ACTIONS AND DEFENSES. See Estoppel.
Seamen's remedies for injuries at sea. See Admiralty.
Limitation of actions. See Limitations.
Equitable jurisdiction to prevent multiplicity of suits. See
Equity, 3.
As to what constitutes suit arising under "law regulating
" within meaning of Jud. Code, § 24. See Juris-
diction, III, 2.
1. Under Federal Employers' Liability Act, there is no cause
of action for pain and suffering if employee dies without re-
gaining consciousness. New Orleans & N. E. R. R. v. Har-
ris.
2. And no cause of action accrues for benefit of dependent
mother where deceased leaves widow who, although living
apart from him, was neither remarried nor divorced and
where marital rights and liabilities had not ceased under
local law. Id.
3. Provision of Act of 1917, relative to actions by seamen
without bond or prepayment of costs, does not apply to
appellate proceedings. Ex parte Abdu..
4. Sec. 9, Judiciary Act of 1789, allows a right sanctioned by
maritime law to be enforced through an appropriate com-
mon-law remedy. Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co.......
5. Amendment of bill for annulment of contract for fraud,
transferred by order of District Court, under Equity Rule
22, to law side as action for damages for deceit, whereby no
substantial change was made in allegations of fraud, held
not to change cause of action nor constitute beginning of new
case. Friederichsen v. Renard
6. Where, in action at law on contract, answer set up was in
effect bill in equity seeking reformation and incidentally to
enjoin action at law, proceeding held converted into equita-
able one. Philippine Sugar &c. Co. v. Philippine Islands... 385
ACTIONS AND DEFENSES-Continued.
7. Relief in case of contract which, owing to mutual mistake,
fails to express intention of parties, may be obtained by de-
fendant under Philippine Code Civ. Proc., § 285, upon ap-
propriate pleadings, without resort to independent suit for
reformation of contract. Id.
8. Proviso of Act of Mar. 2, 1896, prohibiting suits for re-
covery of land covered by grant lost or relinquished in con-
sequence of failure of Government to withdraw same from
entry or sale, held curative measure referring only to lands
patented before enactment and not a protection for patent
procured afterwards by fraud. United States v. St. Paul, M.
& M. Ry. . . . . . .
9. Suit by State against Secretary of Interior and Commis-
sioner of Land Office to enjoin issuance of patents to assignee
of purchasers in good faith of tracts of land within indemnity
limits of Northern Pacific, and to quiet title, State claiming
under act of Congress passed subsequent to such purchases,
held not maintainable. Minnesota v. Lane..
ACTS OF CONGRESS. See Table at front of volume; Stat-
utes.
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW. See Equity, 1, 2, 3.
1. By general maritime law vessel owner liable only for
maintenance, cure and wages of seaman injured in service of
ship by negligence of member of crew, whether superior
officer or not; and this liability not subject to be enlarged
to full common-law indemnity by law of State. Chelentis v.
Luckenbach S. S. Co. . . . . .
2. Sec. 20 of Seamen's Act of 1915 held not to intend to sub-
stitute common-law measure of liability for maritime rule.
Id.
3. Sec. 9, Judiciary Act of 1789, allows a right sanctioned
by maritime law to be enforced through an appropriate com-
mon-law remedy, but does not give plaintiff election to have
defendant's liability measured by common-law standards
instead of those prescribed by maritime law. Id.
ADMISSION. See Pleading, 3.
Enclosure bounded on three sides by fence and on fourth by
deep water will sustain claim of adverse possession under
Texas statute, if other elements are also present. Alice
State Bank v. Houston Pasture Co..
ALIENATION, RESTRAINT ON. See Indians.
AMENDMENT OF PLEADING. See Pleading, 1, 2.
1. In determining whether combination unlawful, foremost
inquiry is whether interests brought together were competi-
tive. United States v. United Shoe Mach. Co.....
2. Where machines were patented and, though used col-
lectively in making single product, were so far distinct in
functions as to be practically non-competitive, a common
control over their manufacture and use held not obnoxious
to Act. Id.
3. Statements to shareholders and in agency contract, made
by participants in combination, explaining object, held not to
establish unlawful intent, in view of other evidence. Id.
4. Evidence held not to sustain charges of unlawful restraint
of interstate commerce in shoe machinery, and monopoly
thereof, in formation and conduct of United Shoe Machinery
Company. Id.
5. Generally, one has right to purchase patents for pro-
tection or improvement of own inventions and business, and
for prevention of patent litigation, and such purchases
should not be adjudged to have stifled competition unduly
upon speculative estimates of potential competitive power
of new and untried inventions. Id.
6. Certain contracts for assignment of future inventions
held legitimate. Id.
7. Exertion of right of patentee to exclude others from use
of his invention, within field of patent law, is not an offense
against Act. Id.
ANTI-TRUST ACT-Continued.
8. Leases of sets of patented machines on royalty basis,
obligating lessee to use each machine to full capacity; to
lease others as more work became available; to use to ex-
clusion of and not to use on work coming from machines
not so leased; requiring lessee to obtain certain supplies from
lessor only; providing for forfeiture of all leases upon breach
of condition in any lease; and requiring lessee thereupon to
pay a charge; held voluntary contracts of lessees, within
lessor's patent rights and not violative of Anti-Trust Act. Id.
9. In suit to set aside leases of patented machines upon
ground that they exceed rights of lessor as patent-owner and
operate to produce results obnoxious to Act, semble, lessees
may be necessary parties. Id.
10. In determining matter of dissolution, lapse of time,
changes of conditions, development of high industrial effi-
ciency, difficulty of restoring antecedent conditions and in-
jurious effects to follow, should be considered. Id.
See Patents for Inventions, 4.
APPEAL AND ERROR. See Jurisdiction; Procedure.
APPORTIONMENT OF DIRECT TAXES. See Constitu-
tional Law, XII.
Principles determining boundary between Arkansas and
Tennessee defined; and commission appointed to locate and
designate line. Arkansas v. Tennessee..
Congress may conscript for military duty in foreign country.
Cox v. Wood...
ASSESSMENT. See Taxation.
Assessment of stockholders to pay debts of corporation.
See Constitutional Law, V, 2.
Effect of payment of insurance assessments. See Insur-
Certain contracts for assignment of future inventions held
legitimate under Anti-Trust Act. United States v. United
Shoe Mach. Co..
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT:
State statute giving attorney lien on cause of action or its
proceeds for agreed portion of recovery and rendering de-
fendant directly liable to him in case of settlement after no-
tice and without his consent, does not deprive party liable
of any constitutional right, even where settlement made
under judgment recovered upon cause of action through
another attorney in federal court, and by satisfying such
judgment by payment to clerk of that court. Union Pa-
cific R. R. v. Laughlin...
BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS. See Insurance, 1-4.
BENEFICIARY, CHANGE OF. See Insurance, 1–4.
BENEFITS. See Eminent Domain.
BONDS. See Costs; Materialmen's Acts.
1. Principles determining boundary between Arkansas and
Tennessee defined; and commission to locate and designate
line appointed. Arkansas v. Tennessee..
2. Enclosure bounded on three sides by fence and on fourth
by deep water will sustain claim of adverse possession under
Texas statute, if other elements are also present. Alice State
Bank v. Houston Pasture Co..
Scandalous and impertinent matter in. See Cox v. Wood...
BURDEN OF PROOF. See Evidence, 2, 3.
CAPITAL AND INCOME. See Taxation.
CAPITAL STOCK. See Taxation.
CARRIERS. See Employers' Liability Act; Negligence, 2.
Liability of vessel owner for injury to seaman injured in serv-
ice of ship. See Admiralty.
1. Duty to ship by cheapest route in absence of instructions,
not absolute; it is duty to deal fairly with shipper, with due
regard also for carrier's own interest and obligation to public.
Northern Pacific Ry. v. Solum ...
|