ment.-Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 485. PRIORITIES. PRIVATE NUISANCE. Under a contract for the carriage of mails, See Bankruptcy, 350; Patents, evidenced by distance circular, held, in view of previous conduct of the parties, that PostPRIVATE BANKERS. master General might, under Rev. St. § 3962 (Comp. St. 1913, § 7450), deduct from earnings See Banks and Banking, ➡94. under such contract amount of fines imposed for delinquencies under previous contracts.-Id. Where, through the negligence of a railroad company carrying the mails, mails were de- See Nuisance, 49, 50. stroyed, held that, under Rev. St. § 3962 (Comp. St. 1913, § 7450), a deduction commensurate with loss might be made, though exceeding three times the amount earned by the railroad company on that trip.-Id. Under Rev. St. § 3962 (Comp. St. 1913, § 7450), the Postmaster General may impose on mail carriers fines for delinquencies without limitation, and his determination is not subject to review, unless he manifestly abuses or exceeds the power conferred.—Id. PRACTICE. PROMISSORY NOTES. See Bills and Notes. PROPERTY. 73. las are property, and rights in them are recog2 (U.S.C.C.A.) Secret processes and formunized and entitled to protection as property rights.-Durand v. Brown, 605. PROSTITUTION. (U.S.C.C.A.) Act June 25; 1910, § 3, de For practice in particular actions and proceed-nouncing the offense of interstate transportaings, see the various specific topics. tion of women for immoral purposes, charges two offenses, transportation for sporadic immorality or debauchery, and for habitual indulgence in such offenses.-Gillette V. United States, 405. Accused, who, having invited a woman in Fargo, N. D., to dine with him, for convenience had her come to Moorhead, Minn., and then returned with her to North Dakota, where they engaged in immoral relations, held not guilty of offense denounced by Act June 25, 1910, § 3.-Id. PUBLIC DEBT. See Counties, 187, 188. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. See Municipal Corporations, 488-516. PUBLIC LANDS. III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO See Mines and Minerals, 2-38. THIRD PERSONS. (C) Unauthorized and Wrongful Acts. 148(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) In an action of con version against one who purchased property from an agent with knowledge of his want of authority plaintiff need not tender the amount paid by defendant.-Davis v. Finch, 299. 156 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where defendant, in negotiating for purchase of capital stock of gas company, induced superintendent in charge to make written misrepresentations as to its condition to assist him in securing financial backing for project, and owner did not know of such misrepresentations, he is not bound thereby, and they cannot be considered in determining his liability on contract.-Moloney v. Cressler, 632. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. See Subrogation, II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS (J) Patents. time pre 114(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Lapse of scribed for suits to cancel patents under Act March 2, 1896, § 1, held to give patent the same effect as though originally valid.-United States v. New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co., 145. Pendency of application of occupant to make homestead entry subsequent to patent to another held without effect on the title passing by the patent.-Id. 116 (U.S.C.C.A.) An occupant of land patented to a railroad, who relinquished his rights therein by homesteading other land, had no color of right to challenge the action of the Land Department in patenting the land to_the railroad. United States v. New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co., 145. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER (K) Remedies in Cases of Fraud, Mistake, PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS. or Trust. 120 (U.S.C.C.A.) In a suit to cancel a pat- See Carriers; Railroads; Street Railroads. ent to land issued under Homestead Law on the ground of fraud in the final proofs as to the entryman's residence, etc., evidence held to QUASHING. warrant a decree dismissing the bill.-United See Indictment and Information, 137. States v. Mahaffey, 124. It is presumed that all preceding steps required to obtain a patent to public lands have QUIETING TITLE. been observed; and, in view of the importance I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. and necessity of the stability of titles, a patent should be set aside for fraud in proofs only 13 (U.S.C.C.A.) A bill alleging that comwhere the fraud is clearly established.—Id. plainant is the owner of a tract of land, but admitting that defendant railroad company is in the exclusive possession of the entire tract, using the same for railroad purposes, held not to state a cause of action to quiet title.-EnnisBrown Co. v. Central Pac. Ry. Co., 137. RAILROADS. 120 (U.S.C.C.A.) Act March 2, 1896, § 1, limiting time for suits to cancel patents theretofore issued, held applicable, though land was reserved or excluded from the grant under which the patent was erroneously issued. United States v. New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co., 145. Act March 2, 1896, § 1, limiting time for suits to cancel patents, held applicable to lands in railroad grant confirmed to railroad company by Act Feb. 8, 1887.-Id. Act March 2, 1896, § 1, limiting time for suits to cancel patents, held applicable, though cancellation will inure to benefit of occupant, and not to benefit of the United States.-Id. 128 (U.S.C.C.A.) Trust, if any, in favor of occupant of land in railroad grant confirmed by Act Feb. 8, 1887, § 2, held not enforceable by the government.-United States v. New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co., 145. 128 (U.S.C.C.A.) Claim of occupant that title passing by patent inured to his benefit and that land was held in trust held cognizable only in equity, and subject to defenses of staleness and laches.-United States v. New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co., 153. Lapse of time held to bar rights of occupant of land patented to another in equity as well as at law, in absence of fraudulent concealment of cause of action or excuse for the laches.-Id. Right to enforce trust, if any, in favor of occupant of land patented to railroad company and confirmed to it by Act Feb. 8, 1887, held barred by inexcusable laches.-Id. Claimants. See Carriers; Master and Servant; Post Office, 21; Public Lands, 120-131; Receivers, 167; Street Railroads. II. RAILROAD COMPANIES. 17 (U.S.C.C.A.) The authority of the superintendent or assistant superintendent of a division of a railroad company to bind the company in disposing of a shipment of chickens, stopped in transit by a flood, can be inferred without other evidence.-Chicago & E I. R. Co. v. Collins Produce Co., 169. X. OPERATION. (F) Accidents at Crossings. Mont. §§ 6162, 6163, a railroad company which 305(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Rev. Codes allowed the carcass of a dead horse to putrefy liable for injuries resulting from the nuisance, on its right of way near a highway crossing is including the frightening of passing teams.Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Ennis, 227. 324(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a traveler's team took fright at the putrefying body of a dead horse lying near a railroad crossing and ran away, the last clear chance doctrine has no application on the theory that the traveler should (L) Relief of Bona Fide Settlers and have taken another road knowing of the presence of the dead horse.-Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Ennis, 227. 131 (U.S.C.C.A.) Application of occupant of land confirmed to railroad company by Act 333(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Deceased, who was Feb. 8, 1887, to make homestead entry thereof, held evidence that his possession was not under a claim of ownership.-United States v. New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co., 145. Occupant of land confirmed to railroad by Act Feb. 8, 1887, held to relinquish rights by homesteading other land, and he could convey no rights to another.-Id. (M) Conveyances, Contracts, and Exemp tions. struck and killed by a train as he was walking over a crossing in the evening, where the headlight of the engine could have been plainly seen for half a mile before the train reached the crossing, held negligent.-Boston & M. R. R. v. Titcomb, 339. 348(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) In an action against a railroad company for the death of a traveler whose team was frightened by the carcass of a dead horse on the right of way, evidence held to warrant a finding that the horse on the right of way was killed by a train.-Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Ennis, 227. 138 (U.S.C.C.A.) Though patent to land was secured through fraud and misrepresentation, it cannot be attacked by the government where, 350(15) (U.S.C.C.A.) Whether a traveler after institution of a suit against the patentee, the land was transferred to a purchaser for value in good faith, without notice of the suit. -United States v. Calcasieu Timber Co., 386. killed when her team which took fright at the body of a dead horse on a railroad right of way ran off was guilty of contributory negligence in taking that road knowing of the presence of the REVENUE. REVIEW. VI. ACTIONS. 167 (U.S.C.C.A.) A receiver for a railroad company held authorized to maintain a suit to See Internal Revenue. VII. ACCOUNTING AND COMPENSA- See Appeal and Error; Bankruptcy, 440 TION. 199 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a state court was without authority to administer any of the assets of a bankrupt, it has no authority to allow 1032-1184. its receiver compensation for performing part See Master and Servant, 217–234, 288. of that labor.-State of Missouri v. Angle, 640. 467; Criminal Law, RISKS. RULES OF COURT. SAFE PLACE TO WORK. 219. SALES. See Bankruptcy, 262; Corporations, See Master and Servant, See Corporations, 247. REMOVAL OF CAUSES. See Limitation of Actions, 134. REMOVAL OF CLOUD. See Quieting Title. 121, 149, 661; Good Will, 5; Vendor and Purchaser. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF 7 (U.S.C.C.A.) That a contract contemplated and provided for a purchase by one appointed an agent for sale does not prevent it being an agency to sell until such purchase.-Mitchell Wagon Co. v. Poole, 129. A contract held one of agency for sale and not sale so that a provision for reservation of title was binding and may be asserted by the principal on the agent's bankruptcy.-Id. 43(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) That a buyer of lumber for resale whose duty it was to measure lumber overbilled shipments to its own customers does not warrant seller, who was not defrauded, in rescinding the contract.-Lasswell Land & Lumber Co. v. Lee Wilson & Co., 454. II. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT, 77(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) In view of the previous construction of the parties, held that a contract for the sale of lumber authorized the buyer to deduct from the last installment of the price For cases in Dec Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 2 per cent. of the entire contract price.-Lass-130 (U.S.C.C.A.) After a shipment has been well Land & Lumber Co. v. Lee Wilson & Co., overtaken by a storm that may be properly 454. VIII. REMEDIES OF BUYER. (C) Actions for Breach of Contract. classed as an act of God, it is the duty of the carrier to exercise at least reasonable diligence in endeavoring to save the shipment and prevent further loss.-McNeil Higgins Co. v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 166. 131 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a shipment of salmon was damaged when delivered to such extent that the cans had to be reconditioned before marketing, the shipper is entitled to recover the amount of his loss from a decline in the market price during the time necessarily required for such work.-The Jeanie, 515. 418(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where defendant, which agreed to make monthly shipments of coal, 132(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) The burden of proving agreed to spread shipments over entire month, that damage to cargo from sea water which enmeasure of damages for breach would be dif- tered the vessel was due to perils of the sea ference between contract price and average rests upon the vessel.-The Jeanie, 515. price of coal during month.-New York & Phil-132(6) (U.S.C.C.A.) The question, whether adelphia Coal & Coke Co. v. Meyersdale Coal Co., 588. See Admiralty; Collision; Towage. VII. CARRIAGE OF GOODS. 106 (U.S.C.C.A.) A shipper held not bound by the terms of bills of lading to which it did not assent and which were not delivered to nor received by its authorized agents.-The Jeanie, 515. 120 (U.S.C.C.A.) A shipowner is not relieved from liability for loss or damage to cargo from perils of the sea, where his own fault or negligence contributed to such loss or damage. -The Jeanie, 515. 121(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Whether a vessel is seaworthy, as between owner and shipper, depends on whether she is reasonably fit to carry safely and without damage the particular cargo which she undertakes to transport.-The Jeanie, 515. A steamer held not seaworthy for the carriage of a cargo of canned salmon which was damaged by seawater and coal dust.-Id. coffee shipped after being wet in a storm of such magnitude as to constitute an Act of God was of any value, held for the jury.-McNeil Higgins Co. v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 166. Questions whether the carrier was negligent in failing to transport coffee to destination as well as to take immediate steps to dry the coffee held for jury.-Id. 137 (U.S.C.C.A.) Section 3, Harter Act of Feb. 13, 1893, construed and held not to apply to acts connected with the stowage or handling of the cargo.-The Jeanie, 515. 142 (U.S.C.C.A.) A stipulation with respect to a suit for damage to cargo held a waiver by the vessel owner of any claim that the suit was not commenced within the time required by the bills of lading.-The Jeanie, 515. SICK PERSONS. See Carriers, 281, 320, 343, 346. SINKING FUNDS. See Corporations, 478. SMOKE. See Nuisance, 49, 50. SPECIAL LAWS. See Statutes, 80, 97. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS. 728. See Appeal and Error, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. See Equity, ~66. I. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF REMEDY IN GENERAL. 14 (U.S.C.C.A.) Specific performance of a contract to convey mining claims to a corporation to be formed and to deliver to complainants a percentage of the total shares will be denied, because calling for action by persons other than those who are parties to the contract.-Ellis v. Treat, 330. II. CONTRACTS ENFORCEABLE. 28(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) A contract to convey land to a corporation to be formed and to deliver to complainants a percentage of the shares held too indefinite for enforcement by specific performance.-Ellis v. Treat, 330. May 7. 1889 [P. L. 104]; Act March 16, 1899 [P. L. 9]), authorizing the Pennsylvania Canal Company to abandon for public use portions of Pa. art. 3, § 7, as to special laws altering highits canal system, held not violative of Const. ways, etc.-Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Brown, 89. V. REPEAL, SUSPENSION, EXPIRA- 62 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where it did not appear that damages would be inadequate, specific performance of a contract to convey mining claims to a corporation to be formed, and transfer a161(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) A subsequent statute percentage of the shares to complainants, will be dealing with the same subject takes effect and denied.-Ellis v. Treat, 330. supersedes an earlier one.-Alaska Salmon Co. v. Territory of Alaska, 272. 70 (U.S.C.C.A.) Contract for sale of entire capital stock of gas company, which property was not to be obtained on open market, is one which may be specifically performed.-Moloney v. Cressler, 632. IV. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF. 119 (U.S.C.C.A.) Specific performance of a contract which entailed rendition of services by complainants must be denied, where they did not show their ability to perform.-Ellis v. Treat, 330. VI. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA TION. (A) General Rules of Construction. 216 (U.S.C.C.A.) While debates in the Legislature may be considered in determining legislative intent, individual expression of members of the Legislature will not establish such intent in enacting a statute.-Sweetser v. Emerson, 351; Same v. Lowell, 359. (B) Particular Classes of Statutes. 126(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where the complaint alleged defendant agreed to transfer mining claims to corporation to be formed and to de-235 (U.S.C.C.A.) A public statute relating liver a percentage of stock to complainants, to the military power of the government should held that corporation, not having been formed, be liberally construed, so as to make such powdefendant could not be ordered to convey a er effective.-Sweetser v. Emerson, 351; Same similar percentage of the claims to complain- v. Lowell, 359. ants.-Ellis v. Treat, 330. See United States. STATES. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. See Limitation of Actions. STATUTES. For statutes relating to particular subjects, see I. ENACTMENT, REQUISITES, AND Rules of strict and literal construction may be departed from, in order that absurd results may be avoided, and to insure that the statute shall be effective for the purposes intended.-Id. (D) Retroactive Operation. 263 (U.S.C.C.A.) Words in a statute ought not to be given a retrospective operation, unless they are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the Legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied.-Lynch v. Turrish, 649. STATUTES CONSTRUED. 47 (U.S.C.C.A.) Act Alaska May 1, 1913 (Laws 1913, c. 52) § 3, relating to license taxes, held in case of fisheries to require applica- Art. 1, § 8. tion of a license before doing business and subsequent payment of fee computed on output, and, as so construed, not to be at all uncertain for enforcement.-Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. Territory of Alaska, 280. II. GENERAL AND SPECIAL OR LO- 80(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) The several Pennsylvania Acts (Act June 2, 1870 [P. L. 1318]; Act May 7, 1889 [P. L. 104]; Act March 16, 1899 [P. L. 9]), authorizing the Pennsylvania Canal Company to abandon for public use portions of its canal system, held not a violation of Const. Pa. art. 3, § 7, as special laws.-Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Brown, 89. 97(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) The several Pennsylvania Acts (Act June 2, 1870 [P. L. 1318]; Act UNITED STATES. CONSTITUTION. CRIMINAL CODE. Act 1909, March 4, ch. 321, 35 Stat. 1088. § 37. 335.. 351 .283, 307 292 437 STATUTES AT LARGE, For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 124 121 56 |