sory note, not bond, within federal revenue statute.-Mutual Bldg. & Sav. Ass'n v. Wilkinson, 8 F. (2d) 183. 22 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Congress may authorize Commissioner of Internal Revenue to prescribe administrative features.-Updike v. U. S., & F. (2d) 913. 25 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Court held not justified in disturbing valuation of realty for taxation purposes, as voluntarily returned by taxpayer. Thompson v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 175. 25 (U.S.D.C.Idaho) Return to collector estops taxpayers.-Merrell v. Evans, 8 F. (2d) 431. 26 (U.S.D.C.Va.) Tax lien after levy relates back to time when taxes became due.The River Queen, 8 F. (2d) 426. 27(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Stockholders, receiving corporate assets on dissolution before payment of taxes due, take such assets impressed with a trust.-Updike v. U. S., 8 F. (24) 913. 28 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Action to recover excess profits taxes from stockholders of dissolved corporation held not barred by limitation. -Updike v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 913. Government, suing for taxes, need not anticipate and negative defense of limitation.-Id. 28 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Suit to enjoin collection of additional taxes levied by Commissioner held not maintainable.-Joseph Garneau Co. v. Bowers, 8 F. (24) 378. 38 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Natural presumption is that taxpayer will not overvalue estate for purpose of taxation.-Thompson v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 175. Person voluntarily paying taxes cannot recover them.-Id. Government held precluded from pleading estoppel of taxpayer to claim refund of amount overpaid.-Id. 38 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Government, seeking to impeach as mala fides written contract, has burden of producing clear and convincing proof. -Fraser v. Nauts, 8 F. (2d) 106. 38 (U.S.D.C.Va.) Evidence held to show that fund distributed to corporate officers and employees was gift, not taxable income.-Parrott v. Noel, 8 F. (2d) 368. 42 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Searches under internal revenue statute subject to same constitutional limitations as searches under Prohibition Act.-Wagner v. U. S., 8 F.(2d) 581. ment at time of collision was immune from arrest.-The Augustine, 8 F. (2d) 287. Vessel owned by British government at time of collision held not subject to maritime lien enforceable after sale.-Id. INTOXICATING LIQUORS. IV. LICENSES AND TAXES. 70 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Prohibition commissioner cannot deny or refuse permit without giving applicant hearing.-Stroh Products Co. v. Davis, 8 F. (2d) 773. Design or intent that liquid malt should be used in manufacture of intoxicants must be proved as independent fact, or by circumstances authorizing submission to jury.-Id. Evidence held not to show that manufacturer of liquid malt intended or designed same to be used unlawfully.-Id. Inference that liquid malt was designed for use in manufacture of intoxicants could not be made from intrinsic nature of preparation, or its adaptability therefor.-Id. Presiding officer, at hearing of application for permit, could not consider testimony of witnesses with his past experience with other permittees.-Id. 71 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Design or intent to use liquid malt unlawfully must be that of seller, and not of buyer, to authorize refusal of permit.-Stroh Products Co. v. Davis, 8 F. (2d) 773. 75(7) (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Court could not assume presiding officer, at hearing on application for permit, knew permittees with whom he dealt, or proportion of those violating law, or their attitude in dealings with government. -Stroh Products Co. v. Davis, 8 F. (2d) 773. VI. OFFENSES. 134 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Conviction for manufacturing nonintoxicating cider and fruit juices cannot be had, except beverage manufactured be in fact intoxicating.-Isner v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 487. whisky does not constitute a "nuisance."-Green 143 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Transportation of v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 140. 143 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Proof of ownership not necessary to sustain charge of maintaining nuisance.-Brownlow v. U. S., 8 F.(2d) 711. 45 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Government held not merely transporting intoxicating liquor is not 143 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Automobile used in entitled to recover penalty for nonpayment of "common nuisance,' within National Prohibitransportation taxes from navigation company collecting same.-Nolte v. Hudson Nav. Co., 8154(1) (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Prohibition Act tion Act.-McLean v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 738. F. (2d) 859. 46 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Automobile used for deposit and concealment of liquor to defraud government of tax thereon forfeitable only under Prohibition Act.-Marmon Atlanta Co. of Georgia v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 267. 46 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Automobile, sought to be forfeited, not shown to have been used to defraud United States of customs duty on smuggled whisky.-National Bond & Investment Co. v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 942. 46 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Seizure and forfeiture of vessel and cargo of intoxicating liquor under statute held unauthorized.-U. S. v. The Sagatind, 8 F. (2d) 788. 47 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction for possession of forged and counterfeit strip stamps.-Wagner v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 581. does not outlaw malt extracts, and permit not authorizing such sale pursuant to internal revenue regulations was not effective to make sale unlawful.-Stroh Products Co. v. Davis, 8 F. (2d) 773. 174 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Possession of liquor and maintenance of nuisance are continuing offenses. Marron v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 251. VIII. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. 215 (U.S.C.CLA.II.) Alleging that liquor was sold for beverage purposes held unnecessary. McCarren v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 113. 222 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Negativing exceptions held unnecessary.-McCarren v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 113. 222 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Indictment for subsequent offenses of possession of intoxicating liquor need not negative facts making possession lawful.-Biddle v. Hays, 8 F. (2d) 937. 222 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Information charging unlawful possession of liquor need not negative defense that possession is under permit.-U. S. v. Scarneos, 8 F. (2d) 320. 236 (62) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawful possession, and for possession of property designed for manufacture.-Felton v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 990. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 236 (62) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.-Webb v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 145. 236(62) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.-Gay v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 219. 236(13) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor.-Isner v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 487. 236(19) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor.-Felton v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 990. 236 (19) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawful manufacture, and for unlawful possession of property designed for manufacture.-Webb v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 145. 236 (20) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor.-Gay v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 219. 238(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Evidence held sufficient to go to jury in prosecution for unlawful possession.-Stockman v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 211. IX. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, AND FOR- 244 (U.S.D.C.R.I.) Search and seizure, as preliminary proceeding in rem, is distinct from complaint and warrant, and from proceedings to determine probable cause.-U. S. v. Ephraim,. 8 F. (2d) 512. 246 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Claim of unlawful seizure because of prior seizure by state officers held not available as defense to libel by United States.-Daeufer-Lieberman Brewing Co. v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 1. Utensils used and intended to be used in violation of act properly forfeited.-Id. 246 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Right to forfeiture of vehicle used in transportation stated.-U. S. v. Deutsch, 8 F. (2d) 54. 247 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Brewery permit does not protect from search.-Daeufer-Lieberman Brewing Co. v. U. S.. 8 F. (2d) 1. 247 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Conviction of person in charge must be pleaded and proved, to effect forfeiture of vessel and whisky cargo under Volstead Act.-U. S. v. The Sagatind, 8 F. (2d) 788. 248 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Search warrant held based on sufficient evidence of probable cause. -Daeufer-Lieberman Brewing Co. v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 1. 249 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Affidavit for search warrant held insufficient to support finding of probable cause.-Wagner v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 581. Searches under internal revenue statute subject to same constitutional limitations searches under Prohibition Act.-Id. as may 249 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Search warrant be addressed to prohibition agent; "civil officer." -Daeufer-Lieberman Brewing Co. v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 1. 249 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Search warrant not invalid, though not definite as to exact character of building to be searched.-U. S. v. Yablonsky, 8 F. (2d) 318. 249 (U.S.D.C.R.I.) Provisions of Espionage Act entitling claimant of property seized to hearing on question of probable cause apply to proceedings under Prohibition Act.-U. S. v. Ephraim, 8 F. (2d) 512. 250 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Search warrant may be executed by prohibition agent; "civil officer.' -Daeufer-Lieberman Brewing Co. v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 1. Libel to enforce forfeitures available, though not specifically prescribed by National Prohibition Act.-Id. Libel not sustained by possession under unlawful seizure.-Id. Government's unlawful possession when filing libel for forfeiture not aided by subsequent attachment.--Id. 255 (U.S.D.C.R.I.) Contraband liquor seized under warrant improvidently issued should not be returned.-U. S. v. Ephraim, 8 F. (2d) 512. X. ABATEMENT AND INJUNCTION. 275 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Evidence held to support finding that common nuisance was maintained on premises.-Casey v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 709. 278 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Opening default in proceedings to abate liquor nuisance to permit infants to intervene and claim interest in premises held not required.-U. S. v. Lento, 8 F. (2d) 432. IRRIGATION. See Waters and Water Courses, JUDGES. 222. IV. DISQUALIFICATION TO ACT. 51(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Filing of mandamus petition sufficient to challenge propriety of further action by judge.-De Ran v. Killits, 8 F. (2d) 840. 51 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Affidavit of disqualification held ineffective, as failing to show petitioner a "party" to proceedings.-De Ran v. Killits, 8 F. (2d) 840. 54 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Party acquiescing for long time, in disregard of affidavit of disqualification, not entitled to have judge disqualified.-De Ran v. Killits, 8 F. (2d) 840. JUDGMENT. For judgments in particular actions or proceed- (B) Parties. 235 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Judgment held to erroneously determine issues between plaintiff and particular defendant as to whom plaintiff was entitled to dismiss.-Sauter v. First Nat. Bank, 8 F. (2d) 121. 243 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Official held chargeable only with interest received.-Porter v. Beha, 8 F. (2d) 65. Cmm 244 (App. D. C.) Judgment in action against one designated as Director General of Railroads, and who was neither Director General nor Agent of President, held void.-U. S. ex rel. Rauch v. Davis, 8 F. (2d) 907. VIII. AMENDMENT, CORRECTION, AND 310 (App.D.C.) Judgment in action against one designated as Director General of Railroads, and who was neither Director General nor Agent of President, held void and not amendable.-U. S. ex rel. Rauch v. Davis, 8 F. (2d) 907. XI. COLLATERAL ATTACK. (A) Judgments Impeachable Collaterally. 470 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Decree of court of general jurisdiction, responsive to prayers in petition, cannot be treated as nullity, where defendant appears generally and is heard, and corrections not examined on collateral attack. -Mitchell v. Cunningham, 8 F. (2d) 813. 485 (App.D.C.) Where it is apparent on face of record that court was without jurisdiction to enter judgment, it may be treated as nullity.-U. S. ex rel. Rauch v. Davis, 825 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Consent to waiver F. (2d) 907. XIII. MERGER AND BAR OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. (B) Causes of Action and Defenses Merged, Barred, or Concluded. 585(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Judgment setting aside assessment not res judicata of bondholders' suit.-Road Improvement Dist. No. 7 of Poinsett County, Ark., v. Guardian Savings & Trust Co., 8 F.(2d) 932. 589(1) (App.D.C.) Judgment dismissing petition for mandamus, or in alternative for certiorari to review action of interstate Commerce Commission, held res judicata.-U. S. ex rel. Donner Steel Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 8 F. (2d) 905. Judgment dismissing petition for mandamus, and in alternative for certiorari to review action of Interstate Commerce Commission, held res judicata.-Id. XIV. CONCLUSIVENESS OF ADJUDI CATION. (B) Persons Concluded. 708 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Findings in prior action to enjoin highway assessment held not evidence against persons not parties thereto.Road Improvement Dist. No. 7 of Poinsett County, Ark., v. Guardian Savings & Trust Co., 8 F. (2d) 932. (C) Matters Concluded. 715(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Judgment in action on note held not res judicata of question whether debt was based on fraud, as affecting ' right to discharge in bankruptcy.-Swig v. Tremont Trust Co., 8 F. (2d) 943. of jury trial inferred, when party goes to trial to court without objection.-Crouch v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 435. 25(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Plaintiff in action on policy of war risk insurance did not waive right to jury trial by going to trial without a jury and without objection.-Crouch v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 435. IV. SUMMONING, ATTENDANCE, DISCHARGE, AND COMPENSATION. 59(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Separate appointment for each term of court not needed.Brookman v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 803. Statute as to appointment of jury commissioner from principal opposition political party held not mandatory.-Id. 59(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Term of service of jury commissioner in discretion of judge.— Brookman v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 803. V. COMPETENCY OF JURORS, CHAL- 110(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Stipulation agreeing to accept majority verdict held waiver of objection to manner in which jury was drawn. -Bank of Grottoes v. Brown, 8 F. (2d) 321. LANDLORD AND TENANT. IV. TERMS FOR YEARS. (A) Nature and Extent. 70 (U.S.D.C.III.) Lease for years is "chattel real."-Chicago Auditorium Ass'n v. Cramer, 8 F. (2d) 998. LARCENY. See Receiving Stolen Goods. LEASE. 731 (App.D.C.) Question raised in case, and not reserved out of judgment, must be treated as res judicata, though not given serious consideration.-U. S. ex rel. Donner Steel See Landlord and Tenant. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 8 F. (2d) 905. LEGISLATIVE POWER. LICENSES. 736 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) That deposit paid by See Constitutional Law, Em62. insolvent corporation, selling insurance company's stock, was included in its receiver's account, held not res adjudicata of insurance company's claim thereto.-McGinnis v. Corporation Funding & Finance Co., 8 F.(2d) 532. XV. LIEN. I. FOR OCCUPATIONS AND PRIVILEGES. 768(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Not a lien where XVII. FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 828 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Federal court has duty to give such effect to decree of state court as it was entitled to under laws of state. -Mitchell v. Cunningham, 8 F. (2d) 813. Plaintiff, appearing in state court as defendant, could not collaterally attack decree therein as not warranted by facts alleged and proved, in suit in federal court involving same property.-Id. JUDICIAL POWER. See Constitutional Law, 70. JURY. See Criminal Law, 864. II. RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. 14(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Action on policy of war risk insurance, being an action at law, held triable by jury.-Whitney v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 476. ~ 14(12) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Abatement of liquor nuisance without jury trial authorized by National Act.-Kling v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 730. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. See Adverse Possession. 1. STATUTES OF LIMITATION. (B) Limitations Applicable to Particular Actions. 16 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Under Virginia Law, object of action, and not its form, determines applicable period of limitation.-Bank of Grottoes v. Brown, 8 F. (2d) 321. 30 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Action for malicious prosecution held barred by limitation.-Murray V. Low, 8 F. (2d) 352. 31 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Cause of action held "ex delicto" within state statute of limitations. -Chalmers v. Southern Pac. Co., 8 F. (2d) 480. II. COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION. (G) Pendency of Legal Proceedings, Injunction, Stay, or War. 110 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Appointment of receiver for insolvent corporation tolled statute of limitations, so that claims against corporation were not barred by statutory age limit.-MeGinnis v. Corporation Funding & Finance Co., 8 F. (2d) 532. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER (H) Commencement of Action or Other Proceeding. 127(18) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Amendment of petition increasing amount of damages sought did not state new cause of action.-Cochran v. Hall, 8 F. (2d) 984. LIQUOR SELLING. See Intoxicating Liquors. LIS PENDENS. 22(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Lis pendens in mechanic's lien action held notice that seller under conditional contract waived title to automatic sprinkler equipment.-Fire Protection Co. v. Hawkeye Tire & Rubber Co., 8 F.(2d) 810. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. V. ACTIONS. 42 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Assistant to Attorney General immune from suit for malicious prosecution.-Yaselli v. Goff, 8 F. (2d) 161. MANDAMUS. 1. NATURE AND GROUNDS IN GENERAL. 3(4) (App.D.C.) Writ will not lie to compel Comptroller General to pay allowed claim, in view of claimant's remedy at law.-U. S. ex rel. Carroll Electric Co. v. McCarl, 8 F. (2d) 910. 4(1) (App.D.C.) Writ of mandamus cannot be made to serve purpose of writ of error.-U. S. ex rel. Abilene & S. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 8 F. (2d) 901. 4 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Writ not proper to vacate decree of District Court dismissing complaint, where plaintiff had adequate remedy by appeal.-Lapique v. District Court of the U. S. in and for Southern District of California, 8 F. (2d) 869. 5 (App.D.C.) Petition for mandamus held properly dismissed, in view of previously acquired jurisdiction of same controversy by court of co-ordinate authority.-U. S. ex rel. Skinner & Eddy Corporation v. McCarl, 8 F. (2d) 1011. II. SUBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF RELIEF. (A) Acts and Proceedings of Courts, Judges, and Judicial Officers. 28 (App.D.C.) Exercise of judicial discretion cannot be controlled by writ of mandamus.-U. S. ex rel. Abilene & S. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 8 F. (2d) 901. 29 (App.D.C.) Writ will not lie to compel Interstate Commerce Commission to ascertain and certify amount of operating deficit of railroad during period of federal control.-U. S. ex rel. Abilene & S. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 8 F. (2d) 901. MARITIME LIENS. I. NATURE, GROUNDS, AND SUBJECTMATTER IN GENERAL. (A) Under Maritime Law. (U.S.D.C.Va.) "Maritime lien" stands on broader principles than mechanic's and materialman's liens, and vests in creditor a special property in vessel.-The River Queen, 8 ̊F. (2d) 426. 4 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Services and supplies furnished vessel on order of master after seizure held not "maritime liens."-The Commack, 8 F. (2d) 151. Maritime lien not affixed to vessel after seizure under process.-Id. Money advanced to pay wages of seamen and stevedores, earned before seizure of vessel, and supplies furnished before that date, will be allowed as maritime liens.-Id. 4 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) No lien for supplies furnished vessel after its seizure by United States marshal, in admiralty proceedings, can be acquired.-The Culgoa, 8 F. (2d) 62. 6 (U.S.D.C.La.) General agents for steamship held not entitled to lien in libel proceedings. -The Estrada Palma, 8 F. (2d) 103. (B) Under Statutory Provisions. 25 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) No lien for merely repairing boiler tubes at vessel at distance from, and not delivered to, vessel.-The New Rochelle, 8 F. (2d) 59. II. CREATION, OPERATION, AND EFFECT. 36 (U.S.D.C.Va.) Maritime lien for repairs made after taxes became due held superior to tax lien.-The River Queen, 8 F. (2d) 426. 37 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Maritime liens settled by payment in inverse order of their acquisition.The Commack, 8 F. (2d) 151. Maritime liens of the same voyage are paid pro rata, if fund is not sufficient to pay them in full.-Id. 37 (U.S.D.C.La.) Captain of vessel held entitled to lien but not superior to other contract liens under general maritime law. The Estrada Palma, 8 F. (2d) 103. Claims for wharfage and watchman employed while ship was at wharf held not entitled to preference. Id. 37 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Repairman held entitled to maritime lien on vessel superior to lien of unrecorded mortgage.-The Culgoa, 8 F. (2d) 62. 37 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Penalty not payable from funds subject of subsequent liens.-The Acropolis, 8 F. (2d) 110. MARRIAGE. See Divorce; Husband and Wife. 13 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Common-law marriage in New York is valid, and entitled to recognition on parity with ceremonial marriage.Boyd v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 779. 40 (10) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) So-called affidavit made by claimant of war risk insurance, charged with illicit cohabitation, held insufficient to rebut presumption of common-law marriage.-Boyd v. U. S., 8 F.(2d) 779. 50 (1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Direct proof of agreement of marriage per verba de præsenti is not necessary.-Boyd v. U. S., 8 F.(2d) 779. 50(5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Common-law marriage of claimant of war risk insurance, rather than illicit cohabitation, held established.-Boyd v. U. S., 8 F.(2d) 779. MASTER AND SERVANT. III. MASTER'S LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO SERVANT. (B) Tools, Machinery, Appliances, and Places for Work. 101, 102(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Master not insurer of servant's safety.-Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Payne, 8 F. (2d) 332. 101, 102(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Master required to furnish servant with safe place for work.-Whitehurst v. Standard Oil Co., 8 F. (2d) 728. 101, 102(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Usual precautions, which reasonably prudent men are accustomed to take, constitute reasonable care. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Payne, 8 F.(2d) 332. 112(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Evidence servant fell on pile of ashes and cinders held not sufficient to take railroad's negligence to jury.-Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Payne, 8 F. (2d) 332. 129(6) (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Violation of Safety Appliance Act held proximate cause of injury.-Auchenbach v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 8 F. (2d) 350. (D) Warning and Instructing Servant. 150(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Necessity of warning must be suggested.-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wyer, 8 F. (2d) 30. 150(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Duty of master to warn stated.-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wyer, 8 F. (2d) 30. 154(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Master held not negligent in failing to warn servant.-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wyer, 8 F. (2d) 30. to (F) Risks Assumed by Servant. 206 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Risks incident work assumed.-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wyer, 8 F. (2d) 30. 208(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Servant assumes risk of changing conditions of work.-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wyer, 8 F.(2d) 30. 217(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Risks assumed by servant knowing them.-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wyer, 8 F. (2d) 30. (G) Contributory Negligence of Servant. 228 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Violation of Safety Appliance Act held proximate cause of injury, precluding defense of contributory negligence.-Auchenbach v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 8 F. (2d) 350. (H) Actions. 265 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Burden on employee to show negligence was proximate cause of injury. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Payne, 8 F. (2d) 332. 265(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Statutory presumption of negligence may be rebutted by unimpeached evidence requiring directed verdict. -Walker y. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., 8 F. (2d) 725. 265(13)_(U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Under federal Employers' Liability Act, railroad has burden of proof on question of assumption of risk.Davis v. Gray, 8 F. (2d) 843. 270(8) (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Evidence of similar injuries to others under similar conditions held competent.-E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. White, 8 F. (2d) 5. 278(1) (U.S.D.C.La.) Negligence of owners of collier barge resulting in death of employee held not established.-Young v. New Orleans Coal & Bisso Towboat Co., 8 F. (2d) 310. 278(3) (U.S.D.C.La.) Evidence held to establish stevedore's negligence in failing to provide safe and proper place for longshoreman to work, or in failing to properly direct work.O'Hern v. T. Smith & Son, 8 F. (2d) 299. 285(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Statutory presumption of negligence held rebutted, warranting directed verdict.-Walker v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., 8 F. (2d) 725. 286(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) In action for employee's death, evidence held sufficient to go to jury. Oregon-American Lumber Co. v. Simpson, 8 F. (2d) 946. 286 (24) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Negligence in making inspection of ladder held for jury.Whitehurst v. Standard Oil Co., 8 F. (2d) 728. 288(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.H.) Evidence held insufficient to go to jury on question of assumption of risk.-Davis v. Gray, 8 F. (2d) 843. MECHANICS' LIENS. I. NATURE, GROUNDS. AND SUBJECTMATTER IN GENERAL. 5 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Mechanic's lien law liberally construed.-Powell v. Baker Ice Mach. Co., 8 F. (2d) 125. IV. OPERATION AND EFFECT. (B) Property, Estates, and Rights Affected. 183 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Single lien on separate plants may be established, if material for equipment was furnished under single contract. -Powell v. Baker Ice Mach. Co., 8 F. (2d) 125. Ice-making and refrigerating equipment furnished under three written orders held furnished under single contract, entitling seller to single lien on separate plants.-Id. MILITARY LAW. See Army and Navy. MINES AND MINERALS. II. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON- (C) Leases, Licenses, and Contracts. 78(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Drilling for oil and gas held not a reasonable development, entitling lessee to an extension.-White v. Green River Gas Co., 8 F. (2d) 261. 78(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Court of equity may cancel lease in part.-White v. Green River Gas Co., 8 F. (2d) 261. III. OPERATION OF MINES, QUARRIES, AND WELLS. (B) Mining Partnerships and Companies. 97 (U.S.C.C.A.Wyo.) Evidence held to establish partnership arrangement in oil speculation enterprise broad enough to cover particular titles.-J. W. McKim Corporation v. Whelan, 8 F. (2d) 241. 101 (U.S.C.C.A.Wyo.) Antenuptial agreement assigning oil promoter's interest in particular titles held fraudulent as to partner in joint enterprise.-J. W. McKim Corporation v. Whelan, 8 F. (2d) 241. 105(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Oil corporation's execution of notes connected with contemplated purchase of refinery held not ultra vires.-Central Trust Co. of Illinois v. Southern Oil Corporation, 8 F. (2d) 338. MONOPOLIES. II. TRUSTS AND OTHER COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 12(1) (U. S. D. C. Or.) Only monopolies which directly obstruct interstate commerce are condemned by anti-trust legislation.-Tilbury v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 8 F. (2d) 898. 17(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Threats of refusal to sell to dealers not maintaining suggested prices held not unlawful.-U. S. v. Hudnut, S F. (2d) 1010. 20 (U.S.C.C.A.) Distinction between corporations and individuals made by Clayton Act not arbitrary classification.-Swift & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 8 F. (2d) 595. Provision of Clayton Act against acquisition of stock of competing corporation construed. -Id. 24(2) (U.S.D.C.Or.) Violation of anti-trust statute must be shown where relief sought against alleged monopoly is injunctive.-Tilbury v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 8 F. (2d) 898. Bill for injunction in longshoremen's suit against alleged unlawful combination of stevedores held fatally defective.-Id. 28 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Violation of, anti-trust statute must be shown where relief sought against alleged monopoly is for damages.-Tilbury v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 8 F. (2d) 898. Bill for damages in longshoremen's suit against alleged unlawful combination of stevedores held fatally defective.-Id. 31 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Violation of anti-trust statute must be shown where relief sought against alleged monopoly is through indictment. -Tilbury v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 8 F. (2d) 898. |