ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

to action to annul a reconveyance.-Pacific Improvement Co. v. Duson, 2 F. (2d) 261. Dismissal of bill to annul special acts of reconveyance held warranted as to land in certain parish.-Id.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

See Counties.

IX. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. (E) Assessments for Benefits, and Special Taxes.

412 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Cost of public improvements of general character must be assessed against all property in municipality.-Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 2 F.(2d) 676.

428 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Assessment of abutting property for improvement on another street not justified.-Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 2 F. (2d) 676.

429 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Cost of improvements may be assessed against abutting property.— Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 2 F. (2d) 676.

im

450(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Semipublic provements need not be assessed on abutting property only, nor on property in whole city.Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Kansas City v. Swope, 2 F. (2d) 676.

Benefit district and assessments held arbitrary and unreasonable.-Id.

хий. FISCAL MANAGEMENT,

PUBLIC

DEBT, SECURITIES, AND TAXATION. (A) Power to Incur Indebtedness and Ex

penditures.

to inflict resulting injury.-Westre v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F. (2d) 227.

II. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY. 56(1) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) "Proximate cause" of injury.-Lorang v. Alaska S. S. Co., 2 F. (2d) 300. IV. ACTIONS.

(A) Right of Action, Parties, Preliminary Proceedings, and Pleading.

~111(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) General allegations in pleading may be sufficient.-Kaemmerling v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co., 2 F. (2d) 574.

112 (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Allegation of "gross negligence" held without legal significance. Westre v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F. (2d) 227. (B) Evidence.

v. Washington 121(!) (App.D.C.) Burden of proof on complaining party.-Bennett Terminal Co., 2 F.(2d) 913.

134(1) (App.D.C.) Proof by competent_evidence essential.-Bennett v. Washington Terminal Co., 2 F. (2d) 913.

134(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Finding of negligence held supported by evidence.-Hobbs, Wall & Co. v. Petterson, 2 F. (2d) 594.

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. See Bills and Notes.

NONSUIT.

See Dismissal and Nonsuit.

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 of Abbeville, 2 F. (2d) 559.

(C) Bonds and Other Securities, and sinking Funds.

933 (U.S.D.C.Ark.) Officers cannot bind municipality by invalid evidences of indebtedness.-Filbert v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway Dist., 2 F.(2d) 114.

[blocks in formation]

NOTES.

OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

(U.S.D.C.Fla.) Indictment for assault on officer held to sufficiently charge knowledge of official character.-U. S. v. Gay, 2 F.(2d) 635.

Indictment for interfering with prohibition officer making search held not defective for failure to aver circumstances showing authority to make search.-Id.

[blocks in formation]

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

VII. DISSOLUTION, SETTLEMENT, AND

ACCOUNTING.

(C) Distribution and Settlement Between Partners and Their Representatives. 311(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Dissolution agreement construed and held to entitle partner selling stock to contemporaneous payment of price.-Gandia v. Porto Rico Fertilizer Co., 2 F. (2d) 641.

Dissolution agreement drawn by counsel for one partner may be construed most favorably to other partner.-Id.

PATENTS.

II. PATENTABILITY.

(A) Invention.

19 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Mere variation in proportions of elements of a composition is not invention.-Bituminous Products Co. v. Headley Good Roads Co., 2 F.(2d) 83.

New product must differ from old, otherwise than in degree.-Id.

26(2) (U.S.D.C.III.) New combination of old elements, to be patentable, must produce new result as effect of the combination.Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Co. v. City of Chicago, 2 F. (2d) 601.

30(1) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Invention must be completed by reduction to practice.-Lowe v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 2 F. (2d) 157.

36 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Acquiescence as evidence of validity-Bituminous Products Co. v. Headley Good Roads Co., 2 F. (2d) 83.

(B) Novelty.

42 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Combination of old elements to affect old result in better manner may amount to invention.-Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch, 2 F. (2d) 828.

42 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Patent may possess novelty and validity, though consisting only of combination of prior arts.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Oil Well Improvements Co., 2 F. (2d) 530.

45 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Fact of issuance of patent and popular acclaim raise presumption of novelty.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Oil Well Improvements Co., 2 F. (2d) 530.

[blocks in formation]

62 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Oral proof of prior use must be beyond reasonable doubt.-Rousso v. Boyle, 2 F. (2d) 299.

66 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patent issued to same inventor on same date not considered as part of prior art.-Sandy MacGregor Co. V. Vaco Grip Co., 2 F. (2d) 655.

73 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Validity with reference to prior art depends upon date of invention rather than patent.-Sandy MacGregor Co. v. Vaco Grip Co., 2 F. (2d) 655.

III. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS. 90(2) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Inventor must use due diligence in reduction to practice.-Lowe v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 2 F. (2d) 157.

91(1) (App.D.C.) Junior party, in interference proceeding, had burden of proving that he, and not senior party, had made invention. -Pinkerton v. Gibson, 2 F. (2d) 937.

91 (3) (App.D.C.) Evidence held not to prove disclosure of invention by junior to senior party.-Pinkerton v. Gibson, 2 F. (2d) 937. 92 (U.S.D.C.III.) Joint invention.-Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Co. v. City of Chicago, 2 F.(2d) 601.

2 F. (2d)-67

IV. APPLICATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON.

101 (App.D.C.) One cannot read limitations into claims broadly stated.-In re Levy, 2 F. (2d) 939.

Patent Office should give claims broadest interpretation of which they are reasonably capable.-Id.

104 (App.D.C.) Doubt as to whether claims should be allow resolved in applicant's favor.In re Levy, 2 F. (2d) 939.

112(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Patent presumes novelty, and burden on infringer to prove invalidity with reasonable clearness.-Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch, 2 F. (2d) 828.

112(3) (Ú.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Fact of issuance of patent and popular acclaim raise presumption of validity.-Acme Foundry & Machine Co. v. Oil Well Improvements Co., 2 F. (2d) 530.

114 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Suit to adjudicate rights of owners of interfering patents in nature of suit to set aside judgment.-Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Miller Saw-Trimmer Co., 2 F. (2d) 744.

Columbia in interference proceeding presumed Decree of Court of Appeals of District of correct not set aside except on clearest proof. -Id.

Evidence held insufficient to overcome presumption in favor of correctness of previous decree of Court of Appeals of District of Columbia in interference proceeding.-Id.

V. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF LETTERS PATENT.

118 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Patentee need not disclose accessories or auxiliary devices used in connection with invention. Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Miller Saw-Trimmer Co., 2 F.(2d) 744.

129 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patentable "utility," within rule estopping infringer defined.-Sandy MacGregor Co. v. Vaco Grip Co., 2 F. (2d) 655. IX. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF

LETTERS PATENT.

(A) In General.

159 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Evidence of anticipation held admissible as to construction, but not competent as to validity.-Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch, 2 F. (2d) 828.

162 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Statements in patent as to condition of prior art properly considered on question of validity.-Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch, 2 F. (2d) 828.

(B) Limitation of Claims.

168 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patent Office reason for allowance of claim not within rule of estoppel-W. S. Godwin Co. v. International Steel Tie Co., 2 F. (2d) 198.

X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CONTRACTS.

(A) Rights of Patentees in General. 183 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Preliminary injunction issued to restrain assignment of right to practice invention, but not to prevent defendant itself from practicing invention.-Carpenter Chemical Co. v. Lansdale Silk Hosiery Co., 2 F. (2d) 976.

XII. INFRINGEMENT.

(A) What Constitutes Infringement. 261 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Patentee held estopped to claim infringement.-Lowe v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 2 F. (2d) 157.

(C) Suits in Equity.

281 (U.S.D.C.III.) Authority given courts of equity to increase damages in infringement suits within power of Congress.-Taylor v. Ford Motor Co., 2 F. (2d) 473.

308 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Refusal to dissolve 1,220,444. Improvement in basic open hearth preliminary injunction held not abuse of discretion.-Owen v. Perkins Oil Well Cementing Co., 2 F. (2d) 247.

cor

furnaces, claims 1, 2, 5, and 8, held not infringed (D. C. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 94.

1,284,523. Mechanism for controlling automobile throttle valves, claims 1 and 2, held valid and infringed (D. C. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 305.

310(10) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Reorganized poration assuming debts of old company may be brought into infringement suit by supplemental bill.-Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. U. S. Light & Heating Co., 2 F. (2d) 1,324,391. Paving guard, claim 4, held valid 384.

and infringed (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 198.

312(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Plaintiff, alleging infringement, has burden of proof.-American 1,333,363. Compound for penetrating interior Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Burgess Sulphite Co., 2 F. (2d) 6.

[blocks in formation]

corrosion, held not anticipated (C. C. A. N. J.) 2 F.(2d) 245. Abrasive compound, held valid (C. C. A. Colo.) 2 F.(2d) 828. Automatic printing press

feeder, claims 17-22, held valid, and entitled to priority over patent No. 1,074,720, claims 1, 2, 10, 21 and 22 (D. C. Pa.) 2 F.(2d) 744.

Intervener resisting dismissal of bill because 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.) 2 F.(2d) 729.

318(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Defendant held liable for profits from infringement.-Merrell- 1,439,338. Golf practicing and exercising deSoule Co. v. Powdered Milk Co. of America, 2 F. (2d) 107.

[blocks in formation]

Lowe,

ORIGINAL.

Improvement in gas-making apparatus, held invalid (D. C. Cal.) 2 F.(24) 157.

445,235. Acid-resisting lining of pulp-digesting boiler, held not infringed (C. C. A. N. H.) 2 F.(2d) 6.

735,414. Double-deck bascule bridge, held not anticipated, and invalid (D. C. Ill.) 2 F.(2d) 601.

805,068. Method of feeding glass into moulds, held not infringed (D. C. Pa.) 2 F. (2d) 109.

919,351. Automatic feed mechanism for planer, held infringed (C. C. A. Mich.) 2 F.(2d) 837.

926,308. Toy pistol, claim 6, held valid, and not anticipated (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 815.

981,111. Concrete mixer, held void (C. C. A. N. J.) 2 F.(2d) 565.

1,139,685. Mechanism for controlling automobile throttle valves, claims 2 and 3, held valid and infringed (D. C. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 305.

1,153,481. Driving connections between felly and rim of automobile wheel, claims 2, 5, and 7, held anticipated and lacking in invention (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 713.

1,500,026.

vice, held valid (C. C. A. Ohio)
2 F.(2d) 655.

1,439,339. Golf practicing and exercising de-
vice, held invalid (C. C. A. Ohio)
2 F.(2d) 655.
Process for treating silk stockings,
held substantially the same as de-
scribed in former application for
patent (D. C. Pa.) 2 F.(2d) 976.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

For pleadings in particular actions or proceed-
ings, see also the various specific topics.
For review of rulings relating to pleadings, see
Appeal and Error.

I. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN GENERAL.

1,153,482. Driving connections between felly and rim of automobile wheel, held anticipated and lacking in invention (C. C. A. Ohio) 2 F.(2d) 713. 1,157,046. Towel cabinet, held valid and in-8(2) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) In civil action for fringed (D. Č. Minn.) 2 F.(2d) 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. (2d) 491. and infringed (C. C. A. Kan.) 234(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Inference to be F.(2d) 530. drawn from general allegations.-Kaemmerling

[ocr errors]

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co., 2 F.(2d)
574.

III. PLEA OR ANSWER, CROSS-COM-
PLAINT, AND AFFIDAVIT OF

DEFENSE.

[blocks in formation]

4 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Intent not element of
crime of selling narcotics.-Daugherty v. U.
S.. 2 F. (2d) 691.

9 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Evidence witness sent
boy to accused's office, and received morphine
tablets from boy, held admissible.-Brown v.
U. S., 2 F. (2d) 589.

9 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Indictment for purchas-
ing, selling, and distributing opium held suffi-
cient. Sam Wong v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 969.

Indictment held to charge violation of Nar-
cotic Import and Export Act.-Id.

Evidence held to warrant conviction under
Narcotic Act.-Id.

9 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Instructions in prose-
cution for violation of Narcotic Act held er-
roneous. Di Salvo v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 222.

9 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Charge of unregistered
possession insufficient, and plea of guilty ad-
mits no offense.-Ex parte McGonigle, 2 F.
(2d) 784.

POST OFFICE.

III. OFFENSES AGAINST POSTAL LAWS.
35 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Belief in scheme does
not justify promotion by fraudulent represen-
tations.-Moore v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 839.

35 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) That customers are
sometimes defrauded held not to make business
"scheme to defraud."-McLendon v. U. S., 2 F.
(2d) 660.

Letter mailed must have some relation to
scheme to defraud charged.-Id.

48 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Each count of in-
dictment held to sufficiently charge scheme or
artifice to defraud through use of mails.--
Snell v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 251.

48(4) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Indictment for us-
ing the mails to defraud must allege that de-
fendant deposited or caused to be deposited

the illegal matter in the mails.-Moore v. U. S.,
2 F. (2d) 839.

Indictment for using mails in execution of
scheme to obtain money by means of false and
fraudulent representations held good.-Id.

for

48(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Indictment
using mails to defraud construed.-McLendon
v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 660.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held to sus-
tain conviction for use of mails to defraud.—
Cullen v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 524.

held to

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence
sustain conviction for mailing unmailable mat-
ter.-Dampier v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 329.

Admission of testimony as to mailing pro-
hibited matter held unimportant.-Id.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence held suffi-
cient to warrant conviction of officers of town-
site company selling lots by fraudulent rep-
resentations.-Lathrop v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 497.

In prosecution for using mails to defraud,
letters of defendants' agents as to misrepresen-
tations in other enterprises held admissible.
-Id.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.II.) Evidence held admissi-
ble in prosecution for using mails to defraud.
-Moore v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 839.

Evidence that permits to sell stock of cor-
poration in certain states had been denied held
admissible.-Id.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Evidence held ad-
missible in prosecution for using the mails to
defraud.-McLendon v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 660.
Evidence held not to support charge as to
use of mails to defraud.-Id.

49 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Evidence of bankruptcy
held admissible in prosecution for using mails
to defraud.-U. S. v. Yusem, 2 F. (2d) 163.

PRACTICE.

For practice in particular actions and proceed-
ings, see the various specific topics.

PRESCRIPTION.

See Adverse Possession; Limitation of Actions.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
See Attorney and Client; Brokers.

I. THE RELATION.

(A) Creation and Existence.

3 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Receipts for mon-
ey to be loaned held to make maker of receipt
agent of lenders. In re Tilton, 2 F. (2d) 799.

23(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Evidence held to
authorize finding cotton broker was acting as
agent for another.-Fenner & Beane v. Holt,
2 F. (2d) 253.

II. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIA-

BILITIES.

(A) Execution of Agency.

66 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Letter of fire underwrit-
ers, rescinding certain privileges of agent's
principals, held not to entitle agent to con-
sider fire insurance business as his individual
property.-Curtin v. Gildea, 2 F. (2d) 865.

Agent leading principals to believe he was
accounting for profits not entitled to resist ac-
counting on ground rules of fire underwriters'
association prohibited sharing profits.-Id.

67 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Principal compelling ac-
counting held entitled to recover interest.-
Curtin v. Gildea, 2 F. (2d) 865.

and

78 (24) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Limitations
laches held not to apply, where delay caused by
concealment of defendant.-Curtin v. Gildea,
2 F.(2d) 865.

78(5) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Correspondence and
evidence of local interpretation of fire under-
writers' rules not admissible to show sharing
of commissions permitted for many years vio-
lative of rules.-Curtin v. Gildea, 2 F.(2d) 865.

78(6) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Evidence held to re-
quire finding that agent was not entitled to

conduct fire insurance business as his individ-
ual business.-Curtin v. Gildea, 2 F. (2d) 865.

PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS.
159 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Burden on employ-
er to prove it gave notice to surety on em-
ployee's bond within required time.-New Am-
sterdam Casualty Co. v. Farmers' Co-op. Union
of Lyons, Kan., 2 F. (2d) 214.
161 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Evidence held to
show farmers' co-operative association discov-
ered wrongful act of its manager more than
five days before notifying surety.-New Am-
sterdam Casualty Co. v. Farmers' Co-op. Un-
ion of Lyons, Kan., 2 F. (2d) 214.

PRIVILEGE.

See Constitutional Law, 205.

PROHIBITION.

See Intoxicating Liquors.

PROMISSORY NOTES.

See Bills and Notes.

PROSTITUTION.

(U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Under

White

Slave

Traffic Act, prostitution within state unneces-
sary.-Cholakos v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 447.'

Use for transportation of particular money
furnished in violation of White Slave Traffic
Act immaterial.-Id.

4 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Evidence held to sustain
conviction for violation of White Slave Traffic
Act.-Tobias v. U. S., 2 F. (2d) 361.

5 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Instructions held not
erroneous in prosecution for violation of White
Slave Traffic Act.-Cholakos v. U. S., 2 F. (2d)
447.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

See Municipal Corporations, 412-450.

PUBLIC LANDS.

II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF
UNITED STATES.

(H) Grants in Aid of Railroads.

92 (U.S.D.C.Utah) Attorney General held
authorized to sue to enforce forfeiture of grant
of right of way to railroad.-U. S. v. Denver &
R. G. W. R. Co., 2 F. (2d) 873.

Public interest held not to require forfeiture
of railroad right of way for failure to com-
plete road and for nonuser.-Id.

Forfeiture of railroad right of way cannot
be declared, unless right clear and in public
interest.-Id.

PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS.
See Carriers; Electricity; Gas; Railroads;
Telegraphs and Telephones.

RAILROADS.

V. RIGHT OF WAY AND OTHER INTER-
ESTS IN LAND.

62 (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Railroad's use of prop-
erty for collecting and holding of water sup-
ply "public use."-Summers v. Atchison, T. &
S. F. Ry. Co., 2 F. (2d) 717.

73(4) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Provision of con-
tract releasing railroad company from liability
for negligent injury to property of lessee held
valid.-Westre v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
2 F.(2d) 227.

82(2) (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Evidence held insuffi-
cient to establish railroad's abandonment of
land.-Summers v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Co., 2 F. (2d) 717.

X. OPERATION.

(A) Duty to Operate.

222(5) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Evidence held not
to sustain charge of willful and wanton negli-
gence as to property injured.-Westre v. Chi-
cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 F. (2d) 227.

(F) Accidents at Crossings.
327(1) (App.D.C.) Pedestrian or vehicle
driver must use senses of sight and hearing be-
fore crossing tracks.-Baltimore & O. R. Co.
v. Fidelity Storage Co., 2 F.(2d) 310.

327(2) (App.D.C.) Truck driver, approach-
ing track, held negligent.-Baltimore & O. R.
Co. v. Fidelity Storage Co., 2 F. (2d) 310.

338 (App.D.C.) Last clear chance doctrine
held inapplicable.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v.
Fidelity Storage Co., 2 F. (2d) 310.

350(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Contributory
negligence of occupant of automobile jury
question.-Napier v. Northwestern Ohio Ry.
& Power Co., 2 F. (2d) 701.

350(13) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Gross or willful
negligence of deceased at crossing held ques-
tions for jury.-Byrd v. Atlantic Coast Line
R. Co., 2 F. (2d) 672.

Refusal

to

351 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio)
charge railroad was required to use greater
care where view was obstructed, held prejudi-
cial error.-Napier v. Northwestern Ohio Ry.
& Power Co., 2 F. (2d) 701.

[blocks in formation]

(D) Sale and Conveyance or Redelivery
of Property.

133 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Construction of order
of sale; "unmatured obligations"; "damages."
-Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. Ü. S.
Light & Heating Co., 2 F.(2d) 384.

V. ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF
CLAIMS.

163 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Receivers held not
entitled arbitrarily to refuse payment of ship-
pers' claims.-Loveland & Hinyan Co. v. Pere
Marquette R. Co., 2 F. (2d) 948.

Receivers held to have burden of showing
good cause for discrimination between shippers'
claims.-Id.

RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.

8(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Burden on govern-
ment to prove accused's knowledge or belief
goods stolen.-Silverman v. U. S., 2 F.(2d)
716.

8(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Guilty knowledge
may be inferred from surrounding circum-

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »