Slike strani
PDF
ePub

Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 196 C. S.

v. William Williams, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ETC., Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. January 23, 1905. Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for appellant. Mr. Alfred Hayes, Jr., for appellant. The Attorney General for appellee.

No. 181. FRED SANDERS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. The COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. January 30, 1905. Dismissed with costs, per stipulation. Mr. Charles H. Gibson for plaintiff in error. Mr. Napoleon B. Hays for defendant in error.

No. 187. Max SCHUBACH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WARWICK Hough, JUDGE, ETC., ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. February 20, 1905. Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Henry W. Bond and Mr. Frederick N. Judson for plaintiff in error. Mr. John F. Dillon and Mr. Martin L. Clardy for defendants in error.

No. 252. RICHARD Dillon, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. FRANK MARES. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana. February 20, 1905. Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Thomas J. Walsh for plaintiff in error. Mr. Henry G. McIntire for defendant in error.

INDEX.

ACCRETION.
See BOUNDARIES.

[ocr errors]

ACTION.
Suit involving controversy to which judicial power of United States extends.
A proceeding brought by a Kentucky railroad company in the county court

under $8 835-839, Kentucky Statutes, to condemn lands for a public
use, valued at over $2,000, belonging to a corporation which is a citizen
of another State, is a suit involving a controversy to which the judicial
power of the United States extends within the meaning of the judiciary
clauses of the Constitution and of which the Circuit Court has original
cognizance under $ 1 of the judiciary act of 1887 and may be removed
to the Circuit Court of the United States. Traction Company v. Min-
ing Company, 239.
See COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT JURISDICTION, B 2;
OF TRADE;

NATIONAL BANKS;
CONTRACTS, 3;

PARTIES;
DAMAGES;

PROCESS;
EMINENT DOMAIN, 2;

States, 3;
EXTRADITION, 3;

TAXATION, 7.

ACTS OF CONGRESS.
ACTIONS, Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470 (see Jurisdiction, B 1): Mc-

Daniel v. Traylor, 415. Act of February 8, 1899 (see Parties): Cale-

donian Coal Co. v. Baker, 432.
ADMIRALTY, Harter Act, sections 1, 3 (see Maritime Law): The Germanic, 589.
ANTI-TRUST Act of July 2, 1890 (see Combinations in Restraint of Trade):

Swift and Company v. United States, 375.
ARMY, Rev. Stat. sections 1229, 1342 (see Army): Hartigan v. United States,

169. Rev. Stat. section 1261 (see Navy Personnel Act): United States

v. Crosley, 327.
AUTOMATIC COUPLERS, Act of March 2, 1903, 32 Stat. 943, c. 976 (see

Automatic Couplers, 3): Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 1. Act of

March 2, 1893, 27 Stat. 531, c. 196 (see Automatic Couplers, 2): Ib.
BANKRUPTCY, Act of 1898 (see Bankruptcy, 4): Western Tie and Timber

Co. v. Brown, 502. Amendment of February 5, 1903 (see Bank-

ruptcy, 7): Wetmore v. Markoe, 68.
JUDICIARY, Rev. Stat. section 709 (see Bankruptcy, 2): Smalley v. Lauge-
nour, 93; (see Federal Question, 1): Allen v. Alleghany Co., 458. Rev.

645

Stat. section 720, Act of 1887, 1888 (see Removal of Causes, 1): Trac-

tion Co. v. Mining Co., 239.
JUDICIARY, Act of 1887, section 1 (see Action): Traction Co. v. Mining Co.,

239. Act of 1887, 1888 (see Jurisdiction, B 1): McDaniel v. Traylor,
415. Act of March 3, 1891 (see Jurisdiction, A 1, 2): Courtney v.

Pradt, 89; Lucius v. Cawthon-Coleman Co., 149.
Locus CRIMINIS, Rev. Stat. section 731 (see Criminal Law, 2): Burton v.

United States, 283.
Missouri, Acts of 1820 and 1836 (see Boundaries, 2): Missouri v. Nebraska,

23.
NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. section 5198 (see National Banks): First Na-

tional Bank v. Lasater, 115.
Navy, Rev. Stat. sections 1556, 1571 (see Naval Officers): United States

v. Engard, 511.
Navy PERSONNEL Act (see Navy Personnel Act): United States v. Cros-

ley, 327.
NEBRASKA, Act admitting to statehood (see Boundaries, 2): Missouri v.

Nebraska, 23.
OKLAHOMA, Act of 1889; Town site act of May 14, 1890 (see Public Lands,

4): Oklahoma City v. McMaster, 529. Act of May 2, 1890, 26 Stat.
81, 85, sec. 9 (see Appeal and Error): Oklahoma City v. McMaster,

529; (see Jurisdiction, A 4): Comstock v. Eagleton, 99.
Public LANDS, Act of July 2, 1864, grant to Northern Pacific R. R. Co.

(see Public Lands, 6): United States v. Montana Lumber Mg. Co., 573.
Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 557 (see Public Lands, 7): Ramsey v.

Tacoma Land Co., 360.
Public OFFICERS, Rev. Stat. section 1782 (see Criminal Law, 1): Burton

v. United States, 283.
States, Act of June 28, 1834, 4 Stat. 708, confirming agreement between

New York and New Jersey (see Waters, 1): Hamburg American Steam-

ship Co. v. Grube, 407.
TERRITORIAL COURTS, Act of 1874 (see Appeal and Error): Oklahoma City

v. McMaster, 529.
WAR REVENUE Act of 1898 and amendatory, refunding and repealing acts

of 1901 and 1902 (see War Revenue Act): Vanderbilt v. Eidman, 480.

ADMIRALTY.
See MARITIME LAW.

1

AGENCY.
See BANKS AND BANKING;

CORPORATIONS, 2;
MAILS, 3.

ALIMONY.
See BANKRUPTCY, 7.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.

See JURISDICTION, B 1.

ANTI-TRUST ACT.
See COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8.

APPEAL AND ERROR.
Review of judgment of Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
The review by this court of final judgments in civil cases of the Supreme

Court of the Territory of Oklahoma is not controlled by the act of 1874
in regard to territorial courts but by $ 9 of the act of May 2, 1890,
26 Stat. 81, 85, providing the territorial government for Oklahoma,
and in an action at law where a jury has been waived the review is by
writ of error as in the case of a similar judgment of a Circuit Court,
and not by appeal. Oklahoma City v. McMaster, 529.

See FEDERAL QUESTION;

JURISDICTION.

ARMY.
Status of cadet at military academy.
A cadet at the West Point Military Academy is not an officer of the United

States Army within the meaning of $8 1229, 1342, Rev. Stat., and, if
delinquent, may be dismissed by the President without trial and con-
viction by court-martial. Hartigan v. United States, 169.

ARMY REGULATIONS.
See Navy PERSONNEL ACT.

ARREST.
See JURISDICTION, A 6.

ATTESTATION.
See Wills, 2.

AUTOMATIC COUPLERS.
1. Equipment amounting to non-compliance with law.
The equipment of cars with automatic couplers which will not automatically

couple with each other so as to render it unnecessary for men to go
between the cars to couple and uncouple is not a compliance with the
law. Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 1.

2. Scope of words "any carin act of March 2, 1893.
Locomotive engines are included by the words “any car” contained in the

second section of the act of March 2, 1893, 27 Stat. 531, c. 196, re-
quiring cars engaged in interstate commerce to be equipped with auto-
matic couplers. And although they were also required by the first
section of the act to be equipped with power driving wheel brakes, the
rule that the expression of one thing includes others does not apply,
inasmuch as there was a special reason for that requirement and in

addition the same necessity for automatic couplers existed as to them
as in respect to other cars. A dining car regularly engaged in inter-
state traffic does not cease to be so when waiting for the train to make
the next trip. Ib.

3. Act of March 2, 1903, construed.
The act of March 2, 1903, 32 Stat. 943, c. 976, reiterates the view herein

expressed and is declaratory thereof. Ib.

AVULSION.
See BOUNDARIES.

BANKRUPTCY.
1. Exemptions: right of bankrupt dependent upon laws of State.
The rights of a bankrupt to exempt property are those given by the statutes

of the State, and if such exempt property is not subject to levy and sale
under those statutes, it cannot be made to respond under the Federal
bankrupt act. Smalley v. Laugenour, 93.

2. Exemptions: right of creditor to contest bankrupt's claim-Appeals.
A creditor may contest the bankrupt's claim to exemption in the bank-

ruptcy court, or may invoke the supervision and revision of the Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals, but, failing to do that, cannot, unless the order
setting the bankrupt’s exemption apart be absolutely void, question
its validity in another proceeding in the state court. Nor can the
judgment of the state court. following the order of the bankruptcy court
and giving effect to the exemption be reviewed by this court on writ
of error under $ 709, Rev. Stat., on the ground that plaintiff in error
was denied a title, right, privilege or immunity, under the Constitu-
tion or authority of the United States specially set up or claimed in
the state court. Ib.

3. Jurisdiction of bankruptcy court-Appeals.
The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine on a claim asserted by

the bankrupt whether property in the hands of the trustee is exempt;
and while an erroneous decision against the asserted right may be
corrected in the appropriate mode for the correction of errors, the
jurisdiction of the court is not in issue within the meaning of the act
of March 3, 1891, and a direct appeal to this court will not lie. Lucius
v. Cawthon-Coleman Co., 149.

4. Preference-Sums collected for bankrupt and withheld by creditor not a

voidable preference-Creditor acting as trustee not entitled to set off sums

collected.
The bankrupt was largely indebted to a corporation whose laborers pur-

chased supplies from him; periodically he rendered the corporation a
statement of amounts due from its laborers which it deducted from
their wages and remitted to him in a lump sum. Prior to, and within
four months of, the filing of the petition, the corporation several times

« PrejšnjaNaprej »