THAMES TOWBOAT COMPANY, Libelant Appellee, v. James FIELDS, Respondent Appellee and Andrew W. Mellon, Director General of Railroads, as Agent, under Section 206 of the Transportation Act of 1920, Respondent Impleaded Appellant.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 9, 1928.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Macklin, Brown, Lenahan & Speer, of New York City (Horace L. Cheyney, of New York City, of counsel), for Director General.
Leo J. Curren, of New York City (Frank H. Foley, of New York City, of counsel), for James Fields.
Park, Mattison & Lynch, of New York City (Samuel Park and Anthony V. Lynch, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel), for libelant appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Decree (287 F. 155) affirmed.
Jack TURNER, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. April 23, 1928.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville; Henry Clay McDowell, Judge.
Hugh T. Williams and John W. Carter, Jr., all of Danville, Va., for plaintiff in error.
J. C. Shaffer, U. S. Atty., of Roanoke, Va., and C. E. Gentry, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Charlottesville, Va.
Before WADDILL and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and McCLINTIC, District Judge.
PER CURIAM. This case is ruled by that of Dodson v. United States, 23, F. (2d)
END OF CASES IN VOL. 25 F. (2d)
THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Reporter Digests and Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
8 (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Monthly accounts stated between correspondent national banks held not subject to impeachment, except for fraud, ac- cident, or mistake.-Keyes v. First Nat. Bank, 25 F. (2d) 684, affirming judgment (D. C.) 20 F. (2d) 678.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
1. NATURE AND NECESSITY.
3 (U.S.D.C.Iowa) Iowa statute changing prescribed form of certificate of acknowledg- ment held not to change essentials prescribed in another statute (Code Iowa 1924, §§ 10103, 10094; Code Iowa 1897, § 2959).-In re Meak- ins, 25 F. (2d) 305.
II. TAKING AND CERTIFICATE.
32 (U.S.D.C.Iowa) Certificate of acknowl- edgment indorsed on chattel mortgages held valid, though title of acknowledging officer did not appear in body of certificate (Code Iowa 1924, §§ 10103, 10094; Code Iowa 1897, § 2959). -In re Meakins, 25 F. (2d) 305.
33 (U.S.D.C.Iowa) Subscription is part of certificate of acknowledgment.-In re Meakins, 25 F.(2d) 305.
III. OPERATION AND EFFECT.
53 (U.S.D.C.Iowa) Notary's certificate of acknowledgment to conditional sale contract, not mentioning in body name, title, or county of subscribing notary, held insufficient as basis for record (Code Iowa 1924, § 10094).-In re Holley, 25 F.(2d) 979.
II. NATURE AND FORM. 22 (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Action to impress trust on note in possession of bank's receiver in favor of estate of plaintiff's ward is purely equitable.-Williams v. Stone, 25 F. (2d) 588.
ADMIRALTY.
1. JURISDICTION.
5 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Libel by Norwegian subject against Norwegian vessel for injuries sustained at United States port, due to unsea- worthiness, held within federal court's juris- diction. The Hanna Nielsen, 25 F. (2d) 984.
18 (U.S.D.C.S.C.) Jurisdiction of United States maritime courts, independent of foreign law, extends to torts committed in territorial waters of foreign powers.-Galef v. U. S., 25 F. (2d) 134.
II. REMEDIES IN PERSONAM AND IN REM.
II. EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION.
18 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Presence of aliens is matter of governmental consent, not of right.- Lai To Hong v. Ebey, 25 F. (2d) 714.
Congress may determine length of stay of aliens and make question determinable by ad- ministrative officer.-Id.
20 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Act enlarging scope of powers of Secretary of Labor with respect to deportation of aliens held within power of Con- gress (Immigration Act 1917 [Comp. St. §§ 959, 960, 42894a-42891⁄4u]).-Lai To Hong v. Ebey. 25 F. (2d) 714.
25 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Adopted son of na- tive born American citizen of Chinese race is admissible if adopted before January 1, 1924 (Immigration Act 1924, § 28 [8 USCA § 224]). Tillinghast v. Chin Mon ex rel. Chin Yuen, 25 F. (2d) 262.
31 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Immigration Act of 1917 held applicable to deportation of Chinese alien entering United States by fraud before passage of act (Immigration Act 1917, §§ 19, 38 [8 USCA §§ 155, 178]).—Lai To Hong v. Ebey, 25 F. (2d) 714.
32(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Jurisdiction of Sec- retary of Labor in deportation proceeding held not lost by delay of over two years between hearing and decision (Immigration Act 1917 [Comp. St. §§ 959, 960, 42894a-42891⁄4u]).— Lai To Hong v. Ebey, 25 F.(2d) 714.
32 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Alien has no consti- tutional right to judicial hearing on question of deportation.-Lai To Hong v. Ebey, 25 F. (2d)
Chinese workman entering United States fraudulently, held not entitled to judicial hear- ing in deportation proceedings where alienage was not denied (Immigration Act 1917, §§ 19, 38 [8 USCA §§ 155, 178]).-Id.
32 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Chinese person sought to be deported had burden of proving right to remain in United States under claim of (1025)
39 (U.S.D.C.S.C.) Claimant, not demanding trial or serving notice of trial, held not entitled 25 F. (2d)-65
citizenship (8 USCA § 284).-Tom Ung Chai v. Burnett, 25 F. (2d) 574.
32 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Chinese claiming right to enter as adopted son of citizen must show Chinese adoption law.-Tillinghast v. Chin Mon ex rel. Chin Yuen, 25 F. (2d) 262.
32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Discrepancies in testimony of Chinese person held to justify his deportation on ground he was not born in Unit- ed States.-Tom Ung Chai v. Burnett, 25 F. (2d) 574.
32 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Evidence held in- sufficient to show Chinese applicant was adopted son of citizen.-Tillinghast v. Chin Mon ex rel. Chin Yuen, 25 F. (2d) 262.
32(8) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Discrepancies in testimony of Chinese applicant's alleged fa- ther and brother held too insignificant to war- rant exclusion.-Jew Yut Chew v. Tillinghast, 25 F.(2d) 886.
32(9) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Constitutional right of accused to speedy trial does not apply to alien in deportation proceedings.-Lai To Hong v. Ebey, 25 F. (2d) 714.
32(9) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Exclusion by rea- son of insignificant discrepancies in testimony of Chinese applicant's alleged father and broth- er held to show unfair hearing.-Jew Yut Chew v. Tillinghast, 25 F. (2d) 886.
32(12) (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Chinese person having denied making admissions to immigration authorities discrediting his citizenship claim, question of duress was not presented on review. Tom Ung Chai v. Burnett, 25 F. (2d) 574.
32(13) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Order deporting Chinese alien held not superseded by appeal not timely taken.-U. S. ex rel. Chin Thyn v. Loisel, 25 F. (2d) 302.
46 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Member of Six Na- tions tribe residing in Canada held authorized to cross boundary to work as skilled structural iron worker.-McCandless v. U. S. ex rel. Diabo, 25 F.(2d) 71, affirming order (D. C.) U. S. ex rel. Diabo v. McCandless, 18 F. (2d) 282.
46 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Permit for temporary visit abroad did not give alien, in excluded class because of illiteracy, right to re-enter United States (8 USCA § 210, par. [f]; Immigration Act Feb. 5, 1917, § 3 [8 USCA § 136]).—Ex parte Di Stephano, 25 F. (2d) 902.
512 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Italian clarinetist, admitted for temporary stay, did not forfeit ex- emption as "artist" by failing to claim it orig- inally (Comp. St. § 42891⁄2a(d); 8 USCA § 155).-U. S. ex rel. Gentile v. Day, 25 F. (2d) 717.
53 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Alien seaman, allowed to land for purpose of reshipping foreign, was subject to deportation after reasonable time (Immigration Act 1917 18 USCA § 101 et seq.).-Ex parte Di Stephano, 25 F.(2d) 902.
53 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Alien "admitted and dis- charged for permanent residence as returning to his home in the United States" October 22, 1923, held not subject to deportation (Act May 11, 1922 [42 Stat. 540]; Act May 26, 1924 [43 Stat. 153]).-U. S. ex rel. Hentschell v. Mc- Candless, 25 F. (2d) 1013.
~54 (17) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Appellate court, on habeas corpus by alien, is concerned only as to whether evidence supported finding of de- portation. Mita v. Bonham, 25 F. (2d) 11.
IV. NATURALIZATION.
62(3) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Provision restricting naturalization of alien seamen, serving on ves- sels of foreign registry should be narrowly_con- strued (Act June 29, 1906, § 4. subd. 7. as added by Act May 9, 1918 [8 USCA § 384]).— U. S. v. Nicolich, 25 F.(2d) 245, affirming judgment (D. C.) 17 F. (2d) 611. and followed in (C. C. A.) U. S. v. Persson, 25 F. (2d) 247. Seaman admitted to United States as immi- grant, who established domicile in good faith, held entitled to naturalization notwithstanding service on ships of foreign registry (Act June 29, 1906, § 4, subd. 7. as added by Act May 9, 1918 [8 USCA § 384]).—Id.
III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE. (D) Finality of Determination. 78(2) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Order service of process on ground that person served was not agent of defendant corporation having and appealable.-Henderson v. Richardson Co., no regular place of business in district is final 25 F.(2d) 225.
IV. RIGHT OF REVIEW. (B) Estoppel, Waiver, or Agreements Affecung Right.
161 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Party accepting part of property claimed by him and awarded by judgment is not estopped from appealing. Mudd v. Perry, 25 F. (2d) 85, affirming decree (D. C.) 14 F.(2d) 430.`
193(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Failure of bill of note indorser suing coindorsers for contribution to allege maker's insolvency, not raised by ob- jection in limine, held immaterial on appeal, where record showed insolvency.-Hunn Lewis, 25 F. (2d) 271.
54 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Evidence in de- portation proceeding held to support finding that alien was member of or affiliated with organiza- tion advocating overthrow of government (8 USCA § 137).-Jurgans v. Seaman, 25 F. (2d) 35, affirming judgment (D. C.) Ex parte Jur-197(8) gans, 17 F. (2d) 507.
54 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Evidence held to sustain deportation of alien for giving assist- ance to prostitute.-Mita v. Bonham, 25 F. (2d) 11.
54(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Denial of fair hearing in deportation proceeding held not es- tablished (S USCA § 137).-Jurgans v. Seaman, 25 F.(2d) 35, affirming judgment (D. C.) Ex parte Jurgans, 17 F. (2d) 507.
(U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Objection that waiver was not pleaded, not made during trial, could not be raised on appeal.-New York Un- derwriters' Fire Ins. Co. v. Malham & Co., 25 F. (2d) 415.
203 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Appellate court will not review objections to evidence not pre- sented to trial court.-American Petroleum Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 25 F. (2d) 441.
231(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Where objections to alleged incompetent testimony stated no
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
grounds therefor, they are not open to consider- ation on appeal.-Continental Ins. Co. of City of New York v. Fortner, 25 F. (2d) 398.
236 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Point relative to variance is not well taken, in absence of motion to dismiss complaint at close of case.-Trans- marine Corporation v. Charles H. Levitt & Co., 25 F. (2d) 275.
237(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Appellate court will not review sufficiency of evidence not pre- sented to trial court by request to direct verdict. -American Petroleum Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 25 F. (2d) 441.
VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE. (A) Time of Taking Proceedings. 356 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Statute limiting time for appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional.- Broders v. Lage, 25 F. (2d) 288, dismissing ap- peal (D. C.) In re Lage, 19 F. (2d) 153.
(D) Writ of Error, Citation, or Notice. ←407(1) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Counsel special- ly appearing to move to quash service of process must be deemed defendant's agents, on whom citation can be served on appeal from order granting motion.-Henderson v. Richardson Co., 25 F.(2d) 225.
(E) Entry, Docketing, and Appearance.
435 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Objection to service of citation after expiration of time for appeal- ing held waived by accepting service and gen- eral appearance in appellate court.-Hunn v. Lewis, 25 F. (2d) 271.
VIII. EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF CAUSE OR PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR. (A) Powers and Proceedings of Lower
(A) Matters to be Shown by Record. 499 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Incompetency of evidence will not be reviewed where record did not show such objection was made.-Clark v. McNeill, 25 F. (2d) 247.
(B) Scope and Contents of Record. 526 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Record on appeal should contain report and findings of master, ex- ceptions thereto and master's certificate of evi- dence.-Hunn v. Lewis, 25 F.(2d) 271.
(K) Questions Presented for Review.
687 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Assignments of error reciting that court erred in special master's find- ings held futile, in absence from record of mas- ter's findings, exceptions thereto.-Hunn Lewis, 25 F. (2d) 271.
694(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Assignments error reciting that court erred in special mas- ter's findings held futile, in absence from rec- ord of certificate of evidence.-Hunn v. Lewis, 25 F.(2d) 271.
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
ment.-Tillinghast v. Chin Mon ex rel. Chin Yuen, 25 F. (2d) 262.
~~~731 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Sufficiency of evidence to show applicant was adopted son of citizen held presented by assignment of error in ruling in habeas corpus proceeding that applicant was unlawfully restrained of liberty.-Tillinghast v. Chin Mon ex rel. Chin Yuen, 25 F. (2d) 262.
733 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Assignments that de- cree is contrary to evidence and that court erred in holding held sufficient to invoke jurisdiction of appellate court.-Coats v. Barton, 25 F. (2d) 813.
750 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Assignments be- cause court found certain facts and failed to render judgment for plaintiff, and because of certain declarations of law, presented no ques- tion, except whether findings supported judg- ment.-Dreyer Commission Co. v. Hellmich, 25 F. (2d) 408.
XIII. DISMISSAL, WITHDRAWAL, OR
776 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Appellant cannot as of right dismiss own appeal.-Greenville Bank- ing & Trust Co. v. Selcow, 25 F. (2d) 78.
(A) Scope and Extent in General.
837 (11) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Hearsay testi- mony, not objected to, is properly before re- viewing court.-Clark v. McNeill, 25 F. (2d) 247.
843 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Question arising on appeal from order dismissing suit as to some defendants need not be considered on appeal from order quashing service of process on in- dividual defendant as corporate defendants' agent.-Henderson v. Richardson Co., 25 F. (2d)
(B) Interlocutory, Collateral, and Supple- mentary Proceedings and Questions.
874 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Decision remand- ing cause removed cannot be reviewed on ap- peal from decree in ancillary suit for injanc- tion.-Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Hen- sley, 25 F. (2d) 861.
(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
882 (21) (U.S.C.C.A.) Respondent, who led appellant to believe record was sufficient, could not claim on appeal that point was not covered by findings.-Fraser v. Commissioner of Inter- nal Revenue, 25 F. (2d) 653.
909 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) It will be pre- sumed on appeal, in support of decree award- ing escrow deposit to seller, that seller was able to perform, where record does not show contrary.-Barrett v. Gay, 25 F. (2d) 565.
918(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) It will be assumed that, if objection had been made to alleged in- sufficiency of pleadings, court would have grant- ed permission to amend.-Continental Ins. Co. of City of New York v. Fortner, 25 F. (2d) 398.
927 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) In reviewing di- rected verdict for defendant, evidence is con- sidered in light most favorable to plaintiff.— Clark v. McNeill, 25 F. (2d) 247.
927 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) In reviewing judgment for plaintiff, after refusal to direct verdict for defendant, appellate court must ac- cept plaintiff's testimony as true.-Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Waid, 25 F. (2d) 366.
927 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Court, reviewing directed verdict for defendant, views evidence most favorably to plaintiff.-Croty v. Pullman Co., 25 F. (2d) 563.
(F) Discretion of Lower Court. 961 (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Whether dedimus potestatem is necessary to prevent failure or delay of justice is for trial court to determine
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan » |