BANKS AND BANKING. BROKERS. Recovery of usurious interest received by na- See "Principal and Agent." tional bank from bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 6. BUCKET SHOP. Carriage of goods by vessels, see "Shipping,' § 3. Carriage of passengers by vessels, see "Ship ping," § 4. Enforcement of railroad rate laws by attorney general, see "Attorney General." Jurisdiction of United States court to determin constitutionality of state statutes regulating railroad rates, see "Courts," § 2. Laws authorizing carriers to establish rates a conferring legislative powers, see "Constitu tional Law," § 2. Laws fixing passenger rates as denying_equa protection of law, see "Constitutional Law,' § 5. Laws requiring shippers to pay published rate as denying due process of law, see "Constitu tional Law," § 6. Restraining enforcement of freight and passen ger rates, see "Injunction," § 3. Right of action for death of passenger, se "Death," 1. Supplemental pleading in suit to restrain en forcement of state statutes fixing freigh rates, see "Equity," § 3. § 1. Control and regulation of commor carriers. In so far as Elkins Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708 32 Stat. 847, § 1 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905 P. 599], providing for punishment of corporate carriers in granting, and corporate shippers in knowingly accepting, rebates or discrimination from legal rates and tariffs, it was not re pealed by Hepburn Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591 34 Stat. 584, but, so far as it provided for th punishment of such acts when not knowingly done, it was repealed.-Great Northern Ry. Co v. United States (C. C. A.) 945. The special saving clause in Hepburn Ac June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, § 10, held not to supersede the general saving clause in BREACH. Liability of sleeping car company for breach *Point annotated. See syllabus. Cev. St. § 13 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 6], as o the effect on existing penalties, forfeitures, nd liabilities of a repealing act.-Great Northn Ry. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 945. Preliminary injunctions to restrain the putng into effect of a statute fixing maximum ates of passenger fare on railroads denied to wait a demonstration of the reasonableness or nreasonableness of such rates by actual trial or a reasonable length of time.-St. Louis & F. R. Co. v. Hadley (C. C.) 220. preliminary injunction pending trial on Laws N. C. 1907, p. 252, c. 217, to prevent unjust discrimination in freight rates and to fix the maximum charges therefor, and act March 11, 1907, to extend and enlarge the power of the corporation commission, are not selfexecuting.-Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. C.) 756. Revisal N. C. 1905, § 2567, subsec. 9, giving railroads the right to make passenger rates within a limit of five cents a mile, was repealed by Laws 1907, p. 675, c. 469, § 7, extending and enlarging the powers of the railroad commission.-Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. C.) 756. A preliminary injunction granted restraining ne putting into effect of Act Minn. April 18, 907 (Laws 1907, p. 313, c. 232), fixing rates for ne carrying of commodities by railroads within he state on the ground that such rates, if enorced, in connection with reductions in both ommodity and passenger rates made by prior cts, would on the showing made be confiscatory. -Perkins v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 445; Revisal N. C. 1905, § 2567, subsec. 9, giving ennedy v. Great Northern Ry. Co., Id.; Wood-railroads the right to charge the maximum pasard v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Id.; Liv- senger fare of five cents a mile, repealed by ngston v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., Id.; Brew- implication section 1099, subd. 1, imposing on er v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., Id.; the railroad commission the duty of making hillaber v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., Id.; freight and passenger rates.-Southern Ry. Co. Tumbird v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., v. McNeill (C. C.) 756. d.; Barrows v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. I. Ry. Co., Id.; Carle v. Chicago, R. I. & P. y. Co., Id.; James v. Great Northern Ry. Co., d. Laws N. C. 1907, p. 252, c. 217, regulating freight and passenger rates, does not repeal other laws not inconsistent therewith at the Revisal N. C. 1905, § 2618.-Southern Ry. Co. date of the passage of the act of 1907, except v. McNeill (C. C.) 756. Where a state enacted successive regulations f rates to be charged by railroads on intrastate usiness, each of which necessarily affected the arnings of the railroad companies, the validity f such regulations, as to whether they are unOnstitutional as confiscatory, is to be considered eparately, the first without reference to the ubsequent ones and the latter with reference o the effect of those previously enacted.-Perins v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 445; Kennedy v. Great Northern Ry. Co., Id.; Woodard v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Id.; ivingston v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., Id.; Brewster v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., d.; Shillaber v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., d.; Humbird v. Chicago Great Western Ry. o., Id.; Barrows v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. . M. Ry. Co., Id.; Carle v. Chicago, R. I. & . Ry. Co., Id.; James v. Great Northern Ry. o., Id. The North Carolina railroad commission being equired by Revisal 1905, § 1106, to make railDad rates subject only to the limitation precribed by Laws N. C. 1907, p. 252, c. 217, held ecessary parties to a suit to restrain the enorcement of such chapter for unconstitutionaly.-Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. C.) 756. Revisal N. C. 1905, § 1082, held not to interere with a railroad's remedy by injunction in ases where rates fixed by the corporation commission, etc., were claimed to be invalid as conscatory.-Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. C.) 56. A railroad, though not entitled to earn profit on every mile of road or article carried, is entitled to earn a reasonable profit on its entire intrastate business.-Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. C.) 756. Experiments to ascertain whether the reduced rates would be harmful or beneficial are never justifiable where the facts presented show only a moderate income under the former law and a strong probability of scant earnings of deficiency under the reduced rates.-Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama (C. C.) 792. *The basis of calculations as to reasonableness of rates charged by a railroad determined. -Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama (C. C.) 792. As the Constitution forbids rates to be fixed unreasonably low, the court, when asked to enjoin enforcement of the rate legislation, as in violation of the Constitution, must ascertain the facts on which the reasonableness of the rates depends.-Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama (C. C.) 792. Mode of arriving at the effect on the revenues of corporations of statutes reducing rates determined.-Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama (C. C.) 792. Under section 6, Interstate Commerce Act In a suit to restrain the enforcement of Laws Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 380 [U. S. Comp. 1. C. 1907, p. 252, c. 217, providing for rail- St. 1901, p. 3156], as amended by Act June bad rates alleged to be confiscatory, the court, 9, 1906, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591, a provision in n a prima facie case being made in favor a passenger ticket making it nontransferable f complainant, held authorized to continue a when no such limitation is shown by the sched*Point annotated. See syllabus. ule published and filed by the company is unlawful and void, and the company cannot maintain a suit in equity based thereon to enjoin transfers of such tickets.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hamburger (C. C.) 849; Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co. v. Same, Id.; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Same, Id. A shipper is chargeable with knowledge of the lawful rate on his shipment, where it has been published and filed as required by law, and where it is accessible to the public, unless he was misled after using proper diligence to ascertain such rate.-United States v. Standard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305. The number of offenses committed by a shipper under Elkins Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat. 847 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 599], through agreements for illegal concessions in rates. determined.-United States v. Standard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305. another car.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Fishe (C. C. A.) 68; Scott v. Louisville & N. R. Co Ìd. the night, made necessary on account of the of Requiring passengers to change cars durin struction of the road by a wreck ahead, whic necessitated the removal of the passengers fro a sleeper into an ordinary day coach, held no to render a railroad company liable in damage for breach of contract.-Louisville & N. R. C v. Fisher (C. C. A.) 68; Scott v. Louisville N. R. Co., Id. *A railroad company cannot be held answe able to a passenger in damages because of ma ters which are ordinary incidents of travel, suc as exposure to drafts from windows opened by or at request of, other passengers.-Louisvill & N. R. Co. v. Fisher (C. C. A.) 68; Scott Louisville & N. R. Co., Id. *A passenger who had alighted from a rai other train on a side track after his own trai had departed held to have ceased to be a pa senger prior to his death.-Payne v. Illinoi Cent. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 73. On the trial of a shipper charged with hav-road train at a station and was killed by ar ing obtained a concession from the lawful published rate on interstate shipments, in violation of the federal statute, the fact that another railroad may have had a published rate approximately as low as that received is immaterial. United States v. Standard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305. § 2. Carriage of goods. *A contract by a railroad company to lease the use of its tracks, motive power, and operating employés for the transportation of a circus train, stipulating that the railroad company shall not be liable for any injuries from whatsoever cause to any person using the train, held not contrary to public policy. Clough v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 81. *A carrier or a warehouseman is liable in trover for the wrongful delivery of goods intrusted to it for shipment or storage, but such right of action may be waived by any action which ratifies the delivery, and thereby deprives the carrier or warehouseman of the right to recover over against the person to whom the delivery was made.-A. D. Blowers & Co. v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 935. *A shipper held to have ratified the unauthorized delivery of goods by a carrier made without collecting drafts for the price, by obtaining part payment from the consignee and accepting his notes for the remainder, which precluded a recovery against the carrier for conversion.-A. D. Blowers & Co. v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 935. 3. Carriage of passengers. *The relation of carrier and passenger hel not to exist between a carrier and an employ of a circus company so as to entitle the latte to recover for injuries sustained in a collisio between two sections of a circus train on whic he was riding.-Clough v. Grand Trunk Wester Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 81. *Where a passenger was put off from a rai road train of defendant at a place half a mil from a station and between two tunnels, an walked back through one of the tunnels unt near the station, when he turned the other wa and was killed while passing through the secon tunnel, which was long and dark, the proximat cause of his death was not the negligence d defendant in putting him off at a dangerou place, conceding such negligence, but his ow voluntary act in turning back after he had pass ed such danger to a place of safety, for whic defendant could not be held liable.-Gwyn Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 8 *In an action for death of a passenger, evi dence that she was a passenger, and that he death resulted from an accident to the train held sufficient to establish a prima facie cas of negligence on the part of the carrier' servants.-Hopper v. Denver & R. G. R. Co (C. C. A.) 273. CAUSE OF ACTION. A sleeping car company which sells accom- See "Action." modations in its cars between points on a railroad to passengers of the railroad company, the cars being hauled by the railroad company in its trains under a contract between the two com CHALLENGE. panics is not liable to a passenger for breach of To juror, see "Jury," § 1. CHANCERY. quence of which he is compelled to change into See "Equity." *Point annotated. See syllabus. CHARTER PARTIES. CLUBS. e “Shipping," § 1. Construction of national agreement for the government of base ball clubs, see “Contracts," § 2. CHATTEL MORTGAGES. COLLECTION. ffect as preference by bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy,” 8 4. Of taxes, see "Taxation," $ 2. 1. Rights and remedies of creditors. *A chattel mortgage, though invalid as to COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. ibsequent creditors, as regards a stock in ade, because the mortgagor was allowed to Right of educational corporation to raise con11 therefrom without accounting for the pro stitutional question as to taxation of its lands, eds, held not invalid, on that account, as to see "Constitutional Law," $ 1. ams covered thereby, and retained by the ortgagee.-In re Davis (D. C.) 671. COLLISION. *A chattel mortgage on a stock in trade held valid as to subsequent creditors because of $ 1. Vessels in tow. le mortgagor being allowed to sell therefrom *One of two tugs meeting, each with tows, ithout accounting for the proceeds.-In re held solely in fault for collisions caused by her avis (D. C.) 671. failing to make allowance for the sagging of her tows, in consequence of which a schooner which was overtaking the other tow was pocketCHECKS. ed and compelled to change her course in ex tremis.-The Richmond (C. C. A.) 112; The Bosee "Bills and Notes." well (Id.); The Iowa (Id.); The James W. El well (Id.); The Powell (Id.). CIRCUIT COURTS. *A tug with a schooner in tow on a hawser held on the evidence solely in fault for a colli sion between her tow and a meeting schooner ee "Courts," $ 2. in Delaware Bay at night.—The Marie Palmer (D. C.) 894; The James McCaulley, Id.; The CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS. Blanche Hopkins, Id. *A collision between a steamship passing ee "Courts," $ 2. down the Delaware river and a tow which was coming up, but started to cross the channel, held due to the fault of both the steamship CITATION. and tug for negligent and improper navigation. --The Algeria (D. C.) 902; The Ellen S. Jenee “Process." nings, Id.; The Bailey, Id.; The Majestic, Id. § 2. Lights, signals, and lookouts. CITIES. *A schooner held in fault for a collision with a steamer in Chesapeake Bay in the night, on ee "Municipal Corporations." the ground that, while becalmed, she had been drifted from her course by the tide, and failed to exhibit a white or flare-up light astern to the CITIZENS. steamer which, in her then position, was an over taking vessel and could not see her side lights. ee "Aliens." -The Baltimore (C. C. A.) 405. itizenship ground of jurisdiction of United States courts, see "Courts," $ 2. 8 3. Narrow channels, harbors, rivers, Cqual protection of law, see "Constitutional and canals. Law," 8 5. A steamship which attempted to pass through a channel which was obstructed by another steam er engaged in pulling her tow off the ground, CIVIL RIGHTS. without the latter's assent, held solely in fault for a resulting collision.-The Waverley (D. C.) ee "Constitutional Law," $ 5. 436. COLOR OF TITLE. To sustain adverse possession, see “Adverse Posgainst estate of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," session." 7. gainst school district, see "Schools and School COMBINATIONS. Districts," $ 1. f patent, see "Patents," $ 4. See “Monopolies,” $ 1. *Point annotated. See syllabus. COMITY. between the states, and between the states and foreign nations, to their employés, is within th Between courts, see “Courts," § 3. constitutional power of Congress to regulate in terstate and foreign commerce, and applies to carriers engaged in foreign commerce by sea COMMERCE. making such a carrier liable for an injury to ar employé resulting from the negligence of hi Arbitration between interstate carrier and em- fellow servants.- Lancer v. Anchor Line (D. C. ployés, see "Arbitration and Award," $$ 1, 3. 433. COMMERCIAL PAPER. commerce commission, see “Injunction," § 3. See “Bills and Notes." COMMISSION. corporation commission from enforcing statt 599], held constitutional.-United States States v. law as suit against state, see "Courts," $ 2. Standard Oil Co. (D. C.) 305. Railroad commission, see "Carriers," $ 1. § 2. Subjects of regulation. Restraining enforcement of order of interstate Where a railroad company published and fil commerce commission, see “Injunction," § 3. ed a schedule of rates between points on its line within a state, and also procured and COMMISSIONERS. filed as its own the schedules of rates of a terminal company for the carriage of proper- Special commissioner in bankruptcy, see “Bank ty from one of such points into another state, and made contracts for through carriage, and ruptcy," $ 5. collected the freight therefor, it was an in- Special commissioners in proceedings for dis terstate carrier as to such shipments, and the charge of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 14. lawful rate was the sum of the rates shown by Verification of bill for injunction before com the two schedules.-United States v. Standard missioner of deeds, see "Injunction," & 3. Oil Co. (D. C.) 305. *That a defendant made contracts for the COMMISSIONS. COMMON CARRIERS. See "Carriers." COMMON LAW. COMMON SCHOOLS. *Under its constitutional power to regulate See "Schools and School Districts," $ 1. COMPENSATION. $ 8. COMPETENCY. COMPLAINT. The federal employers' liability act of June 11, 1906, 34 Stat. 232, c. 3073, relating to the li- In criminal prosecutions, see “Indictment and ability of common carriers engaged in commerce Information." *Point annotated. See syllabus. |