Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

pons, but to whom the apparent title is the validity of a statute which is the foundatransferred merely to give jurisdiction to a tion of a contract alleged to be impaired by Federal court on the ground of diverse citi-subsequent statutes is not binding on the zenship, cannot maintain the action. Id. Federal courts. McCullough v. Virginia,

382

21. The latest decision of the highest court of a state sustaining the validity of county bonds under state laws and Constitution, although it is a departure from earlier state decisions rendered after a decision of a Fed

by the Supreme Court of the United States reviewing a Federal decision. Wade v. Travis County, 1060

12. Certificates of indebtedness issued by a city and payable to bearer, being made by a corporation, although not negotiable under the law merchant, are within the exception of the act of Congress of August 13, 1888, from the general rule against actions in Federal courts by an assignee unless the assign-eral court based upon them, will be followed or could see. New Orleans v. Quinlan, 664 13. The right given by state statute to have a contract canceled for usury without repaying the money loaned can be enforced in a Federal court. Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 474 14. An allegation that the annexation of territory to a city in violation of the state Constitution, but which is upheld by the state courts after long acquiescence, on the principle of estoppel, where the only question is as to the validity of the city organization, constitutes a deprivation of the property of inhabitants of the territory without due process of law, and therefore in violation of the Federal Constitution,-is so palpably unfounded that it constitutes not even a color for the jurisdiction of a Federal court. McCain v. Des Moines, 936

15. An action against a receiver of a national bank appointed by the comptroller of the currency is one arising under the laws of the United States and within the juris

diction of the Federal court. Auten
United States Nat. Bank,
Conflicting jurisdiction.

See also INJUNCTION, 1.

V.

920

ecution in a state court under a valid state

22. In determining the existence of a contract which is alleged to be impaired the Supreme Court of the United States will form an independent judgment, and is not bound by a decision of that question by a state court although the contract is alleged to be created by a state statute. Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Owensboro,

840

23. Decisions of Maryland courts since the cession of the District of Columbia, giving to statutes a construction at variance with that prevailing at the time of the cession, do not control in construing those statutes as the laws of the District of Columbia. Morris v. United States.

COVERTURE.

See LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, 1.

CRIMINAL LAW.

946

See also CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4;
COURTS, 16; EXTRADITION; HABEAS
CORPUS; INJUNCTION, 1.

1. The constitutional right of an accused 16. An injunction against a criminal pros- is violated by the provision of the act of Conto be confronted with witnesses against him law, of a bank officer for embezzlement, can-gress of March 3, 1875, which makes a judg not be granted by a Federal court because it nent of conviction of the principal felons for had previously obtained jurisdiction in embezzling, stealing, or purloining property equity cases in which a receiver of the bank of the United States evidence in a prosecuhad been appointed and the civil liability of tion against a receiver of the property, of such officer was in litigation. Harkrader v. the fact that such property has been emWadley, bezzled, stolen, or purloined. Kirby 399 United States,

17. The rights and disputes of riparian owners as to water which has found its way into the unimproved bed of a stream must be determined by the state courts, although they cannot interfere with the control of the surplus water power incidentally created by a dam and canal owned and operated by the United States. Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co. Rules of decision.

658

V.

890

2. A verdict of guilty "without capital punishment" may be rendered in a murder case under the act of Congress of January 15, 1897, chap. 29, even if there are no mitigating or palliating circumstances. Winston v. United States,

CROSS BILL.
See PLEADING, 1.

18. The public policy of a state in respect CROSS-EXAMINATION. to contracts made within the state and sought to be enforced therein is obligatory on the Federal courts, whether acting in equity or at law. Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. Krumseig,

474

19. A state statute will be construed by the Supreme Court of the United States as it is settled by the court of last resort of the state. Sioux City T. R. & W. Co. v. Trust Co. 628

Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. McCann, 1093 20. The decision of a state court against

See WITNESSES.
CURATIVE ACT.
See BONDS, 1.

CUSTOMS.

See DUTIES.

DAMAGES.

See also ACTION OR SUIT, 1.

456

1. The market value of the stock of a corporation is not a proper measure of the

See COURTS, 2.

value of its property transferred by an ultra | DELEGATION OF POWER.
vires lease, and which must be returned or
compensation therefor made. Pullman's
Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. 108 DEPUTY.

2. The value of contracts with third parties, or of patents owned by a company which transfers property under an ultra vires lease, and which have expired when the obligation to restore the property or make compensation therefor is enforced, cannot be considered in determining the value of such property, when payment for the use of such patents and contracts for the time they were used was included in the rent paid. Id. 3. The earnings of property transferred under an ultra vires lease cannot be included in the compensation to be paid in lieu of the property on disaffirmance of the contract.

[blocks in formation]

5. One half the amount of damage to cargo of a sunken vessel may be recouped against one half the award for the loss of the vessel itself by collision, where both vessels were in fault, notwithstanding the Harter act, relieving a vessel from responsibility to its own cargo for loss or damage caused by fault of navigation, since that does not lessen its liability to the other vessel in case of collision by mutual fault, until the amount of liability has been fixed upon the principle of an equal division of damages. The Chatta hoochee,

DAMS.

See also CANALS; COURTS, 17.

801

[blocks in formation]

DECOY.

See POSTOFFICE.

DE FACTO.

See HABEAS CORPUS, 1.

DEFAULT.

364

See REWARD, 1, 2.

DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.

A release by the mother of illegitimate children, in her own right and for them, of all claims against the father, without the sanction of any tribunal, will not cut off a right of the children to inherit from him. Naeglin v. De Cordoba,

DESERT LAND ACT.
See PUBLIC LANDS, 10.

DETONATORS.
See SHIPPING, 3.

DIRECT TAX.

See INTERNAL REVENUE, 2.

DISABILITY.

See LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, 1.

DISCONTINUANCE.

See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 69.

315

[blocks in formation]

2. Leave to discontinue a suit alleging an election to terminate a lease by virtue of its provisions, and also alleging that it was ultra vires, and offering to do what is proper and fair under the circumstances, asking to have the court decree just what compensation or relief should be made, is properly denied after the lease has been held void in another case, and an injunction granted against ing to the subject-matter of the bill, while recovering rent, and testimony taken relat

defendant asks leave to file a cross bill to

avail itself of the tenders made in the origId.

inal bill.

DISCOUNT.

See BILLS AND NOTES, 4-6.

DISMISSAL.

Of Appeal, see APPEAL AND ERROR, VI.
See also JUDGMENT, 2, 3.

DISTILLERY.

See INDICTMENT, 3.

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.

Extra compensation cannot be given to a district attorney for services in and about a proceeding in a Federal court for the condemnation of lands on behalf of the United States, as such a proceeding is included in civil actions, which by U. S. Rev. Stat. § 771, it is his duty to prosecute, and attendance thereon is "on the business of the United States," within the meaning of § 824. See CARRIERS, 5; CLAIMS, 8; TAXES, 12. United States v. Johnson, 731

See ACTION OR SUIT, 4.

DEFINITIONS.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

See also BOUNDARIES, 2; CONTRACTS, 4;
COURTS, 23; MARKETS; WATERS, 7.

The governor, either with or without the sanction of the board of public works of the District of Columbia, had no authority under the organic act of February 21, 1871, to incur a pecuniary liability with respect to the improvement of market grounds, the erection of market buildings, and the operation of the market, which were within the province of the legislative assembly. Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia, 478

DIVIDENDS.

See BANKS, 2-4, 7; CORPORATIONS, 4;
EQUITY, 2.

DOCK.

See CONTRACTS, 5.

DRAWBACK.

See DUTIES, 3.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 18-32. DUTIES.

See also INDICTMENT, 4.

1. Duties imposed under the tariff act of July 24, 1897, 1387, sched. D, imposing specific duties of various amounts, but providing that in no case shall the goods pay less than 50 per cent ad valorem, are "regulated in any manner by the value thereof," within the meaning of the provision imposing additional duties for any excess of the appraised value over the value declared in the entry. Hoeninghaus v. United States,

576

2. The additional duty of 1 per cent of the total appraised value of merchandise for each 1 per centum that such appraised value exceeds the value declared in the entry accrues under the act of June 10, 1890, § 7, as amended by the act of July 24, 1897, § 32, where there is such an excess of value in case of goods on which the duties are in any manner regulated by the value, although, as actually assessed, the duties are specified and the importers have not benefited by the undervaluation. Id.

3. Boxes made in the United States from shooks imported from Canada are not wholly manufactured in the United States, so as to give a right to a drawback under the United States treasury regulations of 1884, art. 966, when all that is done in this country is to manufacture the nails and nail the box shooks together, and incidentally trim off any projections in case the boards had not been cut exactly of the right length, and the cost of the labor in the United States represents only one tenth of the value of the boxes. Tide Water Oil Co. v. United States, 139

4. No separate drawback for nails used in the manufacture of boxes can be claimed under the United States treasury regulations of 1884, art. 966, on the ground that the nails were manufactured in the United States, when no drawback can be had on the boxes. Id.

5. Sawed boards and plank planed on one side, tongued and grooved, are to be classified as dressed lumber and admitted free of

duty under 676 of the tariff act of August 28, 1894, and are not dutiable under ¶ 181 as States v. Dudley,

furniture or manufactures of wood. United 1129

6. The separation of American-made bags, which are free from duty, from foreignmade bags imported in the same bales, should be made by the importer if he wishes to obtain the exemptions on the former, and he cannot require the separation to be made by the government. United States v. Ranlett, 393

7. The prima facie showing that bags imported are of American manufacture is overturned when it appears that foreign bags in large numbers are included in the same bales with those of American måke. Id.

8. Natural gas imported for use as fuel and for illuminating purposes is free from duty under 496 (p. 604) of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, as crude bitumen, or under 651 (p. 607) as crude mineral. United States v. Buffalo Natural Gas Fuel Co.

469

[blocks in formation]

10. An appraisement is not invalid as against the importer because the examination was not made in accordance with U. S. Rev. Stat. § 2901, which is intended for the benefit of the government. United States v.

Ranlett,

393

11. The judgment of an appraiser after actual examination, that imported goods are not as described, but fall within a different classification, must stand as against the importer, unless reversed on reappraisement, or by the board of general appraisers on protest filed. Smuggling.

Id.

12. The word "smuggling" as used in U. S. Rev. Stat. § 2865, is not extended beyond the common-law meaning by reason of the provision in the anti-moiety act of June 22, 1874, respecting the rewards of informers, that, for the purpose of that act, smuggling shall include attempts to bring dutiable articles into the United States without passing through the customs house or submitting them to the revenue officers. Keck v. Unit ed States,

505

13. The offense of smuggling or clandestine introduction of goods into the United States in violation of U. S. Rev. Stat. § 2865, does not include mere attempts to commit the same, and is not committed by the concealment of goods on a ship entering the waters of the United States, with intent to smuggle them, where the goods are not taken through the lines of customs authorities, but are delivered to the customs officer on board the vessel itself at the time when or before 1251

the obligation to make entry and pay the by a court of equity as having been made.
duties arises.
Id. Morris v. United States,

[blocks in formation]

See also CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 18;
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, 1, 2.

1. The taxation by a city, of a bridge and its appurtenances within the fixed boundary between low-water mark on the two sides of the Ohio river, is not a taking of private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Constitution of the United States, merely because that part of the bridge which is over the river is not as much or as distinctly benefited by the police protection afforded by the city as the part which is above low-water mark. Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson,

823

[blocks in formation]

EQUITY.

946

4. The legal remedy of the holder of municipal warrants, which, if valid, are legal causes of action, precludes a suit by him in equity for specific performance of the ontract under which the warrants were given, and for an injunction against the enforce ment of ordinances attempting to repeal the contract. Raton Waterworks Co. v. Raton, 1005 ERROR.

See APPEAL AND ERROR.

ESTOPPEL.

See also BANKS, 6; CORPORATIONS, 1;
COURTS, 14; LANDLORD, 1.

The payment of money not exceeding the amount legally due for taxes to the of ficers entitled to receive taxes under an il

legal agreement that a dispute as to the amount of taxes due shall abide the result of a pending litigation cannot constitute an validity of the contract and the legal rights equitable estoppel against asserting the inof the city imposing the tax. Stone v. Bank of Commerce,

EVIDENCE.

1028

See also APPEAL AND ERROR, 66; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 13; CRIMINAL LAW, 1; TRIAL, 6; WITNESSES. Judicial notice.

1. The report of the auditor of a state is not a document of which the Supreme Court of the United States can take judicial notice on writ of error to the state court. First Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 669

2. Judicial notice may be taken of the common and ordinary way of doing business in exchanges or boards of trade throughout the country. Nichol v. Ames,

786

3. Judicial notice may be taken of the THE fact that semicircular hand holds or recesses in the front of book shelves have been long in familiar use. Office Specialty Mig. Co. v. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. 1058

See also CLOUD ON TITLE; COURTS, 1;
INJUNCTION; USURY, 1, 2.

1. A court of equity will not release an individual from the operation of the statute of frauds, which requires that interest in lands be created by an instrument in writing, and impose an equitable lien upon land in favor of one who makes improvements thereon, knowing that the title is in another, -especially where the money is expended under an express understanding with reference thereto, had with the owner, but will leave the party to the remedies, if any, which a court of law provides. Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia, 478 2. A controversy as to the basis on which dividends should be declared by a receiver of a national bank is within the jurisdiction of equity as the administration of a trust. Merrill v. National Bank, 640

that banks and other corporations continue 4. It is a matter of common knowledge in many instances to do their regular and ordinary business for long periods though in a condition of actual insolvency as disclosed by subsequent events. McDonald v. Chemical Nat. Bank,

1106

5. It is a fact of common knowledge that foreclosures of railroad mortgages ordin arily mean, not the destruction of all interest of the mortgagor and a transfer to the mort gagee alone of the full title, but that such proceedings are carried on in the interests of all parties who have any rights in the mortgaged property whether as mortgagee, creditor, or mortgagor. Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co.

1130

6. Judicial notice of the point at which the navigability of the river ceases cannot be taken unless that is a matter of general knowledge or one that ought to be generally known. United States v. Rio Grande Dam

3. A conveyance from trustees which ought to have been made will be considered & I. Co.

1136

1

Presumptions and burden of proof.

7. The presumption of the innocence of an accused attends him throughout the trial and has relation to every fact that must be established in order to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Kirby v. United States, 890

8. The burden of proving undue influence in a gift from an aged woman to daughters with whom she lives alternately rests upon the person alleging it. Towson v. Moore, 597

9. A presumptive grant of the right to wharves and water fronts does not arise by long-continued use of them, when the lands and water fronts are owned by the government, in trust for public purposes, and are withheld from sale by the Land Department, without any renunciation of the exercise of jurisdiction and control over them. Morris v. United States, 946

10. It cannot be assumed that an officer will neglect to discharge a duty expressly impressed upon him by law, or that courts are without power to compel him to act, where this is necessary for the protection of the rights of an individual. King v. Mullins, 214 11. Authority of Mexican officials to make a grant cannot be presumed because they made it, for the purpose of determining the validity of the grant, under the act of Congress which provides for confirmation of grants only when made by persons vested with authority, or when subsequently ratified. Ely v. United States, 142

Documentary.

12. Certified copies from the Confederate Archives Office of official communications between high civil and military officers of the Confederate States are competent evidence to show that the Confederate authorities obtained possession of a vessel by purchase and not by capture or by other forcible and compulsory appropriation. Oakes United States, 1169

Parol as to writings.

V.

13. A written contract which appears to be legal on its face may be proved to be only part of a contract the other portions of which were illegal. McMullen v. Hoffman, 1117 14. Evidence that a defendant in a state court was not a citizen or resident of the state, and gave no authority for an appearauce by an attorney, is admissible to contradict recitals in the judgment, when the jurisdiction is attacked in a Federal court. Cooper v. Newell, 808 Declarations.

15. Declarations by persons who have made a deed of trust are admissible against them, at least in an action attacking it as a fraud upon creditors in which there is other evidence of a common purpose of the vendors and vendee to defraud, when the rights of the secured creditors are carefully guarded in the charge to the jury. Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brew. Co. 492 Relevancy.

16. Any document on file in the departments of the government or in the courts,

[blocks in formation]

17. Evidence of the wealth of one of the defendants in a libel case, offered as bearing on the allowance of exemplary damages, is inadmissible, as the verdict must be against all the defendants and may be collected from any of them. Washington Gaslight Co. v. 543 Lansden,

18. Testimony of persons named by an accused as his enemies, that they have no ill will against him, is not collateral to the main issue, or a contradiction of what the prosecution has brought out, where the accused on his direct examination said enemies had placed in his pocket stolen money that was found there, and their names were brought out on cross-examination. Scott v. United States, Sufficiency.

471

19. The presumption against a vessel which is seized for attempting to enter a blockaded port which arises from the concealment and destruction of bills of health naming that port as the destination of the vessel is not conclusive where there is evidence that the concealment was due to forgetfulness and the destruction was made on the supposition that the papers were worthless. The Olinde Rodrigues,

1065

[blocks in formation]

21. A mere recital in a contract cannot be taken as sufficient to disprove the averment in an answer, when & case is heard upon pleadings, without any evidence except contracts set forth in the complaint. Nugent 721 v. Arizona Improv. Co.

22. An intention to furnish information for the publication of a libel cannot be inferred by a mere guess from the fact that a memorandum of figures which are used for that purpose is furnished without knowing what was wanted of it. Washington Gaslight Co. v. Lansden,

EXCEPTIONS.

On Appeal, see APPEAL AND ERROR. EXCHANGE.

543

[blocks in formation]

See APPEAL AND ERROR, 31; CLAIMS, 1. EXEMPTION.

See CONFLICT OF LAWS, 2.
EXPLOSION.
See SHIPPING, 2,

3.

« ForrigeFortsett »