페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

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 508 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Defendant canSupreme Court conclusive on interpretation of not remove cause for the purpose of enjoining state Constitution, laws and ordinances.- further proceedings therein.-Higgins v. CaliFranklin Trust Co. v. City of Loveland, Colo- fornia Prune & Apricot Grower, 3 F.(20) 896. rado, 3 F.(20) 114.

508(4) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Federal District 366(1)(U.S.D.C.Or.) Federal courts bound Court, having authorized plaintiff to bring suit by decision of highest state court on construc- against receivers, will not restrain further protion of state statute.--State of Oregon v. Secu- ceedings in state court.-American Engineering rity Const. Co., 3 F.(20) 274.

Co. y. Metropolitan By-Products Co., 3 F.(20) 366 (7) (U.S.D.C.La.) State decision con- 451. struing 'state statutes binding on federal court. 508(?) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Suit to enjoin insti-Simms Oil Co. v. Wolfe, 3 F.(20) 36.

tution of criminal prosecution not one to "stay Om 366(14) (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Federal courts proceedings in state court."-Fenner v. Boykin, follow construction of state statutes by its 3 F.(20) 674. highest court.-Savings Bank of Richmond v. National Bank of Goldsboro, 3 F.(20) 970.

(D) Different United States Courts. 367 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Settled construction au 52712 [Now, vol. 17A Key-No. Series) of statutes by state courts will be followed by the federal courts.-First Nat. Bank v. Obion peals will transfer to Supreme Court writ

of County, Tenn., 3 F.(20) 623.

error of which Supreme Court has jurisdiction. w 367 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Construction of stat. —R. H. Hassler, Inc., v. Shaw, 3 F.(20) 605. utes by state courts binding on federal courts. -Hunter Glover Co. v. Harvey Steel Products

CRIMINAL LAW. Corporation, 3 F.(20) 634,

372(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Whether trans- See Bribery; Burglary; Conspiracy, em 28-48; action mortgage or sale answered same in Ohio, Embezzlement; Indictment and Information. where usury forfeits only excess interest, as in other states. -Stark V. Bauer Cooperage Co., I. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF CRIME

AND DEFENSES IN GENERAL. 3 F.(20) 214. Em 372(4) (U.S.D.C.S.C.) Federal court is not an 13 (U.S.D.C.Okl.) State statute prohibitbound by state decisions as to whether a con- ing payment of less than current rate of wages tract creates an agency.-S. B. McMaster, Inc., to laborers on state contracts held violative of v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 3 F.(20) 469.

due process clause.-General Const. Co. v. Con

nally, 3 F.(20) 666. (G) Supreme Court.

em 32 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Physician punishable 379 (U.S.D.C.Ala.) State's suit for taxes for issuing prescriptions for narcotics, though against corporation organized under act of believing it was lawful.-Mitchell v. U. s., 3 Congress not within original jurisdiction of F.(20) 514. United States Supreme Court.--State of Ala- fm 37 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Conviction not authorbama v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n, 3 F.(20) ized, where accused was entrapped into com697.

mission of offense by officers. Orsatti v. U. (H) Circuit Courts of Appeals.

S., 3 F.(20) 778.

Repeated solicitation and acceptance of 405 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Writ

bribes by officer held not to render applicable questioning, not only jurisdiction, but rulings on doctrine of entrapment, where original violamerits, held properly sued out from Circuit tion was confessed by 'defendant and his acCourt of Appeals.-Meade Fibre Co. v. Varn,

complices.-Id. 3 F.(20) 520.

Cm 37 (U.S.C.C.A.Me.) Evidence held not to Om 405(5) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Question of juris

sustain defense of entrapment.-Napolitano v. diction dependent on facts not certified to Supreme Court.-Meade Fibre Co. v. Varn, 3 F. 37 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Facts

U. S., 3 F.(20) 994.

held not to (2) 520. 405(5) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Supreme Court,

raise question of entrapment.-Grove y. U. S.,

3 F.(20) 965. and not Circuit Court of Appeals, had jurisdiction of writ of error involving question as

IV. JURISDICTION. to whether District Court had jurisdiction.-R. Cm97(3) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Officers and crew of H. Hassler, Inc., v. Shaw, 3 F.(20) 605.

405(5) '(U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Review by Su- foreign vessel discharging cargo of liquor into preme Court is given only where jurisdiction other

vessels to be transported in violation of of District Court as federal court is involved. law are aiders and abettors; the court of the - Boston Acme Mines Corporation v. Salina district has jurisdiction, and seizure admissible

in evidence.-U. S. v. Ford, 3 F.(20) 643. Canyon Coal Co., 3 F.(20) 729.

VII. FORMER JEOPARDY. (J) District Courts. Om 424 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Federal District Court

200(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Ariz.) Indictments for has only jurisdiction granted by Congress with

conspiracy and for importing and dealing in in constitutional limits.-Emerson v. Baker, 3

cocaine held not to charge same offense.-

Vlassis v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 905. F.(20) 830.

VIII, PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICTING

AFFI

DAVIT, WARRANT, EXAMINATION, JURISDICTION, AND COMITY.

COMMITMENT,

SUMMARY (B) State Courts and United States Courts. Om489(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Enforceable in 242(2)(U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Accused removafederal courts notwithstanding jurisdictional re- ble for trial to District of Columbia; "offense quirement of state statute.-American Tank against the United States.”—Parker v. U. S., Co. v. Continental & Commercial Trust & Sav- 3 F.(20) 903. ings Bank, 3 F.(20) 122.

[ocr errors]

of

error

AND

Can242(5) (U.S.D.C.III.) In removal proceedCw493(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Pendency of suit ings under federal statuté, presentation of to quiet title in state court excludes jurisdiction indictment makes more than mere prima facie of subject-matter by federal court.-Boston case.-U. S. v. Levy, 3 F.(20) 816. Acme Mines Corporation v. Salina Canyon emm 242(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) In proceedings Coal Co., 3 F.(20) 729.

for removal of defendant, doubtful questions

TRIAL.

error

as to sufficiency of indictment are for trial tion of army officer for accepting bribe.—Ritzcourt.-Parker v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 903.

man v. U. S., 3 F.(2d) 718. 242(8) (U.S.D.C.III.) Commissioner, in re- 510 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Corroboration of tesmoval proceedings, should pass only on issue timony of co-conspirators not necessary.of probable cause.-U. S. v. Levy, 3 F.(20) Ahearn v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 808. 816. Om 242(9) (U.S.D.C.III.) Commissioner's rul

XII. TRIAL. ing in removal proceedings not res judicata.

(A) Preliminary Proceedings. U. S. v. Levy, 3 F.(20) 816. District Judge's right to hear removal pro

620(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ariz.) Indictments for ceedings not affected by prior hearing before conspiracy to violate and for violating the narcommissioner, who found no probable cause. cotic laws held properly consolidated for trial. -Id.

-Vlassis v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 905. 242(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Technical

Waiver of objection to consolidation of inin admission of testimony in proceedings for re

dictments.-Id. moval of defendant not ground for reversal.Parker v. U. S., 3 F.(28) 903.

(B) Course and Conduct of Trial in Gen

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

Cw656(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Defendant's fail

ure to testify protected from unfavorable comIX. ARRAIGNMENT AND

PLEAS, AND ment, unless he voluntarily testifies to merits.
NOLLE PROSEQUI OR DIS-

--Grantello v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 117.
CONTINUANCE.

m 658 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Order in presence 262 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Want of arraign

of jury that government witness, whose testiment and plea held not to invalidate conviction. vestigation, held not prejudicial.--Beavers 5.

mony conflicted with affidavit, be held for in-Williams v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 933.

U. S., 3 F.(20) 860.
X. EVIDENCE.

(C) Reception of Evidence. (A) Judicial Notice, Presumptions, and @mw 662(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) After mistrial, Burden of Proof.

caused by illness of juror, continuance of trial On 304(20) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Court takes by consent before the remaining 11 and a subjudicial notice whisky is intoxicating liquor.- stituted juror held not to deny accused right Williams v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 933.

to confront witnesses.-Grove v. U. S., 3 F.

(20) 965. (C) Other Offenses, and Character of Ac- Om662(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Defendant may cused.

waive right to be confronted with witnesses.em 369(2) (U.S.C.C.A.M.) Evidence of other Grove v. U. S., 3 F(20) 965. offenses held inadmissible, in absence of evi- no 665(2),(U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Permitting codedence to show defendant's dominant possession. fendant, who was to testify for government, -Grantello v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 117.

to remain in courtroom, held discretionary 372(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Reception of evi. Cagle v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 746. dence of other offenses error, where no ques. Om670 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Exclusion of evi. tion of intent in issue, and no connection be- dence, not shown by offer to be relevant or tween offenses shown.-Grantello v. U. S., 3 F. material, not error.-Sarkisian v. U. S., 3 (28) 117.

F.(20) 599.

Om680(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Rule as to ad(D) Materiality and Competency in Gen- missibility of testimony of witness, having eral,

knowledge of portion of transaction only, statOm 394 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Owner of papers seiz

ed.-Beavers y. U. S., 3 F.(2d) 860. ed only could object to admission of evidence

Testimony of railroad employees relating to procured thereby.-A. Guckenheimer & Bros. waybills not made by them held admissible.-Id. Co. v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 786. Use in evidence of papers and records sur

(E) Arguments and conduct of Counsel. rendered by wholesale liquor dealer on demand w721(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Defendant's failof prohibition agents held not unlawful.-Id. ure to testify protected from unfavorable comOm 395 (U.S.C.C.A.Del.) Liquor lawfully seiz- ment, unless he voluntarily testifies to mer. ed was admissible in liquor prosecution.-Alt- its.-Grantello v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 117. shuler v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 791. Ow395 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Liquor seized by (F) Province of Court and Jury in Genstate officer held admissible in evidence in federal court.-Ludwig v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 231. Om742(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ill.) Questions of verac

395 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Officers and crew of ity, reasonableness, and probability are solely foreign vessel discharging cargo of liquor into for jury-Greenberg v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 226. other vessels to be transported in violation of 753(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Motion for dilaw are aiders and abettors; the court of the rected verdict properly overruled, where evidistrict has jurisdiction, and seizure admissible dence supported allegations of indictment.in evidence.-U. S. v. Ford, 3 F.(20) 643. Beavers v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 860. (G) Acts and Declarations ot Conspira- (G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency

tors and Codefendants. 424(!) (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Statement of de- Om772(6) (App.D.C.) Instruction on entrapfendant implicating codefendant held competent ment held not warranted.-Ritzman y. U. S., against defendant, but not against codefendant. 3 F.(20) 718. -Kasuba v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 270.

Cm780(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Refusal to

charge that testimony of witnesses should be (1) Opinion Evidence.

received with caution held not error.-Beavers Om 449(2) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Whether identifi- v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 860. cation hesitatingly or positively made properly Om782 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Instruction that shown.-Bierndt v. U.' S., 3 F.(20) 141.

evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction,

even if jury disregarded certain testimony, held (J) Testimony of Accomplices and Code- not error.-A. Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. v. fendants.

U. S., 3 F.(20) 786. on 507(1) (App.D.C.) Seller of supplies to 787(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.). Instruction comgovernment held not "accomplice,” in prosecu- menting on defendant's failure to testify er

eral.

con

For casos In Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER ror, though defendant took stand and testified court will not consider exceptions not shown as to name.---Grantello v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 117. in record.-Sarkisian v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 599.

807 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Instruction as to duty to see that law was enforced not mislead

(G) Review. ing.--Sunquist v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 433.

w1156(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Court's ruling Om814(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Refusing charge as on motion for new trial not reviewable, except to guilty knowledge of defendants held not er- for abuse of discretion.--Williams y. Ú. S., 3 ror.-A. Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 933. F.(2d) 786.

Owl 159(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Circuit Court m822(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Instruction that of Appeals cannot weigh evidence or pass on evidence, if believed, warranted a verdict of credibility of witnesses.-Israel v. U. s., 3 guilty, with its context, held not erroneous.- F.(20) 743. Sunquist v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 433.

m 1 159 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Circuit Court

of Appeals has no authority to determine (J) Custody, Conduct, and Deliberations weight of evidence.-Beavers v. U. S., 3 of Jury.

F.(20) 860. 865(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Court's remarks om 1159(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Circuit Court of to jury as to desirability of agreement held not Appeals cannot weigh testimony.-Williams v. ground for reversal.-Israel v. U. S., 3 F.(20) U. S., 3 F.(20) 933. 743.

Om 1159(3) (Ú.S.C.C.A.III.) Verdict on (K) Verdict.

flicting evidence conclusive on appeal.--Bierndt 877 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Defendant held not v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 141. entitled to acquittal because of acquittal of 1167(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio). Variance as to codefendants.-Grove v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 965. street address of bankrupt's business, in prosOm888 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Court properly ques- ecution for conspiracy to conceal goods from tioned foreman of jury as to finding varying bankrupt's trustee, held immaterial.-Israel v. from charge in order to have verdict correctly U. S., 3 F.(20) 743. recorded.-Meyers v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 379.

cm 1167(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Insufficiency of

one of four counts of information held immateXIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN rial, in view of sentence and evidence.-Feigin ARREST.

v. U. S., 3 F.(2d) 866. On 957(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Verdict not im- Om 1169(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Admission of peached by evidence concerning arguments of evidence of defendant's previous arrest held jurors.-Williams v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 933. pot prejudicial under the issues.--Forni v. U.

S., 3 F.(20) 354. XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND FINAL en 11701) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Court's failure COMMITMENT.

on own motion to direct admission of evidence, 984 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Sentences running previously excluded because not shown maconcurrently on two counts sustained, if one is terial, held not prejudicial error.-Israel v. U. good.-Mitchell v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 514.

S.. 3 F.(2d) 743. Em995(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Form of sentence en 11701/2(1) (App.D.C.) Resubmission of reheld improper.-Feigin v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 866. port to witness on redirect examination, to ena

995(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Sentence imposing ble her to correct her testimony held not prej. fine, with alternative of imprisonment, if fine is udicial.-Ritzman v. U. S., 3 F.(20)

718. not paid, held void for uncertainty.-Wagner v. 1173(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Refusal to U. S., 3 F.(20) 864,

charge that accomplices' testimony should be Sentence void, where void under one of two

received with caution held not reversible error. or more constructions equally admissible.--Id. -Beavers v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 860.

995(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Judgment held not 1177 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.). Form of sentence erroneous for failure to designate counts of in- held improper but not prejudicial.-Feigin v. U. formation on which sentence imposed.-Feigin S., 3 F.(20) 866. v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 866. 995(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Form of sentence,

XVII. PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OF

CRIME. where imprisonment imposed on noppayment of fine, stated.—Wagner v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 864. em 1208(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ariz.) Judgment pot

reversible for excessive punishment where it is XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND CER- within statute.-Vlassis v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 905.

TIORARI. (B) Presentation and Reservation in Low

CUSTOMS AND USAGES. er Court of Grounds of Review.

8 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence of custom or em 1030(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Nev.) Defense of statute of limitations, not raised in trial court, of law.-Cudahy Packing Co. v. Narzisenfeld,

usage inadmissible to change established rule not properly before court on appeal.-Pruett 3 F.(20) 567. v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 353.

Evidence of custom or usage held not admise 1044 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Unresponsive answer

sible to vary established rule of law.-Id. held not ground for reversal, in absence of mo- 18 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence not admissition to have answer stricken.--Feigin v. U. S.,

ble unless_custom or usage specially pleaded. 3 F.(20) 866.

-Cudahy Packing Co. v. Narzisenfeld, 3 F.(20) Cmw 1048 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Unless substantial 567. rights are manifestly affected, appellate court will not consider errors assigned, but not ex

CUSTOMS DUTIES. cepted to.-Sarkisian v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 599. VII. VIOLATIONS OF CUSTOMS LAWS. 1056(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Errors predicat E130 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Tug towing barge, ed on refusal of requested instructions not re

unladen, without permit from customs collectviewable, in absence of exceptions.-Coleman v.

or or naval officer, held not subject to forfeiU. S., 3 F.(20) 243.

ture; "tackle, apparel, and furniture.”—The Om 1056(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Instructions_to which no exception taken, not considered.-Fei- em 134' (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Indictment charging

Dolphin, 3 F.(20) 1. gin v. U, S., 3 F.(20) 866.

receiving of narcotics after importation held

sufficient.-Wong Lung Sing v. U. S., 3 F.(20) (D) Record and Proceedings Not in Rec

780. ord.

Cm 134 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Indictment for at1086 (14) (U. S. C. C. A. Colo.) Unless sub- tempting to rescue property seized held suffi stantial rights are manifestly affected, appellate cient.-Price v. U. s., 3 F.(20) 603.

3 F.(20)-66

DAMAGES.

DIVORCE.
IV. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND PEN-

II. GROUNDS.
ALTIES.

12 (App.D.C.) Granted only where author78(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Provision of con- ized by statute.-Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F.(20) tract held for a penalty, and not liquidated 344. damages.-All-American Oil & Gas Co. v. Con

III. DEFENSES. nellee, 3 F.(20) 107.

Om48 (App.D.C.) "Condonation" defined.

Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F.(20) 344.
VI. MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

Om 49(1) (App.D.C.) Husband did not condone (C) Breach of Contract.

adultery by wife by continuing to live in same Cmw 120(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Measure of dam- house.--Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F.(20) 344. ages for breach of contract to drill oil well held 51 (App.D.C.) Offense condoned on implied its reasonable cost.-All-American Oil & Gas condition that it will not be repeated.-Marshall Co. v. Connellee, 3 F.(20) 107.

v. Marshall, 3 F. (20) 344.

IV. JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS, AND DEATH.

RELIEF.

(D) Evidence. II. ACTIONS FOR CAUSING DEATH.

w124 (App.D.C.) Clear (A) Right of Action and Defenses.

proof required.

Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F.(28) 344. 09 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Statute authorizing pu- 125 (App.D.C.) Wife's confession not of it. nitive damages for wrongful death held not self sufficient to warrant granting of divorce unconstitutional, as denying due process.-U. for adultery.-Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F.(20) S. Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Sullivan, 344. 3 F.(20) 794.

w 129(1) (App.D.C.) Degree of proof requirOm 10 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Suit held to abate on ed in adultery case stated.-Marshall .v. Mardeath of libelant.-Ámoth y. U. S., 3 F.(20) shall, 3 F.(20) 344. 848.

Om 129(16) (App.D.C.) Evidence held to prove

wife guilty of adultery.--Marshall v. Marshall, (E) Damages, Forfeiture, or Fine.

3 F.(20) 344. Om 86(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Right to damages for wrongful death held not dependent (E) Dismissal, Trial or Hearing, and New

Trial. on legal claim to earnings of deceased.-American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Ortega, 3 F.(20) Cum I 46 (App.D.C.) Court's cross-examination 358.

of wife in husband's divorce action held not 93 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Punitive damages re- ground for reversal.-Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F. coverable.-U. S. Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry (20) 344. Co. v. Sullivan. 3 F.(20) 794.

DOMICILE.
DEEDS.

Oml (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Question of dom

icile decided on particular facts in each case.III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, (C) Estates and Interests Created.

3 F.(20) 21.

cia9 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Evidence of Om 133(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.). Deed., granting wife's intention, relative to return to former life estate with remainders, giving life tenant domicile, held admissible as tending to show power to dispose of property on certain con- husband's intention.-Porto Rico Ry., Light & tingencies, construed.-Harrison V. Lee, 3 Power Co. v. Cognet, 3 F.(20) 21. F.(20) 796.

DRAINS. IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.

I. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE. On 211 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Evidence held to show description in deed was mistake.--Smith Om 13 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Reclamation district v. Brown, 3 F.(20) 926.

held "public agency,” though differing in many

respects from other municipalities. The Lis. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.

bon, 3 F.(20) 408. See Executors and Administrators; Wills.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

See Constitutional Law, 251-319. I. NATURE AND COURSE IN GENERAL. 17 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Heirat law is not

EMBEZZLEMENT. seized of property, title to which is vested in trustee and on reverter only those heirs of orig; ship or value held unnecessary in indictment

29 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Allegation of owner. inal testator can claim.-Shirk v. Lee, 3 F.(20) for embezzlement by internal revenue officer.256.

Ford v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 104.
DISCOVERY.

Om 30 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Allegation of owner

ship or value held unnecessary in indictment I. IN EQUITY.

for embezzlement by internal revenue officer.Cm 9 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Interrogatories narrowly Ford v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 104. limited, where issues not clearly stated in 47 (U.S.C.C.A.Nev.) Limitationg held not pleadings.-Miller & Pardee v. Lawrence A. established as defense as matter of law for Sweet Mfg. Co., 3 F.(20) 198.

embezzlement of trust funds mingled with ac

cused's own funds.-Pruett v. U, S., 3 F.(20) DISMISSAL AND NONSUIT.

353. See Equity, w359.

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

See Constitutional Law, 229-240.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

EQUITY.
w 19 (App.D.C.) Regulation prohibiting op-
eration of junkshop without consent of prop-

See Discovery; Injunction; Quieting Title; erty owners held not within police power. - Reformation of Instruments; Specific Per Coombe v. U. S. ex rel. Selis, 3 F.(20) 714. formance; 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.-MacMAXIMS.

Kusick v. Johnson, 3 F.(2d) 398. (A) Nature, Grounds, Subjects, and Extent of Jurisdiction in General.

II. PRESUMPTIONS. em 15 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Tennessee state prac- w66 (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.(20) 362. Co. v. Bank of Commerce of Earle, Ark., 3 m83(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Regularity of acF.(20) 513.

tion of public officer presumed.-MacKusick v.

Johnson, 3 F.(2d) 398. VII. DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING.

89 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Presumption of regu359 (U.S.D.C.Ark.) Rule as to plaintiff's larity of official acts may be rebutted by recright to dismiss bill before final hearing with- ord.-Hunter Glover Co. v. Harvey Steel Prodout prejudice, stated.-Jamison v. Fullerton, 3 ucts Corporation, 3 F.(20) 634. F.(20) 312 Plaintiff held not entitled to dismiss without

IV. RELEVANCY, MATERIALITY, AND

COMPETENCY IN GENERAL. prejudice.-Id.

(A) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues. EQUITY RULES.

Om ! 13(4). (U.S.D.C.Md.) Market prices of See Court Rules Cited.

public utility's stocks and bonds held not accu

rate measure of value of its property:-ChesaERROR, WRIT OF.

peake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Baltimore

City v. Whitman, 3 F.(20) 938. See Appeal and Error.

Om 113(16) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Rule for determin

ing value of commodity stated.-Chesapeake & ESTATES.

Potomac Telephone Co. of Baltimore City v. See Descent and Distribution; Executors and Whitman, 3 F.(20) 938. Administrators; Tenancy in Common; Wills.

(C) Similar Facts and Transactions. Om 131

(U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held to ESTOPPEL.

prove that goods sold to other customers was III. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.

of same manufacture, so as to admit evidence

that other customers made no complaints.(A) Nature and Essentials in General.

Steil v. Holland, 3 F.(20) 776. 52 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) To constitute waiver there must be intention to relinquish known

V. BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE. right.--Oelbermann v. Toyo Kisen Kabushiki Ow167 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Testimony relating Kaisha, 3 F.(20) 5.

to substance of statements, based on witness' Om62(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Indulgence of offi- independent recollection thereof, held properly cers in not deporting defective alien temporari- admitted.-Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New ly admitted held not to estop government from York v. Glenn, 3 F.(20) 913. denying that he was dwelling or residing per- no 179(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Parties held entimanently in the country so as to become citi- tled to prove signature to deed not produced zen on naturalization of father.-U. S. v. Tod, and not in their possession.-Penix v. Sloan, 3 3 F.(20) 836.

F.(20) 258. Recital in father's naturalization certificate 186(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Tracing of sig. held not to estop government from denying that nature to deed held admissible as secondary evichild became citizen.-Id.

dence.-Penix v. Sloan, 3 F.(20) 258. (B) Grounds of Estoppel.

VII. ADMISSIONS. mm 63 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Where express war- (D) By Agents or Other Representatives. ranty is denied, buyer may avail himself of im- m253(1) (App.D.C.) Evidence as to wife's plied warranty.--Hercules Powder Co. v. Rich, admissions in husband's

action for divorce on 3 F.(2d) 12. Ow70(0) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Heirs held estopped ground of adultery held admissible against coreto assert title to land after 75 years.-Com

spondent.--Marshall v. Marshall, 3 F.(20) 344. modores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, 3 F.(2d) 841.

VIII. DECLARATIONS. Oma 70(3) (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) Brokers' pledgees (A) Nature, Form, and Incidents in Gen

eral. held estopped to claim lien on securities by not asserting it when securities were demanded by ww271 (19) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Sellers' letter, owner.-Fisher v. Clark, 3 F.(20) 621.

in reply to buyers' letter and telegram, held

competent, though it contained self-serving exEVIDENCE.

pressions.--Steil v. Holland, 3 F.(20) 776. See Criminal Law, 304-510, 662-680; Dis.

X. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. covery; Trial, @ww59–76; Witnesses.

(B) Exemplifications, Transcripts, and For evidence as to particular facts or issues

Certified Copies. or in particular actions or proceedings, see also the various specific topics.

343(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Certified copy of For review of rulings relating to evidence, see

record of deed held admissible under statute.Appeal and Error.

Penix v. Sloan, 3 F.(2d) 258.

345(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Vt.) Record of federal I. JUDICIAL NOTICE.

court may be proved in other United States em 10(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Judicial cognizance tificate that attestation is in due form.--Soo

court by clerk's certificate without judge's certaken of difference between high and low water at Dutch Kills creek.-C. F. Harms Co. v.

Hoo Yee v. U, S., 3 F.(20) 592. Turner Const. Co., 3 F.(20) 591. m31 (U.S.D.C.Ala.) Judicial notice taken

XI. PAROL OR EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AF.

FECTING WRITINGS. that corporation was created and exists under act of Congress.-State of Alabama v. Acacia

(A) Contradicting, Varying, or Adding to Mut. Life Ass'n, 3 F.(2d) 697.

Terms of Written Instrument. Cm 44 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Court will take judi- 424 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Either party to cial notice that person signing deportation war- controversy between strangers, or between one

« 이전계속 »