« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
See "Public Lands."
See "Customs Duties."
See, also, "Constitutional Law."
Of express companies, see "Constitutional Law.' 99
Of railroad, see "Railroad Companies."
An act in relation to taxation will not be so construed as to enable taxpayers to escape taxation, if it is reasonably susceptible of a different construction.-Board of Com'rs of Custer County v. Anderson (C. C. A.) 341.
The act of Montana of September 14, 1887, as amended by the act of March 14, 1889, does not leave the assessment of taxes optional with the taxpayers, but the assessors have still a right to assess the property of those who fail to file lists.-Board of Com'rs of Custer County v. Anderson (C. C. A.) 341.
A telegrapn company is not liable for damages for the nondelivery of an unrepeated message sent on a blank containing a proviso against liability for such messages, and so obscure in its terms as to give no notice of what it means or what damages may result from its nondelivery. -Western Union Tel. Co. v. Coggin (C. C. A.) 137.
Of court, see "Courts."
A decision of the high court of chancery in England, granting to defendant, against complainant's opposition, the right to register as a trade-mark the words alleged to be an infringement, is no bar to a suit here for an infringement by using such words.-City of Carlsbad v. Kutnow (C. C.) 794.
When a defendant has been enjoined from using a label almost identical with that of complainant, he will also be enjoined from resorting to another label, differing in detail from complainant's, but so like it in general appearance as to deceive consumers, if not trade experts.Cuervo v. Owl Cigar Co. (C. C.) 541.
See, also. "Appeal"; "Evidence"; "Judgment"; "Pleading.'
An objection to deeds offered in evidence on the ground that there is nothing to identify or show title to the lands described in the declaration is too general to sustain an objection where the deeds appear to show title.-Robinson v. Dewhurst (C. C. A.) 336.
The objection that a certified copy of a patent, received in evidence, shows no seal, cannot be first raised in an appellate court.-Robinson v. Dewhurst (C. C. A.) 336.
The fact that a judge, in charging the jury. omits to refer to certain facts favorable to the defeated party, is not ground for a new trial.Lowry v. Mt. Adams & Eden Park Incline Plane Ry. Co. (C. C.) 827.
A father who completed the purchase of lands under a contract made by his son, since deceased, and took title in his own name, held a trustee for the son's minor heir, whether he used his own money or money derived from the son's property.-Roggenkamp v. Roggenkamp (C. C.
TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE- A.) 605.
A trade-mark, consisting of the word "Momaja," as applied to a blend of coffee, is infringed by the use of the word "Mojava," applied to another blend of coffee.-American Grocery Co. v. Sloan (C. C.) 539.
The fact that Carlsbad is a geographical name does not prevent the city of that name from having an exclusive right to the use thereof in connection with springs owned by it, which have the same name, and give it to their products.City of Carlsbad v. Kutnow (C. C.) 794.
It is an infringement of the trade-mark "Carlsbad Sprudel Salts" to sell artificial salts under the name of "Improved Effervescent Carlsbad Powder."-City of Carlsbad v. Kutnow (C. C.)
Where a devise is made upon a valid trust, the heirs at law have no right to contest the right of the trustees to take.-White v. Keller (C. C. A.) 796.
The owner of property intrusted to another, by whom it has been misapplied, is not entitled to a general lien upon the assets of the trustee for the value of such property, and can only follow the same so far as it can be traced, either in its original form or in the other forms into which it has been converted.-Spokane County v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 979.
Where trust funds have been wrongfully invested by the trustee in securities which remain in his hands, the owner of such funds is entitled to follow the same in the form into which they have been converted, and impress a trust thereon for his benefit.-City of Spokane v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 982.
Where a New York corporation issued, and sold at 80 cents on the dollar, bonds secured by
mortgage on its ships, held, that under the New | York statute of 1850, as construed by the state courts, usury was not available as a defense either to the corporation or to its judgment creditors.-The Vigilancia (D. C.) 781; The Seguranca, Id.; The Allianca, Id.; The Advance, Id.; Atlantic Trust Co. v. Proceeds of The Vigilancia, Id.
See "Indictment and Information."
VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
A railway company which had made a mortgage covering after-acquired property began proceedings to condemn land of H. The compensation awarded not being paid, H. began a suit to restrain the railway company. A compromise sum was then agreed on, but not paid, and the court in H.'s suit decreed a lien in H.'s favor on his land taken by the railway company, and ordered it sold. H. bought it in at the sale. Afterwards, in a foreclosure suit by the mortgagee of the railway, the mortgage was declared a valid lien on H.'s land, and it was ordered to be sold. Held, error; that H. retained a valid vendor's lien, and acquired a perfect title by the sale in his suit.-Hobbs v. State Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 618.
Of lien, see "Mechanics' Liens."
Of objections by appearance, see "Appearance."
of the said E. do not marry or be given in marriage to any of the children of my uncle J., or to any of his grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, or other lineal descendants of the said J.; but should any of the children of the said E. marry any of the descendants of the said J., the share of my estate of he, she, or they so marrying as aforesaid shall go to and become vested in the other child or children of the said E., share and share alike"; and the testator charged E. with the payment of a legacy of $2,000. Held, that E. took an estate tail which became converted into a fee-simple absolute by her deed executed agreeably to the Pennsylvania statute for the barring of estates tail.-Pearsol v. Maxwell (C. C.) 513.
WORDS AND PHRASES.
"Electrolysis," as used in connection with metallurgical operations, takes place whenever a current of sufficient quantity and intensity is passed through a chemical compound in a fluid thereof, the result being that one of the elecondition as to cause a chemical disruption ments will go to the anode and the other to the cathode.-Lowrey v. Cowles Electric Smelting & Aluminum Co. (C. C.) 354.
"Smelting," though by derivation synonymous with "melting," has a more contracted meaning in connection with metallurgical operations, and usually means a melting of ores in the presence of some reagent which combines with the nonmetallic element, and thus frees the metal ele ment.-Lowrey v. Cowles Electric Smelting & Aluminum Co. (C. C.) 354.
The owner of an oil wharf is not liable for damage occasioned to a vessel lying thereat by See "Appeal." fire communicated from premises owned by others, and by means of floating oil that escaped from sources over which he has no control.Hustede v. Atlantic Refining Co. (D. C.) 669.
What law governs, see "Conflict of Laws."
A will devising property, and reciting that it is community property, does not estop the devisees from disputing that it is community property, nor amount to a devise of a half interest to the testator's wife.-Hatch v. Ferguson (C. C. A.) 43.
A testator devised lands to E., "to have and to hold the same to the said E. and the heirs of her body, provided, however, that the children 68 Fed.-67
Writ of Error.
Where a contract is made in Michigan for the delivery of ore in Mexico, a cause of action for nondelivery arises in Mexico, and gives no right to make service of process under section 8145, How. Ann. St. Mich.-United States Graphite Co. v. Pacific Graphite Co. (C. C.) 442.
Service on an officer of a foreign corporation casually within a state where the corporation has no place of business is not good.-United States Graphite Co. v. Pacific Graphite Co. (C. C.) 442.
A suitor attending a hearing on a demurrer in a foreign jurisdiction, to consult with his counsel, is privileged from service of process.Kinne v. Lant (C. C.) 436.
WEST PUBLISHING CO., PRINTERS AND STEREOTYPERS, ST. PAUL, Minn.