Remand or dismissal of cause.
*A cause removed into a federal court on the
ground of diversity of citizenship will be remand- See "Highways."
ed unless the jurisdiction of such court appears
from the record, which includes for the purposes
of such motion the petition of removal and all
pleadings and other papers previously properly
filed in the suit in the state court. Helena See "Courts," § 2.
Power Transmission Co. v. Spratt (C. C.) 310.
5. Proceedings in cause after re-
moval.
*The removal of a cause does not preclude
the defendant from challenging the jurisdiction
of either the state or federal court over his
person or from claiming exemption from being
sued in a state other than that of his residence.
-Davis v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co.
(C. C.) 403.
On foreclosure of mortgage, see "Mortgages,"
§ 1.
Real property in general, see "Vendor and Pur-
chaser.'
1. Construction of contract.
A contract for the sale and delivery of lum-
ber construed and held not one for the sale
of a certain quantity, but of the lumber then
on hand by the sellers, and such as should be
By interstate commerce commission, see "Com- cut by them during the ensuing year regardless
merce," § 1.
of the quantity.-Inman Bros. v. Dudley &
Daniels Lumber Co. (C. C. A.) 449.
Cancellation of written instrument, see "Cancel- uct held not to obligate defendant to accept
lation of Instruments."
Of contract, see "Contracts," § 3.
A contract for the sale of a patented prod-
any part of the product specified in the con-
tract, and that no such obligation could be im-
plied.-Amalgamated Gum Co. v. Casein Co.
Of contract for sale of land, see "Vendor and of America (C. C.) 900.
Purchaser," § 2.
A contract for the manufacture and sale of
machinery construed with reference to the terms.
of the warranties therein.-F. D. Cummer &
Sons Co. v. Marine Sugar Co. (C. C. A.) 240.
§ 3. Remedies of buyer.
Evidence held material and admissible on the
question of damages in an action for breach of a
contract for the sale of lumber.-Inman Bros.
v. Dudley & Daniels Lumber Co. (C. C. A.)
149.
§ 1. Right to compensation.
*A tug which failed to perform a contract for
the floating and delivery in port of a stranded
schooner cannot recover as salvage compensation
for services rendered in attempting performance
which did not benefit the schooner. The Myrtle
Tunnel (D. C.) 324.
The raising of a scow sunk in its home port,
under a contract, and where the work involved
no element of danger and nothing out of the
usual, is not a salvage service which creates a
lien on the vessel.-The Paul L. Bleakley (D.
See "Appeal and Error"; "Criminal Law," § 4. C.) 570.
RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
See "Waters and Water Courses," § 2.
§ 2. Amount and apportionment.
*The ancient rule for the allowance of a
moiety of the value saved in the salving of a
derelict to the salvors while somewhat flexible
and subject to change in extraordinary cases
is a safe and salutary limit upon judicial dis-
cretion and not to be lightly disregarded.-The
Within insurance policy, see "Insurance," § 3. Myrtle Tunnel (D. C.) 324.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
Tugs which rescued a schooner after she had
become a derelict held entitled to an award for
the salvage of one-half the proceeds of the ves-
sel and cargo saved.-The Myrtle Tunnel (D. C.)
324.
SATISFACTION.
See "Payment"; "Release."
See "Admiralty"; "Collision"; "Maritime
Liens"; "Salvage"; "Seamen."
A ship held liable under a charter party re-
quiring it to provide men to work the winches
for the expense of hiring outside winchmen in
ports where the stevedores refused to work with
winchmen from the crew, without fault of the
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. charterer, although she had competent_winch-
Under Iowa Code 1873, § 1715, which provides
that upon the division of an independent school
district the assets and liabilities of the old
district shall be equitably divided between the
new districts a suit by a bondholder of a dis-
trict which has ceased to exist by reason of the
subdivision of its territory into new districts
to enforce payment by the new districts is with-
in the equity jurisdiction of a federal court.-
Gamble v. Rural Independent School Dist. of
Allison (C. C. A.) 113; Rural Independent
School Dist. of Allison v. Gamble, Id.
*A seaman who shipped on a whaling voyage
under a lay contract, but to whom no account-
ing was made by the owner of the vessel on
the completion of the voyage, will not be held
bound by a release given by him some time
afterward, when greatly intoxicated, on the
payment to him of an inadequate sum in set-
tlement for his share of the catch.-The Bar-
bara Hernster (C. C. A.) 732.
*Where the owner of a whaling vessel on
her return from a voyage on which libelant
served as a seaman under a lay contract shipped
away the product taken without making a divi-
sion, it thereby became liable to libelant for
the reasonable value of his share. The Barbara
Hernster (C. C. A.) 732.
The advance payment of wages to a seaman,
in violation of Act Dec. 21, 1898, c. 28, § 24,
30 Stat. 763 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 30791]
does not render the contract for service made
by the shipping articles void under Rev. St.
4523 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3075] where it is
not shown that the unlawful payment entered
into the contract as one of the things agreed on
by the parties.-The Bound Brook (D. C.) 160.
SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY.
Removal from state court, see "Removal of
Causes," §§ 2, 4.
SERVICES.
See "Work and Labor."
SETTLEMENT.
See "Payment"; "Release."
men in her crew.-Golcar S. S. Co. v. Tweedie
Trading Co. (D. C.) 563.
A charter party construed and held a demise
of the ship with respect to the cargo under
which the charterer was not entitled to recover
from the owner for a shortage in cargo deliver-
ed. Golcar S. S. Co. v. Tweedie Trading Co.
(D. C.) 563.
The provision of section 2 of the Harter
Act Feb. 13, 1893, c. 105, 27 Stat. 445 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 2946], making it unlawful for
the owner of a ship "to insert in any bill of lad-
ing or shipping document any covenant or agree-
ment
whereby the obligations of the
master, officers, agents, or servants to carefully
handle and stow her cargo and to care for
and properly deliver the same shall in any
wise be lessened, weakened, or avoided,"
lates to contracts between carrier and shipper
and does not apply to a charter party by which
a ship is demised.-Golcar S. S. Co. v. Tweedie
Trading Co. (D. C.) 563.
A charterer held entitled to a deduction of
charter hire during the time the vessel was de-
tained in quarantine owing to the illness of the
crew under a charter party which required the
owner to furnish the crew to efficiently man the
vessel.-Tweedie Trading Co. v. George D. Em-
ery Co. (D. C.) 618.
A provision of a charter party mutually ex-
empting "restraints of princes, rulers, and peo-
ple" covers a detention of the vessel in quaran-
tine, and exempts the charterer from the pay-
ment of hire during the time of such detention.
Tweedie Trading Co. v. George D. Emery Co.
(D. C.) 618.
Liabilities of vessels and owners
in general.
*The owner of a steamer held liable for
injuries to scows in tow in New York Bay and
harbor caused by her swell which might have
been avoided by a reasonable reduction of speed.
-Ross v. Central R. R. of New Jersey (D. C.)
608.
Evidence considered and held to sufficiently
identify the respondent's steamer as the one
causing a swell by which libelant's tows were
injured.-Ross v. Central R. R. of New Jersey
(D. C.) 608.
$ 3. Carriage of goods.
Damage to the cargo of a schooner from sea-
water during a voyage on which she encountered
heavy seas of unusual violence adequate to
strain her seams, and cause her to take in an
unusual quantity of water, where she was
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
shown to have been seaworthy at the inception | continuous considering the time, place, cir-
cumstances, and the nature of the cargo.-
United States Shipping Co. v. United States
(C. C.) 914.
of the voyage, properly stowed and handled, is
within an exception of "dangers of the sea" in
the bill of lading and she is not liable therefor.
-Cook v. Southeastern Lime & Cement Co. (D.
C.) 101.
§ 4. Carriage of passengers.
Where a steamship passenger had not retired
for the night, and a light was burning in her
stateroom, she was not chargeable with con-
tributory negligence for a theft therefrom be-
cause of leaving the door partially open for
ventilation and fastened only by a hook pro-
vided by the vessel for the purpose.-The Min-
netonka (C. C. A.) 509.
*A shipowner is liable to a passenger for the
value of jewelry stolen during the voyage by
a steward employed to perform duties which
the carrier owed to the passenger under the
contract of carriage.-The Minnetonka (C. C.
A.) 509.
Notice of a claim by a passenger against a
steamship for loss of effects held to have been
given in substantial compliance with the con-
ditions of the ticket.-The Minnetonka (C. C.
A.) 509.
Rev. St. § 4281 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2942],
does not relieve a shipowner from liability for
jewelry worn and carried on board in person by
a passenger and stolen by an employé of the
ship before the passenger could deposit it with
the purser as intended and permitted by the
rules. The Minnetonka (C. C. A.) 509.
Conditions printed inconspicuously upon a
steamship ticket providing that the shipowner
shall not be liable for any loss of the pas-
senger's baggage through theft or any act, neg-
lect, or default of the shipowner's servants or
others, which were not known to the passenger
nor called to his attention, are invalid and con-
stitute no defense to an action by the passenger
to recover for the loss of jewelry stolen by
one of the ship's employés.-The Minnetonka
(C. C. A.) 509.
Evidence held to sustain a finding that jewelry
belonging to libelant was stolen from her state-
room while she was a passenger on a trans-
atlantic steamship by an employé of the ship.-
The Minnetonka (C. C. A.) 509.
Proof that a passenger's baggage was delivered
to a vessel in good condition, and was dam-
aged by sea water at the end of the voyage, is
sufficient to establish the negligence of the car-
rier.-Weinberger v. Compagnie Generale Trans-
atlantique (D. C.) 516.
A contract for transporting naval stores
and ammunition to the naval station at Cavite,
Philippine Islands, during the time of war in
the Islands, construed with respect to a claim
for demurrage for delay in discharging.-United
States Shipping Co. v. United States (C. C.)
914.
*In the absence of contract, the charter
price per day of a vessel under a time charter
is not the measure of demurrage recoverable
for delay in discharging cargo taken by the
charterer for another, but rather the probable
net earnings of the vessel during the time lost
in the usual course of its employment.-United
States Shipping Co. v. United States (C. C.)
914.
A shipper held liable for demurrage on ac-
count of detention of the vessel in discharging
under the provisions of the contract notwith-
standing the failure of the shipowner to collect
such demurrage at the port of discharge from
the consignee or by enforcing its lien on the
cargo, both of which rights it also had.-Tweedie
Trading Co. v. Pitch Pine Lumber Co. (D. C.)
6. Limitation of owner's liability.
Personal representatives of passengers and
crew of two vessels who died as the result of
a collision due to the fault of both vessels
held entitled to maintain a claim against their
owners in proceedings to limit the owners'
liability.-The Hamilton (C. C. A.) 724; The
Saginaw, Id.
Under a statute authorizing a recovery for
wrongful death by the widow of the deceased
person, a claim in proceedings by the owners
of certain vessels to limit their liability for
damages resulting from a collision, filed by
claimant as widow and executrix of one of the
persons killed in the collision, held sufficient.-
The Hamilton (C. C. A.) 724; The Saginaw,
Id.
Where claim for death of a person in a col-
lision between vessels was filed by decedent's
widow and executrix, an order permitting its
amendment so as to recite that she claimed
as widow held not objectionable as pleading
a new cause of action.-The Hamilton (C. C.
A.) 724; The Saginaw, Id.
A provision printed on a steamship ticket for
the carriage of six passengers limiting the lia- See "Libel and Slander."
bility of the carrier for loss or damage to bag-
gage to $100 not read by nor called to the at-
tention of the passengers is unreasonable and
void. Weinberger v. Compagnie Generale Trans-
atlantique (D. C.) 516.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
§ 1. Nature and grounds of remedy in
general.
*Where a city has refused to perform its con-
tract to purchase the waterworks of a company
at a price named on their productive worth to
be determined by appraisers, the water company
has no remedy at law as complete as specific
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
A provision of a bill of lading that the dis-
charge of cargo by the consignee shall be "con-
tinuous" means only that it shall be reasonably
performance in equity.-Castle Creek Water Co.
v. City of Aspen (C. C. A.) 8.
§ 2. Contracts enforceable.
Where, in a contract of sale of real estate at
a price to be fixed by appraisers, the stipula-
tion for the appraisers is auxiliary to the main
purpose of the contract, equity may determine
the price itself, or by appraisers of its own se-
lection, and enforce specific performance.-
Castle Creek Water Co. v. City of Aspen (C. C.
A.) 8.
Evidence held, to show an equity in complain-
ant, entitling it to a specific performance of
the contract.-Castle Creek Water Co. v. City
of Aspen (C. C. A.) 8.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.gr/books/content?id=-F4-ZMPAO6sC&hl=el&output=text&pg=PA1067&img=1&zoom=3&q=held&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1FngBvW_xrAxMms8sKydSNKoQl1w&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=38,436,442,279)
Adoption by United States courts of state laws
as rules of decision, see "Courts," § 3.
Laws impairing obligation of contracts, see
"Constitutional Law," § 2.
Provisions relating to particular subjects.
See "Carriers," § 1; "Customs Duties"; "Post
Office," § 1; "Railroads," § 1; "Removal of
Causes," § 3; "Schools and School Districts,"
§ 1; "Shipping," §§ 1, 4.
Revenue laws, see "Internal Revenue."
Statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute of."
§ 1. Construction and operation.
*While the position of a proviso in a stat-
ute has a great influence upon the question of
its application, the inference from its position
cannot overrule its plain general intent, es-
pecially in composite structures such as tariff
and appropriation acts.-United States v. R.
F. Downing & Co. (C. C. A.) 56; Same v.
Schoellkopf, Hartford & Hanna Co., Id.
*A statute is not retrospective in operation
because a part of the requisites for its action
is drawn from another statute, existing before
the passage of the act in question.-McDougald
v. New York Life Ins. Co. (C. C. A.) 674.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.gr/books/content?id=-F4-ZMPAO6sC&hl=el&output=text&pg=PA1067&img=1&zoom=3&q=held&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1FngBvW_xrAxMms8sKydSNKoQl1w&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=32,1188,386,144)
STATUTES AT LARGE.
1874, June 18, ch. 301, 18 Stat. 78 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 3411]....
1874, June 22, ch. 391, § 21, 18 Stat. 190
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1986]..
1887, Feb. 4, ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154]....
1887, Feb. 4, ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154]. Amended by
Act 1903, Feb. 19, ch. 708, 32 Stat. 847
[U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 599].... 298
1887, Feb. 4, ch. 104, § 14, 24 Stat. 384
1887, March 3, ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505 [U. S.
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3164].
Comp. St. 1901, p. 752]..
1887, March 3, ch. 379, §§ 1, 2, 7, 24 Stat.
505 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 752, 753,
755]
1887, March 3, ch. 373, § 2, cl. 4, 24 Stat.
553 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 509]...... 972
1888, Aug. 13, ch. 866, § 2, 25 Stat. 434.... 972
1890, June 10, ch. 407, § 13, 26 Stat. 136
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1932]...
1890, June 10, ch. 407, § 14, 26 Stat. 137
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933]......84, 484
1890, June 10, ch. 407, § 15, 26 Stat. 138
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933]...
1890, June 10, ch. 407, § 20, 26 Stat. 140
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1950]. Amended
by Act 1890, Oct. 1, ch. 1244, § 54, 26
Stat. 624 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1950] 484
1890, Oct. 1, ch. 1244, § 54, 26 Stat. 624
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1950].
1891, March 3, ch. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 827
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 549]...
1891, March 3, ch. 565, 26 Stat. 1106 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3406]...
1892, May 5, ch. 60, 27 Stat. 25 [U.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 1319]. . . . .
1892, July 27, ch. 272, § 1, 27 Stat. 277
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 947].....
1893, Feb. 13, ch. 105, § 2, 27 Stat. 445 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2946].....
1893, Nov. 3, ch. 14, 28 Stat. 7 [U. S.
Comp. 1901, p. 1322].
1894, Aug. 27, ch. 349, § 48, 28 Stat. 563
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2109]...
1897, June 4. ch. 2. 30 Stat. 34 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 1540]....
1897. July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par.
262, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1651]...
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par.
264, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1651]...
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par.
272, 30 Stat. 172 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 16521
1897. July 24, ch. 11, § 2. Free List, pars.
626, 633, 30 Stat. 199. 200 [U. S. Comp.
St. 1901, pp. 1685, 1686]....
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 2, Free List. par.
638, 30 Stat. 200 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1686]....
1897, July 24, ch. 11. § 1, Schedule L, par.
385, 30 Stat. 185 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1668]...
.63, 132
1897, July 24, ch. 11. § 1, Schedule N, par.
S. Comp. St. 1901,
1902, March 11, ch. 183, § 7. 32 Stat. 66
[U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 114].... 994
1902, April 12, ch. 500, § 4, 52 Stat. 97 [U.
S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 445]....
1902, June 27, ch. 1160, 32 Stat. 406 [U.
S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 449].
1902, Dec. 15, ch. 1, 32 Stat. 753 [U. S.
Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 420].
1903, Feb. 5, ch. 487, 4, 32 Stat. 797
[U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 684] 383, 623
1903, Feb. 19, ch. 708, § 1, 32 Stat. 847
[U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 599].... 298
1903, Feb. 19, ch. 708, § 1, 32 Stat. 847
[U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 599].
Amended by Act 1906, June 29, ch. 3591,
34 Stat. 584...
298
1906, June 29, ch. 3591, 34 Stat. 584.... 298
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.gr/books/content?id=-F4-ZMPAO6sC&hl=el&output=text&pg=PA1068&img=1&zoom=3&q=held&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0lpf26YBQM2iPw7FrYlR9ignjmSQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=541,477,447,120)
1897. July 24, ch. 11, § 2, Free List, par.
661, 30 Stat. 201 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1688]..
83
1897, July 24, ch. 11, § 7, 30 Stat. 205 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693].. ....61, 148
1897, July 24, ch. 11. § 33, 30 Stat. 213,
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1701].
484
1898, June 13, ch. 448, 30 Stat. 464.
Amended by Act 1901. March 2, ch.
806 31 Stat. 948 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
pp. 2307; 2308]; Act 1902, June 27. ch.
1160, 32 Stat. 406 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp.
1905, p. 449].
1898, July 1, ch. 541, §§ 2, 7. 30 Stat. 545,
548 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3420,
3425]
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 14, subd. 2. 30 Stat.
550 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3428].
Amended by Act 1903, Feb. 5, ch. 487, §
4, 32 Stat. 797 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp.
1905, p. 684]....
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 14b, 30 Stat. 550
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3428]. Amend-
ed by Act 1903, Feb. 5, ch. 487, § 4, 32
Stat. 797 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p.
684]
1898, July, 1, ch. 541, §§ 20, 21, 30 Stat.
551 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3430]...
1898. July 1, ch. 541, § 23a. 30 Stat. 552
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901. p. 3431]....
1898, July 1, ch. 541, §§ 29, 38, 57, 30 Stat.
552, 554, 555, 560 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
pp. 3423, 3435, 3443].
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 57g, 30 Stat. 560
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3443]......
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 63a, 30 Stat. 562
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3447].....
1898, July 1, ch. 541, § 70 (5), 30 Stat.
565 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3451]......
1898, Dec. 21, ch. 28, § 24, 30 Stat. 763
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3079]..
1900, June 5, ch. 717, § 1, 31 Stat. 270
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 696]...
1900. June 6, 786, subch. 22, § 204, 31
Stat. 522....
1901, March, 2, ch. 806, 31 Stat. 948
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2307, 2308]...
1901, March 3, ch. 845, § 3, 31 Stat. 1093
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1328].....
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.gr/books/content?id=-F4-ZMPAO6sC&hl=el&output=text&pg=PA1068&img=1&zoom=3&q=held&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0lpf26YBQM2iPw7FrYlR9ignjmSQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=541,586,448,131)
§ 1045 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 726].
2145.
4523 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3075].... 160
4887 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3382].... 534
§ 4915 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3392].. 758
§ 4952. Amended by Act 1891, March 3,
ch. 565, 26 Stat. 1106 [U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 3406]......
375
§§ 4956, 4962 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
3407]
§ 4963 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3412].... 354
§ 4965 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3414]..375, 377
$5209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 34971..280, 289
§ 5258 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901 p. 3564].. 403
89 $5356 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3638]... 975
202
5438 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3674].
1425440 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3676].... 298
$5451 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3680]. 121
$5480 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696] 219, 223
§ 5497 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3707].... 778
|
