Co. v. National Steel Castings Co., 155
Fed. 77.....
..83 C. C. A. 593
Nothing will excuse the performance of a contract, except an act of God
or the public enemy.
-Lima Locomotive & Machine Co. v. National Steel Castings Co., 155
Fed. 77......
.83 C. C. A. 593
Whether an action is grounded upon an illegal contract depends upon
whether proof of such contract is necessary to establish the cause of ac-
tion alleged. If so, the court will not enforce it nor any alleged rights
arising out of it.
-Pittsburgh Const. Co. v. West Side Belt R. Co., 154 Fed. 929....
83 C. C. A. 501
Of collision, see "Collisions," § 7.
In general, see "Negligence," § 1.
Of person killed by operation of railroad, see "Railroads," § 2.
Of servant, see "Master and Servant," § 2.
Wrongful conversion of personal property, see "Trover and Conversion."
In fraud of creditors, see "Fraudulent Conveyances."
§ 1. Title, conveyances, contracts, and regulations.
Where the author or owner of a painting is a citizen or subject of a
foreign nation having no reciprocal copyright relations with the United
States, and therefore not entitled to copyright such painting under Rev.
St. § 4952 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3406], as amended by Act March 3,
1891, c. 565, 26 Stat. 1110 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3417], he cannot, while
retaining the painting itself, convey such right to another.
-Bong v. Alfred S. Campbell Art Co., 155 Fed. 116....83 C. C. A. 576
Attorney's lien in stockholder's suit, see "Attorney and Client," § 1.
Bankruptcy of, see "Bankruptcy."
Particular classes of corporations.
See "Municipal Corporations"; "Railroads."
Insurance companies, see "Insurance."
Towing companies, see "Shipping," § 5.
§ 1. Capital, stock, and dividends.
The facts stated in the bill constituted the complainants the equitable
owners of the 11,300 shares of stock assigned to them.
-Rogers v. Penobscot Min. Co., 154 Fed. 606........83 C. C. A. 380
§ 2. Members and stockholders.
Equity rule 94 and the other rules applicable to stockholders' suits
do not control this suit, because complainants' cause of action existed
independently of, and antedated, their rights as stockholders.
-Rogers v. Penobscot Min. Co., 154 Fed. 606........83 C. C. A. 380
§ 3. Officers and agents.
A Vermont statute provides that no debts shall be contracted by a cor-
poration exceeding in amount two-thirds of the capital stock actually paid
in, and that a director, assenting to the creation of an indebtedness ex-
ceeding such amount, becomes personally liable for the excess. Held, that
the liability so imposed was for the benefit of all of the creditors of the
corporation, and was therefore enforceable only by a proceeding in equity.
-Lyman v. Hilliard, 154 Fed. 339...
....83 C. C. A. 117
§ 4. Corporate powers and liabilities.
No action of the stockholders is necessary to authorize or ratify an
agreement by the directors of a corporation to assume a mortgage on
property purchased by the corporation as a part payment of the purchase
price.
-In re Beaver Knitting Mills, 154 Fed. 320..........83 C. C. A. 240
A resolution passed by the board of directors of a corporation on April
6, 1901, authorizing and directing the president to execute on behalf of
the company "an agreement
dated April 5, 1901, regarding ex-
tension of time of payment of second mortgage of $6,000,” held to refer
to and to authorize the execution of a particular written agreement
which was dated April 5th, and to make a provision of such agreement
by which it assumed payment of the mortgage binding upon the com-
pany, the mortgage having been given by a prior owner upon property
which he subsequently conveyed to the company.
-In re Beaver Knitting Mills, 154 Fed. 320..........................83 C. C. A. 240
Where a contract for railroad bridge construction on a percentage basis
originally limited the contractor's net compensation for building the origi-
nal bridges to $33,000, and thereafter the assistant to the president of the
railroad company was sent to confer concerning expediting the work, and
then waived the compensation limit so fixed, and the railroad company
did not promptly repudiate his acts, it would be assumed that he had au-
thority to act in the premises, and that the waiver was binding on the
corporation.
-Freygang v. Vera Cruz & P. R. Co., 154 Fed. 640; Vera Cruz & P.
R. Co. v. Freygang, Id..
..83 C. C. A. 414
Under the Pennsylvania act of April 22, 1874 (P. L. 108), which provides
that it shall be unlawful for a foreign corporation to do any business
in the state until it shall have registered and complied with certain
other requirements to bring it within the jurisdiction of the courts in
the state, and also makes it a criminal offense for any officer or agent to
transact any business within the state for a foreign corporation which
has not complied with its requirements, a contract entered into in Penn-
sylvania by a foreign corporation which had not at the time complied
with the statute to construct a railroad within the state is illegal and
void, and no action can be maintained thereon, either against the other
party or a guarantor to recover the contract price of work done there-
under, although the corporation complied with the statute prior to the
doing of the work.
-Pittsburgh Const. Co. v. West Side Belt R. Co., 154 Fed. 929...........
Of irregularities and errors at trial, see "Trial," § 3.
Criminal jurisdiction of United States courts, see "Criminal Law," § 2.
Judicial notice of court records, see "Evidence," § 1.
Jurisdiction of action to set aside transfer by bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 3.
Pendency of action in state court as ground for abatement of action in federal
court, see "Abatement and Revival," § 1.
Removal of action from state court to United States court, see "Removal of
Causes."
Review of decisions, see "Appeal and Error."
§ 1. Nature, extent, and exercise of jurisdiction in general.
Where the court has no jurisdiction, a general judgment for the defend-
ant is erroneous, because it renders the merits of the case res adjudicata.
It must be reversed and a judgment of dismissal for want of jurisdiction,
or without prejudice, entered.
-Maxwell v. Federal Gold & Copper Co., 155 Fed. 110. .83 C. C. A. 570
§ 2. Establishment, organization, and procedure in general.
Where no appeal was taken from an original decree, and a bill of re-
view was denied, all matters within the pleadings and jurisdiction of the
court, expressed in the decree, were res judicata, and not reviewable on
appeal from a supplemental decree.
-Quinton v. Neville, 154 Fed. 432.
§ 3. United States courts.
Code Civ. Proc. N. Y. § 66, creating an attorney's lien on the client's
cause of action, etc., and providing for the enforcement thereof on peti-
tion, was not a mere practice act, but created a right and provided a
remedy for its enforcement, and was therefore controlling on the federal
courts sitting in such state.
-In re Baxter & Co., 154 Fed. 22.....
A federal court has power under the statute of New Jersey in the ex-
ercise of its discretion, to permit a bill of particulars in an action of
ejectment to be amended on the trial.
-Lamar v. Spalding, 154 Fed. 27.....
The decisions of the highest courts of the state interpreting a state stat-
ute, if uniform and consistent, are controlling on the federal courts; but
not so as to state decisions not in construction of the particular statute
in controversy.
-Lyman v. Hilliard, 154 Fed. 339......
While federal courts sitting as courts of chancery may entertain bills
to set aside wills, such courts nevertheless observe the public policy of the
state where the property to be recovered is situated and the court sits
respecting the time within which such suits shall be brought.
.83 C. C. A. 231
-Palmer v. Bradley, 154 Fed. 311....
Appeals to the Court of Appeals of the Indian Territory from orders,
judgments, and decrees of the trial courts made in the exercise of their
probate jurisdiction must be taken, and the practice therein is governed,
by the method of taking and the practice in appeals from the Circuit
Courts to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit (Act March
3, 1905, c. 1479, § 12, 33 Stat. 1081 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 150]),
and not by sections 1385, 1386, Mansf. Dig. Ark.
-Morrison v. Burnette, 154 Fed. 617.....
Cross-Errors are not judicable in a federal appellate court.
-Rogers v. Penobscot Min. Co., 154 Fed. 606.........83 C. C. A. 380
Morrison v. Burnette, 154 Fed. 617....
....83 C. C. A. 391
The question whether or not a jury has been induced by passion or
prejudice to assess an excessive amount of damages is not reviewable in
a federal appellate court.
-Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Heil, 154 Fed. 626...83 C. C. A. 400
The remedy given to a judgment creditor by Act Pa. July 12, 1842
(P. L. 339), by the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant on a showing
of fraudulent removal or concealment of his property, is one "to reach
the property of a judgment debtor" within the meaning of Rev. St. § 916
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 684], and under said section is available in the
federal courts.
-Ex parte Crawford, 154 Fed. 769.....
Rev. St. § 649 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 525], which requires a stipula-
tion in writing waiving a jury to authorize trial of issues of fact by the
court alone, is not applicable to default cases, and in an action of replevin
brought in a federal court within the state of Illinois, in which the de-
fendant makes default, the court is authorized to assess the damages with-
out a jury under the Illinois practice act (3 Starr & C. Ann. St. III. 1896,
c. 110, par. 41).
-Midland Contracting Co. v. Toledo Foundry & Machine Co., 154
Fed. 797................
.83 C. C. A. 489
Upon all questions of jurisdiction, the sum demanded, not the amount
recovered, recoverable or admitted, is the amount in dispute, unless the
record proves to a legal certainty either that the sum demanded cannot
be as a matter of law the amount in dispute, or that it is, as a matter of
fact, a colorable and fictitious amount inserted in bad faith to invoke ju-
risdiction.
-Hampton Stave Co. v. Gardner, 154 Fed. 805.....83 C. C. A. 521
The jurisdiction of a national court may not be renounced or denied
where the facts requisite to confer it appear directly or by just inference
from any part of the record.
-Howe v. Howe & Owen Ball Bearing Co., 154 Fed. 820.
A suit cannot be properly dismissed by a Circuit Court as not substan-
tially involving a controversy within its jurisdiction, unless the facts when
made to appear on the record create a legal certainty of that conclusion.
-Howe v. Howe & Owen Ball Bearing Co., 154 Fed. 820.....
The matter in dispute was the undivided half of a patent for an inven-
tion. There was evidence that 21/155 was sold for $5,000 17 months be-
fore the suit was commenced; that the defendant was a citizen and resi-
dent of Missouri; that one of the complainants was a corporation of
Maine, and the other a stockholder, director, and president thereof; and
that the articles of incorporation recited his residence Evansville, Ind.
Held, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conclusion of the lower
court that the value of the property involved in the controversy was more
than $2,000, and that the citizenship of the parties was diverse.
-Howe v. Howe & Owen Ball Bearing Co., 154 Fed. 820.
The laws enacted by a territorial Legislature, subject to disapproval by
Congress, are not laws of the United States, and a suit arising under
them, as where a corporation organized under them is a party to the
suit, does not arise under the laws of the United States, and a federal
court has no jurisdiction on that ground.
-Maxwell v. Federal Gold & Copper Co., 155 Fed. 110.
83 C. C. A. 570
Diversity of citizenship between citizens of different states is indis-
pensable to sustain the jurisdiction of a federal court on that ground.
A controversy between a citizen or citizens of a state or states and a
citizen or citizens of a territory or territories will not confer jurisdiction
upon a national court.
-Maxwell v. Federal Gold & Copper Co., 155 Fed. 110..
A Circuit Court of the United States has power to issue its writ of
scire facias to revive its judgment and to prescribe a reasonable method
of service thereof without the district where the judgment defendant
has departed therefrom. Such power is derived from the Constitution
and Rev. St. § 716 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 580], and cannot be restrain-
ed, limited, or rendered less efficacious by the statutes of a state.
-Collin County Nat. Bank of McKinney, Tex., v. Hughes, 155
Fed. 389...
.83 C. C. A. 661
The conformity act (Rev. St. §§ 914, 915, 916 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
684]) empowers a Circuit Court to use a similar remedy to that provid-
ed by a state statute to enforce its judgments, but does not require it to
follow the method prescribed by a state statute in serving a writ of scire
facias to revive a judgment on a nonresident defendant if it deems such
method insufficient.
-Collin County Nat. Bank of McKinney, Tex., v. Hughes, 155
Fed. 389....
..83 C. C. A. 661
The jurisdiction of a national court over a controversy once lawfully
acquired includes the power to enforce its judgment or decree, and this
power may not be destroyed or restrained by the legislation or lack of
legislation of the states.
-Collin County Nat. Bank of McKinney, Tex., v. Hughes, 155...
Fed. 389.....
.83 C. C. A. 661
$ 4. Concurrent and conflicting jurisdiction, and comity.
A Circuit Court of the United States sitting in equity has no authority
to enjoin a party to a judgment rendered on its law side from suing out
a writ of error from the Circuit Court of Appeals to review said judg-
ment.
-Macrum v. United States, 154 Fed. 653..
See "Bankruptcy"; "Fraudulent Conveyances."
Of devisees or legatees, see "Wills," § 3.
Competency of jurors, see "Jury," § 1.
Indictment, information, or complaint, see "Indictment and Information."
Against postal laws, see "Post Office," § 1.
Keeping disorderly house, see "Disorderly House."
|