Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Providence S. 8. Co., 22 Blatchf. 198, 20 Fed. 536, 537, The Rhode Island, 17 Fed. 560, The Charley A. Reed, 19 Fed. 115, The B. B. Saunders, 19 Fed. 123, The Garden City, 19 Fed. 533, The Alaska, 22 Fed. 554, The Nereus, 23 Fed. 454, Richelieu Nav. Co. v. Boston Marine Ins. Co., 26 Fed. 602, The Alabama, 26 Fed. 869, The Alfredo, 30 Fed. 843, McCabe v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 31 Fed. 239, The M. M. Chase, 37 Fed. 713, The Algiers, 38 Fed. 527, The Britannic, 39 Fed. 399, The Bolivia, 43 Fed. 174, The Bolivia, 49 Fed. 171, 1 U. S. App. 261, The St. Nicholas, 49 Fed. 679, The Clara, 49 Fed. 768, The Ice King, 52 Fed. 896, The New York, 53 Fed. 559, The Trave, 55 Fed. 120, The Kate Butteroni, 59 Fed. 496, 20 U. 8. App. 217, Thames Tow-Boat Co. v. Central R. Co., etc., 61 Fed. 118, Flint, etc., Co. v. Marine Ins. Co., 71 Fed. 215, The Niagara, 77 Fed. 332, 333, The Hercules, 80 Fed. 1002, 42 U. S. App. 431, The Livingstone, 87 Fed. 778, Donnell v. Boston Tow-Boat Co., 89 Fed. 762, 50 U. S. App. 444, The Lyndhurst, 92 Fed. 681, Railroad Co. v. Transportation Co., 32 Ohio St. 147, Van Etten v. Town of Westport, 60 Fed. 582, and The Saale, 59 Fed. 720. This rule is approved, arguendo, in Greenwood v. Town of Westport. 60 Fed. 567, Ebert v. Schooner Reuben Dowd, 9 Biss. 468, 3 Fed. 529, Lambert v. Staten Island R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 110, The Columbia, 91 Fed. 802, and The Guildhall, 58 Fed. 801, rule applied where it could not be shown that competent master would not have avoided collision. See note, 36 Am. St. Rep. 818, where doctrine reaffirmed. Cited also in The Kallisto, 2 Hughes, 144, F. C. 7,600, generally as bearing on that case; New York R. R. Co. v. Cooper, 85 Va. 947, 9 S. E. 323, on care required of steamboat. Limited in The Jay Gould, 19 Fed. 769, 770, allowing proof that violation necessary under circumstances; Hood v. The Lehigh, 43 Fed. 601," must show that situation justified fallure; The Niagara, 84 Fed. 904, 55 U. S. App. 449, Billings v. Breinig, 45 Mich. 73, 7 N. W. 724, said question of contributory negligence for jury.

[ocr errors]

19 Wall. 138-146, 22 L. 77, CARPENTER v. RANNELS.

Public lands. It is custom of land office to issue patents to original grantee, or his legal representatives," p. 145.

66

Cited and applied in De la Vergne Machine Co. v. Featherstone, 147 U. S. 226, 37 L. 144, 13 S. Ct. 287, in construction of patent issued to inventor, "his heirs or assigns; " Bowman v. Long, 89 Ill. 23, construction of warranty deed.

Public lands.- Certificate "to the legal representatives of" original claimant, issued with knowledge of prior conditional conveyance by claimant, concludes him from any further claim, by virtue of original title, and is presumptive proof of performance of condition by grantee, to whose benefit subsequent confirmation by patent, to original claimant, "or his legal representatives," will inure, pp. 145, 146.

ANN

Followed in Connoyer v. Schæffer, 22 Wall. 262, 22 L. 838, confirmation inures to benefit of him holding title; McDonald v. McCoy, 121 Cal. 70, 53 Pac. 425, inures to benefit of grantees, etc., subsequent to date of application. Cited also incidentally in Schepp v. Smith, 35 La. Ann. 6, 7, and Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U. S. 192, 28 L. 913, 5 S. Ct. 413.

19 Wall. 146-167, 22 L. 105, SAWYER v. PRICKETT.

[ocr errors]

Contracts. To make false representation subject of indictment or of action, it must be of nature likely to impose on one exercising common prudence, and be statement as to existing fact; a promissory statement is not ordinarily basis for action, defense or rescission of contract as false representation; in this case held that railroad stock agent's statements to illiterate farmer, induced to mortgage his farm in purchase of railroad stock, were not false representations and a defense, pp. 160, 163.

-

Followed in Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Barnes, 64 Fed. 83, 27 U. S. App. 421, action for false representations not maintainable on promise or prophecy; Voorhis v. Smith Mfg. Works, 11 Mo. App. 112, Green v. Societe, etc., 81 Fed. 71, New York, etc., Co. v. M'Masters, 87 Fed. 67, 57 U. S. App. 645, Godding v. Live-Stock Co., 4 Colo. App. 20, 34 Pac. 944, Pine Mountain Iron Co. v. Lord, Ky. 50 S. W. 28, Bullock v. Wooldridge, 42 Mo. App. 363, and Tacoma v. Tacoma, etc., Co., 16 Wash. 305, 47 Pac. 742. Cited generally in Ryan v. Middleborough Co., Ky. 52 S. W. 34. as inadmissibility of declarations at time of sale, not incorporated in the written contract; dissenting opinion in Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Norwood, 69 Fed. 81, 32 U. S. App. 490, majority avoiding question by holding estoppel created; Banque, etc. v. Brown, 34 Fed. 192, said promissory statement may imply existence of certain facts and be fraudulent.

[ocr errors]

Distinguished in Benton v. Ward, 47 Fed. 256, complaint al leging material statements, reasonably relied on, though untrue, had induced contract, held to state case.

Bills and notes. Not necessary to constitute a bona fide hold ing that the value should have been paid at the time of receiving the security; a past consideration is sufficient, p. 166.

Mortgages.- Rule as to bona fide holder applies to foreclosure of mortgage accompanying a note, with same force as when suit is brought upon note itself, p. 166.

Followed in Beals v. Neado, 1 McCrary, 209, 2 Fed. 44, defense of duress not admitted against assignee for value, without notice; Swett v. Stark, 31 Fed. 859, quoted and followed as United States Supreme Court rule; Black v. Reno, 59 Fed. 919, and Farmers' Nat Bank v. Fletcher, 44 Iowa, 257, bona fide assignee of mortgage does not take it subject to infirmities attached, in hands of origi

nal mortgagee; Lewis v. Kirk, 28 Kan. 501. 42 Am. Rep. 175, mortgage in Kansas is only incident to debt, and has same negotiability as note which it secures; State National Bank v. Flathers, 45 La. Ann. 79, 40 Am. St. Rep. 218, 12 So. 244, rule does not rest on principle that mortgage is negotiable; dissenting opinion in The W. B. Cole, 59 Fed. 190, 16 U. S. App. 334, majority holding bona fide assignee of mortgage bound by notice of prior recorded mortgage. See note, 14 Am. Dec. 514, on enforcing mortgages without regard to equities, in favor of mortgagor, as against bona fide holder; and in 84 Am. Dec. 404, where doctrine of principal case said to be in line with greater weight of authority.

Distinguished in Wright v. Irwin, 33 Mich. 37, where holder not bona fide.

19 Wall. 167-177, 22 L. 109, CROPLEY v. COOPER.

Wills. Where bequest is given by direction to pay when legatee attains certain age, interest on fund being given him meantime, this shows that present gift was intended and legacy vests in interest at testator's death, p. 174.

Wills.- Devise of lands to be sold after termination of life estate created by will, proceeds to be distributed thereafter to certain persons, is a bequest to those persons, and vests at testator's death, p. 175.

Cited and principle applied in Pulliam v. Pulliam, 10 Fed. 42, 46, holding lands charged with payment of debts, to be regarded as personalty; Allen v. Watts, 98 Ala. 389, 11 So. 647, and Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md. 308, both holding devise of land, to be sold and converted into money, to be regarded as a bequest of money. Cited generally in Partee v. Thomas, 11 Fed. 776, as to limitation of estate by words "at her death, to A." See 4 Am. Dec. 416, note. Cited, without application, in Seller v. Reed, 88 Va. 383, 13 S. E. 756.

Wills. Under bequest of rent of house to A. during life, same to be sold at her death, avails to become property of her children when they should become twenty-one, interest to be meantime applied to their maintenance, A.'s son took vested interest in bequest at testator's death, subject to open and let in after-born children, and to take effect in enjoyment at A.'s death, p. 177.

Cited and rule applied in McArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 380, 28 L. 1027, 5 S. Ct. 662, Potter v. Couch, 141 U. S. 314, 35 L. 731, 11 S. Ct. 1010, Seller v. Reed, 88 Va. 379, 13 S. E. 755, and Scott v. West, 63 Wis. 569, 24 N. W. 172, construing similar trust clauses: Davidson v. Koehler, 76 Ind. 410, holding like devise created vested remainder in children living at testator's death; Edgerly v. Barker, 66 N. H. 451, 31 Atl. 904, 28 L. R. A. 331, holding devise to children may include issue of children who die after execution of will.

ANN

19 Wall. 178-189, 22 L. 60, THE RIO GRANDE.

Appeal and error.- - Certificate of clerk of court is prima facie evidence that transcript contains true copy of record and ail proreedings in trial court, p. 188.

Distinguished in Meyer v. Mansur Co., 85 Fed. 876, 52 U. 8. App. £78, holding certificate, not stating that transcript is complete, insufficient.

Certiorari. Remedy for deficiency in transcript, certified to by clerk, is certiorari, not motion to dismiss appeal, p. 188.

Approved in Nashua, etc., Ry. v. Boston, etc., Ry., 61 Fed. 241.. 21 U. S. App. 50, holding appellee, considering transcript defective, must resort to certiorari to correct same.

Distinguished in Meyer v. Mansur Co., 85 Fed. 876, 52 U. S. App. 478, holding appeal dismissable where certificate failed to state that transcript was complete.

Admiralty.-Motion to dismiss admiralty appeal must be denied where decree was in favor of several libellants, some of whom recovered sums sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction, and motion was to dismiss whole appeal, p. 189.

Distinguished in Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 32, 30 L. 1085. 7 S. Ct. 1068, dismissing equity appeal as to appellees, who recov ered less than $5,000.

Appeal and error.- Interest to that date being specifically al lowed in decree, must be included with principal, in order to determine what was sum in dispute at time appeal was taken, where sufficiency thereof to confer appellate jurisdiction, is questioned. p. 189.

Cited and applied in Massachusetts Benefit Assn. v. Miles. 137 U. S. 692, 34 L. 836, 11 S. Ct. 235, holding jurisdiction attaches where interest antecedent to judgment is made part thereof, and total exceeds $5,000; Rymer v. Hawkins, 18 W. Va. 319, discussing subject.

Distinguished in District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 228, 32 L. 922, 9 S. Ct. 509, where interest merely accompanied decree as damages.

19 Wall. 189-198, 22 L. 146, ELDRED v. SEXTON.

Public lands.- Private entries on public lands are not permissible until after same have been exposed to public auction, at price for which they are afterwards subject to entry, p. 195.

Public lands.- Lands contiguous to railroad lines, offered for sale at certain price, which, on change in location of line, is reduced by Congress, are not open to private entry at latter price until they have been offered for public sale at said price and left unsold, p. 197.

Cited and applied in State v. Cunningham, 88 Wis. 86, 57 N. W. 1121, holding State lands, withdrawn from sale, become e subject to private sale only after re-offering at public sale; Felix v. Patrick, 36 Fed. 459, to point that lands located within corporate limits are not subject to entry; Lake Superior Canal Co. v. Cunningham, 44 Fed. 830, application vague.

19 Wall. 198-214, 22 L. 41, UNITED STATES v. GAUSSEN.

United States. Under act of March 3, 1797, providing that in actions against delinquent revenue officers, transcripts from books of treasury shall be evidence, extracts complete in themselves are admissible, p. 213.

Followed in United States v. Stone, 106 U. S. 529, 27 L. 165, 1 S. Ct. 290, a similar case; Johns v. State, 55 Md. 361, holding transcript from account admissible in action against delinquent collector.

United States. In action against delinquent revenue officer, accounts rendered to government by principal, are evidence not only against him, but also against his sureties and third parties in privity with him, p. 213.

Followed in Chadwick v. United States, 3 Fed. 755, holding certified transcript of collector's account, admissible in separate suit against sureties. Principle applied in State v. Newton, 33 Ark. 289, holding copy of treasurer's accounts prima facie evidence against sureties, in action on bond; Jeness v. City of Black Hawk, 2 Colo. 585, holding declarations of principal in official bond, evidence against sureties, when made in performance of official duty: Williamsburg Ins. Co. v. Frothingham, 122 Mass. 394, holding accounts of insurance agent admissible in action against agent and sureties to show amount of premiums collected by agent.

19 Wall. 214-227, 22 L. 68, INSURANCE CO. v. DUNN.

Removal of causes. Further proceedings of State court, after cause has been removed to Federal court, are illegal, although sanctioned by higher State courts, p. 224.

Cited and principle applied in Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 454, 22 L. 369, holding statute exacting agreement that insurance company will not remove suits, unconstitutional; Railroad Co. v Mississippi, 102 U. S. 136, 26 L. 96, holding further action of State courts after removal, invalid; Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 490. 492, 493, 26 L. 356, 357, holding further proceedings of State courts absolutely void; Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 14, 26 L. 645, and Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 123, 27 L. 89, 1 S. Ct. 61, affirming rule; Chesapeake, etc., R. R. v. White, 111 U. S. 137, 28 L. 379, 4 S. Ct. 354, holding remedy, where State court prozeeds after removal, is by writ of error after final judgment; War

ANN

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »