ANTI-TRUST ACT of July 2, 1890 (see Jurisdiction, A 2): Alexander v. United States, 117: (see Witnesses): Hale v. Henkel, 43; Nelson v. United States, 92.
CIVIL SERVICE ACT of January 16, 1883 (see Civil Service): United States v. Wickersham, 390.
IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES, Act of February 25, 1903 (see Witnesses, 2): Hale v. Henkel, 43.
JUDICIARY, Rev. Stat. § 709 (see Jurisdiction, A 10): Joy v. St. Louis, 332; (see Jurisdiction, A 11), West Chicago Railroad v. Chicago, 506; (see Jurisdiction, A 12): Keen v. Keen, 319. Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 443 (see Jurisdiction, A 1): New Mexico v. Atchison, Topeka & S. F. Ry. Co., 41. Act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433 (see Jurisdiction, C 3): Blair v. Chicago, 400. Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 7 (see Appeal and Error, 1): Ex parte National Enameling Co., 156.
NATIONAL BANKS, Rev. Stat. § 5151 (see Jurisdiction, C 4; National Banks, 2): Wyman v. Wallace, 230; (see National Banks, 1): Christo- pher v. Norvell, 216.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691, § 10 (see Juris- diction, A 5, 7): De la Rama v. De la Rama, 303.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES, Rev. Stat. §§ 641, 642 (see Removal of Causes): Kentucky v. Powers, 1.
SHIPPING, Harter Act, 27 Stat. 445, § 3 (see Maritime Law): The Wildcroft, 378.
TARIFF ACT of 1897, 30 Stat. 156, 205, par. 98, § 7 (see Customs Duties): United States v. Downing, 354.
TERRITORIAL PRACTICE ACT of April 7, 1874, 18 Stat. 27 (see Jurisdiction, A 4): De la Rama v. De la Rama, 303.
WISCONSIN ENABLING ACT of August 6, 1846 (see Public Lands, 3): Wis-
consin v. Hitchcock, 202.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 10.
See JURISDICTION, A 3, 5, 6.
AMENDMENT.
See STATUTES, A 4.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. See JURISDICTION, A.
ANTI-TRUST LAW.
See WITNESSES.
1. Final or interlocutory decree-Effect of appeal under section 7 of act of March 3, 1891.
Plaintiffs brought suit upon a single patent, in which there were twelve claims. The Circuit Court found that three of the claims were invalid and nine valid, of which five had been infringed, and referred it to a master to report the amount of damages and dismissed the bill as to the claims found invalid and not infringed. Defendants appealed from the decree and plaintiffs also filed cross appeal assigning as errors the rulings adverse to them. The Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the cross appeal. Petition for mandamus to compel that court to take jurisdiction of the cross appeal denied and held, that the decree was interlocutory and not final and in the Federal courts no appeal can as a general rule be taken except from a final decree. The appeal authorized by § 7 of the act of March 3, 1891, does not bring up the cause as a whole; and, unless otherwise specially ordered, the case, except for hearing of the appeal from the interlocutory order, proceeds in the lower court as though no appeal had been taken until final judg- ment. Cases in which a bill has been dismissed as to some of the de- fendants and a separable controversy as to others referred to a master for an accounting, and in which the dismissal has been treated as a final decree, have no application to a case of joint liability, or in which there is only a single defendant. Ex parte National Enameling Co., 156; Ex parte Automatic Switch Co., 166.
2. Bonds; irregularities in; necessity for entry of order regarding. Although irregularities may exist in appeal bonds, if the cases are sent back for further proceedings no order need be entered here regarding them. Amadeo v. Northern Assurance Co., 194.
3. Objections as to forms of writ of error-Effect of bringing in corporation in liquidation to bring in liquidator.
Objections as to forms of writ of error not taken below will not be enter-
tained here to defeat the jurisdiction of this court-and an amend- ment bringing in a corporation in liquidation as assignee of the party plaintiff held, under such conditions, to bring in the liquidator also. Ib.
A party having no legal interest in maintaining or reversing a judgment is not always a necessary party to writ of error or appeal, and if the defendant has pleaded below that a party plaintiff has no interest in the cause of action, having assigned the same, and as a result of such plea the assignee has been substituted, the defendant cannot assert in this court that the original plaintiff was more than a nominal party, and the writ will not be dismissed on account of his death and failure to give notice to his succession. Ib.
See HABEAS CORPUS, 1, 2; JURISDICTION.
ASSIGNEE.
See JURISDICTION, C 3.
Title of trustee-Right of vendor of goods sold under conditional sale contract as against bankrupt's creditors.
The trustee in bankruptcy is vested with no better right or title to the property than the bankrupt had when the trustee's title accrued; and where, as in the State of Ohio, a conditional sale contract is good as between the parties themselves although not filed, the vendor of ma- chinery, sold and delivered under such a contract and payment for which had not been made, may remove the same as against all creditors of the bankrupt who have not fastened upon it by some specific lien. York Manufacturing Co. v. Cassell, 344.
Re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176, distinguished in Felts v. Murphy, 123.
C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Drainage Commission, 200 U. S. 251, followed in West Chicago Railroad v. Chicago, 506.
Cleveland City Railway Co., 194 U. S. 517, followed in Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Ry., 529.
Ex parte National Enameling Co., 201 U. S. 156, followed in Ex parte Auto- matic Switch Co., 166.
Falk v. Moebs, 127 U. S. 597, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.
Felts v. Murphy, 201 U. S. 123, followed in Valentina v. Mercer, 131. Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U. S. 282, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, followed in McAlister v. Henkel, 90; Nelson v. United States, 92.
Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. 150, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400. Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400. Royal Insurance Co. v. Miller, 199 U. S. 353, followed in Amadeo v. Northern Assurance Co., 194.
South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.
United States v. Thomas, 151 U. S. 557, followed in Wisconsin v. Hitchcock, 202.
Wyman v. Wallace, 201 U. S. 230, followed in Frenzer v. Wallace, 244; Poppleton v. Wallace, 245.
Railway franchises-Contracts for use of streets-Constitutional law-Diversity of citizenship Jurisdiction of Federal court-Suit by receivers in sup- port of jurisdiction-Ultra vires acts of corporations—Public grants— Practice and procedure-Construction of statutes-Title of statute-Power of limited corporation to receive grant inuring to benefit of successors— Title and control of municipal corporation over streets.
Where notes are made by a corporation payable to the order of its own treasurer, a citizen of the same State, as a matter of convenience and
« PředchozíPokračovat » |