EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT-Continued.
verdict and special findings. Spokane & I. E. R. R. Co. v.
Campbell....
Omission to plead or prove injury in interstate commerce,
not made basis of assignment of error, held not ground for
reversal; and also so held as to striking out certain special
defenses. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. Wagner....
Amendment of complaint so as to distinctly bring it under
Act held not to amount to statement of new cause of action,
and that it related back to commencement of suit. Sea-
board Air Line v. Renn....
In action by representative of employee against interstate.
carrier, in absence of showing bringing injury within
Federal act, question whether declaration permits recovery
at common law is a state and not a Federal one. Osborne v.
Gray..
Interstate carrier, defendant in action for death of employee,
failing to inform court as to actual movement of its trains
and whether they were interstate, cannot complain of dep-
rivation of Federal right because court does not take
judicial notice of facts.bearing thereon. Id.
Where, in action under Act, state trial and appellate courts
have in effect held that conditions of assumption of risk were
satisfied, this court, in absence of palpable error, simply an-
nounces concurrence. Baugham v. N. Y., P. & N. R. R. 237
See Master and Servant.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. See Constitutional
Law, VI.
EQUITABLE LIENS. See Liens.
As one not in possession may not maintain action to quiet
title and, as in Oklahoma, one may not maintain ejectment
as lessee under oil or gas mining lease, equity has jurisdic-
tion of suit by such lessee to restrain claimants under an-
other lease from interfering with property. Lancaster v.
Kathleen Oil Co..
Even though one not party to action might be estopped by
final decree if and when made, he cannot be brought into
suit by ancillary proceedings before final decree as if already
estopped. Merriam v. Saalfield..
One not estopped from asserting that judge making order
for new trial had jurisdiction to make the same, because in
another proceeding he had moved to quash an indictment
for subornation of perjury, in connection with such new
trial, on ground that judge acted beyond his jurisdiction in
granting motion, because not made within time prescribed
by a rule of court, the indictment being quashed on a differ-
ent ground and one not taken by defendant. Abbott v.
Brown.....
606
Interstate carrier, defendant in action for death of em-
ployee, failing to inform court as to actual movement of its
trains and whether they were interstate, cannot complain of
deprivation of Federal right because court does not take
judicial notice of facts bearing thereon. Osborne v. Gray.... 16
Recitals in bill of lading, signed by both carrier and shipper,
that lawful alternate rates based on valuations were offered,
constitute admissions by shipper and prima facie evidence
of choice, and cast on shipper burden of proof to contradict.
Cincinnati, N. O. & T. Ry. v. Rankin...
Contradictory statements by witness prior to examination
in case have no legal tendency to establish truth of their
subject-matter. Southern Railway v. Gray. .. ..
That after the close of testimony plaintiff suing under both
Employers' Liability Act and Safety Appliance Act with-
drew his claim under latter, held not to amount to with-
drawal of testimony in regard to defective condition of ap-
pliances entitling defendant to directed verdict on ground
of assumption of risk. St. L. & San Fran. R. R. v. Brown 223
Whether methods substituted for grab-irons and hand-
holds offer same, better, or adequate protection to em-
ployees, than those prescribed by Safety Appliance Act, is
not question for expert testimony. Spokane & I. E. R. R.
Co. v.
United States...
Opportunity to be heard not denied by administrative
board accepting ex parte sworn statements if all testimony
is to be subsequently reviewed by the court in proceedings
wherein testimony may be taken. Pacific Live Stock Co. v.
Oregon Water Board.
While state legislature may go far in raising presumptions
and changing burden of proof, there must be rational con-
nection between fact proved and ultimate fact presumed.
McFarland v. American Sugar Co... ..
Admissibility in extradition proceedings of authenticated
copies of depositions, etc. See Bingham v. Bradley. .. .. .. .. 511
In absence of settled local rule of practice requiring counsel
to announce in advance purpose for which evidence tend-
ered, evidence as to contributory negligence in action under
Federal Employers' Liability Act cannot be excluded be-
cause tendered without notice that it is restricted to diminu-
tion of damages. Kansas City Southern Ry. v. Jones. ...... 181
When evidence admissible for one purpose only counsel
need not announce its purpose. Id.
EXPERT TESTIMONY. See Evidence.
A company accepting a C. O. D. shipment of intoxicating
liquor is not justified in refusing to deliver the same be-
cause of an unconstitutional state statute imposing special
licenses on such companies maintaining offices for such
shipments; and held, that such refusal amounted to conver-
sion of the goods. Rosenberger v. Pacific Express Co........
Where commissioner had jurisdiction, offense within treaty,
and he acts upon competent and adequate evidence, his
finding not reversible on habeas corpus. Bingham v.
Bradley....
Illegal arrest by state or municipal authorities does not
affect jurisdiction of United States commissioner. Kelly v.
Griffin...
Fair observance of treaties with Great Britain requires that
accused be surrendered where objections are technical and
evidence furnishes reasonable ground for belief that ac-
cused had committed crime within treaty and law of place
where found. Bingham v. Bradley.
One of objects of § 5271, Rev. Stat., is to obviate necessity
of confronting accused with witnesses against hin; and
neither that section, nor Art. X, treaty of 1842 with Great
Britain, should be so construed as to require demanding
government to send its citizens to country where fugitive
found to institute legal proceedings. Id.
Omission of formal act of release of one held under illegal
arrest by state authorities held to furnish no ground for
release on habeas corpus of one in custody of United States
Marshal under extradition warrant. Kelly v. Griffin....... 6
A complaint charging person demanded with having com-
mitted in Canada perjury, obtaining money under false pre-
tenses and receiving stolen property, states the first two of-
fenses within meaning of treaty with Great Britain both in
Canada where offenses committed and in Illinois where per-
son demanded was arrested; but quære as to latter offense.
Id.
Where complaint properly charges offense included in
treaty and also charges one not included, court will not re-
lease on habeas corpus party demanded, presumption being
that demanding country will respect treaty and try only for
offense on which extradition allowed. Id.
Court will not presume that demanding government will
suffer person surrendered to be tried for any offense other
than that for which surrendered. Bingham v. Bradley. ... 511
Where certiorari granted to review question of law, assump-
tion that lower courts right where they agreed upon con-
struction of facts. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Schmidt...... 245
Where, on appeal from Court of Claims, findings of fact not
sufficiently definite, the court, without expressing any opin-
ion and reserving all questions of law, remands case for more
particular findings on testimony already taken or, in dis-
cretion of court, on further testimony. United States v.
Archer..
A special finding supported by adequate evidence is con-
trolling. Russo-Chinese Bank v. National Bank of Commerce 403
Section 32, Penal Code, prohibits and punishes the false
assuming, with intent to defraud, to be an officer or em-
ployee of the United States; and also the doing in the falsely
assumed character of any overt act to carry out the fraudu-
lent intent, whether it would have been legally authorized
had the assumed capacity existed or not. Lamar v. United
States......
... 103
Indictment held to charge fraudulent intent under § 32,
Penal Code, and to be sufficient under § 1025, Rev. Stat.
Id.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. See Congress; United States. PAGE
Where case necessarily turns on construction of Act of
Congress, which is charter of one of parties, a Federal ques-
tion is presented. Knights of Pythias v. Mims ......
Question of proper construction of bill of lading of interstate
shipment is a Federal one. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish
Milling Co....
Whether, in construing an interstate bill of lading issued
under the Carmack Amendment, due effect is given to the
latter, is a Federal question. Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wall. 87
Interpretation and effect of bill of lading of interstate ship-
ment may present a Federal question even though there is
no affirmative proof that carrier has filed tariff schedules.
Cincinnati, N. O. & T. Ry. v. Rankin.....
Whether state court, in permitting amendment to com-
plaint in action under Employers' Liability Act, disregarded
provision of § 6 of Act limiting time to commence action,
is a Federal question. Seaboard Air Line v. Renn. ...
Ruling as to effect, with respect to supplemental proceeding,
of decree in court of same State holding prior assessment
void for want of notice, does not present Federal ques-
tion.
St. Louis & K. C. Land Co. v. Kansas City........ 419
In action by representative of employee against interstate
carrier, in absence of showing bringing injury within Federal
act, question whether declaration permits recovery at
common law is a state and not a Federal one. Osborne v.
Gray..
FELLOW SERVANTS. See Employers' Liability Act.
"File" means to deliver to office indicated and to send to
such office through the mails. United States v. Lombardo.. 73
FINDINGS OF FACT. See Facts.
FISH AND GAME LAWS. See Game Laws.
Section 2765, Florida Statutes, does not fix scope of author-
ity of agents of insurance companies as between company
and third persons, and does not raise special agents with
limited authority into general ones. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v.
Hilton-Green..
|