241 U. S. Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court.
No. 306. THE UNITED STATES ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Illinois. May 22, 1916. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Davis for the appellants. The Attorney General for the appellants. Mr. Edward A. Haid and Mr. Henry G. Herbel for the appellees.
No. 387. THE CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. E. G. MASSINGALE, AS ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL. In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. May 22, 1916. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. John Galvin and Mr. Edward Colston for the plaintiff in error. Mr. James N. Sharpe for the defendants in error.
No. 873. POSTAL TELEGRAPH COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. THE CITY OF PORTLAND. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. June 5, 1916. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the appellant. Mr. William D. Fenton and Mr. Alfred A. Hampson for the appellant. No appearance for the appellee.
No. 903. NICOLA CERRI, AS ITALIAN CONSULar Agent, ETC., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. GIOVANNI PAGANO, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. June 5, 1916. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Newton D. Baker for the plaintiff in error. No appearance for the defendant in error.
Cases Disposed of Without Consideration by the Court. 241 U. S.
No. 727. CHARLES FRANK ET AL., APPELLANTS, ". UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. June 12, 1916. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the appellants. Mr. Samuel Untermyer, Mr. Louis Marshall, Mr. Myron L. Learned and Mr. Abraham Benedict for the appellants. Mr. N. H. Loomis for the appellees.
Although State not suable without consent, state officer may be enjoined from doing act violative of Federal Con- stitution. Missouri v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. . . . . . . . . Even though government of Porto Rico has sovereign attri- butes and has only consented to be sued in its own courts, the solemn appearance in the United States District Court, and the taking of other steps by, its Attorney General, held to have amounted to a consent to be sued in that court, and thereafter government could not deny its jurisdiction. Richardson v. Fajardo Sugar Co.......
A suit by or against a corporation chartered by Congress is one arising under a law of the United States. Bankers Trust Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry.....
Quare, whether suit against Mississippi River Commission to enjoin construction of levees is not suit against United States. Cubbins v. Mississippi River Commission........ 351 Holder of oil and gas lease on lands in Oklahoma may main- tain suit in equity to restrain claimants under another lease from interfering with the property. Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Co.....
Suit for damages to business caused by threat to sue under patent law, not one of which state court cannot take juris- diction. American Well Works Co. v. Layne . . . .
As to when amendment of pleading amounts to setting up new cause of action barred by limitations. See Seaboard Air Line v. Renn....
Effect of stipulation in bill of lading for notice of claim for misdelivery of shipment, cannot be escaped by form of action; and if suit cannot be maintained for damages against delivering carrier without such notice, it cannot be main- tained for conversion. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co.......
Quare, whether suit by railroad against state officers to en- join enforcement of rate-making statute is not a class suit binding upon all. Missouri v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co.... 533
A supplemental bill is not dependent or ancillary to original suit in sense that jurisdiction of it follows jurisdiction of orig- inal cause. Merriam v. Saalfield .....
Right of common carrier to require notice of claim before action brought; and sufficiency of such notice. See Georgia, F. & A. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co.
As to right of action under Safety Appliance Act. See Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Rigsby..
See Congress; Construction.
ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE. See Interstate Com- merce.
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW. See Equity. ADMIRALTY:
In determining jurisdiction over incompleted structure in navigable waters to be used when completed as govern- mental aid to navigation, its location and purpose control- ling from time it was begun. The Raithmoor... Jurisdiction exists of libel in rem against vessel for damages caused by its colliding with incompleted beacon in course of construction in navigable waters and which when completed is to be used solely as governmental aid to navigation. Id. Jurisdiction over incompleted structure extends to that which is mere incident to such construction. Id. Owner of automobile delivered it to express company in Lon- don to forward to New York, declaring its value to be far in excess of $100; the express company boxed it and delivered it to a carrier and accepted a bill of lading with a limitation of $100 liability; on arrival at destination a stevedore dis- charged the cargo and the rope by which the automobile was being hoisted broke and the automobile was seriously damaged in a suit in personam in admiralty against the express company, to which carrier and stevedore had been made parties, held that: the breaking of the rope brings case by analogy within the rule of res ipsa loquitur and throws responsibility on stevedore unless such breaking can be ex- plained as resulting from a hidden defect. In case of failure to collect from the stevedore carrier is responsible to extent of limited amount stated in bill of lading, and in case there is still a deficiency, the express company, even though only a forwarder, is liable by reason of having without the au- thority and with knowledge of the value of the article en-
trusted to it accepted from the carrier a bill of lading limit- ing its liability. Reid v. American Express Co......
In Second Circuit practice well established that appeal from decree in admiralty to the Circuit Court of Appeals opens case for trial de novo. Reid v. American Express Co. ...... 544 See Maritime Law.
ADMISSIONS. See Evidence.
ADULTERATION. See Pure Food and Drugs Act. ADULTERY:
Is an offense against the marriage relation and belongs to the class of subjects which each State controls in its own way. Southern Surety Co. v. Oklahoma....
582 Is punishable offense only when common or statute law so makes it, and where punishable, is cognizable only in courts of State.
Quare, whether Congress can deal with crime of adultery committed by tribal Indians within State. Id.
Section 316, Penal Code, does not embrace offense as be-
tween Indians on reservation. United States v. Quiver.... 602 ALIENATION OF LAND. See Indians.
Chinese person detained for deportation held not entitled to direct appeal from judgment of District Court dismissing petition for habeas corpus. Chin Fong v. Backus.... Status of merchant, as defined by treaty with China of 1880, is that acquired in China. Id.
ALLOTMENTS TO INDIANS. See Indians.
Under § 28, Jud. Code, remanding order of District Court is final and conclusive and not subject to review. Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Oregon Water Board.
Whether District Court has acquired jurisdiction of person of defendant may be reviewed on direct appeal. Merriam v. Saalfield...
In action of equitable nature proper method of review of judgment of Supreme Court of Philippine Islands under § 10, act of 1902, is by appeal. Montelibano v. La Compania Tabacos.
« PředchozíPokračovat » |