Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

that there shall be several inventories of the various properties, real and personal, aforesaid, belonging to each of said defendant corporations, and several inventories of the personal property leased by the defendant United States Shipbuilding Company to each of the other corporations, now remaining on hand, including such personal property as has replaced other personal property consumed.

(7) It is further ordered that the complainants shall from time to time cause to be filed in this court, except as already filed, certified copies of all orders or decrees of a general nature in any way affecting the property situated within this district, made or which may be made by said Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey in the primary cause pending in said court.

(8) It is further ordered that the clerk of this court enter on the minutes a copy of the order of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey appointing said receiver, immediately following the entry of this order, unless the same has already been entered.

(9) It is further ordered that the receiver shall from time to time account to this court for all moneys received or which may be received by him from any matter or thing within this district; that he shall dispose of the same as shall hereafter from time to time be directed by it; and that he shall from time to time, as the same come in, deposit all such moneys in his name as receiver in this cause in some national banking association or associations within this district officially designated as depositaries for the receipt of moneys of the United States, and shall there retain the same, except as drawn out for the purposes of the receivership within this district, or as ordered by this court.

(10) It is further ordered that, until further order of this court, no stockholders' meeting of either the Hyde Windlass Company or the Bath Iron Works shall take any action, except to adjourn to some future time, and no transfers of shares of the capital stock of either of said corporations shall be made upon their respective books, nor new certificates issued therefor.

(11) It is further ordered that nothing herein contained shall be held to impair the title or possession by or of the Hyde Windlass Company, or by or of the Bath Iron Works, of their present respective cash, bills or accounts receivable, materials now on hand or ordered, or which may hereafter be ordered, or received, for the completion of contracts already entered into, or amounts due or to come due to either of them on account of such existing contracts, or to give said receiver control of them, or any of them, or any right or title therein or thereto, except so far as he may be entitled to be paid therefrom as hereinbefore set out, if he proves so entitled.

(12) It is further ordered that either party to this cause, or the receiver, and also the Mercantile Trust Company, may from time to time apply for modifications of this order and decree, or for orders or decrees supplemental hereto or amendatory hereof.

(13) It is further ordered that a copy of this order and decree, certified by the clerk and delivered to one of the masters aforesaid, shall be their commission in reference to all matters to be done by them.

NEW ENGLAND PHONOGRAPH CO. v. DAWSON CO. (Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island. March 17, 1903.) No. 2,627. In Equity. Howard W. Hayes, for complainant. Elisha K. Camp, for defendant.

BROWN, District Judge. While not satisfied that upon this petition for a preliminary injunction the court should go as far as to dismiss the bill for laches, I am of the opinion that the complainant's apparent acquiescence for many years in the violation of its alleged rights, the certificate showing that the complainant corporation has ceased for a considerable time to transact business, and the peculiar provisions of the agreement of October 12, 1888, raise serious doubts as to the existence of any rights arising from said agreement at the date of filing the bill. The doubts as to the complainant's right to relief, its acquiescence, and an entire lack of diligence require the denial of the petition for a preliminary injunction. Petition denied.

UNITED STATES v. JULIUS WILE BRO. & CO. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. August 1, 1903.) No. 3,219. On application by the United States for a review of the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, which reversed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. See G. A. 4736. D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty. Albert Comstock, for appellees.

HAZEL, District Judge. This case comes within the ruling in Nicholas v. United States (C. C.) 122 Fed. 892. The merchandise involved consists of liqueurs commonly known as creme de menthe, abricotine, maraschino, and anisette. Counsel for importers insists that the imported articles are precisely within the terms of section 3 of the tariff act of 1897 (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, Free List, 30 Stat. 203 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1690]), and of the reciprocal commercial agreement by which the duties are reduced upon "brandies, or other spirits manufactured or distilled," in that liqueurs are spirits manufactured or distilled. The court will follow the decision in the Nicholas Case without passing upon this point. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers, sustaining the protest of the importers, is affirmed.

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. PHILADELPHIA, B. & W. R. CO. et al. (Circuit Court, D. Delaware. August 21, 1903.) No. 242. In Equity. Willard Saulsbury and Rush Taggert, for complainant. Ward & Gray and John G. Johnson, for defendants.

BRADFORD, District Judge. This case resembles in its nature and circumstances that of the Western Union Telegraph Company against the Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad Company and the Delaware Railroad Company (this day decided by this court) 124 Fed. 974. For reasons similar to those expressed in the opinion in that case, a preliminary injunction must be awarded. Let an interlocutory decree be prepared accordingly.

In re ROSENBERG (two cases). (District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. September 25, 1903.) Nos. 358, 697. In Bankruptcy. On certificate of referee concerning ownership of fund. See (D. C.) 116 Fed. 402. Greenwald & Mayer, for Philip Rosenberg bankrupt. Alexander Simpson, Jr., and John Weaver, for creditors. James Collins Jones, and George B. Johnson, for trustee of estate of Emanuel Rosenberg, bankrupt.

J. B. MCPHERSON, District Judge. I have read this voluminous testimony with special reference to the crucial question in the case, namely: Was Simon Abeles a party to (what may be assumed for the present to have been) the fraudulent failure of Emanuel Rosenberg in the spring of 1898? And I have come to the same conclusion that was forced upon the referee. I see no advantage in discussing the evidence in detail, and shall content myself, therefore, with saying that in my opinion the answer to the question must be that the complicity of Mr. Abeles has not been established. The result is that he must be held to have acquired a valid title to Emanuel Rosenberg's goods in the West Chester store at the sheriff's sale in June, and to have been able to transmit a valid title to Philip Rosenberg several months afterwards. The fund in controversy, therefore, which was produced by the sale of these goods, belongs to the bankrupt estate of Philip Rosenberg, and must be distributed among his creditors. The exceptions are dismissed, and the report of the referee is affirmed.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 124.

INDEX.

ABANDONMENT.

Of insurance, see "Insurance," § 4.

Discharge from employment, see "Master and
Servant," § 1.

Freight, see "Shipping," § 3.

Of street railroad franchise, see "Street Rail- Infringement of patent. see "Patents," §§ 8, 9.
roads," § 1.

ABATEMENT.

Pleas in abatement, see "Pleading," § 2.

ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL.

Judgment as bar to another action, see "Judg-
nient," § 3.

Pleas in abatement, see "Pleading," § 2.

ACCEPTANCE.

Of offer or proposal, see "Contracts," § 1.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

Injuries to tow, see "Towage."

Municipal Bonds, see "Municipal Corporations,"
§ 2.

Personal injuries, see "Carriers," § 3; "Master
and Servant," § 2.

Price of goods, see "Sales," § 4.
Services, see "Work and Labor."

Particular forms of special relief.

See "Injunction"; "Quieting Title"; "Specific
Performance.'
Determination of adverse claims to real prop-
erty, see "Quieting Title."

Dissolution of corporation, see "Corporations,"
§ 5.

Enforcement or foreclosure of lien, see "Rail-
roads," § 3.

Foreclosure of mortgage, see "Railroads," $ 3.
Reformation of written instrument, see "Ref-
ormation of Instruments."

Of indebtedness barred by limitation, see "Lim- Removal of cloud on title, see "Quieting Title."
itation of Actions," § 1.

ACTION.

Bar by former adjudication, see "Judgment,"
§ 3.

Jurisdiction of courts, see "Courts."

Limitation by statutes, see "Limitation of Ac-
tions."

Review of proceedings, see "Admiralty," § 4,
"Appeal and Error"; "Equity," § 5.
Actions by or against particular classes of
parties.

See "Carriers," § 3; "Master and Servant,"
2: "Municipal Corporations," § 2; "Street
Railroads," § 1.

Dissolved corporation, see “Corporations," § 5.
Foreign insurance company, see "Insurance,"
§ 8.

Limited partnership, see "Partnership," § 4.

Rescission of contract, see "Contracts," § 4.
Vacation of judicial sale, see "Judicial Sales."

Particular proceedings in actions.

See "Damages"; "Evidence"; "Judgment";
"Judicial Sales"; "Jury"; "Limitation of Ac-
tions"; "Pleading"; "Process"; "Removal of
Causes"; "Trial."

Bill of particulars, see "Pleading," § 3.

Particular remedies in or incident to actions.
See "Injunction"; "Receivers."

Proceedings in exercise of special jurisdictions.
Suits in admiralty, see "Admiralty"; "Colli-
sion," § 9; "Shipping," § 5.
Suits in equity, see "Equity."

ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY.

National banks, see "Banks and Banking," See "Bankruptcy," § 2.
§ 2.

Stockholders, see "Corporations," § 2.

Trustees in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 6.

Particular causes or grounds of action.

See "Bonds," § 1; "Collision," § 9; "Death,"
§ 1; "Insurance," § 8; "Negligence," § 3;
"Work and Labor."

Bail bond, see "Bail," § 1.

Breach of contract, see "Contracts," § 6.
Breach of warranty, see "Sales," § 5.
Demurrage, see "Shipping," § 4.

124 F.-65

ADJUDICATION.

Of courts in general, see "Courts," § 1.
Operation and effect of former adjudication, see
"Judgment," § 3.

ADJUSTMENT.

Of loss within insurance policy, see "Insurance,"
§ 7.

(1025)

ADMINISTRATION.

AGREEMENT.

Of estate of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 5. See "Contracts."
Of property by receiver, see "Receivers," § 1.

ADMIRALTY.

See "Collision"; "Maritime Liens"; "Salvage"; "Seamen"; "Shipping"; "Towage."

1. Remedies in personam and in rem. A suit in rem against a ship cannot be maintained to recover for damage to a tug, which was hired and used by the master in a towage service, on the ground that he was bound to return the tug in as good condition as when received, usual wear excepted.-The Ville de St. Nazaire (D. C.) 1008.

§ 2. Parties, process, claims, and stipulations or other security. Earnings of a vessel while in the custody of a marshal, after her seizure on process and before her sale, from her use under an agreement with the marshal, are to be paid into court to apply on the claim of the libelant.-The C. W. Cowles (D. C.) 458.

3. Pleading, petitions, and motions. Officers of a corporation respondent may be interrogated by questions attached to the libel as to matters of information, as well as of personal knowledge, where pertinent to the issues and the information was obtained in an official capacity.-Bock v. International Nav. Co. (D. C.) 711.

Under admiralty rule 23 the libelant in a suit against a corporation may attach to his libel interrogatories to be answered by an officer of the corporation named therein.-Bock v. International Nav. Co. (D. C.) 711.

§ 4. Appeal.

Findings of fact by a commissioner in admiralty on conflicting evidence, which have been reconsidered on exceptions and approved by the court, will not be disturbed on appeal, unless manifestly wrong.-Appeal of Cahill (C. C. A.) 63.

ADVERSE CLAIM.

To real property, see "Quieting Title."

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

See "Limitation of Actions."

AFFIDAVITS.

ALIENS.

§ 1. Exclusion or expulsion.

The decision of the proper customs or immigration oflicer, adverse to the claim of a person of the Chinese race to nativity in the United States and denying him entry, is conclusive in subsequent proceedings for his deportation.United States v. Lue Yee (D. C.) 303; Same v. Lue Gee, Id.; Same v. Keen Shing, Id.

A judgment of deportation in proceedings to exclude a Chinese person held admissible and sufficient to justify a grand jury in finding an indictment against a person charged with bringing such person into the United States in violation of Chinese Exclusion Act May 6, 1882, c. 126 22 Stat. 61 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1307], as amended by Act July 5, 1884, c. 220. 23 Stat. 117 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1310].United States v. Hills (D. C.) 831.' § 2. Immigration.

An advertisement in a foreign paper held within the amendment by Act March 3, 1891, c. 551, § 3. 26 Stat. 1084 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 12951, of the alien contract labor law (Act Feb. 26, 1885, c. 164. § 1, 23 Stat. 332 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1290]) making it penal to assist or encourage migration of aliens by promise of States v. Baltic Mills Co. (C. C. A.) 38. employment through advertisements.-United

Omission to provide for the deportation of contract laborers in Act Cong. March 3, 1903. c. 1012, 32 Stat. 1213, re-enacting the emigration laws, held not to repeal the prior provision relating to contract laborers contained in Act Feb. 26, 1885, c. 164, 23 Stat. 332 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1290], and Act March 3, 1891, c. 551, 26 Stat. 1084 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901. p. 12941. In re Ellis (C. C.) 637; In re Charalambis, Id.

Contract aliens, who were expert accountants, held not members of a recognized learned Profession, within the exception of Emigration Act Cong. March 3, 1903, c. 1012, § 4, 32 Stat. 1213, and therefore not entitled to entry.-In re Ellis (C. C.) 637; In re Charalambis, Id.

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

See "Reformation of Instruments."

AMENDMENT.

Of corporate charter, see "Corporations," § 1.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.

Of defense, see "Pleading," & 2; "Sales," 4. Jurisdictional amount, see "Courts," § 2; “ReOf merits, see "Pleading," § 2.

AFFREIGHTMENT.

moval of Causes," § 3.

ANTICIPATION.

Contracts, see "Shipping," § 3.

See "Patents," § 2.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »