Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

D. K. Jeffris Lumber Co. v. Howard Shipyards & Dock Co. (C. C. A. Ind.).. 513 E. Porter Products Co. v. United States (C. C. A. Ill.).. Fischer-Schein Syndicate v. Lee (C. C. A. Ill.)

648

485

Guarantee Finance & Securities Co. v. Voss (C. C. A. Ind.).

115

513

Jeffris Lumber Co. v. Howard Shipyards
& Dock Co. (C. C. A. Ind.).
Kolb Coal Co. v. Sauter (C. Č. A. Ill.) 690
McFarland v. United States (C. C. A. Ill.)
Mayer Bros. v. Van Rheeden (C. C. A.
Ill.)

648

689

648

Porter Products Co. v. United States (C.
C. A. Ill.).
Rockwood & Co. v. Hummel (C. C. A. Ill.) 508
Seymour Cabinet Co., In re (C. C. A. Ind.) 115
Specialty Candy Co., In re (C. C. A. Ill.) 508
Stearns & White Co., In re (C. C. A. Ill.) 833
Stearns & White Co. v. Lee (C. C. A. Ill.) 833
Streator Aqueduct Co. v. Smith (D. C. Ill.) 385
Taggart v. Bremner (C. C. A. Ill.).
Van Rheeden & Sons, In re (C. C. A. Ill.) 689
Wiggins v. Hummel (C. C. A. Ill.).

EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

506

510

Gallup v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (D.
Wash.)

Glavin v. Commonwealth Trust Co. of
Pittsburgh (C. C. A. Idaho).

Gray v. Seattle & R. V. R. Co. (D. C.
Wash.)

Halsey v. Ho Ah Keau (C. C. A. Hawaii).. 636
Holmes v. Crowell & Thurlow S. S. Co.
(D. C. Wash.)......

696 21

877
Houston v. Rosborough (C. C. A. Cal.) 137
Jackson v. United States (C. C. A. Ariz.) 620
Jardine, Matheson & Co. v. United States
(D. C. Wash.).
Kellerman v. Bullock (C. C. A. Cal.).
Lake Charles Rice Milling Co. v. Pacific
Rice Growers' Ass'n (C. C. A. Cal.).. 246
Lee Hing v. Nagle (C. C. A. Cal.).
Leong Shee v. White (C. C. A. Cal.)
Levinson, In re (D. C. Cal.)................
Levinson, In re (D. C. Wash.)
Levinson, In re (D. C. Wash.)
Lewis v. United States (C. C. A. Cal.)... 678
Louis Toy Bing, Ex parte (D. C. Wash.) 420
McGill v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (C. C.
A. Idaho).

MacLeod & Co. v. United States (D. C.
Wash.)

642

665

736

144

146

41

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Murphy Wall Bed Co. v. Rip Van Winkle Wall Bed Co. (D. C. Cal.).

748

809

Oakland Motor Car Co. v. United States (C. C. A. Cal.).

626

178

[blocks in formation]

Pincolini v. United States (C. C. A. Nev.).. 468 Rauer v. Hatfield, two cases (C. C. A. Cal.) 48 Rosenberg, Petition of (D. C. Wash.). Rosenberg, Petition of (D. C. Wash.). Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation (D. C. Cal.).

144

146

372

C.

699

(C.

311

676

530

States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation (D. C. Or.)

415

Bates v. Oregon-American Lumber Co. (C. C. A. Or.).

Taylor V. Nevada Humboldt Tungsten
Mines Co. (C. C. A. Nev.)...
Thomas P. Beal, The (D. C. Wash.)
Twohy Bros. Co. v. Kennedy (C. C. A.

112

877

[blocks in formation]

462

Beal, The Thomas P. (D. C. Wash.)

877

Boise Title & Trust Co. v. Evans (D. C. Idaho)

223

Buck v. Kuykendall (D. C. Wash.).

197

[blocks in formation]

Butchart v. United States (C. C. A. Or.)..

[blocks in formation]

(295 F.)

Page

[blocks in formation]

Page

978

.1003

931

.1001

.100$

973

C.) 936 970

Hummer v. Carmalt (App. D. c.).
Johnson, In re (App. D. C.).
Joy v. Morgan (App. D. C.).
Krank v. Philippe (App. D. C.).
McMullen v. Waters (App. D. C.).
Merritt v. Kay (App. D. C.).
Moses & Sons v. Lockwood (App. D.
Payne v. Payne (App. D. C.)..
Santa Fé Pac. R. Co. v. Work (App. D.
C.)
982
Schwalbenberg v. Dowell (App. D. C.).. 998
Sisson v. United States (App. D. C.)..1010
Swain v. Booth (App. D. C.)...
236
Swan v. United States (App. D. C.)... 921.
United States Commission to Appraise
Washington Market Co. Property, In re
(App. D. C.)..

Clifton v. United States (App. D.

C.).. 925

950

Dennis v. Darrin (App. D. C.).

234

Vidaver v. Sherman (App. D. C.).

994

Dennis v. Karns (App. D. C.).

234

[blocks in formation]

W. B. Moses & Sons v. Lockwood (App. D. C.).

936

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, THE
DISTRICT COURTS, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA

1. Trial

BATES v. OREGON-AMERICAN LUMBER CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 21, 1924.)

No. 4063.

89-Evidence in favor of employee's claim for services held sufficient as against motion to strike, made during presentation of plaintiff's case.

In an action on an employment contract, testimony of defendant's vice president, who was a director and also general and managing agent and attorney in fact of its Oregon business, in favor of plaintiff's claim, held sufficient to withstand defendant's motion to strike, made in the middle of plaintiff's presentation of evidence.

2. Trial

92-To strike evidence for insufficiency before all of it is in held premature and error.

At any stage of a trial to strike evidence for mere insufficiency is not commendable practice, and to strike it before the party aggrieved has concluded his case, and before it is obvious that he cannot supply any deficiency, is premature, and error.

3. Pleading 32-Pleading cannot give severable contract contrary construction. A pleading cannot give to a severable contract a contrary construction. 4. Pleading 64(2),—Items in complaint for services under contract held properly included in single count.

Even if all the items of service under a severable employment contract constituted separate causes of action, being of like character, they were properly included in a single count.

5. Pleading 246(2), 399-Failure to prove all items under single count held not fatal variance.

Even if plaintiff failed to prove all the items of service under a severable employment contract which were included in a single count of the complaint, there would be no variance fatal to recovery, or invulnerable to amendment, if necessary.

6. Trial

45(1)-General offer of proof held sufficient, where generality due

to court's direction.

Though ordinarily an offer of proof which includes all the allegations of the complaint is too general, and avails nothing, if denied, where the generality was due to a ruling of the court, and defendant failed to object thereto, it was sufficient, especially where the court had indicated that its mind was made up, and that no proof could be made.

For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes 295 F.-1

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »