R. R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 369; Moore-Mansfield Co. v.
Electrical Co., 619. Section 265 (see Injunction): Hull v. Burr,
712.
NORTHWEST TERRITORY.-Act for Government of (see Navigable
Waters): Illinois v. Economy Power Co., 497.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.-Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691, c. 1369 (see
Philippine Islands, 5, 6): Ocampo v. United States, 91.
PUBLIC LANDS.-Act of July 27, 1866, 14 Stat. 292, c. 278 (see Public
Lands, 16): Burke v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 669. Joint Resolu-
tion of June 28, 1870, 16 Stat. 382 (see Public Lands, 13): Ib. Rev.
Stat., § 2301 (see Public Lands, 2): Gilson v. United States, 380.
Section 2324 (see Public Lands, 6): Burke v. Southern Pacific R. R.
Co., 669.
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS of March 2, 1893, 27 Stat. 531, c. 196, and
March 2, 1903, 32 Stat. 943, c. 976 (see Jurisdiction, A 15): South-
ern Ry. Co. v. Crockett, 725; (see Safety Appliance Act): Ib.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS.
See BANKRUPTCY, 6.
1. Jurisdiction; locality as test of.
As a general principle, the test of admiralty jurisdiction in this country
is locality. Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 52; Atlantic Trans-
port Co. v. Szczesek, 63.
2. Jurisdiction of suit in personam against stevedore by employé.
Admiralty has jurisdiction of a suit in personam by an employé of a
stevedore against the employer to recover for injuries sustained
through the negligence of the latter while engaged in loading a
vessel lying at the dock in navigable waters. Ib.
3. Jurisdiction; scope of; quære as to non-maritime torts.
The precise scope of admiralty jurisdiction is not a matter of obvious
principle or of very accurate history, The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361,
and quare as to the exact extent to which admiralty jurisdiction
extends where the tort is not maritime although committed on
navigable waters. Ib.
A tort committed on a vessel in connection with a service thereto may
be maritime even if there is no fault on the part of, or injury to,
the ship itself. Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 52.
5. Stevedores; status of.
Stevedores are now as clearly identified with maritime affairs as are
the mariners themselves. Ib.
ALIENATION OF ALLOTMENTS.
ALLOTMENTS.
See INDIANS, 1-4.
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.
Fifth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 23, 39.
Fourteenth.-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
ANCILLARY JURISDICTION.
See BANKRUPTCY, 5.
ANTI-TRUST ACT.
See RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
1. Writ of error from this court and supersedeas; Federal and not state acts.
A writ of error from this court to review the judgment of a state court
and the supersedeas authorized by the Judiciary Act are Federal
and not state acts. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Larabee, 459.
2. Correction of error of District Court in following decision of state court;
mode of.
Where the District Court errs in following later decisions of the state
court rather than those rendered prior to the making of the con-
tract, the error may be corrected by the Circuit Court of Appeals
or by this court under writ of certiorari but not by direct appeal
to this court. Moore-Mansfield Co. v. Electrical Co., 619.
See BANKRUPTCY, 4, 6;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM-
JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 1, 2;
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 1.
APPEARANCE.
See CORPORATIONS, 11.
1. Act of bankruptcy; effect of failure to vacate or discharge levy of execu-
tion for four months less a day.
The failure by an insolvent judgment debtor and for a period of one
day less than four months after the levy of an execution upon his
real estate, to vacate or discharge such a levy, is not a final disposi-
tion of the property affected by the levy under the provisions of
§ 3a (3) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. Citizens Banking Co. v.
Ravenna National Bank, 360.
2. Act of bankruptcy; effect of inaction for four months after levy of ex-
ecution.
An insolvent debtor does not commit an act of bankruptcy rendering
him subject to involuntary adjudication as a bankrupt under the
Bankruptcy Act of 1898 merely by inaction for the period of four
months after levy of an execution upon his real estate. Ib.
3. Act of bankruptcy within meaning of provision of § 3a (3) of Bank-
ruptcy Act.
All of the three elements specified in § 3a (3) of the Bankruptcy Act of
1898 must be present in order to constitute an act of bankruptcy
within the meaning of that provision. Ib.
4. Attorney's fees for services in contemplation of bankruptcy; jurisdiction
to revise.
Under subd. d of § 60 of the Bankruptcy Act, attorney's fees for serv-
ices in contemplation of bankruptcy are specifically provided for
and are subject to revision in the court of original jurisdiction and
not elsewhere. (In re Wood and Henderson, 210 U. S. 246.) Laz-
arus v. Prentice, 263.
5. Jurisdiction; ancillary, in aid of trustee.
Under clause 20 of § 2 of the Bankruptcy Act as added by the amend-
ment of June 25, 1910, the bankruptcy courts have ancillary juris-
diction over persons and property within their respective terri-
torial limits in aid of a trustee or receiver appointed in any court
of bankruptcy. Ib.
6. Jurisdiction of this court; finality of order of Circuit Court of Appeals;
administrative order.
The seizure of property of the bankrupt by an ancillary receiver is a
summary proceeding and not a plenary suit and the decision of the
bankruptcy court in the jurisdiction of seizure that an intervenor
claiming by virtue of an assignment of the bankrupts made after
the petition and in payment of attorney's fees must assert the
claims in the court of original jurisdiction is an administrative
order, and the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the
same is not reviewable in this court. Ib.
7. Title of trustee; law governing effect of pledge, when trustee takes sub-
ject to rights of pledgee.
The legal effect of a transaction involving pledge or hypothecation de-
pends upon the local law; and if the state law permits the pledged
property to remain under certain conditions in the possession of the
pledgor and those conditions exist, the trustee in bankruptcy of the
pledgor takes subject to the rights of the pledgee. (Taney v.
Penn Bank, 232 U. S. 174.) Dale v. Pattison, 399.
8. Title and disposition of property seized by ancillary receiver; effect of
assignment subsequent to petition.
Property of the bankrupt when seized by an ancillary receiver or
trustee is held by virtue of the terms of the Bankruptcy Act to be
turned over to the court of original jurisdiction and no right can be
acquired in it by assignment subsequent to the petition which can
defeat this purpose. Lazarus v. Prentice, 263.
See CORPORATIONS, 5, 6;
1. Endorsement; fraud of holder in obtaining; effect on parties otherwise
liable.
Where some of the signatures of defendant endorsers had been obtained
by means of fraudulent representations by the plaintiff holder of
the paper, the whole transaction is vitiated even as to those en-
dorsers who were liable on former existing paper of which that in
suit was a renewal. Schmidt v. Bank of Commerce, 64.
2. Renewals; effect as new promise; effect of fraudulent inducement.
A note, although given in renewal of an older note, constitutes a new
promise with distinct legal consequences and cannot be enforced if
fraudulently induced, even if there were no defense to the older
note. Ib.
3. Defenses; estoppel of plaintiff to defeat.
A party cannot maintain an inconsistent position; and so held that
where the court, on plaintiffs' motion, has denied the right of de-
fendants to show that the note sued on was void as to them because
of subsequent alteration by addition of signatures of other co-
makers, the plaintiff cannot defeat defendants' defense of fraud in
obtaining the later signatures on the ground that the notes were
completed instruments and binding upon the makers before the
others had signed. Ib.
BONDS.
See ACTIONS, 2;
CONTRACTS, 6-9.
BOUNDARIES.
See INDIANS, 6-9.
BOUNDARY FERRIES.
See FERRIES, 5, 6;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 14.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 14.
BURDEN OF PROOF.
See EVIDENCE;
PUBLIC LANDS, 20.
CANALS.
See PUBLIC WORKS.
|