For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

11(10) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Master of tug re- 45 (D.C.) No right of property is conclud-
sponsible for not securely berthing barge.-ed by registration of mark.-Patton Paint Co.
The Mary Ethel, 458.
V. Sunset Paint Co., 326.

Tug liable for damage to boats by negligence
in making fast tow.-Id.

IV. INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPE-
TITION.

12(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Relative abilities of
captain of tug and. captain of barge considered (A) What Constitutes Infringement.
in determining liability. The Mary Ethel, 458. 59(4) (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Trade-mark, "The
15(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Evidence held not Winchester," held infringed.-Charles Broad-
to show shifting of boats relieved tug of lia-way Rouss, Inc., v. Winchester, 463.
bility for injuries after mooring barge.-The
Mary Ethel, 458.

(B) What Competition Unlawful,

16 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Liens for repairs and 70(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Adoption of cor-
supplies take precedence of liens for negligent porate name simulating popular trade-name of
towage.-The Interstate No. 1, 926.
competitor unfair competition.-Rice & Hutch-
ins v. Vera Shoe Co., 124.

TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES
AND UNFAIR COMPETITION.

I. MARKS AND NAMES SUBJECTS OF
OWNERSHIP,

70 (4) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Defendant not guil-
ty of unfair competition in using standard col-
ors, though the same as plaintiff's.-Abbott
Coin Counter Co. v. Standard-Johnson Co.,
418.
3(3) (D.C.) Purpose of mark is to indicate
When similarity in appearance of coin wrap-
origin or ownership.-Patton Paint Co. v. Sun-pers could be avoided by use of different type
or arrangement, it should be done.-Id.
17 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) No monopoly in colors 73 (2) (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Corporation
or characteristics of coin wrappers.-Abbott not adopt and use a corporate name
Coin Counter Co. v. Standard-Johnson Co., 418. trade-mark as against a competitor who had
20 (D.C.) "Sun" and its representations acquired the right to such name as a trade-
cannot be exclusively appropriated.-Patton mark.-Charles Broadway Rouss, Inc., v. Win-
Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 323.
chester Co., 463.

set Paint Co., 323.

can-
as a

Appropriation of particular representation of 75 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) "Unfair competition"
sun does not exclude different representations. not necessarily involving misleading of particu-
-Id.
lar person.-Rice & Hutchins v. Vera Shoe Co.,
124.

II. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON-
TRACTS.

28 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Name extensively used
as trade-mark for 20 years held to constitute
valid common-law trade-mark.-Charles Broad-
way Rouss, Inc.. v. Winchester Co., 463.

30 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) One of two affiliated
corporations held not entitled to use trade-
mark of the other.-Charles Broadway Rouss,
Inc., v. Winchester Co., 463.

31 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Protection of trade-
mark dependent on trade.-Rice & Hutchins v.
Vera Shoe Co., 124.

III. REGISTRATION, REGULATION, AND

OFFENSES.

43 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) The word "Winchest-
er" is a "name."-Charles Broadway Rouss,
Inc., v. Winchester Co., 463.

Name printed in "particular or distinctive
manner."-Id.

43 (D.C.) "Sun-Glo" and "Sun-Proof" held
not deceptively similar.-Patton Paint Co. v.
Sunset Paint Co., 323.

(C) Actions. ·

79 (D.C.) Improper use of registered mark
may be restrained as unfair competition.-Pat-
ton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 323.

802 [New, vol. 8A, Key-No. Series]
(U.S.C.C.A.) Evidence held to warrant
finding of conduct which restrained competition
by nonmembers of association.-Southern Hard-
ware Jobbers' Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commis-
sion, 773.

Agreement may be inferred from circumstanc-
es indicating concerted action.-Id.

Order to cease and desist from designated
practices held not too broad.-Id.

93(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Past acts of un-
fair competition sufficient to warrant assump-
tion of continuance of such acts warranting in
junction.-Rice & Hutchins v. Vera Shoe Co.,

124.

95(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Order for prelim-
inary injunction not abuse of discretion, where
unfair competition shown.-Milwaukee Printing
Co. v. Stover, 387.

Failure to produce proof of confusion is evi-97 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Injunction to protect
dence against deceptive similarity.-Id.

43 (D.C.) "Sunset" and "Sun-Proof" held
not deceptively similar.-Patton Paint Co. v.
Sunset Paint Co., 326.

43 (D.C.) Symbol of applicant held not de-
ceptively similar to that of opposer.-Patter-
son-Sargent Co. v. Indiana Indestructible Paint
Co., 351.

44 (D.C.) No appeal from Commissioner is
allowed in proceedings under act of 1920.-U.
S. Compression Inner Tube Co. v. Climax Rub-
ber Co., 345.

290 F.-67

trade-mark not denied, because complainant not
entitled to accounting.-Rice & Hutchins v.
Vera Shoe Co., 124.

Bankruptcy proceedings against defendant no
ground for not issuing injunction.-Id.

V. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES
ADJUDICATED.

"Sun."-Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co.
(App. D. C.) 290 F. 323.
"Sun-Glo."-Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint
Co. (App. D. C.) 290 F. 323.

"Sun-Proof."-Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint
Co. (App. D. C.) 290 F. 323, 326.
"Sunset."-Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint
Co. (App. D. C.) 290 F. 326.
"The Winchester."-Charles Broadway Rouss
v. Winchester Co. (D. C.) 290 F. 463.
"Vera."-Rice & Hutchins v. Vera Shoe Co.
(C. C. A. N. Y.) 290 F. 124.
"Vera_Shoe Company, Inc."-Rice & Hutchins
v. Vera Shoe Co. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 290 F.
124.

"Winchester."-Charles_Broadway Rouss v.
Winchester Co. (D. C.) 290 F. 463.

For trial of particular actions or proceedings,
see also the various specific topics.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.
(B) Estate or Interest of Trustee and of
Cestui Que Trust.

1361⁄2 (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) Property held by
trustee cannot be subjected to payment of his
debt.-Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Con-
necticut Brass & Mfg. Corporation, 712.

VII. ESTABLISHMENT AND ENFORCE-
MENT OF TRUST.

For review of rulings at trial, see Appeal and (B) Right to Follow Trust Property or
Error.

IV. RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE.

(A) Introduction, Offer, and Admission of

Evidence in General.

Proceeds Thereof.

352 (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) Constructive trust
conversion by bailee have been commingled.—
arises against fund into which proceeds from
43 (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Refusal to send ex- cut Brass & Mfg. Corporation, 712.
Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Connecti-
pert witness from stand to get books refer-356 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Trust
red to on cross-examination was not an abuse
of the trial court's discretion.-Hoffschlaeger
Co. v. Fraga, 146.

VI. TAKING CASE OR QUESTION FROM

JURY.

(A) Questions of Law or of Fact in Gen-
eral.

146 (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Newspaper state-
ment insurance company was defending suit did
not entitle defendant to withdraw a juror.
Hoffschlaeger Co. v. Fraga, 146.

(D) Direction of Verdict.

177 (D.C.) Motion of both parties for di-
rected verdict submits issues of fact to court.
-Splain v. B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co., 275.

Party can request submission of issue to jury
after disposition of motion for peremptory in-
struction.-Id.

VII. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.
(A) Province of Court and Jury in Gen-
eral.

194(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) In action for un-
authorized payment to plaintiff's embezzling
agent, instruction requiring finding for bank,
if plaintiff failed to give prompt notice after
discovery, held not to direct a verdict.-General
Cigar Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 143.

(G) Construction and Operation.
296 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Instruction er-
roneously submitting an issue held not reversi-
ble error, in view of other instruction.-Eikland
v. Casey, 880.

funds,

which did not pass into hands of liquidator,
can be followed by beneficiary.-Spokane &
Eastern Trust Co. v. U. S. Steel Products Co.,
884.

(C) Actions.

372(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Evidence held
to show bank, receiving proceeds of collection
Eastern Trust Co. v. U. S. Steel Products Co.,
by another, knew of insolvency.-Spokane &
884.

374 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Deduction
proceeds of collection of proportion of loss in
from
clearing held proper.-Spokane & Eastern Trust
Co. v. U. S. Steel Products Co., 884.

UNFAIR COMPETITION.

See Trade-Marks and Trade-Names and Unfair
Competition, 59–97.

UNITED STATES.

See Army and Navy; United States; United
States Commissioners.

II. PROPERTY, CONTRACTS, AND LIABIL-
ITIES.

70(1) (U.S.D.C.Pa) Conditions of contract
to govern, when supplies to be delivered at
navy yard, held inapplicable to delivery of coal
at ships.-Stineman Coal & Coke Co. v. U. S.,
1021.

Contract to deliver coal "at ship" held to re-
quire delivery at ship's side, and loss thereafter
was at government's risk.-Id.

742 [New, vol. 12A Key-No. Series]
(U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Subcontractor held not
required to allow credit for owner's materials
used in work.-Stang & Mitchell v. U. S., 136.

76 (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) Does not have com-
uitable Trust Co. of New York v. Connecticut
mon-law priority over English sovereign.-Eq-
Brass & Mfg. Corporation, 712.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
Mere insolvency of living debtor does not en- WATERS AND WATER COURSES.
title United States to priority under statute.
-Id.

IV. CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES.

III (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Assignment of claims
against void.-London & Lancashire Indemnity
Co. of America v. Endres, 98.

V. ACTIONS.

VIII. ARTIFICIAL PONDS, RESERVOIRS.
AND CHANNELS, DÁMS, AND

FLOWAGE.

172 (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Owner can deflect
stream and build bulkhead, if not negligent.-
Eikland v. Casey, 880.

Party constructing dam must use care com-
mensurate with undertaking.-Id.
for

179(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Liability
125 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Not subject to suit damage by flooding not assumed without proof
for damages by collision caused by government of negligence.-Eikland v. Casey, 880.
vessel employed in government business; "mer-179(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Evidence held
chant vessel."-The Lake Lida, 178.
not to show, as matter of law, flooding was due
to act of God.-Eikland v. Casey, 880.
Finding flood was not act of God held not to
establish liability.-Id.

125 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Congress may desig-
nate court in which suit shall be brought.-
Henry Kaelin & Son v. U. S., 242.

No person has authority to give jurisdiction
over government by consent.-Id.

125 (D.C.) Suit to restrain Secretary from
disposing of timber as directed by act of Con-
gress is against United States.-Morrison v.
Fall, 306.

130 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Subject to proper set-
off to claim in suit brought by it. The Norman
Bridge, 575.

133 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Set-off against govern-
ment vessel can be pleaded after lapse of time
for suit.-The Norman Bridge, 575.

WHARVES.

20(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Occupant of dock
liable for injuries from unsafe berth.-Dono-
van v. Frederick Starr Contracting Co., 501.
WILLS.

See Executors and Administrators.

VI. CONSTRUCTION.
(A) General Rules.

140 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Admissions in answer
in action against the United States binding as
in case of other parties.-Henry Kaelin & Son-Presbrey v. Simpson, 333.
v. U. S., 242.

439 (D.C.) Intention must prevail, if legal.

UNITED STATES MARSHALS.

31 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Marshal not mere tres-
passer in seizing goods, under writ.-Maryland
Casualty Co. v. Gates, 65.

440 (D.C.) Intention must be ascertained
from language.-Presbrey v. Simpson, 333.

333.

449 (D.C.) Construction preventing par-
tial intestacy favored.-Presbrey v. Simpson,
452 (D.C.) Rule favoring heirs not applied,
36 (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Replevin suit for plain- if intention of testator is plain.-Presbrey v.
tiff res judicata on issue as to validity of Simpson, 333.
seizure.-Maryland Casualty Co. v. Gates, 65.466 (D.C.) Testator, in committing prop-
Real owner of property must sue on bond for erty to wife, held to have intended absolute
wrongful seizure.-Id.
gift; "commit."-Presbrey v. Simpson, 333.

USURY.
TIONS.

(D) Description of Property.

I. UȘURIOUS CONTRACTS AND TRANSAC-559 (D.C.) "Property" includes every sub-
ject of ownership.-Presbrey v. Simpson, 333.

(A) Nature nad Validity.

(H) Estates in Trust and Powers.

61 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Contract for illegal
penalty does not forfeit legal interest.-Nation-684 (3) (D.C.) Stock dividends part of
al Can Co. v. Fellows, 201.

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

See Sales.

VERDICT.

See Criminal Law, 878; Trial, 334.

WAR.

corpus, and not income, in absence of direc-
tions.-Lanston v. Lanston, 315.

12 (D.C.) Claim for value of services ren-323 (U. S. C. C. A. Tenn.) Government can
dered is "debt," enforceable against Alien Prop- cross-examine its own witness as to contradic-
erty Custodian.-Rockwood v. Miller, 341. tion with earlier sworn statement.-Halbert v.
Provision for recovery of debts by citizens U. S., 765.
should not be construed to defeat its purpose.
-Id.

Claims recoverable by citizens from Alien
Property Custodian are not limited to liquidat-
ed demands.-Id.

(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.

344 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence of pos-
session at another time of other stolen goods
held inadmissible.-Wolf v. U. S., 738.

(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness., "Employé."-De Vries v. Alsen Cement Co. of
380(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Statements by
America (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 746.
one defendant to government agent held compe- "Entrapment."-U. S. v. Certain Quantities of
tent to affect his credibility.--Halbert v. U. S.,
Intoxicating Liquors (U. S. D. C. N. H.)
824.
765.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
"Profits."-International Radio Telegraph Co. "Total permanent disability."-Law v. U. S. (U.
v. Atlantic Communication Co. (U. S. C. C.
A. N. Y.) 698.
"Property."-Presbrey v. Simpson (D. C.) 333.
"Refuse."-Mackey v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. A.
Tenn.) 18.

WEST PUBLISHING CO., PRINTERS, ST. PAUL, MINN.