ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11; JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 2; FACTS; NATIONAL BANKS; TAXES AND TAXATION. ASSIGNMENTS. 1. Of chose in action; reservation of excess over debt secured, by separate instrument, as evidence of fraud. The assignment of a mere chose in action, not subject to legal process and of uncertain value, given to secure an honest debt, will not be set aside by this court as fraudulent in law because the surplus, if any (there actually being a deficit), was reserved to the assignors by a separate instrument, for the recording of which there was no provision, after two courts have held that the assignment was not made with intent to hinder and defraud creditors and as matter of law had no such result. Merillat v. Hensey, 333. 2. Of chose in action; reservation by assignor of amount in excess of debt as evidence of fraud. Reservation to the assignor of surplus of a chose in action given in payment of a debt does not of itself constitute fraud in law. To be fraud in law the reservation must be of some pecuniary benefit to the assignor at the expense of creditors and a prime purpose of the conveyance. Section 1120, Code of the District of Columbia. Ib. 3. Of chose in action in payment of debt; excessive amount as evidence of fraud. The fact that the amount alleged to be due on an unliquidated chose in action is greater than the amount of the debt in payment of which it is assigned is not necessarily evidence of fraud against other creditors; and where the amount actually recovered is less than the amount of the debt this court will not disturb the finding of both courts below that there was no fraud. 4. Of chose in action; when effective. Ib. Where, as in the District of Columbia, the assignment of a chose in action does not have to be recorded and there is no way in which constructive notice can be given, the assignment, if valid upon its face, is ineffective only in case of actual bad faith established by the facts. Ib. See PUBLIC LANDS, 1, 2. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1; JURISDICTION, A 3; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 1. BANKRUPTCY. Receiver; right to possession of books of bankrupt. Under § 2 of the act of 1898, where the bankruptcy court can enforce title against the bankrupt in favor of the trustee, it can enforce possession ad interim in favor of the receiver; and so held as to books of the bankrupt. Matter of Harris, 274. CARRIERS. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 2, 4, 15, 38; COURTS. CASES DISTINGUISHED. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, distinguished in Matter of Harris, 274. Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, distinguished in Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm., 612. Hills v. Hoover, 220 U. S. 334, distinguished in American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603. Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, distinguished in Oklahoma v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 229. Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, distinguished in Oklahoma v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 229. Petit v. Walshe, 194 U. S. 205, distinguished in Glucksman v. Henkel, 508. United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, distinguished in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1. Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co., 207 U. S. 375, distinguished in American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603. Wright v. Henkel, 190 U. S. 40, distinguished in Glucksman v. Henkel, 508. CASES EXPLAINED. Nelson v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 188 U. S. 108, explained in Northern Pacific Railway v. Trodick, 208. United States v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 218 U. S. 233, explained in Northern Pacific Railway v. Trodick, 208. United States v. Joint Traffic Assn., 171 U. S. 505, explained in United States v. American Tobacco Co., 106. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290, explained in United States v. American Tobacco Co., 106. CASES FOLLOWED. Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 205, followed in Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Orleans Assessors, 346. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, followed in Appleby v. Buffalo, 524. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, followed in Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm., 612. Cunnius v. Reading, 198 U. S. 454, followed in Provident Savings Institution v. Malone, 660. Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138, followed in Dowdell v. United States, 325. Eastern Building & Loan Assn. v. Ebaugh, 185 U. S. 114, followed in Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Miller, 408. English v. Arizona, 214 U. S. 359, followed in Briscoe v. Rudolph, 547. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, followed in Wilson v. United States, 361. Huntley v. Kingman, 152 U. S. 527, followed in Merillat v. Hensey, 333. Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, followed in Dowdell v. United States, 325. Hyatt v. Corkran, 188 U. S. 691, followed in Strassheim v. Daily, 280. Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U. S. 156, followed in Orient Ins. Co. v. Assessors of Orleans, 358. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Assessors, 221 U. S. 346, followed in Orient Ins. Co. v. Assessors of Orleans, 358. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36, followed in Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Miller, 408. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, 1892, A. C. 25, followed in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1. Nelson v. Northern Pacific Railway, 188 U. S. 108, followed in Northern Pacific Railway v. Trodick, 208. Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, followed in Strassheim v. Daily, 280. Realty Co. v. Rudolph, 217 U. S. 547, followed in Briscoe v. Rudolph, 547. Rice v. Ames, 180 U. S. 371, followed in Glucksman v. Henkel, 508. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, followed in Coyle v. Oklahoma, 559. Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, followed in Hallowell v. United States, 317. Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, followed in Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States, 194. United States v. Morris, 10 Wheat. 246, followed in Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Miller, 408. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, followed in Faber v. United States, 649. Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361, followed in Dreier v. United States, 394; American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 603; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm., 612. VOL, CCXXI-43 CASES LIMITED AND QUALIFIED. United States v. Joint Traffic Assn., 171 U. S. 505, limited and qualified in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290, limited and qualified in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1. CHOSES IN ACTION. See ASSIGNMENTS. CIRCUIT COURTS. See JURISDICTION, B. CITIZENSHIP. Governmental restraint to which citizen subject. The privileges and immunities of Federal citizenship do not prevent such proper governmental restraint upon the conduct or property of citizens as may be necessary for the general good. Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 286. See INDIANS, 4, 7, 9, 11. CLASSIFICATION FOR REGULATION. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 13, 15, 16. COLLATERAL ATTACK. See JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. |