separated. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada v. provements upon unperfected homestead of a
Knapp, 624.

II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION.

third person, their removal of such improvement
did not fall within Penal Code, § 19, making it
an offense to conspire to intimidate any per-
27 (U.S.C.C.A.) A laborer working in a tun- son in exercise of rights secured by federal laws.
nel, which, when completed, would be used by a-Buchanan v. United States, 263.
railroad company engaged in inter and intra
state commerce as part of its line, is not en-
gaged in interstate commerce, within the fed-
eral Employers' Liability Act.-Raymond v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 245.

33 (U.S.C.C.A.) In a prosecution under
Criminal Code, § 37, denouncing the offense of
conspiring to defraud the United States in any
particular, it is unnecessary, to warrant con-
viction of conspiring to defraud the government,
to show that the government was actually de-
frauded.-Stager v. United States, 396.

(B) Prosecution and Punishment.
43(10) (U.S.C.C.A.) In a prosecution under
Criminal Code, § 37. for conspiring to defraud
the government, indictment held sufficient.-
Stager v. United States, 396.

47 (U.S.C.C.A.) An indictment for conspir-
acy to use the mails in aid of a scheme to de-
fraud, as construed, held not sustained by the
evidence.-Hendrey v. United States, 75.

47 (U.S.C.C.A.) In a prosecution against
an examiner at the appraiser's stores for con-
spiring to defraud the government, evidence held
United State, 396.
insufficient to support conviction.-Stager v.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

See Jury, 31.

XI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

313 (U.S.C.C.A.) Laws Wash, 1911, c. 74,
providing for compensation to injured work-
men, which did away with jury trial, is not in-
valid as denying such workmen due process of
law, within Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Raymond
v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 245.

CONSTRUCTION.

See Aliens, 21; Statutes, 226; Trial,
296; Wills.

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS.

See Trusts.

CONTEMPT.

See Injunction, 223, 232.

II. POWER TO PUNISH, AND PRO-
CEEDINGS THEREFOR.

did

58(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where defendants
not deny the contempt charged, but merely put
in a plea of not guilty and went to trial on
that, they did not purge themselves of any con-
tempt in violating the injunction.-Oates v.
United States, 207.

A defendant, who by personal and overt acts
violates an injunction, cannot purge himself of
his contempt by a denial under oath of the con-
tempt charged.-Id.

60(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) To convict of crimi-
nal contempt, the trial court must be convinced
of the guilt of accused beyond a reasonable
doubt.-Oates v. United States, 207.

66(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where judgments in con-
tempt proceedings were reversed, and thereafter
the trial court, on reconsideration, indicated

what evidence it rejected as incompetent, de- | fense of want of capacity, though no affidavit fendants, if desirous for the rejection of other setting up that defense was filed.-Arkansas evidence, should call it to the attention of the Grand Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Davidson, 449. court.-Oates v. United States, 207. 346(9) (U.S.C.C.A.) Mental incapacity contract may be shown under defense of non assumpsit.-Arkansas Grand Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Davidson, 449.

66(7) (U.S.C.C.A.) In contempt proceedings, where there were findings showing defendants' guilt, immaterial findings were not prejudicial.-Oates v. United States, 207.

In criminal contempt, a finding of the trial court on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.-Id.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

See Master and Servant, 204.

CONVERSION.

In criminal contempt proceedings, where the writ of error was granted and defendants were admitted to bail on the same day sentence was pronounced, they cannot complain that the See Bankruptcy, 165. trial court refused to suspend sentence pending application for a writ of error.-Id.

COPYRIGHTS.

66(8) (U.S.C.C.A.) It is sufficient protection of defendants, charged with contempt, that See Appeal and Error, 1009. the reviewing court reverses the judgments, and directs the trial court to reconsider the case, and indicates what incompetent evidence it disregarded.-Oates v. United States, 207.

68 (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Rev. St. 8974 (Comp. St. 1913, § 1615), costs may be assessed against defendant convicted in a criminal contempt proceeding, regardless of Judicial Code, § 268 (Comp. St. 1913, § 1245), authorizing punishment by fine and imprisonment.-Oates v. United States, 207.

CONTINGENT REMAINDERS. See Partition, 109.

CONTRACTS.

See Appeal and Error, 236, 1039; Bail-
ment; Bankruptcy, 140; Courts, 372;
Indians, 3: Insurance; Municipal Cor-
porations,
354; Partnership, 64;
Patents, 93, 216; Principal and Agent,
Our 82; Principal and Surety; Release;
Sales; Set-Off and Counterclaim, 29;
Shipping; Subrogation; Trial, 177.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
(F) Legality of Object and of Consid-
eration.

141(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) In the absence of proof, an illegal or immoral consideration for advances should not be presumed. In re Wray, 354. III. MODIFICATION AND MERGER.

240 (U.S.C.C.A.) For a stranger to assume a contract, it is sufficient if he conducts himself so as to lead others to believe that he intended to make the contract his own.-Swift & Co. v. Detroit Rock Salt Co., 237.

248 (U.S.C.C.A.) In an action for a breach of contract with defendant's predecessor, question whether defendant had adopted the contract held for the jury.-Swift & Co. v. Detroit Rock Salt Co., 237.

III. INFRINGEMENT.

(B) Actions.

to

87 (U.S.C.C.A.) In view of prior statutes, the proprietor of copyrighted drawings, which were unlawfully reproduced in a newspaper, is, under Copyright Act, § 25, entitled at least to the minimum damage of $250, where actual damages are not sought.-L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co., 417.

An infringement, entitling a copyright proprietor under Copyright Act, § 25, to the minimum damages, are those acts, whether one or many, constituting a connected and fairly unitary invasion of the proprietor's rights.-Id.

In view of the procedure for copyrighting under Copyright Act, held, that under section 25 the proprietor of numerous style sketches can, where a newspaper infringed its rights by wrongful publication, recover but a single award of the statutory damages.-Id.

CORPORATIONS.

See Appeal and Error, 1033; Bankruptcy,
303: Banks and Banking; Carriers;
Injunction, 41, 136; Municipal Corpora-
tions; Removal of Causes, 3; Trusts,
302.

V. MEMBERS AND STOCKHOLDERS.
(A) Rights and Liabilities as to Cor-
poration.

190 (U.S.C.C.A.) Evidence in a suit where complainant asserted that, on incorporation of a business in which he was a partner, it was agreed that as between the parties it should be conducted as a partnership, held insufficient to support that contention, or to bear out complainant's claims of misconduct and waste of assets by defendants.-Napier v. Westerhoff, 334.

(C) Suing or Defending on Behalf of Corporation.

206(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where, through the VI. ACTIONS FOR BREACH. fraud of those controlling a corporation, the cor338(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) In assumpsit on con-poration will not sue a director for injuries octract, held, that defendants' pleadings were a casioned by his negligence, a stockholder may substantial compliance with the rules of the maintain his bill to recover therefor.-Kelly v. District Court, entitling defendants to assert de- Dolan, 443.

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

207 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where court appointing by a capitalization on the first dividend declarreceiver refused to allow him to sue for injuries ed after consolidation.-Jones v. Missouri-Edioccasioned by directors' negligence, a stock- son Electric Co., 119. holder, though given permission, cannot main- In determining the value of corporate proptain a stockholder's bill; no assignment_oferty which was consolidated, the master should cause of action having been made.-Kelly v. Do- not reject evidence as to the value of the proplan, 443. erties consolidated, because it was not sufficient alone to show value.-Id.

209 (U.S.C.C.A.) A stockholder's delay of 12 years before instituting a stockholder's bill to recover for injuries from the negligence of directors constituted laches, preventing recovery. -Kelly v. Dolan, 443.

VI. OFFICERS AND AGENTS. (C) Rights, Duties, and Liabilities as to Corporation and Its Members.

310(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where corporation is injured through the negligence of its directors, the right to recover for such negligence is a legal right vested in the corporation.-Kelly v. Dolan, 443.

VII. CORPORATE POWERS AND

LIABILITIES.

(B) Representation of Corporation by officers and Agents.

425(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) A corporation cannot deny the authority of its agents to make contracts not ultra vires, and apparently within the scope of their authority.-Swift & Co. v. Detroit Rock Salt Co., 237.

(D) Contracts and Indebtedness.

480 (U.S.C.C.A.) Rights of second mortgagee considered as against prior mortgages, subject to which his mortgage was expressly taken.-Crawford v. Washington Northern R. Co., 635.

(F) Civil Actions.

Minority shareholders, who recovered the value of their shares, their corporation having been improperly consolidated with another, held entitled to only ordinary interest at the statutory rate, and not to attorney's fees.-Id. CORPORATION TAX LAW.

See Internal Revenue.

COSTS.

See Appeal and Error, 78, 984, 1073;
Bankruptcy, ~479; Contempt, ~~68;
Creditors' Suit.

VII. ON APPEAL OR ERROR, AND
ON NEW TRIAL OR MOTION
THEREFOR.

254(6) (U.S.C.C.A.) A prevailing party in an appeal, which itself prepared a part of the record, held under court rule 23 (150 Fed. xxxii, 79 C. C. A. xxxii), entitled to tax only the actual expense of the work, without any addition for overhead or shop charges.-Steffens v. Steiner, 56.

A prevailing party in an appeal, in which separate suits were consolidated and heard on one record, held entitled to tax but one docket fee.-Id. COUNTERCLAIM.

See Set-Off and Counterclaim.

519(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where one of three interlocking corporations, which received moneys raised from the sale of the bonds of the second company, loaned them to the third corporation, See Evidence, evidence held insufficient to show that the loan was authorized or ratified by the second company. In re Hunter Arms Co., 149.

VIII. INSOLVENCY AND RECEIVERS.

563(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Both under general principles of receiverships and General Corporation Law N. Y. §§ 232, 239, as amended by Laws 1913, c. 766, a receiver may sue for injuries occasioned by the negligence of directors, so a stockholder cannot sue in his own name.Kelly v. Dolan, 443.

IX. REINCORPORATION AND REOR

GANIZATION.

576 (U.S.C.C.A.) A bill by a preferred stockholder in a bankrupt corporation for relief against a proposed reorganization of the same considered, and held not to state a cause of action for equitable relief against certain of the defendants.-Church v. Swetland, 565.

X. CONSOLIDATION.

584 (U.S.C.C.A.) In determining the value of corporate properties consolidated at suit of minority stockholder, the master should consider other competent evidence, and not proceed

COUNTIES.
333.

COUNTY ATTORNEYS.
86.

See Attorney and Client,
COURT RULES CITED.

Equity Rule 26.-635.
Equity Rule 29.-535.
Equity Rule 75.-417.

COURTS.

See Appeal and Error, 962; Bankruptcy, 11; Clerks of Courts; Contempt; Judges; Mandamus, 172; Principal and Surety, 187; Prohibition, 28; Removal of Causes; Sales, 17.

VII. UNITED STATES COURTS. (A) Jurisdiction and Powers in General,

268 (U.S.C.C.A.) A federal court has jurisdiction of an action at law by sureties to recover the amount they paid under a judgment recovered in the state court of another district. Cooper v. Jewett, 426.

Where sureties, having satisfied judgment against their principal in court of foreign state,

were subrogated to rights of creditor, a suit in
equity to enforce such rights may be maintain-
ed in federal District Court of a district not
including state where judgment was rendered.
-Id.

(E) Procedure, and Adoption of Practice
of State Courts.

375 (U.S.C.C.A.) Ky. St. 1909, § 2545, ex-
tending the period of limitation where a first
action is dismissed for want of jurisdiction,
held to apply where the first action was brought
in a federal court in Kentucky.-Merko V.
Sturm & Dillard Co., 138.

(H) Circuit Courts of Appeals.
405(12) (U.S.C.C.A.) The Circuit Court of
Appeals can only review final judgments other
than injunction orders.-Crooker v. Knudsen,

51.

344 (U.S.C.C.A.) In view of Rev. St. U. S.
$ 787 (Comp. St. 1913, § 1311), and under sec-
tion 914 (section 1537), which supplanted Act
Cong. May 19, 1828, held, that one federal Dis-
trict court sitting in New York cannot issue
process to be served on a person residing in the 406(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) As in case of states,
state, but in another district.-Sewchulis v. Le- decisions of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico
construing local statutes and concessions will be
high Valley Coal Co., 358.
treated by the federal courts as controlling
where they involve no infraction of rights se
cured by the federal Constitution or laws.-
Trujillo & Mercado v. Succession of Rodriguez,
214.

349 (U.S.C.C.A.) The practice of the federal
courts as to the scope allowed in cross-examina-
tion in criminal cases is not affected by the
practice or rules of the courts of the state.-
Hendrey v. United States, 75.

349 (U.S.C.C.A.) Conviction in state court
of an infamous crime does not render the person
incompetent to testify in the federal court,
though making him incompetent to testify in
state court.-Brown v. United States, 289.

356 (U.S.C.C.A.) What is necessary in a
District Court to render rulings reviewable is
determined by federal statutes, and, where they
are silent by the common-law practice prevail-
ing in the federal courts.-Chicago Great West-
ern R. Co. v. Le Valley, 320.

VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICT.
ING JURISDICTION, AND
COMITY.

(B) State Courts and United States
Courts.

493(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where, from judgment
rendered against it by state court, complainant
appealed to state Supreme Court, and on af-
firmance took a writ of error to United States
Supreme Court, complainant could not secure
relief against judgment by independent suit in
federal District Court.-American Surety Co.
of New York v. Mills, 35.

which complainant, then defendant, was not
served, judgment was rendered on a disclaimer
filed without authority, complainant, not being
a citizen of the state in which ejectment judg-
ment was rendered, may sue in equity to vacate
it.-McFarland v. Curtin, 494.

356 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where, in an equity suit,
the defeated party appealed and also brought
error, and the evidence was brought up in a 509 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where, in ejectment, in
so-called bill of exceptions, it will, the intention
being clear that it should be treated also as a
statement of evidence under equity rule 75 (198
Fed. xl, 115 C. C. A. xl), be so regarded.-L. A.
Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co., 417.
(F) State Laws as Rules of Decision.
366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) The decisions of the
state courts construing state statutes are bind-522 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where federal District
ing on the federal courts.-Atlas Portland Ce-
ment Co. v. Hagen, 94.

(D) Different United States Courts.

Court of one district issued injunction against
certain acts, complainant cannot by bill in
another district be granted relief against such
injunction, and permission to perform acts en-
joined.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Western Un-
ion Telegraph Co., 152.

366(13) (U.S.C.C.A.) A decision by the Ok-
lahoma Supreme Court construing Comp. Laws
Okl. 1909, § 5553, as denying benefit of limi-
tations in favor of any person or corporation
while it is without the state, is binding on
federal courts, so limitations do not run in fa-
vor of a foreign corporation, though it main
tained a statutory process agent.-Quinette v. See Trial, 140.
Pullman Co., 654.

A state decision, which in generally constru-
ing limitation acts denied their benefit to a for-
eign corporation, must be followed by the feder- See
al courts, though it also adjudicated that a for-
eign corporation was not entitled to the benefit
of limitation acts unless it became a resident
and waived its right to remove actions to the
federal courts.-Id.

372(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) Respective rights of a
seller of property by a contract of conditional
sale and creditors of the buyer are to be deter-
mined in a federal court by the law of the state
so far as applicable.-General Electric Co. v.
Richardson, 154.

CREDIBILITY.

CREDITORS.

Bankruptcy; Principal and Surety,
143, 172; Subrogation.

CREDITORS' SUIT.

See Limitation of Actions, 2.

59 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where, in a creditors' suit,
a fund is recovered or protected by the exer-
tions of complainant's counsel, it is proper for
the court, out of the fund, to allow fees to
complainant's counsel.-Central Trust Co. of

For cases in De:. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

417(10) (U.S.C.C.A.) In a prosecution for 770(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) A defendant in a crimperjury growing out of testimony given at a inal case is entitled of right to have each dishearing before the commissioner, where another tinct and important theory of defense clearly was charged with using the mails with intent to stated to the jury.-Hendrey v. United States, defraud, the admission of evidence of statements 75.