Of lease of Indian allotment, see "Indians."
As to insurance, see "Insurance," § 1.
As to transfers by bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 3.
Conflicting jurisdiction of courts, see "Courts," § 4.
§ 1. Rights and remedies of persons interested.
Defendant wrongfully entered upon land on which complainant, held a
valid oil and gas lease, and drilled a well from which it continued to take
and market gas pending suit by complainant to establish its rights. De-
fendant conducted the gas into a pipe line in which gas from 60 wells was
mingled, taking no measures to determine the quantity or value of the gas
so wrongfully taken. Held, that, on an accounting therefor, conceding that
defendant's claim of right was made in good faith, it was bound to fully
compensate complainant for its loss, and that in ascertaining such com-
pensation every reasonable doubt should be resolved against it; that un-
der the evidence and the peculiar circumstances of the case complainant
was entitled to recover one-sixtieth part of the amount realized by de-
fendant from the entire product of the 60 wells.
-Great Southern Gas & Oil Co. v. Logan Natural Gas & Fuel Co.,
155 Fed. 114.....
.83 C. C. A. 574
Of fraudulent conveyance, see "Fraudulent Conveyances," § 1.
Combinations to monopolize trade, see "Monopolies," § 1.
Presumptions and burden of proof in prosecution for conspiracy to defraud,
see "Criminal Law," § 3.
Disobedience of order in bankruptcy proceedings, see "Bankruptcy,” § 3.
Violation of injunction, see "Injunction," § 1.
Agreements within statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute of."
Damages for breach, see "Damrages," § 1.
Maritime contracts, see "Admiralty," § 1.
Operation and effect of customs or usages, see "Customs and Usages."
Operation and effect of gaming laws, see "Gaming," § 1.
Specific performance, see "Specific Performance."
Contracts of particular classes of persons.
See "Carriers," § 1; "Corporations," § 4; "Master and Servant"; "Municipal
Corporations," § 1.
Foreign corporations, see "Corporations," § 5.
Sleeping car company, see "Carriers," § 1.
Contracts relating to particular subjects.
See "Copyrights," § 1; "Interest"; "Patents," § 4.
Transportation of passengers, see "Carriers," § 1.
Particular classes of express contracts.
See "Bills and Notes"; "Chattel Mortgages"; "Guaranty"; "Insurance";
"Joint Adventures"; "Partnership"; "Sales."
Affreightment, see "Shipping," § 4.
Agency, see "Principal and Agent."
Charter parties, see "Shipping," § 2.
Employment, see "Master and Servant."
Sales of realty, see "Vendor and Purchaser."
§ 1. Requisites and validity.
A provision in a contract of affreightment exempting a carrier by sea
from liability for loss or damage to cargo "occasioned by negligence, de-
fault or error of judgment of the pilot, master or mariners," may be en-
forced in a court of the United States where the contract was made in a
country by whose laws such stipulation was legal and no part of it was to
be performed in the United States, and where it related to the transporta-
tion of property on a foreign vessel on a voyage which did not include a
port of the United States.
-The Fri, 154 Fed. 333....
The owner of one-half of a patent conveyed his half to a third person in
trust to form a corporation, to convey his interest in the patent to this
corporation for one-half of its stock, and to so distribute his stock that
the trustee should receive 21%/250 of his share and should hold 215%/250
thereof in trust for his wife and child. The owner of the other half
agreed in writing to convey his half to the corporation for one-half its
stock and to convey to the trustee as his own personal property 21%/250
of his share in consideration of services rendered in the organization of
the corporation. Held not a unilateral contract or an agreement for an
option, but an executed agreement on the part of the first party and an
executory one on the part of the second party.
-Howe v. Howe & Owen Ball Bearing Co., 154 Fed. 820....
Where plaintiff accepted defendant's proposition to furnish all plain-
tiff's requirements in steel castings for the remainder of the year, at prices
mentioned, defendant was obligated to take from plaintiff all castings
which their business should require, and the contract was therefore not
void for want of mutuality.
-Lima Locomotive & Machine Co. v. National Steel Castings Co.,
155 Fed. 77....
..83 C. C. A. 593
§ 2. Construction and operation.
The basis of waiver is estoppel, and where there is no estoppel there is
no waiver.
-Hampton Stave Co. v. Gardner, 154 Fed. 805.......83 C. C. A. 521
§ 3. Rescission and abandonment.
A breach of a covenant, which does not go to the whole consideration of
a contract, but is subordinate and incidental to its main purpose, does
not constitute a breach of the entire agreement, does not authorize the in-
jured party to rescind the contract, but he is still bound to perform his
part of it, and his only remedy is a recovery of damages for the breach.
-Howe v. Howe & Owen Ball Bearing Co., 154 Fed. 820....
d States courts, see "Criminal Law," § 2.
ds, see "Evidence," § 1.
side transfer by bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 3.
urt as ground for abatement of action in federal
Revival," § 1.
court to United States court, see "Removal of
xercise of jurisdiction in general.
jurisdiction, a general judgment for the defend-
it renders the merits of the case res adjudicata.
judgment of dismissal for want of jurisdiction,
ered.
Gold & Copper Co., 155 Fed. 110. .83 C. C. A. 570
ization, and procedure in general.
taken from an original decree, and a bill of re-
tters within the pleadings and jurisdiction of the
decree, were res judicata, and not reviewable on
ntal decree.
Y. § 66, creating an attorney's lien on the client's
and providing for the enforcement thereof on peti-
e practice act, but created a right and provided a
cement, and was therefore controlling on the federal
ch state.
has power under the statute of New Jersey in the ex-
retion, to permit a bill of particulars in an action of
amended on the trial.
s of the highest courts of the state interpreting a state stat-
m and consistent, are controlling on the federal courts: but
state decisions not in construction of the particular statute
rsy.
aan v. Hilliard, 154 Fed. 339.....
federal courts sitting as courts of chancery may entertain bills
side wills, such courts nevertheless observe the public policy of the
where the property to be recovered is situated and the court sits
ecting the time within which such suits shall be brought.
-Palmer v. Bradley, 154 Fed. 311....
4. Performance or breach.
Where a contract, made on the percentage basis, for railroad bridge
construction in Mexico provided for payment on the Mexican money basis,
the exchange to be effected on the Mexican rate existing at the time in
Mexico City, the bridge company, having contracted with certain employés
taken from the United States for payment in United States currency or
in Mexican at a flat rate of exchange, was chargeable with any loss
suffered because of changes in the rate of exchange during the perform-
ance of the contract.
-Freygang v. Vera Cruz & P. R. Co., 154 Fed. 640; Vera Cruz & P.
R. Co. v. Freygang, Id...
......83 C. C. A. 414
A contract for Mexican bridge construction provided that the railroad
company should pay the contractor the exact cost plus 15 per cent.
for his profit, and that all payments should be made in Mexican money
at the rate of exchange existing at the time of payment in Mexico City.
$686,481.37 was paid in Mexico to American employés, and to reim-
burse plaintiff for this sum the railroad company forwarded gold drafts
for $343,240.68, which the bridge company converted into Mexican cur-
rency at the rate of $2.20, making a gain of $31,203.69. Held, that the
bridge company was properly required to account for such gain to the
railroad company.
-Freygang v. Vera Cruz & P. R. Co., 154 Fed. 640; Vera Cruz & P.
R. Co. v. Freygang, Id....
...83 C. C. A. 414
A contract for railroad bridge construction in Mexico provided that the
railroad company's engineers should supervise the work, approve the
number of men to be sent from the United States, their salaries, fitness,
the number to be employed, that they should O. K. all important pur-
chases of material and those obtained outside of Mexico, with the right
to determine what were important, to voucher and approve all expense
bills, and pay rolls in triplicate, etc. Held that, the railroad company
having accepted and paid 44 out of 49 of such estimates without ques-
tion, the court in an action on the contract properly held that the es-
timates so made were prima facie evidence of the work done, and that the
account should be based on the estimate, subject to correction, contradic-
tion, or impeachment for error, mistake, omission, or concealment.
-Freygang v. Vera Cruz & P. R. Co., 154 Fed. 640; Vera Cruz & P.
R. Co. v. Freygang, Id....
...83 C. C. A. 414
Defendant, having a claim against L., and desiring to obtain certain
documentary evidence in possession of the husband of plaintiff's decedent,
contracted to pay decedent or her assigns $4.325 on a specified date, in
consideration of a delivery of the papers, and further obligated himself
to pay decedent, in addition, $5,000 out of any money he might recover
and collect from L. or F. under a specified contract, on condition that de-
fendant recover judgment against L. for the amounts of money that might
be recovered against defendant thereafter, for which defendant had
claims against L. under his contract. Defendant thereafter compromised
his suit against L., taking the note of a third person in full satisfaction of
the claim. Held, that such compromise rendered performance of the con-
dition by which decedent was entitled to the additional payment impossi-
ble, and she, not being responsible therefor, was entitled to recover the
additional payment, as though the condition had been performed.
-Camden v. Jarrett, 154 Fed. 788......
Plaintiff having contracted in April, 1902, to furnish defendant's re-
quirements of steel castings for the remainder of the year, furnished the
same until August 1st, when, because of the necessity of repairs, it was
compelled to close its plant until November 19th, during which time de-
fendant was compelled to withdraw its patterns from plaintiff and place
them with other founders, having made arrangements on the best obtain-
able terms to obtain what plaintiff was unable to furnish. Held, that de-
fendant was not bound to cancel such new contracts and return its pat-
terns to plaintiff on notice given in October that plaintiff's plant would be
|