Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

injury to the property occasioned by unavoidable accident.1

[ocr errors]

Liability for Acts of Servants. The bailee is responsible for loss resulting from the negligence or misconduct of his servants while acting in the course of their employment.

2

cc. RESPONSIBILITY FOR SKILL—(aa) When Professing Skill. Where the work to be done requires skill as well as care, and the workman professes to have such skill, he is bound to exercise due and ordinary skill in the performance of the work. What is ordinary skill in each case depends, of course, upon the character of the work to be done and the nature of the materials to be operated upon, but in all cases the workman is bound to employ that skill which prudent workmen engaged in similar work usually employ in such cases, and he will be answerable for failure to exercise such skill.3

usual custom of ginners as to carrying fire about the gin-houses, and also the custom of the defendant if conformable to the general usage. Maxwell v. Eason, I Stew. (Ala.) 514. A Person Undertaking to Break a Horse for hire is bound to use ordinary care. Francis v. Shrader, 67 Ill. 272.

A Watchmaker receiving a watch to repair for hire is bound to use ordinary diligence in keeping it. Clarke v. Earnshaw, I Gow. 30; Halyard . Dechelman, 29 Mo. 459, 77 Am. Dec. 585. And where the watch has been stolen through his negligence the owner may sue without previous demand. Halyard v. Dechelman, 29 Mo. 459, 77 Am. Dec. 585.

The Delivery of a Land Warrant to be Located is a locatio operis faciendi, and the bailee is bound to use ordinary care in making the location. Smith v. Frost, I Bibb (Ky.) 375. The bailee is not responsible for the loss of the warrant in the absence of negligence or fraud. Clay v. Smith, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 522.

A Person Engaging to Repair a Boat is bound to use at least ordinary care for its preservation, and if he launches it into the river at a time and under circumstances of great danger which he ought to have foreseen, and which results in its destruction, notwithstanding the use of all proper care by the owner, he is liable although the loss occurred on the breaking up of the ice some days later. Smith v. Meegan, 22 Mo. 150, 64 Am. Dec. 259.

Public Millers should be held to a high degree of care and diligence in respect to grain delivered to them to be ground, but they are not held to the same degree of diligence as innkeepers and common carriers. This class of bailments comes under the head of locatio operis faciendi, and the bailee is bound to use his best endeavors for the preservation of the property, but he is not liable for its loss unless he is guilty of some imprudence, negligence, or fault. Wallace. Canaday, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 364, 70 Am. Dec. 250. See Cox v. Reynolds, 7 Ind. 257.

A Bailee Contracting to Manufacture Leaf Tobacco for hire is liable for only ordinary neglect, and this does not embrace a case of accidental destruction of the tobacco by fire without default on the part of the bailee. Henderson v. Bessent, 68 N. Car. 223

Manufacturer of Cheese and Butter. The rule is the same in the case of a bailee receiving milk to be manufactured into cheese and butter. Stewart v. Stone, 127 N. Y. 500.

[blocks in formation]

the terms of his contract, is liable only for such acts as prudence could have guarded against and prevented; but if he violates his contract, he becomes liable for the thing bailed in any event. Thus, where a ginner, having received cotton to gin and bale in preference to all other cotton, ginned other cotton, leaving unginned a part of the cotton to which he had promised preference, it was held that he was liable for the loss of the cotton by the accidental burning of the gin, though negligence could not be imputed to him. Pattison v. Wallace, I Stew. (Ala.) 48.

A bailee

1. Loss by Unavoidable Accident. taking a carriage to repair for hire is responsible for only ordinary care, and is not answerable for its loss by a fire against which no ordinary prudence could guard, as in the case of the great Chicago fire. Russell v. Koehler, 66 Ill. 459.

Where

2. Bailee Liable for Acts of Servants. cotton sent to be ginned was destroyed by a fire that burned the gin-house through the negligence of the ginner's servants, he was held liable to the owner. M'Caw v. Kimbrel, 4 McCord L. (S. Car.) 220. See also Maxwell v. Eason, I Stew. (Ala.) 514.

If the servants of a miller use or dispose of wheat left to be ground, assumpsit will lie against the miller without a previous demand, and it is immaterial that the miller had no personal knowledge that the wheat was left to be ground. Cox v. Reynolds, 7 Ind. 257.

A bailee of goods to perform work upon them is bound to exercise ordinary care to protect them from depredations by his servants. Clarke v. Earnshaw, I Gow. 30.

3. Workman Answerable for Skill. Jones on Bailments 91; Story on Bailments, SS 431-434; Schouler's Bailments and Carriers, $104.

Every mechanic who takes any materials to work up for another in the course of his trade, as where a tailor receives cloth to be made up into a coat, or a jeweler a gem to be set or engraved, is bound to perform it in a workmanlike manner. 2 Kent Com. 588.

A bailee for hire undertaking to manufacture goods out of materials furnished by the bailor is bound to apply an adequate degree of skill, and if he fails to do the work in a workmanlike manner this will constitute a breach of the undertaking. Keith v. Bliss, 10 Ill. App. 424. A Collier contracting to coal wood is bound to exercise ordinary skill, care, and diligence. Gamber v. Wolaver, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 60.

A Dressmaker who receives cloth to be made into a dress is held to that degree of skill and

1

(bb) When Not Professing Skill. A workman ordinarily ought not to undertake a piece of work if he cannot succeed therein, and it is his duty to know whether or not he can succeed; but if the bailor with full knowledge of all the circumstances intrusts him with the work, and he exercises reasonable care therein, without any pretension to particular skill, he is not liable for any loss or injury resulting from his unskilfulness.2

3

C. THE DOCTRINE OF ACCESSION. Where material is delivered by the owner to a workman to be worked up, together with some additional materials to be furnished by the workman, into a 'manufactured article, the general doctrine is that the property in the finished product, including the accessorial material furnished, remains in the original owner. So, also, where a damaged or worn-out article is left by the owner with another to be repaired and renewed by the labor and materials of the latter, the property in the article, together with the accessorial additions, is all along in the original owner, and not in the workman, and it is immaterial in such case that the value of the labor and materials greatly exceeds the value of the original article.4

d. EFFECT OF DESTRUCTION OF CHATTEL BEFORE COMPLETION OF WORK― General Rule. Where a chattel left by the owner with another, who is to perform some labor upon it, is destroyed by accident without the fault of either party, before the work is completed, or after it is completed but before the chattel has been delivered to the owner, it becomes important to consider upon whom the loss, both as to the chattel and the services already rendered about it, shall fall. By the foreign, as well as by the common law, it seems that ordinarily in such cases the loss falls entirely upon the employer; that is, he loses not only the chattel, but must also compensate the workman pro tanto for the work done, and also for any materials furnished by him.5

The Rule Qualified. While the foregoing is the general rule, it is liable to be controlled by special agreement or the usages of trade. Thus where the understanding is that the workman shall perform the work for a stipulated price payable upon completion of the whole job, and the chattel perishes or is destroyed before the work is completed, without either party being in fault, the doctrine seems to be well settled that the loss should be apportioned, the owner losing his property, and the workman his labor.

care which would enable her to do the work properly, and she is liable if she unskilfully decides that the cloth should be made up wrong side out. Lincoln v. Gay, 164 Mass. 537. To the same effect, Parish v. Gilmore, 33 Wis. 608.

Where the Work Has Not Been Done Properly the bailor of materials to be manufactured into goods is not precluded from contesting the bailee's claim for compensation by the fact that he failed to inspect the work upon delivery and did not notify the bailee of defects in the first instalment received. Mack v. Snell, 140 N. Y. 193, 37 Am. St. Rep. 534.

1. Story on Bailments, § 431.

2. Jones on Bailments 63; Story on Bailments, 435.

3. Schouler's Bailments and Carriers, § 99; Arnott v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 19 Kan. 95; Mack v. Snell, 140 N. Y. 193, 37 Am. St. Rep. 534. See the title ACCESSION, vol. 1, p. 247.

4. Gregory v. Stryker, 2 Den. (N. Y.) 628. It was so held in the case where the value of the completed product was ninety dollars and the cost of repairs seventy-eight dollars and fifty cents.

5. Story on Bailments, SS 426, 426a; 2 Kent's Com. 590; Wilson v. Knott, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 473. See Gillett v. Mawman, I Taunt. 137.

6

Where a ship on the dock of a shipwright, undergoing repairs, was accidentally destroyed by fire, it was held that the shipwright was entitled to compensation for the work already done and for the materials furnished by him. Menetone . Athawes, 3 Burr. 1592.

Where cloth delivered to a bailee to be manufactured into garments was destroyed by fire, without the fault of the bailee, before the work was finished, it was held that the bailee was entitled to compensation for the work already done. Labowitz v. Frankfort, 4 Misc. Rep. (N. Y. City Ct.) 275; Labowitz v. Solomon, (City Ct.) 23 N. Y. Supp. 1040. But the rule is otherwise where the bailee is in fault. Cohen v. Moshkowitz, (Supreme Ct.) 39 N. Y. Supp. 1084, 17 Misc. Rep. (N. Y. Supreme Ct.) 389.

Where the Work Has Been Completed and Accepted, but is destroyed by fire while still in the possession of the manufacturer before delivery, the loss falls on the employer, and the workman may recover for his services. Central Lithographing, etc., Co. v. Moore, 75 Wis. 170, 17 Am. St. Rep. 186.

6. 4 Kent's Com. 591; Story on Bailments, 4266; 2 Parsons on Contracts 131; Gillett v. Mawman, 1 Taunt. 137; Brumby v. Smith, 3 Ala. 123.

In Appleby v. Myers, L. R. 2 C. P. 651, the

But if the Workman Is to Furnish the Materials as well as the labor, the entire loss falls on him, the contract being here one of sale and not of bailment, the workman remaining the owner of the property until it is delivered to and accepted. by the other party.1

If Either Party Be in Fault, the principles above stated do not apply, but it seems. that the entire loss would ordnarily fall upon the party by whose fault the loss was occasioned. 2

e. FAILURE OF BAILEE TO COMPLETE THE Work. Where a workman has received an article to be repaired or otherwise worked upon, and abandons the work before completing it, it is held that he cannot recover for the work already done if the contractb e entire,3 but if the contract be severable 4 the rule is otherwise.

5

Damages for Delay. It is the duty of the workman to complete the work in the time agreed upon, and if he fails to do so he may be held liable for damages occasioned thereby.

[ocr errors]

4. Hire of Custody. The law applicable to that class of bailments for hire known as locatio custodia, or the hire of care and attention about a chattel, does not differ in general from that governing the other classes of bailments for hire. The bailee is bound to exercise ordinary diligence in the care of the property committed to his custody, and is answerable for only ordinary

plaintiffs had contracted to erect certain machinery on the defendant's premises, at specified prices for particular portions, and to keep it in repair for two years, the price to be paid upon completion of the whole. After some portions of the work had been finished and while others were in the course of completion, the premises, with all the machinery and materials thereon, were destroyed by fire, and it was held that both parties were excused from further performance, but that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue in respect of those portions of the work which had been completed, whether the materials used had become the property of the defendant or not. See the title WORKING CONTRACTS.

1. Story on Bailments, § 427a; McConihe v. New York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 495, 75 Am. Dec. 420.

2. Schouler's Bailments and Carriers, S III. 3. Recovery for Work Partially Performed Entire Contract. Where an artisan undertook for a specific sum to repair a given article, and did repair it in part, but did not complete the work, and delivered it unfinished, it was held that, the contract being entire, he could not recover in assumpsit for the value of the work done and materials furnished. Sinclair v. Bowles, 9 B. & C. 92, 17 E. C. L. 340. See the title CONTRACTS, ante, p. 88.

[ocr errors]

4. Severable Contracts. A contract to repair a vessel was held to be not entire, and where the work was interrupted by a dispute of the contracting parties the workman was allowed compensation for the work already performed. Baeder v. Carnie, 44 N. J. L. 208; Roberts v. Havelock, 3 B. & Ad. 404, 23 E. C. L. 105. See the title CONTRACTS, ante, p. 88.

There Is Very Little Direct Authority as to the effect of the hired bailee's leaving the work incomplete or executing it in a manner different from that contracted for. The cases cited by the text-writers apply almost exclusively to other forms of working contracts, and not to contracts of hire.

Professor Parsons' Summary of the law is sub7 C. of L.-21

321

stantially as follows: If the thing be left imperfect and unfinished, by the fault of the workman, he can recover nothing; but if not by his fault, then he should have compensation pro tanto, subject to set-off for damages. If the contract be rescinded by the act or assent of both parties, the workman may recover pro tanto. So, also, if the workman, by a deviation from his instructions, makes his work of no use, he can claim no compensation. If it be still of some use, and is received by the employer, the workman may claim pro tanto, his claim being open to a set-off for damages. 2 Parsons on Contracts 137. See Story on Bailments, SS 441-441d; Schouler's Bailments and Carriers, 111-112. See the titles CONTRACTS, ante, p. 88; WORKING CONTRACTS.

5. Henderson v. Bessent, 68 N. Car. 223. See supra, this title, Duties and Obligations of the Bailee In General.

6. Damages for Delay. Where a ship was delivered to a shipbuilding company to be repaired, and before the repairs were completed an order was made for winding up the company, and the official liquidator, with the assent of the ship-owners, was permitted to complete the work, and did so, and delivered the ship long after the time agreed upon, it was held that the owners were entitled to damages for the delay, the measure of the damages in such case being prima facie the sum the ship would have earned during the time of the delay. In re Trent, etc., Co., L. R. 4 Ch. 112.

Where personal property was delivered to a bailee to be repaired, and before the repairs were completed the owner demanded the property, but the bailee refused to surrender it until paid for work already done, and afterwards finished the work, it was held, in an action by the owner to recover possession, that the bailee's right to full compensation was not defeated by his delay in completing the work, where it appeared that the owner had suffered no loss, and had acquiesced in the delay, Shailer v. Corbett, (Supreme Ct.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 875, 61 Hun (N. Y.) 626.

Volume VII.

neglect.1 A detailed treatment of the specific instances of bailments of this

1. A Depositary for Hire is bound only to ordinary diligence and answerable only for ordinary negligence. Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 500, 9 Am. Dec. 168; Jones. Morgan, 90 N. Y. 4, 43 Am. Rep. 131; Platt v. Hibbard, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 497.

A Ticket Agent who, for the convenience of passengers, receives and stores their baggage, is not liable except for losses of such baggage occasioned by his want of ordinary care. Green v. Birchard, 27 Ind. 483.

Goods Received at the Cloak-Room of a Railway Company are not received by them in the capacity of carriers, but simply as bailees for hire. Van Toll 2. South Eastern R. Co., 31 L. J. C. P. 241, 12 C. B. N. S. 75, 104 E. C. L. 75.

A railroad company storing goods after transportation is bound to use reasonable care, and keeping large quantities of gunpowder in the same warehouse is not such care. White v. Colorado Cent. R. Co., 5 Dill. (U. S.) 428, 3 McCrary (U. S.) 559.

The Owners of a Boom are not liable for the loss of logs secured thereon unless negligent. Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Baker, 16 Me. 233.

A Herder taking care of cattle for hire is bound to take only such care of the animals as a prudent man, mindful of his own interests, would take of his own property. Waldo v. Beckwith, I N. Mex. 97.

Where Property Is Left with an Innkeeper by one not a guest of the inn, the liability of the innkeeper is merely that of an ordinary bailee for hire. Healey v. Gray, 68 Me. 489, 28 Am. Rep. 80; Ingallsbee v. Wood, 33 N. Y. 577, 88 Am. Dec. 409; Lynar v. Mossop, 36 U. C. Q. B. 231. See the title INNS AND INNKEEPERS.

A Restaurant Keeper is liable for the loss of a customer's apparel placed in charge of himself or of his employees. Ultzen v. Nicols, (1894) I Q. B. 92; Buttman v. Dennett, 9 Misc. Rep. (N. Y. C. Pl.) 462. But he is not an insurer

of such property, and is liable only for the want of ordinary care. Simpson v. Rourke, 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y. C. Pl.) 230.

An Agistor must notify his customers of any peculiar or unusual risk to which their cattle are exposed in his pasture. McLain v. Lloyd, 5 Phila. (Pa.) 195.

An Agricultural Society is liable for the loss of property exhibited at its fairs, where the loss is caused by its negligence. Vigo Agricultural Soc. v. Brumfiel, 102 Ind. 146, 52 Am. Rep. 607; Prince v. Alabama State Fair, 106 Ala. 340.

The Keeper of a Dog for hire is not responsible for its loss if he exercised reasonable care. MacKenzie v. Cox, 9 C. & P. 632, 38 E. C. L. 263.

The Proprietor of a Bathing Establishment open to the general public is bound to exercise ordinary care to prevent the loss by theft of a patron's apparel, and the failure to provide suitable watchmen to guard against such loss is want of ordinary care. Bird v. Everard, 4 Misc. Rep. (N. Y. C. Pl.) 104. So, also, he is liable for negligently delivering valuables belonging to a bather to the wrong person. Tombler v. Koelling, 60 Ark. 62, 46 Am. St. Rep. 146.

The Proprietor of a Barber Shop kept for public

patronage is liable to a customer for the value of his hat, which was deposited on a hat-rack in the shop, and which, while the customer was being shaved, disappeared from the shop and was thus lost, such proprietor being a bailee for hire of the hat. (Bleckley, C. J., dissenting.) Dilberto v. Harris, 95 Ga. 571. But where the barber provides a place for keeping the apparel of customers, and an attendant to receive it, he is not liable for the loss of the overcoat of a customer who, in disregard of this provision, hung his overcoat on a peg near the door, from which it was stolen. Trowbridge v. Schriever, 5 Daly (N. Y.) II.

The Proprietor of a Skating Rink is bound to preserve skates delivered to him by his patrons and for which he has given a check, and his failure to deliver the same to the owner, on demand and presentation of the check, because they were lost, is a conversion for which he is liable in trover. Donlin v. McQuade, 61 Mich.

275.

Where a Customer Entered a Retail Store for the Purpose of Buying a Cloak, and took off her old cloak to try on a new one and laid it on a counter in front of a clerk, there being no other place to put it, and after trying on the new cloak went to get her own, which could not be found, it was held that the proprietors of the store, as voluntary custodians for profit to themselves, were bound to use some care of the customer's property which she had laid aside by their implied invitation, and since the evidence showed an omission to exercise such care, they were liable for the loss. Bunnell v. Stern, 122 N. Y. 539, 19 Am. St. Rep. 519.

So, also, a shopkeeper is liable for the loss of a customer's watch, placed in a drawer at the suggestion of a salesman, if it is stolen through the want of ordinary care, but not if such care was exercised. Woodruff 7. Painter, 150 Pa. St. 91, 30 Am. St. Rep. 786.

Negligence Must Appear. The plaintiff cannot recover in such cases unless it appears from the circumstances that the defendant has not exercised ordinary care. Thus where it appeared from the plaintiff's testimony that she, while examining goods in the defendant's store, laid her purse on the counter, and could not find it a few minutes later, and the saleswoman and floor-walker were immediately notified, but the purse could not be found, there being no one in the store besides the plaintiff and the defendant's employees, and there being no evidence that any of the latter had ever seen the purse, it was held that the plaintiff could not recover. Powers v. O'Neill, 89 Hun (N. Y.) 129.

So, also, where a person entered the saloon of a hotel to get refreshments, between twelve and one o'clock at night, and when he went out, just as the place was being closed, left his opera-glass behind, but it did not appear where, and the next morning when he called for it, it could not be found, it was held that the hotel-keeper was not responsible for the loss, since it appeared that neither he nor any of his employees ever received or saw the glass. Carpenter v. Taylor, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 193.

For evidence held insufficient to ustain an action for the value of contents of trunks

class will be found elsewhere in this work.1

5. Hire of Carriage. The locatio mercium vehendarum is the most important of all classes of bailments, and the law relating thereto greatly exceeds in intricacy the law governing the classes of bailments already considered in this article. There are two general classes of carriers of goods: First, private carriers; secondly, public or common carriers. In respect to the former class, or contracts of carriage entered into by private persons not engaged in the business of common carriers, there is in general no difference in the law as to the rights and obligations of the parties from that applicable to other bailments for hire. The law of common carriers differs widely from this, and will be found discussed elsewhere in this work.3

CONTRARY. - See note 4.

stolen from the storeroom of an apartment house, see Davis v. Gay, 141 Mass. 531.

Liability for Theft by Servants. - A depositary of goods for hire is bound to take the same care of them as he would of his own; but if they are stolen by his servants he is not liable without gross negligence. Finucane v. Small, 1 Esp. N. P. 315. See the titles BANKS AND BANKING, vol. 3, p. 787; SAFE DEPOSIT COM

PANIES,

A Depositary for Hire Failing to Redeliver the Property on demand is liable for the whole. The owner is not bound to seek to recover it if stolen, but if he does recover any portion of it the hirer is entitled to credit pro tanto after allowing expenses incurred in its recovery. Jones v. Morgan, 90 N. Y. 4, 43 Am. Rep. 131.

Necessity for Demand. Where a bailee receives property to be kept for reward until demanded, no cause of action can arise until a reasonable demand has been made and there has been a failure to redeliver, or until the bailee has converted the property to his own use or it has been lost through his negligence. Browne v. Johnson, 29 Tex. 40. See also Hagood v. Elson, 21 Tex. 506.

[ocr errors]

No Compensation in Absence of Contract. A person has no right to keep the property of another and charge him therefor unless there was a previous bargain between him and the owner or his authorized agent. Buxton v. Baughan, 6 C. & P. 674, 25 E. C. L. 591. See also Abbott v. Curtis, etc., Mfg. Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 402.

A bailee of hogs who has refused to redeliver them cannot recover for the subsequent expense of care and feeding. Crigler v. Gaff, 7 Cinc. Wkly. L. Bul. 17.

Lien. A person not engaged in warehousing as a business has no lien for compensation on property deposited with him on storage. Alt. Weidenberg, 6 Bosw. (N. Y.) 176.

A landlord not an innkeeper has, in general, no lien on goods left by an outgoing tenant for storage charges, though he is entitled to a reasonable compensation for storage. Preston v. Neale, 12 Gray (Mass.) 222; Field v. Roosa, 159 Mass. 128.

In Singer Mfg. Co. v. London, etc., R. Co., (1894) I Q. B. 833, it was held that a railway company in whose cloak-room a sewing machine had been deposited by a bailee had a lien on the machine for storage charges as against the owners after the termination of the bailment.

1. See the appropriate titles.

As to the custody of animals, see the titles AGISTMENT, vol. 2, p. 3; LIVERY STABLE KEEPERS.

As to the custody of money and other valuables, see the titles BANKS AND BANKING, vol. 3, p. 787; SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANIES. See also the titles FACTORS; FORWARDING MERCHANTS; WAREHOUSEMEN; WHARVES.

2. Story on Bailments, § 457; Schouler's Bailments and Carriers, § 331; Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. 917.

A Private Carrier for reward is bound to exercise ordinary diligence and is responsible for ordinary negligence. Lobenstein v. Pritchett, 8 Kan. 213.

A person not a common carrier, who

agrees to carry goods for hire, thereby engages to make good losses arising from the negligence of his own servants, although he is not liable for any loss by thieves or from any taking by force, or if the owner accompanies the goods to take care of them and was himself guilty of negligence. Brind v. Dale, 8 C. & P. 207, 34 E. C. L. 355.

One hired to drive to a certain place a team belonging to another, in whose hands they are injured, is liable only for negligence, unskilfulness, or wilful misconduct. Newton v. Pope, I Cow. (N. Y.) 109. Such bailee is liable for damage caused to the team by the negligence of his agent. American Dist. Tel. Co. v. Walker, 72 Md. 454, 20 Am. St. Rep. 479.

For a Full Discussion of this branch of the subject, see the titles CARRIERS OF GOODS, vol. 5, p. 154; COMMON CARRIERS, vol. 6, p. 236.

3. See the titles BAGGAGE, vol. 3, p. 528: CARRIERS OF GOODS, vol. 5 p. 154; CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK, vol. 5, p. 427; CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS, vol. 5, p. 474; CONTRACTS OF AFFREIGHTMENT AND CHARTER PARTIES, ante; EXPRESS COMPANIES; FERRIES; SHIPS AND SHIPPING; TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES, etc.

4. Contrary to Law Revenue Laws. (See also the title REVENUE LAWS.) In U. S. v. Kee Ho, 13 Sawy. (U. S.) 143, it was held that the offense of bringing merchandise into the United States, contrary to law, did not include frauds or illegalities concerning the invoicing of the same, or the payment of duties thereon, such as could only occur after the importation is complete. See also U. S. v. Claflin, 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) 184.

[ocr errors]

Contrary to Law State Lands. (See the title STATE LANDS; and see LAW.) -A statute provided that a grant of land if issued contrary to law should be void. In construing

« ForrigeFortsett »