Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

case

v.

(C) Actions.

IV. RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 88 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Purchaser of trade- (B) Order of Proof, Rebuttal, and Remark not entitled to injunction against in

opening Case. fringement, without showing alien registrant's 70 (U.S.C.C.A. Mich.) Reopening of location in country affording similar privileges and calling of witnesses after disagreement of to American citizens.-Hunyadi Janos Corpo- jury held reversible error.-Walz v. Fidelityration v. Stoeger, 10 F.(20) 26.

Phænix Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 10 F.(20) Purchaser of business and trade-marks 22. thereof from Alien Property Custodian not en- ww70 (App.D.C.) Refusal to permit introductitled to enjoin infringement of registrations tion of evidence after charge on effect of failnot seized or mentioned in instrument of trans- ure to produce it held within court's discretion. fer.--Id.

-Ross v. McLean, 10 F.(20) 627. 89 (App.D.C.).“G. & G” trade-mark for ginger ale held to infringe established mark “C V. ARGUMENTS AND CONDUCT OF

COUNSEL. & C,” and one furnishing dealers with goods bearing such mark is liable for unfair competi- Om 132 (U. S. C. C. A. Mass.) Improper statetion if public deceived.-Guggenheim v. Cantrell ments by plaintiff's counsel, as to defendant's & Cochrane, 10 F.(20) 895.

hoping to get jury to believe plaintiff had got Cm97 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Defendant cannot be something he was not entitled to, harmless, in enjoined from doing acts not done or threat view of prompt retraction.-Bethlehem Shipened.-Hunyadi Janos Corporation v. Stoeger, building Corporation v. West & Dodge Co., io 10 F.(20) 26.

F.(20) 289.

Em 133(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Counsel's comV. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES ment as to government's failure to produce alADJUDICATED.

leged audit of cost, if improper, not harmful, "Black Diamond."-Booth Fisheries Co. V.

in view of instruction to disregard it.---BethleAdams & Sons Grocer Co. (App. D. C.) 10 hem Shipbuilding Corporation y. West & Dodge F.(20) 1007.

Co., 10 F.(20) 289. "Cookieland.”--Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. Johnson Educator Food Co. (App. D. C.) 10

VI. TAKING CASE OR QUESTION FROM

JURY. F.(20) 656. "C & C.”—Guggenheim v. Cantrell & Cochrane (A) Questions of Law or of Fact in Gen(App. D. C.) 10 F.(20) 895.

eral. "Diamond A."-Booth Fisheries Co. v, Adams Om 139(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Scintilla of proof

& Sons Grocer Co. (App. D. C.) 10 F.(21) does not justify, subinission to jury.-Hardy1007.

Burlingham Mining Co. v. Baker, 10 F.(20) "G & G."-Guggenheim v. Cantrell & Cochrane 277. (App. D. C.) 10 F.(20) 895.

Om 139(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Directed verdict "Palm.”-Goodall Worsted Co. v. Palm Knit- for defendant properly refused, if any evidence

ting Co. (App. D. C.) 10 F.(2đ) 1013. would sustain verdict for plaintiff.-Bethlehem "Palm Beach."--Goodall Worsted Co. v. Palm Shipbuilding Corporation v. West & Dodge Co.,

Knitting Co. (App. D. C.) 10 F.(20) 1013. 10 F.(20) 289. “Palm-Knit.”—Goodall Worsted Co. v. Palma! 41 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Trial court has duty

Knitting Co. (App. D. C.) 10 F.(20) 1013. to direct verdict where evidence is undisputed. "Public Safety Bond."-Harlem Card and Pa- -W. J. Foye Lumber Co. v. Pennsylvania R.

per Co. v. Taylor-Logan Co., Papermakers Co., 10 F.(20) 437. (App. D. C.) 10 F.(20) 1014.

Om 143 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Trial court has duty "Public Service Bond."-Harlem Card and Pa- to direct verdict where evidence is conflicting

per Co. v. Taylor-Logan Co., Papermakers but only where so conclusive that opposite ver(App. D. C.) 10 F.(28) 1014.

dict would be set aside.-W. J. Foye Lumber Co.

v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 10 F. (21) 437. TREATIES.

VJI. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY. 8 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Speed of vessel assisting in discharge of liquor determines distance (A) Province of Court and Jury in Genfrom coast that liquor-bearing vessel may be seized.--Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 339.

193(1) (App.D.C.) Court may call jury's Implied agreement that United States will not attention to evidence, provided it instructs that search or seize British vessels without limits

it is sole judge of facts.-Ross v. McLean, 10 fixed by treaty.-Id.

F.(20) 627. Om8 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Treaty providing for reciprocal “commerce" between United States and

(D) Applicability to Pleadings and Evi.

dence. Great Britain held not applicable to insurance business Treaty with Great Britain of 1815, em 248 (U. S. C. C. A. Ohio) Charge of federal and as extended in 1827 [8 Stat. 228, 301]).- trial judge, presenting applicable rules of law, Bobe v. Lloyds, 10 F.(2d) 730.

should be concrete and helpful, rather than abCom 14 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Violation of treaty not

stract and general.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. a criminal offense.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(20) Reeves, 10 F.(20) 329. 339.

(E) Requests or Prayers. TRIAL.

ww257 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.). Requested instruc

tions should be tendered before general charge See Costs; Criminal Law, (ww620–878; Jury; given, unless made necessary by charge.-GrifNew Trial.

fin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, 10 F.(20) 467. For trial of particular actions or proceedings, ww260(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Refusal of charge, see also the various specific topics.

which in substance was already given, not erFor review of rulings at trial, see Appeal and ror.-Erie R. Co. v. Kazanecki, 10 F.(20) 337. Error.

Cw260(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Refusal of re

quested special charges, covered by general II. DOCKETS, LISTS, AND CALENDARS.

charge, is not error.-Adkins-Polk & Co. v. G. Call (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Suit to recover for Amsinck & Co., 10 F.(2d) 361. telephone services involving accounting by in- C260(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Requested instrucdividual defendant held within equity jurisdic- tion held properly refused, in view of court's tion.-Walker Grain Co. v. Southwestern Tele- instructions and evidence.-Miles v. Lavender, graph & Telephone Co., 10 F.(20) 272.

10 F.(20) 450.

eral.

case

V.

For cases in Dec.Dig, & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER ww260(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Refusal to charge Om26 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Letter directing bank on matter fully covered in general charge not to transfer money on donor's account to his erroneous.-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, daughter's not unequivocally declaring that do10 F.(20) 467.

nor held in trust for her, held not to constitute 261 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Court justified in re- an executed trust.-Eschen v. Steers, 10 F.(20) fusing entire instruction where part thereof in- 739. correct.-Miles v. Lavender, 10 F.(20) 450. 44(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Evidence must show 261 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Refusal of unintelli- clear intention to establish completed express gible instruction not error.-Griffin Grocery Co. trust in personal property.-Eschen v. Steers, v. Richardson, 10 F.(20) 467.

10 F.(20) 739.

Cw59 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) If trust is complete(F) Oljections and Exceptions.

ly established, donor cannot revoke same, unC273 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Exceptions to charge less such power is reserved in its creation.should be taken on completion thereof and be- Eschen v. Steers, 10 F.(20) 739. fore case submitted.--Griffin Grocery Co. v.

(B) Resalting Trnsts. Richardson, 10 F.(20) 467.

Om66 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Equity will not perfect (G) Construction and Operation, defective gift by declaring a trust nor will it C296(9) (App.D.C.) Instruction that jury enforce a mere intention to create a trust.might consider plaintiff's failure to make de- Eschen v. Steers, 10 F.(20) 739. mand before suit held not error as comment on evidence.-Ross v. McLean, 10 F.(20) 627.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.

(B) Estate or Interest of Trustee and of IX. VERDICT.

Cestui Que Trust. (A) General Verdict.

Om 140(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Voluntary trust 330(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Though evidence gives to donee beneficial enjoyment of property, warranted finding for plaintiff on one ground, legal title of which is in trustee.-Eschen v. verdict cannot stand, if error committed in Steers, 10 F.(20) 739. submission of any of several other grounds.Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 F.(20)

IV. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF

TRUST PROPERTY. 329. X. TRIAL BY COURT.

em 253 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Trustee of an im(B) Findings of Fact and Conclusions plied trust may not set off a claim owing him of Law.

by the beneficiary.-American Brake Shoe & C388(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Making special

Foundry Co. v. New York Rys, Co., 10 F.(20)

920. findings of fact and of law discretionary with court trying without jury:-Griffin VII. ESTABLISHMENT AND ENFORCEThompson, 10 F.(2d) 127.

MENT OF TRUST. C404(1) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) "Findings of fact"

(B) Right to Follow Trust Property or and "conclusions of law" are fruits of judicial

Proceeds Thereof. ascertainment.--Allen v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 807.

352 (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) Property interTROVER AND CONVERSION.

mingled while held in trust cannot be subject to

payment of other debts.-Equitable Trust Co. II. ACTIONS.

of New York v. Connecticut Brass & Mfg. Cor(B) Jurisdiction, Parties, Preliminary poration, 10 F.(20) 913. Proceedings, and Pleading.

Court of equity may impress with trust prop32(1) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Count for conversion erty comuningled with that of other property of of salesman's account book by employer held debtor.-Id. good as against demurrer.-Richards v. International Agricultural Corporation, 10 F.(20)

UNFAIR COMPETITION. 218. Cm 32(2) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Allegations as to ac

See Trade-Marks and Trade-Names and Unfair

Competition, Ow70–97. counts in book converted held relevant.--Richards v. International Agricultural Corporation,

UNITED STATES, 10 F.(20) 218. On32(6) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Count in salesman's See Army and Navy; Treaties. action against employer for conversion of account books held good as against demurrer for 1. GOVERNMENT AND OFFICERS. remoteness of damages.-Richards v. Interna- 5 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) United States possestional Agricultural Corporation, 10 F.(20) 218.

es police power appropriate to exercise of sov(D) Damages.

ereignty granted by Constitution.-U. S.

Gaffney, 10 F.(20) 694. 44 (U. S. D. C. Ga.) Measure of damages w 40° (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) “Regulation” of exestated.-Richards v. International Agricultural

cution department, authorized by act of ConCorporation, 10 F.(20) 218.

gress has force of law.-Sawyer v. U. S., 10

F.(20) 416.
TRUSTS.

Authority to make regulations to carry out See Monopolies, w12–31.

legislative act confers no authority to change

the act.-Id. I. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND VA- ww52/2 [New, vol. 19A Key-No. Series] LIDITY.

(U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Agreement between (A) Express Trusts.

United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet 22 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Intent to create com

Corporation and shipping company for operapleted express trust in personal property is

tion of ship held to create agency.-Mallory S. not suficient, but donor must part with domin

S. Co. v. Garfield, 10 F.(20) 664. ion over equitable title which must have passed to cestui que trust.-Eschen v. Steers, 10

II. PROPERTY, CONTRACTS, AND LIABIL

ITIES. F.(20) 739. C25(1). (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Trust is created, if ww69 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Person paying fine unlanguage indicates an intention to stamp such

der law subsequently declared void has right character on a gift, but declaration that party

to rely on implied promise of United States bolds as trustee must be unequivocal.-Eschen to repay invalid penalty.--Sultzbach Clothing v. Steers, 10 F.(20) 739.

Co. v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 363.

V.

72 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) One contracting with On 12 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Red Cross surgeon government held not entitled to reformation of held not "enemy" of United States.- Vowinckel contract after its performance with knowledge v. First Federal Trust Co., 10 F.(20) 19. of provisions complained of.—Harper Mfg. Co. Cl2 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Proceeding by Custodian v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 150.

to seize enemy held property is possessory, and Om7412 [New, vol. 12A Key-No. Series) determination conclusive.-Hicks V. Baltimore

(U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) To sustain defense & O. R. Co., 10 F.(20) 606. that award by Compensation Board was obtain- Finding of enemy bank's interest in stock ed by fraudulent representations, it must be held sufficient to entitle Custodian to issuance shown that representation was relied on.- of certificates to him.-Id. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation v. West & Provisions of Trading with the Enemy Act Dodge Co., 10 F.(20) 289.

held not retroactively applied, where substanWhether subcontractor had made fraudulent tial rights in enemy held stock were seized durrepresentation to secure approval of price, and ing war.--Id. whether it was relied on, questions for jury. Joint resolution declaring war's end held not -Id.

to preclude Alien Property Custodian from Instruction that subcontractor's contract compelling issuance to him of certificates repwould be null and void, in view of statutes, if resenting stock previously seized.-Id, price was unfair, unreasonable, and exorbitant, Alien Property Custodian may compel issuand in excess of reasonable profit, properly re- ance to him of certificates representing stock fused.-Id.

seized without surrender of old certificates.Instruction as to Compensation Board's as- Id. certainment of cost, as condition precedent to Uniform Stock Transfer Act held not to afsubcontractor's right to recover against con- fect Alien Property Custodian's right to certractor, held properly refused.--Id.

tificates representing stock seized.--Id. Estimate of cost made by subcontractor's as- C 12 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Demand by Alien Propsistant superintendent admissible to show erty Custodian, served after formal termination whether representation by president in letter of war, held ineffective.—Matheson v. Hicks, 10 as to cost was fraudulent.-Id.

F.(2d) 872. Om75 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Government held enti- Evidence held to show that sale of stock in tled to recover freight paid on goods sold it New York corporation by German corporation under contract requiring

delivery f. o. b. sup- was bona fide, entitling transferee to possesply office.-Harper Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 10 F.(28) sion from Alien Property Custodian.-Id. 150.

That German corporation, transferring stock Cm78 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Not liable for wrongs in New York corporation, received option to perpetrated by officers.--Sultzbach Clothing Co. repurchase, held not to show that it retained v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 363.

beneficial interest therein.-Id.

German corporation's rights under option to III. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC DEBT, purchase stock in New York corporation held AND SECURITIES.

terminated on entry of United States into war. Omw91 (34) [New, vol. 18A Key-No. Series)

-Id. (App.D.C.) Taxpayer's suit to enjoin en- German corporation held not entitled, under forcement of act providing for adjusted com- option to purchase stock in New York corporapensation for war veterans held not maintain. tion, to benefit of labor and skill of American able.-Wheless v. Mellon, 10 F.(20) 893. owners in making corporation successful.-Id.

IV. CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES. WATERS AND WATER COURSES. ww99 (App.D.C.) Claims under War Minerals See Navigable Waters. Relief Act for post-Armistice losses held not allowable (Act March 2, 1919, § 5, amended by

IX. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY. Act Nov. 23, 1921 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, (A) Domestic and Municipal Purposes. § 311519se]).-U. S. ex rel. Jarman v. Work, cw203(10) (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Prewar prices not 10 F.(2d) 989; U. S. ex rel. Carpy v. Work,

considered in fixing rate base.- Middlesex Wa10 F.(20) 991.

ter Co. v. Board of Public Utility CommissionV. ACTIONS.

ers of New Jersey, 10 F.(20) 519. C 125 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) United States does not Finding of value of water company's propsubject itself to liability for actions founded erty sustained.-Id. on alleged torts of federal officials.-Sultzbach Water company entitled to reasonable rates. Clothing Co. v. U. S., 10 F.(211) 363.

-Id. Can be sued only on giving its consent.-Id. Cw203(12) (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Court's determiCw125 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Sovereignty may pro- nation as to which method of determining devide for procedure in suits authorized against preciation of water company's property was itself.-Allen v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 807.

correct held unnecessary.--Middlesex Water Co.

v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

New Jersey, 10 F.(20) 519. See Sales.

WHARVES. 1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CON

4 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) “Private wharf," as reTRACT.

spects titie, means only one, privately owned, mw44 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Evidence held not to but, as respects use, one from which public may show agreements in consideration of extension

be excluded.--The M. L. C. No. 10, 10 F.(20) of option to purchase were procured by fraud 699. or coercion.--Beard v. Manley, 10 F.(20) 1. Omg (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Dock company leasing

wharf may reserve right to charge wharfage VENUE,

against vessels not owned or chartered by les. See Criminal Law, em 113.

see.-The M. L. C. No, 10, 10 F.(20) 699.

Cmn 16 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Right of private wharf VERDICT.

owner to charge wharfage is implicit.-The M.

L. C. No. 10, 10 F.(20) 699. See Criminal Law, cm 878; Trial, w330.

Private wharf owner may validly contract for WAR.

wharfage at less than statutory rate, though

immunity from state regulation is determined 4 (U.S.C.C.A.OKI.) License not required to from actual use rather than from fact of priengage in business of buying and selling grain vate ownership.-Id. to be used for seed.-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Cm 17 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Wharf owners held Richardson, 10 F.(20) 467.

“private wharf owners," engaged in business For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER affected by public interest, subject to rate regu- 330(I) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.). Prosecutrix in lation.--The M. L. C. No. 10, 10 F.(20) 699. White Slave Act prosecution having testified

Private wharf owners held subject to rate to intercourse in presence of defendant's niece, regulation, and not entitled to more than statu- asleep in automobile, question as to whether tory rate (New York City Charter, $ 859; niece had been called before grand jury held Laws N. Y. 1923, c. 477).-Id.

immaterial, as not impeaching-Noland v. U. S., Om19 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Petitions impleading 10 F.(20) 768. owners of steamers in libels for wharfage against harbor craft, lighters, etc., held sub- (B) Character and Conduct of Witness. ject to peremptory exception (admiralty rule

337(4) (U.S.C.C.A.T.I.) Commission of 56).-The M. L. C. No. 10, 10 F.(20) 699. Steamers held not "jointly liable" for lighter

other offenses, brought out on cross-examina

tion of accused, testifying in their own behalf, wharfage as such, and not subject to be im

held competent against them.-Murray v. U. S., pleaded under admiralty rule in libel therefor 10 F.(20) 409. (admiralty rule 56).-Id.

337(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Response to 2007) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Lighter company, impeaching question held objectionable, as in. as bailee of shipment of cocoa beans, might sue

volving collateral matter.-Arine v. U. S., 10 in admiralty or at law for damages inflicted by

F.(20) 778. negligence of dock company.--Mercantile Bank

337(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Defendant, testiof the Americas v. Flower Lighterage Co., 10 fying on own behalf, may be impeached by beF.(20) 705.

ing asked whether he had been convicted of Libel of dock company by owner for damages to shipment of cocoa beans held barred by denial.-Smith v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 787.

crime, and producing rebuttal evidence on his laches, where dock company believed that claim

m345(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Cross-examinawas closed by release after suit 18 months

tion with reference to untried criminal charge earlier.-Id.

against witness properly excluded.-Dawson v. WILLS.

U. S., 10 F.(20) 106. See Executors and Administrators.

Cam 345(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y) Evidence of con

viction of witness for theft committed after IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.

taking of deposition admissible.-Federal Coal (B) Form and Contents of Instruments. Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 10 F.(20) 679.

Conviction of theft in Cuba competent to Om94 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) An attempted testa

discredit witness on civil trial in federal court. mentary disposition of property, not in manner

-Id. provided by law, is ineffective.-Eschen v.

Cam 357 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Exclusion of impeachSteers, 10 F.(20) 739.

ing witnesses' testimony that they would not beWITNESSES.

lieve witness under oath, not error.-Colbeck See Evidence.

v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 401. II. COMPETENCY.

(C) Interest and Bias of Witness. (A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen

370(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Refusal to pereral.

mit cross-examination of government witnesses (48(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) One convicted of as to unfriendly feelings toward defendant held felony is competent witness.-Chapman v. U. erroneous.-Furlong v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 492. S., 10 F.(20) 124.

(1) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. (C) Testimony of Parties or Persons Interested, for or against Representa

ww380 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) When testitives, Survivors, or Successors in Ti- mony is hostile to party calling witness, he may tle or Interest of Persons Deceased be asked as to having made contrary statement. or Incompetent.

-Arine v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 778. Co 178(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Admission of cm 392(1) (App.D.C.) Cross-examination conplaintiff's testimony as to agreement with dece- cerning letters apparently written by defendant dent held not error, where defendant had gone held proper. ---Schwartz v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 900. into matter on cross-examination (C. S. N. C. On393(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) That prosecuting § 1795).-Grissom v. Sternberger, 10 F.(20) witness in White Slave Act prosecution did not 764.

inform grand jury and officers of presence of III. EXAMINATION.

defendant's niece at time of intercourse, a fact (B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina- to which she testified at trial, held not admis. tion.

sible.- Noland v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 768. 268(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Limitation of cross-examination held error.-Arine v. U. S., (E) Contradiction and Corroboration of 10 F.(20) 778.

Witness. Em 277(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Defendant, testi

405(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Defendant's anfying subjects himself to rules applicable to all witnesses, and to cross-examination according- him bound prosecution, and it was error to ad

swer as to matter collateral to charge against ly.-Smith v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 787. 277 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Defendant,

mit testimony to rebut his answer.-Smith v. witness stand, is subject to inquiry as any oth

U. S., 10 F.(20) 787. er witness.--Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 711. Cm 277(4), (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Refusal to permit

WORDS AND PHRASES. officer to be cross-examined as to his court- "Absolute duty."-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. martial not erroneous.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. Beltz (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F.(2d) 74. (20) 339.

“Accidental.”_Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. HolCm 277(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Cross-examina- comb (U. S. C. C. A. Tex.) 10 F.(20) 125. tion of defendant with reference to prior in- “Administration of justice.”—Rosner v. U. S. dictment, concerning which he testified on di- (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 675. rect_examination, held proper.-Marin v. U. S., "A going concern."-In re Bucyrus Road Ma10 F.(20) 271.

chinery Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Ohio) 10 F.(20) IMPEACHMENT,

333. IV. CREDIBILITY,

CONTRADICTION, AND CORROBORATION.

"Alibi."'--Colbeck v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. A. III.)

10 F.(20) 401. (A) In General.

“Allowance"-Sawyer v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. A. 321 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Government may N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 416. not impeach its witness, whose testimony was "Analogy.”-Sturm v. Ulrich (U. S. C. C. A. not harmful.--Arine v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 778.

Okl.) 10 F.(20) 9.

on

335.

V.

"Applied."-In re Bucyrus Road Machinery Co. "Last and usual place of abode.”—Trask v. (U. S. C. C, A, Ohio) 10 F.(20) 333.

Karrick (App. D. C.) 10 F.(20) 995. "Bill of lading.”—The Capitaine Faure (U. S. "Lawfully admitted."—Domenici v.

Johnson C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 950.

(U. S. C. C. A. Mass.) 10 F.(20) 433. "Car."-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Beltz (U., S. “Legal representatives."-In re Famous Fain C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 74.

Co. (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 540. "Cognac."--Benson v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. A. “Locomotive."-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Beltz Tex.) 10 F.(20) 309.

(U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 74. “Collect for.”—In re Gubelman (U. S. C. C. A. "Mining partnership.”—Sturm v. Ulrich (U. S. N. Y.) 10 F.(23) 935.

C. C. A. Okl.) 10 F.(2d) 9. “Commerce."-Bobe v. Lloyds (U. S. C. C. A. "Money.”—Hazeltine_Research Corporation v. V. Y.) 10 F.(20) 730.

Freed-Eisemann Radio Corporation (U. S. “Commutation."-Chapman v. Scott (U. S. D. C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 145. C. Conn.) 10 F.(2) 150.

“Not exceeding.”-Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Jack"Conclusions of law."-Allen .V. U. S. (U. S. sonville Oil Mill (U. S. C. C. A. Tenn.) D. C. Tex.) 10 F.(20) 807.

10 F.(20) 51. "Conspiracy.”-U. S. ex rel. Silverstein v. "Pardon."-Chapman v: Scott (U. S. D. C.

Hecht (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 370. Conn.) 10 F.(20) 156. "Contracts implied in law.”--Landon y. Kansas "Peril of the sea. Olympia Canning Co. v.

City Gas Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Kan.) 10 F. Union Marine Ins. Co. (U. S. C. C. A. (20) 263.

Wash.) 10 F.(20) 72; American Trading "Controversy.”—Mace v. Mayfield (U. S. D. C. Co. of New Orleans v. Fairhaven Co. (U. S. S. C.) 10 F.(20) 231.

D. C. Cal.) 10 F.(24) 981; The City of Dun“Conveyance"-U. S. v. Gypsy Oil Co. (U. S. kirk (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 609. C. C. A. Okl.) 10 F.(20) 487.

Pioneer patent."-Spengler Core Drilling Co. "Corporation."-Bobe v. Lloyds (U. S. C. C. A. v. Spencer (U. S. D. C. Cal.) 10 F.(20) 579. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 730.

"Port charge.”—Wilkens v. Trafikaktiebolaget "Covenant not to sue."-Pacific States Lumber Grangesberg Okelosund (U. S. C. C. A. Co. v. Bargar (U. S. C. C. A, Or.) 10 F.(2d) Tex.) 10 F.(2d) 129.

"Prescribed rate."--Lothrop v. Spokane, P. & “Custody of the law.”—The Blairmore I (U. S. Ry. Co. (U. S. D. C. Or.) 10 F.(20) 22.7. S. D. C. Conn.) 10 F.(20) 35.

“Prima facie evidence.”—U. S. v. Andrade (U. "Descriptive properties."-American Tobacco S. D. C. Tex.) 10 F.(22) 572.

Co. v. Gordon (App. D. C.) 10 F.(20) 616. "Private wharf.”—The M. L. C. No. 10 (U. S. "Dockage.”—Wilkens Trafikaktiebolaget C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 699.

Grangesberg Okelosund (U. S. C. C. A. "Probable cause”-U. S. v. Andrade (U. S. D. Tex.) 10 F.(20) 123.

C. Tex.) 10 F.(20) 572. "Enemy."-Vowinckel v. First Federal Trust "Protest."-U. S. v. Lian (U. S. C. C. A. N. Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Cal.) 10 F.(2d) 19.

Y.) 10 F.(20) 41. "Engaged in interstate commerce.”-Davis v. "Rate."-Lothrop v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co.

Baltimore & O. R. Co. (U. S. C. C. A. (U. S. D. C. Or.) 10 F.(20) 225.
Ohio) 10 F.(20) 140.

"Reasonable doubt."--Dell'Aira v. U. S. (U. S. "Enter."-Irving Nat. Bank v. Law (U. S. C. C. C. A. Cal.) 10 F.(23) 102; Arine v. U. S. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 721.

(U. S. C. C. A. Wash.) 10 F.(20) 778. “Estate by the entirety.”-American Whole- “Release."-Pacific States Lumber Co. v. Bar

sale Corporation v. Aronstein (App. D. C.) gar (U. S. C. C. A. Or.) 10 F.(20) 335. 10 F.(20) 991.

"Retainer pay."-Sawyer v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. "Estoppel."'--C. C. Mengel & Bro. Co. v. Handy A. N. Y.) 10 F.(21) 416

Chocolate Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Mass.) 10 "Return."-Irving Nat. Bank v. Law (U. S. C. F.(20) 293.

C. A: N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 721. “Evidence."-Ilardy-Burlingharr: Mining Co. v. "Revenue law.”—U. S. v. McConnell (U. S. D.

Baker (U. S. C. C. A. Ky.) 10 F.(20) 277. C. Pa.) 10 F.(2d) 973. "Execution."-Kriebel v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. "Revenue provisions of a law.”—U. S. v. McA. II.) 10 F.(20) 762.

Connell (U. S. D. C. Pa.) 10 F.(211) 973. “Extra port charge."--Wilkens v. Trafikaktie- "Seaworthiness.”—The City of Dunkirk (U.

bolaget Grangesberg Okelosund (U. S. C. S. D. C. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 609. C. A. Tex.) 10 F.(20) 129.

"Sentence.”-Archer v. Snook (U. S. D. C. "Favor of."-In re Gubelman (U. S. C. C. A. N. Ga.) 10 F.(20) 567. Y.) 10 F.(21) 935.

"Suspend."--Kriebel v U. S. (U. S. C. C. A. “Filed.”—In re Gubelman (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) Ill.) 10 F.(20) 762. 10 F.(20) 326.

“Unrelinquished doinicile."-Domenici v. John"Filing:"-In re Gubelman (U. S. C. C. A. N.

son (U. S. C. C. A. Mass.) 10 F.(20) 433. Y.) 10 F.(20) 926.

"Waiver."-C. C. Mengel & Bro. Co. v. Handy “Findings of fact."-Allen v. U. S. (U. S. D.

Chocolate Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Mass.) 10 C. Tex.) 10 F.(20) 807.

F.(21) 293. "Gift inter vivos."--Conlon v. Turley (App. D.

"Wharfage."-Wilkens V. C.) 10 F.(2d) 890.

Trafikaktiebolaget "Going concern value.”- New York & Rich

Grangesberg Okelosund (U. S. C. C. A. mond Gas Co. v. Prendergast (U. S. D. C.

Tex.) 10 F.(20) 129. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 167.

"While riding in."--Wright v. Atna Life Ins. "Gratuity.”-Sawyer v. U. S. (U. S, C. C. A. N.

Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Pa.) 10 F.(20) 281. Y.) 10 F.(20) 416. "Impose”-Kriebel v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. A. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.

III.) 10 F.(2d) 762. "Imposition."-Kriebel v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. A. See Master and Servant, 351-10942.

111.) 10 F.(20) 762. “Imposition of sentence.”--Kriebel v. U. S. (U.

WRIT OF ERROR. S. C. C. A. Ill.) 10 F.(2d) 762. "Indemnify.”—The Capitaine Faure (U. S. C. See Appeal and Error.

C. A. N. Y.) 10 F.(2d) 950. "Insolvency."--In re Bucyrus Road Machinery

WRITS. Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Ohio) 10 F.(20) 333. "Interest.”—Kishi v. Humble Oil & Refining See Execution; Garnishment; Habeas Corpus;

Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Tex.) 10 F.(20) 35'). Injunction; Mandamus; Process.

WEST PUBLISHING CO., PRINTERS, ST. PAUL, MINN,

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »