Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

INDEX.

ABATEMENT.

See ACTIONS, 1;

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 4, 5.

ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING.
See PARTNERSHIP, 3, 5, 6, 7;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 4, 5.

ACTIONS.

1. Common-law action for wrongful injury; who may maintain; effect of
death of injured party.

At common law loss and damage may accrue and a right of action

accrue to persons dependent upon one wrongfully injured; but this
cause of action, except for loss of services prior to death, abates at
the death. Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 59.

2. Ex parte or adversary; effect of failure of party to file answer after
notice.

A hearing and decision on a contest where the contestant files no answer
after notice is not an ex parte proceeding, but an adversary pro-

[blocks in formation]

ANTI-TRUST ACT of July 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 209 (see Jurisdiction, A 6):
United States v. Winslow, 202 (see Witnesses, 1): Heike v. United
States, 131.

BANKRUPTCY.-Act of Feb. 5, 1933, 32
tion, C2): Lovell v. Newman, 412.
544 (sec Bankruptcy, 11): Zavelo v.

Stat. 797, § 23 (see Jurisdic-
Act of July 1, 1898, 30 Stat.
Reeves, 625 (see Jurisdiction,

A 7): Wynkoop Co. v. Gaines, 4.
Ensign v. Pennsylvania, 592.

Section 9 (see Evidence, 1, 2, 4):
Section 12 (see Bankruptcy, 2):

Zarelo v. Reeves, 625. Section 29b 5 (sce Bankruptcy, 1): Ib.
Sections 63 and 63a 4 (see Bankruptcy, 6, 7): 16.

CRIMINAL LAW.-Rev. Stat., § 5440 (see Criminal Law, 1): Heike v.
United States, 131. Rev. Stat., § 3893 (see Criminal Law, 4):
Bartell v. United States, 427.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT of April 22, 1908, 35 Stat. 65 (see Consti-
tutional Law, 1): Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 59 (see
Employers' Liability Act): American R. R. Co. v. Didricksen, 145
(see Res Judicata, 3): Troxell v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 434
(see Statutes, A 3): Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 59.
INDIANS.-Act of July 4, 1884, 23 Stat. 79 (see Indians, 3): Starr v.
Long Jim, 613.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-Act of Feb. 4, 1887, 24 Stat. 379 (see In-
terstate Commerce Commission, 2, 3): Interstate Com. Comm. v.
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 88 (see Interstate Commerce,
10, 28, 30): New York Central R. R. v. Hudson County, 248; Inter-
state Com. Comm. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 88; Kansas
City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 639. Carmack Amendment of
June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 584 (see Interstate Commerce, 3, 4, 7, 8):
St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 218; Kansas City Southern
Ry. Co. v. Carl, 639; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Harriman, 657
(see Interstate Commerce, 22-27, 32): Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co.
v. Harriman, 657; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 639;
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Neiman-Marcus Co., 469 (see Interstate
Commerce, 45): Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Harriman, 657.
Hepburn Act (see Federal Question, 3, 4): Southern Pacific Co. v.
Schuyler, 601 (see Interstate Commerce, 28, 32-35): Interstate
Com. Comm. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 88; St. Louis, 1.
M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 265; Yazoo & M. V. Ry. Co. v. Green-
wood Grocery Co., 1; Hampton v. St. Louis, 1. M. & S. Ry. Co., 456
(see Interstate Commerce, 45): Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v.
Harriman, 657 (see Railroads, 5, 6, 10): Southern Pacific Co. v.
Schuyler, 601. White Slave Traffic Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat.
825 (see White Slave Traffic Act): Hoke v. United States, 308;
Athanasaw v. United States, 326; Bennett v. United States, 333;
Harris v. United States, 340. Wilson Act of Aug. 8, 1890, 26 Stat.
313 (see Interstate Commerce, 18, 20, 21): De Bary & Co. v.
Louisiana, 108.

JUDICIARY.-Judicial Code of 1911 (see Statutes, A 10): United States

v. Winslow, 202. Section 250 (see Jurisdiction, A 3): Champion
Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 445; Foreman v. Meyer, 452. Act of March 3,
1909, 35 Stat. 838 (see Jury and Jurors): Matheson v. United

States, 540. Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat.
1246 (see Jurisdiction, A 6; Statutes, A 10): United States v.
Winslow, 202. Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826 (see Jurisdic-
tion, A 3): Champion Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 445; Foreman v. Meyer,
452. Rev. Stat., § 953 (see Appeal and Error, 7; Courts, 2):
Guardian Assurance Co. v. Quintana, 100. Section 860 (see Evi-
dence, 3): Ensign v. Pennsylvania, 592. Section 709 (see Jurisdic-'
tion, A 3): Champion Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 445; Foreman v. Meyer,
452.

PATENTS.-Act of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1225 (see Patents, 4, 5):
Cameron Septic Tank Co. v. Knoxville, 39. Rev. Stat., §§ 4884,
4887 (see Patents, 1, 2, 4, 5): Ib.

PORTO RICO.-Act of April 30, 1900, 31 Stat. 141 (see Porto Rico, 2, 3,
4, 6): Porto Rico v. Rosaly, 270.

Public Lands.—Act of March 2, 1896, 29 Stat. 42 (see Public Lands,
4): Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 355. Act of May 14,
1880, §3 (see Public Lands, 10): Wadkins v. Producers Oil Co.,
368 (sce Public Lands, 29): Svor v. Morris, 524. Rev. Stat.,
§ 2265 (see Public Lands, 29): Ib. Sections 2291, 2292, 2293 (see
Public Lands, 9, 13): Wadkins v. Producers Oil Co., 368.

RAILROAD LAND GRANTS.--Acts of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489, and

July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 356 (see Public Lands, 21; Railroads, 3, 8, 9):
Stuart v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 342.

REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE.-Act of April 16, 1908, § 5, 35 Stat. 61 (see
Revenue Cutter Service): United States v. Mason, 486.

SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS of March 2, 1893, 27 Stat. 531, and March 2,
1903, 32 Stat. 943 (see Employers' Liability Act, 1, 2): American
R. R. Co. v. Didricksen, 145.

TERRITORIES.-Act of July 30, 1886, 24 Stat. 170 (see Territories):
Gray v. Taylor, 51.

WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC ACT of June 25, 1910 (see Constitutional Law,
4; White Slave Traffic Act): Hoke v. United States, 308; Athanasaw
v. United States, 326; Bennett v. United States, 333; Harris v.
United States, 340.

WITNESSES.--Act of Feb. 25, 1903, 32 Stat. 854 (see Witnesses, 1, 2):
Heike v. United States, 131.

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.

See PUBLIC LANDS, 18.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11.,

VOL. CCXXVII-44

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

Payment of taxes to establish.

Where the claimants to the same land have both paid the taxes thereon
continuously, they stand on equal footing, and the payment does
not establish adverse possession. Stuart v. Union Pacific R. R.
Co., 342.

See PUBLIC Lands, 21.

ALASKA.

See JURY AND JURORS.

ALIENS.

See PORTO RICO, 1.

ALLOTMENT OF LANDS.

See INDIANS, 1, 2, 3.

AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.

Fifth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 22, 29.
Fourteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 12-17; 23-27;

COURTS, 5;

JURISDICTION, A 9,

ANTI-TRUST ACT.

See RESTRAINT OF TRADE;
WITNESSES, 1, 2.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

1. Administrative orders reviewable, when; effect of act providing for
review.

Administrative orders can only be reviewed by the court where a

justiciable question is presented, and where the act provides for
judicial review of such orders it will be construed as providing for
a hearing so that the court may consider matters within the Scope
of judicial power. Interstate Com. Comm. v. Louisville & Nash-
ville R. R. Co., 88.

2. Bankruptcy; right of appeal from order granting or refusing discharge.
Under the Bankruptcy Act the only appeal from a judgment granting

or refusing a discharge is from the Bankruptcy Court to the
Circuit Court of Appeals. There is no appeal from the Circuit
Court of Appeals to this court. James v. Stone, 410

3. Criminal contempt; judgment reriewable, how.

A judgment for criminal contempt is reviewable only by writ of error.
An appeal will not lie. Grant v. United States, 74.

4. Criminal contempt; review of judgment for; who entitled to writ of error.
Only the person charged with contempt can suc out the writ of error;
one who appeared simply to state his claim to the books and papers
mentioned in the subpœna does not thereby become a party to
the proceeding and he has no standing to şue out a writ of error.
Ib.

5. Continuances; allowance and refusal of; judicial discretion as to;
action of this court on assertion of error.
Ordinarily the granting or refusing of a continuance is within the dis-
cretion of the trial court and will only be interfered with by this
court in a clear case of abuse; but in this case the assertion of error
based upon the refusal to continue has some foundation, and is not
merely frivolous, so the motion to affirm is denied. Guardian As-
surance Co. v. Quintana, 100.

6. Dismissal for failure to file bill of exceptions; when delay excused.
While it is the duty of plaintiff in error to obtain the approval of the
bill of exceptions by the judge who tried the case, or, in case of his
death or disability, by his successor, there are circumstances under
which delay will be excused; and a motion to dismiss under Rule 9
for failure to file the bill denied, so as to give the plaintiff in error
reasonable opportunity to have the bill settled. Ib.

7. Dismissal for failure to file bill of exceptions; when delay excused.
In this case, the trial judge having died and neither party having moved

for a settlement of the bill by his successor, and there having here-
tofore been room for doubt as to whether § 953, Rev. Stat., gov-
erns this case, the motion to dismiss is denied, but without prej-
udice to renew if plaintiff in error does not within a reasonable
time seek a settlement of the bill. Ib.

8. Record: supplementary transcript; when bill of exceptions may be in
corporated in.

Where a transcript of record has been filed for purposes of a motion to
dismiss for want of bill of exceptions, which is denied without
prejudice, the bill when settled, or the reasons for failure to obtain
its settlement, can be included in a supplementary transcript. Ib.

9. To review action of trial court in granting or refusing separate trial of
parties jointly indicted.

Granting a separate trial to one of several jointly indicted for con-

« AnteriorContinuar »