112 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Future advances clause available to assignee of mortgage.-In re Great Lakes Lumber Co., 8 F. (2d) 96.

(C) Property Mortgaged, and Estates of Parties Therein.

133 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Machinery held not to pass as appurtenance.-Anglo-American Mill Co. v. Dingler, 8 F. (2d) 493.

V. ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE OR DEBT. 244 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Assignment of note and real estate mortgage, executed in negotiations for unconsummated loan, held not to give assignee rights superior to intervening mortgagee.-Farmers' Bank of Greenville v. Blount, 8 F. (2d) 443,

270 (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Agreement for additional and cumulative security for loan, in event negotiations for larger loan failed, held

not established.-Farmers' Bank of Greenville v. Blount, 8 F. (2d) 443.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. See Counties; Street Railroads.

VII. CONTRACTS IN GENERAL.

244(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Municipality liable, like individual, for material for waterworks or lighting plant.-Village of Oshkosh v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 8 F. (2d) 329.

IX. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. (F) Enforcement of Assessments and Special Taxes.

530 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Oregon statute, declaring taxes void after 6 years, inapplicable to special assessments.-Staley v. City of Medford, 8 F. (2d) 314.

X. POLICE POWER AND REGULATIONS. (A) Delegation, Extent, and Exercise of Power.

603 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Police regulation not reviewable, unless arbitrary.-Heerdt v. City of Portland, Or., 8 F. (2d) 871.

Thing not fire hazard per se may be declared so by council.-Id.

Ordinance prohibiting fuel yards in residential districts held within police power.-Id.

Functions of council under ordinance respecting fuel yards is executive and administrative, to be exercised subservient to rules of law.-Id. XIII. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC DEBT, SECURITIES, AND TAXATION. (A) Power to Incur Indebtedness and Ex

penditures.

863 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Statute, held not to limit power to construct lighting plant to certain cost.-Village of Oshkosh v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 8 F. (2d) 329.

NATURALIZATION.

See Aliens, 60-711⁄2.

NAVIGABLE WATERS.

I. RIGHTS OF PUBLIC.

14(3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Tug, with scows in tow, held liable for penalty for dumping of scow within forbidden limits.-The Augustine, 8 F. (2d) 287.

NEGLIGENCE.

II. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.

59 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Injury natural, and probable cause of breach of duty actionable.Coast S. S. Co. v. Brady, 8 F. (2d) 16.

III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. (A) Persons Injured in General. 66(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Plaintiff, falling into elevator shaft, held not negligent.-Borger v. Kane, 8 F. (2d) 362.

(D) Comparative Negligence,

101 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Court not in error in deciding as matter of law pedestrian's negligence at crossing was not of less degree than railroad's negligence-Allnutt v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 8 F. (2d) 604.

101 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Employee's contributory negligence no defense under federal act, unless sole cause of injury.-Auchenbach v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 8 F. (2d) 350.

filing of amended complaint, bringing in anoth

er party defendant, held not abuse of discretion.-Sauter v. First Nat. Bank, 8 F. (2d) 121.

V. DEFECTS, OBJECTIONS, AND

AMENDMENT.

76(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Objection to defect of parties waived, where question not raised by answer or demurrer.-Jutila v. Frye, 8 F. (2d) 608.

PATENTS.

1. SUBJECTS OF PATENTS.

Cum 7 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Patents for alloys, methods used in making them, and particular uses thereof, may be secured.-Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

12 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Patents for alloys, machines used in making them, and particular uses thereof, may be secured.-Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

15 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Automobile tire treads not subject of design patent.-Follen v. Lambert Tire & Rubber Co., 8 F. (2d) 303.

Design patent should produce something new or original and ornamental in particular art. -Id.

15 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Automobile tire tread is not proper subject for design patent.-Pashek v. Dunlop Tyre & Rubber Co., 8 F. (2d) 640.

II. PATENTABILITY.

(A) Invention.

17 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Simplification does not necessarily imply invention.-Gaertner v. Dragich, 8 F. (2d) 568.

17 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Test of sufficiency of instructions as to specific proportions of metals in alloy sought to be patented stated.-Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

20 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Change of shape or form not invention.-Hayes Pump & Planter Co. v. Friend Mfg. Co., 8 F. (2d) 33.

be validly claimed.-Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

42 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Novel application of gravity may be invention of high order.-Rockwood v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 8 F. (2d) 682. success is

45 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Commercial evidence of patentable novelty only if proof of anticipation and lack of invention is doubtful.Fleischman Yeast Co. v. Federal Yeast Corporation, 8 F. (2d) 186.

(C) Utility.

48 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Design patent depends for utility on pleasing effect to eye, and must be ornamental and decorative.-Pashek v. Dunlop Tyre & Rubber Co., 8 F. (2d) 640.

(D) Anticipation.

51(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) No anticipation because device relied on might by modification accomplish function performed by patent in question.-Rockwood v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 8 F. (2d) 682.

54 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Nonuse of patent alleged to constitute anticipation of plaintiff's patent a strong indication of its lack of merit.-Rockwood v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 8 F. (2d) 682.

(E) Prior Public Use or Sale.

68 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Essentials of printed publication to serve purpose of anticipation stated.-Fleischman Yeast Co. v. Federal Yeast Corporation, 8 F. (2d) 186.

(F) Abandonment.

82 (U.S.C.C.A.Del.) Striking of claim from application without attempt to reinstate for four years is sufficient to establish abandonment.-Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. BrunswickBalke-Collender Co., 8 F. (2d) 41.

III. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS.

32 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Patentee, asserting commercial success as evidence of invention, has burden of showing that patent produced beneficial results.-Fleischman Yeast Co. v. Federal Yeast Corporation, 8 F. (2d) 186.

36 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Value and extensive use of device weighs heavily in favor of patent's validity.-Rockwood v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 8 F. (2d) 682.

IV, APPLICATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON.

112(1) (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Presumption in favor of decision of Patent Office as to who was inventor of device.-Wilkie v. Manhattan Rubber Mfg. Co., 8 F. (2d) 785.

112(3) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Grant of patent is prima facie proof of novelty and patentability. Fleischman Yeast Co. v. Federal Yeast Corporation, 8 F. (2d) 186.

36 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Commercial utility, to be evidence of invention, must be due to improvement of patent in suit.--Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

(B) Novelty.

37 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Whether prior patents and disclosures are for alloy per se, process or machine used in manufacture, or particular use made of alloy or article made from it, need not be determined.-Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

Patentee cannot claim earlier disclosures, though not claimed or patented.-Id.

Alloy per se cannot be claimed, if resistance element made of such alloy is old.-Id.

40 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) One discovering new use for old alloy cannot repatent and obtain valid claims for such alloy per se.-Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

41 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) When combination of elements or ingredients is old, only specific proportions, method of manufacture, or use can

sumption of novelty and utility, which defendant has burden of rebutting.-Electro-Bleaching Gas Co. v. Paradon Engineering Co., 8 F. (2d) 890.

112(3) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Great weight to be given to granting of patent of any kind by Patent Office.-Follen v. Lambert Tire & Rubber Co., 8 F. (2d) 303.

V. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF LETTERS PATENT.

120 (U.S.D.C.Md.) As between copending applications, respective filing dates fix respective dates of invention in absence of other evidence. Fleischman Yeast Co. v. Federal Yeast Corporation, 8 F. (2d) 186.

129 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Defendant charged with joint infringement through conspiracy to violate consent decree against codefendants, held entitled to test validity.-Gerosa v. Columbia Metal Stamping & Die Co., 8 F. (2d) 611.

129 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Defendant, adopting construction of patented baseball board, estopped to deny its utility.-Star Ball Player Co. v. Baseball Display Co., 8 F. (2d) 46.

may

157(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Inventor choose own language in describing invention or stating claims, which must be given plain, usual, and ordinary meaning.-Lakewood Engineering Co. v. Stein, 8 F.(2d) 713.

157(1) (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Relation of patent in suit to other related patents, including those issued to patentee, considered in ascertaining effect on art.-Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

157 (2) (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Patent revolutionizing art more readily sustained, when patentability is doubtful.-Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

161 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Patentee given benefit of forward movement resulting from patent in suit only.-Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

(B) Limitation of Claims.

165 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) If claims clear and distinct, patentee may not go beyond language. -Lakewood Engineering Co. v. Stein, 8 F. (2d) 713.

167(1) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Specifications may be read and construed with claims for purpose of ascertaining true meaning.-Fleischman Yeast Co. v. Federal Yeast Corporation, 8 F. (2d) 186.

167(1) (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Specification cannot be used to change claim.-Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. (2d) 765.

can trace their lineage to the prior art.-Star Ball Player Co. v. Baseball Display Co., 8 F. (2d) 46.

(C) Suits in Equity.

283 (!) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Suit for infringement maintainable on issued patent, pending interference declared against patent with another application-Kuhlke Mach. Co. v. Miller Rubber Co., 8 F.(2d) 614.

283 (2) (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Patentee's right to injunction not defeated because defendant had ceased manufacture and exploitation of infringing machine.-Star Ball Player Co. v. Baseball Display Co., 8 F. (2d) 46.

fringing device for others held chargeable with 287 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Manufacturer of inknowledge of consent decree against them and liable as joint infringer.-Gerosa v. Columbia Metal Stamping & Die Co., 8 F. (2d) 611.

289 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Suit for infringement barred by laches, where not commenced until after 13 years of unprevented infringement, after warning given.-Wilkie v. Manhattan Rubber Mfg. Co., 8 F. (2d) 785.

313 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Suit not dismissed on ground of triviality of infringement, on mere unadmitted allegations of answer.-Kuhlke Mach. Co. v. Miller Rubber Co., 8 F. (2d) 614.

324(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Merits of controversy, not passed on by trial court, will not be determined by appellate court.-Willard v. Union Tool Co., 8 F. (2d) 264.

327 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Decree in patent infringement suit held res judicata in subsequent suit between same parties.-Tucker Mfg. Co. v. Cross, 8 F. (2d) 994.

XIII. DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY, CON-
STRUCTION, AND INFRINGEMENT
OF PARTICULAR PATENTS.

⭑328.

UNITED STATES.

DESIGN.

52,962. Automobile tire tread, held invalid (D. C. Ohio) 8 F. (2d) 640.

55,600. Tire tread surface, held invalid and not infringed (D. C. Ohio) 8 F. (2d) 303.

ORIGINAL.

857,770. Candy-pulling machine, held valid and infringed (Č. C. A. Pa.) 8 F.(2d)

XII. INFRINGEMENT.

even

(A) What Constitutes Infringement. 236 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Substitution, though disguised to some extent, did not avoid infringement of patent for dry pipe valve used in sprinkler system.-Rockwood v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 8 F. (2d) 682.

238 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Infringement not avoided because one part in device constituting infringement performs two functions.-Rockwood v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 8 F. (2d) 682.

243 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Defendant, gathering different elements into one combination, cannot deny infringement because all elements 8 F. (2d)-67

900,055.

131.

Cement spreading machine, claims 1 and 3, held not infringed (C. C. A. Ohio) 8 F. (2d) 713. Improved squeeze rolls for wool-washing machinery, held anticipated (D. C. N. J.) 8 F. (2d) 785. Talking machine with amplifying horn inclosed in cabinet, claim 19, held invalid (C. C. A. Del.) 8 F. (2d) 41. 962,946. Nozzle, held void (C. C. A. N. Y.) 8 F. (2d) 33.

946,442.

982,217. Flexible car wheel with metal tires, held not infringed (C. C. A. Ill.) 8 F. (2d) 609.

986,698. Railway tie plate, claims 1, 2, 5, held invalid (C. C. A, Ill.) 8 F. (2d) 995. 990,210. Casings or coverings relating to lubrication of vehicle springs, held not infringed (C. C. A. Ohio) 8 F. (2d) 734.

1,057,423. Metal alloy, claims 1 to 4, held invalid; claims 5 to 8, held valid and not infringed (D. C. Mich.) 8 F. (2d) 765. Casings or coverings relating to lubrication of vehicle springs, claim 2, held not infringed (Č. C. A. Ohio) 8 F. (2d) 734.

1,135,186.

1,141,520. Superheater boiler, claims 4, 6, 7,

and 9, held not infringed (D. C. N. Y.) 8 F. (2d) 618.

1,142,361. Process for antisepticizing water with chlorin, claims 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10, held valid and infringed (D. C. N. Y.) 8 F. (24) 890.

1,219,683. Chain for use in jewelry art, claims 2, 3, and 4, held valid and infringed (D. C. R. I.) 8 F. (2d) 557. 1,263,879. Crank case repair arm, held invalid (C. C. A. Ohio) 8 F. (2d) 611. 1,321,940. Baseball board, claims 11, 12, 21, 23, and 24, held valid and infringed (D. C. N. J.) 8 F. (2d) 46.

1,381,172. Davenport bed. held valid and infringed (C. C. A. Minn.) 8 F. (2d) 972.

1,402,738. Talking machine with horn inclosed in cabinet, claim 1, held invalid (C. C. A. Del.) 8 F. (2d) 41. 1,413,467. Net roller on fishing boats, held invalid (C. C. A. Cal.) 8 F. (2d) 568. 1,449,103. Process for making yeast, held valid and infringed (D. C. Md.) 8 F. (2d) 186.

1,449,127. Process for making yeast. held invalid (D. C. Md.) 8 F. (2d) 186.

42 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) In federal court, payment applied first on interest, and balance on principal.-Ohio Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Willys Corporation, 8 F. (2d) 463.

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS. (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Right to practice subject to state's police power.-Butcher v. Maybury, 8 F. (2d) 155.

Legislature may prescribe qualifications and commit regulatory power to board or officer. -Id.

2 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Statutory qualifications of drugless healers held not unreasonable or arbitrary. Butcher v. Maybury, 8 F. (2d) 155. Statute fixing procedure for revocation of drugless healer's license held constitutional. -Id.

(1) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Physician's right to practice a property right.-Butcher v. Maybury, 8 F. (2d) 155.

For pleadings in particular actions or proceed-
ings, see also the various specific topics.
For review of rulings relating to pleadings, see
Appeal and Error.

I. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN GENERAL.

8(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Averment that legacies had passed to petitioners because executors assented there to held a conclusion, negatived by other averments, and petitioners' petition properly dismissed.-Holt v. Daniel Sons & Palmer Co., 8 F. (2d) 700.

8(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Allegation that sheriff and deputy were acting officially at times complained of held mere conclusion of pleader. -Murray v. Low, 8 F. (2d) 352.

V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION.

228 (U.S.D.C.La.) For purpose of exception of no cause of action, allegations of petition are to be taken as true.-Corona Coal Co. v. Davis, 8 F.(2d) 297.

VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER.

of

236(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Amendment pleadings is largely within discretion of court. -Sauter v. First Nat. Bank, 8 F. (2d) 121.

XIII. DEFECTS AND OBJECTIONS, WAIV-
ER, AND AIDER BY VERDICT
OR JUDGMENT.

433 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) If complaint wholly fails to state cause of action, defect is fatal and not aided by verdict or findings of court.-U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Whittaker, 8 F. (2d) 455.

Where bond conditioned on defendant's appealing to Supreme Court, failure to aver, în action thereon, that no appeal was taken, was fatal to recovery.-Id.

PLEDGES.

13 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Description of merchandise accounts sought to be assigned should be sufficient to identify them.-In re Brinson, 8 F. (2d) 667.

POISONS.

4 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Smoking opium held not excepted from narcotic acts as "preparation" or "remedy."-Ng Sing v. U. S., 8 F.(2d) 919. Act prohibiting sales from unstamped packgister.-Id. ages not limited to persons required to re

9 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence of possession of narcotic drugs held to make defendant's guilt question for jury, and to support conviction.-Ng Sing v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 919.

Possession of smoking opium in unstamped packages creates presumption of guilt for jury. -Id.

9 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Testimony that defendant was engaged in narcotics and slave running held admissible in rebuttal of testimony as to business of general merchant.-Gin Bock Sing v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 976.

POLICE POWER.

See Constitutional Law, 81; Municipal Corporations, 603.

POST OFFICE.

III. OFFENSES AGAINST POSTAL LAWS. 35 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Letter held direct aid in inducing public to buy certificates, in accordance with fraudulent scheme.-Marr v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 231.

35 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Purchase of stock and prosecution for obtaining money under false payment of premiums held no defense to stock purchase plan.-Kriebel v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 692.

No defense that acts charged were acts of corporation.-Id.

35 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) That scheme to defraud was promoted in corporate name is not available to controlling member of corporation as defense.-Redmond v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 24.

Whether defendants were in position to make pretended purchases of securities held immaterial, if they did not intend to do so.-Id. 35 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) False representation must have been made with fraudulent intent.Yusem v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 6.

35 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) What false representations will sustain charge of using mails to defraud stated.-Slakoff v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 9.

48 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Charge held sufficiently to allege persons to be defrauded.Kriebel v. U. S., 8 F.(2d) 692.

-Id.

48 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Scheme to defraud need not be described with more particularity than is necessary to apprise defendant of its nature.-Redmond v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 24.

48 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Indictment sufficient.-Tank v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 697.

held'

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Facts and inferences held to support conviction for using mails in execution of fraudulent scheme.-Marr v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 231.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Oral evidence to prove scheme to obtain money by false pretenses held competent.-Kriebel v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 692.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Evidence held erroneously admitted in prosecution for use of mails to defraud.--Redmond v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 24.

Confirmation of purchases of securities received by United States marshal in possession of defendant's office held properly admitted in prosecution for use of mails to defraud.-Id.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Intent to defraud purchasers of stock held inferable from proven facts.-Wuichet v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 561.

Prior income tax returns of company held admissible in prosecution for use of mails to defraud purchasers of stock.-Id.

Belief in ultimate success of corporation considered only on belief of truth of representations as to financial condition.-Id.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Conviction for use of mails to defraud held not supported by evidence.-Yusem v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 6.

as to

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Testimony transactions between witness and defendants held properly admitted in prosecution for fraudulent use of mails.-Rasmussen v. U. S., 8 F. (2d) 948.

Letter held admissible in prosecution for prosecution for fraudulent use of mails.-Id. 50 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) When conduct of business through mail becomes criminal misuse of mails to defraud solely for jury, if facts justify inquiry.-U. S. v. Nix, 8 F.(2d) 759.

PRACTICE.

For practice in particular actions and proceedings, see the various specific topics.

PRESCRIPTION.

See Adverse Possession; Limitation of Actions.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

See Brokers.

I. THE RELATION.

(A) Creation and Existence. 14(1) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Agency may exist without contract.-Huckabee v. Pullman Co., 8 F. (2d) 43.

Relations between parties may create agency. -Id.

III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO THIRD PERSONS.

(B) Undisclosed Agency. 143(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Knowledge by plaintiff that coal sold under contract was to be furnished other companies did not make them parties to contract.-Pickands, Mather & Co. v. H. A. & D. W. Kuhn & Co., 8 F. (2d) 704.

(E) Notice to Agent.

177(6) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Acceptance of proceeds of stolen bonds, under facts shown held to charge receiver with knowledge and responsibility for theft.-Porter v. Beha, 8 F. (2d) 65.

178(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Knowledge of agent chargeable to principal.-Porter v. Beha, 8 F. (2d) 65.

178(1) (U.S.D.C.Or.) Imputation to principal of knowledge of agent limited by agent's authority. Stipcich v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 8 F. (2d) 285.

owner,

III. DISCHARGE OF SURETY. 123(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) That giving notice to surety of contractor's default, did not give notice of prior default, which he waived held not to bar owner from recovering damages sustained in completing building.Community Bldg. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 8 F. (2d) 678.

IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS.

142 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Surety on bond of secretary of cotton factorage company held not relieved from liability on theory that company had incurred no actual loss.-Maryland Casualty Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Los Angeles, 8 F. (2d) 216.

to

held 161 (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Evidence show that obligor did not request depositor not to withdraw deposits, nor agree to renew bond. -Montana Life Ins. Co. v. American Surety Co. of New York, 8 F. (2d) 801.

PRISONS.

15 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Commutation of sentence before termination of term of imprisonment held to carry with it cancellation of unpaid fine.-U. S. v. Debruyn, 8 F. (2d) 319. Document in nature of pardon or commutation construed most favorably to prisoner.-Id.

PROHIBITION.

See Intoxicating Liquors.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

See Municipal Corporations, 530.

PUBLIC LANDS.

II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF UNITED STATES.

(H) Grants in Aid of Railroads, 75 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Lands excepted from grant when it becomes effective do not pass thereunder, though prior rights are subsequently abandoned.-U. S. v. Oregon & C. R. Co., 8 F. (2d) 645.

81(1) (U.S.D.C.Or.) Adjustment of grant necessary to determine deficiency within place limits.-U. S. v. Oregon & C. R. Co., 8 F. (2d) 645.

Indemnity lands required to make good a railroad grant not subject to other disposition by Congress.-Id.

88(1) (U.S.D.C.Or.) Act requiring accounting for proceeds of lands sold by railroad in vio