STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
See COURTS, 2, 3, 4.
SUCCESSIONS.
See LOCAL LAW (PORTO RICO).
TAXES AND TAXATION.
See ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION;
BANKS AND Banking, 1, 2.
TELEGRAMS.
See UNITED STATES, 2.
TERRITORIAL COURTS.
See APPEAL And Error.
1. Ceded conquered territory; continuation of military authority-Pre-
sumption arising from delay in legislation.
The military authority in control of ceded conquered territory at the
time of a treaty of peace continues, if not dissolved by the Com-
mander-in-Chief, until legislatively changed; nor is there any
presumption of a contrary intention from the inaction of the
legislature. Whatever the cause of delay in legislation it must
be presumed that the delay was consistent with the true policy
of the Government. (Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164.) Santiago
v. Nogueras, 260.
2. Ceded conquered territory-Extent of authority of military government.
The authority of a military government continued after treaty of
peace ceding the conquered territory, though not unlimited, is
of large extent, and includes the power to establish courts of
justice. (Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176.) Ib.
See BANKRUPTCY, 2;
VENDOR AND VENDEE, 1.
Publication of person's likeness as.
Quare and not decided whether the unauthorized publication of a
person's likeness is a tort per se. Peck v. Tribune Company, 185.
TRANSLATIONS.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2.
Construction to be reasonable and sensible.
Where a provision in a treaty or convention is plain it must receive a
reasonable and sensible construction, and not one which it is
impossible to conceive that the representatives of civilized coun-
tries would enter into. Collins v. O'Neil, 113.
See CONTRACTs, 3, 4;
EXTRADITION, 4, 6, 7;
PORTO RICO, 1.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5;
EXTRADITION, 4, 5, 7.
TRUSTEES.
See BANKRUPTCY, 2, 3.
1. Jurisdiction exclusive over Norfolk Navy Yard.
The Norfolk Navy Yard is one of the places over which, under Art. I,
§8, par. 17, of the. Constitution, Congress possesses exclusive
power of legislation, and that exclusive power necessarily in-
cludes exclusive jurisdiction; and it is of the highest importance
that the jurisdiction of the State should be resisted at the border
of such places. (Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S.
525.) Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chiles, 274.
2. Jurisdiction-Power of State to exact penalty for act of omission
within place under exclusive jurisdiction of United States.
The State cannot inflict a penalty for the non-delivery of a telegram
within the limits of a place under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
United States; and so held that under the statute of Virginia in
that regard the penalty cannot be collected for the non-delivery
of a telegram to an addressee within the limits of the Norfolk
Navy Yard. Congress alone can prescribe penalties in such a
case. Ib.
See BANKS AND BANKING, 3;
COMMERCIAL PAPER, 1.
1. Property rights in articles sold.
In this case, held, that the sale of a stock of dry goods under a contract
by which the articles sold remained the property of the vendor
until paid for, with provision for substitution of other goods and
that proceeds of goods sold also belonged to the vendor, was a
conditional sale. Bryant v. Swofford Bros., 279.
2. Conditional sales; law governing validity.
The validity of conditional sales depends upon the law of the State
where made, and in bankruptcy the construction and validity
of such a contract must be determined by the local law of the
State, York Manufacturing Co. v. Cassell, 201 U. S. 344, and the
contract in this case as tested by the law of Arkansas is a con-
ditional sale and is valid without record. Ib.
Construction; presumption against partial intestacy.
The will of a childless testatrix, who lived with her husband in the
leper colony of Hawaii, leaving all her property to her husband,
was rightfully construed as relating to all property whether sit-
uated in that colony or outside thereof, it not being presumed
that she died intestate as to any of her property or that she would
VOL. CCXIV-38
limit her bounty to her husband by omitting any of her property.
Gray v. Noholoa, 108.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2.
WILSON ACT.
See COMMERCE.
"Parcel" and "letter"-Quare as to distinction affecting validity of
return.
Quare, whether there is any distinction between "a parcel” and “a
letter" that renders defective a return showing service of statu-
tory notice by mail. District of Columbia v. Brooke, 138.
|