MEMORANDUM DECISIONS

(243 Fed. 1007)

CANGEN v. CRAMER et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. June 23, 1917.) No. 255. Appeal from District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. William E. Warland, of New York City, for appellant. James R. Hodder, of Boston, Mass., for appellees. Before COXE, WARD, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Decree affirmed.

(243 Fed. 1007)

ECKERSON et al. v. TANNEY et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. June 6, 1917.) No. 264. Appeal from the District Court of the United States, for the Southern District of New York. Blauvelt & Warren, of New York City (George A. Blauvelt, Francis J. MacIntyre, and Maurice J. O'Callaghan, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellants. Servin & Cox, of Middletown, N. Y. (Abram J. Rose, of New York City, and Abram F. Servin, of Middletown, N. Y., of counsel), for appellees. Before COXE, WARD, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Decree (235 Fed. 415) affirmed.

(243 Fed. 1007)

KLINE BROS. & CO. v. LONDON & LANCASHIRE INS. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 8, 1917.) No. 237. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Erwin, Fried & Czaki, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error. Hartwell Cabell, of New York City, for defendant in error. Before COXE, WARD, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Submitted without argument. Judgment affirmed.

(243 Fed. 1007)

THE PLINY FISK.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. June 6, 1917.) No. 236. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Carpenter & Park, now Park & Mattison, of New York City (Samuel Park, of New York City, of counsel), for The Pliny Fisk. Macklin, Brown & Purdy, of New York City (Pierre M. Brown and Frank J. Whitcomb, both of New York City, of counsel), for claimants. fore COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Decree affirmed.

Be

(243 Fed. 1007)

PRINCE v. HARTMANN.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 13, 1917.) No. 212. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Alfred B. Nathan, of New York City (Sidney J. Loeb, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Edward Fillmore, of New York City, for appellee. Before COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

(243 Fed. 1007)

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. ELECTRIC CONTROLLER & MFG. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. October 3, 1917.) No. 2884. On application to modify mandate. Denied. For original opinion, see 243 Fed. 188, 156 C. C. A. 54.

PER CURIAM. Defendant urges that one form of its apparatus, shown by diagram No. 1, does not respond to claim 7, and that the injunction and accounting to be had in the court below should be confined to the other forms of construction. This contention was not specifically presented upon the hearing nor considered; but it has now received our attention. We state only our conclusion. Claim 7 calls, in terms, for a master switch circuit having contacts controlled by throttle, and a branch circuit from the master switch circuit through each rheostat magnet with contacts in this branch circuit to be closed by the rheostat magnets. Diagram No. 1 shows what is practically a master switch circuit, but the throttle is not in the distinctive master switch circuit but is in a subsidiary circuit leading from the main line, and the branch circuit which successively affects the rheostat magnets is a branch from this subsidiary circuit and not directly from the master switch circuit. It is thus apparent that the precise and specific nomenclature of the claim is not met; but we think there is full equivalency. What we have called the subsidiary circuit is closed and made active by the operation of the master switch in the master switch circuit. From the point of view of the invention which we have taken, it is of no importance whether the controlling throttle is situated in and the branch circuit leads from that cirsituated in and lead from a circuit which is under the indirect control of the master switch and by the operation of that switch has become practically a part of its circuit. The application to modify the mandate as to diagram No. 1 must be denied; and the order as to costs in this court will remain unchanged.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 156

THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX

It Supplements the Decennial Digest, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests

in admiralty to which the Conformity Act of to charge owner with notice, actual or pre

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

sumptive, that occupant is claiming to hold adversely.-Sibley v. McCoy, 559.

33 (U.S.C.C.A) Undisclosed conversation between one going into possession and one directing him to do so will not warrant inference that owner was notified that holding was adverse.-Sibley v. McCoy, 559.

(E) Duration and Continuity of Possess

sion.

44 (U.S.C.C.A.) Possession to give title by adverse possession must be continuous and uninterrupted for the full statutory period.-Sibley v. McCoy, 559.

57 (U.S.C.C.A.) Possession continuous and uninterrupted for the full statutory period must be clearly established.-Sibley v. McCoy, 559.

II. OPERATION AND EFFECT.

(B) Title or Right Acquired.

hearing, when not given opportunity to explain and meet statements of immigration inspectors received by those conducting the examination subsequent to the hearing. In re Chan Foo Lin, 3.

32(13) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a Chinese person was ordered deported by immigration ofcials on account of errors in interpretation of his testimony, held that, though it was not raised at hearing, writ of habeas corpus may be granted on ground that he was not accorded a fair hearing because of errors.-White v. Wong Quen Luck, 245.

III. IMMIGRATION.

53 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where aliens entered the United States surreptitiously and without inspection, they may be deported, irrespective of other grounds of deportation.-Singh v. United States, 255.

(U.S.C.C.A.) Where aliens entered the United States surreptitiously and without inspection, they may be deported irrespective of other grounds of deportation.-Singh v. United States, 257.

104 (U.S.C.C.A.) Continuous, open, notori-53 ous, visible, peaceable, adverse possession of land in Virginia for 20 years by plaintiff in ejectment justifies presumption that commonwealth has parted with title.-Sibley v. McCoy,

559.

AFFREIGHTMENT.

See Shipping, 121, 141.

See Contracts.

AGREEMENT.

ALIENS.

See Constitutional Law.

II. EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION.

22 (U.S.C.C.A.) Under article 2 of treaty of 1880 between United States and China, a Chinese merchant domiciled in United States has right to bring his wife and minor children into country, and this right may be exercised, though minor son was 20 years old and had contracted a marriage in China before admission was sought.-Woo Hoo v. White, 239.

54 (U.S.CC.A.) Under Immigration Law, §§ 20, 21, 35, alien native of India, who unlawfully entered the United States from Canada, should be deported to India, where it did not appear that he had acquired domicile in Canada. -Singh v. United States, 255.

That alien was in British Columbia for 11 months and for 8 months of that time worked at lumber mill, living in .company house, does not show that he acquired domicile in Canada so as to warrant his deportation to Canada from the United States instead of to country from whence he came.-Id.

That an alien purchased land in Canada does not show that he had a domicile there, so as to warrant his deportation from the United States to Canada instead of to the country from whence he came.-Id.

54 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where aliens, natives of India, were discovered surreptitiously entering the United States from Canada, they were properly ordered deported to India, where they denied having been in Canada, and there was no evidence that they had acquired any domicile there or had remained there any length of time.

32(6) (U.S.C.C.A.) Order directing deportation of a Chinese woman will not be reversed, because based on evidence obtained from search, in violation of Const. Amend. 4, of the trunk of her alleged husband, a native-born Chinese-Singh v. United States, 257. citizen of the United States.-Tsuie Shee v. Backus, 249.

32(7) (U.S.C.C.A.) Proceeding to deport Chi

nese person held civil, and not criminal, though See Patents.
government intended to proceed on hypothesis
that defendant entered the United States in vio-
lation of Immigration Act, § 36, and of the

AMBIGUITIES.

ANCILLARY JURISDICTION.

Chinese exclusion laws, and hence the govern- See Courts, 264.
ment could call defendant as its witness.-In re
Chan Foo Lin, 3.

ANTENUPTIAL SETTLEMENTS.

32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.) On habeas corpus to obtain discharge of a Chinese woman, ordered de- See Husband and Wife, 31-34, 129. ported, though she applied for admission as wife of native-born Chinese citizen of United States, evidence held insufficient to show that

ANTICIPATION.

applicant was not given fair hearing or that See Patents, 51-62. order of deportation was not justified.-Tsuie

Shee v. Backus, 249.

32(9) (U.S.C.C.A.) Person of Chinese de

ANTI-TRUST LAW.

scent sought to be deported held denied a fair 'See Monopolies.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

able, where objections were not made or else exceptions were not taken.-Lohman v. StockFor review of rulings in particular actions or yards Loan Co., 215. proceedings, see also the various specific top-260(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Sustaining of objec

III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.

tions to question were not reviewable, where objection was not made or else exceptions were not taken.-Lohman v. Stockyards Loan Co.,

IN RECORD.

(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of Decision. 215. 87(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a petitioner claims a lien upon or interest in specific prop-X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT erty, subject to the exclusive disposition of a court, his right to intervene in the proceeding is absolute, and its denial is subject to review. -Swift v. Black Panther Oil & Gas Co., 448.

V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVA

TION IN LOWER COURT OF
GROUNDS OF REVIEW.

(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.
170(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) On appeal from judg-
ment sustaining demurrer to answer alleging re-
scission by Interstate Commerce Commission of
order of reparation, later proceedings of the
Commission, resulting in reinstatement of the
order, will be passed upon, though not presented
to the lower court.-Morgan's Louisiana & T. R.
& S. S. Co. v. Isaac Joseph Iron Co., 15.

173(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where averment of fact in motion on which court granted it was not controverted below, it cannot be drawn in question here.-Camp v. Gress, 549.

(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings

Thereon.

(A) Matters to be Shown by Record. 501 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.) A contention that the court in its charge assumed a fact cannot be reviewed where it does not appear from the record that any exception was taken to such statement.-Missouri Dist. Telegraph Co. v. Morris & Co., 179.

(K) Questions Presented for Review.

709 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where trial court awarded counsel fees, stating that they were confined to compensation for services in trial court, and facts on which award was made did not appear, the appellate court cannot review award on ground of abuse of discretion.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Minds, 481.

XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.

719(9) (U.S.C.C.A.) The contention that an allowance of counsel fees in a judgment sustaining a demurrer was premature will not be passed on, where error is not assigned to this feature of the judgment.-Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Isaac Joseph Iron Co., 15.

XII. BRIEFS.

758 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Disregard of Rule 24 of the Eighth Circuit (188 Fed. xvi, 109 C. C. A. xvi), requiring the brief of plaintiff in error to set out the specifications of error relied upon separately, warrant an affirmance of the judgment.-Lohman v. Stockyards Loan Co., 215.

XVI. REVIEW.

(A) Scope and Extent in General,

205 (U.S.C.C.A.) Sustaining of objections to question were not reviewable, where objection was not made or else exceptions were not taken.-Lohman v. Stockyards Loan Co., 215. 216(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where trial court, aft-840(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental queser giving charge fairly presenting controversy, tion is that of jurisdiction, first of the appelstated that counsel might call his attention to any points they would like to have specifical- late court, and then of lower court, which must ly answered, defendant, having been cast be- be disposed of, though not raised by parties.low, cannot raise in appellate court matter not Spencer v. Patey, 253. then called to trial court's attention.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Minds, 481.

217 (U.S.C.C.A.) Permitting jury to take depositions to jury room cannot be reviewed, where objection was not made or else exception was not taken.-Lohman v. Stockyards Loan Co., 215.

(C) Exceptions.

(E) Presumptions.

907 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.) In absence of record which materials were furnished included, held evidence showing what "service extensions" for that finding that the materials were not an operating expense will be adopted.-John A. Roebling's Sons Co. of California v. Idaho Ry., Light & Power Co., 225.

259 (U.S.C.C.A.) Permitting jury to take 930(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) In action for discrimdepositions to jury room cannot be reviewed, where objection was not made or else exception was not taken.-Lohman v. Stockyards Loan Co., 215.

260 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Admission of mortgage and certified copy thereof held not review

ination in distributing cars where there was evidence besides award, held, it will be presumed that verdict for less than amount of award was not based on award of Interstate Commerce Commission.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Minds, 481.

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