sance.-Gentili v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 67. drawal permit, to require certificates disclosing tent in support of charge of maintaining nuistock on hand (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 6 [27 USCA § 16]).-Higgins v. Mills, 22 F.236(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Evidence held to (2d) 913. 72 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) District Court on reviewing commissioner's decision on application for permit to purchase liquor for flavoring extracts, may only determine whether evidence justified conclusion (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, §§ 4, 6 [27 USCA §§ 13, 16]).-Fox v. Mills, 22 F. (2d) 891. Evidence held to warrant commissioner's conclusion that application for permit to purchase whisky for manufacturing flavoring extracts was not in good faith (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, §§ 4, 6 [27 USCA §§ 13, 16]).—Id. 106(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Treasury decision, revoking unlimited permits for withdrawal of alcohol, held valid (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, & 6 [27 USCA § 16]).-Higgins v. Mills, 22 F.(2d) 913. 106(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Attempt to influence action of government agent is sufficient to show permittee's bad faith without showing actual bribe.-Remick Products v. Mills, 22 F. (2d) 477. 106(4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Permittee's failure to have books available for inspection held violation of regulations, justifying revocation of withdrawal permit (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 9 [27 USCA § 21]; tit. 3, §§ 13, 15 [27 USCA §§ 83, 85]).-Remick Products v. Mills, 22 F.(20) 477. 108 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Finding of bad faith in withholding books from inspection by government agent held sustained by evidence, and revocation of alcohol withdrawal permit warranted (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2. § 9 [27 USCA § 21]).-Remick Products v. Mills, 22 F.(2d) 477. Finding of attempt to bribe official to act favorably on application for increased alcohol withdrawals held justified by evidence, and revocation of permit warranted (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 9 [27 USCA § 21]).—Id. Right to revoke alcohol withdrawal permit depends on testimony before Commissioner (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 9 [27 USCA § 21]).-Id. 108(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held to support finding of bad faith of denaturer in making false statements in applying for withdrawal permits. Higgins v. Mills. 22 F. (2d) 913. 108(10) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Review of Internal Revenue Commissioner's finding that denaturer's false statements of alcohol on hand were in bad faith, is limited to whether there was any evidence to support it.-Higgins v. Mills, 22 F. (2d) 913. 108(10) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Suit to review action of commissioner in revoking permit is triable de novo, and parties may introduce new evidence (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, §§ 5, 9 [27 USCA §§ 14, 21]).-Qualtop Beverages v. MacCampbell, 22 F. (2d) 417. V. REGULATIONS. 122 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Regulations of Commissioner may change kind of denatured alcohol that may be withdrawn (Prohibition Act, tit. 3, § 13 [27 USCA § 83]).—(D. C.) Lacquer & Chemical Corporation v. Mills, 22 F. (2d) 697, order affirmed 22 F. (2d) 700. VI. OFFENSES. 167 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Where several persons aid and abet each other in selling and possessing liquor, each is responsible for all sales. -Samich v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 672. VIII. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. 233(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Testimony that persons entered defendant's hotel and asked for liquor in presence of officers held compe justify finding that defendants aided and abetted each other in sale and possession of liquor (National Prohibition Act [27 USCA]).-Samich v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 672. 236 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Evidence held to support conviction for maintaining liquor nuisance (National Prohibition Act [27 USCA]).Gentili v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 67. 238(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Issue of guilt held for jury in prosecution for manufacturing beer and possessing beer and brewery equipment.-Swenzel v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 280. IX. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, AND FORFEITURES. search warrant for private dwellings held ap245 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Statute prohibiting plicable to warrant issued under National Prohibition Act though indictment related to revenue laws (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 25 [27 USCA § 39]).-Nobriga v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 507. 246 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Mere operation of still in dwelling is not "business purpose," within statute prohibiting search of dwelling not used for business purpose (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 25 [27 USCA § 39]).-Nobriga v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 507. Cellar is part of dwelling protected from unlawful searches and seizures (17 USCA § 53; National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 25 [27 USCA § 39]).-Id. in manufacture of liquor, which is either sold 246 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Private dwelling used there or taken away for sale, is subject to search (Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 25 [27 USCA § 39]). -U. S. v. Berger, 22 F. (2d) 867. 247 (U.S.C.C.A. W.Va.) Warrant cannot issue unless dwelling is used for unlawful sale (Const. Amend. 4; National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 25 [27 USCA § 39]; Espionage Act Thompson v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 134. 1917, tit. 11 [18 USCA § 611 et seq.]).— contain 247 (U.S.D.C.Idaho) Automobile ing liquor may not be forfeited under statute merely because of unlawful possession (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 26 [27 USCA § 40]).-U. S. v. One Oldsmobile Coupé, 22 F. (2d) 441. 248 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Sufficiency of affidavit supporting search warrant must be tested by statements therein, not by result of search (Na39]).-Nobriga v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 507. tional Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 25 [27 USCA Affidavit that prohibition agent saw still in operation in dwelling and smelled fermenting mash held not to authorize issuance of search warrant, in absence of commercial manufacture (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 25 [27 USCA § 391).-Id. 249 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Federal prohibition agent cannot search private dwelling without search warrant (Const. Amend. 4; National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 25 [27 USCA § 39]; Espionage Act 1917, tit. 11 [18 USCA § 811 et seq.1).-Thompson v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 134. 249 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Prohibition agent's search of premises without warrant held illegal. U. S. v. Codde, 22 F. (2d) 690. X. ABATEMENT AND INJUNCTION. 272 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Court's jurisdiction in suit to abate liquor nuisance could not be based on substituted service on theory suit was in rem (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, §§ 22, 23 [27 USCA §§ 34, 35]).-U. S. v. Waverly Club, 22 F. (2d) 422. 273 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Motion to vacate temporary liquor nuisance injunction supported by affidavits denying knowledge of sales, will be granted, where government's affidavits were merely on information (National Prohibition For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER Act, tit. 2, § 22 [27 USCA § 34]).—U..S. v. On motion to vacate temporary injunction, facts showing liquor nuisance should be stated with sufficient specification to demand specific denial (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 22 [27 USCA § 34]).—Id. JOINT ADVENTURES. satisfaction, or fraud in procuring it, is inadmissible under plea of nul tiel record.-Id. JURY. II. RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY, 31 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Appointing auditor and receiving report in evidence held not unconstitutional (Const. Amend. 7).-Veneri v. Draper, 22 F. (2d) 33. 5(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) One joint adventur-33(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Prosecution in court er may sue another at law.-Julian Petroleum Corporation v. Courtney Petroleum Co., 22 F. (2d) 360. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES AND 19 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Transactions of trustee of common-law trust held, on the evidence, in good faith, and shareholders required to share losses as well as profits.-Maher v. Landreth, 22 F.(2d) 752. JUDGES. IV. DISQUALIFICATION TO ACT. 49(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Prejudice, to require recusation of judge, must be "personal prejudice," and not judicial, and judge's conviction, based on evidence at former trial, is not personal prejudice.-Craven v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 605. JUDGMENT. XIII. MERGER AND BAR OF CAUSES 547 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Judgments of United States commissioners are not "judicial decrees," in sense that they are conclusive, where same matter is again agitated in proper court.-In re Film and Pictorial Representation of DempseyTunney Fight, 22 F. (2d) 837. XIV. CONCLUSIVENESS TION. OF ADJUDICA (A) Judgments Conclusive in General. 648 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Judgment of acquittal of permittee renders invalid revocation of permit on same charges.-Qualtop Beverages v. MacCampbell, 22 F. (2d) 417. XVII. FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 822(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Judgment of court legally acquiring jurisdiction is entitled to full faith and credit in other states, and irregularities in rendition cannot be attacked collaterally (Civil Practice Act N. Y. § 520).-Ackerman v. Tobin, 22 F. (2d) 541. 828 (3) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) State Supreme Court's denial of certiorari without opinion held res judicata in federal court.-U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Blankenhorn, 22 F. (2d) 574. XXI. ACTIONS ON JUDGMENTS. 939 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Under issue of nul tiel record in action on foreign judgment, plaintiff must have judgment, unless record of recovery shows insufficiency on face.-Gibson v. Gillespie, 22 F.(2d) 807. 940 (U.S.D.C.Del.) In action on foreign judgment, plea of nul tiel record raises no issue of validity of declaration or ownership of judgment.-Gibson v. Gillespie, 22 F.(2d) 807. In action on foreign judgment, its payment or 22 F. (2d)-67 of new district of crime committed in its territory prior to creation of district held not in violation of Constitution (Const. Amend. 6).Quinlan v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 95. 33(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Defendants held not entitled to have jurors selected from counties transferred to another district created after crime was committed.-Lewis v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 760. V. COMPETENCY OF JURORS, CHALLENG 97(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Trial judge should see that jury is fair and impartial, where defendant is put on trial at same term after mistrial. Neal v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 52. 131(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Trial judge must permit inquiries enabling him to exclude from jury persons who are not "fair and impartial." -Neal v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 52. 131 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Refusal to permit inquiry to ascertain if jurors had formed fixed opinions held erroneous.-Neal v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 52. pressly made applicable to it.-U. S. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 22 F. (2d) 113. to 14 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Statute relating limitation agreements means that plaintiff must be given at least two years after cause of action accrues in which to file suit (Rev. St. Tex. 1925. art. 5545).-Southern Surety Co. v. Austin. 22 F. (2d) 881. Provisions of indemnity bond, barring recovery for failure to bring suit within two years after loss, held invalid, under statute prohibiting restricting time for suit to less than two years (Rev. St. Tex. 1925, art. 5545).-Id. II. COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION. (A) Accrual of Right of Action or Defense. 43 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Cause of action accrues when debt is due and suit may be brought on it.-Southern Surety Co. v. Austin, 22 F.(2d) 881. 56(1) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Limitations run from payment for another under agreement for reimbursement, or where payer succeeds to rights of one receiving payment from contract to pay. -Christianssand Shipping Co. v. Marshall, 22 F. (2d) 192. Limitations ran against vessel's claim for towage, paid by it on consignee's refusal, from time of service, not from time of payment.-Id. 58(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Limitation does not begin to run against suit to charge directors of national bank with liability for making excessive loans while they are in control.-Adams v. Clarke, 22 F. (2d) 957. (H) Commencement of Action or Other Proceeding. 130(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Under Utah statute of limitations, plaintiff may commence new action within one year after dismissal of first, though limitation has run (Comp. Laws Utah 1917. § 6484).-Jones v. Jenkins, 22 F. (2d) 642. 130(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) On failure of action in state court, second action permitted by statute within one year may be brought in federal court (Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 6484).— Jones v. Jenkins, 22 F. (2d) 642. MARITIME LIENS. I. NATURE, GROUNDS, AND SUBJECTMATTER IN GENERAL. (A) Under Maritime Law. 8 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Agreement requiring payment for coal furnished ship on delivery, by delivering trade acceptances, precluded maritime lien.-The President Arthur, 22 F.(2d) 584. II. CREATION, OPERATION, AND EFFECT. 28 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Conditional vendee in possession of vessel cannot create lien for supplies and repairs, in face of clause in agreement denying such authority (Maritime Lien Act 1910, as amended by Merchant Marine Act 1920, § 30, subsecs. P. Q. R. [46 USCA §§ 971-973]).—The S. W. Somers, 22 F. (2d) 448. Prior to Maritime Lien Act, as amended by Merchant Marine Act, vendee could create liens on vessel for wages, supplies, and repairs, despite contrary agreement (Maritime Lien Act 1910, as amended by Merchant Marine Act of 1920, § 30, subsecs. P-T [46 USCA §§ 971-975]).—Id." That some of supplies were furnished vessel in hands of conditional vendee prior to recordation of conditional sales agreement does not alter duty to ascertain vendee's authority. -Id. 40 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) General provision of statute relating to waiver of liens held not to apply to preferred mortgages (Ship Mortgage Act, $30, subsec. S [46 USCA § 974]).-The Red Lion, 22 F. (2d) 329. Right to prove entire claim, or only proportionate part, against barge, held to depend on whether prior liens on other barges would have prevented recovery in prior suits.-Id. MARRIAGE. 39 (App.D.C.) Under pleading denying lawful marriage, evidence that marriage contracted was invalid, because divorce of one of parties had not become final, was inadmissible.-Martin v. Coit, 22 F. (2d) 878. Denial of lawful marriage is denial of fact of marriage only, and not of legality thereof.-Id. MASTER AND SERVANT. I. THE RELATION. (B) Statutory Regulation. 1 (U.S.D.C.Or.) State statutes, making it crime for employer to require employees to board at particular place or trade at particular store, held unconstitutional (Or. L. §§ 2177, 2178; Const. U. S. Amend. 14).-Owen v. Westwood Lumber Co., 22 F. (2d) 992. II. SERVICES AND COMPENSATION. 62 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Invention made by employee hired to make it belonged to employer, irrespective of contract to that effect. -Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Akron, Ohio. v. Miller, 22 F. (2d) 353, reversing decree (D. C.) 14 F. (2d) 776. 62 (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Defendant held under facts stated. to have shop right to use patented invention.-Elzwilaw Co. v. Knoxville Glove Co., 22 F.(2d) 962. III. MASTER'S LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO SERVANT. (A) Nature and Extent in General. 88 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Employer must not injure discharged employee through affirmative acts of negligence.-National Biscuit Co. v. Litzky, 22 F. (2d) 939. re (C) Methods of Work, Rules, and Orders. 145 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Precautions quired by rules of railroad company are for protection of employees as well as public.-Montgomery v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 22 F.(2d) 359. Railroad's rules furnish competent evidence as against itself of proper standard of care. Id. (F) Risks Assumed by Servant. 203(1) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) "Assumption of risk" may be free from fault or negligence on part of employee.-Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Cochran, 22 F. (2d) 22. 204 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Railroad employee does not assume unknown and unanticipated negligence of fellow servant (Employers' Liability Act [45 USCA §§ 51-59]).— Montgomery v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 22 F. (2d) 359. (G) Contributory Negligence of Servant. 227(1)(U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) "Contributory negligence" involves notion of some fault or breach of duty.-Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Cochran, 22 F. (2d) 22. (H) Actions. 284 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Notice to employee of discharge before injury and authority to give notice held for jury.-National Biscuit Co. v. Litzky, 22 F. (2d) 939. 286 (30) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Engineer's negligence in starting engine without warning, For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER causing injury to firemen, held for jury (Employers' Liability Act [45 USCA §§ 51-59]).Montgomery v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 22 F. (2d) 359. VI. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS. (A) Nature and Grounds of Master's Liability. 375(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Injury to discharged employee while leaving premises held not within Michigan Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp. Laws Mich. 1915, § 5426).-National Biscuit Co. v. Litzky, 22 F.(2d) 939. Injury to discharged employee while leaving building held not to "arise from, out of, and in course of employment" (Workmen's Compensation Act Mich.).—Id. MECHANICS' LIENS. VI. WAIVER, DISCHARGE. RELEASE, AND SATISFACTION. (A) Waiver of Right to Lien. 214 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Creditor held not to lose right to lien by reducing his claim to judgment.-Hudson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 22 F. (2d) 791. MINES AND MINERALS. I. PUBLIC MINERAL LANDS. (B) Location and Acquisition of Claims. 9 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Land valuable for fire clay may be entered under mining laws.-Mesmer v. Geith, 22 F. (2d) 690. (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Location of mining claim in Alaska held not void because locator on parole from federal penitentiary (30 USCA § 22; Pen. Code Alaska, § 196).-Vedin v. McConnell, 22 F. (2d) 753. was Oil Producing Co., 22 F. (2d) 597, affirming judgment (D. C.) 16 F. (2d) 639. 92 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Regulation prohibiting drilling of oil or gas well nearer than 150 feet to property line without special authority held constitutional and valid.-Oxford Oil Co. v. Atlantic Oil Producing Co., 22 F. (2d) 597, affirming judgment (D. Č.) 16 F. (2d) 639. (B) Mining Partnerships and Companies. 97 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Assignment of oil and gas lease, providing for certain services by assignor and sharing of profits, held not to create partnership.-Julian Petroleum Corporation v. Courtney Petroleum Co., 22 F. (2d) 660. 97 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Mining partnerships may exist in Kansas to develop oil and gas properties. Gilbert v. Fontaine, 22 F. (2d) 657. Contract for sharing expenses and profits in developing oil and gas lease held to create a "mining partnership."-Id. 99(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Contract for sharing expenses and profits in developing oil and gas lease held to create a "mining partnership," with right to lien for advances.-Gilbert v. Fontaine, 22 F. (2d) 657. Receiver of assignee of mining partner held entitled to sue in equity to establish and foreclose equitable lien for advances, remedy at law being inadequate.-Id. MONOPOLIES. II. TRUSTS AND OTHER COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 14 (U.S.C.C.A.) Interference with production and manufacture of sugar beets into sugar held not restrainable by Federal Trade Commission (Federal Trade Commission Act, § 5 [15 USCA § 45]).-Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 22 F. (2d) 122. 21(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Certificate of location of mining claim held insufficient as to de-17(1) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Dealer's refusal to scription (Laws Alaska 1915, c. 10, § 2).-Vedin v. McConnell, 22 F. (2d) 753. 23(5) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Failure to do assessment work does not subject claim to re-entry until after expiration of year.-Mesmer v. Geith, 22 F. (2d) 690. II. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON- (C) Leases, Licenses, and Contracts. 732 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Oil and gas lease held by its terms to cease to exist on failure to drill wells or pay rent.-Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Saunders, 22 F. (2d) 733. 78(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Mere breaking of machinery or other misfortune is no excuse for failure of assignee of oil and gas lease to complete drilling of well as agreed.-Julian Petroleum Corporation v. Courtney Petroleum Co., 22 F. (2d) 360. 78(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Forfeiture clause in oil and gas lease is for lessor's benefit, and he may declare forfeiture, or allow contract to stand and sue for damages.-Julian Petroleum Corporation v. Courtney Petroleum Co., 22 F. (2d) 360. 79(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Lessor of oil and gas lease held under no duty to notify lessee of failure to pay correct rental, resulting in loss of rights. Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Saunders, 22 F.(2d) 733. Lessor and one to whom he conveyed undivid sell oil to oil-burner manufacturer, under arrangement with competitor, held not conspiracy to restrain trade.-Ballard Oil-Burning Equipment Co. v. Mexican Petroleum Corporation, 22 F. (2d) 434. Defendants obtaining control of sole source of oil, to cause it to break contract with plaintiff's subsidiary, held not guilty of conspiracy to restrain trade.-Id. 17(1) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Causing another to break contract with plaintiff to destroy oil supply of plaintiff's parent corporation held not conspiracy to restrain trade.-Ballard Fuel Oil Terminal Corporation v. Mexican Petroleum Corporation, 22 F. (2d) 437. MORTGAGES. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and Essentials of Conveyances as Security. (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Under facts stated, mortgage held valid as against claim of invalidity of mortgagor's title.-Yazoo-Delta Mortg. Co. v. Dickinson Trust Co., 22 F. (2d) 886. 28 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) While agreement to make mortgage may give rise to equitable lien, regard must be had for rights of creditors.Corney v. Saltzman, 22 F. (2d) 268. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. ed interest held not joint owners, as affecting V. OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYÉS. sufficiency of rental payment to grantee.-Id. III. OPERATION OF MINES, QUARRIES. AND WELLS. (A) Statutory and Official Regulations. 86 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) State has power, through administrative board to make regulations for protection of mineral rights of adjoining owners of land.-Oxford Oil Co. v. Atlantic (A) Municipal Officers in General. 173(1) (U.S.D.C.Idaho) Surety is not liable undertaking with city treasurer, unless treasurer is liable also.-City of St. Anthony v. Mason, 22 F. (2d) 306. on 173(5) (U.S.D.C.Idaho) City has election to sue officer and surety jointly on bond providing for joint and several liability.-City of St. Anthony v. Mason, 22 F.(2d) 306. I. ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONSTITUTING NEGLIGENCE. (A) Personal Conduct in General. 14 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) One without knowledge of danger involved, who helps at instance of another, who does know, is not chargeable with negligence.-Warnken v. Moody, 22 F.(2d) 960. (B) Dangerous Substances, Machinery, and Other Instrumentalities. 25 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Guest on motorboat, who assisted engineer at his request in conveying gasoline to carburetors, held not liable for resulting fire.-Warnken v. Moody, 22 F. (2d) 960. III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. (C) Imputed Negligence. 92 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Bus driver's neglect to look for train held not sole proximate cause of collision, but no more than contributory negligence not chargeable to passenger.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stegaman, 22 F. (2d) 69. IV. ACTIONS. (B) Evidence. 134(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Negligence may be established by circumstantial evidence.-National Biscuit Co. v. Litzky, 22 F.(2d) 939. (C) Trial, Judgment, and Review. 136 (22) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Negligence of storekeeper as to customer slipping on oil collected in depression in floor held for jury.-McNeil v. William G. Brown & Co., 22 F. (2d) 675. NEW TRIAL. II. GROUNDS. (H) Newly Discovered Evidence. 100 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Evidence in criminal case, not developed at time of trial, held ground for new trial in action on insurance policy.Banque Francaise de Syrie v. ProvidenceWashington Ins. Co., of Providence, R. I., 22 F. (2d) 463. III. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE NEW TRIAL. 131(1) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Bill of exceptions is not prerequisite to motion for new trial. -Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Dixon, 22 F. (2d) 655. 132 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Transcript of testimony is not prerequisite to motion for new trial.-Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Dixon, 22 F.(2d) 655. 156 (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Prevention of undue delays in hearing on motion for new trial rests in trial court's wise discretion.-Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Dixon, 22 F.(2d) 655. PARDON. 9 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) State parole of prisoner serving concurrent state and federal sentences in state prison does not affect federal sentence (18 USCA § 693).-Harrison v. Snook, 22 F. (2d) 169. PARTNERSHIP. I. THE RELATION. (A) Creation and Requisites. (App.D.C.) Under Philippine statutes. general partnerships, limited partnerships, and corporations are distinct commercial organizations (Philippine Code of Commerce, $$ 122, 125-127, 129, 140, 145-148, 153, 154, 222).Froelich & Kuttner, of Manila, P. I., v. Sutherland, 22 F. (2d) 870. II. THE FIRM, ITS NAME, POWERS, AND PROPERTY. 63 (App.D.C.) Under Philippine statutes, "partnership" is juridical person, but not distinct entity, and property thereof belongs to partners, not to artificial entity (Philippine Code of Commerce, arts. 122, 125–127, 129, 140, 145– 148, 153, 154, 222; Philippine Civ. Code, art. 1675). Froelich & Kuttner, of Manila, P. I., v. Sutherland, 22 F. (2d) 870. III. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIABILITIES OF PARTNERS. (C) Actions Between Partners. 108 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Final accounting and settlement is not prerequisite to action at law between partners for violation of partnership agreement.-Gilbert v. Fontaine, 22 F. (2d) 657. VII. DISSOLUTION, SETTLEMENT, AND ACCOUNTING. (D) Actions for Dissolution and Accounting. 340 (U.S.C.C.A.Ariz.) Court retaining jurisdiction to wind up partnership affairs could require bond of partner purchasing assets to indemnify other partner against particular claim. -Hovland v. Smith, 22 F. (2d) 769. Reassignment of interest in partnership assigned by partner pending sale of partnership assets held not insufficient, because running to himself and wife.-Id. VIII. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. 349 (App.D.C.) Under Philippine statutes, limited partnerships and corporations are distinct commercial organizations (Philippine Code of Commerce, §§ 122, 125-127, 129, 140, 145148, 153, 154, 222).-Froelich & Kuttner, of Manila, P. I., v. Sutherland, 22 F. (2d) 870. PATENTS. II. PATENTABILITY. (A) Invention. 16 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Patents can only be secured for application of knowledge to industry, though information may lie either in the discovery or in its application.-Tolfree v. Wetzler, 22 F. (2d) 214. 17(1) (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Change in proportion of constituents does not constitute invention (Patent Act 1793, § 2).-Tolfree v. Wetzler, 22 F.(2d) 214. 17(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) To be patentable, subject-matter must be work of inventive faculty beyond knowledge of skilled mechanic. |