the terms of the insurance policies.-The Julia | pends on the law of the state in which the Luckenbach, 650. IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS. (D) Personal Injuries. 306(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Passenger of a street railroad company, operating its through cars over road of another with its consent, held, also passenger of the other, as regards care required of it.-Chicago Rys. Co. v. Kramer, 147. res 316(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) The principle of ipsa loquitur held applicable to a count charging general negligence of defendant, which ran its car into a standing car of another company operating over its road, injuring a passenger on the standing car.-Chicago Rys. Co. v. Kramer, 147. mortgage was executed.-Grimes v. Clark, 370. 18 (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Maryland Law, a chattel mortgage on a stock of goods is not valid as to after-acquired property.-Grimes v. Clark, 370. CHINESE. See Aliens; Conspiracy, 43; Habeas Corpus, 30, 92. CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS. See Bankruptcy, 441; Courts, 405. CITIES. See Municipal Corporations. CITIZENS. 316(5) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a passenger shows that the train was derailed, injuring her, the evidence is sufficient of the carrier's neglect, under the maxim "res ipsa loquitur," as to See Aliens; Courts, throw on it the burden of proving absence of negligence.-Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Irving, 328. 322, 325; Indians. CLAIMS. See Bankruptcy, 316-345; Corporations, 627; Patents, 157-176. CLAYTON ACT. Where a passenger shows that there was a derailment which caused her injuries, and the carrier produces circumstantial evidence tending to show that the derailment was due to vandalism, plaintiff must show negligence by a See Monopolies, 10-28. preponderance of the evidence.-Id. 320(12) (U.S.C.C.A.) The jury need not accept as a fact that inspection of four tracks COLLATERAL ATTACK. nearly two miles long in a period of two hours See Insane Persons, 26. COLLATERAL SECURITY. by one workman, and inspection by roadmaster 328. CERTAINTY. COLLISION. VI. VESSELS IN TOW. See Brokers, 7; Indictment and Informa-61 (U.S.C.C.A.) Two meeting steamers and tion, 71, 196. For transportation, see Shipping, 150. CHARTER PARTIES. See Shipping, 45-54. CHATTEL MORTGAGES. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and Essentials of Transfers of Chattels as Security. the tow of one all held in fault for a collision 67 (U.S.C.C.A.) The starboard hand rule does not apply where one of the vessels is not on any course, but is maneuvering a tow and in effect stationary.-The Edward G. Murray, 77. 71(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) One of two towing tugs held solely in fault for a collision at night between one of the boats in the tow and a scow in attendance on a dredge in the Kill von Kull. -Northrup v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 166. 71(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Tugs in charge of a tow of barges passing down North River held solely in fault for a collision between one of the barges and an anchored steamship.-The Pocahontas, 610. 72(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) A tug maneuvering her tow for position in East River, and another ap≈2 (U.S.C.C.A.) The validity of a chattel proaching with a tow, both held in fault for a mortgage covering after-acquired property de-collision.-The Edward G. Murray, 77. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 148 C.C.A.-43 II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION. 27 (U.S.C.C.A.) Within the federal Employers' Liability Act, a railroad lying wholly within a state, which formed a link between interstate lines and indiscriminately carried interstate shipments, is an interstate carrier.-Chicago, K. & S. Ry. Co. v. Kindlesparker, 17. An engine of a railroad company located within a state, which used it indiscriminately to haul interstate and intrastate shipments, held an instrumentality of interstate commerce, so that one injured in repairing the engine may sue under the federal Employers' Liability Act.-Id. An engine devoted to interstate commerce held not withdrawn from interstate commerce when being repaired, and a repairer injured might sue under the federal Employers' Liability Act.-Id. 95(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) A transfer tug, with car floats alongside, held solely in fault for a collision at night in East River, on the ground that she was coming down too close to the piers.-27 (U.S.C.C.A.) A member of a train crew The William E. Cleary, 601. 95(5) (U.S.C.C.A.) A launch held solely in fault for a collision in Baltimore harbor with a scow in tow on a crossing course.-The Southern, 572. 96 (U.S.C.C.A.) A steamship leaving her pier and moving along a covered pier, which hid her from approaching vessels, held in fault for a collision on passing the end of such pier, for excessive speed and failure to give signals.-The Daniel Willard, 606. held, when injured, not employed in interstate commerce, within federal Employers' Liability Act; the crew not having been called for service, but for their own convenience being in their caboose while being moved by a local transfer train.-Pryor v. Bishop, 25. 27 (U.S.C.C.A.) A brakeman on a train containing cars loaded with interstate freight is engaged in interstate commerce, within the federal Employers' Liability Act, though the train runs only between intrastate points.-Wainters v. Guile, 298. 100(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) A ferryboat held fault for a collision in North River in a fog, on the ground that she was not sounding the fog signals required by the rules.-The Flemington, 462. 102 (U.S.C.C.A.) Meeting tugs both held in fault for collision in North River.-The Mercer, 161. COMMERCIAL PAPER. See Bills and Notes. COMMISSION MERCHANTS. See Factors. 102 (U.S.C.C.A.) Two tugs, with tows, both held in fault for a collision in Arthur Kill between one of the tugs and a tow of the other. See Brokers, 49-88. The John Rugge, 459. 102 (U.S.C.C.A.) Two meeting steamships both held in fault for a collision at night in Puget Sound.-The Virginian, 592. COMBINATIONS. See Monopolies. COMMISSIONS. COMMON CARRIERS. See Carriers. COMPENSATION. See Carriers. COMMERCE. See Brokers, ~49-88. COMPETENCY. See Evidence, 155; Witnesses, 140. I. POWER TO REGULATE IN GEN- COMPOSITIONS WITH CREDITORS. ERAL. 8 (U.S.C.C.A.) Despite Michigan Workmen's Compensation Act, remedy of brakeman engaged in interstate commerce for injuries occasioned by negligence of railroad company is under federal Employers' Liability Act, though his train ran only between intrastate points.Waters v. Guile, 298. Where a railroad company operating a line in Michigan elected to come under Michigan Workmen's Compensation Act, fact that an employé engaged in intrastate as well as interstate commerce did not give notice of his nonassent does not bring him within Michigan act. -Id. See Bankruptcy, 384. CONCEALMENT. See Fraud, 17, 27. CONCLUSIVENESS. See Judgment, 570-748. CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE. See Master and Servant, 226. CONDITIONAL SALES. See Sales, m474. 33 (U.S.C.C.A.) The United States abandons its sovereign capacity when it enters into commercial transactions, so one conspiring to defraud the Panama Railroad Company, of which the United States owned the entire stock, is not guilty of the offense of conspiring to defraud the United States, denounced by Penal Code, § 37.-Salas v. United States, 440. tion of its rules, remained on duty more than nine hours, does not work a denial of equal protection of law, in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Unit ed States, 350. XI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 275(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) To hold a railroad company liable under Hours of Service Act March 4, 1907, where a telegraph operator, in violation of its rules, remained on duty more than nine hours, does not deny due process of law, contrary to Const. U. S. Amends. 5, 14.-Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. United States, 350. CONSTRUCTION. See Damages, 78; Judgment, 526; See Courts, CONTEMPT. 405; Injunction, ◊≈223, 230; II. POWER TO PUNISH, AND PRO- Under Penal Code, § 37, denouncing the of-60(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) In a contempt proceedfense of conspiracy to defraud the United States, an intent to defraud is essential to a conviction. -Id. (B) Prosecution and Punishment. 43(6) (U.S.C.C.A.) An indictment for conspiracy to bring in Chinese not entitled to en ing to enforce civil rights, evidence of contempt must be convincing to justify decree finding defendant in contempt.-Hanley v. Pacific Live Stock Co., 288. CONTRACTORS' BONDS. ter under Chinese Exclusion Act May 6, 1882, See Municipal Corporations, 348. Dahl v. United States, 384. 43(12) (U.S.C.C.A.) Evidence that defendant pursuant to an understanding with another defendant to smuggle in Chinese, brought in four not entitled to enter held admissible on prosecution for general conspiracy to bring in Chinese not entitled to enter.-Dahl v. United States, 384. 45 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where defendant and others were charged with purchasing goods for fictitious company on credit, disposing of them without payment, and pocketing proceeds, evidence showing defendant knew of existence of sellers from which fictitious company received goods was admissible, but not evidence that defendant had not paid personal debts due such sellers.-Erber v. United States, 123. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. For validity of statutes relating to particular subjects, see also the various specific topics. X. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS. 238(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) To hold a railroad company liable under Hours of Service Act March 4,.1907, where a telegraph operator, in viola CONTRACTS. See Admiralty, 13; Assignments; Bills and Courts, 365, 367; Customs and Usages; I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (F) Legality of Object and of Consideration. 142 (U.S.C.C.A.) The legality of a contract for the payment of money in consideration of the construction of a railroad and the platting of a town site on certain land within a stated time held to depend on questions of fact for the jury.-Moody v. Kell, 580. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER V. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH. 284(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Fact that the architect for a courthouse would have decided that the coping should be of the same material as the lintels is not equivalent to the submission of the question to him and his actual decision upon it, as called for by the contract between the general contractors and the contractor for the terra cotta work.-Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. v. Caldwell, 257. 294 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a contractor to furnish terra cotta to the general contractors for a courthouse performed 99% per cent. of the agreement, failing only to furnish the lintels, as to which there was a dispute regarding the material, there was a substantial compliance with the contract.-Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. v. Caldwell, 257. (A) Extent and Exercise of Powers in General. Bank, 57. 380 (U.S.C.C.A.) A corporation does not become liable for the debts of another corporation because it takes an active part in the management of the business of the latter for the sole 303(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where it clearly ap purpose of protecting its own interest as a credipears when parties make contract that perform-tor.-Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Boatmen's ance would be impossible unless a person should be living at time for performance, and there is no express or implied warranty of his life, a condition is implied that contractor will be ab solved from liability if performance becomes im-406(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Neither the securing of possible without his fault by death of indispensable person.-Berg v. Erickson, 415. Where one at making of contract must have known, or could have guarded against, possible happening of event. he is bound by unqualified undertaking to perform.-Id. (B) Representation of Corporation by Officers and Agents. new capital by selling additional stock, nor agreeing to pay commissions for such sales, is an ordinary business transaction, within the implied power of a corporation's president, who acted as its general manager.-In re Continental Engine Co., 74. 303(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where resident of Kan-414(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) A note signed by a corsas contracted with resident of Texas to fur poration's president for commission for selling nish 1,000 cattle plenty of good grass, salt, and the corporation's stock is invalid between the water during grazing season, he was not ab- parties, when its making was unauthorized by solved from liability to perform or to pay dam- the corporation's directors or shareholders.ages by unprecedented drought, constituting act In re Continental Engine Co., 74. of God.-Berg v. Erickson, 415. Whether one who contracts is absolved from liability for nonperformance by impossibility of performance through act of God or unavoidable accident depends on construction of contract. -Id. Where obligation is imposed on person by law, he will be absolved from liability for nonperformance, if performance is rendered impossible without his fault, by act of God or unavoidable accident.-Id. The general rule is that one who agrees to do lawful act is not absolved from liability by subsequent impossibility of performance by act of God or unavoidable accident.-Id. CORPORATIONS. ity that the president of an Illinois business (D) Contracts and Indebtedness. 456 (U.S.C.C.A.) Contract by a corporation for the services of an attorney for a fixed term construed with respect to the right of the corporation to terminate it.-Gilman v. Lamson Co., 273. 459 (U.S.C.C.A.) A corporation, unless prohibited by explicit terms in its grant of power. may lease its property for a limited term of years.-New York Mail & Newspaper Transp. Co. v. Anderson, 356. A lease of its property by a corporation held not ultra vires.-Id. 479 (U.S.C.C.A.) The trustee in a corporation mortgage represents the bondholders only in matters affecting the enforcement of the security and administration of the trust property under the terms of the trust.-Baker v. Central Trust Co. of New York, 511. (F) Civil Actions. 519(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Evidence held admissia contract for employment of an attorney by ble on the question of wrongful termination of 130; In- a corporation.-Gilman v. Lamson Co., 273. See Appeal and Error, 80; Banks and 521 (U.S.C.C.A.) In attorney's action against | for infringement of other patents, although he corporation for services, refusal of instruction could not have maintained an original suit there as to burden of proof on a subordinate issue held error.-Gilman v. Lamson Co., 273. It was error for the judge to refuse to instruct a jury that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that termination of contract of corporation was invalid by reason of bad faith on part of directors in voting to terminate it. -Id. X. CONSOLIDATION. 590(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) A corporation, purchasing all the property of another corporation, does not thereby become liable for the obligations of the latter, and in the absence of an express agreement therefor cannot be held to account for its infringement of a patent.-Racine Engine & Machinery Co. v. Confectioners' Machinery & Mfg. Co., 474. XI. DISSOLUTION AND_FORFEITURE OF FRANCHISE. 627 (U.S.C.C.A.) Claims against a corporation for money advanced to it by its sole stockholders held, under the evidence, provable against it in a suit to wind up its affairs, on an equality with those of other general creditors.-Peckett v. Wood, 431. on in that district.-United States Expansion Bolt Co. v. H. G. Kroncke Hardware Co., 466. In an infringement suit, the court held without jurisdiction to adjudicate a counterclaim for unfair competition set up by a defendant, who was a citizen of the same state as complainant.-Id. (C) Jurisdiction Dependent on Citizenship, Residence, or Character of Parties. 322 (2) (U. S. C. C. A.) Where complainant, who resided in California, averred that he was a citizen of that state, the federal court of New York, sitting in that district in which defendant resided, had jurisdiction of the suit on the ground of diversity of citizenship.-Hanson v. Hanson, 451. 325 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a suit was brought in federal court on ground of diversity of citizenship, defendant, who appeared generally, pleaded to the bill, and offered some proof, waived any objection on the ground that she was not a citizen of district alleged.-Hanson v. Hanson, 451. (E) Procedure, and Adoption of Practice of State Courts. 352_(U.S.C.C.A.) In the federal courts it is not sufficient to state that objection is made to the admission of evidence without at the same time stating specifically the ground of the objection.-Gilman v. Lamson Co., 273. (F) State Laws as Rules of Decision. 365 (U.S.C.C.A.) In construing a contract for the furnishing of building materials to general contractors for a courthouse, decisions of the state courts, though not conclusive, will be persuasive.-Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. v. Caldwell, 257. 367 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where at the time of the making of a contract, to be performed in the state where made, there is a settled rule of decision in that state as to the damages recov 293, erable for its breach, such rule governs in an action for its breach in a federal court.—Gilman v. Lamson Co., 273. II. ESTABLISHMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND PROCEDURE IN GENERAL. (D) Rules of Decision, Adjudications, Opinions, and Records. 92 (U.S.C.C.A.) General expressions in every judicial opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which they are used, and if they go beyond may be respected, but should not control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.-Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. V. Caldwell, 257. 372(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) In determining whether a sale has been consummated, the federal courts will follow the state rules.-In re Ricketts, 187. 372(7) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where validity of municipal bonds depended on construction to be given Acts Tenn. 1897, c. 13, and Acts Tenn. 1901, c. 450, federal courts are not bound by Tennesvalidity of same bond issue, but may exercise an see decision construing statutes with reference to independent judgment.-Town of Newbern v. National Bank of Barnesville, Ohio, 111. A decision of state court that a municipality was not estopped from denying validity of its bonds, which had passed to bona fide purchaser for value without notice, is not binding on federal courts.-Id. VII. UNITED STATES COURTS. (A) Jurisdiction and Powers in General, 263 (U.S.C.C.A.) Under equity rule 30 (198 (H) Circuit Courts of Appeals. Fed. xxvi, 115 C. C. A. xxvi), a defendant in an 405(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Appeal of a defendant infringement suit may set up a counterclaim in a water rights suit, from a decree finding For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER |