See STATES, 1;
TRADE-MARKS, 3
For tort; liability of agent of State to.
Neither a State nor an individual can confer upon an agent authority
to commit a tort so as to excuse the perpetrator; in such a case
the law of agency has no application and the individual is liable
to suit and injunction. Hopkins v. Clemson College, 636.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 32-37;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 3;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 8, 10.
ANTI-TRUST ACT of July 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 209 (see Restraint of Trade):
Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1; United States v. American
Tobacco Co., 106. Sections 4, 5 (see Jurisdiction B): Standard
Oil Co. v. United States, 1.
BANKRUPTCY.-Act of July 1, 1898, § 2 (see Bankruptcy): Matter of
Harris, 274.
COMMERCE.-Act to Regulate Commerce, § 4 (see Constitutional Law,
38): Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm., 612.
Act of March 4, 1907: Ib.
COPYRIGHTS.-Rev. Stat., § 4965 (see Constitutional Law, 24; Copy-
rights, 1, 2): American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.-Code, § 130, as amended by act of June
30, 1902, 32 Stat. 526 (see Testamentary Law): Lewis v. Luckett,
554. Code, § 1120 (see Assignments, 2): Merillat v. Hensey, 333.
Act of Feb. 10, 1899, 30 Stat. 834, extending Rhode Island Avenue
(see Constitutional Law, 11): Briscoe v. District of Columbia, 547.
EVIDENCE.-Rev. Stat., § 724 (see Evidence, 1, 2): Carpenter v. Winn,
533.
IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES.-Rev. Stat., § 860 (see Witnesses, 1):
American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603.
INDIANS.-Acts of August 7, 1882, 22 Stat. 341, and February 8,
1887, 24 Stat. 388 (see Indians, 3): Hallowell v. United States,
317. Act of January 30, 1897, 29 Stat. 506 (see Indians, 4): Ib.
Act of June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 500 (see Indians, 7): Tiger v. West-
ern Investment Co., 286. Act of April 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 137 (see
Indians, 5, 7, 9): Ib. Act of May 27, 1908, § 8, 35 Stat. 312 (see
Indians, 6): Ib.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-Act of March 4, 1907, 34 Stat. 145 (see
Constitutional Law, 1): Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate
Com. Comm., 612.
JUDICIARY.-Act of 1789, § 14, and Rev. Stat., § 716 (see Writ and
Process, 5): American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603.
Rev. Stat., § 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 1, 2): Appleby v. Buffalo,
524; Provident Savings Institution v. Malone, 660. Rev. Stat.,
§§ 997, 1012 (see Appeal and Error, 1): Briscoe v. District of Co-
lumbia, 547.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.-Act of July 25, 1866, 14 Stat. 244 (see Navi-
gable Waters, 4): Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States. 194. Act
of March 3, 1899, § 18, 30 Stat. 1153 (see Navigable Waters, 1,
2, 3): Ib.
NATIONAL BANKS.-Act of July 12, 1882, 22 Stat. 162, and § 5151, Rev.
Stat. (see National Banks): Apsey v. Kimball, 514.
OKLAHOMA ENABLING ACT of June 16, 1906, 34 Stat. 267 (see Indians,
8): Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 286; (see States, 7): Coyle v.
Oklahoma, 559.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.-Act of July 1, 1902, § 5, 32 Stat. 691 (see
Federal Question, 1; Philippine Islands, 5): Dowdell v. United
States, 325.
PUBLIC LANDS.-Northern Pacific Land Grant Act of July 2, 1864
(see Public Lands, 5): Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Trodick, 208.
Desert Land Act of March 3, 1877, as modified by act of March
3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1096 (see Public Lands, 1, 2): United States v.
Hammers, 220. Act of May 14, 1880, 21 Stat. 140 (see Public
Lands, 8): Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Trodick, 208.
PURE FOOD AND DRUG ACT of June 30, 1906, §§ 7, 8, 34 Stat. 768 (see
Pure Food and Drug Act): United States v. Johnson, 488.
UTAH ENABLING ACT of July 16, 1894, § 8, 28 Stat. 107 (see Public
Lands, 3): Montello Salt Co. v. Utah, 452.
WITNESSES.-Act of July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 351; Rev. Stat., § 858 (see
Writ and Process, 6): American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister,
603. Rev. Stat., §§ 829, 877 (see Corporations, 3): Wilson v.
United States, 361.
ADMISSION OF STATES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 30, 31;
STATES, 2, 3.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 33, 36.
ALIENATION OF LANDS.
See INDIANS, 5-9;
ALLOTMENTS.
See INDIANS, 3, 4, 10.
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.
Fourth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 24, 25, 38.
Fifth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 19–28.
Sixth. See CORPORATIONS, 3; PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 5.
Eleventh. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 32-37.
Fourteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
ANTI-TRUST ACT.
See JURISDICTION, B;
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
1. Assignments of error; necessity for and sufficiency of.
Sections 997 and 1012, Rev. Stat., and Rule 35 of this court, require
assignments of error and apply to appeals from courts of the Dis-
trict of Columbia. Realty Co. v. Rudolph, 217 U. S. 547. An
assignment in the brief is not sufficient. Briscoe v. District of
Columbia, 547.
2. Method of review of judgments of Supreme Court of Philippine Is-
lands.
The appropriate method to review judgments of the Supreme Court
of the Philippine Islands in cases from the Court of Land Regis-
tration is by writ of error and not by appeal. Jover v. Insular
Government, 623.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 3;
FEDERAL QUESTION, 1;
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 3, 4;
STATUTES, A 6.
APPROPRIATION OF WATERS.
See RIPARIAN RIGHTS, 2, 3.
ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11; JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 2;
1. Of chose in action; reservation of excess over debt secured, by separate
instrument, as evidence of fraud.
The assignment of a mere chose in action, not subject to legal process
and of uncertain value, given to secure an honest debt, will not be
set aside by this court as fraudulent in law because the surplus,
if any (there actually being a deficit), was reserved to the assignors
by a separate instrument, for the recording of which there was no
provision, after two courts have held that the assignment was not
made with intent to hinder and defraud creditors and as matter
of law had no such result. Merillat v. Hensey, 333.
2. Of chose in action; reservation by assignor of amount in excess of debt
as evidence of fraud.
Reservation to the assignor of surplus of a chose in action given in
payment of a debt does not of itself constitute fraud in law. To
be fraud in law the reservation must be of some pecuniary benefit
to the assignor at the expense of creditors and a prime purpose
of the conveyance. Section 1120, Code of the District of Co-
lumbia. Ib.
3. Of chose in action in payment of debt; excessive amount as evidence
of fraud.
The fact that the amount alleged to be due on an unliquidated chose
in action is greater than the amount of the debt in payment of
which it is assigned is not necessarily evidence of fraud against
other creditors; and where the amount actually recovered is less
than the amount of the debt this court will not disturb the finding
of both courts below that there was no fraud.
4. Of chose in action; when effective.
Where, as in the District of Columbia, the assignment of a chose in
action does not have to be recorded and there is no way in which
constructive notice can be given, the assignment, if valid upon
its face, is ineffective only in case of actual bad faith established
by the facts. Ib.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1;
JURISDICTION, A 3;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 1.
Receiver; right to possession of books of bankrupt.
Under § 2 of the act of 1898, where the bankruptcy court can enforce
title against the bankrupt in favor of the trustee, it can enforce
possession ad interim in favor of the receiver; and so held as to
books of the bankrupt. Matter of Harris, 274.
|