![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.no/books/content?id=r7AKAAAAYAAJ&hl=no&output=html_text&pg=PA1062&img=1&zoom=3&q=%22vessel+in+all+respects+seaworthy+and+properly+manned,+equipped+and+supplied,+neither+the+vessel+her+owner+or+owners%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U3IQ17pxCPzv2vstxe5efxbJC3XIg&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=95,128,433,63)
Evidence with respect to state of war in Rio
Janeiro considered, and held not to establish
vis major, so as to relieve charterers of vessel
from liability for demurrage for detention in dis-
charging.-Burrill v. Crossman (D. C.) 838.
A provision of a charter party that lay days
for unloading shall commence "when steamer
is ready to unload and written notice given,
whether in berth or not," must be given effect,
and a delay in waiting for a berth is charge-
able against the charterer.-New Ruperra S. S.
Co. v. 2,000 Tons of Coal (D. C.) 937.
Where a charter party requires the vessel to
be discharged at a fixed rate, commencing when
she is ready to unload, whether in berth or
not, a provision that, in case of causes or acci-
dents beyond the control of the consignees,
which prevent or delay the discharging, such
time is not to be counted, does not relieve the
charterer from liability for delay caused by the
vessel's waiting her turn at the dock.-New
Ruperra S. S. Co. v. 2,000 Tons of Coal (D. C.)
937.
A delay in obtaining a berth at a port be-
cause of the large number of vessels unloading
coal brought from foreign countries, owing to
a domestic shortage caused by a strike of min-
ers, was not caused by strikes, within an ex-
ception in the charter party.-New Ruperra S.
S. Co. v. 2,000 Tons of Coal (D. C.) 937.
§ 5. Limitation of owner's liability.
A shipowner, by defending an action brought
against him in a state court to recover damages
for injury to a passenger, and by appealing from
the judgment rendered against him therein, does
not waive his right to petition a court of ad-
miralty for a limitation of liability, nor is he
debarred of the right to invoke such remedy
because there is but a single claimant.—In re
Starin (D. C.) 101.
A shipowner held entitled to a limitation of
liability on a judgment recovered against him
in a state court for an injury to a passenger.
-In re Starin (D. C.) 101.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
§ 1. Contracts enforceable.
A bill held to state a cause of action within
the jurisdiction of equity for the specific per-
formance of a contract for the purchase of
personal property, on the ground that it had
been partially executed.-Raymond Syndicate
v. Brown (C. C.) 80.
Of vessels in fogs, see "Collision," 7.
STARE DECISIS.
See "United States."
Courts, see "Courts."
Adoption by United States courts of state
laws as rules of decision, see "Courts," § 2.
Validity of retrospective or ex post facto laws,
see "Constitutional Law," § 2.
Provisions relating to particular subjects.
See "Bankruptcy," § 1; "Customs Duties";
"Maritime Lieus," § 1.
Chinese exclusion acts, see "Aliens," § 1.
Exemption of shipowners from liability, see
"Shipping," § 3.
Importation of aliens under labor contracts,
see "Aliens," § 2.
STATUTES CONSTRUED.
UNITED STATES.
STATUTES AT LARGE.
1866, July 25, ch. 246, § 1, 14 Stat. 244..
409, 410
1871, Feb. 24, ch. 67, 16 Stat. 430.....409, 410
1882, May 6, ch. 126, 22 Stat. 61 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 1307]. Amended by
Act 1884, ch. 220, 23 Stat. 117 [U. S.
Comp. St. p. 1310].
1884, ch. 220, 23 Stat. 117 [U. S. Comp.
1885, Feb. 26, ch. 164, 23 Stat. 332 [U. S.
Ct. 1901, p. 1310]..
Comp. St. 1901, p. 1290]..
1885, Feb. 26, ch. 164, § 1, 23 Stat. 332
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1290]. Amend-
ed by Act 1891, March 3, ch. 551, § 3, 26
1887, Feb. 4, ch. 104, § 3, 24 Stat. 380 [U.
Stat. 1084 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1295] 38
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3155]..
1890, June 10, ch. 407, § 4, 26 Stat. 131 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1888].
1890, June 10, ch. 407, § 14, 26 Stat. 137
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933]..
1890, Oct. 1, ch. 1244, § 1, Schedule A, par.
19, 26 Stat. 567.
1890, Oct. 1, ch. 1244, § 1, Schedule K,
pars. 392, 408, 26 Stat. 596, 598..
1890, Oct. 1, ch. 1244, § 2, Free List, par.
473, 26 Stat. 602..
1891, March 3, ch. 517, § 6, 26 Stat. 828
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 549].
1891, March 3, ch. 551, § 1, 26 Stat. 1084
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1294].....637, 638
1891, March 3, ch. 551, § 3, 26 Stat. 1084
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1295].
1893, Feb. 13, ch. 105, 27 Stat. 445 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2946].
1893, Feb. 13, ch. 105, § 3, 27 Stat. 445 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2946].
1, 58, 188, 631, 659, 667
1894, Aug. 28, ch. 349, § 1, Schedule B,
pars. 76, 77, 28 Stat. 512..
1014
1894, Aug. 27, ch. 349, § 1, Schedule B,
par. 98, 28 Stat. 514.
.457, 458
By witness inconsistent with testimony, see 1894, Aug. 27, ch. 349, § 1, Schedule C,
"Witnesses," § 3.
1894, Aug. 27, ch. 349, § 1, Schedule J,
par. 276, 28 Stat. 530.
1894, Aug. 27, ch. 349, § 1, Schedule L,
pars. 300, 301, 28 Stat. 532..
1894, Aug. 28, ch. 349, § 1, Schedule M,
pars. 308, 310, 313, 28 Stat. 532, 533..1005
1894, Aug. 27, ch. 349, § 1, Schedule N, p.
321, 28 Stat. 533..
1894, Aug. 28, ch. 349, § 2, Free List, par.
407, 28 Stat. 538.
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par.
418, 30 Stat. 191 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1674]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par.
437, 30 Stat. 192 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1676]
1894, Aug. 27, ch. 349, § 2, Free List, par.
443, 28 Stat. 539.
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par.
445, 30 Stat. 193 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1677]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par.
453, 30 Stat. 193 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1678]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par.
454, 30 Stat. 194 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1678
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par.
462, 30 Stat. 194 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1679]
1897, June 7, ch. 4, § 1, 30 Stat. 96 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2281]..
1897, June 7, ch. 4, § 2, 30 Stat. 102 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 2884].
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule A, par.
3, 30 Stat. 151 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1627]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 2, Free List, par.
478, 30 Stat. 195 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1680]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 2, Free List, par.
534, 30 Stat. 197 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1682]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule A, par.
15, 30 Stat. 152 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1627]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule A, par.
17, 30 Stat. 152 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1628]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 2, Free List, pars.
561, 562, 30 Stat. 198 [U. S. Comp. St.
1901, pp. 1683].
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule A, par.
68. 30 Stat. 154 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1631]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 2, Free List, par.
649, 30 Stat. 201 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1687]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule B, par.
92, 30 Stat. 156 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1632]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule B, par.
97, 30 Stat. 156 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1633]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 2, Free List, par.
664, 30 Stat. 201 [Ú. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1688]
1897. July 24, ch. 11, § 2, Free List, par.
667, 30 Stat. 201 [Ú. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1688]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule B, par.
99, 30 Stat. 156 [U. Š. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1633]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule B,
par. 100, 30 Stat. 157 [U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 1633]..
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1. Schedule C, par.
159, 30 Stat. 164 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1642]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par.
181, 30 Stat. 166 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1644]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par.
258, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1650]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par.
261, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1651]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par.
276, 30 Stat. 172 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1652]
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par.
285, 30 Stat. 173 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1653]
.1015
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 7, 30 Stat. 205 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693].
.293, 301
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 2, subd. 11, 30 Stat.
545 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3421]..182, 455
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 3, subd. 4, 30 Stat.
546, 547 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3422]
as amended by Act 1903, Feb. 5, ch. 487,
32 Stat. 797 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903,
p. 410]
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 6, 30 Stat. 548 [U.
716
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3424]..
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 9a, subd. 2, 30
Stat. 549 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3425] 915
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 11a, 30 Stat. 549
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3426].
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 15, 30 Stat. 550 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3428]..
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 18, 30 Stat. 551
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3429].
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 23, 30 Stat. 552,
553 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3431].. 182
1898, July 1, ch. 541, §§ 40, 48a, 30 Stat.
556, 557 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3436,
3439]
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 59d, 30 Stat. 561
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3445]. .371, 372
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 64b, 30 Stat. 563
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3447].
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 67e, 30 Stat. 564,
565 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3449]..
1900, April 12, ch. 191, § 5, 31 Stat. 77..
1903, Feb. 5, ch. 487, 32 Stat. 797 [U. S.
Comp. St. Supp. 1903, p. 410].
1903, Feb. 5, ch. 487, § 19, 32 Stat. 801.
1903, March 3, ch. 1012, 32 Stat. 1213.
REVISED STATUTES.
§ 723 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583].
§ 828 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 635].
$995 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 711].
§§ 3466-3468 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
2314]
§ 5239 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3515]..
COMPILED STATUTES 1901.
COMPILED STATUTES SUPP. 1903.
With Spain, April 11, 1899, 30 Stat. 1754..
75
677, 688, 690
298 Ch. 14, art. 2, § 52, subd. 55..
1002
.291, 293
Page 1888
Page 1933
Page 2281
Page 2446
Page 2880
.1, 188, 631, 659, 667, 942
BALLINGER'S ANNOTATED CODES &
Personal injuries, see "Shipping," § 2
STOCKHOLDERS.
Of corporations, see "Corporations," 2.
STREET RAILROADS.
Carriage of passengers, see "Carriers."
1. Establishment, construction, and
A franchise to operate a street railroad on a
certain street is real estate, both at common
law and by the statute of New York.-Thomp-
son v. Schenectady Ry. Co. (C. C.) 274.
To a suit by property owners on a street to
prevent the construction of a street railroad
thereon, other property owners who consented
to such building are not necessary parties.-
Thompson v. Schenectady Ry. Co. (C. C.) 274.
The right of a street railroad company to
construct and maintain a line on a certain
street is not a franchise in such sense that the
consent of the state is necessary to its abandon-
ment. Thompson v. Schenectady Ry. Co. (C.
C.) 274.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.no/books/content?id=r7AKAAAAYAAJ&hl=no&output=html_text&pg=PA1065&img=1&zoom=3&q=%22vessel+in+all+respects+seaworthy+and+properly+manned,+equipped+and+supplied,+neither+the+vessel+her+owner+or+owners%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1yORefULV-R2IIFtLx86uP3utX1Q&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=82,626,416,345)
Collisions with tugs and vessels in tow, see
"Collision," §§ 5, 8.
Towage as salvage service, see "Salvage," § 2.
A tug held liable for loss or damage to her
tow, which she deserted at sea in the night.-
Appeal of Cahill (C. C. A.) 63.
To charge a tug with liability for an injury
to her tow, her negligence must be proved, and
the proof must be such as to justify the in-
ference, at least, that such negligence caused
the injury.-The Thomas Wilson (D. C.) 649.
Evidence held insufficient to charge a tug
with liability for an injury to a barge in tow
by running into the bank of a canal, but to
show that the fault was that of the master of
the barge in failing to give proper attention to
his surroundings and to follow the tug.-The
Thomas Wilson (D. C.) 649.
When a tow is in charge of her own officers
and crew, the tug has a right to demand and
expect the exercise by them of ordinary care
and skill to avoid injury.-The Thomas Wil-
son (D. C.) 649.
A steamer towing a barge held not liable,
under the law relating to towage, for an injury
to such barge by striking_an_obstruction in a
river. The Nettie Quill (D. C.) 667.
TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES.
1. Marks and names subjects of own-
ership.
The words Elastic Seam Drawer," used to
designate a drawer having a strip of elastic
knitted material inserted at the seams, are
wholly descriptive, and cannot be monopolized
as a trade-mark.-Scriven v. North (C. C.) 894.
2. Infringement and unfair competi-
tion.
Evidence held not to warrant an inference of
fraudulent intent in unfair competition which
would entitle complainant to recover damages
and profits.-N. K. Fairbank Co. v. Windsor (C.
C. A.) 200.
Conformity between labels is not excused by
ability to point out differences, where the en-
Local or special taxes, see "Municipal Corpora- semble is sufficient to mislead ordinary pur-
tions," § 2.
Of patents, see "Patents," § 4.
Removal of cloud, see "Quieting Title."
To patent, see "Patents," § 6.
Transfer of title to purchaser, see "Sales,"
Causing death, see "Death," § 1
See "Conspiracy," § 1; "Negligence."
Maritime torts, see "Collision."
chasers.-Cantrell & Cochrane v. Butler (C.
C.) 290.
Where defendant's label was so similar to
plaintiff's well-known label that it was calculat-
ed to defraud plaintiff and purchasers, plain-
tiff was entitled to enjoin defendant's further
use thereof.-Cantrell & Cochrane v. Butler (C.
C.) 290.
The use of the words "Faber," "Faber Pen-
2. cil Company," and "Eberhard Faber Pencil
Company," by defendant, to represent goods
manufactured by it after termination of its
relations with the German house of Faber,
held to constitute unfair trade, entitling the
German house to an injunction.-Faber v. Fa-
ber (C. C.) 603.
Where a family name has become a trade-
mark applied to a manufactured article, the
right to use such name alone, without other
distinguishing characters, does not accrue to
descendants of the original manufacturer of the
same name.-Faber v. Faber (C. C.) 603.
not work on the night of the fire held inadmissi-
ble in rebuttal.-Marande v. Texas & P. Ry.
Co. (C. C. A.) 42.
General objections to evidence cannot be sus-
Defendants, who made and sold garments in tained, if any part of the evidence is admissible.
all respects similar in appearance to those-Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. De Clow (C. C.
which had long been made by complainants, A.) 142.
and put the same up in boxes the same in struc-
ture, size, colors, and style of lettering, held
guilty of unfair competition.-Scriven v. North
(C. C.) 894.
General objections that evidence is incom-
Petent and immaterial do not present a ground
of objection not perceptible without a state-
ment of it.-Guarantee Co. of North America
v. Phenix Ins. Co. (C. C. A.) 170.
2. Taking case or question from jury.
Any manufacturer has the right to copy an
article made by another which is not protected
by patent, but he has not the right to so imi-
tate it in shape, design, color, and number as to
The existence of substantial evidence to sus-
deceive the purchasing public of average in- tain plaintiff's case is always a question for the
telligence, and cause them to mistake his prod-court.-Cole v. German Savings & Loan Soc.
uct for that of the prior manufacturer.-En- (C. C. A.) 113.
terprise Mfg. Co. v. Landers, Frary & Clark
(C. C.) 923.
A defendant, who copied coffee mills which
had long been made and sold by complainant,
in design, shape, and color, without any con-
spicuous mark to distinguish them from com-
plainants, held chargeable with unfair compe-
tition. Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Landers, Frary
& Clark (C. C.) 923.
It is only when the evidence is such that
all reasonable men must reach the same con-
clusion that the court may withdraw a question
of fact from the jury.-Chicago & N. W. Ry.
Co. v. De Clow (Č. Č. A.) 142.
3. Instructions to jury.
In an action for injuries, a statement by the
court as to his opinion of the weight of certain
evidence held not error.-Sebeck V. Platt-
deutsche Volksfest Verein (O. C. A.) 11.
An instruction that for a party to withhold
testimony in his power to produce, etc., may be
Validity of agreement by employé not to dis- as fatal as positive testimony in support of the
close, see "Contracts," § 1.
Breach of contract as question for jury, see
"Contracts," § 5.
Harmless error in conduct of trial in general,
see "Appeal and Error," § 8.
Presentation of objections to instructions for
purpose of review, see "Appeal and Error,"
§ 4.
Review of instructions as dependent on presen-
tation of question by record, see "Appeal and
Error," § 5.
Trial of particular civil actions or proceedings.
See "Negligence," § 3.
Against
foreign corporation, see "Corpora-
tions," § 6.
For breach of contract, see "Contracts," § 6.
For personal injuries, see "Master and Serv-
aut," § 2.
On insurance policy, see "Insurance," § 8.
1. Reception of evidence.
In an action for loss of property alleged to
nave been fired by defendant's engine, evidence
charge, held sufficiently favorable to plaintiff
on an issue of defendant's failure to call cer-
tain witnesses.-Marande v. Texas & P. Ry.
Co. (C. C. A.) 42.
An instruction that plaintiff in an action for
personal injuries could recover for any pain he
may endure in the future is not error, in the
absence of a request for further instructions.-
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. De Clow (C. C.
A.) 142.
Where there is no error in the charge given.
the omission to give other instructions or state
other facts is not challenged by a mere objec-
tion to the instructions.-Frizzell v. Omaha St.
Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 176.
A charge which applies to the facts of a
case the rules of law which govern the issues,
and states the questions which the jury musc
answer, is more useful than abstract proposi-
tions.-Frizzell v. Omaha St. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.)
4. Custody, conduct, and delibera-
tions of jury.
An answer of the court to an interrogatory
of the jury as to what had been previously char-
ged, and the refusal of a request to make such
answer in different language, held proper.-
Marande v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 42.
Where plaintiff's statement of claim is the
basis of the court's instruction, it is not error
to send it out with the jury when they retire.
-Tridell v. Munhall (C. C.) 802.
that the hydrants were blocked and hose would See "Corporations," § 5.
|