페이지 이미지

of contracting parties and stranger, may prove EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. true transaction by parol.-Page v. United Sea Descent Fruit Co., 3 F.(20) 747.

See Descent and Distribution; Wills. (B) Invalidating Written Instrument.


CLAIMS. Co 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. 221 (6) (App.D.C.) Evidence held to sus(20) 926.

tain finding that money had been received as @mw434(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.

FACTORS. Nocatee Fruit Co., 3 F.(20) 606.

See Brokers. (C) Separate or Subsequent Oral Agree. ment.

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

À See Master and Servant, w228. where written contract excluded verbal understanding.-The Defiance, 3 F.(20) 48.

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. (D) Construction or Application of Lan. See Corporations, C642-668.

guage of Written Instrument. Em450(10) (U. S. D. C. Or.) Indorsement "for

FORMER JEOPARDY. collection and I returns

held ambiguous re- See Criminal Law, 200. quiring extraneous proof.-Nyssa-Arcadia Drainage Dist. v. First Nat. Bank, 3 F.(20)

FRAUD. 648.

See Frauds, Statute of; Fraudulent Convey. C 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.


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

tion for damages stated.-Fosgate v. Nocatee (A) Conclusions and Opinions of Witness. Fruit Co., 3 F.(2d) 606.' es in General.

ll(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Wyo.) Statement of valan 471 (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.

w 48 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Pleas traversing ven535 (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Expert witness must

dee's ignorance held proper.-Fosgate 7. Noca

tee Fruit Co., 3 F.(20) 606. be shown to be specially qualified.---Westing

Plea setting up vendor's ignorance of acreage house Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Denver Tramway

and honest intention held demurrable.-Id. Co., 3 F.(20) 285. mw5391/2(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.

“Plea alleging purchaser knew vendor did not to distance within which street car running know area of land held demurrable.-Id. at specified. speed could be stopped.-Porto Equitable plea held insufficient to show esRico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, 3 F. toppel or fraud on plaintiff's part.-Id. (20) 21.

1949 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Evidence to negative alo 543 (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 571(7) (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Opinions of emi

WRITING. nently qualified experts not to be lightly weigh- 113(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.


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 47 (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.


CHASERS. m32(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 C 278(1) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Transfer of propjudge.-American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Lo erty by insolvent to 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 same topic and KEY-NUMBER

highway maintained partly by state aid and 1. GAMBLING CONTRACTS AND TRANS

partly by town.-Coen v. Town of Boscawen, ACTIONS.

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

HUSBAND AND WIFE. 3 (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 On 12 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Georgia act prohibiting

COVERTURE. "dealing in futures on marging" 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


em 257 (U.S.D.C.La.) Income of wife, collect. em 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 explosion.

em 270(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Under Border Gas Co. v. Windrow, 3 F.(20) 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.(20) 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 acceptabdee held discharged by acceptance of note by cred

not erroneous, though verdict for wife only.itor without their knowledge.-Hoffmaster V.

Hoffmaster v.

Porto Rico Rý., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, Junkin, 3 F.(20) 220.

3 F.(20) 21. IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS. Om 276(6) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Conveyance of

ganancial property by widow of Spanish gran92(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..


See Bastards.

On76 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Proper practice in See Aliens, 46–54.
making return in habeas corpus proceeding by

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

See Constitutional Law, mw205. Ow92(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. Omot 112 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Proceeding not reopened, where prior fraud on court is disclosed.

en 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.

3 (App.D.C.) Congress may abrogate proHARMLESS ERROR.

visions of Indian treaty.-Super v. Work, 3 See Appeal and Error, 1033–1067; Crimi. F.(20) 90. ral Law, m1167–1177.

Om 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. C 90 (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. constitution



under one statute not demurrable, though de121 (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. (C) Injuries from Defects or Obstructions,

O I !|(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Indictment suffi

cient, though not alleging defendant was per: 198 (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.

dictme2(2) (U.S.C.C.DEREST

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

Jacksonville Oil Mills v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co..



em 198(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Recovery on fire 125(5171) (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

to cost of insured 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 e 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.



(B) Matters Relating to Property or In

terest Insured. 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 cm 180 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Variance between

that mentioned in policy, would avoid it.-Finame of consignor of interstate shipment in in

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




en 385 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Parol evidence of in. 202(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.-Fidelity. defendant" with specific acts not available after Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York V. Queen verdict.-Wong Lung Sing v. U. S., 3 F.(2d) City Bus & Transfer Co., 3 F.(2d) 784. 780.


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

429 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Incendiarism of mort. 114(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) 781. 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, mm 465 (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 INSPECTION.

statute held not affected by subsequent act.

-Id. Om 2 (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. Co. v. Weaver, 3 Om 467 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Accident policy held F.(20) 333.

not to impose liability for loss of eye more than

90 days after accident.-Buford y. North Amer. INSTRUCTIONS.

ican Accident Ins. Co., 3 F.(20) 263. See Criminal Law, Om772–822; Trial, em 251–



(B) Insurance of Property and Titles. V. THE CONTRACT IN GENERAL. Paw 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 policy profits which might have been made.-Jacksondoes not necessarily beget negligence. --Fidelity ville Oil Mills v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 3 F.(2d) & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Moore, 3 F.(20) 1006 " 652.

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

m586 (U.S.D.C.N.C.) Beneficiary has no 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.(28) 440. Confiscation bonds, covering loss to seller of

586 (U. S. D. C. Okl.) Beneficiary had no automobile from confiscation because of buy.

n because of buy. vested right where policy reserved to insured er's illegal act, held not against public policy.'

the right to change beneficiary.-Brown v. -Id.

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

Cam 587 (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Equity will regard in(B) Construction and Operation,

dorsement of change of beneficiary as completOm 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.(20) 784. m146(1) (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Intention of par

XVIII. ACTIONS ON POLICIES. ties 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.


For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexos see same topic and KEY-NUMBER Continental Casualty Co. v. Agee, 3 F.(20) C 10 (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.


m2 (U.S.D.C.La.) Rev. St. § 3450, not re-
pealed by Prohibition Act.-U. S. v. One Ford


32 (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 mo? (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Beneficiary of trust

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

m 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. e t (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. 7 (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. Cm7 (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 on 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.

m (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. y. 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.

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

C 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. Mc.

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

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

vecuting defendant for transportation of liquor, 9 (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.(2) 791. or doing business."- International Salt Co. v. 236(612) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held Phillips, 3 F.(20) 678.

to support conviction for possessing whisky.25 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Succession taxes paid Meyers v: U S., 3 F.(2d) 379. to state deducted before assessment of federal

Cm 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 pur28 (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 On 236(II) (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. Ú. S., 3 F.(20) 808. Collection of tax may not be enjoined as in em 236 (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 C 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. em 45 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Taxes on illegal manufacture of liquor held penalty.--Dukich v. Blair,


FOR3 F.(2d) 302.

FEITURES. 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 Cm47 (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 246 (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 Cw47 (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.

Ew246 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Brewery equipment

held not subject to forfeiture because of vioINTERNATIONAL LAW.

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

More or Less, of Beer, 3 F.(2d) 499. 5 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Seizure of Canadian ves- no 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. y. Ford, 3 F. States not cause for forfeiture.-The Pictonian, (2d) 643.

3 F.(20) 145.



eal and

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

JUDGES. tion of crime or revocation of permit not pre- 1. APPOINTMENT. QUALIFICATION, AND requisite to forfeiture of wine for unlawful

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

C 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) 900. (20) 354. e 249 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Revenue officers held

IV. DISQUALIFICATION TO ACT. justified in entering premises without search

em 56 (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 prejuOm 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. 250 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) In

ents,& libel by Unite

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. 250 (U.S.D.C.NY.) Libel for forfeiture of

(A) Judgments Operative as Bar. British vessel under treaty held sufficient.--The 540 (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 ADJUDI253 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Judge cannot review

CATION. search warrant proceedings before commission

(C) Matters concluded. er by certiorari.-U. S. v. Elliott, 3 F.(20) 496. 713(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. 258 (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Right to abate liquor Final decree of dismissal in former 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. em 262 (U.S.C.C.A.La.) That defendants not Om720 (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. 271 (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, 865. 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.

On 13(7) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Defense of fraud om 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., On 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 On 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.(20) 302. 279°(U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Evidence held not 28(1) (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.

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 sub280 (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.


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

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

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

F.(20) 933.

See Tenancy in Common.

See Use and Occupation.


« 이전계속 »