II. EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION. 21 (U.S.C.C.A.) Immigration Act, §§ 20, 21, as to deportations by Secretary of Labor, held to authorize deportation of Chinese laborers in the country in violation of the Immigration Act. -Yee Ling v. United States, 318. 23(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) That one who lawfully entered as the minor son of a Chinese merchant has since become a laborer is not enough of itself to destroy his right to remain, the general Immigration Act not forbidding the residence of Chinese laborers.-Lew Loy v. United States, 181. 25 (U.S.C.C.A.) A Chinese person having less than a year of minority remaining may enter as the minor son of a Chinees merchant domiciled in the United States.-Lew Loy v. United States, 181. 26 (U.S.C.C.A.) The son of a Chinese merchant, born in the United States, in which place his father was engaged in business, is, though he becomes a laborer, entitled to remain.-Woo Vey v. United States, 426. 32(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) Denial of communication between Chinese woman and citizen, whose wife she claimed to be, pending determination of the matter by the immigration authorities, held not an injustice.-Mah Shee v. White, 456. As rules of Bureau of Immigration contemplate submission of evidence on appeal in addition to that brought out at hearing, refusal to permit applicant's counsel to communicate with her held to deprive her of a fair hearing.-Id. 32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.) While certificate of admission issued to Chinese person, entering as merchant and minor son of a merchant, is prima facie evidence of his right to remain, government may show that he entered fraudulently for purpose of immediately becoming a laborer. -Lew Loy v. United States, 181. That a Chinese person, securing admission as a merchant and as the minor son of a merchant, immediately becomes and continues as a laborer, is strong evidence tending to show that he entered to become a laborer.-Id. In proceeding for deportation of Chinese per son, who entered as a merchant and the minor son of a merchant, evidence held to warrant finding that his entry was fraudulent, and that he entered to become a laborer.-Id. 32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.) In a proceeding for the deportation of a Chinese person, who claimed he was born in the United States, evidence held insufficient to sustain his contention.-Woo Vey v. United States, 426. 32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.) In a proceeding to deport a person of Chinese descent, evidence held suffcient to support his claim that he was a nativeborn citizen of the United States.-Yee Chung v. United States, 656. In a proceeding to deport a Chinese person, the court could not arbitrarily reject or discredit the testimony of witnesses favorable to the defendant, on the ground that they were Chinese persons and unworthy of credit.-Id. 32(10) (U.S.C.C.A.) A person of the Morgolian race must be deported to Canada or discharged, where all that is known regarding him is that he was last seen in Canada.-Mark Seong v. United States, 272. of Chinese 32(10) (U.S.C.C.A.) Persons birth, not shown to have come to this country from China, held deportable to Canada, under Immigration Act, §§ 20, 21.-Yee Ling v. United States, 318. 32(12) (U.S.C.C.A.) The conclusion of the District Court in a Chinese exclusion case held entitled to great weight on appeal, particularly where much of the testimony was taken in the presence of the judge.-Lew Loy v. United States, 181. In proceeding for deportation of Chinese person, who entered as minor son of Chinese merchant, held, that statement of government's attorney that entry was valid, but that defendant had forfeited his right to remain, was not prejudicial, though judgment of deportation could be upheld only on theory of fraudulent entry.-Id. Order for deportation of Chinese person cannot be sustained on ground that not only was not tried at hearing, but was disclaimed by government attorney.-Id. 32(5) (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Chinese Exclusion Act, $ 3, a Chinese person, whose right to remain is challenged, has the burden of estab-32(12) (U.S.C.C.A.) The finding of the trial lishing such right to the satisfaction of the court.-Lew Loy v. United States, 181. 32(5) (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Acts May 5, 1892, § 3. and April 29, 1902, a person of Chinese descent does not, by asserting in deportation proceedings that he was a citizen of the United States, because born therein, cast upon the United States the burden of contradicting his contention.-Woo Vey v. United States, 426. judge in proceeding for deportation of Chinese person, which was in accordance with the conclusion of the commissioner, is entitled to great weight on appeal.-Woo Vey v. United States. 426. 32(13) (U.S.C.C.A.) Right of Commissioner of Immigration and Secretary of Labor to decide appeal on application by Chinese woman for admission to the country held not affected by fact that immigration inspector believed she was, tion held not to be stayed.-Chadeloid Chemical IV. NATURALIZATION. 68 (U.S.C.C.A.) A decision denying an ap- ALLOTMENT. See Indians, 18. ANTI-TRUST LAW. See Monopolies. APPEAL AND ERROR. V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVA- (B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT (K) Questions Presented for Review. 690(5) (U.S.C.C.A.) In action for archi- The alleged error in overruling an objection XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. 719(10) (U.S.C.C.A.) Question as to costs XVI. REVIEW. (A) Scope and Extent in General, 184 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where the subject-matter 204(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) In action against rail- 644. passenger, alleged to have been ravished by por- 866(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where each side moved 514. (E) Presumptions. 239 (U.S.C.C.A.) Question as to costs (C) Exceptions. 263(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) A ruling directing the 264 (U.S.C.C.A.) A claim that the verdict 272(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Refusal to instruct for IX. SUPERSEDEAS OR STAY OF PRO- 930(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) After verdict for plain- 104. (F) Discretion of Lower Court. 978(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Notwithstanding rule as (G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find- 994(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where plaintiff and his 458(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Pending appeal from in- For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 999(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Jury's determination of] ~999(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) The verdict of the jury court, and the parties and their counsel were 1071(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Act of court in reject- 1001(1) ((U.S.C.C.A.) Verdict of jury on 1004(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) An alleged excess in 1011(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) A finding of fact on (H) Harmless Error. 1033(5) (U.S.C.C.A.) Any error in leaving it Sherman Act begun in district for Pennsylvania, (I) Error Waived in Appellate Court. 1078(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) When point was not (K) Subsequent Appeals. for taxation of disbursements if appeal was tak- XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPO- (D) Reversal. 1050(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Testimony by witness 1050(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Admission of written defendants were charged severally, judgment may be af- (G) Jurisdiction and Proceedings of Ap- 1221 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where, after decision of 1050(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) In action for damages 1056(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Exclusion of evidence Dis- trict Court, entered upon a mandate of the APPEARANCE. 1069(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) That communication APPLIANCES. See Master and Servant, 103. APPOINTMENT. See Receivers, 58. APPROVAL. See Contracts, 284. ARCHITECTS. See Contracts, 284. ASSETS. See Bankruptcy, 136; Partnership, m 183. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. See Appeal and Error, 719. ASSIGNMENTS. See Courts, 312; Fraudulent Conveyances; ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF See Bankruptcy. ASSUMPTION OF RISKS. See Master and Servant, 205, 211. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. See Bankruptcy, 482; Costs; Principal and Agent, 150. AUTOMATIC COUPLERS. See Master and Servant, 13. AUTOMOBILES. See Railroads, 328. BAILMENT. See Carriers, 140, 202. BANKRUPTCY. another petition asserting their claims on other grounds, is not final order, and second petition cannot be denied on ground that proper remedy should have been by appeal from denial of first. -Hume v. Myers, 415. A court of bankruptcy is always open, and until distribution bankruptcy court may open and reconsider on merits its orders concerning petitions for payment of claims out of funds of bankrupt estate.-Id. (C) Involuntary Proceedings. 70 (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Bankruptcy Act, § 4, subd. "b," unincorporated fraternal benefi cial association, whose chief object was benefi cial, rather than social, held subject to be adjudged a bankrupt.-In re Order of Sparta, 75. Difficulty of ascertaining value of certificates, to determine their amount in voting for trustee, held not valid objection to bankruptcy proceeding against unincorporated fraternal association.-Id. 88(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Proceeding in bankruptcy may be brought against unincorporated company in its own name, though it is not a legal entity, nor suable as a company.-In re Order of Sparta, 75. 93 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where jury trial was not demanded in bankrupt's answer, held, that denial of demand, made on the next court day but one, was not an abuse of discretion.-In re Wester, 241. (D) Warrant and Custody of Property. ~~117(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where claimant of timber also claimed by receivers of a bankrupt agreed to sell it and pay over net proceeds to receivers or their successors, to hold as officers of bankruptcy court, agreement must be treated as an agreement with the court.-In re Hollingsworth & Whitney Co., 341. Where receivers of bankrupt and claimant of property entered into agreement for disposition by claimant and delivery of net proceeds to receivers, neither could abrogate contract without court's approval; hence receivers' failure to comply with a demand of complainant could not release claimant.-Id. III. ASSIGNMENT, ADMINISTRATION, (A) Appointment, Qualification, and Ten- II. PETITION, ADJUDICATION, WAR-120 (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Bankruptcy Act, § RANT, AND CUSTODY OF (A) Jurisdiction and Course of Procedure 16 (U.S.C.C.A.) Bankrupt's principal place of business for purposes of jurisdiction of proceeding held in district where it carried on mining operations, though its head office was located in another district.-Continental Coal Corp. v. Roszelle Bros., 83. 36 (U.S.C.C.A.) An order in bankruptcy, dismissing petition for compensation filed by former receivers, who had delivered property of bankrupt to trustee, which authorized filing of 45, upon appointment of trustee by referee, person held not ineligible merely because he was one of the unsuccessful candidates voted for by the creditors.-In re F. & D. Co., 13. 123 (U.S.C.C.A.) Proxies solicited by a creditor held properly voted it not appearing that they were obtained in the bankrupt's interest, or that the holders of the proxies were subject to the bankrupt's control.-In re Callahan, 255. (B) Assignment, and Title, Rights, and Remedies of Trustee in General. 136(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Bankrupt, when sentenced for concealing assets, held not in con For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER tempt for failing to comply with order to turn over assets, served only a few minutes before, and hence court could not punish him for contempt.-In re Sobol, 263. recorded, and within four months before bankruptcy conveyed other land upon surrender of the unrecorded deed and notes evidencing indebtedness, held, that there was no preference. -Marsh v. Leseman, 260. Sentence for concealing assets, served by bankrupt, held no defense to proceeding to pun-166(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Facts as to conveyance ish for failure to turn over the assets as ordered, though judge, in imposing sentence, was influenced by belief that bankrupt was guilty of contempt.-Id. re 136(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) As bankrupts are quired by statute to embrace all of their assets in their schedules, bankruptcy court, upon petition of any creditor, setting up a concealment of assets, must hear and determine the matters in a summary proceeding.—Jones v. Blair, 371. 140(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Bankruptcy Act, § 47a (2), as amended by Act June 25, 1910, § 8, and Comp. Laws Alaska 1913, § 973, mining plant, placed on mining claim under contract amounting to conditional sale, held not to pass to trustee in bankruptcy of mine owner.-In re Seward Dredging Co., 65. con by bankrupt to his mother and sister to be ap- Though preferential transfer is not in itself fraudulent, it may be so manipulated or carried into later steps to attempt to defeat a recovery by the trustee as to bring the parties within Bankr. Act, § 67e, as to fraudulent conveyances.-Id. 140(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Under building tract, owner's right to materials delivered on the premises before petition in bankruptcy was 178(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Conveyance of property filed held superior to rights of trustee under by bankrupt to his mother and sister for an the amendment of 1910.-In re Shelly, 91. agreed amount which was its fair value and which was credited on a valid debt, held not fraudulent.-Watson v. Adams, 217. 151 (U.S.C.C.A.) Under Bankruptcy Act, 47a (2), as amended by Act June 25, 1910, 8, trustees held not purchasers for value, and 181 (U.S.C.C.A.) There was nothing innot to have the rights of creditors holding liens herently fraudulent in a bankrupt recognizing other than creditors of the bankrupt.-In re and paying a debt honestly due his wife, though Seward Dredging Co., 65. barred by limitations.-Watson v. Adams, 217. Under Bankruptcy Act, § 47a (2), as amend-186(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Property transferred ed by Act June 25, 1910, & 8, trustee in bankruptcy held entitled to choose between rights of bankrupt and rights of creditor holding lien by legal or equitable proceedings.-Id. 151 (U.S.C.C.A.) As against the rights of a chattel mortgagee under an unfiled mortgage, a trustee in bankruptcy stands in the position of an attaching creditor.-Lake View State Bank v. Jones, 409. 152 (U.S.C.C.A.) The rights of a trustee in bankruptcy as against an unfiled mortgage are determined as of the day the petition in bankruptcy is filed.-Lake View State Bank v. Jones, 409. by a preferential conveyance by a bankrupt may be recovered from any one not a purchaser in good faith and for value.-Watson v. Adams, 217. 211 (U.S.C.C.A.) Where bankrupt's assets exceeded the amount of admitted lien debts, and a further alleged lien debt was in dispute, held, that court erred in ordering property returned to state court receiver for administration in state court.-Union Electric Co. v. Hubbard, 88. Bankruptcy court, in ordering property returned to state court receiver, held to have erred in attempting to control action of such court, under penalty of having property admin (C) Preferences and Transfers by Bank-istered in bankruptcy court.-Id. (E) Actions by or Against Trustee. 161(1)_(U.S.C.C.A.) Under Bankr. Act, 8288(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where a claimant of 60a, and Real Property Law N. Y. § 291, unrecorded security deed, executed more than four months before bankruptcy, held not voidable preference.-Marsh v. Leseman, 260. a 165(3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Security by bankrupt for present advancement held enforceable, though borrower was insolvent, and known to be so by the party advancing the money.-Lake View State Bank v. Jones, 409. Where bill of sale was given by bankrupt to secure present loan, and later chattel mortgage was given to confirm it, held that, under Bankr. Act, § 67d, they together constituted a valid lien on the property covered by the bill of sale.-Id. 165(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where bankrupt conveyed land as security by deed which was not property and receivers of a bankrupt entered into an agreement concerning its disposition, bankruptcy court may, without any independent suit, require compliance by either party.-In re Hollingsworth & Whitney Co., 341. Claimant of property, also claimed by receivers of a bankrupt, having agreed to dispose of same and deliver proceeds to receivers or their successors, cannot object that bankruptcy court was without jurisdiction to require payment or to require it by summary order.-Id. Under an agreement entered into between claimant of logs and receivers of bankrupt, held, that bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine question of ownership of property.—Id. A proceeding to determine the rights to prop |