hauling of mail cars, held, that there was no inference that carrying of the mail was gratuitous.-Id. III. OFFENSES AGAINST POSTAL 35 (U.S.C.C.A.) That use of mails in execution of scheme to defraud was in reply to decoy letters held not a defense, where they were written to detect, and not to suggest the commission of, a crime.-Freeman v. United States, 133. 35 (U.S.C.C.A.) In prosecution under Crim. Code, § 215, for using mails in execution of scheme to defraud, letters set out in indictment held to have power or tendency to execute alleged scheme.-Preeman V. United States, 429. In prosecution under Crim. Code, § 215, for using mails in execution of scheme to defraud letter which is mailed need not be one to or from intended victim.-Id. Scheme being one for obtaining money, use of mails for assisting in retaining money or conveying to victim assurances calculated to lull him into inaction is within Crim. Code, § 215. -Id. 48(8) (U.S.C.C.A.) On trial for using mails in 1912 in execution of scheme to defraud designed in that year, etc., evidence as to course of defendant's business and his connection therewith in 1910 held not too remote.-Freeman v. United States, 133. 49 (U.S.C.C.A.) In prosecution under Crim. Code, $$ 37, 215, for violation of and conspiracy to violate section 215 by using mails in execution of scheme to defraud, held, where fraudu lent scheme had been shown, it was competent to prove extent to which charges were solicited and secured as bearing on motive and intent.Preeman v. United States, 429. In prosecution under Crim. Code, §§ 37, 215, for violation of and conspiracy to violate section 215, condemning use of mails in furtherance of scheme to defraud, evidence held insufficient to show that warnings given agents against making false representations charged were made in good faith and with intent that they should be acted upon.-Id. In prosecution under Crim. Code, $$ 37, 215, for violation of and conspiracy to violate section 215, evidence that conspiracy to defraud was to be executed and that use of the mails was indispensable sufficiently showed intent to use the mails.-Id. for violation of and conspiracy to violate secIn prosecution under Crim. Code, §§ 37, 215, tion 215, evidence that bankrupt debtors of victims had been discharged was competent on the intent of defendants.-Id. In prosecution under Crim. Code, §§ 37, 215, for violation of and conspiracy to violate section 215, condemning use of mails in furtherance of scheme to defraud, that after defendants received advance payments for collection of claims which they knew to be worthless they 49 (U.S.C.C.A.) Evidence held to warrant attempted to make collections would be no exa conviction under Pen. Code, § 215, of using cuse.-Id. the mail to defraud by sending checks to persons as contestants in prize puzzle contest to apply on price of piano if bought.-Sprinkle v. United States, 539. In prosecution under Crim. Code, §§ 37, 215, for violation of and conspiracy to violate section 215, condemning use of mails in furtherance of scheme to defraud, that contract with victims had three years in which to run did not make defendants immune from prosecution for such period.--Id. In prosecution for using mails in furtherance of scheme to defraud in violation of Crim. Code, § 215, it is not necessary that nothing is to be given in return for money.-Id. In prosecution under Crim. Code, §§ 37, 215, for violation of and conspiracy to violate section 215, it was not essential to prove that scheme contemplated use of mails; it being sufficient that mails were in fact used.-Id. In prosecution under Crim. Code, §§ 37, 215, for violation of and conspiracy to violate section 215, where execution of scheme to defraud would have been utterly impossible without use of mails, all who participated would be guilty, although not actually using mails.-Id. See Appeal and Error, 907, 930; Evidence, 66, 86. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. See Attorney and Client; Corporations, PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. 48(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) Indictment under Crim. Code, $37, charging conspiracy to violate section 215, and also violation of section 215, with reference to using mails in execution of scheme to defraud, held not bad for failure to set out contract with the victims or that such contract was made.-Preeman v. United States, 429. Indictment under Crim. Code, §§ 37, 215, charging conspiracy to violate and violation of section 215 with reference to misuse of mails, held to sufficiently allege that letters were mail-7 (U.S.C.C.A.) If promises by one making ed for purpose of executing scheme.-Id. I. CREATION AND EXISTENCE OF (A) Between Individuals. loan to corporation to make other loans and For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER Priorities 156 C. C. A. REPORTS keep it from insolvency or bankruptcy were Michigan on an ancillary bill, held, that claim fraudulent, held that they gave no right to avoid growing out of operations in Michigan should a transaction to a party loaning bonds to the be presented there, if that court was independcorporation for use as collateral security.-ently administering the property in its jurisdietion, but otherwise to the Missouri court.— Church v. Swetland, 69. Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Wabash R. Co., 494. PRIORITIES. X. OPERATION. (F) Accidents at Crossings. 324(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Deceased, who entered upon a railroad track, held not free from contributory negligence because engine which ran him down came from a direction opposite that whence trains usually came.-Landers v. Erie R. Co., 500. a 327 (12) (U.S.C.C.A.) One injured at Man-railroad crossing, while riding in an automobile driven by another, held, on the undisputed facts. chargeable with contributory negligence.-Hall v. West Jersey & S. R. Co., 532. a gates at 330(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where railroad crossing were open, a traveler is, though not obliged to stop, look, and listen, required to exercise such ordinary care reasonably prudent man would for his selfprotection.-Landers v. Erie R. Co., 500. as a Deceased, who was killed at a railroad crossing on which he entered before the gates were lowered, held, despite that fact, guilty of negligence.-Id. Where deceased entered upon a railroad crossing when the gates were up, and could readily have detected an approaching engine, he cannot be deemed free from negligence on the theory that the entire zone was dangerous and he was justified in going forward.-Id. 346 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where deceased, who crossed immediately in front of an engine, was run down, held, that the railroad company could not be treated as negligent on the theory that he was trapped by a defect in the way, based on the fact that his shoe was found wedged between_crossing planking and rail.-Landers v. Erie R. Co., 500. 350 (28) (U.S.C.C.A.) Act N. J. March 31, 1909 (P. L. p. 54), providing that, in an action for injury at a railroad crossing where the company has established safety gates, the question of contributory negligence shall be for the jury, held not to preclude direction of a verdict. -Hall v. West Jersey & S. R. Co., 532. (G) Injuries to Persons on or near Tracks. 358(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Railroad company's duty to stranger, or one crossing tracks upon legitimate errand to station, is that of ordinary care.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Rogers, 504. See Admiralty; Carriers; Commerce; Death, 359(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) A railroad company's V58. IX. RECEIVERS. duty to a trespasser on its tracks is that of avoiding willful injury.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Rogers, 504. 208 (U.S.C.C.A.) Under order appointing railroad receivers and authorizing them to pay traffic balances due other railroads, held, that they were authorized to pay compensation re- See Interest. ceived under mail-carrying contract to another road, which did the carrying.-Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Wabash R. Co., 494. RATE. RATIFICATION. 103; Banks and 213 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where railroad receivers See Attorney and Client, were appointed in Missouri district and also in Banking, 249. Diversion of income to payment of interest of bonds of subsidiary company held not to entitle claims for materials to priority over company's mortgage bondholders.-Id. REPLICATION. Payment of interest on bonds when nothing See Chattel Mortgages, 172. was due on materials furnished shortly before receivership, held not a diversion of earnings entitling the claim for materials to priority over See Pleading, 173. mortgage bondholders.-Id. 158(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) As respected right of priority, machinery furnished railway, light, and REPORT. REQUESTS. power company held for enlargement, and not See Corporations, 661. VI. ACTIONS. RESCISSION. See Banks and Banking, 242; Cancellation of Instruments; Contracts, 270; Vendor and Purchaser. RES JUDICATA. 170 (U.S.C.C.A.) Court held justified in directing receiver of corporation to facilitate ren- See Judgment, 570-707. dition of judgment in favor of creditor seeking to intervene and contest validity of bonds so as to give it the standing of an unsatisfied judgment creditor.-Williamson v. Collins, 347. See Compromise and Settlement. REMEDY AT LAW. See Judgment, RESTRAINT OF TRADE. See Contracts, 116, 117; Monopolies. See Taxation. REVENUE. REVIEW. See Appeal and Error; Criminal Law, RISKS. See Master and Servant, 204. RIVERS. See Collision, 95. RULES OF COURT. See Court Rules cited; Courts, 332. SALES. See Contracts, 116; Intoxicating Liquors; II. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT. 81(5) (U.S.C.C.A.) Contract for sale of cards to be delivered as ordered, and all to be ordered by December 15th, held not to require tender on or before December 15th, without or For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER ders from buyer.-Kawin & Co. v. American Colortype Co., 97. SHERMAN ACT. Where cards were to be ordered by December See Monopolies. 15th, and on the 14th buyer asked prompt delivery of balance, held, that seller had a reasonable time within which to deliver.-Id. VII. REMEDIES OF SELLER. (E) Actions for Price or Value. SHIPPING. See Admiralty; Collision; Maritime Liens; II. TITLE. charged with knowledge of extent of power usually exercised by its ship manager and is bound by his acts within such limits.-The Benjamin Noble, 523. 340 (U.S.C.C.A.) Upon buyer's refusal to 22 (U.S.C.C.A.) Corporation shipowner is accept, seller, under Illinois rule, held entitled to vest buyer with title and sue for the price. -Kawin & Co. v. American Colortype Co., 97. Seller of Christmas cards held entitled to sue for the price, instead of the difference between such price and the market value; the cards not being really marketable until long after the breach.-Id. Upon buyer's refusal to accept goods appropriated to the contract, price held recoverable under the common counts.-Id. (F) Actions for Damages. III. CHARTERS. 38 (U.S.C.C.A.) The right of the charterer to cancel a charter held lost by the failure to exercise its option at the time to which it was expressly limited by the charter party.-W. & C. T. Jones S. S. Co. v. Barnes-Ames Co., 544. 39 (U.S.C.C.A.) A charter party as executed, in the absence of fraud or mutual mistake, 387 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where, in seller's action determines the right of the parties, and neither for damages, evidence that buyer had waived the master nor other agent of the owner has further delivery of one class of goods was authority to alter or waive its provisions.-Patclear, refusal to submit this issue to the jury agonia S. S. Co. v. Gans S. S. Line, 230. held warranted.-Kawin & Co. v. American 49(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) An owner held entitled Colortype Co., 97. IX. CONDITIONAL SALES. to recover from a charterer a reasonable amount, in addition to the stated charter freight, for the carriage of a deck cargo not provided for by the charter.-Patagonia S. S. Co. v. Gans S. S. Line, 230. 457 (U.S.C.C.A.) A contract with manufacturer of automobiles, if one of sale, rather than agency, held to constitute a conditional 49(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Under a time charter, sale, by which title passes only on condition of the owner held entitled to hire for overtime at so called agent selling only to user and at list the charter rate only.-Ropner v. Inter-Amerprice. Ford Motor Co. v. Benjamin E. Boone, ican S. S. Co., 247. Inc., 621. SATISFACTION. See Compromise and Settlement. SEAMEN. ~~58(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) A court of admiralty may permit a charterer to show that the failure of the charter party to give the right to load a deck cargo was through inadvertence or mistake.-l'atagonia S. S. Co. v. Gans S. S. Line, 230. V. LIABILITIES OF VESSELS AND 11 (U.S.C.C.A.) The measure of recovery by a seaman, injured in the service of the ship, is his wages to the end of the voyage and the ex-79 (U.S.C.C.A.) Vessel and owner held liapense of his maintenance and cure, whether he ble for loss through her fault of wireless apsues in a court of admiralty or of common law, paratus furnished by telegraph company under notwithstanding Seamen's Act, § 20.-Chelentis contract for service of vessel. The Manchioneal, v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 234. 313. SECONDARY EVIDENCE. See Evidence, 183. SEPARATE ESTATE. See Husband and Wife, 129. SERVANTS. See Master and Servant. SET-OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM. See Judgment, ~883. SETTLEMENT. 84(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) A ship held liable for the injury of an employé of an independent contracting stevedore on the ground of negligence in furnishing defective tackle to handle cargo.The Student, 319. 84(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Devices and facilities reasonably fit and accessible to effect a rescue should be provided where an employé is requir ed to work where he may be subjected to the danger of being thrown into the water.-Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Foreman, 639. VII. CARRIAGE OF GOODS. ~121(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Overloading vessel renders her unseaworthy.-The Benjamin Noble, 523. 141(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Section 1 of the Harter See Compromise and Settlement; Husband Act construed with respect to right of ship to and Wife. exempt herself from liability for negligence in caring for cargo during voyage.-The Skipton Castle, 221. STATUTE OF FRAUDS. Ship held liable under Harter Act, § 1, for See Frauds, Statute of. damages to cargo during voyage from heat which entered from another hold.-Id. 141(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) Provision of bill of lading excepting dangers of navigation cannot be permitted to affect requirement of seaworthiness under section 2 of the Harter Act.-The Benjamin Noble, 523. XI. LIMITATION OF OWNER'S LIA- STATUTES. For statutes relating to particular subjects, see the various specific topics. VI. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA TION. (A) General Rules of Construction. 209(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) In proceeding for lim-181(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) To ascertain the intenitation of liability against claim for loss of cargo, it is incumbent on the shipowner to prove that vessel was seaworthy at beginning of voyage or that due diligence had been used to make her so.-The Benjamin Noble, 523. SIGNALS. See Collision, 147. SLAVES. 24 (U.S.C.C.A.) "Peonage," within Pen. tion of the Legislature, the court may look to ticular interpretation.-Stockyards Loan Co. v. the natural or absurd consequences of any parNichols, 209. 184 (U.S.C.C.A.) To ascertain the intention of the Legislature, the court may look to the evils and mischiefs to be remedied.-Stockyards Loan Co. v. Nichols, 209. 205 (U.S.C.C.A.) To ascertain the intention of the Legislature, the court may look to each part of the statute.-Stockyards Loan Co. v. Nichols, 209. Code 1909, § 269, providing that whoever holds, 225 (U.S.C.C.A.) To ascertain the intention returns, or aids in the arrest or return of any of the Legislature, the court may look to other person to a condition of peonage shall be fined statutes upon the same or relative subjects, or imprisoned, is a status or condition of com- and to the old law upon the subject.-Stockpulsory service based on the indebtedness of yards Loan Co. v. Nichols, 209. the peon to the master.-Taylor v. United States, 607. Defendant and magistrate held not to have returned servant to condition of peónage in violation of Pen. Code 1909, § 269.-Id. One cannot be deemed guilty of peonage where he has held another in involuntary servitude to compel such other to comply with agreement to work for certain term, since obligation to work cannot be construed to mean "debt," as contemplated by peonage statute (Pen. Code 1909, § 269).-Id. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS. See Appeal and Error, 758. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. IV. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF. 105(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Suit to compel assignment of patents, pursuant to agreement to assign all future inventions, held not barred by delay of five or six years, where defendants had concealed the facts.-Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. H. B. Chalmers Co., 304. STATUTES CONSTRUED. § 37 § 215 108 (U.S.C.C.A.) In suit to compel assign-§ 269 ment of patents pursuant to agreement to assign future inventions, injunction against use of the patents or inventions held proper.-Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. H. B. Chalmers Co., 304. SPEED. See Collision, 82, 83. SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS. See Intoxicating Liquors. STATUTES AT LARGE. 128 511 549 304 448 .429, 607 .215, 539 607 1872, June 1, ch. 255, 17 Stat. 196.... 639 568 201 366 366 335 584 1893, Feb. 13, ch. 105, § 1, 27 Stat. 445.. 221 1893, Feb. 13, ch. 105, § 2, 27 Stat. 445... 523 For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER |