For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
of its object will not constitute defendant con- spirator (Cr. Code, § 37 [18 USCA § 88]).- McDaniel v. U. S., 24 F. (2d) 303.
23 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Crime of conspiracy has two elements, the conspiracy and an act by one or more of parties to effect its object (Pen. Code, § 37 [18 USCA § 88]).-Brady v. U. S., 24 F. (2d) 405.
28 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Conspiracy to violate department regulations for enforcement of Pro- hibition Act constitutes an offense (Cr. Code, § 37 [18 USCA § 88]).-U. S. v. Austin-Bagley Corporation, 24 F. (2d) 527.
33(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) "Conspiracy to de- fraud government" consists of unlawful scheme on which minds of conspirators have met, to- gether with any act to effect object (18 USCA § 88).-Eddington v. U. S., 24 F. (2d) 50.
48 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Statute is presumed valid.-Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Hall, 24 F.(2d) 455.
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS.
(B) Judicial Powers and Functions.
70(1) (App.D.C.) Construing unambigu- ous statute in any other way than giving it its plain meaning constitutes judicial legislation.- Peak v. Reed, 24 F. (2d) 619.
IV. POLICE POWER IN GENERAL.
81 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) "Police power" extends to acts promoting public convenience or pros- perity. Marrs v. City of Oxford, 24 F.(2d)
will not be injured.-Id. One must so use his property that another
33(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Indictment against Alien Property Custodian for conspiring to al- low illegal claims held to state crime (Trading with the Enemy Act, § 9 [Comp. St. § 31151⁄2e]; Cr. Code, § 37 [18 USCA § 88]).-Miller v. Ú.230(1) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) State statute im- S., 24 F. (2d) 353.
41 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Defendant held charge- able with acts of coconspirators in scheme to defraud insurance companies by using mails to falsely represent that loss was accidental (Cr. Code, $$ 37, 215 [18 USCA §§ 88, 338]).-Spirou v. U. S., 24 F.(2d) 796.
(B) Prosecution and Punishment.
47 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Evidence held to war- rant conviction for conspiracy to possess and transport intoxicating liquor (Cr. Code, § 37 [18 USCA § 88]; National Prohibition Act, tit. 2 [27 USCA § 4 et seq.]).-Balderson v. U. S., 24 F. (2d) 915.
47 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Evidence, though cir- cumstantial, held to sustain conviction of con- spiracy to defraud government (18 USCA § 88).-Eddington v. U. S., 24 F. (2d) 50.
47 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Evidence held to sus- tain conviction for conspiracy to violate prohibi- tion law and certain revenue statutes.--Nielson v. U. S., 24 F. (2d) 802.
48 (U.S.C.C.A.Fla.) In prosecution for con- spiracy to import, possess, and sell liquor, evi- dence defendants navigated liquor boat and ac- companied another in attempt to bribe sheriff held to take case to jury (Cr. Code, § 37 [18 USCA § 88]: National Prohibition Act [27 USCA]).-McDaniel v. U. S., 24 F. (2d) 303.
X. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS.
posing excise taxes on foreign corporations held not unconstitutional, as applied to corpora- tion 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, § 3]; §§ 3843, 3844 [amended by Laws Wash. 1923, p. 465, §§ 5, 61; § 3846; §.3853 [amended by Laws Wash. Extra Sess. 1925, p. 410, § 1]; §§ 3855, 3861]). Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 24 F. (2d) 124.
235 (U.S.D.C.Idaho) Statute regulating use of highways by transportation companies held not unconstitutional, as denying equal protec- tion of law (Laws Idaho 1927, c. 237; Const. U. S. Amend. 14, § 1).-Sanger v. Lukens, 24 F. (2d) 226.
241 (U.S.D.C.Idaho) Individual transport- ing commodities for public held "common car- rier," though he insisted on private contracts with shippers, and state regulation did not vi- olate due process of equal protection clause (Const. U. S. Amend. 14, § 1).-Sanger v. Luk- ens, 24 F. (2d) 226.
242 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) State statute empow- ering state bureau to fix sale price of gasoline held invalid, as impairing freedom to contract (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.
48 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence of conspiracy to defraud United States by allowance of claims respecting property seized by Alien Property Custodian without proper investigation held suf- ficient to go to jury (Trading with the Enemy Act, § 9 [Comp. St. § 31151⁄2e]; Cr. Code, $286 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Taxing income of do- 37 [18 USCA § 88]).-Miller v. U. S., 24 F. (2d) 353.
Whether acts occurring after allowance of claims constituted overt acts, in conspiracy to defraud United States by allowance and pay- ment of claims, held for jury (Cr. Code, § 37 [18 USCA § 88]; Trading with the Enemy Act, § 9 [Comp. St. § 31151⁄2e]).—Id.
Disagreement of jury as to guilt of one al- leged conspirator to defraud United States held not to preclude conviction of the other (Cr. Code, § 37 [18 USCA § 88]; Trading with the Enemy Act. § 9 [Comp. St. § 31151⁄2e]).-Id.
48 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Evidence of conspiracy to violate National Prohibition Act held for jury (27 USCA).-Young v. U. S., 24 F. (2d) 640.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
II. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITU- TIONAL PROVISIONS.
mestic export corporations and exempting sim- ilar corporations organized in Porto Rico or Philippine Islands held not to violate due proc- ess clause (Revenue Act 1918, §§ 230[a], 233[b], 301 [Comp. St. §§ 6336nn, 6336%p, 63367aa]; Const. Amend. 5).-Neuss Hess- lein & Co. v. Edwards, 24 F.(2d) 989. C287 (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. Ex- tra Sess. 1925, p. 410, § 11; §§ 3855, 3861).— Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 24 F. (2d) 124.
290(3) (App.D.C.) Failure to give proper- ty owner, against whom benefits were assessed, notice of hearing, held taking of property with- out due process (Code, § 491n, par. 2; Act March 4, 1913, § 1 [37 Stat. 950]).-Wilkinson v. Dougherty, 24 F. (2d) 1007.
38 (U.S.D.C.Tenn.) Statute must be de- clared invalid, if clearly contrary to Constitu- tion.-Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Hall, 24297 (U.S.D.C.Idaho) Individual transport- F. (2d) 455. ing commodities for public held "common car-
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.
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.
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.
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.
1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and Essentials in General. 10(3) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Agreement by libel-121(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Evidence held ant to ship "available" quantity of asphalt on each steamer of respondent "who agrees to load" held not contract enforceable against either par- ty.-North German Lloyd v. Mexican Petroleum Corporation of Louisiana, 24 F. (2d) 46, re- versing decree (D. C.) Mexican Petroleum Cor- poration of Louisiana v. North German Lloyd, 17 F. (2d) 113.
(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.
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-
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
225 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Stockholders receiv ing dividends in fraud of creditors are liable
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
therefor.-Wood v. National City Bank, 24 F. (2d) 661.
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.
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.
378 (U.S.D.C.Del.) If relation between two corporations is such that one is mere agen- cy or department of the other, latter is liable for its wrongful or illegal acts.-Owl Fumigat- ing Corporation v. California Cyanide Co., 24256(1) (App.D.C.) Costs incident to cer- F. (2d) 718.
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.
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.
VIII. INSOLVENCY AND RECEIVERS. 563(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Bill by ancillary receiver to recover dividends paid stockhold- ers held insufficient to state cause of suit for impairment of capital.-Wood v. National City IV. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC debt, Bank, 24 F. (2d) 661.
Ancillary receiver's bill to recover dividends paid stockholders as in fraud of creditors held insufficient.-Id.
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.
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-
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
zen of California against Philippine corporation, such corporation being neither alien nor citizen of any state.-Costan v. Manila Electric Co., 24347(1) (U.S.D.C.N.C.) In F. (2d) 383.
325 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Right of corporation sued in wrong district to challenge court's juris- diction at trial held not waived by pleading to merits, where complaint showed jurisdiction (Federal Employers' Liability Act [45 USCA § 51 et seq.]; Federal Safety Appliance Act [45 USCA § 1 et seq.]).-Steidle v. Reading Co., 24 F. (2d) 299.
325 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Want of jurisdiction of federal District Court as to Philippine cor- poration, sued as defendant, held not waived by corporation's general appearance.-Costan v. Manila Electric Co., 24 F. (2d) 383.
(E) Procedure, and Adoption of Practice of State Courts.
and 335(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Jurisdiction remedies in equity in federal courts are not limited by state law.-Mathis v. Hemingway, 24 F. (2d) 951.
342 (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Plaintiff may join suit on patent and suit in equity for unwarranted use of invention (equity rule 26).-Booth v. Stutz Motor Car Co. of America, 24 F. (2d) 415.
342 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Causes of action un- der federal statute and at common law may not be united.-Schotis v. North Coast Steve- doring Co., 24 F. (2d) 591, motion to retax de- nied 24 F. (2d) 592.
343 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Directors of dissolved California corporation can sue for damages by interference of United States vessels with seal- ing (Civ. Code Cal. § 400; Code Civ. Proc. Cal. $$ 565, 1227 et seq.: 28 USCA § 52).-U. S. v. Laflin, 24 F. (2d) 683.
343 (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Federal court has ju- risdiction, though persons who might otherwise be deemed necessary cannot be made parties, unless such person is indispensable (equity rule 39).-Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Den- ney, 24 F. (2d) 169.
"Indispensable party" whose absence will defeat federal court jurisdiction, is one having such interest that final decree cannot be made without affecting such interest.-Id.
Mortgagor of street railway property held not indispensable party to mortgagee's suit to en- join operation of motor busses by others, where joinder would defeat federal jurisdiction.-Id.
Receiver for street railway held not indispen- sable party to mortgagee's suit to enjoin opera- tion of motor busses by others.-Id.
343 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Survival of right of action commenced by Delaware corporation was controlled by Delaware statute, which provided that cause of action survived (Corporation Law Del. §§ 41, 43).-American Transp. Co. v. Swift & Co., 24 F. (2d) 310.
344(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Statute permit- ting process to other districts in suits by Unit- ed States should be liberally construed (Jud. Code, § 51, as amended by Act Sept. 19, 1922, re-enacted by Act March 4, 1925, § 1 [28 USCA § 112]).-U. S. v. Chase Securities Corporation, 24 F. (2d) 500.
344 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Where writ of attachment was served on several defendants before statute ceased to be operative, suit was commenced within effective period of statute permitting service of writs to other districts (Jud. Code, § 51, as amended by Act Sept. 19, 1922, re-enacted by Act March 4, 1925, §1 [28 USCA § 112]).-U. S. v. Chase Securities Cor- poration, 24 F. (2d) 500.
Where suit by United States was commenced during operative period of amendment per- mitting process to run to other districts, Dis- trict Court had jurisdiction of nonresident de- fendants, subsequently served (Jud. Code, § 51 as amended by Act Sept. 19, 1922, re-enact- 24 F. (2d)-66
ed by Act March 4, 1925, § 1 [28 USCA § 112]).-Id. equity, coun- sel's agreement to extend time to plead does not bind court (equity rules 12 and 16).-Holt v. Gaston County Dyeing Mach. Co., 24 F. (2d) 598.
347(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Demand for dam- ages for breach of contract held not available as counterclaim in foreclosure suit, because not equitable claim (equity rule 30).-Summit Coal Co. v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 24 F. (2d) 48.
347(3) (U.S.D.C.Del.) Defense pleaded in bar admits allegations of bill not put in issue V. Mapl-Flake by such defense (equity rule 29).-Pneumatic Scale Corporation, Limited, Mills, 24 F. (2d) 602.
347(10) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Bill in ancillary receiver's suit to recover dividends paid stock- holders, alleging insolvency, though indefinite, held not subject to dismissal (rules 20, 29).- Wood v. National City Bank, 24 F. (2d) 661.
death action 347(11) (U.S.D.C.III.) In against railroad, brought in federal court, con- tributory negligence must be pleaded and F.(2d) 996. proved by defendant.-Conrad v. Wheelock, 24
3511⁄2 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Dismissal on merits cannot be upheld, as within court's discretionary power to enforce order requiring bill of particu- lars by imposing penalties (equity rule 20).— Premier Malt Products Co. v. G. A. Ackerman Printing Co.. 24 F. (2d) 89.
352 (5) (U.S.D.C.III.) Federal court must direct verdict, where evidence is undisputed or so conclusive as to require court to set aside contrary verdict.-Conrad v. Wheelock, 24 F. (2d) 996.
353 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Power and practice of federal courts as to motions for new trial are not conformed to state courts.-Cudahy Packing Co. v. City of Omaha, 24 F. (2d) 3.
355 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Government, before becoming entitled to order to examine in sup- plementary proceedings, must issue and have returned unsatisfied an execution (Civil Prac- tice Act N. Y. § 779; District Court Rule; 28 USCA § 727).-U. S. v. Harpootlian, 24 F. (2d) 646.
356 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Power and prac- tice of federal courts as to methods of review' are not conformed to state courts.-Cudahy Packing Co. v. City of Omaha, 24 F. (2d) 3.
356(5) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Sufficiency of evi- dence and findings held not reviewable, in ab- sence of request for different findings and con- clusions and of motion for judgment (28 USCA $$ 773, 875).-Akre v. Liberty State Bank of Minneapolis, 24 F. (2d) 816.
Sufficiency of pleadings is reviewable, though findings were not requested and no motion made for judgment (28 USCA §§ 773, 875).-—Id.
356(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Appellate may refuse to consider evidence, unless stated in record in simple and condensed form as re- quired by rules (equity rule 75b).-Moss v. Gilchrist-Fordney Co., 24 F. (2d) 931.
356 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Power and prac- tice of federal courts as to bills of exception are not conformed to state courts.-Cudahy Packing Co. v. City of Omaha, 24 F. (2d) 3.
356(9) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Guaranties tached to complaint and incorporated by ref- erence, held construable on writ of error part of pleadings (28 USCA §§ 773, 875).— Akre v. Liberty State Bank of Minneapolis, 24 F. (2d) 816.
(F) State Laws as Rules of Decision. courts apply 359 (U.S.D.C.III.) Federal federal rule as to substantive law, where dif- fering from state law.-Conrad v. Wheelock, 24 F. (2d) 996.
359 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Quality of landowner's interest in oil and gas resources is determin-
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan » |