« 이전계속 »
KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL.
IIT. PARTIES, PROCESS, CLAIMS, AND
STIPULATIONS OR OTHER SECURITY. II. ANOTHER ACTION PENDING,
C43 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Dredge of reclamation 8(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Trustee's right to district_held exempt from seizure to enforce sue to recover concealed assets held not affect- liens.-The Lisbon, 3 F.(20) 408. ed by pendency of another action between same C50 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Claimant to fund in parties.—Walker v. Wilkinson, 3 F.(20) 867. court may come in at any time before decree of
distribution.-The Commack, 3 F.(20) 704. V. DEATH OF PARTY AND REVIVAL OF Om51' (U.S.D.C.Or.) When libels in personam ACTION
and in rem abate by death of libelant stated.(A) Abatement or Survival of Action. Amoth v. U. S.. 3 F.(20) 848. ww49 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Survival of action Fm 57. (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) General
appearance governed by law of forum.-Page v. United and giving bond for release of dredge by reclaFruit Co., 3 F.(20) 747.
mation district not waiver of claimant's immu
nity.—The Lisbon, 3 F.(20) 408. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
IV. PLEADING, PETITIONS, AND MOSee Compromise and Settlement.
TIONS. 10(1) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Adjustment of dis- Om66 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Leave to amend libel pute between seller and buyer by abatement in will not be granted, after cause stands disprice held to constitute accord and satisfaction. missed under rule of court.-The Commack, - Woodside Cotton Mills Co. v. Kaustine Co., 3 F.(20) 704. 3 F.(20) 523.
Om 67 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Amendment to libel must ACTION.
be verified.—The Commack, 3 F. (20) 704. See Abatement and Revival.
VII. COMMISSIONERS AND PROCEED
INGS BEFORE THEM,
85 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Findings of fact of spe69 (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Prior Jurisdiction of
cial commissioner not disturbed.—The Benstate court ground only for stay of subsequent cleuch, 3 F.(20) 824. suit in federal court.-Boston Acme Mines Corporation v. Salina Canyon Coal Co., 3 F.(20)
IX. APPEAL. 729.
em 118 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Decree not reversible, ADMINISTRATION.
if allegations of libel are not sustained by cred.
ible evidence.-Gaderson v. Texas Contracting See Executors and Administrators.
Co., 3 F.(20) 140.
Owl18 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Appellate court may ADMIRALTY.
increase or decrease award of trial court.-The See Collision: Maritime Liens; Salvage; Sea
Naiwa, 3 F.(20) 381. men; Shipping; Towage.
On 122 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Parties impleaded by On 13 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Hospital's libel against claimant of vessel held entitled to recover costs shipowner for treatment furnished injured sea
of claimant.-The Goyaz, 3 F.(20) 553. man held maritime action.—Methodist Episcopal Hospital v. Pacific Transport Co., 3 F.(20)
AGENCY. 508. On 16 (U.S.D.C.N.C.) Priority of mortgage See Principal and Agent, could be determined in libel against vessel by lien claimant.—The Defiance, 3 F.(20) 48.
II. EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION.
On 23(1) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Native of PhilipOn 28 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Vessel not liable in rem pine Islands, of Chinese descent, held subject to for injuries to member of crew from assault exclusion laws.-Ex parte Palo, 3 F.(20) 44. arising from master's failure to maintain dis- Emo25 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Chinese assistant mancipline.-The Robinson, 3_F.(20) 507.
ager of restaurant held a "merchant."-Ex On 31 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Doctrine of assump- parte Wong Jun, 3 F.(20) 502. tion of risk applied in admiralty.--Gaderson v. To be partner, under Exclusion Act, name Texas Contracting Co., 3 F.(20) 140.
need not appear in firm title.-Id. 3 F.(20)-65
Om 32(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Vt.) Chinaman entitled ice in merchant marine or filing of declaration to determination of whether he is citizen in ju- of intention to become citizen.-Id. dicial proceeding.–Soo Hoo Yee v. U. S., 3 F. 54 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Defects in deportation (2d) 592.
warrant held not to require alien's discharge Cm32(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Vt.) Certificate of Unit- where sufficient grounds for detention shown. ed States commissioner in one district not com- -Kush v. Davis, 3 F.(20) 273. petent evidence in other district as to disposi- Evidence held sufficient to warrant alien's detion of deportation proceeding in first district. portation for circulating literature prohibited -Soo Hoo Yee v. U. S., 3 F.(24) 592.
by statute.-Id. Hearsay evidence as to place of birth held en 54 (U.S.C.C.A.Me.) Alien may not be deadmissible because best evidence obtainable. ported on ground different from that on which -Id.
he has been heard.— Throumoulopolou v. U. S., Om32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Exclusion of Chi- 3 F.(20) 803. nese boys held supported by the evidence.- Om 54 (U.S.C.C.A.Me.) Judgment discharging Soo Hoo Hung v. Nagle, 3 F.(20) 267. petitioner in habeas corpus proceeding held reem32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Decision exclud- viewable on merits. Howes v. Tozer, 3 F.(20) ing alleged sons of Chinese citizen held made 849. after fair trial.-Johnson v. Kock Shing, 3 Only unqualified admission by alien of comF.(20) 889.
mission of crime will warrant deportation.-Id. 32(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Vt.) Defendant in depor- Where immigration authorities have exceeded tation proceeding who claims to be citizen is jurisdiction, court may determine case on its entitled to prompt hearing and tinal disposition merits.-Id. on merits.-Soo Hoo Yee v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 54 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Objections to pro592.
ceedings for deportation held waived.-MacKusCm32(12) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Finding that the ick v. Johnson, 3 F.(20) 398. alleged father of Chinese immigrants was not Secretary has option as to country to which a citizen of the United States held not sub- deportation is to be made.-Id. ject to reversal.-Lee Tuck Gan v. Johnson, 3 54 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Decision of immiF.(2d) 804.
gration officials, denyiró entry on fair_hearOn 32(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Order of exclusion, ing, is final.--Johnson v. Kock Shing, 3 F.(20) made on conflicting evidence, held not review- 889. able.-Young Fat v. Nagle, 3 F.(20) 439.
Immigration officials are not restricted to le. C32 (13) (U.S.C.C.A.VI.) Trial in District gal evidence on hearing before them.-Id. Court on appeal from commissioner in depor. 54 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Release on writ of tation proceedings is de novo.--Soo Hoo Yee v. habeas corpus required where Commissioner U. S., 3 F.(20) 592.
of Immigration exceeds power.-U. S. ex rel. Alleged alien need not submit testimony be- Mantler v. Commissioner of Immigration, 3 fore commissioner in deportation proceedings, F.(20) 234. but may appeal directly to the District Court. Decision of immigration officials on evidence -Id.
conclusive.-Id. Evidence held to prove Chinaman a citizen, 54 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Decision of Board of because born in this country.-Id.
Special Inquiry conclusive if based on evidence and action of Bourd was not arbitrary
and unfair.-Chryssikos v. Commissioner of III. IMMIGRATION.
Immigration, Ellis Island, New York, N. Y., 3
F.(20) 372. Oma 46 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Secretary held with- Evidence insufficient to warrant finding that out discretion to admit alien returning after alien was not temporary visitor.-Id. absence of nine years.-MacKusick v. Johnson, en 54 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Decision of board of 3 F.(20) 398.
special inquiry, supported by evidence, will not Procedure in applying literacy test.-Id. be reviewed by courts.-U. S. v. Commissioner Om 46 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Use of semicolon and of Immigration, 3 F.(20) 551. comma in Immigration Act defined.-Grkic v. Om54 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Finding of grounds U. S., 3 F.(20) 276.
for deportation by department not conclusive. On 46 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Statute relating to aliens -Lisotta v. U. s., 3 F.(20) 108. returning from temporary visit abroad admin- Order for deportation must be supported by istered according to equitable principles.-In re evidence.-Id. Spinnella, 3 F.(20) 196.
54 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Evidence held suffiem 51 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Alien entering Unit- cient to show accused knowingly distributed ed States for immoral purposes held subject literature opposing organized government.to deportation.-Grkic v. U. s., 3 F.(20) 276. Gebartus v. Paul, 3 F.(20) 145. Cum 5142 [New, vol. 16A Key-No. Series]
54 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Alien found feeblequis.C.C.A.Mass.) Department rule minded held to have been accorded a fair and limiting "temporary absence" to six months impartial hearing.-U. S. v. Tod, 3 F.(20) 836. held reasonable.-MacKusick Johnson, 3 Evidence held to sustain finding that alien F.(20) 398.
was feeble-minded.-Id. 5112. [New, vol. 16A Key-No. Series)
Findings in deportation and exclusion, pro(U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Aliens returning from ceedings final, where supported by evidence. temporary visit abroad held entitled to admis- -Id. sion, though nonquota visas omitted from pass
IV. NATURALIZATION. ports.-In re Spinnella, 3 F.(20) 196.
@mw 53 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Alien held not sub- m 62 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Alien, convicted of ilject to deportation as likely to become public legal manufacture of liquor during period of charge.-U. S. ex rel. Mantler v. Commission- probation, not eligible to citizenship;
"ater of Immigration, 3 F.(20) 234.
tached to the principles of the Constitution.' Om 53 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Deportation on ground In re Nagy, 3 F.(20) 77. that alien was likely to become a public charge emm 62 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Alien, convicted, of ilat the time of admission not warranted.-Lisot- legal possession of liquor during period of prota v. U. S.. 3 F.(2d) 108.
bation, not eligible to citizenship.-In re Raio, 53 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Alien seaman not having 3 F.(20) 78. the proper certificate and consular visé held 062 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Conviction of illegal not entitled to remain.--Ex parte Marchant, 3 possession of a still held to bar admission to F.(20) 695.
citizenship.-In re Phillips, 3 F.(20) 79. Seaman without certificate or visé not per- Cam 66 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Alien seaman haring mitted to remain indefinitely because of sery. served more than three years in merchant maties move for directed verdict, both are bound ma 263(3) (App.D.C.) Failure to instruct as by court's finding.-Coal & Iron Nat. Bank of to interest of witness not error, in absence of City of New York v. Suzuki, 3 F.(20) 764. prayer and exception to charge as given.-Econ- 997 (3) (App.D.C.) Both parties, having omon v. Barry-Pate Motor Co., 3 F.(20) 84. moved for directed verdict, were concluded by
For cases In Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER rine and presenting proper certificate of arriv- by receiver in appellate proceedings.-Koppel al held entitled to admission to citizenship.- Industrial Car & Equipment Co. v. Lee, 3 In re Linklater, 3 F.(20) 691..
F.(20) 886. Seaman's service in American merchant marine need not be subsequent to lawful entry and
X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT IN
RECORD. declaration of intention to warrant naturalization.-Id.
(K) Questions Presented for Review. 68 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Naturalization examiner Omw 674 (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Error not predicable without judicial powers and without power to on ruling as to priority of jurisdiction, when prevent any person from filing petition for nat- necessary facts not shown.-Boston Acme uralization; "master."-In re Linklater, 3 F. Mines Corporation v. Salina Canyon Coal Co., (20) 691.
3 F.(20) 729. Om69 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Entry of seaman supporting application by nunc pro tunc certifi- (L) Matters Not Apparent of Record. cate of arrival presumed lawful.-In re Link- m713(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Ruling on motion later, 3 F.(20) 691.
not shown by bill of exceptions not reviewable.
-Tampico Banking Co., $. A., v. Barber, 3 F. ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
(20) 136. See Monopolies, Omw 17.
(A) Scope and Extent in General. APPEAL AND ERROR.
w 842(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Whether at close See Certiorari; Criminal Law, Omm1030_1177; of trial there is substantial evidence to susExceptions, Bill of.
tain finding held question of law for court.For review of rulings in particular actions or Martin v. Richmond, F. & P. R. Co., 3 F.(20)
proceedings, see also the various specific top- 26. icg.
849(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Rulings made on III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE. trial to court without written stipulation not
reviewable.--Emerzian v. S. J. Kornblum & (D) Finality of Determination.
William Kornblum, 3 F.(20) 995. 080(4),(U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Final decree es- Cw850(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Where jury waiysential before appeal lies.-Steel & Tube Co. of ed, court authorized to review evidence on writ America v. Dingess Rum Coal Co., 3 F.(20) of error, though neither findings nor request 805.
thereformade.-Muentzer Los Angeles V. PRESENTATION
Trust & Sayings Bank, 3 F.(2d) 222.
Om850(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Reviewing court
cannot examine evidence and supply necessary (A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.
finding.-Border Gas Co. v. Windrow, 3 F.(20)
974. Om 173(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Defense pot presented to trial court cannot be considered by (C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error. appellate court.--Hercules Powder Co. v. Rich,
882(14) (App.D.C.) Plaintiff, having in3 F.(2d) 12.
sisted that court should pass on issues in(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
volved as matter of law, could not complain on Thereon,
appeal of court's failure to submit facts to
jury.--Lemon v. Martin, 3 F.(20) 710. mm 184 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Circuit Court of Appeals held not bound of its own motion to
(E) Presumptions. consider question whether trial court had equity jurisdiction.-Meriweather-Graham-Oliv. O 928(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Jury presumed to er Co. v. Bank of Commerce of Earle, Ark., 3 have been properly instructed.-Steil v. HolF.(20) 513.
land. 3 F.(20) 776. 232(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Objection to tes- Ow930(1) (U. S.C. C. A. Porto Rico) Evidence timony not made at trial cannot be considered considered in light most favorable to verdict. on appeal to justify its exclusion. -Cudahy Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, Packing Co. v. Narzisenfeld, 3 F.(20) 567.
3 F.(20) 21. On 237(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Plaintiffs in error,
@931 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Findings of fact, who did not move to strike out evidence, can
made on conflicting evidence, presumed correct. not complain that evidence was allowed to re
-U. S. v. Rhodes, 3 F.(20) 771. main in case.-Steil v. Holland, 3 F.(20) 776. m237(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Sufficiency of evi
(F) Discretion of Lower Court. dence not considered, in absence of motion for ww969 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Refusal to transdirected verdict.-Steil v. Holland, 3 F.(20) fer case to equity side not disturbed on ap776.
peal, unless clearly erroneous.-Fidelity & Cas237 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Question of sub- ualty Co. of New York v. Glenn, 3 F.(20) 913. stantial evidence at close of trial to sustain omg71(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Competency of finding reviewable on exception to ruling on expert for determination by trial court.-Lynn request or motion.-Martin v. Richmond, F. & Storage Warehouse Co. v. Senator, 3 F.(20) P. R. Co., 3 F.(20) 26.
558. Om 242(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Questions not presented to trial court are waived.-Tampico (G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Banking Co., S. A., v. Barber, 3 F.(20) 136.
Findings. (C) Exceptions.
Oma 997(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Where both par,
court's finding as to facts, if supported by subVI, PARTIES.
stantial evidence.-Lemon v. Martin, 3 F.(20) em324 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Summons and sever- 710. ance held not necessary on appeal by one de- cm 1002. Jury's verdict conclusive on conflictfendant.-Reinecke v. Peacock, 3 F.(20) 583. ing evidence. Om327 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Parties; -YU.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Steil v. Holland, 3 F.(20) general creditors are sufficiently represented 776;
(U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Woodside Cotton Mills Co. law of the case.-Higgins v. California Prune v. Kaustine Co., 3 F.(20) 523;
& Apricot Grower, 3 F.(20) 896. (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Glenn, 3 F.(20) 913.
DISPOSI1003 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Weight of evidence
TION OF CAUSE. was for jury.--Steil v. Holland, 3 F.(20) 776.
(D) Reversal. cm 1004 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Where extent of plaintiff's loss uncertain, and proportion of court's judgment based on entire record with
Om 1170(1) (U. S. C. C. A. W. Va.) Appellate it attributable to defendant unknown, it cannot be said as matter of law that verdict is
out regard to technical errors or defects.-Fiinadequate.-Yazoo Spoke Co. v. Moore Dry 3 F.(20) 913.
delity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Glenn, Kiln Co., 3 F.(20) 937. Om 1005(1) (App.D.C.) Trial court's conclu- ficient findings by trial judge sitting without
1177 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Effect of insufsion as to sufficiency of evidence to sustain verdict not disturbed on appeal.-Economon v.
jury, and of findings which do not support Barry-Pate Motor Co., 3 F.(20) 84.
judgment, stated.-Border Gas Co. v. WindEm 1008 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Tinding of tribu- row, 3 F.(20) 974. nal charged with determination of questions of fact is final, unless plain and manifest error be
(F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower
Conrt. shown.-Hazelwood Brewing Co. v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 721.
em 1198 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) “Law of the case," Om 1008 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Where jury is as decided by Circuit Court of Appeals, binding waived, special findings have effect of verdict on District Court.-Luminous Unit Co. y. Freeand must embrace finding on every material man-Sweet Co., 3 F.(20) 577. issue.-Border Gas Co. v. Windrow, 3 F.(20)
Law of case settled on appeal should be fol974.
lowed by Circuit Court of Appeals, unless Omw 1011(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Findings of fact clearly erroneous and mischievous in operation. made on conflicting evidence, presumed cor
-Id. rect.-U. S. v. Rhodes, 3 F.(20) 771.
ei 203(5) (U.S.C.C.A.T.I.) Dismissal by Dis. ww1011(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Circuit Court of trict Court held proper, potwithstanding manAppeals not called on to weigh evidence nor date of Circuit Court of Appeals, in view of to substitute its conclusion for trial court's.- subsequent decision of Supreme Court.-LoMuentzer v: Los Angeles Trust & Savings minous Unit Co. v. Freeman-Sweet Co., 3 F. Bank, 3 F.(20) 222.
(2d) 577. Om 1022(2)(U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Findings of fact
em 1204 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Duty of District by master, approved by court, will be accepted,
Court to give effect to mandate of Circuit unless clearly not supported by evidence. Court of Appeals, affirming order of District Bailey v. Blackmon, 3 F.(20) 252.
Court.-In re Walker Grain Co., 3 F.(20) 872. (H) Harmless Error.
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL. Om 1033(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Instruction to inference of bad faith from circumstances
See Criminal Law, Ow721. held more favorable to defendant than it was entitled to.-Gerseta Corporation v. Wessex
ARMY AND NAVY. Campbell Silk Co., 3 F.(28) 236.
On 44(1) (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Soldier held triable cm 1035 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Case improperly by court-martial for murder in Mexico, though tried at law not sent back for transfer to equi- actual state of war did not exist.-Ex parte ty side except to prevent miscarriage of jus- Johnson, 3 F.(20) 705. tice.-Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v.
Om5112 [New, vol. 12A Koy-No. Series] Glenn, 3 F.(20) 913.
(U.S.C.C.A.III.) Evidence of change of Om 1035 (App.D.C.) That purchasers' action beneficiary held insufficient.-Layne v. U. S., 3 against vendor's tenant, holding over after ex
F.(20) 431. piration of term, sounded in contract, and not
Evidence of prenuptial agreement by insured in tort, was not prejudicial to tenant.-Selden to make wife beneficiary of war risk insurance v. Lee, 3 F.(20) 335.
held insufficient.-Id. Om 1039(13) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Permitting re
m5172 [New, vol. 12A Key-No. Series] covery as for breach of contract, rather than
(U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Statute limiting attoras for purchase price of goods sold, but undelivered," held_not prejudicial.-Meade Fibre Co.
pey's charges for services rendered beneficiary
under War Risk Insurance Act held valid. v. Varn, 3 F.(20) 520. Emer! 048(6) (App.D.C.) Error in admission of Margolin v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 602.
Attorney not entitled to recover more than testimony on cross-examination cured by cross
$3 for all services rendered to beneficiary of examining party's acceptance of witness as
war risk policy.-Id. own witness.- Lemon v. Martin, 3 F.(20) 710.
1058(1) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Exclusion of evidence subsequently admitted was not error.
II. ON CRIMINAL CHARGES.
Om63(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Del.) Federal prohibition ny on direct examination harmless, where wit
agents held justified in making arrest for transness gave testimony on cross-examination.- portation of liquor without warrant.-Altshuler Economon v. Barry-Pate Motor Co., 3 F.(20) 71 u.s.C.C.A.Del.) Prohibition agents had 84. wo 1061 (4) (App.D.C.) Absence of verdict duty of seizing liquor in possession of person harmless, where both parties moved for dilawfully arrested without warrant.-Altshuler rected verdict.-Lemon v. Martin, 3 F.(20) 710.
v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 791. Om 1067 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Modification of instruction offered, making more accurate
ASSESSMENT. statement of matter involved, not reversible See Taxation, Cum 398-490. error.-Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Glenn, 3 F.(20) 913.
ASSOCIATIONS. (K) Subsequent Appeals.
m 20(2) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) That action by rew 1097 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Appellate court ciprocal insurance association may be cummay reverse former decision establishing the bersome and embarrassing does not vest its