« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
§ 1. Merger and bar of causes of action
Findings of fact by judge trying ejectment
case, and order directing a conveyance as de-
creed, filed in different county clerks' offices,
he'd not a judgment admissible in support of
plea of res judicata.-Oklahoma City v. Mc-
A decree for separate maintenance of wife in
a suit brought under Laws Ill. 1877, p. 115,
held res judicata in Illinois on question of de-
sertion, when affirmed by Appellate and Su-
preme Courts.-Harding v. Harding, 679.
§ 2. Conclusiveness of adjudication.
Validity of certain releases held res judicata
as between the parties to a suit in which the
question of their invalidity for fraud and un-
due influence was put in issue by the plead-
ing. Fayerweather v. Ritch, 58; Reynolds v.
General expressions in an opinion, not essen-
tial to the case, cannot control judgment in sub-
sequent suits.-Harriman v. Northern Securi-
ties Co., 493.
The question whether a corporation organized
as a combination of stockholders in two com-
peting interstate railway companies held not de-
termined by a decree adjudging the combination
illegal. Harriman v. Northern Securities Co.,
Decree in favor of wife, in suit for separate
maintenance under Laws Ill. 1877, p. 115, held
conclusive on the husband in the courts of Cal-
ifornia on the question of willful desertion.-
Harding v. Harding, 679.
§ 3. Foreign judgments.
A judgment on a warrant of attorney annexed
to a note authorizing confession in favor of the
holder held not protected by the federal Consti-
tution and laws, when sued on in another state,
from collateral attack on the ground that plain-
tiff was not in fact the holder nor the real
owner. National Exch, Bank v. Wiley, 70.
Full faith and credit held not denied an order
of court of bankruptcy refusing to set aside
| issue cannot be limited by oral testimony of trial
judge that, in deciding the case, he did not con-
sider the validity of the release. Fayerweather
v. Ritch, 58; Reynolds v. Same, Id.
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
Amount in controversy, see "Courts," §§ 2-11.
Previous decisions as precedents, see "Courts,"
Jurisdiction of particular actions or proceedings.
Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 1.
Enforcement of stockholder's liability, see "Cor-
porations," § 1.
See "Admiralty," § 1; "Bankruptcy," §§ 2, 4.
Appellate jurisdiction, see "Criminal Law," § 7.
Particular courts, see "Courts."
Custody and conduct, see "Criminal Law," § 6.
Instruction to jury, see "Trial," § 1.
Number of jurors, see "Territories."
Of bankruptcy proceedings, see "Bankruptcy,"
Effect in equity, see "Equity," § 1.
Enforcement of trust, see "Trusts," § 2.
To enforce right in mining claim, see "Mines
and Minerals," § 1.
the sale by an assignee for inadequacy of price See "Public Lands,” § 2.
by refusal to treat such order as res judicata
as to the bankrupt's interest in the property.—
Cramer v. Wilson, 94.
Adjudication of a state court that a bank had
a contract exemption from taxation on its cap-
ital stock held not res judicata in the federal
courts as to taxes for years other than the one
directly involved in the judgment.-City of
Covington v. First Nat. Bank, 562; First Nat.
Bank v. City of Covington, Id.
Refusal of Nebraska courts to permit an ac-
tion on an Ohio judgment held to deny the full See "Constitutional Law," § 2.
faith and credit guarantied by Const. U. S. art.
4, § 1.-Jaster v. Currie, 614.
Judgment of a state court having jurisdiction
held entitled to the same faith in courts of an-
other state that it has in the state where ren-
dered.--Harris v. Balk, 625.
Judgment of federal court, whose jurisdiction
is invoked on account of diverse citizenship,
cannot be collaterally assailed in a state court.
-Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Alabama & G. Mfg.
An Illinois decree for separate maintenance
of wife held conclusive in the courts of another
state. Harding v. Harding, 679.
Pleading and evidence of judg-
ment as estoppel or defense.
The effect as res judicata of a decree in a case
in which the validity of certain releases was in
For inventions, see "Patents."
For public lands, see "Mines and Minerals," &
1; "Public Lands," § 2.
Interference with, see "Constitutional Law,"
As regulation of commerce, see "Commerce,"
For making, use, or sale of patented articles,
see "Patents," § 1.
License tax as denial of due process of law,
see "Constitutional Law," § 7.
License tax as denying equal protection of laws,
see "Constitutional Law," § 6.
License tax as impairing obligation of contract,
see "Constitutional Law," § 4.
§ 1. Master's liability for injuries to
Automatic couplers, which both couple and
can be uncoupled without the necessity of men
going between the cars, are what are meant by
Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, § 2; 27_Stat. 531
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174].-Johnson v.
Southern Pac. Co., 158.
Equipment of locomotive and dining car with
Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bank- automatic couplers of different types, so as not
ruptcy," § 2.
Pledge, see "Pledges."
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
See "Adverse Possession."
Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 3.
Enforcement of stockholder's liability, see
"Banks and Banking," § 1.
Laches, see "Equity," § 1.
§ 1. Statutes of limitation.
to couple automatically, does not satisfy the
provisions of Act March 2, 1893, c. 196. § 2,
27 Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174].-
Johnson v. Southern Pac. Co., 158.
Locomotives are embraced by the words "any
car," in Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, § 2, 27
Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174], pro-
hibiting carriers from using any car in inter-
state commerce not equipped with automatic
couplers.-Johnson v. Southern Pac. Co., 158.
The doctrine that statutes in derogation of
Petition in action under Indian Depredation common law are to be strictly construed does
Act March 3, 1891, c. 538, 26 Stat. 851 [U. S. not demand that Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, § 2,
Comp. St. 1901, p. 758], in which wrong was 27 Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174],
alleged to have been committed by a particular compelling interstate carriers to adopt auto-
Indian tribe, cannot be amended, after thematic couplers, should be so construed as to
three-year limitations prescribed by that act, defeat its object.-Johnson v. Southern Pac. Co.,
by charging another and different tribe to be
the wrongdoer.-United States v. Martinez,
See "Intoxicating Liquors."
Knowledge of the increased hazard resulting
from the dangerous proximity to the rails of a
railway scale box held not imputable to a
switchman.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Swearing-
On an issue whether a brakeman had as-
sumed the risk incident to the location of a
scale box near the track, excerpts from applica-
tion for employment held inadmissible.-Texas
Of mining claim, see "Mines and Minerals," & P. Ry. Co. v. Swearingen, 164.
A railroad company held not shown by the
evidence to have performed its duty as a mat-
ter of law to use due care to provide a reason-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Swearingen, 164.
Liability of employer for defects, see "Master ably safe place for switchmen in its employ.-
and Servant," § 1.
Of cause of action in judgment, see "Judg-
ment," § 1.
Jurisdiction of Circuit Court, see "Courts," § 9.
Power of Supreme Court to grant, see "Courts," See "Army and Navy."
§ 1. Nature and grounds in general.
Successor in office of judge of territorial court
may be substituted in place of predecessor, on
appeal from judgment denying mandamus to
compel the latter to take jurisdiction of an ap-
peal, under Act Feb. 8, 1899, c. 121, 30 Stat.
822 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 697].-Territory
of New Mexico v. Baker, 375.
MINES AND MINERALS.
Constitutionality of regulations as to location
of claims, See "Constitutional Law," § 2.
Laches in enforcing rights in mining location,
see "Equity," § 1.
Review by Supreme Court, see "Courts," § 8.
Trust agreement regarding mining location, see
"Trusts," & 2.
Use of timber, see "Public Lands," § 1.
1. Public mineral lands.
Delay of eight years after right to deed of in-
terest in mining claim has accrued held to de-
feat a suit to enforce such right.-Patterson v.
Bill held to make a case for an injunction
restraining defendants from further mining the
property in question during the pendency of
the suit.-Lockhart v. Leeds, 76.
Bill held to make a sufficient showing to enti-
tle complainant to treat the legal holders of a
mine as trustees ex maleficio, and to recover
from them as such trustees materials taken | the states, in violation of Act July 2, 1890, c.
from the mine.-Lockhart v. Leeds, 76.
647, 26 Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
3200], held not defective as vague.-Swift &
Co. v. United States, 276.
Bill held sufficiently to show that failure to
file notice of mining location within 90 days
after discovery was due to a conspiracy to de-
feat complainant's rights by his partner.ed, in violation of Act July 2, 1890, c. 647. 26
Lockhart v. Leeds, 76.
Requirement of Ann. Codes Mont. § 3612, as
to declaratory statement in locating a mining
claim, is not invalid as conflicting with con-
gressional legislation regulating location of
claims.-Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 211.
Owner of tunnel site, who had discovered
no lode claim, is not required by Rev. St. U. S.
§§ 2325, 2326 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1429,
1430], to adverse an application for the patent
of the lode claim through which the tunnel
runs. Creede & C. C. Min. & Mill. Co. v.
Uinta Tunnel Min. & Transp. Co., 266.
An entry of a lode mining claim held not to
preclude owner of tunnel site, located across
the lode, from showing steps taken to perfect
the lode location, notwithstanding provisions of
Rev. St. U. S. § 2320 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1424]. Creede & C. C. Min. & Mill. Co. v.
Uinta Tunnel Min. & Transp. Co., 266.
Discovery of a vein or lode before any other
steps are taken to perfect location is not re-
quired by Rev. St. U. S. § 2320 [U. S. Comp.
St. 1901, p. 1424].-Creede & C. C. Min. &
Mill. Co. v. Uinta Tunnel Min. & Transp. Co.,
As between rival mineral claimants to petro-
leum lands, there must have been a discovery to
sustain location which would justify a prudent
person in expenditure of money in exploitation
for petroleum.-Chrisman v. Miller, 468.
Area of conflict between two mining locations
on forfeiture of senior location held not unoc-
cupied mineral lands, so as to enable a re-
locator of the forfeited location to adverse suc-
cessfully application for a patent by junior
locator, under Rev. St. U. S. § 2326 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 1430].-Lavagnino v. Uhlig,
Constitutionality of anti-trust law, see "Con-
stitutional Law," §§ 3, 6, 7.
Construction by state courts of anti-trust law
as controlling, see "Courts," § 1.
§ 1. Validity and effect of grants.
No monopoly forbidden by the anti-trust law
held created by state regulations providing for
the appointment of pilots, and restricting the
right to pilot to those duly appointed.-Olsen v.
§ 2. Trusts and other combinations in
restraint of trade.
A general allegation of intent may apply to
all specific charges of a bill seeking relief
against violations of Act July 2, 1890, c. 647,
26 Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200],
relating to monopolies.-Swift & Co. v. United
A bill held to charge a violation of Act July
2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 3200], as against objections of want
of equity, multifariousness, and failure to set
out specific facts, where it avers combination
of dealers in fresh meats throughout the United
States.-Swift & Co. v. United States, 276.
Interstate commerce held unlawfully restrain-
Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200],
Swift & Co. v. United States, 276.
by combination of independent meat dealers.-
A combination to secure less than lawful
freight rates, entered into by independent meat
dealers with intent to monopolize commerce in
fresh meats, held forbidden by Act July 2,
1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 3200].-Swift & Co. v. United States,
Contracts with telegraph companies, by
which Chicago Board of Trade limits the com-
munication of quotations of prices on sales for
from communicating to any one, held not a
future delivery which it might have refrained
monopoly or contract in restraint of trade,
either under Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat.
209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200], or at com-
mon law. Board of Trade of City of Chicago
v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 637; L. A. Kin-
sey Co. v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago,
Payment to heir, see "Executors and Adminis-
trators," § 1.
Right of claim for ties to preference over mort-
gage, see "Railroads," § 1.
Constitutionality of ordinance relating to gam-
Constitutionality of tax of street railway com-
ing, see "Constitutional Law," §§ 6, 7.
Contract for street lighting, provisions for pay-
pany, see "Constitutional Law," § 6.
Due process of law as regards local assess-
ment, see "Contracts," § 2.
ments, see "Constitutional Law," § 7.
Effect of stipulation, see "Stipulations."
Impairing obligation of contract between city
and street railway company as to paving
streets, see "Constitutional Law," § 4.
Imposition on gas company of cost of changes
of location of pipes as impairing obligation
of contract, see "Constitutional Law," § 4.
Jurisdiction of federal court of action against
city, see "Courts," § 4.
Public water supply, see "Waters and Water
Courses," § 1.
Restraining proceedings under void ordinance,
see "Injunction," § 2.
Special franchise tax as impairing obligation of
contract, see "Constitutional Law," § 4.
Taking of property without compensation, see
"Eminent Domain," § 1.
Town sites, see "Public Lands," § 2.
Wharves, see "Wharves."
§ 1. Public improvements.
Charter provision that cost of planking shall
be paid out of general taxes held not to prevent
a special assessment thereafter on the owners
of property abutting on a local improvement in
carrying out which such planking was done.-
City of Seattle v. Kelleher, 44.
The doctrine of bona fide purchasers cannot
be invoked to prevent enforcement of lien of a
reassessment for the local improvement by one
who purchases after original attempt to assess
had been declared void.-City of Seattle v. Kel-
Charge in bill seeking relief against attempt
to monopolize commerce in fresh meats among | leher, 44.
That the only use made of a lot abutting on!
a street improvement is for railroad right of
way does not make assessment thereon for pav-
ing, under the area rule prescribed by Ky. St.
§§ 2833, 2834, invalid under Const. U. S.
Amend. 14.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Barber
Asphalt Pav. Co., 466.
§ 2. Police power and regulations.
Particular classes of officers.
Army and navy officers, see "Army and Navy."
United States officers, see "United States," ğ 1.
Narrowing by municipal ordinance of the lim-
its within which gas works may be erected, in-
cluding property purchased for that purpose,
held an arbitrary interference with property See "Mines and Minerals," § 1.
rights under Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Dob-
bins v. City of Los Angeles, 18; Daly v. El-
3. Use and regulation of public pla-
ces, property, and works.
A stepping stone on a sidewalk near the curb
held not an unlawful obstruction, under Rev.
St. D. C. § 222.-Wolff v. District of Columbia,
See "Trade-Marks and Trade-Names."
Internal revenue taxes, see "Internal Revenue."
Of courts, see "Courts," § 1.
Review of appealable orders, see "Appeal and
See "Banks and Banking," § 1.
See "Waters and Water Courses."
As boundary of state, see "States," § 1.
Wharves, see "Wharves."
Admiralty jurisdiction, see "Admiralty," § 1.
Of employers, see "Master and Servant," § 1.
1. Acts or omissions constituting
Even an expert may be guilty of negligence
in doing what at the time his judgment ap-
proves. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Aitken,
Combination, see "Conspiracy," § 1.
Service of process on, see "Process," § 1.
Municipal ordinances, see "Municipal Corpora-
tions," § 2.
For public lands, see "Mines and Minerals,"
§ 1; "Public Lands," § 2.
Use of patent as claim against United States,
see "United States," § 2.
1. Title, conveyances, and contracts.
Defense that United States has not used pat-
ent for Harvey process of treating armor plate,
if such patent is properly construed, held not
available in a suit for royalties due under a con-
tract for the use of the process known as the
"Harvey process." United States v. Harvey
Steel Co., 240.
As constituting due process of law, see "Con- ments on machines for plucking furs, held not
stitutional Law," § 7.
Regulation of, see "Commerce," § 3.
Regulations providing for appointment as vio-
lation of anti-trust law, see "Monopolies," § 1.
Exemption to coastwise steam vessels of the
United States from operation of state pilotage
laws, created by Rev. St. U. S. § 4444 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 3037], operates only on laws
relating to those vessels.-Olsen v. Smith, 52.
No inherent rights guarantied by the federal
Constitution held infringed by state regulations
providing for appointment of pilots and restrict-
ing pilotage to those duly appointed.-Olsen v.
Only the discriminatory features of state
pilotage law are abrogated by Rev. St. U. S. 8
4237 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2903], forbidding
such discrimination.-Olsen. v. Smith, 52.
The adoption of compulsory pilotage regula-
tions by a state under authority of Rev. St.
U. S. 4235 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 29031,
held not a violation of Const. U. S. art. 1, § 9,
cl. 6, relating to preferences in regulation of
commerce.-Thompson v. Darden, 660.
No discrimination in state pilotage laws, for-
bidden by Rev. St. U. S. § 4237 [U. S. Comp.
St. 1901, p. 2903], held made by Virginia com-
pulsory pilotage charge on vessels inward or
outward bound through Virginia capes.-
Thompson v. Darden, 660.
Amendment, effect of limitation, see "Limita-
tion of Actions," § 1.
Allegations as to particular facts, acts, or
Jurisdiction, see "Courts," § 4.
In particular actions or proceedings.
To determine mining rights, see "Mines and
Minerals," § 1.
For relief against monopoly, see "Monopolies,"
Indorsement to a third person as security
for a loan of a warehouse receipt, reciting that
the property has been received on storage, to
be delivered on surrender of the receipt, is a
sufficient delivery as against attaching credit-
ors of the owner, whether the receipt is a pub-
lic warehouse receipt, under Rev. St. Ill. c.
114, 2, or not.-Union Trust Co. v. Wilson,
Inspection of malt liquors, see "Intoxicating
Liquors," § 1.
Of municipality, see "Municipal Corporations,"
Of insurance, see "Insurance."
See "Adverse Possession."
§ 1. Mailable matter, transmission and
delivery of mail, and money or-
Change of service under mail contract by car-
rying the mails to and from street cars at cer-
tain street crossings held within the power re-
served by the contract with the Postmaster
General.-Slavens v. United States, 229; Trav-
is v. Same, 233.
Postmaster General may cancel mail contract,
the service under which has been decreased by
using street cars, in the exercise of his authority
under the contract and U. S. Postal Laws and
Regulations, § 817.-Slavens v. United States,
229; Travis v. Same, 233.
A contractor for carrying mails held not en-
titled to extra compensation for services outside
his contract performed in compliance with un-
authorized demand of local postmaster.-Slav-
ens v. United States, 229; Travis v. Same, 233.
Adjustment of compensation to railroad for
carrying mails, made by the Postmaster Gen-
eral, under Rev. St. U. S. § 4002 [U. S. Comp.
St. 1901, p. 2719], may be confined, where ex-
tension is made beyond the terminal of an es-
tablished mail route, to the extension alone.-
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. United States,