« 이전계속 »
Wills For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER em 147 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Actual costs of liti
VERDICT. gation may be charged by court of bankruptcy See Criminal Law, Ow877–888. against claim recoverable by United States. In re Triangle S. S. Co., 3 F.(20) 894.
WAR. UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS. On 12 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Evidence held to show m4 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Commissioner exercises New York corporation bona fide, entitling
German corporation's transfer of stock in quasi judicial functions and powers specially transferee to possession from Alien Property conferred.-U. S. v. Elliott, 3 F.(20) 496.
Custodian.-Metz v. Garvin, 3 F.(20) 182.
em 12 (App.D.C.) Attorneys to whom owner USE AND OCCUPATION.
had transferred corporate stock held entitled m4 (App.D.C.) Purchasers could recover for to lien for compensation as against Alien Propuse and occupation against vendor's tenant, erty Custodian.-Briesen v. Å Certain Fund, 3 holding over after expiration of term.-Selden F.(20) 509. v. Lee, 3 F.(20) 335.
Om 15(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Purchaser of re
ceipt held a holder thereof.-Lynn Storage I. USURIOUS CONTRACTS AND TRANSAC- Warehouse Co. v. Senator, 3 F.(20) 558. TIONS.
ww17 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Liability under Mas(A) Nature and Validity.
sachusetts Warehouse Act for delivery without 06 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Purpose of usury law production of receipt.-Lynn Storage Ware
house Co. v. Senator, 3 F.(20) 558. to protect necessitous debtor against extortion. -Stark v. Bauer Cooperage Co., 3 F.(20) 214.
31 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Facts not conclusive WATERS AND WATER COURSES. as to whether transaction loan or sale stated. -Stark v. Bauer Cooperage Co., 3 F.(20) 214. See Drains; Navigable Waters.
Absolute character of existing debt important as tending to show transaction in which IV. NATURAL LAKES AND PONDS. recent indebted owner becomes executory pur- em lll (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Existence of lake chaser is mortgage.--Id.
and substantial accuracy of meander line held Capitalist's purchase and carrying of prop- established by evidence.-U. S. v. Rhodes, 3 erty for speculator to be purchased by latter F.(20) 771. at advance held sale and not loan.--Id.
Riparian rights attach to lands granted bor(B) Rights and Remedies of Parties. dering on meandered lake.-Id. em 13 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Burden on person
WILLS. asserting it to prove contract clearly purporting to be sale of realty is mortgage.-Stark v. See Descent and Distribution; Executors and Bauer Cooperage Co., 3 F.(20) 214.
Administrators. OmI17 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Evidence held not to show sale of realty subterfuge for usurious
I. NATURE AND EXTENT OF TESTAMENloan.-Stark v. Bauer Cooperage Co., 3 F.(20)
TARY POWER, 214.
emo? (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Heir at law is not VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
seized of property, title to which is vested in See Sales.
trustee.-Shirk v. Lee, 3 F.(20) 256.
Will of heir at law held to convey no interest
in estate held in trust.-Id. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACT.
IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. Cw3(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) That paper in language of option signed by optionee held not to
(C) Execution. make it bilateral contract.-Stark v. Bauer On 108 (App.D.C.) Void where statutory reCooperage Co., 3 F.(20) 214. w37(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Wyo.) Purchaser
quirements have not been complied with.-Asnot entitled to rely on statement of value.- iment v. Larner, 3 F.(20) 201.
sociation of Survivors of Seventh Georgia RegByers v. Federal Land Co., 3 F.(2d) 9.
37(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Wyo.) Misrepresentation of ownership by vendor held immaterial.-Byers
VI. CONSTRUCTION. v. Federal Land Co., 3 F.(20) 9.
(A) General Rules. Purchaser held entitled to rescind for failure
w 488 (App.D.C.) Construed of seller to give possession.-Id.
terms, without aid from extrinsic evidence, unIV. PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
less terms are ambiguous.--Association of Sur
vivors of Seventh Georgia Regiment v. Larner, (A) Title and Estate of Vendor.
3 F.(20) 201. mw 129(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Contract held sub- 489(1) (App.D.C.) Rule as to admissibilject to state
legislation reserving right of pub- ity, of extrinsic evidence in construction of lic fishing.-Ward y. Pearsall, 3 F.(20) 365.
will stated.-Association of Survivors of Sey
enth Georgia Regiment v. Larner, 3 F.(20) 201. (D) Payment of Purchase Money.
489(2) (App.D.C.) Bequest held to associOm 172 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Vendor held entitled evidence to show otherwise held inadmissible.
ation popularly known by name given and parol to interest only from tender of abstract_showing good title.-Ward v. Pearsall, 3 F.(20) Regiment v. Larner, 3 F.(20) 201.
--Association of Survivors of Seventh Georgia 365.
V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
(B) Designation of Devisees, and LegaPARTIES.
tees and Their Respective Shares. (C) Bona Fide Purchasers.
Om514 (App.D.C.) Bequest held to associa244 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Evidence held to show tion popularly known by name given.--Associadefendants were not innocent purchasers. tion of Survivors of Seventh Georgia RegiSmith v. Brown, 3 F.(20) 926.
ment v. Larner, 3 F.(20) 201.
(G) Conditions and Restrictions. IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT, CON
TRADICTION, AND CORROBORATION. en 661 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Bequest held to have become ineffectual for popperformance
(A) In General. of conditions.-Suarez v. Suarez, 3 F.(2d) 362. ~323 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Government can
cross-examine its own witness as to statement (H) Estates in Trust and Powers. conflicting with earlier affidavit.-Beavers 5. Om674 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Will held not to create
U. S., 3 F.(20) 860. spendthrift trust.-In re Dudley's Estate, 3 m 325 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Plaintiff held not preF.(20) 832.
cluded from impeaching defendant's witness
on theory that by cross-examination she made WITNESSES.
witness her own witness.-Standard Oil Co. of
New Jersey v. De Vries, 3 F.(20) 852. See Evidence.
Om 330(1) (App.D.C.) Answer to question on
cross-examination of seller, from whom army I. ATTENDANCE, PRODUCTION OF DOCU- officer was alleged to have accepted bribe, as MENTS, AND COMPENSATION.
to whether representative was in Washington On 29 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Entitled under rule of on certain date, held properly excluded.-Ritzcourt to mileage for distance traveled within man v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 118. district.-Sutton v. Pacific S. S. Co., 3 F.(20)
Cross-examination of witness, who had tes75.
tified that he had been directed to prepare Witness, voluntarily appearing entitled to requisition, as to authority to make requisition mileage.-Id.
(B) Character and Conduct of Witness. II. COMPETENCY.
Cum 345(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Witness may be (A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen- asked on cross-examination whether he has eral.
been convicted of felony.-Williams v. U. S., 052(7), (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Wife of one con- 3 F.(20) 129. spirator incompetent witness.-Israel v. U. S., Cw3.1 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Testimony as to 3 F.(20) 743.
good character should be directed to reputaOm61 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Wife, who is com- tion.-Ford v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 104. petent on trial of defendant, is competent in Character of a witness does not become an removal proceedings.-Parker v. U. S., 3 F.(2d) issue unless it is attacked.-Id. 903.
Testimony of character witnesses held inad
missible.--Id. (C) Testimony of Parties or Persons Interested, for or against Representa
(C) Interest and Bias of Witness. tives, Sarvivors, or Successors in Title or Interest of Persons Deceased or Om 372(2) (App.D.C.). Cross-examination as Incompetent.
to whether witness had agreement to testify Cwm 178(1) (App.D.C.) Defendant's testimony held proper:-Economon v. Barry-Pate Motor
for plaintiff, if plaintiff would not sue witness, as to transaction with intestate not incompetent, where she was called as witness by ad. Co., 3 F.(20) 84. ministrator.-Lemon v. Martin, 3 F.(20) 710. Cam 178(3) (App.D.C.) Cross-examination of (D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. defendant, called as witness of plaintiff admin- C388(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Prior statement istrator as to circumstances and conversations intended to impeach witness should be produced with intestate at time of transaction, held on his cross-examination.–Baltimore & O. R. proper.-Lemon v. Martin, 3 F.(20) 710. Co. v. Darling, 3 F.(20) 987.
Oma 392(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Government's (D) Confidential Relations and Privileged failure to introduce affidavit of its witness in Communications.
direct conflict with his testimony held not er. em 199(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Communications ror.-Beavers v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 860. to attorney expected to be employed, and statements made under erroneous belief rela
WORDS AND PHRASES. tion exists privileged. --Smale v. U. S., 3 F.(20) “Actual.”—Pascagoula Nat. Bank v. Federal 101.
Reserve Bank of Atlanta (U. S. D. C. Ga.) Voluntary communication to codefendant's attorney not privileged, in absence of joint "Agency." --s. B. McMaster, Inc., v. Chevrolet
3 F.(20) 465. defense.-Id.
Motor Co. (U. S. D. C. S. C.) 3 F.(20) 469. m223 (U.S.C.C.A.Ill.) Doubt whether state
“Affreightment contract."-Sacramento Nar. ment privileged should be determined prelim
Co. v. Salz (U. S. C. C. A. Cal.) 3 F.(20) inary to its admission in evidence.-Smale v.
759. U. S., 3 F.(20) 101.
"Arising under laws of United States."--State
of Alabama v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n (U. III. EXAMINATION,
S. D. C. Ala.) 3 F.(20) 697. (A) Taking Testimony in General. “Attached to the principles of the ConstituOn 255(9), (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Permitting wit
tion.”-In re Nagy (U. S. D. C. Tex.) 3 ness to refresh memory by reading stenograph- “Bad faith." -Gerseta Corporation v. Wessex
F.(20) 77. ic report of testimony given in another proceeding held not error.-Walker v. Wilkinson,
Campbell Silk Co. (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 867.
3 F.(20) 236. Cm 259 (App.D.C.) Submission of stenographic "Capital gain." -New York Life Ins. Co. v. Edreport of conversation to stenographer, in or
wards (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 280. der that she might correct her testimony as
"Carrying on or doing business."--Internationto date on which conversation occurred, held
al Salt Co. v. Phillups (U. S. D. C. Pa.) not error.-Ritzman v. U. S., 3 F.(20) 718.
3 F.(20) 678. “Caveat emptor,"-Cudahy Packing Co.
Narzisenfeld (u. S. C. c. A. N. y.) 3 F. (C) Privilege of Witness.
(2d) 567. 293/2 (U.S.D.C.III.) Compelling employé "Certiorari."—U. S. v. Elliott (U. S. D. C. to testify in controversy before Labor Board Wash.) 3 F.(20) 496. not violation of constitutional rights.-Railroad "Citizen."-Soo Hoo Yee v. U. S. (U. S. C. Labor Board v. Robertson, 3 F.(20) 488.
C. A, Vt.) 3 F.(20) 592.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER “Condonation.”-Marshall v. Marshall (App. D. “Necessary."-In re Burton S. S. Co. (U. S. C.) 3 F.(20) 344.
D. C. Mass.) 3 F.(20) 1015. “Creditor."-Koch v. Sidney Blumenthal & Co. “Negligence,"-Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
(U. S. C. C. A. Mass.) 3 F.(20) 395; Page v. De Vries (U. S. C. C. A. N. J.) 3 F.(20) v. United Fruit Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Mass.) 852. 3 F.(20) 747.
"Net."--Pascagoula Nat. Bank v. Federal Re“Credits.”—Theobald v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. A. serve Bank of Atlanta (U. S. D. C. Ga.) 3 Okl.) 3 F.(2d) 601.
F.(20) 465. “Dealing in futures on margins."-Fenner v. "Offense against the United States.”—Parker
Boykin (U. S. D. C. Ga.) 3 F.(20) 674. v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. A. Cal.) 3 F.(20) 903. "Debt."-Franklin Trust Co. v. City of Love “Operator, train dispatcher, or other
land, Colorado (U. S. C. C. A. Colo.) 3 F. ployee."-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (20) 114; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. A. Ill.) 3 F.(20) 138.
Porter (Ú. S. D. C. Idaho) 3 F.(20) 57. "Order."-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry Co. v. U., "Debtor.”—Page v. United Fruit Co. (U. S. C. S. (U. S. C. C. A. III.) 3 F.(20) 138. C. A. Mass.) 3 F.(20) 747.
"Petition."-In re L. M. Axle Co. (U. S. C. “Defined district."-Browning v. Hooper (U. C. A. Ohio) 3 F.(20) 581. S. D. C. Tex.) 3 F.(20) 160.
"Principal office."-Stewart v. Pacific Steam "Deposit.”-Pascagoula Nat. Bank v. Federal Nav. Co. (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 329.
Reserve Bank of Atlanta (U. S. D. C. Ga.) “Principle of the Constitution."-In re Ruio 3 F.(2d) 465.
(U. S. D. C. Tex.) 3 F.(20) 78. "Doing business."-S. B. McMaster, Inc., v. "Public agency."--The Lisbon (U. S. C. C. A.
Chevrolet Motor Co. (U. S. D. C. S. C.) 3 Cal.) 3 F.(20) 408.
"Public policy.”—Fidelity & Deposit Co. of “Due hearing."-In re Harry L. Sugarman, Maryland v. Moore (U. S. D. C. Or.) 3 F.
Inc. (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 436. (20) 652. “Due process.”-Dukich v. Blair (U. Š. D. C. “Public use."-A. Schrader's Son v. Wein Sales Wash.) 3 F.(20) 302.
Corporation (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) “Due process of law."-General Const. Co. v. 999,
Connally (U. S. D. C. Okl.) 3 F.(20) 666. "Ready-made clothing."-Rosenberg Bros. & “Dwelling."-U. S. v. Tod (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) Co. v. Elliott (U. S. D. C. Pa.) 3 F.(20) 3 F.(20) 836.
682. "Erections and improvements."-American "Real property.”-W. T. Waggoner Estate v.
Tank Company v. Continental & Commer- Wichita County (U. S. C. C. A. Tex.) 3 F. cial Trust & Savings Bank (U. S. C. C. A.
(20) 962. Ark.) 3 F.(20) 122.
"Resides."— The Underwriter (U. S. D. C. N. “Final decree."-Duncan v. Johnston & Co. (U. “Revenue act_Wolkin v. Gibney (U. S. D. O.
20) 483. S. C. C. A. Ky.) 3 F.(20) 422. “Fraud" -Fosgate v. Nocatee Fruit Co. (U. “Revenue officers." - Wolkin v. Gibney (U. S.
N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 960. S. D. C. Fla.) 3 F.(20) 606. “Good faith.”—Gerseta Corporation v. Wessex.
D. C. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 960. Campbell Silk Co. (U, S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 3 “Sale by sample."-Cudahy Packing Co. v. "Income.” _New York Life Ins. Co Ed- “Sale, transfer, or assignment."-U. S. F.(28) 236.
Narzisenfeld (U. S. O. C. A. N. Y.) 3 F.
(20) 567. wards (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 280. "Income return."—U. S. v. Dickey (U. S. D.
Lankford (U. S. D. C. Va.) 3 F.(20) 52. C. Mo.) 3 F.(20) 190.
"Seaman.”—Gonzales v. U. S. Shipping Board, "Infringement.”—Casey v. Bennett (U. S. D. Emergency Fleet Corporation (U. Š. D. C. C. Cal.) 3 F.(20) 640.
N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 168. "Insular roads." -- American R. Co. of Porto “Stay proceedings in state court.”-Fenner v. Rico v. Lopez (U. S. C. C. A. Porto Rico) "Tackle, apparel, and furniture."
Boykin (U. S. D. C. Ga.) 3 F.(20) 674. 3 F.(20) 876. "Interstate commerce."-St. Louis-San Fran
(U. S. C. C. A, Mass.) 3 F.(20) 1. cisco Ry. Co. v. Mills (U. S. C. C. A. Ala.) “Temporary absence.”—MacKusick v. Johnson 3 H. (20) 882; Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
(U. S. Č. C. A. Mass.) 3 F.(20) 398. Morrison (U. S. C. C. A. Ohio) 3 F.(20)
“Trustees of express trust."-Briesen V. A 986; Baltimore & 0. R. Co.
v. Darling (U. “Undivided profits."-Chesapeake & Potomac
Certain Fund (App. D. C.) 3 F.(20) 509. S. C. C. A. Ohio) 3 F.(20) 987; Grigsby v. Southern Ry. Co. (U. S. Č. C. A. Tenn.) 3
Telephone Co. of Baltimore City v. WhitF.(20) 988; Fenner v. Boykin (U. S. D. C. “Unfair competition." —Autoline Oil Co. y: In
man (U. S. D. C. Md.) 3 F.(20) 938. Ga.) 3 F.(20) 674. "Invention."-Lehman v. Ripley (U. S. O.
dian Refining Co. ,(U. S. D. C. Md.) 3 C. A. Colo.) 3 F.(20) 518.
F.(20) 457. “Land.”—Girard Trust Co. v. McCaughn (U. "Verification.".-S. B. McMaster, Inc., v. ChevS. D. C. Pa.) 3 F.(20) 618.
rolet Motor Co. (U. S. D. C. S. C.) 3 F.(20) "Law of the case."--Luminous Unit Co. v.
469. Freeman-Sweet Co. (U. S. C. C. A. III.) 3
"Vessel.”—Gonzales v. U. S. Shipping Board, F.(20) 577.
Emergency Fleet Corporation (U. S. D. C. “Life insurance company."-Continental Cas
N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 168; The Libby Maine (U. ualty Co. v. Agee (U. S. C. C. A. Utah) 3 “Vested interest."-In re Whiting (U. S. D. C.
S. D. C. Wash.) 3 F.(20) 79. F.(20) 978. “Management of the vessel."-The Newport (U. “Warranty.::~Hercules Powder Co. v. Rich (U.
N. C.) 3 F.(20) 440. S. P. C. Cal.) 3 F.(20) 1017. “Master."-Ex parte Linklater (U. S. D. O.
S. C. C. A. Ark.) 3 F.(2d) 12. Cal.) 3 F.(2d) 691.
WRIT OF ERROR. “Merchant."-Ex parte Wong Jun (U. S. D. C. Wash.) 3 F.(20) 502.
See Appeal and Error. "Narrow channel.”—The Dauntless (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 3 F.(20) 529.
WRITS. "Necessaries.”—The Susquehanna (U. S. D. C. See Certiorari; Garnishment; Habeas Corpus; Mass.) 3 F.(20) 1014.
WEST PUBLISHING CO., PRINTERS, ST, PAUL, MINN,