« 이전계속 »
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES SUPPLE-
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
236, 534 1911 (March 9, Railroad Law) $ 12...... 876
361 $ 5813.......
1909, ch. 185
REVISED STATUTES 1911.
970 VERNON'S SAYLES' ANNOTATED CIVIL
Arts. 7504, 7702.
COMPILED LAWS 1917.
669 $ 1144. Amended by Laws 1921, ch. 29,
COMPILED STATUTES 1920.
ror cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes seo same topic and KEY-NUMBER
IV. PLACE OF TAXATION.
v. LEVY AND ASSESSMENT.
(C) Mode of Assessment in General.
em338 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Method of assessing
Perpetual easements grant not cut down by (E) Assessment Rolls or Books.
show valuation, assessment, and tax clearly
and unmistakably.-Hunter Glover Co. v. Har-
ed vey Steel Products Corporation, 3 F.(20) 634.
M428 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Dollar mark on as-
figures it applies.-Hunter Glover Co. v. Har-
Om438 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Transfer of property
from personal to real property tax roll held
not prejudicial to owner.-W. T. Waggoner Es-
tate v. Wichita County, 3 F.(20) 962.
Motorman's competency could be considered tax commission of its own decision. all mem-
ance Corporation v. Archer, 3 F.(20) 669.
tric Appliance Corporation v. Archer, 3 F.(20)
VIII. COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
AGAINST PERSONS OR PERSONAL
(C) Remedies for Wrongful Enforcement.
em 608(5) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Relief may be
sult of mistake or inadvertence.-Air-Way
Electric Appliance Corporation V. Archer, 3
TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.
II. REGULATION AND OPERATION.
33(1) (U.S.D.C.Md.). Method of determin-
ing rate base value.-Chesapeake & Potomac
Telephone Co. of Baltimore City v. Whitman, 3
Evidence held to show value of property for
Evidence held to show depreciation of prop-
Depreciation deductible from reproduction
cost for rate purposes.-Id.
Stipulation held evidence of actual deprecia-
Return of 6 per cent. held not confiscatory.
corporation closely scrutinized.-Id.
License contract between subsidiary and con-
trolling corporation held valid.-Id.
Agreement for division of tolls between sub-
33(1) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Court will not re-
view valuation of telephone company's prop-
erty by Public Utilities Commission in fixing
rates.-Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Util-
ities Commission of Ohio, 3 F.(20) 701.
Temporary injunction granted, where court
TENANCY IN COMMON.
representations.-General Baking Co. v. Gor-
BILITIES OF COTENANTS.
II. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON-
31 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Trade-mark protects
only against deception.--Coty, Inc., v. Preston-
ettes, Inc., 3 F.(20) 984.
31 (U.S.C.C.A.B.I.) Use of trade-mark for
one kind of bread held to give no right in its
use for a different kind.-General Baking Co.
v. Gorman, 3 F.(20) 891.
use of trade-name held 'lost by permitting its
use by others.-Everett 0. Fisk & Co. v. Fisk
Teachers' Agency, 3 F.(20) 7.
Oil Co. v. Indian Refining Co., 3 F.(20) 457.
moll(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Tug not insurer of III. REGISTRATION, REGULATION, AND
cuits and crackers held not subject to registra-
43 (App.D.C.) Publisher of magazine sup-
the Day" held not entitled to registration of
such heading as trade-mark.-Funk & Wag.
registration as trade-mark for tobacco, not-
withstanding opposition of manufacturer of
Trade-mark "Tech," printed in white script
letters across plaid background, held in compli-
Interest and costs of survey of damaged vese written, printed, impressed or woven in partic-
w 45 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Registration of trade-
presumption of validity.--Autoline Oil Co. v.
Indian Refining Co., 3 F.(20) 457.
Om 45 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Right conferred by use
and registration of "Gold Medal” as trade-
Milling Co. v. Washburn-Crosby Co., 3 F.(20)
IV. INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPE-
(A) What Constitutes Infringement.
53 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Trade-mark protects
53 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Cases of infringement
3 F.(20) 891.
mark.--Autoline Oil Co. v. Indian Refining Co.,
Cum 59 (Ú (U.S.D.C.Del.) "Oh Henry" held
background, not appropriation of name of
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
59(5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) "Mirrolike,” if valid em 100 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Form of labels to be trade-mark for polish, was infringed by use of used by defendant approved.--Coty, Inc., V. word “Mirrolac."-Mirrolike Mfg. Co. v. De- Prestonettes, Inc., 3 F.(20) 984. voe & Raynolds Co., 3 F.(20) 846. Om 61 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) The use of a trade
V. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES mark for wheat flour held not to exclude its use
ADJUDICATED. by another for prepared pancake or buckwheat “Autoline."-Autoline Oil Co. v. Indian Refinflour.-France Milling Co. v. Washburn-Crosby ing Co. (D. C. Md.) 3 F.(20) 457. Co., 3 F.(20) 321.
"Bond Bread.”—General Baking Co. v. Gor"Gold Medal” as trade-mark held not distinc- man (C. C. A. R. I.) 3 F.(20) 891. tive of any particular commodity, but a general “Eta."-National Biscuit Co. v. J. B. Carr term intended to denote superior merit or qual- Biscuit Co. (App. D. C.) 3 F.(20) 87. ity.-Id.
“F."-Autoline Oil Co. v. Indian Refining Co. Complainant held entitled to protection in its (D. C. Md.) 3 F.(20) 457. trade-mark “Gold Medal” for prepared pancake “Fisk Teachers' Agency."-Everett 0. Fisk and buckwheat flour.-Id.
& Co. v. Fisk Teachers' Agency (C. C. A. Om61 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Trade-mark for ready- Colo.) 3 F.(2d) 7. made clothing held not infringed by use of “Gold Medal.”-France Milling Co. v. Washsame trade-mark for hats.-Rosenberg Bros. & burn-Crosby Co. (D. C. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 321. Co. v. Elliott, 3 F.(20) 682.
"Liberty Bond."--General Baking Co. v. GorExclusive right to mark is limited to trade in man (C. C. A. R. I.) 3 F.(20) 891. which it is used, or to the same line of trade. "Mirrolac."-Mirrolike Mfg. Co. v. Devoe & -Id.
Raynolds Co. (D. C. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 846.
"Mirrolike."-Mirrolike Mfg. Co. v. Devoe & (B) What Competition Unlawful.
Reynolds Co. (D. C. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 846.
“Oh Henry."-Williamson Candy Co. v. Ucanco ww68 (U.S.C.C.A.) Method of selling encyclopedia, together with encyclopedic and research “Oh Johnnie."_Williamson Candy Co. v. Ucan
Candy Co. (D. 0. Del.) 3 F.(20) 156. services, held not unfair competition.- John C. Winston Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 3 “President."-Oppenheim, Oberndorf & Co. v.
co. Candy Co. (D. C. Del.) 3 F.(20) 156. F.(2d) 961. 68 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) "Standard” spark plug
President Suspender Co. (App. D. C.) 3
F.(20) 88. and core held to imply those used in factory
“Standard."-S. S. Kresge Co. v. Champion equipment.-S. S. Kresge Co. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 3 F.(20) 415.
Spark Plug Co. (C. C. A. Ohio) 3 F.(20)
415. Om 68 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Ocular or auricular similitude not the only means of unfair competi
“Tech."-Pittsburgh_Brewing Co. V. Ruben tion.-Williamson Candy Co. v. Ucanco Candy “Tech Food Products Company."-Pittsburgh
(App. D. C.) 3 F.(20) 342. Co., 3 F.(20) 156. em 68 (U.S.D.C.Md.). "Unfair competition" de
Brewing Co. v. Ruben (App. D. C.) 3 fined. - Autoline Oil Co. v. Indian Refining Co., "Topics of the Day."-Funk & Wagnalls Co. v.
F.(20) 342. 3 F.(20) 457. Om69 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Fraudulent intent
Timely Films (App. D. C.) 3 F.(20) 93.
“Uneeda."-National Biscuit Co. v. J. B. Carr may color meaning of words used.-S. S. Kresge Co. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 3 F.(20)
Biscuit Co. (App. D. C.) 3 F.(28) 87. 415.
TREATIES. Ow70(1) (U.S.D.C.Del.) Defendant held chargeable with unfair competition.-William- Om2 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Governments may by son Candy Co. v. Ucanco Candy Co., 3 F.(20) treaty authorize searches and seizures of for156.
eign vessels.-The Pictonian, 3 F.(20) 145. Om75 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Evidence of actual de- m 12 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Treaty with Great Briception not essential to unfair competition.– tain authorizing seizure of British vessels withS. s. Kresge Co. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., in certain limits held self-executing.-The Pic3 F.(20) 415.
tonian, 3 F.(20) 145.
Legislation declaring certain acts crimes not (C) Actions.
prerequisite to enforcement of treaty provi
sions.-Id. On 80V/2 [New, vol. 8A Key-No. Series ] (U.S.C.C.A.) Corporation held not to
TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE. have complied with order prohibiting use of word “mills" until it operated factory or mills.
II. PROCEEDINGS. -Federal Trade Commission v. Pure Silk Hos- m40(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Burden of proof iery Mills, 3 F.(20) 105.
of genuineness of deed, stated.-Penix v. Sloan, Em8042 [New, vol. 8A Key-No. Series] 3 F.(20) 258. (U.S.C.C.A.) Order of Trade Commis
TRIAL, sion to cease practice which had been abandoned before complaint unauthorized. - John o. See. Criminal Law, em 620-888; Jury; New Winston Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 3
Trial. F.(2d) 961.
For review of rulings at trial, see Appeal and Om 86 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Right to injunctive re- Error. lief; laches.--France Milling Co. v. Washburn. For trial of particular actions or proceedings, Crosby Co., 3 F.(20) 321.
see also the various specific topics. 89 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Successor corporation held liable for unlawful acts of predecessor.
1. NOTICE OF TRIAL AND PRELIMINARY
PROCEEDINGS. Williamson Candy Co. v. Ucanco Candy Co., 3 F.(20) 156.
Om2 (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Court may set aside m93(2) (U.S.D.C.Del.) Trade-marks for order consolidating causes.-Boston Acme other confectioneries are pertinent in consid- Mines Corporation v. Salina Canyon Coal Co., ering trade-marks for candies.-Williamson 3 F.(20) 729. Candy Co. v. Ucanco Candy Co., 3 F.(20) 156.
IV. RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. Fram 93(3) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Unfair competition held not established.--Autoline Oil Co. v. Indian (B) Order of Proof, Rebuttal, and ReRefining Co., 3 F.(20) 457.
opening Case. w98 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Profits may be recov- w 59 (2) (App.D.C.) Order of introducing erable for unfair competition.-S. S. Kresge Co. witnesses discretionary with court.-Lemon v. v. Champion Spark Plug Co. 3 F.(20) 415. Martin, 3 F.(20) 710.
(C) Objections, Motions to Strike out, and erty for another holds it in trust until repaid Exceptions.
advance.---Stark V. Bauer Cooperage Co., 3 76 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Responsive answer F.(20) 214. admissible where question is not objected to.-IV
'. V. EXECUTION OF TRUST BY TRUSTEE Penix v. Sloan, 3 F.(20) 258.
OR BY COURT. VI. TAKING CASE OR QUESTION FROM Om 274(4) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Trustee, purchasing JURY.
bonds at premium for life tenant and remain(A) Questions of Law or of Fact in Gen
derman, must amortize premiums to keep cap. eral.
ital intact.--New York Life Ins. Co. y. Ed. 141 (App.D.C.) Direction of verdict for
wards, 3 F.(20) 280. plaintiffs not error, where sustained by undis VI. ACCOUNTING AND COMPENSATION OF puted evidence.-Selden v. Lee, 3 F.(2d) 335.
TRUSTEE Om 143 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Refusal to direct
am 315(1) (App.D.C.) Arrangement held not verdict was proper, where evidence on material
an express trust, within statute providing for issues was sharply conflicting.-Fidelity & Cas
a lien for compensation for “trustees of exualty Co. of New York v. Glenn, 3 F.(20)
press trust."-Briesen v. A Certain Fund, 3 913.
F.(20) 509. (D) Direction of Verdict.
VII. ESTABLISHMENT AND ENFORCEOm 177 (App.D.C.) Both parties, by moving
MENT OF TRUST. for directed verdict without request for further instructions, submitted facts of case to trial
(B) Right to Follow Trust Property or
Proceeds Thereof. judge for decision.--Lemon v. Martin, 3 F.(20) 710.
m353 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Rule as to tracing misVII. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.
applied funds stated.-Nyssa-Arcadia Drain
age Dist. v. First Nat. Bank, 3 F.(20) 648. (D) Applicability to Pleadings and Evidence.
UNFAIR COMPETITION, Ow251 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Instruction held
See Trade-Marks and Trade-Names and Un
s properly refused as not applicable to the is- o sues.-Hercules Powder Co. v. Rich, 3 F.(20)
- fair Competition, 53–100. 12.
UNITED STATES. am 252(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Instruction given must be applicable to facts disclosed by See Army and Navy; Treaties; United States evidence.-Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. Commissioners. v. Cognet, 3 F.(20) 21. Cm 252(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Instruction
1. GOVERNMENT AND OFFICERS. that domicile of wife was that of husband held mw40 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Settlement of claims inapplicable.--Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power by commissioners, under power_delegated by Co. v. Cognet, 3 F.(20) 21.
Shipping Board, is final.-In re Triangle S. S.
Co., 3 F.(20) 894. (E) Requests or Prayers.
Shipping Board may delegate to counsel the On 255(15) (App.D.C.) Failure to instruct as duty of concluding formal contract on terms to interest of witness not error, in absence of agreed on. Id. prayer and exception to charge as given.
e 5212 [New, vol. 19A Key-No. Series) Economon v. Barry-Pate Motor Co., 3 F.(20)
(U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Assignment of claim 84.
against United States Shipping Board EmerOm 260(I) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Instructions as gency Fleet Corporation not forbidden.—Provto matters fully covered by instructions given idence Engineering Corporation v. Downey held properly refused.-Fidelity & Casualty Co. Shipbuilding Corporation, 3 F.(20) 154. of New Work v. Glenn, 3 F.(20) 913.
II. PROPERTY, CONTRACTS, AND LIABIL260 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Instructions held
ITIES. properly refused, as covered by the charge give en.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Berekheimer, 3 F.
70(I) (U.S.D.C.S.C.) Provision that month(20) 269.
ly statements and payments under cost plus
contract should be conclusive 'helá not modi(G) Construction and Operation.
fied by other provisions.-U. S. v. Hardaway
Contracting Co., 3 F.(20) 163. em 296(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Instructions as m73 (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Contractor for post to construction of statute held correct, in view office building held not relieved from liability of other instructions.--Clinton Mills Co. v. for nonperformance by war activities of the Saco-Lowell Shops, 3 F.(20) 410.
government.-Maxwell v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 906. Om 296(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Instruction
Government acts which would not relieve as to wife's intention to return to former dom contractor with private party from liability icile held not misleading, in view of other in for breach of contract will not relieve governstruction.-Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. ment contractor.-Id. V. Cognet. 3 F. (20) 21.
Termination of building contract by governOm 296 (3) (App.D.C.) Instruction pedestrian ment held justified.-Id. injured by automobile collision could not re m76 (U.Š.D.C.Idaho) Right of surety's pref. cover, if jury could not determine whether neg.
erence as for debt due United States wholly de. ligence of defendant or negligence of third per pendent on statute.-United States Fidelity & son caused injuries, held not erroneous, in view Gun of other instructions.-Economon V. Barry
Guaranty Co. v. Porter, 3 F.(20) 57. Pate Motor Co., 3 F.(20) 84.
Om 125 (U.S.D. C. N.J.) Government-owned TRUSTS.
steamship, bound for certain port for reconSee Monopolies, Om 17.
ditioning under government's contract, held
not engaged in merchant service, and immune 1. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND VA
from suit for collision.--The Augusta G. Hil. LIDITY.
ton, 3 F.(20) 808.
Om 137 (U.S.C.C.A.T.I.) Special appearance of (A) Express Trusts.
district attorney as amicus curiæ held not to Om41 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) In absence of contra- bind the United States.-Reinecke v. Peacock, ry evidence, inferred that person buying prop- 3 F.(20) 583.