Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

INDEX-DIGEST

KEY NUMBER SYSTEM

THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX

It Supplements the Reporter Digests and Prior Reporter
Volume Index-Digests

ACCOUNT.

I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES.

4 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Equity may decree ac-
counting, if fiduciary relationship exists.-Goffe
& Clarkener v. Lyons Milling Co., 26 F.(2d)
801.

5 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Equity may decree ac-
counting, if there are mutual accounts.-Goffe
& Clarkener v. Lyons Milling Co., 26 F. (2d)
801.

6 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Mere difficulty of proof
does not confer jurisdiction on equity in action
for accounting.-Goffe & Clarkener v. Lyons
Milling Co., 26 F. (2d) 801.

Action may properly be brought in equity for
taking accounting, where account is so difficult,
complicated, and confusing that jury cannot
handle it.-Id.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.

62 (3) (U.S.D.C.III.) Testimony of justice
of peace, certifying to acknowledgment of chat-
tel mortgage, held competent to impeach certif-
icate of acknowledgment.-In re Hylbert, 26 F.
(2d) 672.

II. REMEDIES IN PERSONAM AND IN
REM.

32 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Corporation organized
under laws of foreign country could be sued for
admiralty tort in any District Court of United
States where found or in which it had prop-
erty.-Aktieselskabet Dea v. Wrightson, 26 F.
(2d) 175.

32 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Federal District Court
of New Jersey has jurisdiction of forfeiture
proceeding against vessel seized violating fed-
eral laws on Jersey side of Hudson river (Rev.
St. § 563 [see 28 USCA § 41, subd. 91; Act
June 28, 1834 [4 Stat. 708]). The Rosemary,
26 F. (2d) 354, reversing decree (D. C.) 23 F.
(2d) 103.

III. PARTIES. PROCESS, CLAIMS. AND
STIPULATIONS OR OTHER SECURITY.

50 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Libelant who failed to
adopt or answer claimant's petition against
third party could not complain that petition
was dismissed (Admiralty Rule 56).-Jensen v.
Bank Line, 26 F. (2d) 173.

Libelant cannot be compelled to establish per-
sonal liability of third party brought into libel
proceeding by claimant (Admiralty Rule 56).
-Id.

62(4) (U.S.D.C.III.) Testimony of mortga-50 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Parties in libel may im-
gor held competent to impeach certificate of ac-
knowledgment.-In re Hylbert, 26 F. (2d) 672.

ACTION.

IV. COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION,
AND TERMINATION.

68 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Motion to stay unfair
competition action until all defendants named
are regularly brought within jurisdiction will be
denied, where plaintiff's right against resident
defendants is not dependent on presence of non-
residents. Shredded Wheat Co. v. Kellogg Co.,
26 F. (2d) 284.

69 (U.S.D.C.III.) District court cannot stay
proceedings pending determination of suit in
state court involving issue subsequently raised
therein.-Checker Cab Mfg. Co. v. Checker
Taxi Co., 26 F.(2d) 752.

ADMIRALTY.

1. JURISDICTION.

5 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) District Court had dis-
cretion to refuse jurisdiction of controversy
between seaman employed on foreign vessel
and employer.-The Knappingsborg, 26 F. (2d)
935.

25 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) By filing cross-libel,
respondent, notwithstanding objection to juris-
diction in answer, submitted itself to court's
jurisdiction.-Aktieselskabet Dea v. Wrightson,
26 F. (2d) 175.

26 F. (2d)-65

plead any other vessel or person partly or whol-
Îy responsible (Admiralty Rule 56).-The Thom-
as_ F. O'Brien, 26 F. (2d) 674.

Dumper, in government's libel to recover pen-
alty for illegal dumping, held entitled to implead
vessel whose alleged negligent navigation made
dumping at prohibited place necessary to save
life (Act June 29, 1888, as amended by Act
Aug. 18, 1894, § 3, and Act May 28, 1908, § 8
[33 USCA §§ 441-451]; Admiralty Rule 56).
-Id.

IV. PLEADING, PETITIONS, AND MO-

TIONS.

61 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Claimant of tug was
bound by allegations in answer in libel proceed-
ings that failure to steer was cause of deflec-
tion of rear of tow.-The Robert H. Cook, 26 F.
(2d) 710.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND
REVIEW.

114(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Evidence held not
to show adverse possession by plaintiffs' lessors
of land in which plaintiffs claim oil and mineral
rights.-Ratliffe v. Meyers, 26 F.(2d) 79.

AGRICULTURE.

(U.S.D.C.Okl.) State law, authorizing co-
operative cotton gins without adjudication of
necessity required for commercial gins, held not
unconstitutional (Comp. St. Okl. 1921, § 3714,

(1025)

as amended by Laws 1925, c. 109; §§ 3713, 3715, 61 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Hindu is not "white
3717; Const. U. S. Amend. 14).-Frost v. Cor- person" subject to naturalization.-U. S. v.
poration Commission of Oklahoma, 26 F. (2d) Gokhale, 26 F. (2d) 360.
508.

ALIENS.

II. EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION.

31 (U.S.D.C.II.) Chinese merchant, during
registration period, cannot be deported, though
subsequently becoming laborer (Chinese Exclu-
sion Act [8 USCA § 263 et seq.]).-U. S. v. Jin
Yuen, 26 F. (2d) 392.

Chinese person, coming to United States with
parents when father was merchant, held legally
within United States.-Id.

32 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) In Chinese exclu-
sion proceeding, contemporaneous birth record
is entitled to great weight; but, in absence of
statute, record made 25 years after event has
no legal status.-Nagle v. Dong Ming, 26 F. (2d)
438, affirming judgment (D. C.) Ex parte Dong
Ming, 20 F. (2d) 388.

32 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held to
warrant finding that Chinese applicant was son
of native-born citizen.-Nagle v. Dong Ming, 26
F. (2d) 438, affirming judgment (D. C.) Ex
parte Dong Ming, 20 F. (2d) 388.

32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence warranted
Immigration Department's holding that father
of Chinese ordered deported was not merchant,
within Chinese Exclusion Acts (8 USCA §
289).-Hong Chow Duck v. Nagle, 26 F. (2d)
794.

32(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Right to admis-
sion as foreign-born son of native-born citizen
held not established.-Mason ex rel. Chin Suey
v. Tillinghast, 26 E. (2d) 588.

III. IMMIGRATION.

53 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Alien permitted to re-
enter country after temporary absence, on his
false representation that he was citizen, held
deportable as entering without "inspection."-
Ex parte Saadi, 26 F. (2d) 458, affirming judg-
ment (D. C.) 23 F. (2d) 334.

62 (3) (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Applicant, maintain-
ing actual residence in Canada, held not entitled
to citizenship, though spending most of time in
United States, with future intention to reside
therein.-In re Barron, 26 F. (2d) 106.

Residence of applicant for citizenship depends
largely on intention, gathered from acts of pe-
titioner, rather than declarations.-Id.

Term "resided in United States" is used in
naturalization statute in sense of having domi-
cile.-Id.

Intent to make home, within meaning of nat-
uralization statute, must be intent to make
home at the moment.-Id.

62 (5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Granting citizenship
to applicant who had committed adultery within
five years previous held illegal (Naturalization
Act, § 4 [8 USCA § 382]).—U. S. v. Unger, 26
F. (2d) 114.

68 (2) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Alien honorably dis-
charged from United States Navy held not enti-
tled to naturalization without previous declara-
tion of intention (8 USCA § 395).-In re Byrne,
26 F. (2d) 750.

68 (5) (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Court, on hearing of
application for admission to citizenship, is not
bound by recital of facts in certificate of ar-
rival.-In re Barron, 26 F. (2d) 106.

That applicant for citizenship was fitting
himself to practice law is evidence of intention
to reside in United States at future time.-Id.

68 (5) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Proof of residence
within state, in addition to subscribing witness-
es, is admissible as oral testimony, though not
in form of depositions (Act June 29, 1906, § 10,
as amended [8 USCA § 383]).-In re Meisling,
26 F. (2d) 679.

70 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Decree granting citizen-
ship is not res judicata in subsequent suit in
equity by United States to set aside decree
(Naturalization Act, § 15 [8 USCA § 405]).—
U. S. v. Unger, 26 F.(20) 114.

712(10) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Admission of
Hindu to citizenship by Supreme Court of New
York held open to review by United States by
bill in equity (Naturalization Act, §§ 11, 15 [8
USCA $$ 399, 405]).-U. S. v. Gokhale, 26 F.
(2d) 360.

53 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Alien, convicted and
sentenced under information charging 11 dif-
ferent offenses of statutory arson in 11 separate
counts, held not subject to deportation as hav-
ing been sentenced more than once (8 USCA §
155).-U. S. ex rel. Pepe v. Johnson, 26 F. (2d)712 (10) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Proper method for

288.

54 (5) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Deportation proceed
ings against alien temporarily admitted held not
barred under three-year limitation statute (8
USCA § 155).-Kowalski v. U. S. Bureau of
Immigration, 26 F. (2d) 266.

56 (U.S.C.C.A.Fla.) Person arranging
while in Cuba for bringing in alien not entitled
to enter held criminally liable, though not physi-
cally present in United States.-Claramont v. U.
S., 26 F. (2d) 797.

58 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held to show
that penalties imposed by Secretary of Labor
against steamship company transporting aliens,
who were excluded, were unauthorized (Immi-
gration Act 1924, § 16, subds. (a) (b), 8 USCA

216, subds. (a) (b).-U. S. v. Compagnie
Générale Transatlantique, 26 F.(2d) 195, af-
firming judgment (D. C.) Compagnie General
Transatlantique v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 465.

Decision of Secretary of Labor, refusing to
refund fines against vessel bringing in aliens,
turning on proper construction of statute, was
not final (Immigration Act of 1924, § 16 [8
USCA § 216]).—Id.

IV. NATURALIZATION.

60 (U.S.D.C.Wash.) "Naturalization" is
act of adopting alien and clothing him with
privileges of citizenship.-In re Bishop, 26 F.
(2d) 148.

Congress may effect naturalization by legisla-
tive act.-Id

[blocks in formation]

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

-Toll v. Monitor Binding & Printing Co., 26 F.
(2d) 51.

(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
Thereon.

181 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Objection not raised
in trial court would not be considered without
clear showing of injustice.-In re Morgan, 26
F. (2d) 183.

187 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Question of defect
of parties in counterclaim was not considered
on appeal, where not raised by motion or in re-
ply, and no action was taken on counterclaim
on merits.--De Lano v. City of Tulsa, 26 F. (2d)
640.

215(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Objections to in-
structions urged first on appeal will not be con-
sidered.-Toll v. Monitor Binding & Printing
Co., 26 F. (2d) 51.

C.) Barnett v. Equitable Trust Co. of New
York, 21 F. (2d) 325.

XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.

719(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Objection not as-
signed as error would not be considered with-
out clear showing of injustice.-In re Morgan,
26 F. (2d) 183.

not

747(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Complainant
appealing, could not by "cross-assignments of
error" hold fast to favorable part of decree and
attack unfavorable portion.-Millward v. Vulcan
Furnace & Equipment Co., 26 F. (2d) 78.

XVI. REVIEW.

(A) Scope and Extent in General.
842 (8) (App.D.C.) Interpretation of writ-
ten instruments constitutes question of law, and
is reviewable on appeal.-Sun Indemnity Co. of
New York v. American University, Washington,
D. C., 26 F. (2d) 556.

221 (U.S.C.C.A.Ariz.) Objection that ver-
dict was excessive held not available, where
raised for first time in reviewing court with-
out showing it violated local Liability Act (Civ. 847(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Judgment in equi-
Code Ariz. 1913, pars. 3153-3162).-Cook- ty in cause transferred from law side held re-
O'Brien Const. Co. v. Crawford, 26 F. (2d) 574. viewable.-Hollandsworth v. William Mead Tie
Co., 26 F. (2d) 33.

235 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Question of defect of
parties in counterclaim was not considered on
appeal, where not raised by motion or in reply,
and no action was taken on counterclaim on
merits.-De Lano v. City of Tulsa, 26 F. (2d)
640.

237(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Question wheth-
er any substantial evidence sustains judgment
is not reviewable, in absence of request, mo-
tion, or other action fairly presenting question
and securing ruling during trial.-McFarland v.
Central Nat. Bank of Topeka, Kan., 26 F. (2d)
890, affirming judgment (D. C.) Central Nat.
Bank of Topeka, Kan., v. McFarland, 20 F.
(2d) 416.

(C) Exceptions.

to

263(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Fla.) Assignments
portions of charge not excepted to need not be
considered.-Boghich v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
26 F. (2d) 361.

273(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Exception calling
trial court's attention to specific error is indis-
pensable to review of ruling.-McFarland v.
Central Nat. Bank of Topeka, Kan., 26 F. (2d)
890, affirming judgment (D. C.) Central Nat.
Bank of Topeka, Kan., v. McFarland, 20 F. (2d)
416.

274(1) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Exception to juris-
diction, alleging defendant was doing business in
state and had agent for service of process there-
in, raised no question regarding service.-Louis-
ville & N. R. Co. v. Chatters, 26 F. (2d) 403,
affirming judgment (D. C.) Chatters v. Louis-
ville & N. R. Co., 17 F. (2d) 305.

VI. PARTIES.

324 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Anything in record
showing that party not appealing has had notice
of appeal and abides by decree is sufficient
showing of "severance" within rule relating to
joinder in appeal.-American Baptist Home
Mission Soc. v. Barnett, 26 F.(2d) 350, dis-
missing appeal (D. C.) Barnett v. Equitable
Trust Co. of New York, 21 F. (2d) 325.

Belated appearance and request to join as
appellant is not equivalent to "summons and
severance."-Id.

325 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Decree adjudging in-
validity of Indian's gift in trust held "joint de-
cree" within rule as to joinder of necessary
parties on appeal.-American Baptist Home
Mission Soc. v. Barnett, 26 F. (2d) 350, dis-
missing appeal (D. C.) Barnett v. Equitable
Trust Co. of New York, 21 F. (2d) 325.

336 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Defect of non-
joinder of necessary appellant cannot be cured
by amendment after expiration of time for ap-
peal.-American Baptist Home Mission Soc. v.
Barnett, 26 F. (2d) 350, dismissing appeal (D.

[blocks in formation]

901 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Appellant, seeking
reversal on questions of fact on which evidence
was conflicting, must show that judgment is
against decided preponderance of evidence.-
Shepard v. Reed, 26 F. (2d) 19.

917(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Plaintiff is enti-
tled to favorable inferences where judgment
appealed from is rendered on demurrer to com-
plaint.-Baker & Taylor Co. v. U. S., 26 F. (2d)
187, affirming judgment (D. C.) 21 F. (2d) 787.
927 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) In
propriety of refusal of directed verdict for de-
determining
fendant, appellate court must view evidence in
light most favorable to plaintiff.-Texas Co. v.
Brice, 26 F. (2d) 164.

931 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) General judgment
is conclusive finding of all necessary facts,
where bill of exceptions shows no requests for
findings or declarations of law, nor exceptions
to court's declarations (28 USCA § 879).-Mc-
Farland v. Central Nat. Bank of Topeka, Kan.,
26 F.(2d) 890, affirming judgment (D. C.) Cen-
tral Nat. Bank of Topeka, Kan., v. McFarland,
20 F.(2d) 416.

(F) Discretion of Lower Court.
977(1) (App.D.C.) Trial court's action in
granting or refusing new trial is not reviewable.
Fitzgerald v. Dodson, 26 F. (2d) 522.

977(5) (App.D.C.) Refusal of motion for
new trial is not available as assignment of er-
ror, unless abuse of discretion.-Capital Trac-
tion Co. v. Sneed, 26 F. (2d) 296.

981 (App.D.C.) Action of trial court rela-
tive to motion for new trial based on newly dis-
covered evidence will not be disturbed, unless
discretion was abused.-Fitzgerald v. Dodson,
26 F.(2d) 522.

(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and
Findings.

1008 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Trial court's
findings should not be disturbed, unless clearly
wrong. Courtney v. Walker, 26 F. (2d) 583.

1008(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) On appeal great
weight is to be attached to trial court's findings

of fact.-Dahlmer v. Bay State Dredging & Con-
tracting Co., 26 F. (2d) 603.

1008(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) District Judge's
finding on facts will not be disturbed on appeal.
-Armour Fertilizer Works v. Jacobus-Grau-
willer Co., 26 F. (2d) 775.

F. Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
men and Enginemen, 26 F. (2d) 413.

One arbitrator, or minority of arbitrators,
cannot defeat award by resigning, withdrawing,
or otherwise refusing to participate in hearings.
-Id.

1010(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Reviewing court
must reverse trial court's findings, which are
clearly wrong and unsupported by evidence.-511⁄2
Courtney v. Walker, 26 F. (2d) 583.

on

1010(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Judgment
question of fact in case tried without jury will
not be disturbed if sustained by any substantial
evidence.-English v. Gamble, 26 F. (2d) 28.

1011(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Appellate court
must defer to finding of trial court, based large-
ly on extremely conflicting testimony.-Lippman
v. Romich, 26 F. (2d) 601.

1022(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Unless clearly er-
roneous, finding of master, approved by trial
court, not disturbed by appellate court.-Schock
v. Malloy, 26 F. (2d) 621.

(H) Harmless Error.

1040(10) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Overruling ex-
ception to petition on ground of vagueness re-
garding time of alleged injury held not prejudi-
cial, where defendant knew date of accident-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Chatters, 26 F. (2d)
403, affirming judgment (D. C.) Chatters v.
Louisville & N. R. Co., 17 F. (2d) 305.

1050(1) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Plaintiff's testi-
mony that doctor had stated plaintiff was suf-
fering with traumatic conjunctivitis held not
prejudicial error.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Chatters, 26 F. (2d) 403, affirming judgment (D.
C.) Chatters v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 17 F.
(2d) 305.

Where plaintiff claimed injury caused loss of
earnings as representative of lumber company,
admitting letters indicating relation of employer
and employee held not reversible error.-Id.

1054(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Admission of im-
material evidence in trial to court without jury
held not reversible error.-English v. Gamble,
26 F. (2d) 28.

(K) Subsequent Appeals.
1097(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Questions decid-
ed on appeal from interlocutory decree will not
be reconsidered on appeal from final decree.-
Walbridge-Aldinger Co. v. Rudd, 26 F. (2d) 636.

[blocks in formation]

I. SUBMISSION.

ARMY AND NAVY.

(U.S.D.C.Colo.) Government may
waive provisions of war risk insurance regula-
tions made for its protection.-Chichiarelli v. U.
S., 26 F. (2d) 484.

Evidence held to show that intention of in-
sured was not to change beneficiary under war
risk insurance policy.—Id.

ARREST.

II. ON CRIMINAL CHARGES.

71 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Entry of federal offi-
cers observing still in operation, and arrest of
persons on premises, together with incidental
search and seizure, held lawful.-Samson v. U.
S., 26 F. (2d) 769.

AUTOMOBILES.

V. INJURIES FROM OPERATION, OR USE
OF HIGHWAY.

(B) Actions.

242 (6) (App.D.C.) Proof of ownership of
automobile driven on highway warrants infer-
ence that it was in owner's possession, either
personally or through his servant.-Curry v.
Stevenson, 26 F. (2d) 534.

245 (26) (App.D.C.) Possession of automo-
bile at time of accident is for court, where
prima facie inference from fact of ownership is
overcome by uncontradicted proof.-Curry v.
Stevenson, 26 F.(2d) 534.

Evidence as to possession of automobile by
one other than owner at time of accident re-
quired directed verdict for owner, sued for per-
sonal injuries resulting.-Id.

VII. OFFENSES AND PROSECUTIONS.
(B) Prosecution and Punishment.
351 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Indictment charging
that defendants transported automobile in inter-
state commerce from Kansas into Western dis-
trict of Oklahoma, knowing it was stolen, held
sufficient (18 USCA § 408).-Isbell v. U. S., 26
F. (2d) 24.

355 (12) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Proof that auto-
mobile was taken without knowledge or con-
sent of person using it sufficiently established
character of car as stolen, in prosecution for
transporting stolen automobile in interstate
commerce (18 USCA § 408).-Isbell v. U. S., 26
F. (2d) 24.

Evidence held to sustain conviction for trans-
portation of stolen automobile in interstate
commerce (18 USCA § 408).—Id.

BAIL.

II. IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.

52 (U.S.D.C.Va.) $5,000 bail for each of
four defendants charged with joint theft of $27.-
000 held not excessive (Cr. Code, § 194 [18
USCA § 317]).-U. S. v. Averett, 26 F.(2d)
676.

53 (U.S.D.C.Va.) For purpose of determin-
ing motion to reduce bail, defendants, after find-
ing indictment, would be presumed as probably
guilty.-U. S. v. Averett, 26 F. (2d) 676.

3 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Arbitrations may deal ei-
ther with private disputes or matters of public
concern.-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Broth-
erhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engine-75 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Recognizance held to
men, 26 F.(2d) 413.

II. ARBITRATORS AND PROCEEDINGS.

35 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Parties to arbitration as
to public matter may provide for valid award by
majority of arbitrators.-Atchison, T. & S.

require accused to appear on date specified and
continually thereafter until case disposed of, and
appearance after date specified was insufficient
(18 USCA § 591; 28 USCA § 169; Gen. St. Minn.
1923, §§ 10579-10584, 10588, 10593-10595).-
U. S. v. Pleason, 26 F. (2d) 104.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »