페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

ment.

99

of contracting parties and stranger, may prove EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. true transaction by parol.–Page v. United See Descent and Distribution; Wills. Fruit Co., 3 F.(20) 747. (B) Invalidating Written Instrument.

VI. ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF

CLAIMS. 433(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Parol evidence of parties' intention held admissible to correct

(A) Liabilities of Estate. misdescription in deed.-Smith v. Brown, 3 F. mw221 (6) (App.D.C.) Evidence held to sus(2d) 926.

tain finding that money had been received as Ow434(11) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Oral testimony as gift, and not as loan.-Lemon v. Martin, 3 to transactions relating to execution of option F.(20) 710. held admissible in action for fraud.--Fosgate v. Nocatee Fruit Co., 3 F.(2d) 606.

FACTORS.

See Brokers. (C) Separate or Subsequent Oral Agree

FELLOW SERVANTS, Cam 442(6) (U.S.D.C.N.C.) Seller's opinion that it had not waived lien not admissible

See Master and Servant, 228. where written contract excluded verbal understanding.–The Defiance, 3 F.(20) 48.

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. (D) Construction or Application of Lan

See Corporations, 642-668. guage of Written Instrument. Om450(10) (U. S. D. C. Or.) Indorsement "for

FORMER JEOPARDY. collection and { credit

See Criminal Law, 200. returns

held ambiguous requiring extraneous proof.-Nyssa-Arcadia Drainage Dist. v. First Nat. Bank, 3 F.(20)

FRAUD. 648.

See Frauds, Statute of; Fraudulent ConveyOmw 460(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Parol evidence ad

ances. missible to show circumstances under which deed made and subject-matter to which parties 1. DECEPTION CONSTITUTING FRAUD, referred.-Smith v. Brown, 3 F.(20) 926.

AND LIABILITY THEREFOR.

m3 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Essential elements in acXII. OPINION EVIDENCE.

tion for damages stated.--Fosgate y. Nocatee (A) Conclusions and Opinions of Witness- Fruit Co., 3 F.(20) 606.' es in General,

mil(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Wyo.) Statement of val471(17) (App.D.C.) Exclusion of question ue of land ordinarily not representation of whether defendant's car would have collided fact.-Byers v. Federal Land Co., 3 F.(20) 9. with witness, if witness had tried to stop_her car, held proper.- Economon V. Barry-Pate

II. ACTIONS. Motor Co., 3 F.(20) 84.

(B) Parties and Pleading. (C) Competency of Experts.

Om 48 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Pleas traversing Fenww535 (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Expert witness must

dee's igporance held proper.-Fosgate v. Noca

tee Fruit Co., 3 F.(20) 606. be shown to be specially qualified.-Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Denver Tramway

Plea setting up vendor's ignorance of acreage Co., 3 F.(20) 285.

and honest intention held demurrable.-Id. Onw5391/2(2). (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Former

Plea denying assignment of option stricken motorman held qualified as expert to testify as

as improper.-Id. to distance within which street car running know area of land held demurrable.-Id.

Plea alleging purchaser knew vendor did not at specified speed could be stopped.-Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, 3 F. toppel or fraud on plaintiff's part.-Id.

Equitable plea held insufficient to show es(2d) 21.

Om49 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Evidence to negative al543(1) (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Economics student legations of fraud admissible under general and writer held not qualified to testify as expert issue.-Fosgate v. Nocatee Fruit Co., 3 F.(20) on valuation of street railway.-Westinghouse 606. Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Denver Tramway Co., 3 F.(20) 285.

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. (F) Effect of Opinion Evidence. VIII. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY OF

WRITING. Om 571 (7) (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Opinions of eminently qualified experts not to be lightly weigh-Cemal 13(3)., (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Contract of sale ed.-Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Den- is invalid if agreed time of delivery is omitted ver Tramway Co., 3 F.(20) 285.

from written memorandum.-Clinton Mills Co. Evidence held to require allowance of going V. Saco-Lowell Shops, 3 F.(20) 410. concern value in rate-making proceedings.-Id. XIV. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. 584(!) (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Nonexpert testi- I. TRANSFERS AND TRANSACTIONS IX.

VALID. mony of one not qualified as expert witness rejected, where inseparably affected by opin- (C) Property and Rights Transferred. ions of witness.-Westinghouse Electric & Mfg Om47 (U.S.D.C.Va.) Chattel mortgage not Co. v. Denver Tramway Co., 3 F.(20) 285.

"sale, transfer, or assignment,” within Bulk

Sales Act.-U. S. V. Lankford, 3 F.(20) 52. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF. II. SETTLEMENT, SIGNING, AND FILING.

III. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS AND PUR

CHASERS. C32(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Acting judge of District Court for Porto Rico may sign bill

(G) Evidence. of exceptions in cause tried before regular Cm 278(1) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Transfer of propjudge.-American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Los erty by insolvent tô his daughter presumptively pez, 3 F.(20) 876.

fraudulent. -Bailey v. Blackmon, 3 F.(20) 252.

For cases In Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes seo game topic and KEY-NUMBER
GAMING.

highway maintained partly by state aid and

partly by town.-Coen v. Town of Boscawen, I. GAMBLING CONTRACTS AND TRANSACTIONS.

3 F.(20) 421. (A) Nature and Validity.

HUSBAND AND WIFE. m3 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Statute prohibiting mar- See Divorce. gin contracts not unconstitutional.-Fenner v. Boykin, 3 F.(20) 674.

IV. DISABILITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF em 12 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Georgia act prohibiting

COVERTURE. "dealing in futures on margins" held to apply

(F) Crimes. only to gambling contracts.-Fenner v. Boykin, 3 F.(20) 674.

107 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Coverture not ground

for plea in abatement to criminal prosecution. GARNISHMENT.

-U. S. v. Hinson, 3 F.(20) 200.
VI. PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT OR

VII. COMMUNITY PROPERTY.
ENFORCE.

On 257 (U.S.D.C.La.) Income of wife, collecten 149 (App.D.C.) Garnishee, who denies in

ed and used by husband, held community propdebtedness to or possession of goods or credits

erty.-In re Lynch, 3 F.(20) 82. of defendant, may be required to appear in

260 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) In Porto Rico, court for oral examination.-Fidelity Savings right of action for injury to wife community Co. v. Security Savings & Commercial Bank, property.–Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. 3 F.(20) 351.

v. Cognet, 3 F.(20) 21. GAS.

270(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Husband

may sue for wife's injuries.- Porto Rico Ry., em 18 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Negligence of

gas Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, 3 F.(20) 21. company not proximate cause of esplosion.- ema27075) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Under Border Gas Co. v. Windrow, 3 F.(2) 974.

statute of Porto Rico, wife proper party to

husband's action for injuries to wife.-Porto GUARANTY.

Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, 3 III. DISCHARGE OF GUARANTOR.

F.(2d) 21.

em 270(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Judgment ww56 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Guarantors of account

for husband and wife for injuries to wife held held discharged by acceptance of note by cred

not erroneous, though verdict for wife only.itor without their knowledge.-Hoffmaster v. Porto Rico Rý., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, Junkin, 3 F.(20) 220.

3 F.(20) 21. IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITO s.

Om 276(6) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Conveyance of

ganancial property by widow of Spanish granOn92(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Failure to submit tee held to convey title.-Commodores Point questions to jury held reversible error.-Hoff- Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, 3 F.(20) 841. master v. Junkin, 3 F.(20) 220.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN,
HABEAS CORPUS.

See Bastards.
II. JURISDICTION. PROCEEDINGS, AND

IMMIGRATION.
RELIEF.

See Aliens, m46-54.
Om76 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Proper practice in
making return in habeas corpus proceeding by

IMMUNITY. deported alien stated.-U. S. v. Commissioner of Immigration, 3 F.(20) 551.

See Constitutional Law, Oma 205. ww92(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Court, in habeas corpus by alien, should merely ascertain wheth

INDEMNITY. er Department of Labor exceeded jurisdiction, and not hold independent inquiry.-U. S. v.

See Guaranty. Commissioner of Immigration, 3 F.(20) 551.

INDIANS. Omw 12 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Proceeding not opened, where prior fraud on court is disclosed. Om 2 (App.D.C.) Congress has plenary au-Ex parte Milicich, 3 F.(20) 151.

thority over tribal relations of Indians.--Super

v. Work, 3 F.(20) 90. HARMLESS ERROR.

3 (App.D.C.) Congress may abrogate pro

visions of Indian treaty.-Super v. Work, 3 See Appeal and Error, 1033–1067; Crimi. F.(20) 90. ral Law, 1167–1177.

10 (App.D.C.) Rights acquired in Califor

nia land prior to cession to United States by HIGHWAYS.

Mexico were lost by failure to present claims

to commission under statute.-Super v. Work, II. HIGHWAY DISTRICTS AND OFFICERS.

3 F.(20) 90. mw90 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Road district held cre- Congress empowered to determine rights of ated by legislative act; "defined district.”- Indians to occupancy of land.-Id. Browning v. Hooper, 3 F.(20) 160.

Texas statute authorizing issuance of bonds INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION. by counties and road districts held' constitutional and valid.-Id.

V. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY OF

ACCUSATION. IV. TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, AND WORK m 108 (U.S.C.C.A.Nev.) Indictment sufficient ON HIGHWAYS.

under one statute not demurrable, though deCam 121 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Legislature may deter

fective under statute alleged therein to be viomine benefits from construction of public road.

lated.-Pruett v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 353. --Browning v. Hooper, 3 F.(20) 160.

Om 110(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Indictment fol.

lowing statute in alleging overt act sufficient.V. REGULATION AND USE FOR TRAVEL.

Williams v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 933.

Ill(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Indictment suffi(C) Injuries from Defects or Obstructions,

cient, though not alleging defendant was per198 (U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Under laws of New son required to be registered.-Coleman v. U. Hampshire, town held liable for injuries on S., 3 F.(20) 243.

re

In

Om 121 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Bill of particu- Omw 146(3) (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Ambiguities in lars allowable.-Williams v. U. S., 3 F.(20) policy construed most favorably to insured.933.

Jacksonville Oil Mills v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co..

3 F.(2d) 1006. VI. JOINDER OF PARTIES, OFFENSES, AND COUNTS, DUPLICITY, AND

VI. PREMIUMS, DUES. AND ASSESSMENTS. ELECTION.

198(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Recovery on fire 125(5/2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Indictment for policies, void because of misrepresentation as conspiracy to violate National Prohibition Act

to cost of insured property, held limited to held not duplicitous.-Williams v. U. S., 3 F. premiums paid, with interest.-Fidelity-Phenix (20) 933.

Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Queen City Bus en 125(27) (U. S.C. C. A. Okl.) Indictment & Transfer Co., 3 F.(20) 784. against employé of national bank for abstracting checks held not duplicitous.-Theobald v. U. IX. AVOIDANCE OF POLICY FOR MISREPS., 3 F.(20) 601.

RESENTATION, FRAUD, OR BREACH

OF WARRANTY OR CONDITION. IX. ISSUES, PROOF, AND VARIANCE. (B) Matters Relating to Property or

terest insured. em 171 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Variance between allegations and proof not material, where accused

283(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Policy held to not misled.-Meyers v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 379.

mean that any mortgage on property, except 180 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Variance between that mentioned in policy, would avoid it.-F1name of consignor of interstate shipment in in

delity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York Y. dictment and in evidence held not fatal.-Bea- Queen City Bus & Transfer Co., 3 F.(20) 784. vers v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 860.

XI. ESTOPPEL, WAIVER, OR AGREE

MENTS AFFECTING RIGHT TO XI. WAIVER OF DEFECTS AND OBJEC

AVOID OR FORFEIT POLICY. TIONS, AND AIDER BY VERDICT.

Om 385 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Parol evidence of inw202(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.). Objection that in- surance agent's waiver of warranty of cost of dictment naming two defendants charged "said insured property held incompetent.-Fidelitydefendant" with specific acts not available after Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New_York v. Queen verdict.-Wong Lung Sing v. U. S., 3 F.(20) City Bus & Transfer Co., 3 F.(20) 784. 780,

XII. RISKS AND CAUSES OF LOSS, INJUNCTION.

(B) Insurance of Property and Titles. III. ACTIONS FOR INJUNCTIONS.

429 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Incendiarism of mort114(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Bondholders and gagee owning one-fourth of capital stock in trustee under mortgage have no interest au- mortgagor corporation held not imputable to thorizing them to maintain injunction to re

mortgagor.-Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of strain bond issue by city.-Franklin Trust Co. New York v. Queen City Bus & Transfer Co., v. City of Loveland, Colorado, 3 F.(20) 114. 3 F.(20) 784. Om 128 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Grounds for injunction against institution of criminal prosecutions un

(E) Accident and Health Insurance. der state statute not shown.-Fenner v. Boykin, m465 (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Accident insurance 3 F.(20) 674.

company, insuring against accidental death, is INSOLVENCY.

"life insurance company."-Continental Casu

alty Co. v. Agee, 3 F.(20) 978. See Bankruptcy.

Construction of suicide provision of Utah

statute held not affected by subsequent act. INSPECTION.

-Id. Om2 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Pennsylvania act requir- Statute held to become condition of all life ing inspection of mattresses, etc., held con- policies thereafter issued.-Id. stitutional.–Palmer Bros. Có. v. 'Weaver, 3 m 467 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Accident policy held F.(20) 333.

not to impose liability for loss of eye more than INSTRUCTIONS.

90 days after accident.-Buford v. North Amer.

ican Accident Ins. Co., 3 F.(20) 263. See Criminal Law, em 772–822; Trial, ami 251

XIII. EXTENT OF LOSS AND LIABILITY 296.

OF INSURER.
INSURANCE.

(B) Insurance of Property and Titles. V. THE CONTRACT IN GENERAL. Cum 500 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Policy held to entitle (A) Nature, Requisites, and Validity.

insured to $150 per day during period it was

deprived of use and occupancy, regardless of 138(1) (U. S. D.C. Or.) Insurance does not necessarily beget negligence.--Fidelity profits, which might have been made.-Jackson

ville Oil Mills v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 3 F.(20) & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Moore, 3 F.(20) 1006. 652.

XVI. RIGHT TO PROCEEDS. Om 139 (U.S.D.C.Or.). Interest of vendor of automobile, who retains title or mortgage as

586 (U.S.D.C.N.C.) Beneficiary has security for price, held not fully protected by "vested interest" where beneficiary may be prohibition laws.-Fidelity & Deposit Co. of changed at will of insured.—In re Whiting, 3 Maryland v. Moore, 3 F.(20) 652.

F.(2d) 440. Confiscation bonds, covering loss to seller of

Om586 (U. S. D. C. Okl.) Beneficiary had no automobile from confiscation because of buy. rested right where policy reserved to insured er's illegal act, held not against public policy.' the right to change beneficiary.-Brown . -Id.

Home Life Ins. Co. of New York, 3 F.(20) 661.

Cw587 (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Equity will regard in(B) Construction and Operation,

dorsement of change of beneficiary as complet. Om 146(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Policy interpreted ed where insured failed without valid reason as valid, if possible.-Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. to make indorsement.-Brown v. Home Life Co. of New York v. Queen City Bus & Transfer Ins. Co. of New York, 3 F.(20) 661. Co., 3 F.(22) 784.

XVIII. ACTIONS ON POLICIES. Cm146(1) (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Intention of parties controls construction.-Jacksonville Oil 645(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Evidence held Mills v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 3 F.(20) 1006. properly excluded as not applicable to issues.

[ocr errors]

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER Continental Casualty Co. v. Agee, 3 F.(20) C10 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Vessels on high seas 978.

subject to laws and treaties of own country.INTEREST

The Pictonian, 3 F.(20) 145.
See Usury.

INTERPLEADER.
INTERNAL REVENUE.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.
Om2 (U.S.D.C.La.) Rev. St. & 3450, not re-
pealed by Prohibition Act.-U. S. v. One Ford

Cm32 (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Court may require plainCoupe, 3 F.(20) 64.

tiff to do equity if he is to prevail in action in Oms? (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Beneficiary of trust

which defendant entered plea in nature of bill taxable on income received, without deduction

of interpleader.--Brown v. Home Life Ins. Co. for capital losses.-Baltzell v. Mitchell, 3 F.

of New York, 3 F.(20) 661. (20) 428. (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) New York transfer

INTOXICATING LIQUORS. tax paid deductible in computing taxable income of estate-Keith v. Johnson, 3 F.(20) 361.

IV. LICENSES AND TAXES. Cm7 (U.S.D.C.III.) Depreciation in value of

69 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Commissioner has disleasehold through lessening of term held prop- cretion in the granting of permits to manufacer deduction.-Philip Henrici Co. v. Reinecke, ture.--Ma-King Products Co. v. Blair, 3 F.(20) 3 F.(20) 34.

936. 7 (Ú.S.D.C.Mass.) Corporation in computing excess profits tax held entitled to retain

VI. OFFENSES. taxes for previous year as part of its invested 143 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Mere transportation in capital until 105 days after time for filing re

automobile not nuisance under National Prohiturn.-Sylvester Co. v. Nichols, 3 F.(20) 452. bition Act.-U, S. v. Emmons, 3 F.(20) 503. Ora 7 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Mutual insurance compa- 167 (U.S.D.C.Cal.). Officers and crew of ny held not entitled to exclude from income foreign vessel discharging cargo of liquor into overpayments of premiums awaiting, applica - other vessels to be transported in violation of tion to deferred dividend policies.- New York law are aiders and abettors; the court of the Life Ins. Co. v. Edwards, 3 F.(20) 280.

district has jurisdiction, and seizure admissible Repayment to insurance company of advanc; in evidence.-U. S. v. Ford, 3 F.(20) 643. es to agents previously written off as losses held "capital gains" and not "income."-Id. Amortization of securities purchased at pre

VIII. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. mium based on actual purchase price held allowable deduction from income.--Id.

221 (U.S.C.C.A.Del.) Information charging Additions to reserves for future premium

unlawful transportation need not negative poslosses, unreported losses, and annuities to

session of permit.-Altshuler v. U, S., 3 F.(20)

791. agents held deductible from income.-Id. 8 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Question of what is, an in

On 223(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Conviction under terest in land determinable by law of state

information charging sale and possession of where land located.-Girard Trust Co. v. Me whisky held supported by evidence showing sale Caughn, 3 F.(20) 618.

of bitters.--Meyers v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 379. · Land conveyed in trust held not part of dece

em 224 (U.S.C.C.A.Del.) Government, prosedent's estate for tax purposes; "land.”—Id.

cuting defendant for transportation of liquor, em (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Corporation held liable for need not prove that defendant_did not have excise tax on its capital stock; "carrying on

permit.-Altshuler v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 791. or doing business."- International Salt Co. v.

Cm 236(612) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held Phillips, 3 F.(20) 678.

to support conviction for possessing whisky.Orar 25 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Succession taxes paid Meyers v. U. S., 3 F.(28) 379. to state deducted before assessment of federal

mm 236(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held to estate tax.-Thayer v. Malley, 3 F.(20) 194. sustain finding that liquor was kept for purOn 28 (U.S.C.C.A.JII.) That revenue statute is

pose of sale.-Forni v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 354. erroneously construed or unconstitutional does em 236(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held sufnot give federal court jurisdiction to enjoin ficient to prove sale, notwithstanding failure collection of tax.-Reinecke v. Peacock, 3 to prove payment of purchase price.-Ahearn F.(20) 583.

v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 808. Collection of tax may not be enjoined as in- O236(11) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held to cidental to other equitable relief.-Id.

support conviction for selling whisky-Meyers On 28 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Refund of taxes for one v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 379. year not a bar to their collection for another Cmo 236(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Evidence held inyear.-International Salt Co. v. Phillips, 3 F. sufficient to sustain conviction for feloniously (20) 678.

selling whisky. -Johnson v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 209. Om 45 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Taxes on illegal manufacture of liquor held penalty.-Dukich v. Blair, IX. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, AND FOR3 F.(2d) 302.

FEITURES. Cm 46 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.). Libel for forfeiture of vessel under treaty with Great Britain not al- 246 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Cereal beverage comleging vessel within one hour's sailing distance pany's retention of lawfully manufactured beer held insufficient.-The Pictonian, 3 F.(20) 145. of unlawful alcoholic content after loss of its Cu 47 (U.S.C.C.A.T.I.) Exclusion of evidence permit held not_unlawful.-Hazelwood Brewing affecting defendant's willfulness in omitting Co. v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 721. item from income tax return held reversible w246 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Seizure of Canadian error.--Greenberg v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 226. vessel and liquor cargo off shore held lawful Omw 47 (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Indictment held not to under treaty with Great Britain.-U. S. v. charge illegal publication of "income return." Ford, 3 F.(20) 643. -U, S. v. Dickey, 3 F.(20) 190.

Om 246 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Brewery equipment held not subject to forfeiture because of vio

lation of law by lessee.-U. S. v. 3,510 Barrels, INTERNATIONAL LAW.

More or Less, of Beer, 3 F.(2d) 499. m5 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Seizure of Canadian ves- 247 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Possession by British sel and liquor cargo off shore held lawful under vessel without intent to smuggle into United treaty with Great Britain.-U. S. v. Ford, 3 F. States not cause for forfeiture.-The Pictonian, (20) 643.

3 F.(20) 145.

247 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Prosecution or convic

JUDGES. tion of crime or revocation of permit not prerequisite to forfeiture of wine for unlawful

1. APPOINTMENT. QUALIFICATION, AND

TENURE. sales.-U. S. v. 1,200 Gallons of Wine, 3 F.(20) 334.

7 (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Retired federal judge 248 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Affidavit for search still in service and authorized to act without warrant held sufficient.Forni v. U. s., 3 F. designation.—Maxwell v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 906. (20) 354. w 249 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Revenue officers held

IV. DISQUALIFICATION TO ACT. justified in entering premises without search Ew56 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Order of reference warrant.-Wurm v. U. s., 3 F.(20) 143. made by judge after filing of affidavit of preju. 249 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) That federal agents dice held ratified by judge hearing remainder of accompanied a state officer when he seized liq- case.-Walker v. Wilkinson, 3 F.(20) 867. uor held not to render search warrant necessary.-Ludwig v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 231.

JUDGMENT. Prohibition agents, finding evidence of violation of law in open saloon, are justified in For judgments in particular actions or proseizing the same without a warrant.-Id.

ceedings, see, also, the various specific topics. em 250 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) In libel by United For review of judgments, see Appeal and Er.

ror. States against beer evidence held to sustain finding that claimant had made unlawful use of

XIII. MERGER AND BAR OF CAUSES OF part of beer involved.-Hazelwood Brewing Co.

ACTION AND DEFENSES. v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 721. cm 250 (Ú.S.D.C.NY.) Libel for forfeiture of

(A) Judgments Operative as Bar. British vessel under treaty held sufficient.--The Om540 (U.S.C.C.A.Vt.) Former adjudication Pictonian, 3 F.(20) 145.

on merits bar to further prosecution on same Libel for forfeiture of vessel under treaty matters between same parties. Soo Hoo Yee with Great Britain not alleging vessel within v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 592. one hour's sailing distance held insufficient. -Id.

XIV. CONCLUSIVENESS OF ADJUDI

CATION. 253 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Judge cannot review search warrant proceedings before commission

(C) Matters concluded. er by certiorari.-U. S. v. Elliott, 3 F.(20) 496. ? 13(2) (U.S.D.C.Idaho). Ruling as to con

clusiveness of former judgments, stated.-U. S. X. ABATEMENT AND INJUNCTION. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Porter, 3 F.(20)

57. m258 (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Right to abate liquor Final decree of dismissal in former action nuisance in equity not affected by existence of held to bar second action on same cause, though legal remedy.-Denapolis v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 722. more fully alleged.-Id.

262 (U.S.C.C.A.La.) That defendants not m720 (U.S.D.C.Idaho) Ruling as to conclupreviously convicted, that premises closed, or siveness of former judgments, stated.-U. S. that interest acquired after offense, held not to Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Porter, 3 F.(20) prevent abatement.-Denapolis v. U. S., 3 57. F.(20) 722. em271 (U.S.C.C.A.La.) That owner of prem

JUDICIAL POWER. ises not made party defendant to suit against See Constitutional Law, 74. lessees to abate liquor nuisance does not invalidate decree.-Denapolis v. U. S., 3 F.(20)

JURY. 722.

274 (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Bill in suit to abate See Criminal Law, C865. liquor nuisance in substantially language of statute held not uncertain or indefinite.-Den

II. RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. apolis v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 722.

Om 13(7) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Defense of fraud 275 (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Liquor shown to have to action on penal bond held usually to entitle been possessed on premises involved in pro- parties to jury trial.-Fidelity & Casualty Co. ceedings to abate liquor nuisance presumed of New York v. Glenn, 3 F.(20) 913. kept for purpose of sale.-Denapolis v. U. S., em 14(12) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Provision of Na3 F.(20) 722.

tional Prohibition Act providing for closing Evidence establishing sales and possession of premises unlawfully used is not unconstitutionliquor held sufficient to sustain decree abating al as denying jury trial.-Denapolis v. U. S., 3 nuisance.-Id.

F.(20) 722. 279 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Order adjudging, de- 19(17) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Enforcement of fendants in contempt for violation of injunc- taxes under National Prohibition Act by admintion held sustained by evidence.-Keystone istrative proceedings held denial of trial by Brewing Co. v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 994.

jury.-Dukich v. Blair, 3 F.(2d) 302. On 279 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Evidence held not my 28() (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Waivers of jury to warrant conviction of saloon employees for trials should not be discouraged.-Muentzer v. contempt in violating injunction.-Fryar v. U. Los Angeles Trust & Savings Bank, 3 F.(20) S., 3 F.(20) 598.

222. Evidence held to warrant conviction for con- 32(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) After mistrial, tempt in selling and storing intoxicating liquor caused by illness of juror, continuance of trial in violation of injunction.-Id.

by consent before the remaining 11 and a submm 280 (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Alleged invalidity of stituted juror held lawful.-Grove v. U. S., 3 search warrants under which evidence was ob- F.(20) 965. tained held not to require reversal of decree abating liquor nuisance.-Denapolis v. U. S., 3 V. COMPETENCY OF JURORS, CHALLENGF.(20) 722.

ES, AND OBJECTIONS.
JEOPARDY.

110(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Juror's disquali.

fication, because not householder, held waived See Criminal Law, 200.

by failure to challenge.-Williams v. U. S., 3

F.(20) 933.
JOINT TENANCY.

LANDLORD AND TENANT,
See Tenancy in Common.

See Use and Occupation.

« 이전계속 »