Изображения страниц


no proceedings have been taken to terminate its

existence, it may maintain a suit for infringeSee, also, “Arbitration and Award"; "Bonds"; ment of the patent, notwithstanding that de

"Indemnity"; "Insurance"; "Interest"; "Land- fendant questions its corporate existence on the
lord and Tenant”; “Marine Insurance"; "Mas- ground of failure to seasonably commence the
ter and Servant"; "Mortgages”; “Partner-corporate business.-- American Cable Ry. Co. v.
ship”; “Principal and Agent"; "Principal and City of New York (C. C.) 227.
Surety"; "Sale"; "Vendor and Purchaser.

Officers and agents.
Of corporation, see_“Corporations.”
Reformation, see "Equity.'

A by-law of a New York corporation required What law governs, see "Conflict of Laws."

that notice of the time and place of holding

elections for directors "shall be published not Plaintiff received an option from defendant less than 20 days previous thereto." Code Civ. to buy defendant's property within six months. Proc. N. Y. $$ 787, 788, provide that in computPlaintiff did not do so, and the option was not ing the time for publication of legal notices, etc., extended, but plaintiff, with defendant's en- | the first day shall be excluded and the last incouragement, continued to make efforts to obtain cluded., Held, that the rule of the statute capital for the purchase, and after a considera- should be applied by analogy to the notices of ble time succeeded, but upon his offering to com- election, and that a publication on the 8th was ply with the option defendant declined. Held, a sufficient notice of an election held on the that no binding contract ever came into exist | 28th.-The Vigilancia (D. C.) 781; The Segurence. - McConkey v. Peach Bottom Slate Co. anca, Id.; The Allianca, Id.; The Advance, Id.; (C. C. A.) 830.

Atlantic Trust Co. v. Proceeds of The Vigilan

cia, Id. Complainants, on October 2d, made an offer to buy defendant's property to one P., who was

Where the treasurer of a corporation, while authorized to receive and transmit offers and negotiating for the discount of the corporation's replies. P. telegraphed the substance of the paper, was informed of a pledge by the presioffer, but not the exact terms, to defendant, on his own note, held, that the corporation had ac

dent of the corporation of his stock to secure the same day. On October 10th complainants tual notice of the pledge.-Hotchkiss & Upson made another offer to P., varying in some partic- Co. v. Union Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 76. ulars. Before this was communicated to him, (lefendant, on October 11th, telegraphed P. that contracts. he would accept the offer in Pi's telegram of October 2d. P. then indorsed an acceptance on poration without authority, and verore its rati:

Where a mortgage is made by officers of a corcomplainants offer of October 10th. Held, thatfication a lien accrues on the property sought there was no meeting of the minds of the par- to be mortgaged, the mortgage does not take ties.-Kleinhans v. Jones (C. C. A.) 742.

precedence of such lien.-National Foundry &

Pipe Works v. Oconto Water Co. (D. C.) 1006. Contributory Negligence.

The fact that the stockholders in two corporaSee "Master and Servant"; "Negligence."

tions are the same, or that one corporation controls the other, does not make either corporation

responsible for the contracts of the other.-RichConveyances.

mond & I. Const. Co. v. Richmond, N., I. & B.

R. Co. (C. C. A.) 105.
See "Mortgages."


Whether the provisions of Gen. St. Conn. $

1923. giving corporations a lien on their stock An officer of a responsible corporation should for debts due from the stockholders, applies, as not be held liable, alone, for acts of the corpo- | against a pledgee by unrecorded transfer, to ration in infringement of a copyright, merely lebts arising from embezzlement of the cornorabecause he is such officer. -Stuart v. Sinith (c. tion's funds, quaere.- Hotchkiss & Upson

Co. v. .C. | . A.) 76.


The provisions of Gen. St. Conn. $ 1924, requiring a pledge of corporate stock to be con

summated by transfer on the books, are for the See, also, “Banks and Banking"; "Insurance"; protection of innocent parties, and actual notice

"Municipal Corporations"; "Railroad Compa- is equivalent to transfer.-Hotchkiss & Upson nies."

Co. v. Union Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 76.
What law governs contracts, see “Conflict of

Members and stockholders.
Illinois act requiring trust companies to make sible timber land in common, and one of them

Where two parties, owning a tract of inaccesdeposit with state auditor before accepting owning additional tracts, joined in building a trusts does not apply to a mere mortgage railroad to reach the lands, by means of a railFarmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Chicago & N. P. road company in which each took half the stock, R. Co. (C. C.) 412.

and afterwards the one owning the additional Where a corporation has been organized, and lands purchased the timber rights of the other, has taken title to a patent (which action is ap- and exhausted all timber in reach of the road as parently within the scope of its powers), and built, held, that the other party was not entitled, as a stockholder in the railroad company, to en

COSTS. join it from building an extension to reach the additional tracts, on the ground that the exten- Where the amount of a decree is reduced on sion was exclusively for the benefit of the own- appeal for an apparent error in the commissioners of those tracts, who controlled the railroader's report, which was not excepted to below, directory, ard against the interests of the stock- such a reduction should not affect the costs. holders.-Bucksport & E. R. R. Co. v. Edin-Western Assur. Co. y. Southwestern Transp. burgh & S. F. Redwood Co. (C. C. A.) 972,

Co. (C. C. A.) 923. In general, a purchaser of corporate stock is When a judgment is reversed and the cause not allowed to attack the prior acts and man- ordered dismissed because the record failed to agements of the corporation.- United Electric show jurisdiction, all the costs, both of the cirSecurities Co. v. Louisiana Electric Light Co. cuit court and of the appellate court, should be (C. C.) 673.

taxed against plaintiff.-Sneed v. Sellers (C.

C. A.) 729.
Liability for corporate debts.
A corporation caused all its stock to be as-

COUNTIES. signed by the subscribers to A. and W., as collateral for advances. The stock was transferred Acting county commissioners appointed under to the names of A. and W. Subsequently all 1 Gen. St. Kan. par. 1577, have power to issue interest of the subscribers was assigned to dum-county warrants for ordinary expenses.--Board mies for A. and W. Held, that A. and W. be of Com’rs of Kearney County v. McMaster (C. came absolute owners of the stock, and liable to .C. A.) 177. creditors of the corporation for the amounts unpaid on it.-National Foundry & Pipe Works without a vote of the electors, to contract for

County commissioners in Kansas have power, v. Oconto Water Co. (D. C.) 1006.

the erection of cells in a jail building.-Pauly Receivers.

Jail-Building & Manufacturing Co. v. Board of A court has no power to authorize the receiver Com’rs of Kearney County (C. C. A.) 171. of a merely private corporation to issue certifi- Road-improvement certificates issued by percates to be a paramount lien on its property.- sons purporting to act as road commissioners Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. under Laws Kan. 1887, c. 214, for improvements Roanoke Iron Co. (C. C.) 623.

on thoroughfares which are not in fact county A receiver of a corporation will not be ap- roads, but are either located on private property pointed, when the extraordinary expenses in- or are streets within the limits of duly-organcident thereto will probably render the company ized cities, are not binding obligations of the insolvent, if relief can be given by enjoining county. --First Nat. Bank of Lansdale v. Board the management from further execution of con- of Com’rs of Wyandotte County (C. C. A.) 878. tracts resulting in the diversion of corporate funds.-United Electric Securities Co. v. Louisiana Electric Light Co. (C. C.) 673.

COURTS. Dissolution.

See, also, "Removal of Causes." It seems that the voluntary dissolution of a A term of a United States circuit court does corporation while its creditors are pursuing it in not necessarily end at the opening of a term the courts should be viewed with suspicion.-- held at another place in the same district.--East Frank v. Wedderin (C. C. A.) 818.

Tennessee Iron & Coal Co. v. Wiggin (C. C. A.)

446. Where a bill for dissolution of a corporation, and accounting, seeks to have full payment Federal courts. made to the complaining stockholder for his investment before any payment to the transferees

If it appears that, in any aspect a case mayasof certain other stockholders, such transferees sume, the right of recovery may depend on a are necessary parties.-Watson v. United States federal statute, and the right so claimed is not Sugar Refinery (C. C. A.) 769.

merely colorable, a federal question is involved,

adequate to confer jurisdiction.-St. Paul, M. A bill by a stockholder seeking dissolution of & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul & N. P. R. Co. (C. C. a corporation, and accounting, alleged that A.) 2; St. Paul & N. P. R. Co. v. St. Paul, M. business had been suspended, "among other & M. Ry. Co., Id. things,” because of the worthlessness of a patent under which it had been carried on, but action on county warrants payable to certain

The federal courts have jurisdiction of an without stating that that was the controlling reason; that the officers were misapplying the payees, or bearer, if the assignee who brings funds, but without stating that any effort had the action is a nonresident of the state in which been made to have the corporation, bring suit; | Kearney County v. McMaster (C. C. A.)

177. the county is situated. - Board of Com’rs of

) that the officers had tampered with the books, but without stating in what manner; that cer- Diverse citizenship between the original partain assets had not been entered in the books, ties will not give jurisdiction of a controversy but without charging concealment or intention between an intervener and defendant, citizens al wrong. Held, that the allegations were too of the same state, where the property in congeneral and indefinite to justify granting re- troversy is not drawn into the court's posseslief.-Watson v. United States Sugar Refinery sion. United Electric Securities Co. v. Louis(C. C. A.) 769.

iana Electric Light Co. (C. C.) 673.

The federal courts do not acquire jurisdiction States, is within the jurisdiction of the supreme
by virtue of a merely colorable claim under a court, under Act March 3, 1891, § 5, subd. 6,
federal statute, nor because a federal statute and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the
must be referred to, to explain a contract or a circuit court of appeals.-Hastings v. Ames (C.
local law. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. C. A.) 726; Same v. Smith, Id.; Same v. Hig-

. .
Paul & N, P, R. Co. (C. C. A.) 2; St. Paul & 1 ginson, Id.
N. P. R. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., Id.

The mere fact that a defendant in ejectment
The fact that the title to lands in controversy is sued as comptroller of a state does not deprive
was originally derived from the United States the federal courts of jurisdiction, on the ground
does not give the federal courts jurisdiction.- that the suit is against the state. --Saranac Land
St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul & N. & Timber Co. v. Roberts (C. U.) 521.
P. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 2; St. Paul & N. P. R.
Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., Id.

Collateral or ancillary suits.

While property is held in the possession of a
The fact that a state has an interest in land, federal court, and thereby withdrawn from the
for the recovery of which an action of ejectment jurisdiction of state courts, such federal court
is brought against a city, which occupies it un- has jurisdiction to entertain a suit in relation to
der a joint resolution of the legislature, does not such property, without regard to the citizenship
make the action one against the state.-Wheeler of parties.-Compton v. Jesup (C. C. A.) 263.
v. City of Chicago (C. C.) 526.

A suit instituted in a federal court on the
Rev. St. § 915, does not confer on the United ground that the property affected by it is in the
States courts jurisdiction of suits by foreign at possession of that court, though dependent on
tachment, or jurisdiction over a nonresident not and ancillary to the suit in which possession
served with process, though state courts have was taken, is so far collateral to it that the
such jurisdiction under state laws. - Central correctness of orders and decrees made in the
Trust Co. of New York v. Chattanooga, R. & original suit cannot be questioned.--Compton v.
C. R. Co. (C. C.) 685.

Jesup (C. C. A.) 263.
Where a suit is brought in a federal court on

In a dependent or ancillary suit in a federal
behalf of an infant by his next friend, the juris-court, a party may be brought in by compulsory
diction depends on the citizenship of the infant, process, though his citizenship is such that it
not that of the next friend.–Voss v. Neineber would defeat the jurisdiction if it depended on
(C. C.) 947.

diverse citizenship.-Compton v. Jesup (C. C.
Where, after a bill by two plaintiffs, making A.) 263.
proper allegations of diverse citizenship, is pre-
pared, one of the plaintiffs dies before it is filed, Following state decisions.
and the interest of the remaining plaintiff is suf- When a federal court has made a decision
ficient foundation for the suit, such remaining based on that of a state court construing a state
plaintiff is the only one, and the federal court statute, and the state court reverses its ruling,
has jurisdiction, and does not lose it by the it is not the duty of the federal court to reverse
subsequent intervention of the executrix of the its decision, as to the rights of parties in the
deceased plaintiff, whatever her citizenship.- same property. - National Foundry & Pipe
Society of Shakers v. Watson (C. C. A.) 730. Works v. Oconto Water Co. (D. C.) 1006.

A state law exempting a receiver appointed A decision of a state supreme court sustaining
by a court of equity from garnishment applies the validity of a state statute under the consti-
to the state courts only.-Central Trust Co. of tution of the United States does not absolve the
New York v. Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. (C. federal courts sitting in the state from exercising
C.) 685.

an independent judgment in regard thereto.

Bradley v. Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. (C. C.)
Question whether the federal courts will en 1918.
tertain garnishment against a receiver appoint-
ed in another state.-Central Trust Co. of New Federal courts are not conclusively bound by
York v. Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. (C. C.) a decision of the state supreme court that certain

uses for which private property is authorized to
The federal courts have jurisdiction of a suit which will justify the exercise of the power of

be taken by a state statute are public uses,
for infringement of a patent, notwithstanding eminent domain.-Bradley v. Fallbrook Irriga-
that a license is set up in defense, the existence tion Dist. (C. C.) 918.
of which must be tried in trying the question of
infringement.-Everett v. Haulenbeck (C. C.) Conflicting state and federal jurisdic-

A federal court of equity cannot entertain a No objection can be taken to the possession
suit for partition of lands, where the plaintiff's by a federal court of property affected by a suit
title is denied, although a state statute permits pending in it, on the ground that when posses-
courts of equity to take cognizance of questions sion was taken a suit was pending in a state
of title in partition suits.-American Ass'n v. court in relation to the property.-Compton v.
Eastern Kentucky Land Co. (C. C.) 721.

Jesup (C. C. A.) 263.
An appeal from a decree adjudging that a Where a suit to administer the assets of an
state statute fixing railroad rates is unreason- insolvent corporation has been commenced in a
able, and therefore violates the fourteenth state court, a federal court is without jurisdic-
amendment to the constitution of the United tion of a similar suit, instituted, during the pend-
In assessing duty, under paragraph 248 of the
(D. C.) 886; United States v. Dana, Id.

ency of the former, by a party thereto.-Foster one for which an offender arrested elsewhere
v. Bank of Abingdon (C. Č.) 723.

may be removed, under Rev. St. $ 1014, to such
Where deputy marshals are imprisoned by District; nor do the acts of 1871 and 1874 give
state authorities on a charge of murder, based any authority for such removal.-In re Dana (D.
on the killing of a person while resisting arrest | C.) 886; United States v. Dana, Id.
on process from a federal court, the latter court

One charged with issuing a free pass for rail-
has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas cor- road transportation, contrary to the act of Feb-
pus, and, on the return, to summarily hear evi- ruary 4, 1887, will not be removed to a distant
dence and finally dispose of the charges against state and district for trial, where the indictment
such deputies.-Kelly v. State of Georgia (D. is fatally defective for failure to allege any use
C.) 652.

of the pass or transportation under it-In re
A person indictable in a federal court for mur-Huntington (D. C.) 881.
der and conspiracy had long resisted its process,
both civil and criminal; had threatened to kill
deputy marshals attempting to arrest him; and

habitually carried deadly weapons On being
summoned to surrender by a deputy who had a The tariff acts of 1883 and 1890 were in.
warrant for his arrest, he fired upon the latter tended to be exhaustive and to take the place of
with a magazine rifle, and, in an exchange of all prior legislation, and section 7 of the act of
shots, was killed. Held, that the killing was February 8, 1875, was thereby repealed.-Kent
justifiable; that the deputy had committed no v. United States (C. C.) 536.
offense, and was entitled to and would receive
the protection of the federal court against any be strictly construed, and held, that "worsted

Where language of a statute is explicit, it must
prosecution of state courts based on such kill-
ing-Kelly v. State of Georgia (D. C.) 652.

dress goods" are not "manufactures of wool,"

but of "worsted."-Murphy v. United States
Rules of decision-Comity.

(C. C.) 908.
A judgment and verdict at law in another cir-
cuit, sustaining a patent, is entitled to the same on "manufactures of wool," does not include

Paragraph 297, postponing reduction of duty
weight, on motion for preliminary injunction, manufactures of worsted,” and the distinction
as that accorded to a decree in equity

at final between "wool" and "worsted” stated in the
hearing.-Woodard y. Ellwood Gas Stove & earlier tariff acts still exists, though omitted in
Stamping Co. (C. C.) 717.

the act of 1894.-Murphy v. United States (C.

C.) 908.

The lien of the government for the payment
Where a judgment of conviction has been re- of duties upon any single consignment of goods
versed because a sentence not authorized by law extends to each and every part thereof, and
was imposed, and the cause has been remanded where part of the goods are fraudulently with-
for further proceedings, the trial court has au- drawn from bond, without payment of the duties
thority to impose the proper sentence.- United due thereon, the collector may hold the remain-
States v. Harman (D. O.) 472.

ing part for all the duties due.-Hendricks v.

Schmidt (C. C. A.) 425.
Where, upon an indictment for embezzlement
under Rev. St. § 4046, a verdict has been taken To constitute a payment of duties upon any
on the issue of embezzlement only, without de particular consignment of goods, there must be
termination of the amount embezzled, and sen- an intent both by the importers and the col-
tence of imprisonment only, without fine, im- lector to apply the money to that consignment,
posed, and for such error the judgment has been and if a check is sent to pay duties on one con-
reversed and the cause remanded for further signment, and is received by the collector with-
proceedings, the defendant must be discharged. out notice thereof, and he applies it to a differ-
-United States v. Woodruff (D. C.) 536. ent consignment, this is not a payment of duties
Where one indicted in the District of Colum-on- former.-Hendricks v. Schmidt (C. c. A.)

bia for criminal libel was arrested in New York,
and application was made, under Rev. St. $ A commission paid on a sale between other
1014, for an order for his removal to Washing- parties previous to the sale of merchandise to
ton for trial, held, that the proceedings thereun- any importer for importation is not a charge,
der were independent of those in Washington, within section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, but
and must conform to the state practice; that, is part of the wholesale price of the goods.-
therefore, the facts and circumstances showing United States v. Kenworthy (C. C. A.) 904.
criminality must appear by oath or affidavit
showing probable cause; that the accused had

Under Rev. St. 8 2902, and section 7 of the
the right to introduce evidence of want of prob- act of March 3, 1883, the customs officers have
able cause; that the indictment, if clear and authority to inquire into disputed items of com-
consistent in its statement of facts, was equiva- missions and charges.-United States v. Ken-
lent to an affidavit, and, if uncontroverted. was worthy (C. C. A.) 904.
sufficient, but, if vague and contradictory, it
was not equivalent to an affidavit.-In re Dana tariff act of 1894, upon ginger ale, imported in

bottles, the value of the bottles cannot be added
The offense of criminal libel under the local to that of the ale.-Dickson v. United States
common law of the District of Columbia is not (C. C.) 534.


licensee under a patent are the same as those
Diamonds cut, but not set, are dutiable at 25 given to another, he should be allowed to prove
per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 338, Act that such royalties, though including different
Aug. 27, 1894.-United States v. Frankel (c. cash payments, are in fact made equivalent by
C.) 186.

other stipulations.--Bonsack Mach. Co. v. S. F.

Hess & Co. (C. C. A.) 119.
It seems that paragraphs 24 and 560 of the
tariff act of 1890 cover only such articles as are
drugs, and that crude mosses, which are not Declarations and Admissions.
drugs, are properly classified under paragraph
653.-Shaw v. Prior (C. C.) 421.

See "Evidence."
Ladies' kid gloves embroidered with more than
three single strands are liable to a duty of 50

Defective Appliances.
cents per dozen pairs, under Act 1890, par. 458, See "Master and Servant.”
in addition to the other applicable rates therein See “Master and Servant.”
specified.-Wertheimer v. United States (C. C.)

Hemstitched handkerchiefs of cotton or other
vegetable fiber, embroidered with an initial let-

B. loaded libellant's boat at Albany, and con-
ter only, are not

dutiable as "embroidered and signed it to himself at New York.
hemstitched handkerchiefs," under paragraph it to another for export by a certain steamer,
373 of the act of October 1, 1890, but as agreeing to deliver it "f. o. b. vessel where she
"handkerchiefs composed of cotton,"

etc., under lies.” B. having sent the boat alongside the
paragraph 319.-United States v. Harden (C. C. steamer, it was detained six days before the lum-
A.) 182.

ber was received, but it appeared that the same

was received as soon as the customary permit
Under the act of 1894, “worsted dress goods” was obtained from the steamer specified. The
are dutiable at 50 per cent. ad valorem, under lumber was then libeled for demurrage. Held,
paragraph 283, Schedule K, and not at 12 cents that the lumber was liable, and that, in the ab-
per square yard, and 50 per cent.-Murphy v sence of sufficient proof that B. followed the
United States (C. C.) 908.

purchaser's orders as to the time of sending the

boat alongside, B. was personally bound to in-
Protest against classification.

demnify the purchaser.-Salisbury v. Seventy
A protest against the imposition of duty on Thousand Feet of Lumber (D. C.) 916.
moss, under section 4 of the tariff act of 1890,
which claims that it should either be dutiable
uncler paragraph 24, or free under paragraph

653, as the importers were unable to detect that

See "Pleading."
it had undergone any process of manufacture, is
sufficiently definite and precise, if the moss was
free either under paragraph 653 or paragraph

560.-Shaw v. Prior (C. C.) 421.

Upon an importation of ginger ale in bottles. Of alien, see "Aliens.”
the collector added the value of the bottles to
that of the ale for the purpose of assessing the DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.
duty. Held, that the question of the propriety
of such action was one of classification, and not See, also, “Executors and Administrators”;
of valuation, and was properly raised by pro-

test, not by notice of dissatisfaction.-Dickson
v. United States (C. C.) 534.

A statute legitimating bastard children on the
marriage of the parents does not make the mar-

riage relate back to the birth of the oldest child,

so as to affect property.-Hatch v. Ferguson (C.

C. A.) 43.
For collision, see “Collision."
For infringement of patent, see “Patents for


See "Wills."
In an action against a railroad company for To charitable uses, see “Charities.”
failing to carry lumber at a stipulated rate, dam-
ages claimed for inability to use the lumber in

an uncut forest are too remote.-Florida Cent.
& P. R. Co. F. Bucki (C. C. A.) 861.

Of corporation, see "Corporations."
A verdict of $7,500 for painful and permanent

Of partnership, see “Partnership."
injuries is not excessive.- Lowry v. Nt. Adams
& Eden Park Incline Plane Řy. Co. (C. C.)


As evidence, see "Evidence.”

Due Process of Law.
Where a party is charged with falsely repre-
senting that the terms of royalty offered to one see "Constitutional Law.”

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »