« ForrigeFortsett »
rity which he refused to enforce; Van Winkle, etc., Co. v. Citizens' Bank, 89 Tex. 152, 33 8. W. 864, holding bank not bound to pursue acceptor in order to bold indorser's funds; Willis v. Willis, 42 W. Va. 524, 26 S. E. 515, holding indorser not liable for contribution to prior indorser paying note; Maddox v. Duncan, 143 Mo. 619, 621, 65 Am. St. Rep. 680, 682, 45 S. W. 689, 690, 41 L. R. A. 583. 584, holding statute of limitations not suspended as to indorser by part payments by maker; German Bank v. De Shon, 41 Ark. 339, allowing indorser to set up usury.
Cited in note in 13 Am. Dec. 461, 83 Am. Dec, 614, in elaborate note in 32 Am. St. Rep. 728. Cited, arguendo, in Williams v. Rivercourt, 31 Ark. 295.
Distinguished in McCrady v. Jones, 44 S. C. 411, 22 S. E. 416, bolding statute of limitations did not run against indorser's right to sue prior indorser until payment by former.
Bills and notes.- Arkansas statute discharging sureties on note on holder's fallure to sue maker within thirty days after written re quest by surety, does not include indorsers, pp. 590-592.
Followed in Rice v. Dorrian, 57 Ark. 544, 22 S. W. 214, holding Indorser not within act authorizing surety to obtain indemnity from principal before liability due.
Distinguished in McCrady v. Jones, 44 S. C. 411, 22 S. E. 416, holding statute of limitations did not run against indorser until after payment by him; Shields v. Reynolds, 9 W. Va. 488, holding under local statute indorser exonerated by holder's granting stay after notice to proceed.
Statutes in derogation of common law should be strictly construed, especially where changing rule of commercial law, p. 591.
Bills and notes.- Circulation of negotiable notes should not be embarrassed by Judicial decisions, or subjected by construction to operation of local statutes; there should be uniformity throughout the world on matters of mercantile law, pp. 593-594.
22 Wall. 594604, 22 L. 724, RAILROAD CO. V. ANDROSCOGGIN
MILLS. Carriers.-- Bill of lading reciting receipt of cotton at Columbus, and Boston as place of delivery, is contract of carriage over entire route, though executed only by connecting carrier, p. 601.
Cited and followed in Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 130, 22 L. 830, sustaining power of common carrier to contract beyond its own lines; Wyman v. Chicago, etc., R. R., 4 Mo. App. 40, sustaining declaration against connecting lines on through shipment, without alleging partnership; International, etc., Ry. V. Anderson, 3 Tex. Olv. App. 12, 21 S. W. 602, holding connecting carrier liable for damages after animals left its road. See note in 72 Am. Dec. 232, 242.
Distinguished in McConnell v. Norfolk, etc., R. R., 86 Va. 256, 9 8. E. 1008, holding carrier not liable, under contract to carry to its terminus, after delivery to connecting carrier.
Carriers.- Bill of lading constituting through contract, construed and held to exempt carrier from liability for loss by fire on connecting line before delivery to contracting carrier, pp. 602-604.
Cited approvingly in H. & T., etc., R. R. v. Park, 1 Tex. Olv. App. 143, holding carrier exempted by stipulation from liability for loss beyond its road; McConnell v. Norfolk, etc., R. R., 86 Va. 255, 9 8. E. 1008, holding carrier under contract to carry to its terminus not liable after delivery to connecting carrier. See note in 72 Am. Dec. 242.
Distinguished in Liverpool Steam Co. v. Phenix Ing. Oo., 129 U. S. 463, 32 L. 800, 9 S. Ct. 480, holding connecting steamship line not entitled to benefit of clause allowing railroad insurance in event of liability; Milne v. Douglass, McCrary, 371, 13 Fed. 39, holding connecting roads Jointly llable on through shipment, despite stipulation limiting liability to company having custody; Adams Express Co. v. Harris, 120 Ind. 76, 16 Am. St. Rep. 316, 21 N. E. 341, 7 L. R. A. 216, and note, holding connecting carrier not entitled to bene fits of stipulation in favor of initial carrier; in dissenting opinion la Transportation Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 424, 6 S. W. 892, 6 Am. St. Rep. 864, and note, majority denying right of transportation company to exempt itself from lability for loss by fault of connecting carriers.
22 Wall. 604-641, 22 L. 840, BAILEY V. RAILROAD CO.
Internal revenue.- Consolidated railroad company assuming obHgations of old companies, held liable for internal revenue tax as sessed to old companies on dividend scrip issued by them, pp. 629 631.
Internal revenue.- Scrip dividends are taxable under internal revenue tax, and the corporation may, except where stockholder is exempt, be required to pay the tax, and be rendered liable to a penalty on default, pp. 631-632.
Internal revenue.- Certificates payable out of future earnings, or convertible into stock, representing earnings invested in permanent Improvements, transferable on corporate books, but giving no vote, are scrip dividends within Internal Revenue Act of 1864, pp. 632–638.
Cited in note in 27 Am. Dec, 63, on voting power of stock divi. dends.
Distinguished in Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 560, 561, 34 L. 527, 528, 10 S. Ct. 1059, holding stock dividend by corporation authorized to increase capital stock, having accumulated earnings Invested in permanent improvements, increase of capital; Gordon v. R. 7., etc., R. R. Co., 78 Va. 519, holding dividend obligation payable semiapually did not deprive guaranteed stockholders from sharing in cash dividends on common stock; explained in Bailey v. Railroad Co., 106 U. 8. 112, 27 L. 82, 1 8. Ct. 65, holding judgment in principal case did not establish conclusiveness of certificates as to taxable amount.
Internal revenue.- In assumpsit for recovery of taxes, irregularities in assessment may be disregarded if ex æquo et bono collector is not bound to refund the tax, pp. 638 639.
Applied in Matter of Vetterlein, 13 Blatchf. 45, F. C. 16, 920, holdlag claim for value of goods forfeited under revenue laws, provable debt in bankruptcy.
Distinguished in United States v. Myers, 3 Hughes, 245, F. O. 15,846, permitting taxpayer in suit for distillery taxes to prove incorrectness of assessment.
Taxation.- Taxes paid under protest cannot be recovered when taxpayer failed to make statutory return, and assessor obtained his Information in way different than authorized by statute, taxpayer having had proper notice and hearing, pp. 639-640.
Approved in German Savings Bank v. Archbold, 15 Blatchf. 401, F. O. 5,364, sustaining penalty on failure to make return; Parmley V. Pacific R. Co., 3 Dill. 36, F. C. 10,768, holding provision for assessment on report of president, merely directory; Commissioners, etc. v. Buckner, 48 Fed. 541, refusing interest on claim for Inegal taxes.
Taxation.— Appeal from assessment cures irregularity in notice of assessment, p. 640.
Taxation.- Tax assessed against companies after consolidation is payable by new company, and distraint of latter's property to pay tax is not illegal, p. 640.
Miscellaneous.- Cited in Bailey V. Railroad Co., 106 U. 8. 111. 27 L. 82, 1 S. Ct. 64, reviewing litigation.
22 Wall. 641-648, 22 L. 772, UNITED STATES V. OʻGRADY.
Courts.-- An appeal to Supreme Court lies from judgment of Oourt of Claims against United States on claims under abandoned property act; in absence of such appeal or new trial judgment is conclusive, pp. 646-647.
Approved in United States v. Jones, 119 U. 8. 479, 30 L. 441, 7 8. Ct. 284, taking Jurisdiction over appeal from Court of Claims.
Distinguished in In re Sanborn, 148 U. S. 225, 37 L. 430, 13 S. Ct 579, denying jurisdiction over appeal from report of Court of Claims to department of interior, on claim referred to it for findings. Courta- After judgment by Court of Olaims for proceeds of cotton under abandoned property act, secretary of treasury had no power to retain sum for cotton taxes before paying claim, It should have been pleaded as set-off or counterclaim, pp. 647, 646.
Oited with approval in United States v. Waters, 133 U. 8. 213, 33 L. 595, 10 S. Ct. 250, holding attorney-general could not reduce counsel fees of district attorney, allowed by court; Bucbanan v. Knoxville, etc., R. Co., 71 Fed. 831, 37 U. 8. App. 499, holding State estopped by decision of State Chancery Court trom levying taxes
the following Reports and all preceding them in each State or series.
U. S. ...
Mo. App. Law. Ed. 42 Mont.
22 Fed. Rep. 96 Neb.
56 U. S. Ap. 63 Nev.
23 (excepting 58) N. H.
67 Ala. 119 N. J. Eq..
57 Ariz. 1 N. J. L.
62 Ark. 65 N. M.
8 Cal. 125 N. Y.
160 Colo. 25 N. C.
123 Colo. Ap. 12 N. D.
8 Conn. 71 Ohio
60 Dak. 6 Or.
33 Del. Pennewill. 1 Pa.
192 Fla. 39 R. I.
19 Ga. 107 S. C.
54 Ida. 2 S. D.
10 Ill. 181 Tenn.
102 Ind. 152 Тех.
92 Ind. Ap. 22 Tex. Civ.
19 Iowa 107 Tex. Cr.
38 Kans. 60 Utah
18 Kans. Ap. 7 Vt.
70 Ky. 101 Va.
96 La. Ann. 51 Wash.
20 Md. 89 W. Va.
45 Me. 92 Wis.
102 Mass. 173 Wyo.
6 Mich. 117 Am. Dec.
60 Miss. 76 Am. St. Rep.
71 Mo. 150 L. R. A.
45 with duplicate references to the Reporter System and later cases, including Sup. Ct. 19 N. E.
80 Pac. 58 S. E.
33 So. 25 S. W.