contract; held, that payments made to such party within
the four-month period were not recoverable by the trustee as
preferential. Johnson v. Root Mfg. Co.....
Where a bank holding a draft for collection, with instruc-
tions to deliver documents attached only on payment, per-
mitted draw to take possession of goods covered by the
documents on his agreeing to deposit the proceeds thereof as
sold, such action on the part of the collecting bank con-
stituted a payment in law of the draft if the value of the
goods was not less than the amount of the draft. Russo-
Chinese Bank v. National Bank of Commerce.....
Such action of the collecting bank amounted to a misappro-
priation of the property and liability to account for its
value immediately arose. Id.
Collecting bank became invested with ownership of goods
and could not be excused from obligation to account by de-
claring that goods had disappeared without its knowledge;
the relation of principal and agent existed and, as agent,
collecting bank was obligated to act in good faith to protect
rights of owner of draft. Id.
Even if bank, sending draft for collection, suffers no loss on
account of guaranty from original owner, it may, in view of
its relation to commercial paper, demand, as principal, an
accounting from its correspondent, and resist ar action to
recover back money received upon the draft. Id.
BEACONS. See Admiralty.
BENEFITS. See Condemnation of Land; Taxes and Taxa-
tion.
Bill is contract; and, if interstate, to be construed in light of
provisions of Carmack Amendment. Northern Pacific Ry.
Co. v. Wall.
Provision in interstate bill is to be construed the same as to
connecting or terminal carrier as to initial carrier. Georgia,
F. & A. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co.. ....
Where provision in bill applicable and valid effect must be
given thereto. Id.
Interpretation and effect may present Federal question,
even though no affirmative proof that carrier has filed
tariff schedules. Cincinnati, N. Ó. & T. Ry. v. Rankin.
Parties to contract made pursuant to Commerce Act cannot
waive its terms. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co... 190
One of objects of Carmack Amendment was uniformity of
responsibility under interstate bills of lading. Atchison, T.
& S. F. Ry. v. Harold... ...
Under Carmack Amendment duty to issue and responsi-
bilities thereunder is action of Congress, excluding state
action thereon.
Bill issued by initial carrier upon interstate shipment gov-
erns entire transportation and fixes obligations of all partici-
pating carriers to extent that its terms are applicable and
valid. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co.
Recitals in bill, signed by both carrier and shipper, that law-
ful alternate rates based on valuations were offered, consti-
tute admissions by shipper and prima facie evidence of
choice, and cast on shipper burden of proof to contradict.
Cincinnati, N. O. & T. Ry. v. Rankin..
Application by state court to interstate shipment of local
rule investing innocent holder with rights not available to
shipper is reversible error. A., T. & S. F. Ry. v. Harold 371
Quare, whether attributing to interstate bill characteristics
in conflict with general commercial rule would not consti-
tute direct burden on interstate commerce. Id.
Where bill of interstate shipment requires notice of claim
for misdelivery before action can be brought against initial
carrier, such notice must be given to terminal carrier mak-
ing misdelivery. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co. 190
A stipulation in bill of interstate shipment that shipper
must, as condition precedent to right of recovery for in-
jury to shipment while in transit, give notice thereof in writ-
ing to some officer or station agent of the initial carrier, is
satisfied by notice to station agent of connecting or de-
livering carrier. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wall . . . . . . . 87
Stipulation in bill requiring notice of claim before action.
brought held satisfied by telegram from shipper to terminal
carrier. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co. ........ 190
Brokers and their customers stand in the relation of pledgee
and pledgor. Duel v. Hollins.....
In dealings between brokers and customers stock certificates
issued by same corporation are to be treated as indistinguish-
able tokens of actual values. Id.
As between themselves, after paying amount due broker
on marginal transaction, customer may demand from broker
delivery of stock, purchased for his account, and such de-
livery made during insolvency is not preference. Id.
Where bankrupt broker did not have sufficient shares of
stock of corporation on hand at time of bankruptcy to
satisfy demands of all customers entitled thereto, held that
such customers were entitled to such shares on demanding
same, participating pro rata in division of shares actually on
hand. Id.
BURDEN OF PROOF. See Evidence.
Title to stock may be transferred by delivery of certificates
and the corporate books are not open for public information.
Stowe v. Harvey...
Liability of initial and connecting carriers under. See
Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co.
CARRIERS. See Bill of Lading; Common Carriers; Em-
ployers' Liability Act; Interstate Commerce; Rail-
roads; Safety Appliance Act.
CASES OVERRULED, ETC.:
Matter of Heff, 197 U. S. 488, overruled. United States v.
Nice....
For cases approved, distinguished, explained and followed,
see Table of Cases in front of volume.
CERTIFICATES OF STOCK. See Brokers.
Where granted to review question of law, assumption that
lower courts right where they agreed upon construction of
facts. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Schmidt....
Petitions for writ of certiorari to state courts or other proper
proceeding under the Act of Congress of December 23, 1914,
denied. Stowe v. Taylor..
Callaghan v. Massachusetts:
Baltimore v. United Railways...
(These were the first proceedings under the Act of 1914.)
Amendment of Rule 37, relative to presentation of petitions
for. See p. 635.
CHARGE TO JURY. See Instructions to Jury.
Status of merchant, as defined by treaty with China of 1880,
is that acquired in China. Chin Fong v. Backus......
Person detained for deportation held not entitled to direct
appeal from judgment of District Court dismissing petition
for habeas corpus. Id.
While a corporation incorporated under an Act of Congress
is a citizen of the United States, it is not within the declara-
tion of the Fourteenth Amendment that citizens of the
United States are citizens of the State in which they reside.
Bankers Trust Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry....
A corporation incorporated under Act of Congress, whose
activities are intended to be and are carried on in different
States, is not a citizen of a State within meaning of jurisdic-
tional statute.
Congress has not clothed railroad corporations organized
under acts of Congress with state citizenship for jurisdic-
tional purposes. Id.
CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES:
Contract with Government for construction of filtration
plant construed and held to include roadway shown on
annexed plans, and that contractor entitled to compensa-
tion for work done thereon. White v. United States...
CLASSIFICATION. See Constitutional Law.
For sections of Criminal and Judicial Codes construed, etc.
See Congress.
COMMERCE. See Constitutional Law; Interstate Com-
COMMERCIAL LAW. See Banks and Banking.
Illegal arrest by state or municipal authorities does not
affect jurisdiction of United States extradition commis-
sioner. Kelly v. Griffin...
In determining status of corporation important thing is
what it actually does and not what its charter says it may
do. Terminal Taxicab Co. v. District of Columbia..
COMMON CARRIERS—Continued.
Corporation authorized by its charter to carry passengers
and goods, but not to exercise any powers of a public service
corporation, and which does such business, including carry-
ing of passengers to and from railroad terminals and hotels
under contracts therewith, and also does a garage business
with individuals, held a common carrier within meaning of
District of Columbia Public Utility Act of 1913, and sub-
ject to jurisdiction of Commission as to terminal and hotel
business, but not as to garage business; and under the Act
is bound to furnish information properly required by Com-
mission in regard to former, but not as to latter business.
Id.
It will not be presumed that interstate carrier is conducting
its affairs in violation of law. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. Ry. v.
Rankin.....
Where carrier by rail offers rates for interstate shipments.
fairly based upon valuation, it may limit its liability by
special contract. Id.
Recitals in bill of lading, signed by both carrier and shipper,
that lawful alternate rates based on valuations were offered,
constitute admissions by shipper and prima facie evidence
of choice, and cast on shipper burden of proof to contradict.
Id.
Provision in interstate bill of lading is to be construed the
same as to connecting or terminal carrier as to initial carrier.
Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co....
Where bill of lading of interstate shipment requires notice of
claim for misdelivery before action can be brought against
initial carrier, such notice must be given to terminal carrier
making misdelivery. Id.
Bill of lading issued by initial carrier upon interstate ship-
ment governs entire transportation and fixes obligations of
all participating carriers to extent that its terms are appli-
cable and valid. Id.
Effect of stipulation in bill of lading for notice of claim for
misdelivery of shipment, cannot be escaped by form of ac-
tion; and if suit cannot be maintained for damages against
delivering carrier without such notice, it cannot be main-
tained for conversion. Id.
Stipulation in bill of lading requiring notice of claim before
action brought held satisfied by telegram from shipper to
terminal carrier.
Application by state court to interstate shipment of local
|