3. In an action at law for a personal injury, in which damages have been
assessed by a jury at an entire sum, the court is not authorized, upon
a motion for a new trial for excessive damages and for insufficiency of
the evidence to justify the verdict, to enter an absolute judgment,
according to its own estimate of the damages which the plaintiff ought
to have recovered, for a less sum than assessed by the jury; and
either party is entitled to a reversal of such a judgment by writ of
error. Ib.
1. The provision in the constitution of West Virginia of 1872 that the
property of a citizen of the State should not "be seized or sold under
final powers issued upon judgments or decrees heretofore rendered, or
otherwise, because of any act done according to the usages of civilized
warfare in the prosecution of 'the war of the rebellion,' by either of
the parties thereto " does not impair the obligation of a contract, within
the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, when applied to
a judgment previously obtained, founded on a tort committed as an
act of public war. Freeland v. Williams, 405.
2. A bill in equity to invalidate a judgment obtained against the defend-
ant for a tort committed under military authority, in accordance
with the usages of civilized warfare and as an act of public war and to
also enjoin its enforcement is "due process of law" and is not in con-
flict with the Constitution of the United States. Ib.
1. The courts of the United States have power to punish by fine or im-
prisonment, at their discretion, misbehavior in their presence, or mis-
behavior so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice,
although the offence is also punishable by indictment under Rev. Stat.
§ 5399. Savin, Petitioner, 267.
2. Attempting to deter a witness, in attendance upon a court of the
United States in obedience to a subpoena, and while he is near the
court-room, in the jury-room temporarily used as witness-room, from
testifying for the party in whose behalf he was summoned, and offer-
ing him, when in the hallway of the court, money not to testify against
the defendant, is misbehavior in the presence of the court. Ib.
8. Within the meaning of § 725, the court, at least when in session, is
present in every part of the place set apart for its own use, and for the
use of its officers, jurors and witnesses; and misbehavior anywhere in
such place is misbehavior in the presence of the court. 1b.
4. Although the word "summary," as used in the first section of the act
of March 3, 1831, (4 Stat. 487, c. 99,) was omitted from the present
revision of the statutes, the courts of the United States have the power
to punish by fine or imprisonment, at their discretion, contempts of
their authority, in the cases defined in § 725. Ib.
5. In proceeding against a party for contempt, the court is not bound to re-
Dusti
124 U. S.
4. Marshall
5. Rude v.
6. United
cat
7. Ur
appellant to afford him an
in answering, but may, i-
g the question as it d
ules that prevai1
within a define
be sold below a certa
invalid as in restraint of trade. Fou
in the opinion; Held, that the defendants sold the
n the prohibited territory, or to those by whom to their
ge it was to be there sold, and that, as the record disclosed
ations of the contracts in these respects, the cause should have gone
to a master to state an account. Ib.
3. A contract between A, a subscriber to the stock of a proposed incor-
porated company, and B, another subscriber to the same, made with-
out the knowledge of the remaining subscribers, by which A agrees to
purchase the stock of B at the price paid for it, if at a specified time
B elects to sell it, is not contrary to public policy, and can be enforced
against A if made fairly and honestly, and if untainted with actual
fraud. Morgan v. Struthers, 246.
4. A contract for the purchase of "future-delivery" cotton, neither the
purchase or delivery of actual cotton being contemplated by the
parties, but the settlement in respect to which is to be upon the basis
of the mere 66
difference" between the contract price and the market
price of said cotton futures, according to the fluctuations in the mar-
ket, is a wagering contract and illegal and void, as well under the
statutes of New York and Virginia, as generally in this country.
Embrey v. Jemison, 336.
See COURT AND JURY;
COVENANT;
RAILROAD.
1. In this case, it was held, on the facts, that the title to a copyright in a
book had passed from the person who secured it to another person, as
the result of a completed transaction between them, independently of
all agreements in regard to other matters, the consideration for the
sale having been paid, and the contract having never been rescinded.
Thompson v. Hubbard, 123.
1. In the absence of fraud, stockholders are bound
their corporation in respect to corporate matters, and
not open to collateral attack. Hawkins v. Glenn, 319.
2. Rules applicable to a going corporation, remain applicable
or lien upon
rch 3, 1875,
standing it may have become insolvent and ceased to carry on i
operations, where, as in this case, it continues in the possession a
exercise of all corporate powers essential to the collection of debts,
the enforcement of liabilities and the application of assets to the pay.
3. Stockholders of record are liable for unpaid instalments, although they
may have in fact parted with their stock, or may have held it for
others. Ib.
See EQUITY, 5, 6;
LIMITATION, STATUTES OF;
RAILROAD.
The instructions of the court below fairly left it to the jury to determine
whether the sale of cattle, which is the subject of this controversy,
was an absolute sale or a conditional sale. Segrist v. Crabtree, 287.
See COMMON CARRIER, 2, 3.
COURT OF ORDINARY.
See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR;
quire service of interrogatories upon the appellant to afford him an
opportunity to purge himself of contempt in answering, but may, in
its discretion, adopt such mode of determining the question as it deems
proper, having due, regard to the essential rules that prevail in the
trial of matters of contempt. Ib.
See HABEAS CORPUS, 3;
JURISDICTION, B, 2.
1. A contract relating to a patent medicine, which communicates its ingre-
dients in confidence and provides in substance that the parties shall
enjoy a monopoly of the sale of it, each within a defined region in the
United States, and that it shall not be sold below a certain rate or
price, is not unreasonable or invalid as in restraint of trade. Fowle v.
Park, 88.
2. On the facts stated in the opinion; Held, that the defendants sold the
balsam within the prohibited territory, or to those by whom to their
knowledge it was to be there sold, and that, as the record disclosed
violations of the contracts in these respects, the cause should have gone
to a master to state an account. Ib.
3. A contract between A, a subscriber to the stock of a proposed incor-
porated company, and B, another subscriber to the same, made with-
out the knowledge of the remaining subscribers, by which A agrees to
purchase the stock of B at the price paid for it, if at a specified time
B elects to sell it, is not contrary to public policy, and can be enforced
against A if made fairly and honestly, and if untainted with actual
fraud. Morgan v. Struthers, 246.
4. A contract for the purchase of "future-delivery" cotton, neither the
purchase or delivery of actual cotton being contemplated by the
parties, but the settlement in respect to which is to be upon the basis
of the mere "difference" between the contract price and the market
price of said cotton futures, according to the fluctuations in the mar-
ket, is a wagering contract and illegal and void, as well under the
statutes of New York and Virginia, as generally in this country.
Embrey v. Jemison, 336.
See COURT AND JURY;
COVENANT;
RAILROAD.
1. In this case, it was held, on the facts, that the title to a copyright in a
book had passed from the person who secured it to another person, as
the result of a completed transaction between them, independently of
all agreements in regard to other matters, the consideration for the
sale having been paid, and the contract having never been rescinded.
Thompson v. Hubbard, 123.
2. The grantee, having sued the grantor for infringing. the copyright, it
appeared that although the copyright had been properly secured by
the grantor, the grantee, in publishing editions of the book, had, in
some of the copies, not printed, in the notice of copyright, either the
year or the name, and in others, had omitted the name; Held, that he
had forfeited the right to sue the grantor for infringement. Ib.
3. The requirement of the statute in regard to printing the prescribed
notice of copyright in the book, is one of the conditions precedent to
the perfection of the copyright, the other two being the deposit, be-
fore publication, of the printed copy of the title, and the depositing in
the public office, within the prescribed time after publication, of copies
of the book. Ib.
4. Such requirement in regard to printing the notice extends to editions
published by the grantee of a copyright, during his ownership thereof.
Ib.
5. The failure of the grantee to print the notice prevents his right of
action, even as against his grantor, who originally secured the copy-
right, from coming into existence. Ib.
1. In the absence of fraud, stockholders are bound by a decree against
their corporation in respect to corporate matters, and such a decree is
not open to collateral attack. Hawkins v. Glenn, 319.
2. Rules applicable to a going corporation, remain applicable notwith-
standing it may have become insolvent and ceased to carry on its
operations, where, as in this case, it continues in the possession and
exercise of all corporate powers essential to the collection of debts,
the enforcement of liabilities and the application of assets to the pay-
ment of creditors. Ib.
3. Stockholders of record are liable for unpaid instalments, although they
may have in fact parted with their stock, or may have held it for
others.
LIMITATION, STATUTES OF;
RAILROAD.
The instructions of the court below fairly left it to the jury to determine
whether the sale of cattle, which is the subject of this controversy,
was an absolute sale or a conditional sale. Segrist v. Crabtree, 287.
See COMMON CARRIER, 2, 3.
COURT OF ORDINARY.
See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR;
|