Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

IJI. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO THIRD PERSONS.

(A) Powers of Agent.

6 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Plaintiff held not entitled to recover rental value of premises used as post office, where they had defaulted under express contract by not paving street and grad-136(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Authorized agent ing alley in accordance with proposal.-McManus v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 971.

III. OFFENSES AGAINST POSTAL LAWS. 35 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Brokers held part of customer's scheme to defraud when participating with knowledge thereof (Criminal Code, § 215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).-Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 711.

All who with criminal intent join themselves to principal schemer are liable (Criminal Code, $215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).—Id.

Floor broker, assisting copartnership in illicit trading, held participant in scheme to defraud (Criminal Code, § 215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).-Id.

is not liable for breach of contract made on behalf of principal, except where agency is concealed or when contracting as ostensible principal.-Mallory S. S. Co. v. Garfield, 10 F. (2d) 664.

(C) Unauthorized and Wrongful Acts. 155(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Party signing negotiable instrument as agent without authority held liable thereon.-Pain v. Holtcamp, 10 F. (2d) 443.

161(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Principal may repudiate unauthorized act by one assuming to act as agent.-The Capitaine Faure, 10 F.(2d) 950. (D) Ratification.

President of Stock Exchange, advising par- 164(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Principal may ties whom he knew were insolvent and engaged ratify unauthorized act by one assuming to act in illegal business, to continue in business, as agent. The Capitaine Faure, 10 F. (2d) 950. held accessory to scheme to defraud (Crim-167 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Generally ratification inal Code, 88 215, 332 [Comp. St. §§ 10385, may be by parol.-The Capitaine Faure, 10 F. 10506]).-Id. (2d) 950.

Intent to use mails at time of entering into scheme need not be shown (Criminal Code, § 215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).-Id.

35 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Managing officers of corporation could not be convicted of using mails to defraud, if they did not participate therein, regardless of their negligence.-U. S. v. Foster, 10 F. (2d) 577.

48 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) More than one misrepresentation may be charged, as long as they are part of same scheme, and proof of one will sustain indictment (Criminal Code, § 215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).-Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 711.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Evidence held to sustain conviction of robbing persons in charge of mail.--Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 401.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held to support conviction of use of mails in fraudulent scheme (Criminal Code, § 215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).-Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 711.

In prosecution for using mails to defraud, proof on cross-examination that defendant had dealings with other firms engaged in like operations as his codefendants held competent to show knowledge.-Id.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Letters held shown by evidence, on prosecution for illegal use, to have been received through mails.-Baker v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 60.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Conviction of using mails to defraud warranted by evidence.-Neu v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 146.

51 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Sentence on several counts for use of mails to defraud held not excessive punishment.-Baker v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 60.

PRACTICE.

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

PRESCRIPTION.

See Limitation of Actions.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. See Attorney and Client; Factors.

170(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Principal, desiring to challenge agent's doings, must not postpone too long.-Royal Bank of Canada v. Universal Export Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 669.

170(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Laches may rest on failure promptly to deny agent's authority arising even by implication. Mercantile Bank of the Americas v. Flower Lighterage Co., 10 F. (2d) 705.

~171(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Principal, desiring to challenge agent's doings, must not postpone too long, or undertake any project based on their propriety.-Royal Bank of Canada v. Universal Export Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 669.

175(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) As one who ratifies act must accept its consequences, principal liable for agent's ratified torts.-Irving Nat. Bank v. Law, 10 F. (2d) 721.

rati

175(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Principal's fication of agent's unauthorized act is equivalent to prior authority to perform it.-The Capitaine Faure, 10 F.(2d) 950.

PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

[blocks in formation]

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

don & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, determining rights to land patent.-Perry v. 10 F. (2d) 641. Work, 10 F. (2d) 887.

PRISONS.

13 (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) Attorney General, under statutes and practice of comity, may change place of imprisonment of federal prisoner to state prison (Comp. St. § 10547).— Chapman v. Scott, 10 F. (2d) 690.

13 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Attorney General may transfer convict from federal to state prison, without notice to or consent of convict.-Chapman v. Scott, 10 F. (2d) 156.

District Court may not question administrative act of Attorney General in transferring federal prisoner.--Id.

Prisoner could not object because federal government surrendered custody.-Id.

That state prison warden changed federal prisoner's number, when surrendered to state authorities for trial, held not to change legal status of prisoner.-Id.

15 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Order of President held "commutation," and not "pardon."-Chapman v. Scott, 10 F. (2d) 156.

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.-Id.

Prisoner could not object to commutation of his sentence to federal prison to enable state sentence to be carried out.-Id.

PROCESS.

II. SERVICE.

(B) Substituted Service.

78 (App.D.C.) House long abandoned by defendant held not "last and usual place of abode," within meaning of statute.-Trask v. Karrick, 10 F. (2d) 995.

Summons left at defendant's abandoned residence held not to give jurisdiction under Massachusetts statute.-Id.

III. DEFECTS. OBJECTIONS, AND

AMENDMENT.

162 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Federal courts exercise broad discretion in allowing amendments of process.-Griffin v. Thompson, 10 F. (2d) 127. PROHIBITION.

See Intoxicating Liquors.

PROMISSORY NOTES.

See Bills and Notes.

PROSTITUTION.

4 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) In White Slave Act prosecution, evidence as to defendant being twice married and divorced held not error.Noland v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 768.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

See Municipal Corporations, 278–348.

PUBLIC LANDS.

II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF UNITED STATES.

(B) Entries, Sales, and Possessory Rights. 29 (App.D.C.) Relinquishment of forest lands under Lieu Land Act, and acceptance, creates contract.-Work v. Read, 10 F.(2d) 637.

31 (App.D.C.) Protestant against forest lieu entry held without possessory rights.Work v. Read, 10 F. (2d) ̃ 637. First entryman making forest lieu selection acquires prior right.-Id.

(1) Proceedings in Land Office. 108 (App.D.C.) Injunction will not lie to review errors of Secretary of the Interior in

(J) Patents.

114(3) (App.D.C.) Scope of decision in action to determine rights under patent stated.Work v. Read, 10 F. (2d) 637.

(K) Remedies in Cases of Fraud, Mistake, or Trust.

128 (App.D.C.) Homestead claimant, after issuance of land patent to contestant, may sue in equity to have latter's title impressed with trust.-Perry v. Work, 10 F. (2d) 887.

III. DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF THE STATES.

173(14) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) County held not entitled to question validity of sale of school lands.-Madison County, Tex., v. Wilson, 10 F.(2d) 149.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS.

7 (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Fair present value of property is value used for rate-making purposes.-Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, 10 F. (2d) 252.

7 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Present fair value of property of public utility corporation given effect in fixing rate base.-Middlesex Water Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey, 10 F.(2d) 519.

Rates giving less than 6 per cent. return held confiscatory.-Id.

7 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Ascertainment of value of public utility's property relative to rates is matter of reasonable judgment.-New York & Richmond Gas Co. v. Prendergast, 10 F. (2d)

167.

"Going concern value" is property, for purpose of rate fixing.-Id.

Undistributed structural costs and working capital should be allowed in determining value for rate-making purposes.-Id.

18 (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Public Service Commission should make finding supporting order establishing lower rates.-Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, 10 F. (2d) 252.

PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS. See Carriers; Electricity; Gas; Railroads; Street Railroads.

RAILROADS.

See Street Railroads.

X. OPERATION.

(C) Companies and Persons Liable for Injuries.

266 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Employee failing to warn liable to person injured, and can be joined as defendant.-Burrichter v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 10 F. (2d) 165.

(F) Accidents at Crossings.

314 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Operatives, in exercising ordinary care, required to consider obstructions off right of way.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Goodman, 10 F. (2d) 58.

316(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Negligence cannot be based alone on high speed at unobstructed country crossing.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 F. (2d) 329.

327 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Reasonable care required of truck driver.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Goodman, 10 F. (2d) 58.

333 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Automobile driver held guilty of contributory negligence in failing to wait.-Pere Marquette Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 10 F.(2d) 357.

337(2) (Ú.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Failure to keep crossing approaches in repair held not basis of

recovery for collision with automobile.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 F. (2d) 329.

346(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Presumption decedent looked and listened for train rebuttable. -Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Goodman, 10 F. (2d)

58.

350 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Submission of theory of duty to give signals, in addition to statutory signals, held error.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 F. (2d) 329.

350(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Submission of question of negligence based on speed held error.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 F. (2d) 329.

350(22) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Truck driver's negligence at obscured crossing held for jury. -Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Goodman, 10 F. (2d)

58.

350 (26) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Automobile driver's contributory negligence held for jury. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 F.(2d) 329.

350 (32) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Whether failure to erect statutory signs at crossing contributed to injury held for jury.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 F.(2d) 329.

350 (33) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Evidence held not to warrant submission of last clear chance doctrine.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 F. (2d) 329.

(G) Injuries to Persons on or near Tracks. 358 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Care required as to children playing in yards with company's acquiescence.-Erie R. Co. v. Kazanecki, 10 F.

(2d) 337.

398 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Permissive use of yard as playground may be proved by witness observing children playing.-Erie R. Co. v. Kazanecki, 10 F. (2d) 337.

Finding of negligence as to child permissibly on track sustained.-Id.

400 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Permissive use of yard by children as playground held for jury. -Erie R. Co. v. Kazanecki, 10 F. (2d) 337.

See Partition.

REAL ACTIONS.

RECEIVERS.

V. ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.

150 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Consideration for notes to bank, given by corporation having common management, held shown by evidence showing credit was given for each note discounted.-Wentz v. Scott, 10 F. (2d) 426.

158(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) When equitable right of priority attaches to claim against railroad stated.-International-Great Northern R. Co. v. Binford, 10 F. (2d) 496, followed in Same v. Edgeley, 10 F. (2d) 501.

163 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) No interest on claim for eviction of tenant after receiver appointed for insolvent landlord.-American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. New York Rys. Co., 10 F. (2d) 28.

VI. ACTIONS.

165 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Receiver of lessor, not party to creditors' bill, must bring plenary suit to recover funds of which he was not in possession, even though it be ancillary.-American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. New York Rys. Co., 10 F. (2d) 920.

Lessors of street railway, intervening in receivership proceeding against lessee, are par ties for any controversy which may arise between them and receiver.-Id.

RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.

8(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Evidence held to warrant conviction for possessing property known to have been stolen from mails.-Garcia v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 355.

RECORDS.

See Criminal Law, 1086.

7 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Paper not "filed" until deposited with clerk of court.-In re Gubelman, 10 F. (2d) 926.

REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. torily proved equity will reform contract to 17(1) (App.D.C.) If mistake is satisfacconform to parties' intent.-Sanders v. Monroe, 10 F. (2d) 997.

instrument must amount to failure of positive 25 (App.D.C.) Negligence in failing to read legal duty to justify withholding of equitable relief.-Sanders v. Monroe, 10 F. (2d) 997.

Mortgagor's failure to read agreement as to debt covered by trust deed held not such negligence as to preclude relief.-Id.

Failure to read instrument prepared by other party, because of confidence in latter, furnishes very narrow ground for denying reformation.-Id.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.

45(8) (App.D.C.) Evidence held to show that trust deed was not intended to cover note, thereafter acquired by mortgagee, as provided in contemporaneous written agreement.-Sanders v. Monroe, 10 F. (2d) 997.

Plaintiff's testimony that he could not read instrument, which he subsequently read with difficuity, held not to preclude relief.-Id.

RELEASE.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.

7 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Agreement not to sue one joint tort-feasor held not a "release," but a "covenant not to sue."-Pacific States Lumber Co. v. Bargar, 10 F. (2d) 335.

24(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Release could not be avoided without restoring consideration if signed with full knowledge of its terms, but might be disregarded if employee was deceived as to its contents.-Miles v. Lavender, 10 F. (2d) 450.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.

27 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Release of dock company in libel by carrier for shortage in shipment of cocoa beans, when carrier's lighter was damaged by dock company's foul berth, held conclusive as to owner's similar claim for damages to shipment.-Mercantile Bank of the Americas v. Flower Lighterage Co., 10 F. (2d) 705.

29(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Release of one joint tort-feasor will release other.-Pacific States Lumber Co. v. Bargar, 10 F. (2d) 335.

37 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Covenant not to sue does not release another tort-feasor.-Pacific States Lumber Co. v. Bargar, 10 F. (2d) 335.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES.

I. POWER TO REMOVE AND RIGHT OF REMOVAL IN GENERAL.

2 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Removal statute should not be enlarged beyond what is definite and free from ambiguity.-McCaffrey v. Wilson & Co., 10 F.(2d) 368.

3 (U.S.D.C.S.C.) That federal court first acquires jurisdiction of res does not give right of removal.-Mace v. Mayfield, 10 F. (2d) 231. II. ORIGIN, NATURE, AND SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY.

19(7) (U.S.D.C.S.C) Action to establish preferred claim against insolvent national bank held removable to federal court, despite amount involved. Studebaker Corporation of America v. First Nat. Bank, 10 F. (2d) 590.

Presence of banks as parties defendant in

and

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER action against receiver of one of them, a na- 83 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Under contract for tional bank, held not to affect jurisdiction of sale of sugar by "steamer or steamers, right of removal.-Id. "names of such steamers to be declared later," seller can substitute another steamer for one provisionally declared, where substituted carried sugar, which was shipped within time specified.-Matthew Smith Tea, Coffee & Grocery Co. v. Lamborn, 10 F. (2d) 697.

III. CITIZENSHIP OR ALIENAGE OF
PARTIES.

(A) Diverse Citizenship or Alienage in
General.

26 (U.S.D.C.S.C.) When removal is authorized from state to federal court stated.Mace v. Mayfield, 10 F. (2d) 231.

29 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Where controversy is not separable, and resident and nonresident defendants are joined, action is not removable.McCaffrey v. Wilson & Co., 10 F.(2d) 368.

44 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Defendant, sued in own state, may not remove, but defendant, sued alone in another state, may remove.-McCaffrey v. Wilson & Co., 10 F. (2d) 368.

(B) Separable Controversies.
53 (U.S.D.C.S.C.) Action to foreclose mort-
gage to which each defendant makes separate
defense held not removable; "controversy."-
Mace v. Mayfield, 10 F. (2d) 231.

VI. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE AND EF-
FECT OF REMOVAL.

82 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) All defendants must unite in petition for removal.-McCaffrey v. Wilson & Co., 10 F. (2d) 368.

92 (U.S.D.C.S.C.) Court warranted in striking illegible portions of transcript from file.Mace v. Mayfield, 10 F. (2d) 231.

[blocks in formation]

See Vendor and Purchaser.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACT.

52(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Fact that parties would not be apt to make contract contended should be taken in consideration.-W. J. Foye Lumber Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 10 F. (2a) 437.

53(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Evidence held insufficient to make it a jury question whether there was agreement regarding guaranty as to weight of ties, with understanding for refunds for underweight.-W. J. Foye Lumber Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 10 F. (2d) 437.

II. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT. 54 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Sales contract is construed according to parties' intention.-Matthew Smith Tea, Coffee & Grocery Co. v. Lamborn, 10 F.(2d) 697.

60 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) In construing contract, court had right to place itself in situation of parties at time they entered into contract.-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, 10 F. (2d) 467.

81 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Provision in contract for future delivery of grain held to constitute sufficient shipping instructions.-Brunswig Grain Co. v. Anchor Grain Co., 10 F. (2d) 304.

83 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Ineffectual tender from vessel held not election, precluding subsequent tender from warehouse.-C. C. Mengel & Bro. Co. v. Handy Chocolate Co., 10 F.(2d) 293.

[blocks in formation]

(A) By Agreement of Parties, 89 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Seller's agreement, on buyer's nonacceptance of corn shipment, held not a relinquishment of any rights against buyer. Brunswig Grain Co. v. Anchor Grain Co., 10 F. (2d) 304.

(C) Rescission by Buyer.

120 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Failure of number of units to conform to sample did not warrant reF. (2d) 387. scission.-Dodge v. F. A. D. Andrea, Inc., 10

IV. PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. (C) Delivery and Acceptance of Goods.

150 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Seller's tender of delivery from warehouse the same day buyer properly refused delivery from vessel held not too late.-C. C. Mengel & Bro. Co. v. Handy Chocolate Co., 10 F. (2d) 293.

152 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) That seller was carrying corn at an agreed charge held not to excuse buyer from giving shipping instructions within reasonable time.-Brunswig Grain Co. v. Anchor Grain Co., 10 F. (2d) 304.

Want of shipping instructions held to warrant cancellation of contract for sale of corn. -Id.

176(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Buyer's refusal of tender on specified ground held not to preclude defenses on other grounds; "waiver;" "estoppel."-C. C. Mengel & Bro. Co. v. Handy Chocolate Co., 10 F. (2d) 293.

176(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Buyer could not change ground of refusal after litigation begun. -Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, 10 F. (2d) 467.

181(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Buyer required to testify whether he made complaint when he ascertained that coffee was not shipped on first available vessel.-Hecht v. Alfaro, 10 F. (2d) 464.

he would not accept coffee because not shipped Evidence that buyer never advised seller that on time admissible.-Id.

ly at shipping port admissible in action for Testimony that shipping agency had monopodamages because of delay.-Id.

Evidence that shipping agency had exclusive charge of carrying out instruction of shippers according to facilities of port, was admissible. -Id.

181(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Admitting testimony that seed furnished was good, average, country run sorghum seed not erroneous.-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, 10 F. (2d) 467.

Admitting evidence that seed was the kind used and planted in state from which shipped not prejudicial.-Id.

Permitting seller to testify that seed accepted and seed rejected was of same character and quality not error.-Id.

181(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Competent to prove that seller gave shipping agency instructions to ship coffee on first trip of ship selected by buyer.-Hecht v. Alfaro, 10 F. (2d) 464.

Admission of evidence that yellow fever epidemic delayed shipments was not reversible error.-Id.

181 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Evidence that another vessel arrived 3 weeks later than vessel carrying seller's goods held inadmissible, as im

material.-C. C. Mengel & Bro. Co. v. Handy Chocolate Co., 10 F.(2d) 293.

182(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Testimony held to make jury questions as to buyer's duty to specify vessels and whether refusal by vessels constituted breach of contract by seller.-Hecht v. Alfaro, 10 F. (2d) 464.

182(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) When breach of contract occurred, and whose it was, held fact questions for jury.-Hanging Rock Iron Co. v. P. H. & F. M. Roots Co.. 10 F. (2d) 154.

182(1) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Whether proportion of defective goods warranted rescission held for jury.-Dodge v. F. A. D. Andrea, Inc., 10 F. (2d) 387.

V. OPERATION AND EFFECT. (A) Transfer of Title as Between Parties. 199 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Want of shipping instructions before destruction by fire of goods sold held not to affect title thereto.-Planters' Oil Mill & Gin Co. v. A. K. Burrow Co., 10 F. (2d) 312.

2182 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Evidence held insufficient to establish effective delivery of cotton seed linters, sold before destruction thereof by fire.-Planters' Oil Mill & Gin Co. v. A. K. Burrow Co., 10 F. (2d) 312.

VII. REMEDIES OF SELLER.
(D) Resale.

339 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) If seller, on buyer's breach, resells goods, he may recover difference between price and net proceeds of resale.-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, 10 F. (2d) 467.

(E) Actions for Price or Value. 357(1) (App.D.C.) Failure of plaintiff to prove demand before suit held to warrant inference that none was made.-Ross v. McLean, 10 F.(2d) 627.

358(1) (App.D.C.) Exclusion of testimony as to plaintiff's compliance with Jockey Club rules in action for part of purchase price of race horse held not error.-Ross v. McLean, 10 F. (2d) 627.

(F) Actions for Damages. 384(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Seller's damages held difference between contract price and amount obtained on resale, plus expenses incident thereto.-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, 10 F. (2d) 467.

Under facts, seller had right to resort to resale.-Id.

388 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Instruction that seller contracted to sell three cars of good, country run, well-sacked sorghum or cane seed held proper. Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, 10 F. (2d) 467.

SALVAGE.

1. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION.

13 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Towage rendered vessel having broken tiller, but in no immediate danger, held not to justify claim for salvage service. The Trinidad, 10 F. (2d) 849.

II. AMOUNT AND APPORTIONMENT. 29 (U.S.C.C.A.Me.) Award of 3 per cent. for saving yachts swept away by breaking of dams increased to 6 per cent.-Treworgy v. Richards, 10 F. (2d) 152.

III. LIEN AND RECOVERY.

48 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Evidence held to show that master of libeled vessel accepted tug's services because of tug master's statement, which was not true.-The Trinidad, 10 F. (2d) 849.

SEAMEN.

5 (U.S.D.C.La.) Provision of shipping articles held not "submission in writing" of con

troversy, within statute.-The Howick Hall, 10 F. (2d) 162.

Captain's verbal statement to shipping commissioner held not a "submission to arbitration." -Id.

7 (U.S.D.C.La.) Provision of shipping articles, making any change in working rules and wages retroactive, held not applicable to arbitrary reduction of wages.-The Howick Hall, 10 F. (2d) 162.

II (Ú.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Seaman may recover only actual outlay for cure and not for free treatment.-The Balsa, 10 F. (2d) 408.

19 (U.S.D.C.La.) Seaman, refusing consent before start of voyage, to alteration of wage clause, entitled to full wages, where discharged at first port of call for such refusal-The Steel Trader, 10 F. (2d) 248.

23 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Statute prohibiting payment of seamen's wages in advance inapplicable to advancements by foreign vessel in foreign port. The Archimedes, 10 F. (2d) 234.

29(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Recovery for seaman, washed overboard when working on deck load of lumber, may be had, though ship seaworthy.-Zinnel v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 47.

29(4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Seaman, working on deck load in obedience to orders, held not to assume risk from absence of guard rope.-Zinnel v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 47.

29(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Whether there were lines along port side, where seaman was washed overboard, held for jury.-Zinnel v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation. 10 F. (2d) 47.

Whether absence of line along port side was failure to exercise reasonable care to furnish safe place to work held for jury.-Id.

Reasonable men might differ on question whether seaman would have been saved if there had been rope along deck where he was washed off.-Id.

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

3 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Search Warrant Act regulates only entry of searching officer.-U. S. v. Old Dominion Warehouse, 10 F.(2d) 736. 3 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Entry and arrest held lawful, where affidavit for search was made by federal officer after entry on defendants' premises, since he had previous knowledge sufficient for warrant.-Rouda v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 916.

3 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Search of defendant's home for narcotics not invalid, because warrant stated that National Prohibition Act had been violated.-Ray v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 359.

Affidavit for warrant to search defendant's home for narcotics not invalid, because not negativing all provisions of statute authorizing sale of narcotics.-Id.

3 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Captions or directions essential parts of warrants.-U. S. v. Nestori, 10 F. (2d) 570.

Courts should not attach undue influence to purely formal considerations in passing on validity of search warrant.-Id.

5 (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Remedies of defendants in criminal action, complaining of unlawful seizure of goods to be used as evidence, stated.Dowling v. Collins, 10 F. (2d) 62.

Defendants in criminal case held not entitled in original suit therefor to return of goods alleged to have been unlawfully seized.-Id.

7 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Government held not to have practiced fraud or deception in securing papers under subpoenas addressed to corporations although it later appeared that companies were not corporations.-Thompson v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 781.

7 (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Search of business building and basement thereof held reasonable, irrespective of validity of search warrant.-Dowling v. Collins, 10 F. (2d) 62.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »