rier," though he insisted on private contracts
with shippers, and state regulation did not vi-
olate due process or equal protection clause
(Const. U. S. Amend. 14, § 1).-Sanger v. Luk-
ens, 24 F. (2d) 226.

298(1) (Ú.S.D.C.Tenn.) State statute em-
powering state bureau to fix sale price of gaso-
line held invalid, as impairing freedom to con-
tract (Const. U. S. Amend. 14; Pub. Acts Tenn.
1927, c. 22).-Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v.
Hall, 24 F. (2d) 455.

Statute permitting state officers to fix price
of gasoline, invalid as impairing right to con-
tract, could not be upheld as method of sup-
pressing monopolies (Pub. Acts Tenn. 1927, c.
22; Const. U. S. Amend. 14).—Id.

CONTEMPT.

I. ACTS OR CONDUCT CONSTITUTING
CONTEMPT OF COURT.

21 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Respondent in contempt
case may question order only in so far as void.
-Brotherhood of Ry. & S. S. Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express & Station Employees, South-
ern Pac. Lines in Texas and Louisiana v. Texas
& N. O. R. Co., 24 F. (2d) 426.

CONTINUANCE.

46(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Denial of motion
for continuance to produce expert witness
held not abuse of discretion, where court had al-
ready indicated conclusion adverse to applicant
and kind of expert proposed was not shown.-
Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Wisconsin
Mat Co., 24 F. (2d) 78.

CONTRACTS.

fiduciary, must prove full disclosure to fiduciary.
-Reilly v. Beekman, 24 F. (2d) 791.

YI. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.
(A) General Rules of Construetion.
164 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Several instruments,
made at same time, relating to same subject-
matter, may be read together as one contract,
and recitals in one may be explained by refer-
ence to the other, even where parties are not
same.-Peterson v. Miller Rubber Co. of New
York, 24 F. (2d) 59.

IV. CAPITAL, STOCK, AND DIVIDENDS.
(D) Transfer of Shares.

116 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Sum paid for stock
held sufficient consideration for purchase.-
Cowden v. Karshner, 24 F. (2d) 916.

120 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Sum paid for stock
held sufficient consideration for seller's agree-
ment to repurchase.-Cowden v. Karshner, 24
F. (2d) 916.

Seller's agreement to repurchase stock held
sufficient consideration for subsequent agree-
ment postponing date for repurchase.-Id.

to justify finding that notice of dissatisfaction
with investment was mailed as required under
contract for repurchase of stock.-Cowden v.
Karshner, 24 F.(2d) 916.

(B) Parties, Proposals, and Acceptance.
19 (U.S.C.C.A.Fla.) Acceptance of offer
cannot create binding contract, where with-
drawn before communicated to accepung party
by his agent.-Morgan v. Patillo, 24 F. (2d) 204.
(F) Legality of Object and of Considera-
tion.

105 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Attorney's agreement
to divide fees with one bringing business to him
is bad, if he knew the other party was not a
lawyer (Penal Law N. Y. § 274).—Reilly v.
Beekman, 24 F. (2d) 791.

108(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Fiduciary, recom-
mending attorney, cannot make valid agreement
with attorney for division of fees to be received.
-Reilly v. Beekman, 24 F. (2d) 791.

One offering as friend to recommend attorney
to another cannot, without such other's knowl-
edge, make valid contract with attorney for divi-
sion of fees.-Id.

113(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Contract for divi-
sion of legal fees from business brought by
plaintiff, recommending lawyer to fiduciary is
not made valid by disclosure to fiduciary that
plaintiff would receive part of amount claimed.
-Reilly v. Beekman, 24 F. (2d) 791.

127(3) (App.D.C.) Provision that itemized
statement was prima facie evidence of liability
did not vitiate indemnity contract.-Carroll v.
National Surety Co., 24 F. (2d) 268.

141(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Plaintiff, claiming
division of attorney's fees from business brought
to defendant, whom plaintiff recommended to

V. MEMBERS AND STOCKHOLDERS.

(B) Meetings.

198 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Stockholder held es-
topped to question unauthorized gift of stock
by directors, by action of her proxy in voting
her stock to ratify gift.-Gray v. Aspironal Lab-
oratories, 24 F. (2d) 97.

(C) Suing or Defending on Behalf of Cor-

poration.

202 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Attempt to induce
corporate employees to leave employment gives
rise to cause of action by corporation only.-
Green v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 24 F. (2d)
378.

Shareholders have no relation with one com-
mitting tort against corporation's rights.-Id.

Sole shareholder cannot sue for trespass on
or conversion of corporation's property.—Id.
Shareholder has no personal right of action
against tort-feasor invading corporate rights,
though such tort-feasor is animated by malice
toward particular shareholder.-Id.

That defendant alleged to have unlawfully in-
terfered with corporate business induced pur-
chase by plaintiff's testator did not authorize
tort action by shareholder.--Id.

Unjustifiable refusal to deal with corporation
does not constitute injury to shareholder, ex-
cept as to derivative or corporate rights.-Id.

Breach of contract to deal with corporation
does not constitute tort against corporate
shareholders.-Id.

(D) Liability for Corporate Debts and

Acts.

225 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Stockholders receiv
ing dividends in fraud of creditors are liable

Continuous solicitation of orders by foreign
corporation delivering goods and receiving pay-
ment in state constitutes "doing business."-Id.

Foreign corporation manufacturing automo-
biles, whose agent was present soliciting busi-
ness, making collections and supervising dealers,
held subject to local jurisdiction as doing busi-
ness in state.-Id.

COSTS.

VII. ON APPEAL OR ERROR, AND ON
NEW TRIAL OR MOTION THEREFOR.

238(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Plaintiff in error
held not entitled to costs, where unreasonably
prodigal and prolix in making record,_though
judgment was reversed.-Niagara Fire Ins. Co.
v. McCord, 24 F. (2d) 491.

380 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Loan of money by one
corporation to another does not make borrow-
er agent of lender.-Owl Fumigating Corpora-
tion v. California Cyanide Co., 24 F. (2d) 718.
(B) Representation of Corporation by Of-
ficers and Agents.

422(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Corporation is es-
topped to deny authorized representations of its
officers and agents.-McMan Oil & Gas Co. v.
Hurley, 24 F. (2d) 776.

tiorari for diminution of record, not necessary
to determination of questions, will be taxed to
party making motion.-Lindley v. Shepherd,
24 F. (2d) 606.

COUNTERFEITING.

8 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Altering of war savings
certificate with war savings certificate stamp
attached, by obliterating post office and regis-
tration number with intent to defraud, con-
stitutes offense of "altering government obliga-
tion" of United States (Act Sept. 24, 1917. § 6,
as amended by Act Sept. 24, 1918, § 2 [31 USCA
$ 757]; 31 USCA § 762; Cr. Code, § 148
[18 USCA § 262]).—Brown v. White, 24 F. (2d)
392.

Ancillary receiver's bill to recover dividends
paid stockholders as in fraud of creditors held
insufficient.-Id.

X. CONSOLIDATION.

585 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Ownership of the stock
of one corporation by another does not merge
the identity of the two.--Owl Fumigating Cor-
poration v. California Cyanide Co., 24 F. (2d)
718.

Identity of officers and stock ownership, and
close affiliation between two corporations, does
not establish identity of the corporations.-Id.
XI. DISSOLUTION AND FORFEITURE OF
FRANCHISE.

623 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Stockholders, receiving
assets of corporation on liquidation, hold them
as trustees for creditors, and cannot plead limi-
tation against suit by creditor so long as action
against corporation is not barred.-U. S. v.
Snook, 24 F. (2d) 844.

All stockholders may be joined in creditor's
suit against stockholders of liquidated corpora-
tion who receive distributive share of assets.-
Id.

XII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

637 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) State statute impos-
ing excise taxes on foreign corporations held
not unconstitutional, as applied to corporation
doing chiefly interstate business (Rem. Comp.
Stat. Wash. §§ 3836, 3837 [amended by Laws
Wash. Extra Sess. 1925, pp. 417, 418, §§ 1, 2];
§ 3841 [amended by p. 418, § 31; §§ 3843, 3844
[amended by Laws Wash. 1923, p. 465, §§ 5,
6]; § 3846; § 3853 [amended by Laws Wash.
Extra Sess. 1925, p. 410, § 1]; §§ 3855, 3861).—
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 24 F. (2d) 124.

668(15) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Foreign corpora-
tion is "doing business" within state, where
character of business warrants inference that
corporation has subjected itself to local juris-
diction.-La Porte Heinekamp Motor Co. v.
Ford Motor Co., 24 F. (2d) 861.

That transaction sued on arose in state held
relevant in determining whether foreign corpo-
ration sued was subject to service of process
therein.-Id.

COUNTIES.

SECURITIES, AND TAXATION.

165 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) County held not liable
to holders of purported warrants, issued on
fictitious order of commissioners allowing claim
and certificate of probate judge (Code Ala. 1923,
§§ 224-232, 5680, 6763).—Slayton & Co. of To-
ledo, Ohio, v. Winston County, Ala., 24 F. (2d)
761.

170(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Warrant on coun-
ty treasurer, though duly issued, does not en-
title holder to sue county thereon (Code Ala.
1923, § 5680).-Slayton & Co. of Toledo, Ohio,
v. Winston County, Ala., 24 F.(2d) 761.

Remedy of holder of county warrant is by suit
on treasurer's bond, or mandamus to compel
levy and collection of necessary taxes (Code
Ala. 1923, §§ 224-232, 5680, 6763).—Id.

V. CLAIMS AGAINST COUNTY.
197 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Holders of purported
county warrants, in asserting claim against
county otherwise than as holders, were required
to present claims to commissioners (Code Ala.
1923, §§ 224-232, 5680, 6763).-Slayton & Co.
of Toledo, Ohio, v. Winston County, Ala., 24 F.
(2d) 761.

COURT RULES CITED OR CONSTRUED.
EQUITY RULES.

Rule 12.-24 F. (2d) 598.
Rule 16.-24 F. (2d) 598.
Rule 20.-24 F.(2d) 89.
Rule 26.-24 F. (2d) 415.
Rule 29.-24 F. (2d) 602,
Rule 30.-24 F. (2d) 48.
Rule 37.-24 F. (2d) 951.
Rule 39.-24 F. (2d) 169.
Rule 75b.-24 F. (2d) 931.

(Organic Act Porto Rico, § 40 [48 USCA §
861]).-Diaz Cintron v. People of Porto Rico,
24 F.(2d) 957.

(D) Rules of Decision, Adjudications,
Opinions, and Records.

90 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Decision of appel-
late court of equal authority will not be lightly
ignored.-Parfumerie Roger & Gallet v. M. C.
M. Co., 24 F. (2d) 698.

99(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Ruling of one judge
becomes law of case in that court.-Aachen &
Munich Fire Ins. Co. v. Guaranty Trust Co. of
New York, 24 F. (2d) 465.

IV. COURTS OF LIMITED OR INFERIOR
JURISDICTION.

188(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) State statute held
not to give municipal court power, under bill
in aid of execution, to determine claims of all
other creditors (Gen. Code Ohio, § 1579-7).—
In re Conservative Mortgage & Guaranty Co.,
24 F. (2d) 38.

VII. UNITED STATES COURTS.
(A) Jurisdiction and Powers in General.
264 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Ancillary equity
suit may be maintained without diversity of citi-
zenship or federal question if to aid, enjoin, or
regulate original suit, or to enforce claims to
property in court's jurisdiction. St. Louis-San
Francisco R. Co. v. Byrnes, 24 F. (2d) 66.

264(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Court had jurisdic-
tion of intervening petition of lessor claiming
title to rails leased which court ordered re-
ceiver to sell, regardless of diversity of citizen-
ship, as assertion of title to property in court's
exclusive control.-St. Louis-San Francisco R.
Co. v. Byrnes, 24 F. (2d) 66.

Federal equity court had ancillary jurisdic-
tion of intervener's petition to enforce its con-
tract with court's receiver.-Id.

264 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Ancillary equity
suit may be maintained without diversity of citi-
zenship or federal question if to restrain, avoid,
explain, or enforce judgment therein.-St. Louis-
San Francisco R. Co. v. Byrnes, 24 F. (2d) 66.

Court had jurisdiction of intervening petition
of lessor claiming title to rails leased which
court ordered receiver to sell, regardless of di-
versity of citizenship, as suit to avoid or ex-
plain decree.-Id.

270 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) "Citizen," for purpose
of determining jurisdiction of federal courts,
means "inhabitant."-Steidle v. Reading Co., 24
F. (2d) 299.

274(10) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Action at law by
seaman for personal injuries must be in district
where defendant resides or has principal office
(Merchant Marine Act, § 33 [46 USCA § 688]).
-Peters v. Detroit & Cleveland Nav. Co., 24
F. (2d) 454.

274(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Under decree
adjudging defendants entitled to insurance mon-
ey and reserving their respective rights thereto,
court had jurisdiction of insurer's interpleader.
-Ross v. International Life Ins. Co., 24 F. (2d)
345.

274(11) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Where executors
of deceased resided in one federal jurisdiction,
and named beneficiary resided in another, insur-
ance company could file interpleader suit in ei-
ther jurisdiction (28 USCA § 41, par. [26]).-
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Adamson, 24 F. (2d)
107.

278 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Court may retain ju-
risdiction over property which has passed out of
its physical possession.-St. Louis-San Fran-
cisco R. Co. v. Byrnes, 24 F.(2d) 66.

Orders or decrees need not in express words
state reservation of jurisdiction over property
passing from court's physical possession if it
appears court did retain jurisdiction.--Id.

Order directing receiver to sell assets subject
to lessor's rights in certain rails held to re-

tain jurisdiction of rails, regardless of court's
intent.-Id.

(B) Jurisdiction Dependent on Nature of
Subject-Matter.

282(!) (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Jurisdiction of fed-
eral courts over suits involving matters arising
under federal Constitution extends to cases
where citizenship of parties is identical (Judi-
cial Code, § 24, as amended [28 USCA § 41]).—
Steidle v. Reading Co., 24 F. (2d) 299.

284 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Jurisdiction of federal
courts over suits involving matters arising un-
der federal laws extends to cases where citi-
zenship of parties is identical (Judicial Code, §
24, as amended [28 USCA § 41]).-Steidle v.
Reading Co., 24 F. (2d) 299.

288 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Suit to enjoin ob-
struction of navigable stream held maintainable
in federal court as arising under laws of United
States (33 USCA §§ 401, 406).-Neches Canal
Co. v. Miller & Vidor Lumber Co., 24 F. (2d)
763.

289 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Federal District
Courts may exercise jurisdiction between par-
ties having identical citizenship in actions under
Employers' Liability Act (Jud. Code, § 24, as
amended [28 USCA § 41]; Employers' Liability
Act [45 USCA § 51 et seq.]).-Steidle v. Read-
ing Co., 24 F. (2d) 299.

unfair competition, joined with patent infringe-
290 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Cause of action as to
ment suit, held properly dismissed, in absence
W. Mfg. Corporation, 24 F. (2d) 703.
of diversity of citizenship.-Ingrassia v. A. C.

299 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Jurisdiction of
federal court on ground suit arises under laws
of United States must appear from plaintiff's
pleading, unaided by possible defense.-McPher-
son Bros. Co. v. Okanogan-Douglas Inter-Coun-
ty Bridge Co., 24 F.(2d) 798.

299 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Allegations af-
fecting bridge over navigable river, authorized
by act of Congress, held insufficient to show fed-
eral jurisdiction.-McPherson Bros. Co.
Okanogan-Douglas Inter-County Bridge Co., 24
F. (2d) 798.

(C) Jurisdiction Dependent on Citizen-
ship, Residence, or Character of
Parties.

311 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Nonresident succes-
sor to resident trustee under deed of trust held
entitled to bring foreclosure suit in federal
court on ground of diverse citizenship (equity
rule 37).-Mathis v. Hemingway, 24 F. (2d)
951.

314 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Corporation is "in-
habitant" of state of incorporation and may
not be sued elsewhere in federal courts without
its consent (Jud. Code, § 51 [28 USCA § 112]).
-Steidle v. Reading Co., 24 F.(2d) 299.

Federal District Court held without jurisdie-
tion of suit under Federal Safety Appliance Act
against corporation in district other than that
of its incorporation, where Federal Employers'
Liability Act was inapplicable (Federal Safety
Appliance Act [45 USCA § 1 et seq.]; Judicial
Code, § 24, as amended, and § 51 [28 USCA §§
41, 112]; Federal Employers' Liability Act [45
USCA § 51 et seq.]).-Id.

314 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Federal District
Court held without jurisdiction of suit by citizen
of California against Philippine corporation,
such corporation being neither alien nor citizen
of any state.-Costan v. Manila Electric Co., 24
F.(2d) 383.

314 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Unfair competition
with Massachusetts corporation, doing inter-
state business, without certificate from New
York, by New York corporation, could be
passed on by court.-United Drug Co. v. Parod-
ney, 24 F. (2d) 577.

321 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Federal District
Court held without jurisdiction of suit by citi-