LIQUORS. See Intoxicating Liquors.
Extent of authority conferred on city by its charter, con-
struction of charter, and validity, scope and effect of ordi-
nances and proceedings thereunder, and rights of parties
thereto under state law, are matters of state law, as to which
decisions of state courts controlling. St. Louis & K. C.
Land Co. v. Kansas City.
See Law Governing and Captions of Various States,
Territories and Insular Possessions.
Act No. 10 of Extra Session, 1915, relating to business of
sugar refining, held unconstitutional under equal protection
and due process provisions of Fourteenth Amendment.
McFarland v. American Sugar Co...
Section 215, Crim. Code, prohibits using the mails for fraud-
ulent statements assigning to article to be sold qualities
which it does not possess. United States v. New South
There is deception and fraud within the meaning of § 215,
where the article is not of the character represented and
hence does not serve the purpose. Id.
Persons employing false representations as to use to which
an article offered may be put, are engaged in scheme to de-
fraud within meaning of § 215. Id.
Mandamus will not lie to control conduct of Secretary of
Interior concerning matter within his administrative au-
thority. Lane v. Mickadiet....
State may not, by mandamus, compel railroad to comply
with rates fixed by state law unless opportunity afforded to
test question of confiscation. Missouri v. Chicago, B. & Q.
R. R. Co. ...
Under § 4529, Rev. Stat., as amended in 1898, shipowner
not liable for penalty for delay in payment of seaman's
wages during period between judgment and affirmance by
appellate court, where reasonable cause for prosecuting ap-
peal. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Schmidt....
Adultery is an offense against the marriage relation and be-
longs to the class of subjects which each State controls in
its own way. Southern Surety Co. v. Oklahoma...
Employer not required to furnish latest, best and safest
machinery and appliances, provided those in use are reason-
ably safe and suitable. Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Bower.... 470
Continuance of an engineer in his employment on locomo-
tive equipped with old style lubricator glass, after he has re-
quested that new and safe style be substituted, held not to
amount to assumption of extraordinary risk involved in re-
tention of older appliance. Id.
Question whether appliance causing injury, which was not
of latest type, was reasonably safe and suitable, held properly
submitted to jury. Id.
In absence of knowledge of custom of employer in making
up trains, brakeman not bound by custom unless it is such
as reasonably careful employer would adopt. Chesapeake &
Ohio Ry. v. Proffitt..
Even if employee knows and assumes risk of inherently dan-
gerous method of work, he does not assume increased risk
attributable to negligence in pursuing it. Id.
Employee not bound to exercise care to discover dangers
resulting from employer's negligence and not ordinarily in-
cident to the employment. Id.
Employee not regarded as having assumed risk attribut-
able to employer's negligence until he becomes aware of it.
Id.
While employee assumes risks ordinarily incident to em-
ployment, so far as not attributable to negligence of em-
ployer or those for whom responsible, employee has right to
assume that employer has exercised proper care as to safety
of place and method of work. Id.
To subject employee without warning to unusual danger,
not normally incident to employment, is itself an act of
negligence. Id.
Under Mining Act of the State of Washington a gas-tester
is the representative of the master and not a fellow-servant.
Brown v. Pacific Coast Coal Co... ...
See Employers' Liability Act;
MEASURE OF DAMAGES. See Damages.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:
A member of the House of Representatives is an officer of
the United States within the meaning of § 32, Penal Code.
Lamar v. United States..
MERCHANTS. See Chinese.
Law imposing license fee to operate employment agencies
and prohibiting agents from sending applicants to em-
ployer who has not applied for labor, is not unconstitu-
tional as deprivation of property without due process of law
or as denying equal protection of the law. Brazee v. Mich-
igan..
Under Mining Act of Washington it is the duty of mine
owner to supply ventilation that will prevent accumulations
of gas, which duty cannot be delegated, and gas-tester is a
representative of the principal and not a fellow-servant of
other employees engaged in mining. Brown v. Pacific
Coast Coal Co... .
MISBRANDING. See Pure Food and Drugs Act.
Overflows are accidental and extraordinary and justify con-
struction of levees for prevention of destruction to valley of
river. Cubbins v. Mississippi River Commission.
351
Conditions in valley of river demonstrate that work of
Federal and various state commissions in constructing
series of levees is for purpose of prevention of destruction
and improvement of navigation and not for purposes of
reclamation. Id.
Congress had power to create Commission and through it to
build levees to improve navigation, and Government is not
responsible to riparian owners for deflection of water by
reason thereof. Id.
There is no identity between the great valley of the Missis-
sippi and the flood bed of that river, but the bank of that
river is where it is found and does not extend over a vast and
imaginary area. Id.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS:
Extent of authority conferred on city by its charter, con-
struction of charter, and validity, scope and effect of ordi-
nances and proceedings thereunder, and rights of parties
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-Continued.
thereto under state law, are matters of state law, as to
which decisions of state courts controlling. St. Louis & K.
C. Land Co. v. Kansas City.
As to jurisdiction of admiralty of libel in rem against vessel
for damages to beacon in navigable waters, see The Raith-
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...
To subject employee without warning to unusual danger,
not normally incident to employment, is itself an act of
negligence. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Proffitt....
While employee assumes risks ordinarily incident to employ-
ment, so far as not attributable to negligence of employer
or those for whom responsible, employee has right to assume
that employer has exercised proper care as to safety of place
and method of work. Id.
Employee not regarded as having assumed risk attributable
to employer's negligence until he becomes aware of it. Id.
Employee not bound to exercise care to discover dangers re-
sulting from employer's negligence and not ordinarily in-
cident to the employment. Id.
Even if employee knows and assumes risk of inherently
dangerous method of work, he does not assume increased
risk attributable to negligence in pursuing it. Id.
Engineer of approaching train, on seeing lights of brakeman
sent out to guard latter's train, has right to presume that
brakeman is standing on guard, and does not owe him duty
to immediately stop train. Southern Railway v. Gray....
See Admiralty; Employers' Liability Act.
Order for new trial made by District Court for Southern
District of Florida after adjournment, pursuant to General
Rule No. 1, and before beginning of next term, is not be-
yond jurisdictional power of judge. Abbott v. Brown......
Stipulation in bill of lading 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
Right of common carrier to require notice of claim before
action brought; and sufficiency of such notice. Id.
Sufficiency of notice of injury to shipment under stipulation
of bill of lading. See Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wall . . . . . . 87
As to who entitled to notice in condemnation proceedings.
See St. Louis & K. C. Land Co. v. Kansas City.....
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 of failure to file certificate
under § 6, White Slave Traffic Act. Id.
Effect of complaint in extradition proceedings to properly
charge. See Kelly v. Griffin. . . .
OFFICERS OF UNITED STATES:
A member of the House of Representatives is an officer of the
United States within the meaning of § 32, Penal Code.
Lamar v.
. United States
Section 32, Penal Code, prohibits and punishes the false
assuming, with intent to defraud, to be an officer or em-
ployee of the United States; and also the doing in the falsely
assumed character of any overt act to carry out the fraud-
ulent intent, whether it would have been legally authorized
had the assumed capacity existed or not. Id.
OIL LEASES. See Oklahoma.
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, in-
cluding bail bond, passed to State with power of enforce-
ment. Southern Surety Co. v. Oklahoma....
As one not in possession may not maintain action to quiet
title and one may not maintain ejectment as lessee under oil
or gas mining lease, equity has jurisdiction of suit by such
lessee to restrain claimants under another lease from inter-
fering with property. Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Co... ...... 551
OPIUM:
Court cannot know judicially that no opium is produced in
this country, nor so assume when construing statute itself
|