CONSTRUCTION-Continued.
Of Contracts: In construing contract court must first re-
sort to all its words as associated, as well as conditions to
which addressed and intended to provide for: one word can-
not be made dominant. Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United
States..
Contract with Government for construction of filtration
plant construed and held to include roadway shown on an-
nexed plans, and that contractor entitled to compensation
for work done thereon. White v. United States
Question of proper construction of bill of lading of interstate
shipment is a Federal one. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish
Milling Co....
Where provision in bill of lading applicable and valid ef-
fect must be given thereto. Id.
Whether, in construing an interstate bill of lading issued
under the Carmack Amendment, due effect is given to the
latter, is a Federal question. Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wall. 87
See Contracts; Pure Food and Drugs Act.
In construing contract court must first resort to all its
words as associated, as well as conditions to which addressed
and intended to provide for: one word cannot be made domi-
nant. Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United States.
As to freedom of contracts having relation to interstate
commerce, and right of States to burden. See Rosenberger
v. Pacific Express Co.......
Laws in force at time and place of making contract and
which affect its validity, performance and enforcement,
enter into and form part of it, as if expressly referred to or
incorporated therein. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wall. ... 87
Bill of lading is contract; and, if interstate, to be construed
in light of provisions of Carmack Amendment. Id.
Parties to contract of an interstate shipment by rail made
pursuant to Commerce Act cannot waive its terms; nor can
carrier by conduct give shipper right to ignore such terms
and hold carrier to different responsibility than that fixed
by the agreement made under published tariffs and regula-
tions. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co.. . . . . . .
A provision in a government contract for liquidation of dam-
ages held to contain no element of deception or exorbitance
and to be controlling on contractor. Maryland Dredging
Co. v. United States...
Where a government contract provided that unless ex-
traordinary and unforeseen conditions should supervene
the time allowed was sufficient, such conditions must come
into being after the commencement of the work, and not
merely be thereafter discovered to have existed and still to
exist. Id.
In construing government contract, held, that extent of
promise for extension of time was confined to what engineer
in charge would grant with sanction of chief engineer, and
that latter was not, in absence of fraud, bound to give such
sanction. Id.
A provision in a government contract that the time was
sufficient unless extraordinary conditions should intervene,
held not to amount to a promise for extension if such con-
ditions do supervene. Id.
Contract with Government for construction of filtration
plant construed and held to include roadway shown on an-
nexed plans, and that contractor entitled to compensation
for work done thereon. White v. United States
Where, under contract with Government, decision of super-
vising architect made final upon any dispute regarding inter-
pretation of specifications, decision of Secretary of Treasury
sustaining decision of architect held final. Merrill-Ruckga-
ber Co. v. United States..
Contractor held bound to underpin walls of both of two
buildings, notwithstanding specification referred to building
and wall of one of buildings was only light or curtain wall.
Id.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. See Employers' Lia-
bility Act.
An express company accepting a C. O. D. shipment of in-
toxicating liquor is not justified in refusing to deliver the
same because of an unconstitutional state statute imposing
special licenses on such companies maintaining offices for
such shipments; and held, that such refusal amounted to
conversion of the goods. Rosenberger v. Pacific Express Co. 48
CORPORATIONS:
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..
Corporation chartered by Congress is not only creature of
that law, but all its rights are dependent thereon, and suit
by or against such corporation is one arising under laws of
United States. Bankers Trust Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry.. 295
Such corporation whose activities are intended to be and are
carried on in different States, is not a citizen of a State within
meaning of jurisdictional statute. Id.
While such corporation is a citizen of the United States, it
is not within the declaration of the Fourteenth Amendment
that citizens of the United States are citizens of the State
in which they reside. Id.
Congress has not clothed railroad corporations organized
under acts of Congress with state citizenship for jurisdic-
tional purposes. Id.
State may not prevent foreign commercial corporations
doing local business from exercising constitutional right to
remove suits into Federal courts. Wisconsin v. Philadel
phia & Reading Coal Co. ...
Section 1770f, Wisconsin Statutes, providing for revocation
of license of foreign corporation in case it removes, or makes
application to remove into Federal court, any action com-
menced against it by citizen of State is unconstitutional as
beyond power of State. Id.
As a general rule courts have no power to interfere with
performance by Land Department of administrative duties,
but may, when functions of the Department are at an end,
correct errors of law committed in such administration.
Lane v. Mickadiet.....
Congress has power to invest subordinate Federal courts
with original jurisdiction of suits at law or in equity arising
under Constitution, laws or treaties of United States. Bank-
ers Trust Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry.
State court in enforcing right created by Federal statute
does not derive its authority as a court from the United
States, but from the State, and the Seventh Amendment
does not apply to it. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. v. Bom-
bolis......
Statutory provisions relating to terms of District Courts of
Florida and provisions of Judicial Code, held to permit spe-
cial terms to be held at any time for transaction of any kind
of business. Abbott v. Brown.
General Rule No. 1 of District Court for Southern District
of Florida, should be liberally construed so as to keep court
open from beginning of one statutory term to beginning
of next; and an adjournment made pursuant to that rule
does not bring term to end. Id.
See Appeal and Error; Jurisdiction; Practice and Pro-
cedure.
CRIMINAL CODE:
For sections construed, see Congress.
Legislative power may not declare one guilty, or presump-
tively guilty, of a crime. McFarland v. American Sugar Co. 79
Attempt by Congress to make possession of article produced
in any of the States a crime would raise gravest question of
power. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy...
While penal provision not to be enlarged by interpretation,
it must not be so narrowed as to fail to give full effect to its
plain terms, as made manifest by its text and context.
Lamar v. United States...
Proper and reasonable construction of criminal statute
must not be refused for fear of delay in prosecution of of-
fenders. United States v. Lombardo... .. .
Where in criminal prosecution there is proof of criminality,
it is not error to refuse an instruction to acquit and to sub-
mit case to jury. Lamar v. United States..
Sec. 32, Penal Code, prohibits and punishes the false assum-
ing, with intent to defraud, to be an officer or employee of
the United States; and also the doing in the falsely assumed
character of any overt act to carry out the fraudulent intent,
whether it would have been legally authorized had the as-
sumed capacity existed or not. Id.
A member of the House of Representatives is an officer of
the United States within the meaning of § 32, Penal Code.
Id.
Indictment held to charge fraudulent intent under § 32,
Penal Code, and to be sufficient under § 1025, Rev. Stat. Id.
Court will not, in order to accommodate venue of particular
offense, introduce confusion into the law. United States v.
Lombardo..
Nature and jurisdiction of offense under § 6, White Slave
Traffic Act. See United States v. Lombardo..
CRIMINAL LAW-Continued.
What constitutes offense under § 215, Crim. Code. See
United States v. New South Farm..
Section 316, Penal Code, does not embrace offense of adul-
tery as between Indians on reservation. United States v.
Quiver...
Under §§ 16, 20, Enabling Act, and sched. 28, constitution
of Oklahoma, State took place of United States in prosecu-
tions for adultery, neither party being Indian, commenced
in Indian Territory, and all essential parts of prosecution,
including bail bond, passed to State with power of enforce-
ment. Southern Surety Co. v. Oklahoma . . ..
Quare, whether Congress can deal with crime of adultery
committed by tribal Indians within State. Id.
Adultery is punishable offense only when common or stat-
ute law so makes it, and where punishable, is cognizable
only in courts of State. Id.
Where court explicitly enjoins jury that there must be proxi-
mate and causal relation between damages and negligence
and refers to amount stated in declaration as limitation on
amount of award, and there is no misunderstanding as to
the purpose of such reference, there is no error. Chesapeake
& Ohio Ry. v. Carnahan.
When evidence shows that there will be future effects of in-
jury, instruction justifying their inclusion in award of dam-
ages not error. Id.
Measure and apportionment under Employers' Liability
Act. See Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Kelly ..............
Quare as to liability of United States to owner of tract of
land part of which taken for erection of dike in navigable
river. United States v. Archer.
DECREES. See Judgments and Decrees.
DELIVERY. See Interstate Commerce.
DEMURRAGE. See Interstate Commerce.
DEPORTATION OF ALIENS. See Aliens.
DEPOSITIONS. See Evidence; Extradition.
DISTRICT COURTS. See Jurisdiction.
|