Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

thority of agent of bankrupt, etc., not reviewable; In re Ives, 5 Dill. 148, 149, F. C. 7,115, holding decree adjudging debtor bank. rupt could not be attacked in application for discharge; Donegan ▼. Davis, 66 Ala. 372, holding authority of assignee could not be collaterally assailed.

22 Wall. 157-169, 22 L. 819, IN RE CHILES.

Judgments. Decree in suit in equity brought to establish title of State of Texas to bonds there claimed is final and conclusive on all rights of all parties actually before the court, p. 166.

Followed in Patterson v. Wold, 33 Fed. 792, holding action to set aside fraudulent conveyance barred by prior judgment.

Injunction. Decree perpetually enjoining parties from setting up any claim or title to bonds is not limited to prohibition of suit in court, but is violated where they continue to assert title by written notices; and such action constitutes contempt, pp. 167, 168. Cited in In re Sowles, 41 Fed. 753, contempt in resisting service of execution against respondent's wife.

Contempt. Federal courts, under section 725, revised statutes, have power to punish by fine and imprisonment for contempt of their authority, and purpose is either to punish guilty party, or to compel performance of some act or duty, p. 168.

Approved in Eureka, etc., Co. v. Yuba Co., 116 U. S. 417, 29 L. 674, 6 S. Ct. 432, sustaining power of State court to punish for contempt under State statute; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 310, 32 L. 411, 9 S. Ct. 81, 13 Sawy. 468, holding Circuit Court had power to punish without issue or trial; Denver, etc., R. R. Co. v. Topeka, etc., R. R. Co., 5 McCrary, 291, 16 Fed. 853, holding company in contempt for refusing to check baggage; Hendryx v. Fitzpatrick, 19 Fed. 812, 813, holding court could release one committed for contempt upon showing that he could not pay sum demanded; United States v. Anonymous, 21 Fed. 768, reviewing authorities, and fining party for interrupting examination of witness before examiner; Norris v. Hassler, 23 Fed. 581, holding witness punishable for contempt in disobeying subpoena; Corbin v. Boies, 34 Fed. 699, contempt in not paying decree; Ex parte Huidekoper, 55 Fed. 710, 711, punishing sheriff for detaining property ordered returned by court; Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. American, etc., Co., 75 Fed. 978, 979, contempt in disobeying injunction not to allow refuse of mill to escape; Ex parte Hardy, 68 Ala. 315, contempt for refusing to deliver bonds to register; Forrest v. Price, 52 N. J. Eq. 30, 29 Atl. 221, contempt in refusing to indorse drafts, etc. Cited, arguendo, in In re Graves, 29 Fed. 63; generally in State v. Davis, 2 N. Dak. 471, 51 N. W. 946.

Distinguished in Whitcomb's case, 120 Mass. 120, holding city council could not commit for contempt.

Contempt.- Party cannot be guilty of contempt for disobedience of an order not yet made, p. 169.

Cited with approval in Stuart v. Stuart, 123 Mass. 371, holding mere transfer of property to prevent execution on anticipated decree not contempt; Ex parte Lake, 37 Tex. Crim. 665, 66 Am. St. Rep. 854, 40 S. W. 730, holding relator not in contempt where court had not yet jurisdiction of his person.

22 Wall. 170-179, 22 L. 766, BURNHISEL v. FIRMAN.

Interest is calculated at contract rate until date of maturity, and afterwards, where no rate is specified at legal rate, p. 176.

Cited and applied in Holden v. Trust Co., 100 U. S. 74, 25 L. 568, promissory note in District of Columbia; Sherwood v. Moore, 35 Fed. 109, promissory note executed in Georgia; Newton v. Kennerly, 31 Ark. 628, 25 Am. Rep. 594, and Hicks v. Coody, 49 Ark. 428, 5 S. W. 714, notes executed in Arkansas; Duran v. Ayer, 67 Me. 152, and Eaton v. Boissonnault, 67 Me. 541, 24 Am. Rep. 53, notes executed in Maine; O'Brien v. Young, 95 N. Y. 430, 47 Am. Rep. 65, holding rate of interest on judgment followed change of rate by legislature. Cited in notes, collecting conflicting authorities, 6 Am. Dec. 190, and 30 Am. Rep. 47, 50.

Distinguished in Sanford v. Savings, etc., Soc., 80 Fed. 61, and Hovey v. Edmison, 3 Dak. 471, 22 N. W. 604, where rate, after maturity, was stipulated for in agreement; New Orleans v. Warner, 175 U. S. 147, holding commencement of suit sufficient demand to start running of interest. Denied in Shaw v. Rigby, 84 Ind. 878, 43 Am. Rep. 99, holding rate fixed by contract measure of damages after maturity; Union Inst. v. Boston, 129 Mass. 93, 94, 37 Am. Rep. 312, 313, reviewing authorities, and adopting rate fixed in note and mortgage as in accord with intention of parties; Borders v. Barber, 81 Mo. 645, and Briscoe v. Kinealy, 8 Mo. App. 83, both holding, where interest was payable "from date," same rate continued after maturity; Barbour v. Tompkins, 31 W. Va. 421, 7 8. E. 7, holding contract rate should govern until note is paid.

Usury. Where statute makes usury penal, but does not declare contract void, usurious bond may be enforced for amount actually due, p. 177.

Followed in Farmers, etc., Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 35, 23 L. 199, holding bank charging unlawful interest under national banking act entitled to recover principal; Lewis v. Clarendon, 5 Dill. 339, F. C. 8,320, allowing legal rate on municipal bonds where contract rate was in excess of chartered powers of railroad; Curtis v. Vallton, 3 Mont. 156, holding note void only to extent of compound interest charged; Scottish M. & L. Inv. Co. v. McBroom, 6 N. Mex. 587, 30 Pac. 863, holding contract void to extent of requiring bonus in excess of legal interest.

thority of agent of bankrupt, etc., not reviewable; In re Ives, 5 Dill. 148, 149, F. C. 7,115, holding decree adjudging debtor bank. rupt could not be attacked in application for discharge; Donegan ▼. Davis, 66 Ala. 372, holding authority of assignee could not be collaterally assailed.

22 Wall. 157-169, 22 L. 819, IN RE CHILES.

Judgments.- Decree in suit in equity brought to establish title of State of Texas to bonds there claimed is final and conclusive on all rights of all parties actually before the court, p. 166.

Followed in Patterson v. Wold, 33 Fed. 792, holding action to set aside fraudulent conveyance barred by prior judgment.

Injunction.

Decree perpetually enjoining parties from setting up any claim or title to bonds is not limited to prohibition of suit in court, but is violated where they continue to assert title by written notices; and such action constitutes contempt, pp. 167, 168.

Cited in In re Sowles, 41 Fed. 753, contempt in resisting service of execution against respondent's wife.

Contempt.- Federal courts, under section 725, revised statutes, have power to punish by fine and imprisonment for contempt of their authority, and purpose is either to punish guilty party, or to compel performance of some act or duty, p. 168.

Approved in Eureka, etc., Co. v. Yuba Co., 116 U. S. 417, 29 L. 674, 6 S. Ct. 432, sustaining power of State court to punish for contempt under State statute; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 310, 32 L. 411, 9 S. Ct. 81, 13 Sawy. 468, holding Circuit Court had power to punish without issue or trial; Denver, etc., R. R. Co. v. Topeka, etc., R. R. Co., 5 McCrary, 291, 16 Fed. 853, holding company in contempt for refusing to check baggage; Hendryx v. Fitzpatrick, 19 Fed. 812, 813, holding court could release one committed for contempt upon showing that he could not pay sum demanded; United States v. Anonymous, 21 Fed. 768, reviewing authorities, and fining party for interrupting examination of witness before examiner; Norris v. Hassler, 23 Fed. 581, holding witness punishable for contempt in disobeying subpoena; Corbin v. Boies, 34 Fed. 699, contempt in not paying decree; Ex parte Huidekoper, 55 Fed. 710, 711, punishing sheriff for detaining property ordered returned by court; Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. American, etc., Co., 75 Fed. 978, 979, contempt in disobeying injunction not to allow refuse of mill to escape; Ex parte Hardy, 68 Ala. 315, contempt for refusing to deliver bonds to register; Forrest v. Price, 52 N. J. Eq. 30, 29 Atl. 221, contempt in refusing to indorse drafts, etc. Cited, arguendo, in In re Graves, 29 Fed. 63; generally in State v. Davis, 2 N. Dak. 471, 51 N. W. 946.

Distinguished in Whitcomb's case, 120 Mass. 120, holding city council could not commit for contempt.

636, and n., majority holding surety's obligation on original note discharged by substitution of securities with knowledge of debtor's financial condition.

22 Wall. 180-198, 22 L. 863, THE ELGEE COTTON CASES.

[ocr errors]

War. No one is allowed to sue in Court of Claims for proceeds of captured or abandoned property, unless he can prove ownership, his right to proceeds, and that he never gave aid or comfort to the Rebellion, p. 186.

Affirmed in Scudder v. Ames, 142 Mo. 243, 43 S. W. 675, action over same subject-matter.

Sale.— Whether property passes or not is dependent upon intention of parties to contract to be gathered from its language, p. 187.

Cited with approval in Hatch v. Oil Co., 100 U. S. 136, 25 L. 558, holding intention proved that title to staves should pass upon being piled and counted; Byles v. Colier, 54 Mich. 6, 19 N. W. 567, holding title might have passed without delivery, and even though further inspection was necessary; Rail v. Little Falls, etc., Co., 47 Minn. 425, 50 N. W. 472, holding property in logs vested without delivery or payment.

Sale. When by agreement vendor is to do anything to goods to put them into deliverable state, performance of those things shall be taken as condition precedent to vesting of property p. 188. Cited in Commonwealth v. Greenfield, 121 Mass. 41, holding title to liquor did not pass until delivered at L.

Sale. Where anything remains to be done to goods to ascertain price, as by weighing, measuring, etc., performance of these things shall be condition precedent to transfer of property, although individual goods are ascertained, e. g., cotton to be paid for when weighed, pp. 188, 189.

Followed in Blackwood v. Cutting, etc., Co., 76 Cal. 217, 218, 18 Pac. 251, 9 Am. St. Rep. 203, 204, holding no sale until apricots could be identified and weighed or measured; New England, etc., Co. v. Standard, etc., Co., 165 Mass. 329, 52 Am. St. Rep. 518, 43 N. E. 112, collecting authorities, holding title to wool did not pass until separated from larger mass.

Sale. Where buyer is by contract bound to do anything, as a consideration, either precedent or concurrent, on which passing of property depends, title will not pass until condition be fulfilled, though buyer has possession, p. 188.

Applied in Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 U. S. 266, 34 L. 929, 11 S. Ct. 319, executed contract of sale of stock with reservation of security by vendor: Hull v. Pitrat, 45 Fed. 100, holding conveyance

of land free from incumbrance condition precedent to passing of title to patent; Daugherty v. Fowler, 44 Kan. 632, 25 Pac. 41, 10 L. R. A. 316, holding payment condition concurrent to passing of title to butterine.

Sale.- Property may be in p. 194.

one person and risk in another,

Sale-Earnest money is of small importance in consideration of its effect on transfer of title, p. 195.

Miscellaneous.

Cited as res adjudicata in suits over same subject-matter, Bouchard v. Parker, 32 La. Ann. 539, and Scudder v. Ames, 142 Mo. 240, 43 S. W. 674.

22 Wall. 198-208, 22 L. 769, FRETZ v. STOVER.

Appeal and error.- Objection that there is no replication in record cannot be made for first time on appeal to Supreme Court, p. 204.

Approved in Southern R. R. Co. v. Rhodes, 86 Fed. 424, presuming on appeal that pleadings were complete where part of record was destroyed; Woodward v. Sloan, 27 Ohio St. 597, holding it too late to insist that there was no denial of adverse possession set up in answer.

Equity. No formal replication is required to avoid effect of answer to bill of revivor, for no new defenses set up in such anwer can be considered, p. 204.

Approved in Mason v. Hartford, etc., R. R. Co., 19 Fed. 56, allowing bill of revivor without considering merits; Newcombe v. Murray, 77 Fed. 493, determining necessary parties in bill to revive. Cited generally in Mackaye v. Mallory, 79 Fed. 2, 45 U. S. App. 741.

Principal and agent.- Agent in Virginia has no authority to take Confederate paper worthless in Pennsylvania, to discharge debts due his principal, a citizen of Pennsylvania, p. 206.

Approved in Insurance Co. v. Davis, 95 U. S. 430, 432, 24 L. 455, holding tender of premium to one who had ceased to act as agent during war, not good; McBurney v. Carson, 99 U. S. 572, 25 L. 382, and Opie v. Castleman, 32 Fed. 514, holding devisees not bound by act of executor in accepting Confederate money in payment of land; Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 476, 28 L. 760, 5 S. Ct. 232, holding investment in Confederate currency by guardian unlawful; Dorr v. Gibboney's Exrx., 3 Hughes, 386, 390, F. C. 4,006, holding trustee could not pay debt to creditor residing in loyal State with Confederate notes; Bynum v. Barefoot, 75 N. C. 581, holding judgment could not be paid in Confederate money during war. Cited, arguedo, in Hendry v. Benlisa, 37 Fla. 622, 20 So. 802, 34 L. R. A. 286. See notes, 15 Am. Dec. 133, and 47 Am. Dec. 848.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »