ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER stitution and statutes.-American Tank Co. Intervener held party, so as to preclude suit v. Continental & Commercial Trust & Savings in another court over same subject-matter. Bank, 3 F. (2d) 122. -Id.

366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Decision of state Supreme Court conclusive on interpretation of state Constitution, laws and ordinances.Franklin Trust Co. v. City of Loveland, Colorado, 3 F. (2d) 114.

366(1) (U.S.D.C.Or.) Federal courts bound by decision of highest state court on construction of state statute.-State of Oregon v. Security Const. Co., 3 F. (2d) 274.

366 (7) (U.S.D.C.La.) State decision construing state statutes binding on federal court. -Simms Oil Co. v. Wolfe, 3 F. (2d) 36.

366 (14) (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Federal courts follow construction of state statutes by its highest court.-Savings Bank of Richmond v. National Bank of Goldsboro, 3 F. (2d) 970.

367 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Settled construction of statutes by state courts will be followed by the federal courts.-First Nat. Bank v. Obion County, Tenn., 3 F. (2d) 623.

367 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Construction of statutes by state courts binding on federal courts. -Hunter Glover Co. v. Harvey Steel Products Corporation, 3 F. (2d) 634.

372(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Whether transaction mortgage or sale answered same in Ohio, where usury forfeits only excess interest, as in other states. -Stark v. Bauer Cooperage Co., 3 F. (2d) 214.

372 (4) (U.S.D.C.S.C.) Federal court is not bound by state decisions as to whether a contract creates an agency.-S. B. McMaster, Inc., v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 3 F. (2d) 469.

(G) Supreme Court.

379 (U.S.D.C.Ala.) State's suit for taxes against corporation organized under act of Congress not within original jurisdiction of United States Supreme Court.-State of Alabama v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n, 3 F. (2d) 697.

(H) Circuit Courts of Appeals.

405 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Writ of error questioning, not only jurisdiction, but rulings on merits, held properly sued out from Circuit Court of Appeals.-Meade Fibre Co. v. Varn, 3 F.(2d) 520.

508 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Defendant cannot remove cause for the purpose of enjoining further proceedings therein.-Higgins v. California Prune & Apricot Grower, 3 F. (2d) 896.

508(4) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Federal District Court, having authorized plaintiff to bring suit against receivers, will not restrain further proceedings in state court.-American Engineering Co. v. Metropolitan By-Products Co., 3 F. (2d) 451.

508 (7) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Suit to enjoin institution of criminal prosecution not one to "stay proceedings in state court."-Fenner v. Boykin, 3 F. (2d) 674.

(D) Different United States Courts.

5272 [New, vol. 17A Key-No. Series]

(U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Circuit Court of Appeals will transfer to Supreme Court writ of error of which Supreme Court has jurisdiction. -R. H. Hassler, Inc., v. Shaw, 3 F.(2d) 605.

CRIMINAL LAW.

See Bribery; Burglary; Conspiracy, 28-48; Embezzlement; Indictment and Information.

I. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF CRIME AND DEFENSES IN GENERAL.

13 (U.S.D.C.Okl.) State statute prohibiting payment of less than current rate of wages to laborers on state contracts held violative of due process clause.-General Const. Co. v. Connally, 3 F. (2d) 666.

32 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Physician punishable for issuing prescriptions for narcotics, though believing it was lawful.-Mitchell v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 514.

37 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Conviction not authorized, where accused was entrapped into commission of offense by officers.-Orsatti v. U. S.. 3 F. (2d) 778.

Repeated solicitation and acceptance of bribes by officer held not to render applicable doctrine of entrapment, where original violation was confessed by defendant and his accomplices.-Id.

37 (U.S.C.C.A.Me.) Evidence held not to sustain defense of entrapment.-Napolitano v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 994.

405 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Question of jurisdiction dependent on facts not certified to Supreme Court.-Meade Fibre Co. v. Varn, 3 F.37 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Facts held not to (2d) 520. raise question of entrapment.-Grove v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 965.

405 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Supreme Court, and not Circuit Court of Appeals, had jurisdiction of writ of error involving question as to whether District Court had jurisdiction.-R. H. Hassler, Inc., v. Shaw, 3 F.(2d) 605.

405 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Review by Supreme Court is given only where jurisdiction of District Court as federal court is involved. -Boston Acme Mines Corporation v. Salina Canyon Coal Co., 3 F. (2d) 729.

(J) District Courts.

424 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Federal District Court has only jurisdiction granted by Congress within constitutional limits.-Emerson v. Baker, 3 F. (2d) 830.

VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICTING JURISDICTION, AND COMITY.

(B) State Courts and United States Courts. 489(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Enforceable in federal courts notwithstanding jurisdictional requirement of state statute.-American Tank Co. v. Continental & Commercial Trust & Savings Bank, 3 F. (2d) 122.

493(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Pendency of suit to quiet title in state court excludes jurisdiction of subject-matter by federal court.-Boston Acme Mines Corporation v. Salina Canyon Coal Co., 3 F.(2d) 729.

IV. JURISDICTION.

97(3) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Officers and crew of foreign vessel discharging cargo of liquor into other vessels to be transported in violation of law are aiders and abettors; the court of the district has jurisdiction, and seizure admissible in evidence.-U. S. v. Ford, 3 F.(2d) 643.

VII. FORMER JEOPARDY.

200(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Ariz.) Indictments for conspiracy and for importing and dealing in cocaine held not to charge same offense.Vlassis v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 905.

[blocks in formation]

as to sufficiency of indictment are for trial court.-Parker v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 903.

242 (8) (U.S.D.C.III.) Commissioner, in removal proceedings, should pass only on issue of probable cause.-U. S. v. Levy, 3 F.(2d) 816.

242 (9) (U.S.D.C.III.) Commissioner's ruling in removal proceedings not res judicata.U. S. v. Levy, 3 F. (2d) 816.

District Judge's right to hear removal proceedings not affected by prior hearing before commissioner, who found no probable cause.

-Id.

242(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Technical error in admission of testimony in proceedings for removal of defendant not ground for reversal.Parker v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 903.

Order for removal of defendant, based on conflicting evidence, not reversible.-Id.

IX. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEAS, AND NOLLE PROSEQUI OR DISCONTINUANCE.

262 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Want of arraignment and plea held not to invalidate conviction. -Williams v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 933.

X. EVIDENCE.

(A) Judicial

Notice, Presumptions, Burden of Proof.

(U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.)

and

5304(20) Court takes judicial notice whisky is intoxicating liquor.Williams v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 933.

(C) Other Offenses, and Character of Accused.

369(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Evidence of other offenses held inadmissible, in absence of evidence to show defendant's dominant possession. -Grantello v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 117.

372(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Reception of evidence of other offenses error, where no question of intent in issue, and no connection between offenses shown.-Grantello v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 117.

(D) Materiality and Competency in Gen

eral.

394 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Owner of papers seized only could object to admission of evidence procured thereby.-A. Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 786.

Use in evidence of papers and records surrendered by wholesale liquor dealer on demand of prohibition agents held not unlawful.-Id.

395 (U.S.C.C.A.Del.) Liquor lawfully seized was admissible in liquor prosecution.-Altshuler v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 791.

by

395 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Liquor seized state officer held admissible in evidence in federal court.-Ludwig v. U. S.. 3 F. (2d) 231.

395 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Officers and crew of foreign vessel discharging cargo of liquor into other vessels to be transported in violation of law are aiders and abettors; the court of the district has jurisdiction. and seizure admissible in evidence.-U. S. v. Ford, 3 F. (2d) 643.

(G) Acts and Declarations of Conspirators and Codefendants.

424(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Statement of defendant implicating codefendant held competent against defendant, but not against codefendant. -Kasuba v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 270.

(I) Opinion Evidence.

449 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Whether identification hesitatingly or positively made properly shown.-Bierndt v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 141.

(J) Testimony of Accomplices and Code

fendants.

507(1) (App.D.C.) Seller of supplies to government held not "accomplice," in prosecu

tion of army officer for accepting bribe.-Ritzman v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 718.

510 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Corroboration of testimony of co-conspirators not necessary.— Ahearn v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 808.

XII. TRIAL.

(A) Preliminary Proceedings.

620(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ariz.) Indictments for conspiracy to violate and for violating the narcotic laws held properly consolidated for trial. -Vlassis v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 905.

Waiver of objection to consolidation of indictments.-Id.

(B) Course and Conduct of Trial in General.

656(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Defendant's failure to testify protected from unfavorable comment, unless he voluntarily testifies to merits. -Grantello v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 117.

658 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Order in presence of jury that government witness, whose testimony conflicted with affidavit, be held for investigation, held not prejudicial.-Beavers v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 860.

(C) Reception of Evidence.

662(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) After mistrial, caused by illness of juror, continuance of trial by consent before the remaining 11 and a substituted juror held not to deny accused right to confront witnesses.-Grove v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 965.

662 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Defendant may waive right to be confronted with witnesses.Grove v. U. S., 3 F(2d) 965.

665(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Permitting codefendant, who was to testify for government, to remain in courtroom, held discretionary.Cagle v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 746.

670 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Exclusion of evidence, not shown by offer to be relevant or material, not error.-Sarkisian v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 599.

680(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Rule as to admissibility of testimony of witness. having knowledge of portion of transaction only, stated.-Beavers v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 860.

Testimony of railroad employees relating to waybills not made by them held admissible.-Id. (E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel.

721 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Defendant's failure to testify protected from unfavorable comment, unless he voluntarily testifies to merits.-Grantello v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 117.

(F) Province of Court and Jury in Gen

eral.

742(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Questions of veracity, reasonableness, and probability are solely for jury.-Greenberg v. U. S., 3 F.(2d) 226.

753 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Motion for directed verdict properly overruled, where evidence supported allegations of indictment.Beavers v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 860.

(G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency of Instructions.

772 (6) (App.D.C.) Instruction on entrapment held not warranted.-Ritzman v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 718.

780 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Refusal to charge that testimony of witnesses should be received with caution held not error.-Beavers v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 860.

782 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Instruction that evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction, even if jury disregarded certain testimony, held not error.-A. Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 786.

787(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.), Instruction commenting on defendant's failure to testify er

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

ror, though defendant took stand and testified as to name.-Grantello v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 117.

807 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Instruction as to duty to see that law was enforced not misleading. Sunquist v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 433.

814(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Refusing charge as to guilty knowledge of defendants held not error.-A. Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 786.

822(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Instruction that evidence, if believed, warranted a verdict of guilty, with its context, held not erroneous.— Sunquist v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 433.

(J) Custody, Conduct, and Deliberations of Jury.

865(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Court's remarks to jury as to desirability of agreement held not ground for reversal.-Israel v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 743. (K) Verdict.

877 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Defendant held not entitled to acquittal because of acquittal of codefendants.-Grove v. U. S., 3 F.(2d) 965.

888 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Court properly questioned foreman of jury as to finding varying from charge in order to have verdict correctly recorded.-Meyers v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 379. XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN ARREST.

957 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Verdict not impeached by evidence concerning arguments of jurors.-Williams v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 933.

XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND FINAL
COMMITMENT.

984 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Sentences running concurrently on two counts sustained, if one is good.-Mitchell v. U. S., 3 F.(2d) 514.

995(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Form of sentence held improper.-Feigin v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 866.

995(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Sentence imposing fine, with alternative of imprisonment, if fine is not paid, held void for uncertainty.-Wagner v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 864,

Sentence void, where void under one of two or more constructions equally admissible.-Id. 995(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Judgment held not erroneous for failure to designate counts of information on which sentence imposed.-Feigin v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 866.

995 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Form of sentence, where imprisonment imposed on nonpayment of fine, stated.-Wagner v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 864. XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND CERTIORARI.

(B) Presentation and Reservation in Lower Court of Grounds of Review.

1030(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Nev.) Defense of statute of limitations, not raised in trial court, not properly before court on appeal.-Pruett v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 353.

1044 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Unresponsive answer held not ground for reversal, in absence of motion to have answer stricken.-Feigin v. U. S., 3 F.(2d) 866.

1048 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Unless substantial rights are manifestly affected, appellate court will not consider errors assigned, but not excepted to.-Sarkisian v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 599.

1056(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Errors predicated on refusal of requested instructions not reviewable, in absence of exceptions.-Coleman v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 243.

1056(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Instructions to which no exception taken, not considered.-Feigin v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 866.

(D) Record and Proceedings Not in Record.

~1086(14) (U. S. C. C. A. Colo.) Unless substantial rights are manifestly affected, appellate 3 F. (2d)-66

court will not consider exceptions not shown in record.-Sarkisian v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 599.

(G) Review.

1156(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Court's ruling on motion for new trial not reviewable, except for abuse of discretion.-Williams v. Ú. S., 3 F. (2d) 933.

1159(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Circuit Court of Appeals cannot weigh evidence or pass on credibility of witnesses.-Israel v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 743.

1159(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Circuit Court of Appeals has no authority to determine weight of evidence.-Beavers v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 860.

1159(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Circuit Court of Appeals cannot weigh testimony.-Williams v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 933.

1159(3) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Verdict on conflicting evidence conclusive on appeal.-Bierndt v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 141.

1167(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Variance as to street address of bankrupt's business, in prosecution for conspiracy to conceal goods from bankrupt's trustee, held immaterial.-Israel v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 743.

1167(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Insufficiency of one of four counts of information held immaterial, in view of sentence and evidence.-Feigin v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 866.

of

1169 (11) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Admission evidence of defendant's previous arrest held not prejudicial under the issues.-Forni v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 354.

1170(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Court's failure on own motion to direct admission of evidence, previously excluded because not shown material, held not prejudicial error.-Israel v. U. S.. 3 F. (2d) 743.

11701⁄2(1) (App.D.C.) Resubmission of report to witness on redirect examination, to enable her to correct her testimony, held not prejudicial.-Ritzman v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 718.

1173(2) (U.S.C.C.A. Tenn.) Refusal to charge that accomplices' testimony should be received with caution held not reversible error. -Beavers v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 860.

1177 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Form of sentence held improper but not prejudicial.-Feigin v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 866.

XVII. PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OF
CRIME.

1208(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ariz.) Judgment not reversible for excessive punishment where it is within statute.-Vlassis v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 905.

CUSTOMS AND USAGES.

8 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence of custom or usage inadmissible to change established rule of law.-Cudahy Packing Co. v. Narzisenfeld, 3 F. (2d) 567.

Evidence of custom or usage held not admissible to vary established rule of law.-Id.

18 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence not admissible unless custom or usage specially pleaded. -Cudahy Packing Co. v. Narzisenfeld, 3 F. (2d) 567.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

VII. VIOLATIONS OF CUSTOMS LAWS.

130 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Tug towing barge, unladen, without permit from customs collector or naval officer, held not subject to forfeiture; "tackle, apparel, and furniture."-The Dolphin, 3 F. (2d) 1.

134 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Indictment charging receiving of narcotics after importation held sufficient.-Wong Lung Sing v. U. S., 3 F.(2d)

[blocks in formation]

DAMAGES.

IV. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND PENALTIES.

78(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Provision of contract held for a penalty, and not liquidated damages. All-American Oil & Gas Co. v. Connellee, 3 F. (2d) 107.

VI. MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

(C) Breach of Contract.

120(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Measure of damages for breach of contract to drill oil well held its reasonable cost.-All-American Oil & Gas Co. v. Connellee, 3 F. (2d) 107.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

124 (App.D.C.) Clear proof required.— Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F. (2d) 344.

125 (App.D.C.) Wife's confession not of itself sufficient to warrant granting of divorce for adultery.-Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F. (2d) 344.

129(1) (App.D.C.) Degree of proof required in adultery case stated.-Marshall.v. Marshall, 3 F,(2d) 344.

129(16) (App.D.C.) Evidence held to prove wife guilty of adultery.-Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F. (2d) 344.

(E) Dismissal, Trial or Hearing, and New

Trial.

146 (App.D.C.) Court's cross-examination of wife in husband's divorce action held not ground for reversal.-Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F. (2d) 344.

DOMICILE.

I (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Question of domicile decided on particular facts in each case.Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, 3 F. (2d) 21.

9 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Evidence of wife's intention, relative to return to former domicile, held admissible as tending to show husband's intention.-Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, 3 F. (2d) 21.

DRAINS.

I. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE. 13 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Reclamation district held "public agency," though differing in many respects from other municipalities.-The Lisbon, 3 F. (2d) 408.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW. See Constitutional Law, 251-319.

EMBEZZLEMENT.

29 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Allegation of ownership or value held unnecessary in indictment for embezzlement by internal revenue officer.Ford v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 104.

30 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Allegation of ownership or value held unnecessary in indictment for embezzlement by internal revenue officer.Ford v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 104.

47 (U.S.C.C.A.Nev.) Limitations held not established as defense as matter of law for embezzlement of trust funds mingled with accused's own funds.-Pruett v. U. S., 3 F. (2d) 353.

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. See Constitutional Law, 229-240.

EQUITY.

See Discovery; Injunction; Quieting Title; Reformation of Instruments; Specific Performance; Subrogation; Trusts.

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

1. JURISDICTION, PRINCIPLES, AND rant as department officer is such officer.-MacKusick v. Johnson, 3 F. (2d) 398.

MAXIMS.

(A) Nature, Grounds, Subjects, and Extent of Jurisdiction in General.

II. PRESUMPTIONS.

15 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Tennessee state prac66 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Son and benetice permits recovery of strictly legal demand ficiary of testator presumed to learn provisions by bill in equity.-Meriweather-Graham-Oliver of will. Suarez v. Suarez, 3 F. (2d) 362. Co. v. Bank of Commerce of Earle, Ark., 383(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Regularity of acF. (2d) 513. tion of public officer presumed.-MacKusick v. Johnson, 3 F. (2d) 398.

VII. DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING.

359 (U.S.D.C.Ark.) Rule as to plaintiff's right to dismiss bill before final hearing without prejudice, stated.-Jamison v. Fullerton, 3 F.(2d) 312.

Plaintiff held not entitled to dismiss without prejudice.-Id.

EQUITY RULES.

See Court Rules Cited.

ERROR, WRIT OF.

See Appeal and Error.

ESTATES.

See Descent and Distribution; Executors and Administrators; Tenancy in Common; Wills.

ESTOPPEL.

III. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL. (A) Nature and Essentials in General. 52 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) To constitute waiver there must be intention to relinquish known right.-Oelbermann v. Toyo Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha, 3 F. (2d) 5.

~62(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Indulgence of officers in not deporting defective alien temporarily admitted held not to estop government from denying that he was dwelling or residing permanently in the country so as to become citizen on naturalization of father.-U. S. v. Tod, 3 F. (2d) 836.

Recital in father's naturalization certificate held not to estop government from denying that child became citizen.-Id.

(B) Grounds of Estoppel.

63 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Where express warranty is denied, buyer may avail himself of implied warranty.-Hercules Powder Co. v. Rich, 3 F (2d) 12.

70(1) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Heirs held estopped to assert title to land after 75 years.-Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, 3 F. (2d) 841.

70(3) (U.S. D. C. N. Y.) Brokers' pledgees held estopped to claim lien on securities by not asserting it when securities were demanded by owner.-Fisher v. Clark, 3 F.(2d) 621.

EVIDENCE.

See Criminal Law, 304-510, 662-680; Discovery; Trial, 59-76; Witnesses. For evidence as to particular facts or issues or in particular actions or proceedings, see also the various specific topics. For review of rulings relating to evidence, see Appeal and Error.

I. JUDICIAL NOTICE.

10(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Judicial cognizance taken of difference between high and low water at Dutch Kills creek.-C. F. Harms Co. v. Turner Const. Co., 3 F. (2d) 591.

31 (U.S.D.C.Ala.) Judicial notice taken that corporation was created and exists under act of Congress.-State of Alabama v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n, 3 F.(2d) 697.

44 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Court will take judicial notice that person signing deportation war

89 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by record.-Hunter Glover Co. v. Harvey Steel Products Corporation, 3 F. (2d) 634.

IV. RELEVANCY, MATERIALITY, AND
COMPETENCY IN GENERAL.

(A) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues. 113(4) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Market prices of public utility's stocks and bonds held not accurate measure of value of its property.-Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Baltimore City v. Whitman, 3 F. (2d) 938.

113(16) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Rule for determining value of commodity stated.-Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Baltimore City v. Whitman, 3 F. (2d) 938.

(C) Similar Facts and Transactions.

131 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held to prove that goods sold to other customers was of same manufacture, so as to admit evidence that other customers made no complaints.— Steil v. Holland, 3 F. (2d) 776.

V. BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE.

167 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Testimony relating to substance of statements, based on witness' independent recollection thereof, held properly admitted.-Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Glenn, 3 F.(2d) 913.

179(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Parties held entitled to prove signature to deed not produced and not in their possession.-Penix v. Sloan, 3 F. (2d) 258.

186(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Tracing of signature to deed held admissible as secondary evidence.-Penix v. Sloan, 3 F. (2d) 258.

[blocks in formation]
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »