At railroad crossings. 29 C. C. A. 90. TARIFF LAWS. of circuit Interpretation of commercial and trade terms. 18 C. C. A. 545. ΤΑΧΑΤΙΟΝ. Of railroad land grants. 4 C. C. A. 196. Of equitable title to public lands. 4 C. C. A. 196. Lands of the United States not subject to state taxation. 4 C. C. A. 196. Due process of law. 8 C. C. A. 398. Notice of equalization. 8 C. C. A. 400. Forfeiture for nonpayment. 8 C. C. A. 401. Regulation and taxation of interstate commerce by state. 8 C. C. A. 492; 24 C. C. A. 21. Limitations of taxing power from mutual independence of federal and state governments. 23 C. C. A. 515. Of foreign corporations. 24 C. C. A. 13. Tax deed as color of title. 24 C. C. A. 402. Of intangible property of nonresidents. 31 C. C. A. 467. TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES. Measure of damages in actions against. 11 C. C. A. 556. Damages for mental suffering from delay in delivering telegram. 11 C. C. A. 571; 15 C. C. A. 250; 28 C. C. A. 62. 14 Delay in transmission of message. C. C. A. 177. Rights of telegraph and telephone companies to use of streets. 44 C. C. A. 155. THREATENING POSTAL CARDS. Nonmailable matter. 30 C. C. A. 94. 19 C. C. A. 278. TITLE INSURANCE. Liabilities of carriers for negligence and torts of servants. 10 C. C. A. 466; 27 C. C. A. 651. Of wife-Liability of husband. 12 C. C. A. 196. Of public officers. 14 C. C. A. 534. As affecting demurrage. 21 C. C. A. 345. Maritime liens for torts. 34 C. C. A. 565. Estoppel against. 16 C. C. A. 353. USURY. Statutory exemptions of building and VENDOR AND PURCHASER. WAIVER. Of prepayment of insurance premiums. Of maritime liens. 17 C. C. A. 102. Of defense by acceptance of premiums. 20 C. C. A. WATERS AND WATER COURSES. A. 538. Abandonment of water rights. 45 C. WIFE. Death of husband by wrongful act- Liability of husband for torts of. 12 C. WITNESS. Competency in federal courts-Follow- Method of summoning. 5 C. C. A. 594. WRITS. A. 594. 5 C. C. Issue and service on Sunday. 12 C. C. NOTES IN THIS VOLUME. Liability of Attorneys for Contempt. Page 7 What Law Governs Master's Liability for Injuries to Servant.. 232 351 470 ... 674 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS. (109 Fed. 971.) ANDERSON v. COMPTOIS. In re DUBOSE. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 6, 1901.) No. 632. 1. CONTEMPT-RIGHTS OF ATTORNEY-COUNSELING DISOBEDIENCE OF ORder of COURT. An attorney has the right to advise his client as to the validity of an order of court, or of a writ issued under its authority, which affects the client's interests; and his advice to the effect that such order or writ is illegal and void, if given in good faith, will not render him liable for contempt, because of an error in judgment; but he is guilty of contempt if he goes beyond the right to advise in matter of law, and, actuated by a spirit of resistance, counsels or conspires with his client or others to disobey an order of court and obstruct its enforcement.1 2. SAME-JURISDICTION TO PUNISH-APPELLATE COURT. Where an appeal from an order made by an inferior court has been regularly allowed by a judge of the circuit court of appeals, a citation signed and issued, a bond on supersedeas taken and approved, and a writ of supersedeas issued and filed in the lower court and served, the circuit court of appeals has acquired such jurisdiction as to enable it to enforce obedience to its writ by proceedings in contempt against one who, with knowledge of such facts, counsels disobedience to its commands, or assists in resistance to its enforcement. In the matter of the alleged contempt of Dudley Dubose in having advised O. Jose Comptois, the appellee herein (plaintiff in the court below), to disobey and refuse to comply with the terms of a certain writ of supersedeas issued herein. T. J. Geary and C. A. Severance, for respondent. E. S. Pillsbury, amicus curiæ. Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges. 1 See note at end of case. 48 C.C.A.-1 MORROW, Circuit Judge. It is charged in this case that Dudley Dubose, Esq., one of the attorneys for the appellee, Comptois, on the 15th day of September, 1900, at Cape Nome, Alaska, advised the said Comptois to disobey and to refuse to comply with a certain order and writ of supersedeas issued out of this court on the 29th day of August, 1900, by direction of one of its judges. This is one of several cases wherein Arthur H. Noyes, district judge for the district of Alaska, Second division, appointed Alexander McKenzie receiver to take charge of and manage, mine, and work certain placer mining claims on Anvil creek, in the Cape Nome mining district. In the opinion of this court in the matter of the contempt of Alexander McKenzie, in Tornanses v. Melsing, and Kjellman v. Rogers, cases of similar character to the one now under consideration, the proceedings are set forth more in detail than will be necessary in the present case; but a reference to that opinion is necessary to fully understand the character of the proceedings in which this charge of contempt had its origin. See 106 Fed. 775.2 The appointment of Alexander McKenzie as receiver in this case, as in the others, was made ex parte, and without notice to the respondent, and before the bill of complaint was filed with the clerk of the court. The order appointing the receiver provided also for an injunction restraining and enjoining the defendant from interfering with the control or management of the said receiver in the mining and working of the placer mining claim described in the complaint. The present action was brought and the receiver appointed on July 23, 1900. The defendant gave notice to the plaintiff on July 27, 1900, that he would move the court on July 30, 1900, that the appointment of McKenzie as receiver be discharged, and the order making such appointment be vacated, for the reason that the same were improperly and improvidently made by the judge. This motion was dismissed on August 10, 1900, and the appointment of McKenzie as receiver was confirmed, and the receivership ordered continued until the further order of the court. Thereupon the respondent petitioned the district court for leave to prosecute an appeal to the circuit court of appeals from the order and decree made and entered on July 23, 1900, presenting an assignment of errors, and requesting that the amount of a supersedeas bond be fixed; whereupon the court disallowed and denied the petition for appeal, and refused to fix the amount of the supersedeas bond. The respondent thereupon forwarded his petition for appeal and accompanying assignment of errors to the circuit court of appeals at San Francisco, Cal. This petition was presented to a judge of that court, who, after a hearing upon said petition, on August 28, 1900, granted the appeal, fixed the amount of supersedeas bond in the sum of $20,000, accepted such bond, and thereupon entered orders for writ of supersedeas to issue. The clerk of the circuit court of appeals duly issued such writ in the form approved by said circuit judge. This writ, in addition to the requirement that all proceedings under the orders granting injunction and appointing a receiver be 2 45 C. C. A. 615. |