ether the contract is one to sell merely or
manufacture and sell, in the absence in the
er case of the assent of the buyer to an ap-
priation on the contract of goods manu-
tured by the seller, or unless they are of
h peculiar character as not to be market-
e.—River Spinning Co. v. Atlantic Mills
C.) 466.

Where a purchaser refuses to take goods
ght which the seller has not on hand, but is
manufacture or purchase, the measure of his
ages recoverable for breach of the contract
not the difierence between the contract price

the market price of the goods at the time
the breach, but the actual profit he would
e made on the sale—River Spinning Co. v.
lantic Mills (C. C.) 466.

4 company operating mills for making yarn
lich contracted to sell a quantity of yarn to
delivered in the future, on a refusal by the
yer to carry out the contract, held not en-
led to recover as damages a loss on a resale
wool which it had bought in advance of its
ed and held in reserve to be used in filling
a contract—River Spinning Co. v. Atlantic
lls (C. C.) 466.

“The measure of the damages recoverable by
seller for the breach by the purchaser of a
ntract for the sale of a quantity of scrap
kel, which, on the failure of the purchaser to
ke it, was sold by the seller at the market
ice, is the difference between such price and
a contract price.——Benjamin v. Maloney (C.

> 494.
SALVAGE.

1. Right to compensation.

"Prima facie a vessel found at sea in a
nation of peril with no one on board is a
relict, but where the master and crew have
’t temporarily for the purpose of obtaining
sistance, and with intent to return and re-
me possession, she is not technically a derelict,
:hough another vessel finding her in such con-
:ion and rescuing her is entitled to salvage
mpensation as in case of a derelict—The
awmut (D. C.) 476; The Myrtle Tunnel, Id.

2. Amount and apportionment.

I‘A steamer which rescued a dissbled schooner
nporarily abandoned at sea by her ofiicers and
ew held entitled to a salvage award as in
se of a derelict, but, in view of the efforts
tde by the owners to retake her, which would
obably have been successful, to only one-
ird of the value of the schooner and cargo,
liCh was fixed at $88,000.—The Shawmut (D.
) 476; The Myrtle Tunnel, Id.

DHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

desks allowed by the trustees of a school dis-
trict held not established as a valid claim
against the district, where it was disallowed in
partby the county superintendent, the board
of citizens and taxpayers, and the board of
county commissioners—Whitaker & Ray Co. v.
Roberts (C. C.) 882.

Prior to the allowance of claims against a
school district by the officers selected therefor
or the establishment of the claims at law. pro-
ceedings could not be maintained to compel the
officers of the county to pay the same—Whita-
ker & Ray 00. v. Roberts (C. C.) 882.

In a suit to compel payment of a claim for
school desks, purchased b, school trustees un-
de_r_ Comp. Laws Nev. § 1294, 1298, a _bill
failmg to join such school trustees and praying
no relief against them held demurrable.—Whita-
ker & Ray Co. v. Roberts (C. C.) 882.

SCIRE FACIAS.

Jurisdiction of circuit court of United States
to issue, see “Courts,” ‘5 2

SENTENCE.

In§ criminal prosecutions, see “Criminal Law,”
3.

SEPARABLE CONTROVERSIES.

Removal from state court, see “Removal of
Causes,” 2.

SERVICE.

Of process, see “'Process,” § 1.

SERVICES.

See “TVork and Labor.”

_ SETTLEMENT.

See “Account Stated.”

SHIPPING.

See “Collision”; “Maritime Liens”; “Salvage”;
“Towage”; “Wharves.”

Custom as afiecting construction of charter par-
ty, see “Customs and Usages.”

Immigration regulations, see “Commerce,” § 3.

Stated account for repairs on vessel, see “Ac-
count Stated.”

§ 1. Charters.

The signing of a charter party “by authority
of United States government” by a firm with
which the government had contracted for the
carrying of a cargo of coal by the vessel held
unauthorized and not to give the owner a
right of action against the United States to
recover a balance of freight alleged to be due.
—Societa v. United States (C. C.) 245.

See syllabus.

re made necessary by reason of the damage.
he Berengere (D. C.) 439.

4. Carriage of passengers.

The death of a passenger on a ferryboat bv
lingpverboard held due to his own negligence
leaning against a gate, despite a sign warning
sengers against it, and the vessel not liable.—
e Southside (D. C.) 364.

5. Demurrage.

A vessel under contract requiring reasonable
patch-held liable for the damages caused to
conS1gnee by reason of delay in discharging
consequence of her failure to supply suf—
ient steam—The Heathdene (D. C.) 368; Mi]-
rn v. Federal Sugar Refining 00., Id.

Limitation of owner’s liability.

ct June 26, 1884, c. 121. § 18, 23 Stat. 57
. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2945], and Rev. St.
4283 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2943], both
ating to limitation of liability of shipowners,
e in pari materia, and to be construed togeth-
, and the later act, like the earlier, is confined
liabilities incurred without the knowledge or
'ivity- of the owners, and does not apply to
lbilities of the owners for the consequences of
‘eir personal faults or upon their personal con-
acts.—Great Lake Towing Co. v. Mill Transp.
). (C. C. A.) 11.

SLEEPING CARS.

See “Carriers,” § 3.

SOLDIERS.

See “Army and Navy.”

SPECIFICATIONS.

Of objections to discharge of bankrupt, see
“Bankruptcy,” § 14.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

1. Proceedings and relief.

*A bill for specific performance of a contract
by one of the defendants to assign to complain-
ant a patent for an invention alleged to have
been made by such defendant while in com-
plainant’s employment, the application for
which patent he had assigned to his codefend-
ant, held, on demurrer, to state a cause of ac-
tion—Thompson v. Automatic Fire Protection
Co. (C. C.) 548.

STALE DEMAND.
See “Equity,” 5 2.

STATEMENT.

By witness inconsistent with testimony, see
“Witnesses,” § 2.

STATES.

See “United States.”

Attorney general, see “Attorney General.”

Courts, see “Courts.”

Exemptions to bankrupt under state laws, see
“Bankruptcy,” § 10

Interstate extradition, see “Extradition,” § 1.

Jurisdiction of United States court to discharge
on habeas corpus person imprisoned by state
court, see “Habeas Corpus,” § 1.

Jurisdiction of United States court to restrain
corporation commission from enforcing state
law as suit against state, see “Courts,” § 2.

Multifariousness in pleading in suit to enjoin
enforcement of state statute, see “Equity,” ‘3' 3.

Pendency of action in state court as bar to ac-
tion in United States court, see “Abatement
and Revival,” § 1.

Public lands, see “Public Lands,” § 1.

Regulation of railroad rates, see “Carriers,” § 1.

Restraining enforcement of state statutes fixing
railroad rates, see “Injunction,” § 3.

State regulation of foreign corporations, see
“Corporations,” § 5.

Supplemental pleading in suit to restrain en-
forcement of state statutes fixing freight rates,
see “Equity,” § 3.

STATUTES.

See “Treaties.” Jurisdiction of United States court to determine constitutionality of state statutes, see “Courts,”

Laws delegating legislative powers, see “Constitutional Law,” § 2.

Laws denying equal protection of law, see “Constitutional Law,” § 5.

Laws impairing obligation of contracts,
“Constitutional Law,” § 4.

see

each—Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United Stat (C. C. A.) 945.

*When for purposes of an enlargement or on traction a statute is re-enacted or repeat With amendments, the amendatory act is affirmation and continuation of the prior law so far as in substance and operation it is t same, and is to be regarded as new legislati only so far as it difiers from the prior law. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States 6 C. A.) 945.

§ 2. Construction and operation.

*When a legislative act is general in terms, the title may be resorted to for the pi pose of ascertaining its proper limitations United Shoe Machinery (‘0. v. Duplessis Sli Machinery Co. (C. C. A.) 842.

As applied to subsequent repealing acts whi do not expressly or by necessary implicatii contravene its provisions, Rev. St. § 13 [U. Comp. St. 1901, p. 6]. prescribing the forfeitur and liabilities, is obligatory on the courts, b beyond this is without effect—Great Northe Ry. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 945

While Congress may prescribe rules affectii after legislation which does not in terms sbo that it is to be unafiected by them, these rul cannot be so framed as to defeat the plain i tent of after legislation, and they cease to effective when necessarily in conflict with later manifestation of the legislative will. Great Nogthern Ry. Co. v. United States (

*The intent of the Legislature constitutes tl law and may be as effectually manifested I what is necessarily implied as by what is e pressed. and where there are conflicting mar festations of the legislative will the last is co trolling—Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Unit< States (C. C. A.) 945.

*Laws Kan. 1874, p. 143, c. 93. adopted fro Iowa after a construction by the Supreme Cou of that state, held adopted with such constru tion.—Iarussi v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (C 654.

*It is proper to consider a repealed statute arriving. at a particular construction of existii acts—Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill (C. O.) 756.

STATUTES CONSTRUED.

UNITED STATES.

CONSTITUTION. Amend. 11 ........... . .............. Amend. 14 .......... . . .......... 118, 75 Art. 4, § 33 .............. .. ...... .

STATUTES AT LARGE.

1876, March 3, ch. 137, 18 Stat. 472 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 573 ....... . ..... 1884, June 26, ch. 121, § 18, 23 Stat. 57 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2945] ........ 1887, Feb. 4, ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154].