7. Parties to; United States as necessary party.
Held, in this case, that the suit had been properly brought, and that
the United States was not necessarily a party, the suit being begun
in the name of the United States to the real plaintiff's use. Ib.
PUBLIC WORKS, 1;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 1;
UNITED STATES;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 21,
56-61;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 2. 5:
ARMY.-Act of Oct. 1, 1890, 26 Stat. 582 (see Army and Navy, 1, 3):
Reaves v. Ainsworth, 296.
BANKRUPTCY.-Act of July 1, 1898 (see Bankruptcy, 1): Sexton v.
Dreyfus, 339.
COMMERCE.-Carmack Amendment of Jany. 29, 1906 (see Constitu-
tional Law, 24): Atlantic Coast Line v. Riverside Mills, 186.
CRIMINAL LAW.-Act of July 7, 1898, § 2, 30 Stat. 717 (see Criminal
Law, 4, 5, 6): United States v. Press Publishing Co., 1. Act of
March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1246 (see Practice and Procedure, 10):
United States v. Barber, 72. Rev. Stat., § 5440 (see Criminal
Law, 3): Ib.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.-Rev. Stat. D. C., § 1176 (see Local Law,
D. C., 1): Matter of Gregory, 210. Section 1177 (see Habeas Cor-
pus, 3; Local Law, D. C., 2): Ib.
INDIANS.-Act of March 1, 1907, 34 Stat. 1028 (see Constitutional
Law, 61): Muskrat v. United States, 346.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-Act of Feby. 4, 1887, § 2, 24 Stat. 379
(see Interstate Commerce, 4, 6): Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co.
v. Mottley, 467. Section 8 (see Interstate Commerce Act): At-
lantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, 186. Act of June 29,
1906, 34 Stat. 584 (see Interstate Commerce, 3, 4, 5, 6): Louisville
& Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 467.
JUDICIARY.-Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826 (see Jurisdiction, A 3):
Fore River Shipbuilding Co. v. Hagg, 175. Act of June 28, 1898,
30 Stat. 511 (see Jurisdiction, F 2; Removal of Causes, 1): Hendrix
v. United States, 79. Act of March 3, 1905 (see Appeal and Error):
William W. Bierce, Ltd., v. Waterhouse, 320. Act of March 2,
1907 (see Jurisdiction, A 4): United States v. Barber, 72.
OKLAHOMA.-Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, 34 Stat. 267, as amended
March 4, 1907, 34 Stat. 1287 (see Jurisdiction, F 2): Hendrix v.
United States, 79.
PEONAGE.-Act of March 2, 1867, and §§ 1990, 5526, Rev. Stat. (see
Constitutional Law, 54): Bailey v. Alabama, 219.
PUBLIC LANDS.-Act of June 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 365, and joint resolution
of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 378 (see Public Lands, 6): Weyerhaeuser
v. Hoyt, 380. Forest reserve provision of act of June 4, 1897, 30
Stat. 36. (see Public Lands, 1, 3): Roughton v. Knight, 537. Act of
June 4, 1898, 30 Stat. 430 (see Public Lands, 5): Spokane & B. C.
Ry. Co. v. Washington & G. N. Ry. Co., 166. Sundry Civil Act of
July 1, 1898, 30 Stat. 597 (see Public Lands, 11): Weyerhaeuser v.
Hoyt, 380. Act of March 3, 1905, 33 Stat. 1264 (see Public Lands,
3); Roughton v. Knight, 537.
PUBLIC WORKS.-Act of August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278, as amended by
act of February 24, 1905, 33 Stat. 811 (see Actions, 4; Public
Works, 1; United States): Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane
Co., 24.
WAR REVENUE.-Act of June 13, 1898, 30 Stat. 448 (see War Revenue
Act): United States v. Chamberlin, 250.
AMENDMENT.
See BILL OF EXCEPTIONS;
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.
Fifth. See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 7, 24.
Fourteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5, 13, 17, 18, 25, 28, 34, 35, 36,
37, 63, 71, 72, 75, 82.
Thirteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 50-55.
Generally. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 31, 32.
Finality of judgment below; effect of petition for rehearing-Law ap-
plicable.
The effect of a petition for rehearing, if duly filed and entertained by
the court, is to prevent the judgment from becoming final and
reviewable until disposed of, and when disposed of, an appeal
from the judgment is regulated by the statutes then in force.
even if enacted after the original decision: and so held as to an
appeal from the Supreme Court of Hawaii under the act of
March 3, 1905. William W. Bierce, Ltd., v. Waterhouse, 320.
See ARMY AND Navy, 3;
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS;
BONDS, 3;
CONTEMPT OF COURT;
HABEAS CORPUS;
INJUNCTION, 1, 2, 3;
JURISDICTION;
MOOT CASE, 2,
1. Army; examinations; finality of order of board of examiners.
Under the act of October 1, 1890, c. 1241, 26 Stat. 562, regulating
examinations and promotions in the army, the board of examiners
may make a provisional order giving the officer a reasonable
period for reëxamination and such an order is not final but pro-
visional, and does not deprive the board of jurisdiction to subse-
quently determine the fitness of officer for duty. Reaves v. Ains-
worth, 296.
2. Military law as due process of law; power of courts over decisions of
military tribunals.
What is due process of law depends upon circumstances. To those in
the military or naval service of the United States military law is
due process; and the decision of a military tribunal acting within
scope of its lawful powers cannot be reviewed or set aside by the
courts. Ib.
3. Review of order of military board; purpose of act of October 1, 1890.
The purpose of the act of October 1, 1890, is to secure efficiency and
the only relief from error or injustice in the order of the board is
by review of the President. The courts have no power of re-
view. Ib.
4. Efficiency of army paramount to individual rights of officers.
Courts are not the only instrumentalities of government; they cannot
command or regulate the army, and the welfare and safety of the
country, through the efficiency of officers of the army, is greater
than the value of his commission, or the right of promotion of any
officer of the army. Ib.
5. Militia differentiated from regular army as to discipline required.
There is a difference between the regular army of the Nation and the
militia of a State when not in service of the Nation, and more
rigid rules and a higher state of discipline are required in the
former than in the latter. Ib.
ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 19, 46, 66;
TAXES AND TAXATION; WAR REVENUE ACT.
ASSIGNMENT.
See ACTIONS, 5.
ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 4, 5, 6.
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
See STATUTES, A 7.
ATTORNEYS' FEES.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.
BAILMENT.
See BANKS AND BANKING.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 30, 44, 65, 66, 67, 68.
1. Secured creditors; application of proceeds of security.
Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, a secured creditor selling his secu-
rities after the filing of the petition must apply the proceeds, other
than interest and dividends accrued since the date of the petition,
first to the liquidation of the debt with interest to the date of the
petition; he cannot first apply such proceeds to interest accrued
since the petition. Sexton v. Dreyfus, 339.
A secured creditor of a bankrupt can apply interest and dividends ac-
cruing after the date of the petition to interest on the debt accru-
ing after such date. Ib.
3. English rule approved.
The English rule and authorities discussed and approved. Ib.
Status of bank as depositary.
The receipt of money by a bank where the depositor can withdraw it
as he pleases, although creating a debt, is, in a popular sense, the
receipt of money for safe-keeping. Engel v. O'Malley, 128.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 18, 30, 44, 63, 65–69;
An amendment to a bill of ex eptions, after bond on appeal had been
given and approved, so to make the record conform to the fact
as to the conditions under which certain testimony introduced
by plaintiff in error on the trial was given, held not error, as not
unjustified or objected to and the exception related only to in-
cluding the testimony in the record. Herencia v. Guzman, 44.
BILLS OF LADING.
See CARRIERS, 1.
1. Consideration; seal imports.-Simultaneous transactions.
Where a bond is under seal consideration is presumed; in this case,
although the bond was not executed until ten days after execu-
tion of the contract it was given to secure, the transactions may
be regarded as simultaneous. Title Guar. & Trust Co. v. Crane
Co., 24.
2. Judicial; liability of surety.
The surety on a bond given in course of a judicial proceeding is repre-
sented in that proceeding by his principal, and becomes responsi-
ble, to the amount of the penalty, for amendments allowed by the
court that do not introduce new causes of action. William W.
Bierce, Ltd., v. Waterhouse, 320.
3. Judicial; rights of parties not denied by exercise of sovereign power as
to appeal pending litigation.
Litigants and their sureties are subject to the power of the sovereign
to extend the right of review and appeal pending litigation, and
no fundamental rights are denied or contractual rights of the
parties affected by the exercise of that power. Ib.
4. Replevin; liability of surety.
A plaintiff suing in replevin is not estopped from showing that he
mistakenly undervalued the property sought to be recovered;
and one becoming surety for performance of a judgment of the
court in a pending suit is bound by the judgment against his
principal to the limit of his obligation. Ib.
5. Replevin; suits on; value of property res judicata.
In absence of fraud and collusion the question of value of property
taken under replevin as found in the replevin suit cannot be re-
litigated in a suit against sureties on redelivery bond. Ib.
6. Replevin; subject to changes in procedure not affecting contract.
A redelivery bond is executed subject to such possible changes in the
procedure as do not affect the contract, and under the law of
|