Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 501. Act of March 3, 1891, § 5, 26 Stat. 826, as amended January 20, 1897, 29 Stat. 492 (see Jurisdiction, A 4, 5, 6): Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 437; The Steamship Jefferson, 130. Act of February 11, 1903, § 1, 32 Stat. 823 (see Jurisdiction, A 3): Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 216; Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 226. Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1246 (see Jurisdiction, A 1, 2): United States v. Corbett, 233. Rev. Stat., § 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 7, 8, 9, 11, 13): El Paso & Northeastern Ry. Co. v. Gutierrez, 87; Sylvester v. Washington, 80; First National Bank v. Estherville, 341; Scully v. Squier, 144; Kansas City Star Co. v. Julian, 589. Rev. Stat., § 914 (see Courts, 12): Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 437 (see Practice and Procedure, 5): Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Kirven, 252. NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat., § 5209 (see Criminal Law, 4, Jurisdiction, A 2, Statutes, A 2): United States v. Corbett, 233. Rev. Stat., § 5311 (see Statutes, A 2): Ib.

OLEOMARGARINE, Act of May 9, 1902, § 6, 32 Stat. 193 (see Statutes, A 7): United States v. Union Supply Co., 50.

PHILIPPINE ORGANIC ACT of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691 (see Jurisdic

tion, A 10): Reavis v. Fianza, 16. Section 22 (see Philippine Islands, 1): Ib. Sections 28 and 45 (see Philippine Islands, 2, 3): Ib.

PUBLIC LANDS, Act of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489 (see Public Lands, 4): Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Harris, 386. Oregon Donation Act of September 27, 1850, 9 Stat. 496, as amended July 17, 1854, § 2, 10 Stat. 305 (see Public Lands, 6): Sylvester v. Washington, 80. Rev. Stat., § 2387 (see Jurisdiction, A 11; Public Lands, 5): Scully v. Squier, 144.

PUBLIC WORKS, Labor and Material Law of February 24, 1905, 33 Stat. 811, amending act of August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278 (see Public Works, 1, 3): Mankin v. Ludowici-Celadon Co., 533.

ADMIRALTY.

1. Jurisdiction of case involving salvage service to vessel in dry dock. Salvage service, over which a court of admiralty has jurisdiction, may

arise from all perils which may encompass a vessel when on waters within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and this includes services rendered to a vessel undergoing repairs in dry dock and in danger of being destroyed by fire which originated on land. The Steamship Jefferson, 130.

2. Jurisdiction over vessel in dry dock.

A vessel used for navigation and commerce does not cease to be a

subject of admiralty jurisdiction because temporarily in a dry
dock without water actually flowing around her. Ib.

See JURISDICTION, A 5.

ALIEN CONTRACT LABOR.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 2;
STATUTES, A 4.

ALLOTTEE INDIANS.

See INDIANS, 2, 4.

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS.

See PLEADING, 2;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 1.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

1. Propriety of method of bringing up judgment of Supreme Court of
Philippine Islands.

Writ of error and not appeal is the proper method to bring up to this
court a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands
in cases affecting title to land in Court of Land Registration.
(Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 U. S. 449.) Tiglao v. Insular
Government, 410.

2. When writ of error actually brought.

A writ of error is not actually brought until filed in the court which
rendered the judgment, and the same rule is applicable to ap-
peals. (Credit Company v. Arkansas Central Railway, 128 U. S.
261.) Old Nick Williams Co. v. United States, 541.

3. Time for taking appeals from one Federal court to another.
The statutory time for taking appeals from one Federal court to
another is prescribed by act of Congress and must be calculated
accordingly; it cannot be extended by order of the court. Ib.

4. Delay in filing writ not excused by delay in settling bill of exceptions.
Assignment of errors does not require the previous settlement of the

bill of exceptions, and failure to file the writ within the statutory
time is not excused because there was delay on the part of the
trial judge in settling the bill. Ib.

5. Scope of review on writ of error where rights depend upon validity
of a deed under an act of Congress.

On a writ of error where the rights of the parties depend upon the

validity of a deed under an act of Congress this court is confined to the question of validity under the statute and the effect of the deed, if valid, upon the later rights and acquisitions of the grantor is a matter of local law; and, in this case, the court will not disturb the assumption of the state court that a settler giving a valid deed before patent perfected the title and obtained the patent on behalf of his grantee or else that the patent enured to the benefit of the grantee. Sylvester v. Washington, 80.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

See JURISDICTION.

APPLIED CASES.

See CASES APPLIED.

APPROVED CASES.

Sce CASES APPROVED.

ASSESSMENT OF STOCK.
See NATIONAL BANKS.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 4;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2, 3.

ATTORNEYS.

Attendance at court; notice of proceedings presumed.

Attorneys of record are supposed to be present during the terms of the court in which their causes are pending, and are chargeable with notice of proceedings transpiring in open court. Rio Grande Dam &c. Co. v. United States, 266.

BANKRUPTCY.

See BANKS AND Banking, 5;
FEDERAL QUESTION.

BANKS AND BANKING.

1. Securities; duty of bank to return on refusal to use as requested. When a bank refuses to do the particular thing requested with securi

ties delivered to it for that purpose only, it is its duty to return the securities and no general lien in its favor attaches to them. Hanover Bank v. Suddath, 110.

2. Lien of bank on securities deposited with it for a particular purpose.
The fact that a bank has in its possession securities which were sent

to it for a particular purpose and which it is its duty to return
to the sender, does not justify its retaining them for any other
purpose under a banker's agreement giving it a general lien on
all securities deposited by the sender. Ib.

3. Lien of bank on securities-Construction of agreement.

A banker's agreement giving a general lien on securities deposited by
its correspondent will not be construed so as to give it a broad
meaning beyond its evident scope and in conflict with the precepts
of duty, good faith and confidence necessary for commercial
transactions; nor will a printed form prepared by the banker be
so extended by the construction of any ambiguous language. Ib.

4. Securities; retention for purpose other than that intended. Implied

consent.

In this case it was held that the retention by a bank of securities for
a purpose different from that for which they were sent by its
correspondent could not be predicated on the consent of the
latter, and that inaction of the correspondent could not be con-
strued as consent. Ib.

5. Right of bank to set off overdraft of bankrupt against paper sent it for
discount and wrongfully retained.
Where a bank, after refusing to discount paper sent to it by the
insolvent for that purpose, has retained the paper, it cannot,
as against general creditors, set off against that paper, or its
proceeds, the bankrupt's overdraft although made after such
refusal and pending the retention of the paper. Hanover Bank
v. Suddath (No. 2), 122.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

See APPEAL AND ERROR, 4.

CAR DISTRIBUTION.

See INTERSTATE Commerce COMMISSION, 2-7;
MANDAMUS, 7.

CARRIERS.

See COMMERCE, 1-6.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT;

INTERSTATE Commerce Commission, 2–7.

VOL. CCXV-40

CASES APPLIED.

Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, applied in McGilvra v. Ross, 70.
Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426,
applied in Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 481.

CASES APPROVED.

Hyde v. Southern Ry. Co., 31 App. D. C. 466, approved in El Paso &
Northeastern Ry. Co. v. Gutierrez, 87.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Matter of Heff, 197 U. S. 488, distinguished in United States v. Celestine,
278.

Southern Railway Co. v. Tift, 206 U. S. 428, distinguished in Baltimore
& Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 481.

CASES EXPLAINED.

Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, explained in El Paso &
Northeastern Ry. Co. v. Gutierrez, 87.

Lowrey v. Hawaii, 206 U. S. 206, construed in Lowrey v. Hawaii, 554.

CASES FOLLOWED.

Anderson v. Carkins, 135 U. S. 483, followed in Sylvester v. Washing-
ton, 80.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Sowers, 213 U. S. 55, followed in
El Paso & Northeastern Ry. Co. v. Gutierrez, 87.

Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, followed in Hubert v. New Orleans, 170.
Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 215 U. S. 216,

followed in United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 595.
Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 U. S. 449, followed in Reavis v.
Fianza, 16; Tiglao v. Insular Government, 410.

Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, followed in Berger v. Tracy, 594.
Corbett v. Nutt, 10 Wall. 464, followed in Fall v. Eastin, 1.
Credit Company v. Arkansas Central Railway, 128 U. S. 261, followed
in Old Nick Williams Co. v. United States, 541.

Goldey v. Morning News Co., 156 U. S. 518, followed in Mechanical
Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 437.

Hill v. American Surety Co., 200 U. S. 197, followed in Mankin v.

Ludowici-Celadon Co., 533.

Interstate Com. Com. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 215 U. S. 452, fol-
lowed in Interstate Com. Com. v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co., 479;
Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 481.

Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, followed in McGilvra v. Ross, 70.

« AnteriorContinuar »