I. DECEPTION CONSTITUTING FRAUD, AND LIABILITY THEREFOR. ant to an antenuptial agreement, evidence held insufficient to show wife's participation in fraud. -Robertson v. Schlotzhauer, 104. GRAND JURY. 12 (U.S.C.C.A.) As a rule false representations, to constitute fraud, must relate to some material past or existing fact, and not to mere See Indictment and Information. promises or statements of intention.-Church v. Swetland, 69. FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. V. AGREEMENTS NOT TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN ONE YEAR OR DURING LIFETIME. 44(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Understanding between corporation and its general manager, having a ten-year contract, that sums paid him should be in full, held not within statute of frauds, as it was fully executed, and not for any fixed period. -Hansen v. Uniform Seamless Wire Co., 43. IX. OPERATION AND EFFECT OF STATUTE. 139(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Understanding between corporation and its general manager, having a ten-year contract, that sums paid him should be in full, held not within statute of frauds, as it was fully executed, and not for any fixed period. Hansen v. Uniform Seamless Wire Co., 43. GUARANTY. See Principal and Surety. HABEAS CORPUS. See Aliens, 32. I. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF 4 (U.S.C.C.A.) Writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as writ of error, but only for consideration of fundamental and jurisdictional questions.-Collins v. Morgan, 193. 30(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Mere error of law in exercise of jurisdiction, though serious, is no ground for habeas corpus.-Collins v. Morgan, 193. 30(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) It is no ground for discharge on habeas corpus that indictment is duplicitous, charging in one count offenses under two acts.-Collins v. Morgan, 193. II. JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS, AND RELIEF. 85(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) On habeas corpus by Chinese person, who applied for admission to United States as a minor son of a merchant, evidence held to show hearing before immigration authorities was unfair, and exclusion on ground applicant was not a minor was error.Woo Hoo v. White, 239. 76(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Marriage is a most valuable consideration, and conveyance made pursuant to an antenuptial settlement, considera-92(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Questions of jurisdiction tion of which was marriage, cannot be set aside as fraudulent as to creditors on ground of want of consideration.-Robertson v. Schlotzhauer, 104. (H) Preferences to Creditors. 120(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) A trust held to be created by antenuptial agreement entered into between husband and wife, so that deed to land subsequently executed by husband is not open to attack on ground that wife was a creditor and it preferred her.-Robertson v. Schlotzhauer, 104. (J) Knowledge and Intent of Grantee. ≈162(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) A deed executed by a husband pursuant to an antenuptial agreement will not be annulled without proof of the wife's even will not always be decided on writ of habeas corpus; principle being that, if the court had jurisdiction of the case, writ cannot be employed to retry the issues, whether of law, constitutional or otherwise, or of fact.-Collins v. Morgan, 193. Whether act charged in indictment is or is not crime by law which court administers is question within its jurisdiction.—Id. 96 (U.S.C.C.A.) Habeas corpus cannot be used to review decision upon legal sufficiency of defense of former jeopardy.-Collins v. Morgan, 193. 105 (U.S.C.C.A.) Writ of habeas corpus may be employed to correct excessive punishment, after that which might have been lawfully imposed has been satisfied.-Collins v. Morgan, 193. participation in the fraud, though the husband(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a Chinese perintended to defraud his creditors.-Robertson v. son, applying for entrance into the United Schlotzhauer, 104. States, was ordered deported without a fair III. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS AND hearing, he should not, on writ of habeas cor PURCHASERS. (G) Evidence. 301(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) In suit by husband's trustee in bankruptcy to set aside, as fraud upon creditors, deed executed by husband pursu pus, be unconditionally discharged from cus tody; but such discharge should be conditional, to be effective only in case immigration authorities should fail to give applicant a fair hearing within a reasonable period, as a month.White v. Wong Quen Luck, 245. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER HARBORS. See Collision, 99. HARMLESS ERROR. See Appeal and Error, 1056-1067; Criminal Law, 1166-1171; New Trial. HARRISON ACT. INDEMNITY. See Principal and Surety. INDIANS. See Constitutional Law; Taxation. 16(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) Lease by an Indian allottee authorized by Act June 7, 1897, to lease for 10 years, held not invalid as to such term because of separable provision for renewal. See Criminal Law, 507, 564, 678; Conspir- McCullough v. Smith, 335. acy, 43, 45; Poisons. See Food. HEALTH. HIGHWAYS. See Railroads, 324-350. HOURS OF SERVICE. See Master and Servant, 13. HUSBAND AND WIFE. 38(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) Indictment held sufcient to charge offense of carrying from without intoxicating liquor into Indian territory, in violation of act of 1895, as amended by the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906, and not to be restricted to act of 1897.-Collins v. Morgan, 19. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION. V. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY See Evidence, 66; Fraudulent Conveyanc-65 (U.S.C.C.A.) Indictment under Crim. es, 120, 162. II. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS. 31(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) In an antenuptial settlement contract executed with knowledge of its contents were merged all promises and negotiations for settlement of a greater amount.Suhor v. Gooch, 647. Code, $$ 37, 215, charging conspiracy to violate and violation of section 215, with reference to illegal use of mails, held not bad for failure to state that collection agency through which defendants realized on scheme was corporation, etc., or show relation of defendants to agency.-Preeman v. United States, 429. INFORMATION. 33 (U.S.C.C.A.) Suicide of husband is not a fraud on the wife invalidating their antenup- See Indictment and Information. tial settlement.-Suhor v. Gooch, 647. 34 (U.S.C.C.A.) Evidence in suit to avoid antenuptial settlement held to disprove that the INFRINGEMENT. woman was procured to sign contract without See Patents, 230-327. knowledge of contents.-Suhor v. Gooch, 647. Disproportion between marriage settlement, with release of interest for $50,000 and expec INJUNCTION. 407; Removal of Causes; Specific Performance, 108. tancy, the man then owning $200,000 personalty See Corporations, 197; Courts, 273, and $40,000, held not so gross as to raise presumption of concealment of value of property. -Id. V. WIFE'S SEPARATE ESTATE. (A) What Constitutes. 129(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) A wife, to whom her husband conveyed property pursuant to antenuptial agreement, held not estopped from asserting her rights, though her husband controlled property and treated it as an asset from date of marriage down to the date of conveyance, less than a month before filing of petition in bankruptcy against him.-Robertson v. Schlotzhauer, 104. IMMIGRATION. See Aliens, 53, 54. IMPRISONMENT. See Habeas Corpus. IMPROVEMENTS. See Contracts, 68. IV. PRELIMINARY AND INTERLOCU- (A) Grounds and Proceedings to Procure. 158 (U.S.C.C.A.) Order granting a preliminary injunction restraining enforcement of judgment issued in suit to secure set-off of cross-claim construed, and held not adjudication of right of set-off, but to remain in force until the judgment on the cross-claim became final.-J. L. Owens Co. v. Officer, 475. An order granting a preliminary injunction, when clear and unambiguous, cannot be narrowed or broadened by the terms of the writ or supporting bond.-Id. See Criminal Law, 200; Habeas Corpus, 96. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. See Bankruptcy, 180; Contracts, 147, INTEREST. See Commerce, 97; Receivers, 158. II. RATE. 38(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Gen. Code Ohio, $8304, judgment against holders of invalid bonds, who transferred them to holders in due course, held to bear interest at the rate specified in the bonds.-Williamson v. Collins, 347. INTERNATIONAL LAW. See Aliens. INTERSTATE COMMERCE. See Commerce. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM- See Commerce, 88-98. INTERVENTION. See Appeal and Error, 87. INTOXICATING LIQUORS. See Commerce,~~14; Indians, 38; Judges. V. REGULATIONS. JUDGES. XIII. MERGER AND BAR OF CAUSES XIV. CONCLUSIVENESS OF ADJUDI CATION. (B) Persons Concluded, 707 (U.S.C.C.A.) Discharge of receiver under chattel mortgage on affidavits tending to show solvency held not conclusive on creditors or trustee in bankruptcy in suit to recover pref111 (U.S.C.C.A.) Code Iowa, § 2419, prohib-erence.-Golden Hill Distilling Co. v. Logue, iting transportation or conveyance of intoxicat- 122. ing liquors to any person within the state, held in full force since the enactment of the Webb- XX. PAYMENT, SATISFACTION, Kenyon Act, unless repealed.-Theo. Hamm Brewing Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 9.883(11) (U.S.C.C.A.) In suit in equity to Code Iowa, § 2491, prohibiting transportation or conveyance of intoxicating liquor, held not repealed by Code Supplemental Supp. 1915, 8 2421b, regulating the transportation and delivery of such liquors.-Id. 1122 [New, vol. 20 Key-No. Series] (U.S.C.C.A.) Receipt of liquor from carrier held a violation of Code Iowa, § 2419, so as MERGER, AND DISCHARGE. secure set-off of judgments in actions at law, judgments are immune from attack, and court is without power to require reduction of complainant's judgment as condition to granting of the relief prayed for.-J. L. Owens Co. v. Officer, 475. JUDICIAL NOTICE. to bring the transportation within the condemna- See Evidence, 7, 46. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER JURISDICTION. See Appearance; Bankruptcy, 293; Courts; 85-111; MANDAMUS. II. SUBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF RELIEF. (A) Acts and Proceedings of Courts, Judges, and Judicial Officers. 46 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where after argument judge transferred case to equity side of court, See Criminal Law, 11662; Trial, 177, held, mandamus would not lie to compel him 178. JURY. See Principal and Surety. LOGS AND LOGGING. 3(15) (U.S.C.C.A.) Under contract between defendants and plaintiff whereby defendants were to convey timber to corporation to be formed, plaintiff to contribute sawmill plant of old corporation, held, plaintiff could sue defendants for breach; contract being with him, and not with corporation.-Camp v. Gress, 549. In action for breach of contract to convey timber to corporation to be formed, held, plaintiff was entitled to five-eighteenths of net increase in value of such timber and whole of loss in value of stock held in old corporation. -Id. to grant jury trial.-Ex parte Mason, 582. See Prostitution. MANN ACT. MARITIME LIENS. I. NATURE, GROUNDS, AND SUBJECT-MATTER IN GENERAL. (B) Under Statutory Provisions. 21 (U.S.C.C.A.) Contract for the conditional sale of a vessel construed with respect to provisions against the creation of liens by the purchaser.-The Oceana, 508. Under Act June 23, 1910, c. 373, one furnishing repairs or supplies on order of a person intrusted with the management of the vessel is not bound to search the records to ascertain his authority.—Id. Persons furnishing repairs and supplies to a vessel on orders of an agreed purchaser in actual possession held entitled to liens as against the seller.-Id. MARRIAGE. See Fraudulent Conveyances, 76. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS. See Husband and Wife. MASTER AND SERVANT. See Conspiracy, 28; Slaves. I. THE RELATION. (B) Statutory Regulation. 13 (U.S.C.C.A.) The proviso contained in Hours of Service Act, § 3. allowing railroad employés to be kept in service beyond the hours fixed, applies to telegraph operators whose hours of service are fixed by section 2.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United States, 19. That pipe used to feed railroad water tank sprung leak and necessitated continuous operation of pump during night held not to amount to an unavoidable accident or casualty, within Hours of Service Act, § 3, warranting railroad company in requiring its sole employé at station, who was agent and telegrapher, to remain on duty more than 17 hours, allowed by section 2.-Id. 13 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where telegraph operator regularly working from 7 a. m. to 3 p. m. was excused at 1:30 p. m., and on duty from 3 p. m. to 5:10 p. m., fact that he was on duty more than 9 hours in the 24-hour period, commencing at 3 p. m., held not a violation of Hours of Service Act, § 2.-United States v. others, held negligent.-Dodd v. Pocahontas Excess service of telegraph operator because of delay of train which picked up cars of live241 (U.S.C.C.A.) A miner, relative to constock, held not caused by emergency, within to work on motor road in violation of Virginia tributory negligence, held not traveling on foot Hours of Service Act, § 2, where but for over- Mining Act, § 8, where he goes into the drift sight the cars would have been picked up by mouth to where it intersects entrance from tipan earlier train.-Id. Excess service of telegraph operator for pur-ple there to take car into mine.-Pocahontas pose of holding train and receiving orders in Consol. Collieries Co. v. Johnson, 654. reference thereto, to permit prompt moving of 243 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.) Rule of mine operator another train, concerning arrival of which dispatcher had been misinformed, held not caused by an emergency.-Id. Excess service of railroad telegraph operator, caused by delay of train in reaching his station, due to derailment of part of another train, held caused by an emergency.-Id. against riding on cars without authority held inapplicable, as regards contributory negligence, where the method of miners entering on cars was practiced so obviously and constantly as to warrant inference that it was authorized and sanctioned by employer.-Pocahontas Consol. Collieries Co. v. Johnson, 654. (H) Actions. Delay of train in leaving station, due to broken packing rings, making it necessary to send for relief engine, held not emergency justifying excess service of the operator at such sta-289(16) (U.S.C.C.A.) Virginia Mining Act, § tion.-Id. 8, prohibiting a miner entering the mine in a certain way only where other good roads are provided for the purpose, a miner cannot be held negligent as matter of law in so entering, there III. MASTER'S LIABILITY FOR IN- (C) Methods of Work, Rules, and Orders. 131 (U.S.C.C.A.) Mine inspector's erroneous construction of statute as not requiring light on moving cars where they struck miner, even if communicated to mine operator, held not to avail operator, actual damages only being claimed.Pocahontas Consol. Collieries Co. v. Johnson, 654. being evidence for the jury as to there being no other good road therefor.-Pocahontas Consol. Collieries Co. v. Johnson, 654. Miner struck by unlighted car held not negligent as matter of law in standing on track, while cars were rapidly passing on other track, though there was a space five and a half feet wide between tracks.-Id. MEAT. 137(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Virginia Mining Act, § 13 (Pollard's Supp. 1916, p. 298), requiring See Evidence; Food. lights on the front of moving cars, held to apply where they are being pushed to bottom of incline to be taken by hoist chain to tipple.-Pocahontas Consol. Collieries Co. v. Johnson, 654. See Poisons. MEDICINES. MEETINGS. 139 (U.S.C.C.A.) Breach of statutory duty to give warning of approach of cars in a mine by light on front of them held proximate cause of injury to employé struck by them while wait- See Corporations, 197. ing on track for cars to pass on the other track. -Pocahontas Consol. Collieries Co. v. Johnson, 654. (F) Risks Assumed by Servant. 204(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) An employé does not assume the risk of known violation by the employer of a penal statute requiring a specific appliance deemed by the Legislature necessary for the safety of employés.-Pocahontas Consol. Collieries Co. v. Johnson, 654. (G) Contributory Negligence of Servant. MERCANTILE AGENCIES. See Bankruptcy, ~407. MINES AND MINERALS. See Death, 58; Master and Servant; Penalties. II. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND (C) Leases, Licenses, and Contracts. 235(9) (U.S.C.C.A.) Negligence of employé struck by loaded cars on track in mine cannot be based on failure to listen, where effort to lis-58 (U.S.C.C.A.) Mining lease for oil, gas, ten would have been useless because of noise of and other minerals construed, and held not inempty cars passing on other track.-Pocahontas valid on its face.-McCullough v. Smith, 335. Consol. Collieries Co. v. Johnson, 654. MISREPRESENTATION. See Fraud. 238(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) An experienced worker in a coal mine, killed by fall of brow of loose coal, when he cut a groove in side of entry for telephone wire, against protest and warning, and with knowledge that the drummy coal should first be taken down with assistance of See Compromise and Settlement. MISTAKE. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER |