Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

ANTI-TRUST ACT of July 2, 1890 (see Restraint of Trade): Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 236.

BANKRUPTCY, Act of 1898 (see Bankruptcy): Holden v. Stratton, 202; First National Bank v. Title & Trust Co., 280.

BRIBERY, Rev. Stat. section 5451 (see Removal of Causes, 7): Benson v. Henkel, 1.

CHINESE EXCLUSION (see Immigration): United States v. Ju Toy, 253. COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION, Rev. Stat. section 4141 (see Taxation, 3):

Old Dominion Steamship Co. v. Virginia, 299.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rev. Stat. section 1014 (see Removal of Causes, 8): Benson v. Henkel, 1; Beavers v. Haubert, 77.

INTERNAL REVENUE, Rev. Stat. sections 3390, 3393, 3397 (see Jurisdiction, A 7): Allen v. Arguimbau, 149.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS, Wilson Act, 26 Stat. 313, c. 728 (see Interstate Commerce): Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw, 17.

JUDICIARY, Acts of 1789 and March 3, 1875 (see Jurisdiction, C 1): Steigleder v. McQuesten, 141. Act of March 3, 1887 (see Jurisdiction, D): Harley v. United States, 229. Act of March 3, 1891, section 5 (see Jurisdiction, A 3, 4, 5): Board of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co., 424; Ex parte Glaser, 171. Rev. Stat. section 709 (see Contracts; Jurisdiction, A 7): Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 508; Allen v. Arguimbau, 149. NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. section 5219 (see Taxation, 2): Covington v. First National Bank, 100. Rev. Stat. section 5242 (see National Banks, 2): Van Reed v. Peoples' National Bank, 554. Act of July 12, 1882, section 4. Ib.

[merged small][ocr errors]

PILOTAGE, Act of 1789 and Rev. Stat. sections 4235, 4237 (see Pilotage, 1):
Thompson v. Darden, 310.

PORTO RICO, Foraker Act of 1900, 31 Stat. 85, sections 34, 35 (see Juris-
diction, A 10): Rodriguez v. United States, 156.

POSTAL SERVICE, Rev. Stat. section 4002 (see Mails): Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co. v. United States, 385.

PUBLIC LANDS, Rev. Stat. sections 452, 2319, 2324, 2326 (see Jurisdic-
tion, A 12; Public Lands, 3, 4): Lavagnino v. Uhlig, 443.

AGENCY.

See WRIT AND PROCESS, 1.

ANTI-TRUST ACT.

See RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

See JURISDICTION.

ASSESSMENT.

See TAXATION, 1.

ATTACHMENT.

See GARNISHMENT;

NATIONAL BANKS, 2,

WAREHOUSEMEN.

BAIL.

See JURISDICTION, F 4.

BAILMENT.

See WAREHOUSEMEN.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. Action by trustee to recover possession of goods in storage, warehouse re-
ceipts for which had been hypothecated—Jurisdiction of District Court—
Right of appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals.

The trustee in bankruptcy claiming the right of possession of certain mer-
chandise of the bankrupt in storage, warehouse receipts for which he
had hypothecated for loans, instituted summary proceedings for pos-
session and directions for sale in the District Court. Claimants who
were the warehousemen and holders of warehouse receipts objected to
the jurisdiction but were overruled and thereafter the trustee and
claimant stipulated for sale of the property and deposit of proceeds
subject to further order of the court. The District Court held that
claimants were entitled to the property. The trustee appealed and the
claimants denied their right of appeal. The Circuit Court of Appeals
reviewed the facts and found the trustee entitled to possession. On

certiorari held that: As the proceeding was one in bankruptcy there was
no appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals and its jurisdiction was con-
fined, under clause of § 24, to revision in matter of law on notice and
petition. The provisions as to revision in matter of law and appeal
must be construed in view of distinctions recognized in §§ 23, 24 and
25, between steps in bankruptcy proceedings proper and controversies
arising out of the settlement of estates. The bankruptcy court is without
jurisdiction to determine adverse claims to property not in the posses-
sion of the assignee in bankruptcy by summary proceedings, whether
absolute title or only a lien is asserted, and suits by a trustee may only
be brought in courts where they might have been brought by the bank-
rupt. The fact that the claimants followed the case after their objec-
tions to the jurisdiction of the District Court had been overruled, did
not amount to a waiver of the objections or consent to the jurisdiction
of the court, and the sale of the merchandise by court did not, under the
circumstances of this case, change the situation or create a fund which
conferred jurisdiction. The Circuit Court of Appeals had no juris-
diction of the appeals and they should have been dismissed. The Dis-
trict Court had no jurisdiction to go to judgment in the proceeding and
on ascertaining that fact should have declined to retain it, and have
entered a decree for the return of the money to the claimants without
prejudice to the right of the trustee to litigate in a proper court. Al-
though it turns out that if the District Court has not jurisdiction it may
proceed until that fact appears and may, on consent, direct a sale of
perishable property involved, and on relinquishing jurisdiction an order
returning the proceeds is equivalent to an order returning the property.
First National Bank v. Title & Trust Co., 280.

2. Exemptions-Endowment policy, when exempt under laws of State.
Policies of insurance which are exempt under the law of the State of the
bankrupt are exempt under § 6 of the bankrupt act of 1898, even
though they are endowment policies payable to assured during his
lifetime and have cash surrender value, and the provisions of § 70a of
the act do not apply to policies which are exempt under the state law.
It has always been the policy of Congress, both in general legislation
and in bankrupt acts, to recognize and give effect to exemption laws
of the States. Holden v. Stratton, 202.

3. Preference-Taking possession of after-acquired property under mortgage.
Whether the taking possession of after-acquired property within four months
of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, under a mortgage made in
good faith prior to that period, is good or is void as against the trustee
in bankruptcy, depends upon whether it is good or void according to
the law of the State. Thompson v. Fairbanks, 196 U. S. 516. Held,
that such a taking is under the circumstances of this case good accord-
ing to the law of Massachusetts as construed by its Supreme Judicial
Court. Humphrey v. Tatman, 91.

[blocks in formation]

BANKS.

See NATIONAL Banks;
TAXATION, 2.

BILLS AND NOTES.

See JURISDICTION, A 7.

BOUNDARIES.

See PUBLIC LANDS, 1.

BRIBERY.

See REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 7.

CAPITAL STOCK.

See TAXATION, 1.

CARRIERS.

Right to exclusive use of terminal facilities—Contract with connecting carrier
-Wharf rights.

A common carrier may agree with such other carrier as it may choose to
forward beyond its own line goods it has transported to its terminus;
and, if it has adequate terminal facilities at a sea port, sufficient for all
freight destined for that place, it is not obliged to allow other and com-
peting carriers to load and discharge at a wharf owned by it and erected
for facilitating the transportation of through freight to points beyond
that place. The fact that a wharf is built by a railroad company on
what might be the extension of a public street, under permissions of
the municipality, does not, in the absence of express stipulations, make
it a public wharf, or affect the company's right of sole occupancy, or
power of regulation, thereof. Louisville &c. R. R. Co. v. West Coast
Co., 483.

CASES FOLLOWED.

Barney v. City of New York, 193 U. S. 430, followed in Savannah, Thunder-
bolt &c. Ry. v. Savannah, 392.

Board of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co., 198 U. S. 424, followed in Kendall
v. Automatic Loom Co., 477.

Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 338, followed in Great Western Mining Co. v. Harris,
561.

Muhlker v. Harlem R. R. Co., 197 U. S. 544, followed in Birrell v. New York
& Harlem R. R. Co., 390.

Pacific National Bank v. Mixter, 124 U. S. 721, followed in Van Reed v.
Peoples' National Bank, 554.

Pallister, Re, 136 U. S. 257, followed in Benson v. Henkel, 1.

Russell v. United States, 182 U. S. 516, 530, followed in Harley v. United
States, 229.

Thompson v. Fairbanks, 196 U. S. 516, followed in Humphrey v. Tatman, 91.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »