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.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 21, 56-61;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 2, 5;
PUBLIC WORKS, 1;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 1;
UNITED STATES;
WAR REVENUE ACT.
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 (sce 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 (sce 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 exceptions, 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
« AnteriorContinuar » |