portation.

30 (App.D.C.) Railroad's concurrence in surcharge tariff schedule published for their benefit by Pullman Company may be inferred from circumstances if necessary to afford legal basis for collection (Interstate Commerce Act [Comp. St. § 8563 et seq.], as amended by Transportation Act [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, §8563 et seq.]).-Waters v. Pullman Co., 10 F. (2d) 622.

36 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Counsel fees may be recovered for taking of unlawful rate or charge on lawful shipment of freight.-Lothrop v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co., 10 F. (2d) 225.

II. CARRIAGE OF GOODS.

(H) Limitation of Liability. 159(3) (App.D.C.) Carrier's failure to notify consignor of nondelivery not waiver of provision relating to time for filing claim.-American Ry. Express Co. v. The Fashion Shop, 10 F. (2d) 909.

(I) Connecting Carriers.

174 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) First and each succeeding carrier must make delivery to next carrier to relieve itself from further obligation. -Mallory S. S. Co. v. Garfield, 10 F. (2d) 664.

(J) Charges and Liens.

189 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Burden is with carriers to make and promulgate their rates and charges. -Lothrop v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co., 10 F. (2d) 225.

Rate fixed by traffic bureaus and organizations are construed liberally in favor of shipper in case of ambiguity.-Id.

Amendatory matter of rate-fixing bureaus abrogated that which preceded if in derogation thereof.-Id.

Shipper is entitled to most favorable construction of amendment of tariff.-Id.

"Rate" means proportional estimation according to some standard.-Id.

"Prescribed rate" defined.-Id.

Tariff fixing rates must be strictly construed in accordance with printed language.-Id.

In determining rate chargeable, all parts of tariff filed should be considered.-Id.

Section of tariff applicable to goods shipped through to Hawaiian Islands, but having alternative operation with other sections, held to apply.-Id.

III. CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOCK. 218(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Filing of written claim within 4 months after time for delivery elapsed held condition precedent to recovering for misdelivery.-Manby v. Union Pac. R. Co.. 10 F. (2d) 327.

Shipper's letters held insufficient written claim for misdelivery of shipment within bill of lading requirement.-Id.

Shipper's oral conversation with carrier's live stock agent held insufficient notice of claim for misdelivery.-Id.

228(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.)

Evidence held not to justify submission to jury of issue of railroad's negligence or misdelivery.-Manby v. Union Pac. R. Co., 10 F. (2d) 327.

IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.
(D) Personal Injuries.

280(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Greater care than in complying with requirements of Public Service Commission may be required of carrier.-Le

Degree of care required of carrier stated.-Id. 288 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Carrier may be required to maintain flagman and gates at crossing of much-traveled highway.-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Ciechowski, 10 F. (2d) 82.

301 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Timely crossing signal by engineer held necessary.-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Ciechowski, 10 F. (2d) 82.

316(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Injury of passenger from derailment of train raises presumption of negligence.-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Ciechowski, 10 F. (2d) 82.

Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, where passenger is injured by derailment of train.-Id.

320 (22) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Whether engineer used brakes timely, and automobile became entangled in locomotive, causing derailment, held for jury.-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Ciechowski, 10 F. (2d) 82.

Whether carrier should have protected crossing by gates and flagman held for jury.-Id.

II. CONSTRUCTION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT.

37 (U.S.D.C.lowa) College endowment fund held public charity to which cy pres_doctrine may be applied.-Schell v. Leander Clark College, 10 F. (2d) 542.

43 (U.S.D.C.Iowa) Where object of public charity fails, equity courts act at instance of state or national government as parens patriæ.-Schell v. Leander Clark College, 10 F. (2d) 542.

49 (U.S.D.C.Iowa) Jurisdiction to apply cy pres doctrine properly invoked by state. Schell v. Leander Clark College, 10 F. (2d) 542.

State, not church, under auspices of which college was founded, may, through agency of court of equity, propose scheme for administration of endowment fund, under cy pres rule. -Id.

Instrumentality or member of church, under auspices of which college was founded, may sue to prevent unlawful disposition of endowment fund.-Id.

CLASS LEGISLATION.

See Constitutional Law, 212-249.

CLERKS OF COURTS.

54 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Clerk held not entitled to fee on redelivery of United States treasury certificates deposited with him; "money."-Hazeltine Research Corporation v. Freed-Eisemann Radio Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 148.

Clerk held entitled to fee on redelivery of certificates of deposit payable to and deposited with him; "money."-Id.

COLLISION.

VII. VESSELS AT REST, AT ANCHOR, OR AT PIERS.

Tug signaling for port to port passage, when meeting steamer coming around bend, and stopping her engine immediately on discovering steamer was not governing herself accordingly, cannot be held liable for failure to stop engines in time.-Id.

105 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held to show that tug's attempt in harbor to pass in front of trawler approaching from_tug's_starboard was cause of collision.-The Baker Brothers, 10 F. (2d) 791.

XII. SUITS FOR DAMAGES.
(C) Evidence.

123 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Libelant, to recover damages from collision, must show fault of claimant of libeled craft.-The Beeko, 10 F. (2d) 884.

246.

69 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Last vessel coming to anchor must allow ample berth space to vessel already anchored.-William Lyall Shipbuilding Co. v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 620.

71(1) (U.S.D.C.La.) Collision between moored barge and moving steamship held due to negligence of both barge owner and steamship pilot.-The Le Coq, 10 F. (2d) 246.

71 (3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Fault of last vessel coming to anchor in not giving safe berth to vessel anchored held established, and to account for collision.-William Lyall Shipbuilding Co. v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 620.

73 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) In collision between anchored vessels, presumption in favor of vessel first anchored. William Lyall Shipbuilding Co. v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 620.

VIII. LIGHTS, SIGNALS, AND LOOKOUTS. 77 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Owner held not negligent in leaving vessel without watchman.-The Beeko, 10 F. (2d) 884.

X. NARROW CHANNELS, HARBORS, RIVERS, AND CANALS.

89 (U.S.D.C.La.) That range markers indciate two channels in navigable part of river does not change character as fairway with respect to right of navigation.-The Le Coq, 10 F. (2d) 246.

94 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Failure of steamer to slow before passing motorboat held gross negligence. The Robert Fulton, 10 F. (2d) 424.

Steamer passing motorboat bound to keep out of way.-Id.

Steamship held to have been passing light motor yacht at excessive speed.-Id. cannot be

95(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Tug

held at fault for attempting to push steamer's tow, so as to avoid collision, after having been placed in pocket because of steamer's failure to act according to passage agreed on.-The Putnam, 10 F. (2d) 677.

COMMERCE.

I. POWER TO REGULATE IN GENERAL.

10 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Municipality may impose reasonable police regulations on maritime craft, if federal government has not taken possession of field.-United Dredging Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 10 F. (2d) 239.

Federal statute held to exclude local regulations of seagoing dredger barges.-Id.

II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION.

22 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Steam dredging barge held engaged in maritime work and employees thereon not subject to local license requirements.-United Dredging Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 10 F. (2d) 239.

27(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Employé at time of making repairs on car held not "engaged in interstate commerce."-Davis v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 10 F. (2d) 140.

95(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Steamer in tow, with steam up, and tug, held jointly responsible for collision of steamer with ferryboat, when hawser parted.-The St. Charles, 10 F. (2d) 924.

to

98 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Steamer, failing govern herself in accordance with port to port passage agreed on, is liable for damages (article 18, rule 1 [Comp. St. § 7857]).-The Putnam, 10 F.(2d) 677.

Signal given for port to port passage, when vessels came in sight of each other, answered by other vessel, is controlling, notwithstanding different signal was blown while vessel around bend, and only smoke was visible.-Id.

was

fendants not yet tried, or retried after jury disagreement, does not warrant reversal of conviction for conspiracy.-De Camp v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 984.

24 (App.D.C.) A single defendant cannot be guilty of conspiracy.-De Camp v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 984.

28 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Conspiracy to aid convict to escape from hospital held "conspiracy" to aid escape within statute.-U. S. ex rel. Silverstein v. Hecht, 10 F. (2d) 370.

41 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) One physically without jurisdiction may be party to crime committed therein.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 339.

41 (U.S.C.C.A.Ill.) Accused, participating in conspiracy to rob mail train, though not present at robbery, could be convicted of robbery with deadly weapons.-Murray v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 409.

(B) Prosecution and Punishment.

43 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Offense need not be stated with particularity required in indictment charging offense itself.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 339.

43(12) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Conviction warranted if evidence proves conspiracy to violate one statute named.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 339.

45 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Testimony about liquor secured from vessel and delivered to defendant held admissible.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 339.

45 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Circumstantial evidence is admissible to prove conspiracy.-Shook v. U. S.. 10 F. (2d) 151.

47 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held sufficient to show existence of conspiracy to import and possess liquor.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 339. Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction. -Id.

47 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Evidence held to support conviction of conspiracy to transport_motor vehicles with knowledge that they had been stolen.-Chapman v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 124.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
47-1102.

See Statutes,

held invalid, as beyond powers of convention.Huff v. Selber, 10 F. (2d) 236.

11. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.

46 (2) (U.S.D.C.La.) Court entitled to notice issue, though not raised by formal plea of plaintiff.-Huff v. Selber, 10 F. (2d) 236. III. DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS.

(A) Legislative Powers and Delegation Thereof.

60 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Congress cannot delegate legislative power.-Sawyer v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 416.

62 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Authority to make administrative rules is not delegation of legislative power.-Sawyer v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 416. (B) Judicial Powers and Functions. 70(1) (U.S.D.C.La.) Courts have no thority to read specific condition out of statute, or implied one into it.-The Steel Trader, 10 F. (2d) 248.

au

70(1) (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Federal court considers only question of confiscation, and not ratemaking. Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, 10 F. (2d) 252.

70(1) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Court can do no more than construe statute and give effect to its plain provisions, though it may work hardship. In re McLaughlin, 10 F. (2d) 810.

V. PERSONAL, CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.

82 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Commutation of federal prisoner's sentence, to enable sentence imposed by state court to be carried out, held not violative of prisoner's constitutional rights.Chapman v. Scott, 10 F. (2d) 156.

of unincorporated associations held not invalid, as violative of right to equal protection of law (General Associations Law [Consol. Laws N. Y. c. 29] § 13).-Bobe v. Lloyds, 10 F. (2d) 730.

XI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

278 (1) (App.D.C.) Zoning Act held not deprivation of private property, in violation of Constitution Zoning Act March 1, 1920 [41 Stat. 500]; Const. Amend. 5).-Larrabee v. Bell, 10 F. (2d) 986; Varela v. Bell, 10 F. (2d) 989.

280 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) That private interests benefited or defray expenses of relocating highway held not to affect validity of proceeding (Const. Ohio, art. 1, § 19; Const. U. S. Amends. 5, 14).-Weaver v. Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light Co., 10 F. (2d) 759.

298 (7) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Maximum rates fixed for gas, and forbidding of service charge, held confiscatory.-New York & Richmond Gas Co. v. Prendergast, 10 F. (2d) 167.

318 (U.S. C. C. A. Iowa) In administrative proceedings, there must be such procedure as to accord substantial justice and afford parties fair trial. Smith v. Hays, 10 F. (2d) 145.

318 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Proceeding by Custodian to seize enemy held not to deny due process of law.-Hicks v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 10 F. (2d) 606.

CONTINUANCE.

See Criminal Law, 605.

CONTRACTS.

See Bills and Notes; Compromise and Settlement; Indemnity; Release; Sales; Stipulations; Vendor and Purchaser.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and Essentials in General. 4 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) "Contracts implied in law" defined.-Landon v. Kansas City Gas Co., 10 F.(2d) 263.

4 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Law implies contracts, without party bound assenting thereto.-Sultzbach Clothing Co. v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 363.

(D) Consideration.

86 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Omissions of contractor held not total failure of consideration.— Shaw v. Citizens' Bank of Haynesville, La., 10 F. (2d) 315.

(F) Legality of Object and of Consideration.

127 (2) (U. S. D. C. La.) Arbitration contracts, making award in future disputes conclusive, held void, especially in case of seamen's wage contracts.-The Howick Hall, 10 F. (2d) 162.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. (A) General Rules of Construction. 154 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Rational and probable meaning of contract preferred to unfair, unreasonable, and improbable meaning.-W. J. Foye Lumber Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 10 F. (2d) 437.

156 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) General terms limited by special designations.-Hunyadi Janos Corporation v. Stoeger, 10 F. (2d) 26.

163 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Written insertions in printed contract prevail over inconsistent printed provisions.-C. C. Mengel & Bro. Co. v. Handy Chocolate Co., 10 F. (2d) 293.

V. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH.

249 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) State statute au

sisted in, accepted, or relied on, inconsequential. -Hanging Rock Iron Co. v. P. H. & F. M. Roots

VI. ACTIONS FOR BREACH.

341 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Plea of partial failure to perform should allege breach, with amount of damages resulting therefrom.-Shaw v. Citizens' Bank of Haynesville, La., 10 F. (2d) 315.

346 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Evidence of breaches of oil-drilling contract inadmissible, where answer does not allege any damages from such breaches.-Shaw v. Citizens' Bank of Haynesville, La., 10 F. (2d) 315.

CONVERSION.

See Trover and Conversion.

CONVICTS.

2 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Attorney General of United States held authorized to consent that one of United States convicts be taken into state court for trial.-Marsino v. Higgins, 10 F. (2d) 534.

Production of convict of United States in court for trial wholly a matter for United States, through its Attorney General, to determine.-Id.

United States Attorney General's discretion to permit federal prisoner to be tried in state court must be fairly exercised.-Id.

5 (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) One serving sentence of imprisonment for crime is not immune from trial and punishment for another offense.Chapman v. Scott, 10 F. (2d) 690.

CORPORATIONS.

See Banks and Banking; Carriers; Electricity; Gas; Joint-Stock Companies and Business Trusts; Municipal Corporations; Public Service Commissions; Railroads; Street Railroads.

I. INCORPORATION AND ORGANIZATION.

(U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) "Corporation" is legal entity, which can act only through agents.Bobe v. Lloyds, 10 F. (2d) 730.

III. CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, DOMICILE, BY-LAWS, AND RECORDS.

59 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Time of making entry in minute book not material, if entry faithfully shows what was done.-Caldwell v. Dean, 10 F. (2d) 299.

IV. CAPITAL, STOCK, AND DIVIDENDS. (B) Subscription to Stock.

76 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Subscription for corporate stock may be made in any way in which other contracts may be made.-In re Hannevig, 10 F. (2d) 941.

78 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Subscription for stock implies promise to pay for it.-In re Hannevig, 10 F. (2d) 941.

90(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Nondelivery of stock subscribed for is no defense to action on subscription for stock.-In re Hannevig, 10 F. (2d) 941.

(D) Transfer of Shares.

120 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Written guaranty of value of corporate stock held absolute obligation to make good the stated value.-Griffin v. Thompson, 10 F. (2d) 127.

V. MEMBERS AND STOCKHOLDERS.

(B) Meetings.

198 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Common stock voting trust agreement for protection of bond and preferred stockholders held valid.-Mackin v. Nicollet Hotel, 10 F. (2d) 375.

Voting trust agreement held not affected by, nor violative of, state law limiting time for voting proxies.--Id.

VI. OFFICERS AND AGENTS. (C) Rights, Duties, and Liabilities as to Corporation and Its Members.

318 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Common directors and managers occupy fiduciary relation toward both corporations, and contracts between them will be carefully scrutinized.-Wentz v. Scott, 10 F. (2d) 426.

318 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Want of good faith of interlocking directorates in execution of long-time lease held not shown.-Caldwell v. Dean, 10 F. (2d) 299.

Excessive rental, warranting cancellation of lease negotiated by interlocking directorates, held not established.-Id.

Courts will closely scrutinize contracts between corporations having interlocking directorates.-Id.

VII. CORPORATE POWERS AND LIABILITIES.

(A) Extent and Exercise of Powers in General.

379 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Corporation may be member of mining partnership, in absence of statute.-Sturm v. Ulrich, 10 F.(2d) 9.

(B) Representation of Corporation by Officers and Agents.

401 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Notes given by corporation to bank having same management do not place burden on holder, as in case of note of corporation made by president payable to himself.-Wentz v. Scott, 10 F.(2d) 426.

(C) Property and Conveyances. 443 (App.D.C.) Deed of corporation held executed in compliance with statute.-Eggleston v. Wayland, 10 F. (2d) 642.

VIII. INSOLVENCY AND RECEIVERS.

559 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Appointment of receiver for corporation held not to prevent corporation from suing or being sued.-U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Vicars, 10 F.(2d) 474.

560(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Receiver of corporation held proper, but not necessary, party to action against corporation.-U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Vicars, 10 F. (2d) 474.

COSTS.

VI. TAXATION.

207 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Court will allow attorney's fees as prayed, where no counter testimony is presented and reasonableness of claim was not questioned.-Lothrop v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co., 10 F. (2d) 225.

VII. ON APPEAL OR ERROR, AND ON NEW TRIAL OR MOTION THEREFOR.

222 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Interest properly allowed in employee's action for injuries from date of filing of complaint.-Miles v. Lavender, 10 F. (2d) 450.

263 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Imposition of maximum damages for frivolous and dilatory appeal held warranted.-Robertson v. Wilkinson, 10 F. (2d) 311.

COURT RULES CITED. Equity rule 37.-10 F. (2d) 542. COURTS.

See Clerks of Courts; Criminal Law, 97105; Removal of Causes.

II. ESTABLISHMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND
PROCEDURE IN GENERAL.
(D) Rules of Decision, Adjudications,
Opinions, and Records.

~96(1) (U.S.C.C.A.China) Whether United States Court for China obtained jurisdiction of

99 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Order of judge denying motion to dismiss complaint became law of case and should be so treated by any other judge sitting in same case in that court.Commercial Union of America v. Anglo-South American Bank, 10 F. (2d) 937.

VII. UNITED STATES COURTS. (A) Jurisdiction and Powers in General. 260 (U.S.D.C.La.) That complainant is unable to secure benefits of state court decree held no ground for federal court assuming jurisdiction.-Venice Hunting & Trapping Co. v. Salinovich, 10 F. (2d) 222.

260 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Jurisdiction of federal courts depends on subject-matter or diversity of citizenship.-McCaffrey v. Wilson & Co., 10 F. (2d) 368.

262(3) (Ú.S.D.C.Iowa) Federal court cannot perpetuate and administer charity located in state.-Schell v. Leander Clark College, 10 F. (2d) 542.

264 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Scope of ancillary jurisdiction of court having charge of receivership stated.-International-Great Northern R. Co. v. Binford, 10 F. (2d) 496, followed in Same v. Edgeley, 10 F. (2d) 501.

(B) Jurisdiction Dependent on Nature of Subject-Matter.

282(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Federal District Court has jurisdiction of suit to enjoin relocation of highway under bill charging unconstitutional use of power of eminent domain (Const. Ohio, art. 1, § 19; Const. U. S. Amends. 5, 14; Judicial Code, § 265 [Comp. St. § 1242]). -Weaver v. Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light Co., 10 F. (2d) 759.

284 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Practice of shipowners' association keld not violative of statute relative to seamen's shipping contract, so as to give federal courts jurisdiction.-Anderson v. Shipowners' Ass'n of Pacific Coast, 10 F. (2d) 96.

289 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Practice of shipowners' association held not violation of commerce or anti-trust statutes, so as to give federal courts jurisdiction.-Anderson v. Shipowners' Ass'n of Pacific Coast, 10 F. (2d) 96.

292 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Federal courts cannot consider charges of unfair competition in suit between citizens of same state. Hunyadi Janos Corporation v. Stoeger, 10 F. (2d) 26.

Federal courts cannot enforce common-law trade-mark rights between citizens of same state.-Id.

324 (U.S.D.C.La.) Motion held to present issue under Judicial Code as to diversity of citizenship.-Golden v. St. Bernard Trappers' Ass'n, 10 ̊F. (2d) 220.

(D) Jurisdiction Dependent on Amount or Value in Controversy.

328 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Jurisdiction of federal court determined by amount claimed in petition.-Nathan v. Rock Springs Distilling Co., 10 F. (2d) 268.

328 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Claimed attorney's fee considered in determining whether amount involved sufficient to sustain original jurisdiction of federal court.-Nathan v. Rock Springs Distilling Co., 10 F. (2d) 268.

(E) Procedure, and Adoption of Practice of State Courts.

343 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Whether resident was improperly joined as defendant, as affecting removal to federal court, determined by state law. -Burrichter v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 10 F. (2d) 165.

347 (U.S.D.C.Iowa) Intervening petition, not recognizing propriety of main proceeding, dismissed.-Schell v. Leander Clark College, 10 F. (2d) 542.

3512 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Finding of want of fraud asserted as basis of defendants' liability dismissal.-Walker Grain Co. v. Southwestern in a jurisdictional amount held not to necessitate Telegraph & Telephone Co., 10 F. (2d) 272.

Want of support for claim asserted in good faith as grounds for court's jurisdiction does not require dismissal.-Id.

(F) State Laws as Rules of Decision.

363 (U.S.D.C.Neb.) In determining validity of federal tax on interest of surviving spouse, law of particular state determines nature of interest taxed.-Munroe v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 230.

365 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) United States Circuit Court of Appeals required to follow state cases on matter in controversy, in absence of state statute.-In re Durel, 10 F. (2d) 448.

366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Construction of state statute by state Supreme Court is controlling in federal court.-First State Bank of Crook, Colo., v. Fox, 10 F. (2d) 116.

366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Construction of local statute by state court of last resort sub silentio is conclusive on Circuit Court of Appeals.-Irving Nat. Bank v. Law, 10 F. (2d) 721.

366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Construction placed on statute by state Supreme Court is binding on federal courts.-Pacific States Lumber Co. v. Bargar, 10 F. (2d) 335.

Presence of banks as parties defendant in action against receiver of one of them, a national bank, held not to affect jurisdiction or right of removal to federal courts.-Id.

(C) Jurisdiction Dependent on Citizenship, Residence, or Character of Parties.

300 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Jurisdiction of federal courts, based on diversity of citizenship, is entirely statutory.-McCaffrey v. Wilson & Co., 10 F. (2d) 368.

302 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) District Court has jurisdiction of suit for war insurance against the United States.-Allen v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 807.

314 (U.S.D.C.La.) Suit by corporation, organized solely to create diversity of citizenship

in construing state statute, are bound by construction placed thereon by Supreme Court of state involved.-National Liberty Ins. Co. of America v. Milligan, 10 F. (2d) 483.

366 (19) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Bankruptcy exemptions depend on and are same as those allowed by governing state statutes, as construed by highest state court.-Vought Kanne, 10 F.(2d) 747.

V.

as

366(19) (U.S.D.C.La.) Federal courts rule follow state courts on question of homestead rights.-In re Levan, 10 F. (2d) 240.

370 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) If there be no controlling state decision construing state exemption statutes, federal courts construe such statutes.--Vought v. Kanne, 10 F. (2d) 747.

371(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) When cause of action for death is asserted in admiralty court, it is subject to defenses available under juris