421

8 229........

623

LAWS.

PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES SUPPLE-
1907, ch. 582, 88 1, 8, 12...

558

MENT 1924.
1908, ch. 237, pt. 1, § 4.
410 8 14631al et seq.......

333
NEW HAMPSHIRE.

LAWS.
1913, p. 679, 8 13..

798
LAWS.
1919, p. 678

798
1909, ch. 155, § 5..
421 1923, p. 802

333
1911, ch. 192
1913, ch. 119

421
1915, ch. 48, 88 1, 2.

421

PORTO RICO.
1921, ch. 33, § 1..

421

CIVIL CODE.
1921, ch. 77

421
$$ 62, 159, 161..

21
NEW YORK.
$$ 192, 194.

241
783.

302
CIVIL PRACTICE ACT.
1327..

21
(Laws 1920, ch. 925.)

822

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
41.

241
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

61.

358
$ 3320..........

509

POLITICAL CODE.
CONSOLIDATED LAWS.
§ 397....

876
Ch. 33, § 235

232

LAWS.
Ch. 38, § 91

236, 534 1911 (March 9, Railroad Law) $ 12...... 876
Ch. 38, § 95

236
Ch. 38, § 96

534
Ch. 40, $ 956. Amended by Laws 1913,

TENNESSEE.
ch. 500.

621

SHANNON'S CODE.
Ch. 41, 88 96, 152.

567
Ch. 59, $15(a-c)

572 $$_3871a7-3871a170.......
Ch, 60, § 220...

361 $ 5813.......
LAWS.

LAWS.
1913, ch. 500
621 1907, ch. 602, § 77....

857
1920, ch. 925. See Civil Practice Act.

1909, ch. 185
1923, ch. 77

857
NORTH CAROLINA.
CONSTITUTION.

TEXAS.
Art. 10, $ 7.....

440

CONSTITUTION.
Art. 3, § 52.....

.. 160
CONSOLIDATED STATUTES.
$ 6464.....

440

REVISED STATUTES 1911.
Art. 1906...

872
LAWS.
1899, ch. 733

970 VERNON'S SAYLES' ANNOTATED CIVIL
1899, ch. 733, § 124..

970

STATUTES 1914.
Art. 3700...

239
OHIO.

Arts. 7504, 7702.
GENERAL CODE.
Art. 7749..

258
$ 61432.

701
§ 5517..

669

UTAH.
LAWS.

COMPILED LAWS 1917.
1915, p. 425....

669 $ 1144. Amended by Laws 1921, ch. 29,
$ 1....

978
OKLAHOMA.
§ 1171..

978
7247..

729
COMPILED STATUTES 1921.
$ 6727...

661

LAWS.
887255, 7257.
666 1921, ch. 29, § 1...

978

$ 5187.....

OREGON.

VIRGINIA.
OLSON'S OREGON LAWS.

CODE 1919.
380..

848
2991.
274

.52, 918
6719. Amended by Laws 1921, p. 653.. 274 $ 5194..

918
88 6785-6787, 6790.....

516

ror cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes seo same topic and KEY-NUMBER
STIPULATIONS.

IV. PLACE OF TAXATION.
18(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Question of unfair 275 (U.S.D.C.La.) Foreign corporations
competition held eliminated from case by stip- having domicile in Louisiana are subject to lo-
ulation.--Coty, Inc., v. Prestonettes, Inc., 3 . cal taxation.-Simms Oil Co. v. Wolfe, 3 F.
(2d) 984.

(20) 36.
STREET RAILROADS.

v. LEVY AND ASSESSMENT.
1. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND

(C) Mode of Assessment in General.
MAINTENANCE.

em338 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Method of assessing
Om 28(2) (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Ordinances held to lessor's interest in oil in place held not arbitrary
grant easements in perpetuity.-Westinghouse nor unfair.-W. T. Waggoner Estate y. Wichita
Electric & Mfg. Co. y. Denver Tramway Co., County, 3 F.(20) 962.
3 F (20) 285.

Perpetual easements grant not cut down by (E) Assessment Rolls or Books.
subsequent ordinances expressly reserving 41| (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Assessment roll must
rights of both city and railway under prior or

show valuation, assessment, and tax clearly
dinances.-Id.

and unmistakably.-Hunter Glover Co. v. Har-
58 (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Receiver not permitted

ed vey Steel Products Corporation, 3 F.(20) 634.
to renounce ordinance creating binding obliga.

M428 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Dollar mark on as-
tion.-Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. sessment roll should clearly indicate to what
Denver Tramway Co., 3 F.(20) 285.

figures it applies.-Hunter Glover Co. v. Har-
II. REGULATION AND OPERATION.. vey Steel Products Corporation, 3 F.(20) 634.

Om438 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Transfer of property
98(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Pedestrian

from personal to real property tax roll held
may rely on car being run at customary speed.

not prejudicial to owner.-W. T. Waggoner Es-
-Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet,

tate v. Wichita County, 3 F.(20) 962.
3 F.(20) 21.
Om 113(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Evidence as
to distance within which car could be stopped (G) Review, Correction, or Setting Aside

of Assessment.
admissible on question of speed.-Porto Rico
Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, 3 F.(20) 21. mm 480 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) On review by state

Motorman's competency could be considered tax commission of its own decision. all mem-
in determining issue of negligence in operating bers must take part.-Air-Way Electric Appli-
car.-Id.

ance Corporation v. Archer, 3 F.(20) 669.
Om 114(14) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Evidence 490 (U.S.D.C.Ohio.) State tax commission
held to warrant inference pedestrian knew usual held to have power to correct erroneous as-
speed of cars.-Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power sessment against corporation.-Air-Way Elec-
Co. v. Cognet, 3 F.(20)_21.

tric Appliance Corporation v. Archer, 3 F.(20)
m 1 17(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Motorman's 669.
negligence held for jury.-Porto Rico Ry., Light
& Power Co. v. Cognet, 3 F.(20) 21.

VIII. COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
117(21) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Instruction

AGAINST PERSONS OR PERSONAL
that there was no evidence pedestrian knew of

PROPERTY,
customary speed, or whether gong was sounded,
held properly refused.-Porto Rico Ry., Light

(C) Remedies for Wrongful Enforcement.
& Power Co. v Cognet, 3 F.(20) 21.

em 608(5) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Relief may be
Pedestrian's freedom from negligence held for granted against excessive tax, though the re-
jury.-Id.

sult of mistake or inadvertence.-Air-Way
SUBROGATION.

Electric Appliance Corporation V. Archer, 3

F.(20) 669.
31(4) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Court cannot direct
assignment of libelant's rights on payment of

TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.
decree by claimant only secondarily liable.-
The Sagamore, 3 F.(20) 689.

II. REGULATION AND OPERATION.

33(1) (U.S.D.C.Md.). Method of determin-
SURETYSHIP.

ing rate base value.-Chesapeake & Potomac
See Principal and Surety.

Telephone Co. of Baltimore City v. Whitman, 3

F.(20) 938.
SURVIVAL.

Evidence held to show value of property for

rate purposes.-Id.
See Abatement and Revival, m49.

Evidence held to show depreciation of prop-

erty.-Id.
TARIFF.

Depreciation deductible from reproduction

cost for rate purposes.-Id.
See Customs Duties.

Stipulation held evidence of actual deprecia-

tion.-Id.
TAXATION.

Return of 6 per cent. held not confiscatory.
See Customs Duties; Highways, 121; In Dealings between subsidiary and controlling
ternal Revenue.

corporation closely scrutinized.-Id.
1. NATURE AND EXTENT OF POWER IN

License contract between subsidiary and con-
GENERAL.

trolling corporation held valid.-Id.

Agreement for division of tolls between sub-
Cas 22 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Benefit is presumed sidiary and controlling corporation held valid.
from a general tax for public purpose.-Brown -Id.
ing v. Hooper, 3 F.(20) 160.

33(1) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Court will not re-
III. LIABILITY OF PERSONS AND PROP-

view valuation of telephone company's prop-

erty by Public Utilities Commission in fixing
ERTY,

rates.-Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Util-
(A) Private Persons and Property in Gen.

ities Commission of Ohio, 3 F.(20) 701.
eral.

Temporary injunction granted, where court
Cm63 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Oil in place is taxable cannot determine from affidavits whether rates
as "real property."'-W. T. Waggoner Estate v. fixed by Public Utilities Commission are con-
Wichita County, 3 F.(20) 962.

91

-Id.

TENANCY IN COMMON.

representations.-General Baking Co. v. Gor-
II. MUTUAL RIGHTS. DUTIES, AND LIA man, 3F.(20) 891.

BILITIES OF COTENANTS.
14 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Possession by grantee

II. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON-

TRACTS.
of entire tract of land from one cotenant, claim-
ing adversely, is not possession of other co-

31 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Trade-mark protects
tenants.-Commodores Point Terminal Co. v.

only against deception.--Coty, Inc., v. Preston-
Hudnall, 3 F.(20) 841.

ettes, Inc., 3 F.(20) 984.

31 (U.S.C.C.A.B.I.) Use of trade-mark for
TORTS.

one kind of bread held to give no right in its

use for a different kind.-General Baking Co.
See Collision; Fraud, 3-49; Libel and

v. Gorman, 3 F.(20) 891.
Slander, 21–77; Malicious Prosecution, em 32 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Right to exclusive
16-11; Negligence, ml-136.

use of trade-name held 'lost by permitting its
TOWAGE.

use by others.-Everett 0. Fisk & Co. v. Fisk

Teachers' Agency, 3 F.(20) 7.
e ll(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Tug not insurer of Com 32 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Trade-mark is aban-
safety of tow.-The Ashwaubemie, 3 F.(2d) doned by its use as a grade mark.-Autoline
782.

Oil Co. v. Indian Refining Co., 3 F.(20) 457.
e ll(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Tugmaster held 33 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Trade-name cannot
not negligent in taking what was considered be assigned, except as incident to sale of busi-
by navigators the preferable and safer of two ness.-Everett 0. Fisk & Co., V. Fisk Teach-
channels.-Blanchard Lumber Co. v. Metcalf, ers’ Agency, 3 F.(2d) 7.
3 F.(2d) 768.

moll(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Tug not insurer of III. REGISTRATION, REGULATION, AND
safety of tow, nor responsible for errors of

OFFENSES.
master, if competent seaman exercising due w 43 (App.D.C.) Trade-mark "Eta," for bis-
care.--The Ashwaubemie, 3 F.(22) 782.

cuits and crackers held not subject to registra-
Omo Il (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Towing company tion, because too similar to trade-mark
held liable for damages to tow because of im- “Uneeda.”-National Biscuit Co. v. J. B. Carr
proper operation of tugs.-The Ashwaubemie, 'Biscuit Co., 3 F.(20) 87.
3 F.(20) 782.

43 (App.D.C.) Publisher of magazine sup-
Om 1(7) (U. S. D. C. Pa.) Navigation through diving moving picture film producer with ners
drawbridge, injuring tow, held negligent.--The items for exhibition under heading “Topics of
Brimstone, 3 F.(20) 1011.

the Day" held not entitled to registration of
Om 12(2) '(U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Master of schoon-

such heading as trade-mark.-Funk & Wag.
er and of towing tug both held in fault for nalls Co. v. Timely Films, 3 F.(20) 93.
stranding of schooner.-Blanchard Lumber Co. Om 43 (App.D.C.) Word "Tech" subject to
v. Metcalf, 3 F.(20) 768.

registration as trade-mark for tobacco, not-
On 15(2) '(U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Mere fact that tow

withstanding opposition of manufacturer of
is injured does not render tug liable, in ab soft drinks.Pittsburgh Brewing Co. v. Ruben,
sence of affirmative showing of negligence. 3 F.(20) 342.
The Ashwaubemie, 3 F.(20) 782.

Trade-mark "Tech," printed in white script
Those seeking to establish tug's liability for

letters across plaid background, held in compli-
injury to tow must prove negligence.-Id. ance with statute prohibiting use of name not

Interest and costs of survey of damaged vese written, printed, impressed or woven in partic-
sel held recoverable in libel against tugs for ular or distinctive manner.-Id.
damage to tow.-Id.

w 45 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Registration of trade-
em 19 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Tug, contracting to mark does not affect right to its use in pure-
take full charge of navigation of scow, held re ly local business.-General Baking Co. v. Gor-
sponsible for maintaining proper lights there man, 3 F.(20) 891.
on.-The Lizzie M. Walker, 3 F.(20) 921. Omw 45 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Registration raises strong

presumption of validity.--Autoline Oil Co. v.
TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES

Indian Refining Co., 3 F.(20) 457.
AND UNFAIR COMPETITION.

Om 45 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Right conferred by use

and registration of "Gold Medal” as trade-
1. MARKS AND NAMES SUBJECTS OF mark is limited to registered product.-France
OWNERSHIP

Milling Co. v. Washburn-Crosby Co., 3 F.(20)
2 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Trade-Mark Act does 321.
not discriminate between products.-Coty, Inc.,
v. Prestonettes, Inc., 3 F.(20) 984.

IV. INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPE-
Cw3(4) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) "Mirrolike," as ap-

TITION.
plied to polish, held too descriptive to be valid

(A) What Constitutes Infringement.
trade-mark.-Mirrolike Mfg. Co. v. Devoe &
Raynolds Co., 3 F.(20) 846.

53 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Trade-mark protects
3(4) (App.D.C.) Headings in magazine held only against deception.-Coty, Inc., y. Pres-
not trade-marks.-Funk & Wagnalls Co. v. tonettes, Inc., 3 F.(20) 984.
Timely Films, 3 F.(20) 93.

53 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Cases of infringement
Om3(5) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Mark denoting grade and unfair competition are affected with a pub-
or quality not valid trade-mark.-Autoline Oil lic interest.--General Baking Co. v. Gorman,
Co. v. Indian Refining Co., 3 F.(20) 457.

3 F.(20) 891.
en 6 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Letters may constitute C 55 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Wrongful intent not es-
valid trade-mark.- Autoline Oil Co. v. Indian sential to infringement of registered trade-
Refining Co., 3 F.(2d) 457.

mark.--Autoline Oil Co. v. Indian Refining Co.,
A trade-mark held invalid as indicating grade 3 F.(20) 457.
or quality and not origin.-Id.

Cum 59 (Ú (U.S.D.C.Del.) "Oh Henry" held
21 (App.D.C.) Word "President" held not not to entitle owner against use of all other
subject to registration as trade-mark for men's Christian names.-Williamson Candy Co. v.
underwear and shirts, in view of opposer's Ucanco Candy Co., 3 F.(20) 156.
prior use as trade-mark for suspenders. Om 59(1) (App.D.C.) Use of word "Tech,"
Oppenheim, Oberndorf & Co., v. President Sus printed in white script letters across plaid .
pender Co., 3 F.(20) 88.

background, not appropriation of name of
Om 22 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Complainant is entitled "Tech Food Products Company."-Pittsburgh
to no protection in a trade grounded on mis. Brewing Co. v. Ruben, 3 F.(20) 342.

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.

V. ACTIONS.

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.