페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

to action to annul a reconveyance.-Pacific Im- to inflict resulting injury.-Westre v. Chicago, provement Co. v. Duson, 2 F.(20) 261.

M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F.(20) 227. Dismissal of bill to annul special acts of reconveyance held warranted as to land in cer- II. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY. tain parish.-Id.

-56 (1) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) "Proximate cause"

of injury.-Lorang v. Alaska S. S. Co., 2 F. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.. (20) 300.

IV. ACTIONS. See Cou

(A) Right of Action, Parties, Preliminary IX. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

Proceedings, and Pleading. (E) Assessments for Benefits, and Special Colll(l) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) General allegaTaxes.

tions in pleading may be sufficient.-Kaemmerww412 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Cost of public im- ling v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co., 2 F.

(2d) 574. provements of general character must be assessed against all property in municipality.-Fi-! 12 (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Allegation of "gross delity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City negligence" held without legal significance.v. Swope, 2 F.(20) 676.

Westre v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F. 428 (U.S.C.C.A.MO.) Assessment of abut

(20) 227.

(B) Evidence, ting property for improvement on another street not justified.-Fidelity Nat. Bank & Co 12!(!) (App.D.C.) Burden of proof on Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 2 F.(20) complaining party.–Bennett V. Washington 676.

Terminal Co., 2 F.(20) 913. 429 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Cost of improvements Om 134(1) (App.D.C.) Proof by competentermay be assessed against abutting property.- idence essential.- Bennett v. Washington TerFidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City minal Co., 2 F.(20) 913. v. Swope, 2 F.(20) 676.

en 134(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Finding of negli450(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Semipublic im- gence held supported by _ evidence.-Hobbs, provements need not be assessed on abutting Wall & Co. v. Petterson, 2 F.(20) 594. property only, nor on property in whole cityFidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. v. Swope, 2 F.(20) 676.

Benefit district and assessments held arbi- See Bills and Notes. trary and unreasonable.-Id.

NONSUIT, XIII. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC

DEBT, SECURITIES, AN TAXATION. See Dismissal and Nonsuit.
(A) Power to Incur Indebtedness and Ex-
penditures.

NOTES.
Om 878 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) City held not liable See Bills and Notes.
for debt contracted without compliance with
Constitution.-A. L. Greenburg Iron Co. v. City

OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. of Abbeville, 2 F.(20) 559.

ell (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Indictment for assault (C) Bonds and Other Securities, and sink- on officer held to sufficiently charge knowledge ing Funds.

of official character.-U. S. v. Gay, 2 F.(20) 933 (U.S.D.C.Ark.) Officers cannot bind 635. municipality by invalid evidences of indebted- Indictment for interfering with prohibition ness.-Filbert v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway officer making search held not defective for Dist., 2 F.(2d) 114.

failure to aver circumstances showing authority

to make search.-Id.
MURDER.
See Homicide.

OFFICERS.
NAMES.

See Clerks of Courts; Receivers.
C20 (U.S.D.C.Nev.) Person may change his
name at will, if without fraudulent intent.-

PARDON. U. S. v. McKay, 2 F.(20) 257.

O4 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Court may postpone im

position of sentence for any lawful purpose, NATIONAL BANKS.

but cannot exercise such right as pardon or

parole.-Musick v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 711. See Banks and Banking, em 248–287.

PARENT AND CHILD.
NATURALIZATION.

See Infants.
See Aliens, m 68.

PARTIES.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.

For parties on appeal and review of rulings as
I. RIGHTS OF PUBLIC.

to parties, see Appeal and Error.

For parties to particular proceedings or instruOur 34 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) United States intent, ments, see also the various specific topics. impairing power of state in drainage matters, not implied.--U. S. v. Brazoria County Drain

III. NEW PARTIES AND CHANGE OF

PARTIES. age Dist. No. 3, 2 F.(20) 861.

State and county drainage districts not re- Om 40 (2) (U.S.D.C.La.) Intervention not perquired to obtain approval of War Department. missible in action for money judgment.-Pure --Id.

Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 2 F.(20) 260. NEGLIGENCE. See Master and Servant, m108–286; Rail

PARTNERSHIP. roads, cm327–351.

IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO

THIRD PERSONS. 1. ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONSTITUTING NEGLIGENCE.

(D) Actions by or Against Firms or Part(A) Personal Conduct in General.

199 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Action for injuries to Omall (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) “Willful and wanton cattle must be brought in name of all partners. negligence” implies intent to do act, but not -Midland Oil Co. v. Moore, 2 F.(20) 34.

ners.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
VII. DISSOLUTION, SETTLEMENT, AND IV. APPLICATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS
ACCOUNTING.

THEREON. (C) Distribution and Settlement Between C 101 (App.D.C.) One cannot read limitaPartners and Their Representatives.

tions into claims broadly stated.-In re Levy, Om311(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Dissolution 2 F.(20) 939. agreement construed and held to entitle partner Patent Office should give claims broadest inselling stock to contemporaneous payment of terpretation of which they are reasonably caprice.-Gandia v. Porto Rico Fertilizer Co., 2 pable.-Id. F.(20) 641.

w 104 (App.D.C.) Doubt as to whether claims Dissolution agreement drawn by counsel for should be allow resolved in applicant's favor.

In re Levy, 2 F.(20) 939. one partner may be construed most favorably to other partner.-Id.

Om 112 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Patent presumes novelty, and burden on infringer to prove in

validity with reasonable clearness.-Zip Mfg. PATENTS.

Co. v. Pusch, 2 F.(20) 828.
II. PATENTABILITY.

Om 112(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Fact of issuance

of patent and popular acclaim raise presump(A) Invention.

tion of validity.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. 19 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Mere variation in pro

v. Oil Well Improvements Co., 2 F.(20) 530. portions of elements of a composition is not

Om I 14 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Suit to adjudicate rights invention.-Bituminous Products Co. v. Head

of owners of interfering patents in nature of ley Good Roads Co., 2 F.(20) 83.

suit to set aside judgment.--Miehle Printing New product must differ from old, otherwise

Press & Mfg. Co. v. Miller Saw-Trimmer Co., than in degree.-Id.

2 F.(22) 744. 26(2) (U.S.D.C.III.) New combination of

Decree of Court of Appeals of District of old elements, to be patentable, must produce

Columbia in interference proceeding presumed new result as effect of the combination.

correct not set aside except on clearest proof. Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Co. v. City of

-Id. Chicago, 2 F.(2d) _601.

Evidence held insufficient to overcome prem30 (1) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Invention must be

sumntion in favor of correctness of previous completed by reduction to practice.-Lowe v.

decree of Court of Appeals of District of CoPacific Gas & Electric Co., 2 F.(20) 157.

lumbia in interference proceeding.-Id. 36 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Acquiescence as evidence of validity.--Bituminous Products Co. v. Head

V. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF LETley Good Roads Co., 2 F.(20) 83.

TERS PATENT. (B) Novelty.

118 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Patentee need not dis

close accessories or auxiliary devices used in em 42 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Combination of old

connection with invention-Miehle Printing elements to affect old result in better manner

Press & Mfg. Co. v. Miller Saw-Trimmer Co., may amount to invention.-Zip Mfg. Co. v.

2 F.(20) 744. Pusch, 2 F.(20) 828.

Om 129 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patentable "utility," Om42 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Patent may possess novelty and validity, though consisting only of MacGregor Co. v. Vaco

Grip Co., 2 F.(20) 655.

within rule estopping infringer defined.-Sandy combination of prior arts.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Oil Well Improvements Co., 2

IX. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF F.(20) 530.

LETTERS PATENT. mm 45 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Fact of issuance of

(A) In General. patent- and popular acclaim raise presumption of novelty.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Om 159 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Evidence of anticiOil Well Improvements Co., 2 F.(20) 530. pation held admissible as to construction, but

not competent as to validity.--Zip Mfg. Co. v. (C) Utility.

Pusch, 2 F.(20) 828. 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Commercial success

em 162 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Statements in patand defendants' close imitation held to show

ent as to condition of prior art properly conutility.–Sandy MacGregor Co. v. Vaco Grip

sidered on question of validity.--Zip Mfg. Co. Co., 2 F.(20) 655.

v. Pusch, 2 F.(20) 828. (D) Anticipation.

(B) Limitation of Claims. Om62 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Oral proof of prior

Om 168 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patent Office

reason for allowance of claim not within rule use must be beyond reasonable doubt.-Rousso v. Boyle, 2 F.(20) 299.

of estoppel-W. S. Godwin Co. v. International Om66 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patent issued to same

Steel Tie Co., 2 F.(20) 198. inventor on same date not considered as part of

X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CONprior art.-Sandy MacGregor Co. Vaco

TRACTS.
Grip Co., 2 F.(2d) 655.
Cam73 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Validity with refer-

(A) Rights of Patentees in General. ence to prior art depends upon date of invention 183 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Preliminary injunction rather than patent.-Sandy MacGregor Co. v. issued to restrain assignment of right to pracVaco Grip Co., 2 F.(20) 655.

tice invention, but not to prevent defendant it

self from practicing invention.-Carpenter III. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS.

Chemical Co. v. Lansdale Silk Hosiery Co., 2 Em90(2) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Inventor must

F.(20) 976.

use due diligence in reduction to practice.--Lowe v.

XII. INFRINGEMENT. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 2 F.(20) 157. ww91 (1) (App.D.C.) Junior party, in interfer

(A) What Constitutes Infringement. ence proceeding, had burden of proving that

261 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Patentee held estopped he, and not senior party, had made invention.

to claim infringement.-Lowe v. Pacific Gas & -Pinkerton v. Gibson, 2 F.(20) 937.

Electric Co., 2 F.(20) 157. ww91 (3) (App.D.C.) Evidence held not to prove disclosure of invention by junior to sen

(C) Suits in Equity. ior party.-Pinkerton v. Gibson, 2 F.(20) 937. @aw 28! (U.S.D.C.III.) Authority given courts

92 (U.S.D.C.III.) Joint invention.-Scher- of equity to increase damages in infringement zer Rolling Lift Bridge Co. v. City of Chicago, suits within power of Congress.-Taylor v. 2 F.(20) 601.

Ford Motor Co., 2 F.(20) 473. 2 F.(20)-67

V.

re

Sana 308 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Refusal to dissolve 1,220,444. Improvement in basic open hearth preliminary injunction held not abuse of dis

furnaces,

claims 1, 2, 5, and 8, cretion.-Owen v. Perkins Oil Well Cementing

held not infringed (D. C. Ohio) 2 Co., 2 F.(20) 247.

F.(20) 94. 310(10) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Reorganized

cor

1,284,523. Mechanism for controlling automoporation assuming debts of old company may

bile throttle valves, claims 1 and be brought into infringement suit by supple

2, held valid and infringed (D. C. mental bill.-Safety Car Heating & Lighting

Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 305. Co. v. U. S. Light & Heating Co., 2 F.(20) 1,324,391. Paving guard, claim 4, held valid 384.

and infringed (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 m312(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Plaintiff, alleging

F.(20) 198. infringement, has burden of proof.--- American 1,333,363. Compound for penetrating interior Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Burgess Sulphite Co., 2

corrosion, held not anticipated (C. F.(20) 6.

C. A. N. J.) 2 F.(20) 245. Patentee, unduly delaying suit, is not entitled 1,353,197. Abrasive compound, held valid (C. to have doubts resolved in his favor.-Id.

C. A. Colo.) 2 F.(20) 828. 313 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Plaintiff may dismiss 1,363,200. Automatic printing press

feeder, bill where defendant not prejudiced except by

claims 17-22, held valid, and enprospect of future litigation.--Allington v.

titled to priority over patent No. Shevlin-Hixon Co., 2 F.(2d) 747.

1,074,720, claims 1, 2, 10, 21 and Intervener resisting dismissal of bill because

22 (D. C. Pa.) 2 F.(2d) 744. of prospective future litigation not entitled 1,373,664. Device for separation of gas from to prevail.-Id.

oil, held not infringed (D. C. Cal.) Ci 318(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Defendant held lia

2 F.(20) 729. ble for profits from infringement.--Merrell- 1,439,338. Golf practicing and exercising deSoule Co. v. Powdered Milk Co. of America,

vice, beld valid (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(20) 107.

2 F.(20) 655. em324(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Finding on non- 1,439,339. Golf practicing and exercising deinfringement held entitled to unusual weight.

vice, held invalid (C. C. A. Ohio) American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Burgess Sul

2 F.(2d) 655. phite Co., 2 F.(20) 6.

1,500,026. Process for treating silk stockings, Om324(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Motion to

held substantially the same as deopen for newly discovered evidence largely

scribed in former application for within trial court's discretion.-National Fire

patent (D. C. Pa.) 2 F.(20) 976. works Distributing Co. v. Edwards Mfg. Co., 2 F.(20) 815.

REISSUED.

13,929. Apparatus for feeding glass into XIII. DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY, CON

moulds, held not infringed (D. C. STRUCTION, AND INFRINGEMENT

Pa.) 2 F.(20) 109.
OF PARTICULAR PATENTS.

15,220. Device for separation of gas from oil, 328.

claims 17, 18, and 19, held not inUNITED STATES.

fringed (D. C. Cal.) 2 F.(20) 729.

15,401. Improved method of making roads, DESIGN

claims 1, 2, and 3, held invalid (D. 42,398. Towel cabinet, held valid and in

C. Del.) 2 F.(20) 83. fringed (D. C. Minn.) 2 F.(20) 299.

PAYMENT.

See Subrogation.
ORIGINAL.
Lowe, Improvement in gas-making ap-

II. APPLICATION.
paratus, held invalid (D. C. Cal.) C39(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Proceeds of insur-
2 F.(20) 157.

ance on property covered by trust deed securing 445,235. Acid-resisting lining of pulp-digesting notes held improperly applied by bank on in

boiler, held not infringed (C. C. A. debtedness other than notes.--Oliver v. Garlick, N. H.) 2 F.(20) 6.

2 F.(20) 132. 735,414. Double-deck bascule bridge, held not anticipated, and invalid (D. C. Ill.)

PERJURY. 2 F.(2d) 601.

II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT. 805,068. Method of feeding glass into moulds,

27 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Subordation of perheld not infringed (D. C. 'Pa.) 2 F. (2d) 109.

jury indictment, omitting, word "willfully" in 919,351. Automatic feed mechanism for plan

characterizing perjury, heid sufficient.--Link

v. U. S., 2 F.(2) 709. er, held infringed (C. C. A. Mich.)

G-33(5) 2 F.(20) 837.

(U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Affidavit held 926,308. Toy pistol, claim 6, held valid, and not

sufficient proof of oath, in absence of objecanticipated (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(20)

tion.-Link v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 709.
815.
981,111. Concrete mixer, held void (C. C. A. N.

PILOTS.
J.) 2 F.(20) 565.

Owll (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Temporary disability of 1,139,685. Mechanism for controlling automo- pilot held not to authorize deduction from

bile throttle valves, claims 2 and wages under time contract.-Lent Traffic Co. 3, held valid and infringed (D. C. v. Gould, 2 F.(20) 554.

Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 305.
1,153,481, Driving connections between felly

PLEADING.
and rim of automobile wheel,
claims 2, 5, and 7, held anticipat-

See Equity, Omw148.
ed and lacking in invention (C. For pleadings in particular actions or proceed-
C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(20) 713.

ings, see also the various specific topics. 1,153,482. Driving connections between felly For review of rulings relating to pleadings, see

and rim of automobile wheel, held Appeal and Error.
anticipated and lacking in inven-
tion (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(20) 713.

1. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN GENERAL. 1,157,046. Towel cabinet, held valid and in- 8(2) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) In civil action for

fringed (D. C. Minn.) 2 F.(20) 299. conspiracy facts must be pleaded.-Puget Sound 1,165,253. Casing head for oil wells, held valid Power & Light Co. v. Asia, 2 F.(20) 491.

and infringed (C. C. A. Kan.) 2 w34(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Inference to be F.(20) 530.

drawn from general allegations.-Kaemmerling ble in prosecution for using mails to defraud.
XI. MOTIONS.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
V. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co., 2 F.(20) the illegal matter in the mails.—Moore v. U. S.,
574.

2 F.(20) 839.

Indictment for using mails in execution of
III. PLEA OR ANSWER, CROSS-COM-

scheme to obtain money by means of false and
PLAINT, AND AFFIDAVIT OF
DEFENSE.

fraudulent representations held good.-Id.

Om 48(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Indictment for
(C) Traverses or Denials and Admissions.

using mails to defraud construed.-McLendon
Em 127(2) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) As contributory v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 660.
negligence only diminishes recovery under fed- Cw49 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held to sus-
eral Employers' Liability Act, plea admits lia- tain conviction for use of mails to defraud. -
bility.- Delaney v. Tampa Northern R. Co., Cullen v. U. S., 2 F.(20)_524.
2 F.(20) 734.

ww49 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence held to

sustain conviction for mailing unmailable mat-
V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION.

ter.-Dampier v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 329.
~228 (U.S.D.C.La.) For purpose of excep-

Admission of testimony as to mailing pro-
tion, allegations of petition taken as true.- hibited matter held unimportant.-Id.
Pacific Improvement Co. v. Duson, 2 F.(20) 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence held suffi-
261.

cient to warrant conviction of officers of town-

site company selling lots by fraudulent rep-
VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL resentations.-Lathrop v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 497.
PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER.

In prosecution for using mails to defraud,
mm 236(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Refusal to permit letters of defendants' agents as to misrepresen-
amendment of answer to set up statutory lien

tations in other enterprises held admissible.
on property converted held not error.-Arkan-

-Id.
sas Anthracite Coal & Land Co. v. Stokes, 2 m 49 (U.S.C.C.A.T.I.) Evidence held admissi-
F.(20) 511.

-Moore v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 839.
ww350(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Motion for judg-

Evidence that permits to sell stock of cor-

poration in certain states had been denied held
ment on pleadings treated as demurrer not ob-

admissible.-Id.
jectionable practice.-David v. Robert Dollar

Cum 49 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Evidence held ad-
Co., 2 F.(20) 803.

missible in prosecution for using the mails to
XIII. DEFECTS AND OBJECTIONS, WAIV-

defraud.-McLendon v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 660.
ER, AND AIDER BY VERDICT

Evidence held not to support charge as to
OR JUDGMENT.

use of mails to defraud.-Id.
428(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.). Complaint cannot

mw49 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Evidence of bankruptcy
be tested by objecting to introduction of evi-

held admissible in prosecution for using mails
dence.-Walton Trust Co. v. Taylor, 2 F.(20)

to defraud.-U. S. y. Yusem, 2 F.(20) 163.
342.
PLEDGES.

PRACTICE.
all (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Segregation and vis-

For practice in particular actions and proceed-
ible possession by pledgee essential to valid-

ings, see the various specific topics.
ity.-In re Spanish-American Cork Products

PRESCRIPTION.
Co., 2 F.(20) 203.

See Adverse Possession; Limitation of Actions.
POISONS.
Omot (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Intent not element of

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
crime_of selling narcotics.-Daugherty v. U. See Attorney and Client; Brokers.
S., 2 F.(2d) 691.
Om9 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Evidence witness sent

I. THE RELATION.
boy to accused's office, and received morphine

(A) Creation and Existence.
tablets from boy, held admissible.-Brown v.
U. S., 2 F.(2d) 589.

ww3(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Receipts for mon-
em (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.). Indictment for purchas-

ey to be loaned held to make maker of receipt
ing, selling, and distributing opium held suffi-

agent of lenders.-In re Tilton, 2 F.(20) 799.
cient.-Sam Wong v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 969.

Cr23(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Evidence held to
Indictment held to charge violation of Nar-

authorize finding cotton broker was acting as
cotic Import and Export Act.-Id.

agent for another.-Fenner & Beane v. Holt,
Evidence held to warrant conviction under

2 F.(20) 253.
Narcotic Act.-Id.

II. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIA-
em9 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Instructions in prose-

BILITIES.
cution for violation of Narcotic Act held er-

(A) Etecntion of Agency.
roneous.-Di Salvo v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 222.

29 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Charge of unregistered Ow66 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Letter of fire underwrit-
possession insufficient, and plea of guilty ad- ers, rescinding certain privileges of agent's
mits no offense.-Ex parte McGonigle, 2 F.

principals, held not to entitle agent to con-
(20) 784.

sider fire insurance business as his individual
POST OFFICE.

property.-Curtin v. Gildea, 2 F.(20) 865.

Agent leading principals to believe he was
III. OFFENSES AGAINST POSTAL LAWS.

accounting for profits not entitled to resist ac-
Cam 35 (U.S.C.C.A.T.I.) Belief in scheme does counting on ground rules of fire underwriters'
not justify promotion by fraudulent represen- association prohibited sharing profits.-Id.
tations.-Moore v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 839. Om67 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Principal compelling ac-

35 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) That customers are counting held entitled to recover interest.-
sometimes defrauded held not to make business Curtin v. Gildea, 2 F.(20) 865.
"scheme to defraud.”—McLendon v. U. S., 2 F. Om78(244) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Limitations and
(20) 660.

laches held not to apply, where delay caused by
Letter mailed must have some relation to concealment of defendant.-Curtin v. Gildea,
scheme to defraud charged.-Id.

2 F.(20) 865.
Cm 48(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Each count of in- 78(5) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Correspondence and
dictment held to sufficiently charge scheme or evidence of local interpretation of fire under-
artifice to defraud through use of mails.- writers' rules not admissible to show sharing
Snell v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 251.

of commissions permitted for many years vio-
48 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Indictment for us- lative of rules.-Curtin v. Gildea, 2 F.(20) 865.
ing the mails to defraud must allege that de- 78(6) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Evidence held to re-
fendant deposited or caused to be deposited quire finding that agent was not entitled to

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

conduct fire insurance business as his individ.

X, OPERATION.
ual business.-Curtin v. Gildea, 2 F.(20) 865.

(A) Duty to Operate.

222(5) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Evidence held not
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

to sustain charge of willful and wanton negli-
IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS. gence as to property injured.-Westre v. Chi-

cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F.(20) 227.
em 1 59 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Burden on employ-
er to prove it gave notice to surety on em-

(F) Accidents at Crossings.
ployee's bond within required time.--New Am-
sterdam Casualty Co. v. Farmers' Co-op. Union

Om327(1) (App.D.C.) Pedestrian or vehicle
of Lyons, Kan., 2 F.(20) 214.

driver must use senses of sight and hearing be-
Om 161 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Evidence held to

fore crossing tracks.–Baltimore & O. R. Co.
show farmers' co-operative association discov-

v. Fidelity Storage Co., 2 F.(20) 310.
ered wrongful act of its manager more than

327(2) (App.D.C.) Truck driver, approach-
five days before notifying surety.--New Am- ing track, held negligent.-Baltimore & 0. R.
sterdam Casualty Co. v. Farmers' Co-op. Un-

Co. v. Fidelity Storage Co., 2 F.(20) 310.
ion of Lyons, Kan., 2 F.(20) 214.

em338 (App.D.C.) Last clear chance doctrine
held inapplicable.-Baltimore & 0. R. Co. V.

Fidelity Storage Co., 2 F.(20) 310.
PRIVILEGE.

Omw350(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Contributory
See Constitutional Law, Omw 205.

negligence of occupant of automobile jury
question.-- Napier_v. Northwestern Ohio Ry.

& Power Co., 2 F.(2d) 701.
PROHIBITION.

m350(13) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Gross or willful
See Intoxicating Liquors.

negligence of deceased at crossing held ques-

tions for jury.—Byrd v. Atlantic Coast Line
PROMISSORY NOTES.

R. Co., 2 F.(20) 672.

351 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Refusal to
See Bills and Notes.

charge railroad was required to use greater

care where view was obstructed, held prejudi.
PROSTITUTION.

cial error.-Napier v. Northwestern Ohio Ry.

& Power Co., 2 F.(20) 701.
Cool (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Under White Slave
Traffic Act, prostitution within state unneces-

RECEIVERS.
sary.-Cholakos v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 447.

Use for transportation of particular money I. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF RECEIVER-
furnished in violation of White Slave Traffic

SHIP.
Act immaterial.-Id.

(B) Grounds of Appointment of Receiver.
On 4 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Evidence held to sustain

m 1 2 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) County chancery
conviction for violation of White Slave Traffic
Act.-Tobias v. U. S., 2 F.(20) 361.

court of Mississippi may, without judgment at
m5 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Instructions held not

law or nulla bona return, subject nonresident's
erroneous in prosecution for violation of White

property to_demands of creditors.-Neely v.
Slave Traffic Act.-Cholakos v. U. S., 2 F.(20)

McGehee, 2 F.(20) 853.
447.

II. APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATION, AND
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

TENURE.
See Municipal Corporations, Om412-450.

m59 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Action of state court

having jurisdiction in having nonresident's
PUBLIC LANDS.

property seized not subject to collateral at-

tack, except for fraud.-Neely v. McGehee, 2
II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF

F.(20) 853.
UNITED STATES.
(H) Grants in Aid of Railroads.

IV. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF

PROPERTY.
ww92 (U.S.D.C.Utah) Attorney General held
authorized to sue to enforce forfeiture of grant

(A) Administration in General.
of right of way to railroad.-U. S. v. Denver & 99(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Valid and normal
R. G. W. R. Co., 2 F.(2d) 873.

claims by shippers or consignees are "operating
Public interest 'held not to require forfeiture expenses” of railroad.--Loveland & Hinyan Co.
of railroad right of way for failure to com- v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 2 F.(20) 948.
plete road and for nonuser.-Id.

Forfeiture of railroad right of way cannot
be declared, unless right clear and in public (D) Sale and Conveyance or Redelivery

.
interest.-Id.

Om 133 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Construction of order

of sale; "unmatured obligations"; "damages.'
PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS.

Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. Ü. S.
See Carriers; Electricity; Gas; Railroads; Light & Heating Co., 2 F.(20) 384.
Telegraphs and Telephones.

V. ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF

CLAIMS.
RAILROADS.

Om 163 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Receivers held not
V. RIGHT OF WAY AND OTHER INTER-

entitled arbitrarily to refuse payment of ship-
ESTS IN LAND.

pers' claims.-Loveland & Hinyan Co. v. Pere
62 (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Railroad's use of prop- Marquette R. Co., 2 F.(20) 948.
erty for collecting and holding of water sup- Receivers held to have burden of showing
ply "public use."-Summers v. Atchison, T. & good cause for discrimination between shippers'
S. F. Ry. Co., 2 F.(2d) 717.

claims.-Id.
@mw73(4) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Provision of con-
tract releasing railroad company from liability

RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.
for negligent injury to property of lessee held
valid.- Westre v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., @ww8(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Burden on govern-
2 F.(20) 227.

ment to prove accused's knowledge or belief
om 82(2) (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Evidence held insuffi- goods stolen.-Silverman v. U. S., 2 F.(20)
cient to establish railroad's abandonment of 716.
land.-Summers v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Om8(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Guilty knowledge
Co., 2 F.(20) 717.

may be inferred from surrounding circum-

« 이전계속 »