Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Chattel Mortgages
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
v. U. S. Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corpo-136 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence of carrier's
ration, 21 F.(2d) 447.

(F) Loss of or Injury to Goods.

107 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Care taken by shipper
to guard its property held not to lessen carrier's
burden of care. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State
of Russia, 21 F. (2d) 406.

108 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Carrier's common-law
liability as insurer, when carrying explosives,
held not changed by federal laws (Federal Ex-

negligence in not preventing loss of explosives
held to justify directed verdict for plaintiff,
especially since carrier violated Interstate
Commerce Commission regulations (Interstate
Commerce Commission Regulations, §§ 1650,
1906). Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State of Rus-
sia, 21 F. (20) 396.

Where consignee has no duty to watch ex-
plosives in carrier's care, fact that detectives
hired by consignee failed to prevent explosion
cannot raise contributory negligence issue.-Id.

gence alleged in counterclaim was that of inde-

pendent contractor, for which plaintiff was not
liable, instructing jury to find against counter-
claim held proper.-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v.
State of Russia, 21 F. (2d) 396.

plosives Law, Criminal Code, §§ 233, 235 [18137 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Where only negli-
USCA §§ 383, 385]; Carmack Amendment to
Interstate Commerce Act [49 USCA § 20];
Commerce Act [49 USCA § 1 et seq.]).-Lehigh
Valley R. Co. v. State of Russia, 21 F. (20) 396.
110 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Carrier held, as mat-
ter of law, to have notice of explosive nature of
shipment.-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State of
Russia, 21 F. (20) 396.

(G) Carrier as Warehouseman.

142 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Railroad, acting as
warehouseman, was obliged at all times to pro-
tect property intrusted to its care. Lehigh
Valley R. Co. v. State of Russia, 21 F.(2d)
406.

146 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held to jus-
tify instructing jury that storage contract was
substituted for written transportation contract.
-Barrett v. Fournial, 21 F. (2d) 298.

**

*

(H) Limitation of Liability.
153 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Phrase "Shipper's
load and count,
owner's risk,"
stamped on bill of lading, held not to relieve
railroad of carrier's liability (49 USCA $ 20).
-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State of Russia, 21
F. (20) 396.

153 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Failure to deliver bills
of lading to shipper who had left country held
not to prevent carrier's claiming benefit of ex-
emptions therein.-Callister v. U. S. Shipping
Board Merchant Fleet Corporation, 21 F.(2d)
447.

154 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Mere agreement to
transport goods furnishes no consideration for
stipulation for less than common-law liability
(49 USCA § 20). -Lehigh Valley R. Co. v.
State of Russia, 21 F. (20) 396.

IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.
(D) Personal Injuries.

290(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Railroad held,
as matter of law, not liable for passenger's in-
jury due to ice and wire on platform of coach,
where no lack of care was shown. Akin v. Chi-
cago & N. W. Ry. Co., 21 F. (2d) 1000.

Injured passenger, suing railroad, must show
railroad's knowledge of dangerous condition of
coach platform for sufficient time to remove
it. Id.

CERTIORARI.

1. NATURE AND GROUNDS.

4U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Certiorari will not issue
where petitioner has plain adequate remedy by
habeas corpus.-In re Ban, 21 F.(2d) 1009.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
(A) Nature and Essentials of Transfers of
Chattels as Security.

(U.S.D.C.Md.) Bills of sale of automo-
biles held not void as to seller's creditors be-
cause of subsequent unrecorded consignment
agreements not operating as defeasances
(Code Pub. Gen. Laws Md. 1924, art. 66, § 1).
- In re Sachs, 21 F. (2d) 984.

"Defeasance" implies some right in one bene-
fiting thereby to compel performance under
conditions defeating original agreement.-Id.
(B) Form and Contents of Instruments.

110 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Interstate Commerce
Commission rules as to explosives are not sole
measure of railroad's responsibility for loss (In,
terstate Commerce Commission Rules). -Lehigh
Valley R. Co. v. State of Russia, 21 F. (20) 406.
121 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Consignee held not
liable for possible negligence or illegal opera-
tion of lighterage company, transporting con-
signee's explosives to defendant carrier's ter-
minal as independent contractor.-Lehigh Val-
ley R. Co. v. State of Russia. 21 F. (20) 396.

121 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Where shipper alone
causes fire, carrier is not responsible for result-
ing loss. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State of
Russia, 21 F.(2d) 406.

123 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Possible negligence of
consignee of explosives will not relieve carrier
of liability, if loss would not have occurred, ex-
cept for carrier's concurring fault.-Lehigh Val-
ley R. Co. v. State of Russia, 21 F. (20) 396.

123 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Where shipper and
carrier are negligent, carrier's concurring neg-
ligence makes it liable. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v.
State of Russia, 21 F. (20) 406.

1252 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Where consignee
filed damage claim according to directions of
carrier, carrier held estopped to assert claim
was not filed according to bill of lading require-
ments. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State of Russia,
21 F.(2d) 396.

132 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Burden held on car-
rier to prove loss of explosives was due to some
cause relieving it from carrier's liability.-
Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State of Russia, 21 F.
(2d) 396.

132 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Carrier held to have
burden to show that damages to apples occurred
from excepted clause in bill of lading.-Callister
v. U. S. Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corpo-
ration, 21 F.(2d) 447.

134 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) In action against car-
rier for loss of goods, proof of ownership, de-
livery to carrier, and failure to deliver to con-
signee held sufficient to obtain recovery without
proof of negligence. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v.
State of Russia, 21 F. (20) 396.

Evidence held to justify ruling that lighterage
company was independent contractor, and not
consignee's agent, in transporting explosives to
defendant railway's terminal.-Id.

135 (US.C.C.A.N.Y.) Interest is allowable
in imposing damages on carrier from time prop-
erty should have been delivered. Lehigh Val-
ley R. Co. v. State of Russia, 21 F. (2d) 396.

135 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Amount recoverable
by shipper for coal lost in transit is determined
by market price in quantity such as that lost.
-Crail v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 21 F. (2d) 836.

136 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence that under
French law limitations of transportation con-
tract made in France would not apply to storage
contract substituted therefor held to justify
ruling to that effect.-Barrett v. Fournial, 2148 (U.S.D.C.Me.) Mortgage of certain num-
F.(2d) 298.
ber of acres of potatoes and corn held in.

valid as not sufficiently describing crops mort-
gaged. In re Wilcox, 21 F.(2d) 753.

III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.

(D) Lien and Priority.

150(1) (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Filing of chattel
mortgage in compliance with recording statute
imports notice to third persons. In re Kramer
Mercantile Co., 21 F. (2d) 614.

V. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF CRED-
ITORS.

190(1) (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Mortgage on stock
of merchandise held valid, though it permitted
mortgagor to sell in usual course of trade and
retain part of proceeds. In re Kramer Mer-
cantile Co., 21 F. (2d) 614.

Permitting mortgagor to sell in ordinary
course of trade and retain proceeds does not
in itself raise presumption of fraud.-Id.

CITIZENS.

95(4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Facts held to show
motor vessel responsible for collision with
dumpers, in sheering to port when passing be-
tween dumpers and coal tow.-(D. C.) The
Troy Socony, 21 F.(2d) 323, decree affirmed
The Emma Kate Ross, 21 F. (2d) 325.

96 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Steamer ascending
East River held not at fault in swinging to New
York shore to dock after giving signal to de-
scending steamer. -The Hermes, 21 F.(2d) 314.

105(2) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Evidence held to show
primary cause of collision was failure of one
vessel to maintain speed. - The Sabine Sun, 21
F.(2d) 121.

XII. SUITS FOR DAMAGES.

(A) Right of Action and Defenses.

١١١ (U.S.D.C.La.) Suit against vessel for
collision after end of her voyage held not main-
tainable by intervention in suit for limitation
of liability for damages occurring during voy-
age. The Pelotas, 21 F.(2d) 236.

charter may maintain suit for collision. The
Pelotas, 21 F.(2d) 236.

9 (U.S.C.C.A. Wash.) Daughter of American114 (U.S.D.C.La.) Charterer by demise
citizen, born in China of a polygamous marriage,
held not entitled to entry as citizen.-Ng Suey
Hi v. Weedin, 21 F.(2d) 801, affirming order
(D. C.) Ex parte Ng Suey Hi, 20 F. (2d) 266.

COLLISION.

1. RULES AND PRECAUTIONS FOR PRE-
VENTING COLLISIONS IN GENERAL.

2 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Mexican statutes govern
in case of collision in Mexican waters.-Stand-
ard Oil Co. of New York v. Tampico Nav. Co.,
21 F.(2d) 795.

VII. VESSELS AT REST, AT ANCHOR, OR
AT PIERS.

115 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Part owner of tug and
of another vessel could sue tug for injury to
the other vessel in collision. -The Artisan, 21
F.(2d) 439.

(D) Damages.

136 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Shipowner is entitled
to demurrage for full time of collision repairs
made concurrently with others, neither being
immediately necessary.-Pan-American Petrole-
um & Transport Co. v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 791.
COMMERCE.

II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION.

69 (U.S.D.C.La.) Collision between two
steamships anchored off New Orleans held due33 (U.S.D.C.R.I.) Vehicles to be engaged in

to later comer anchoring too close and allowing
her anchor to drag in a gale. The Pelotas, 21
F. (2d) 236.

IX. FOG OR THICK WEATHER.

81 (U.S.D.C.La.) Collision in fog held due
to fault of outgoing vessel, failing to stop and
having lookout on pilot house (Inland Rules,
art. 16 [Comp. St. § 7889]). - The Campania, 21
F. (20) 233.

Placing lookout 140 feet back of bow in dense
fog held gross fault.-Id.

82(1)(U.S.D.C.La.) Collision in fog held
due to fault of outgoing vessel, failing to stop
and having lookout on pilot house (Inland
Rules, art. 16 [Comp. St. § 7889]). - The Cam-
pania, 21 F.(2d) 233.

X. NARROW CHANNELS, HARBORS,

ERS, AND CANALS.

interstate commerce must transport goods in-
terstate.-Inter-City Coach Co. v. Atwood, 21
F.(2d) 83.

47 (U.S.D.C.R.I.) Vehicles to be engaged in
interstate commerce must transport passengers
interstate.--Inter-City Coach Co. v. Atwood, 21
F.(2d) 83.

Intrastate carrier of passengers, using high-
ways, is not exempt from state highway regula-
tion because it also carries interstate passen-
gers.-Id.

III. MEANS AND METHODS OF REGULA-
TION.

63 (U.S.D.C.Ky.) Municipal ordinance im-
posing license on radio broadcasters held inval-
as regulation of interstate commerce.-

id

Whitehurst v. Grimes, 21 F.(2d) 787.

RIV-64 (U.S.D.C.S.C.) State occupation tax on
dealers in tobacco product, to be paid by stamps
affixed to packages before sale, held not uncon-
stitutional as applied to products received or
shipped in interstate commerce (Tax Act S. C.
April 22, 1927 [35 St. at Large, p. 12]; Const.
U. S. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3). -Doscher v. Query, 21
F.(2d) 521.

91(U.S.D.C.Pa.) Port to port passing on
signal and answer is proper, where vessels com-
ing from opposite directions are meeting head
on in channel of sufficient width for clearance
(pilot rule 4). - The Sabine Sun, 21 F. (2d) 121.
Vessels approaching from opposite directions
1% to 2 points are considered as head and head,
and bound to pass port to port. Id.

Navigator, having determined passing was
practicable, was under duty to stop, reverse,
and stand still, when it became apparent other
vessel disregarded signals (pilot rule 7).-Id.

State occupation tax on dealers in tobacco
products held not unconstitutional as applied to
dealer whose stock is in part bought and sold in
interstate commerce (Tax Act S. C. April 22,
1927 [35 St. at Large, p. 121]). Id.

Jamming of steering gear of vessel undertak-
ing proper method of passing held not proxi-
mate cause of collision.-Id.

95(1)(U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.)

Steamer being

towed down East River held at fault in violat-
ing East River statute after ascending steamer
signaled intent to dock at New York. The
Hermes, 21 F. (2d) 314.

95(1)(U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Tug with tow an-
chored in channel in fog, and passing tug with
tow, both held in fault for collision between
tows (33 USCA §§ 191, 409). - The Artisan, 21
F.(2d) 439.

IV. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM-

MISSION.

85(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Statute held not
to authorize Interstate Commerce Commission
to award reparations on account of past divi-
sions of joint rate vountarily established
(Transportation Act 1920, § 418, amending In-
terstate Commerce Act, § 15 [6], being Comp.
St. § 8583 [6]).-Backus-Brooks Co. v. North-
ern Pac. Ry. Co., 21 F. (2d) 4.

Just division of joint rates for future is leg-
islative question, determinable only by Inter-
state Commerce Commission.-Id.

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

85(5) (U.S.D.C.Ark.) Order of Interstate
Commerce Commission establishing through
route by rail held beyond its authority under the
statute (Interstate Commerce Act, § 15[4], as
amended by Transportation Act, § 418 [49
USCA § 15]). - Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. U. S.,
21 F.(2d) 351.

That small railroad needed increased revenue
held not to justify establishing through route
over it to provide revenue at expense of compet-
ing lines (Interstate Commerce Act, § 15(3), as
amended by Transportation Act, § 418 [49 US
CA § 15]).-Id.

87 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Interstate Commerce
Commission, on complaint of carrier, may de-
termine division of joint rates voluntarily estab-
lished (Interstate Commerce Act 1887, §§ 1,
13-15, as amended [Comp. St. §§ 8563, 8581-
8583]).-Back.us-Brooks Co. v. Northern Pac.
R. Co., 21 F.(2d) 4.

Minority stockholder of railroad may invoke
jurisdiction of Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion by filing complaint charging inequitable
division of joint rates (Interstate Commerce
Act 1887, §§ 1, 13, as amended and re-enacted by
Transportation Act 1920, §§ 400, 416 [Comp.
St. §§ 8563, 8581]).-Id.

88 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Interstate Commerce
Commission's rulings, though not conclusive on
court, are highly persuasive. U. S. v. Pennsyl-
vania R. Co., 21 F. (2d) 579.

89 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Justness and reason-
ableness of division of joint rates in future and
reparation for unjust divisions in past must
first be acted on by Interstate Commerce Com-
mission.-Backus-Brooks Co. v. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co., 21 F.(2d) 4.

92 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Limitation of action to
enforce reparation award of commission runs
from date money is to be paid (Transportation
Act [49 USCA $ 74 (a)]). -Acheson Graphite
Co. v. Mellon, 21 F. (2d) 562.

CONSPIRACY.

II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.
(A) Offenses.

23 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) One defendant alone
cannot be convicted of conspiracy. --Bartkus v.
U. S.. 21 F. (2d) 425.

23 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Law making conspiracy
to commit offense against United States a
felony held valid (Criminal Code [18 USCA
$881).-Cullen v. Esola, 21 F. (2d) 877.

25 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Conspiracy statute does
not make it crime to conspire that some person
other than conspirators shall commit crime.-
Bartkus v. U. S.. 21 F. (2d) 425.

28 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Agreement of two or
more to commit crime against United States
and overt act in effecting its object is indicta-

In indictment for conspiracy that bankrupt
corporation withhold property from trustee, al-
legation that corporation had been adjudged
bankrupt and trustee appointed held not essen-
tial (Bankruptcy Act, § 29b, cl. 1 [Comp. St. §
9613]).-Id.

43 (6) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Indictment for con-
spiracy to violate law forbidding interstate
transportation of prize fight films charged of-
fense against United States (Criminal Code [18
USCA § 88]; 18 USCA §§ 405-407). -Cullen v.
Esola, 21 F.(2d) 877.

43 (12) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) In prosecution for
conspiracy to withhold property from bank-
ruptcy trustee, there was no fatal variance be-
tween allegation that bankrupt was "electrical
company" and proof that it was "electric com-
pany." Bartkus v. U. S., 21 F.(2d) 425.

44/2 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Active participation
in alleged conspiracy must be established, mere
knowledge of others' illegal acts being insuffi-
cient.-Turcott v. U. S., 21 F.(2d) 829.

441/2 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Government had bur-
den of proving beyond reasonable doubt that de-
fendant conspired with codefendant to transport
whisky.-Haning v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 508.

45 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Evidence whether ves-
sel, chartered ostensibly for coastwise trade,
could have been operated profitably in legitimate
coastwise trade, held admissible in prosecution
for conspiracy to violate National Prohibi-
tion Act (27 USCA; Criminal Code, § 37 [18
USCA § 88]).-Baker v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 903.
Evidence respecting negotiations for purchase
of coal for rum-running voyage held admissible
in conspiracy prosecution (Criminal Code, § 37
[18 USCA § 88]).-Id.

Evidence as to finding bottles on vessel held
admissible to prove testimony respecting rum
running (Criminal Code, § 37 [18 USCA § 88]).

-Id.

47 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Evidence held insuffi-
cient to support conviction of defendants for
conspiring with president of bankrupt corpora-
tion to withhold property from trustee.-Bart-
kus v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 425.

Commission of crime may be evidence that
those committing it conspired to commit it.-Id.

47 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Evidence held in-
sufficient to support conviction for conspiracy
to illegally transport liquor.-Haning v. U. S.,
21 F.(2d) 508.

47 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Conviction of captain
of vessel for conspiracy to violate National Pro-
hibition Act by rum running held warranted by
evidence (27 USCA; Criminal Code, § 37 [18
USCA § 88]).-Baker v. U. S., 21 F.(2d) 903.

47 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Evidence held not to
sustain conviction for conspiracy to violate Na-
tional Prohibition Act (27 USCA).-Dow v. U.
S., 21 F. (2d) 816.

ble as conspiracy (Criminal Code, 837 18348 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Instruction as to proof

USCA § 88]).-Baker v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 903.

41 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Defendant is responsi-
ble for acts of co-conspirators committed before
as well as after he joined conspiracy.-Baker
v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 903.

Overt act need not be proved against all
conspirators.-Id.

of intent in prosecution for criminal conspiracy,
held not improper.-Brims v. U. S., 21 F.(2d)

889.

48 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Guilt of conspiracy to
unlawfully import narcotic drugs, to unlawfully
and fraudulently conceal them with knowledge
of their unlawful importation, and to violate
statute taxing narcotics, held for jury (Crimi-
nal Code [18 USCA § 88]). -Vachuda v. U. S.,
21 F.(2d) 409.

(B) Prosecution and Punishment.

43(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Count of conspiracy
indictment is demurrable, if failing to show
object of conspiracy to be offense against Unit-
ed States (Criminal Code [18 USCA § 88]).-
Brown v. U. S., 21 F. (20) 827.

Indictment for conspiracy to transport intoxi-
cating liquor must show it was to be fit for bev-

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

III. DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENTAL
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS.

erage purposes (National Prohibition Act [27 (A) Legislative Powers and Delegation

USCA § 13]).-Id.

43(6) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Indictment for con-
spiracy should state essential elements of sub-
stantive offense constituting object of conspir-
acy.-Bartkus v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 425.

Thereof.

62 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Legislative power to
fix divisions of joint rates may be delegated to
state commission.-Backus-Brooks Co. v. North-
ern Pac. Ry. Co., 21 F. (2d) 4.

(B) Judicial Powers and Functions.

67 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Court held without juris-

though valid at place made. - Mechanics & Met-
als Nat. Bank v. Smith, 21 F. (2d) 128.

diction to determine life of Senate committee,108(1) (U.S.D.C.S.D.) Only evidence of

since it cannot be required to render an unen-
state's public policy are its Constitution, laws,
forceable decision (Const. art. 1, § 5, subd. 2; and judicial decisions. -Mechanics & Metals
Judicial Code, § 24 [Comp. St. § 991]). -Reed
v. Com'rs of Delaware County, Pa., 21 F. (2d)113(1) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Contract

144.

68(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Foreign relations
are matters for executive and legislative de-
partments, and are not subject to judicial in-
quiry or decision. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v.
State of Russia, 21 F. (20) 396.

Who may be sovereign de jure or de facto of
territory is not judicial question.-Id.

Court has no power, independently of political
department, to determine who should be con-
sidered proper diplomatic representative of for-
eign state. Id.

68(4) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Neither executive, ju-
diciary, nor both can impose tax under guise of
construing tax law; Congress alone having tax-
ing power.-Philadelphia Storage Battery Co.
v. Lederer, 21 F. (2d) 320.

(C) Executive Powers and Functions.

77 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Neither executive, judi-
ciary nor both can impose tax under guise of
construing tax law; Congress alone having tax-
ing power. Philadelphia Storage Battery Co.
v. Lederer, 21 F. (2d) 320.

VI. VESTED RIGHTS.

92 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Aliens have no vested
right to citizenship.-U. S. v. Maney, 21 F. (2d)
28, vacating decree (D. C.) 13 F. (2d) 662.

Nat. Bank v. Smith, 21 F.(2d) 128.

in-

tended to or which perpetrates fraud is illegal,
void, and unenforceable. Clifton v. Tomb, 21
F.(2d) 893.

138(1) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Action at law
held not maintainable as between parties in
pari delicto on contract tainted with fraud.-
Clifton v. Tomb, 21 F.(2d) 893.

138(1)(U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Illegality of collat-
eral contracts does not always prevent enforce-
ment of rights secured thereunder.-In re Suth-
erland, 21, F. (2d) 667.

YI. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.
(A) General Rules of Construction.

143 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) To construe contract,
whole thereof must be considered.-Drainage
Dist. No. 1 of Lincoln County, Neb., v. Rude, 21
F.(2d) 257.

147(1)(U.S.D.C.Ky.) Contract will be con-
strued to give reasonable meaning and effect
to all parts or to give effect to main apparent
purpose. Coffey v. Day & Night Nat. Bank of
Pikeville, 21 F.(2d) 661.

155 (US.C.C.A.Neb.) Doubt as to meaning
of contract resolved against party who prepared
it-Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Lincoln County,
Neb., v. Rude, 21 F. (2d) 257.

163 (U.S.D.C.Ky.) Written and printed
matter of contract will be reconciled, if possi-
ble, by any reasonable construction.-Coffey v.
Day & Night Nat. Bank of Pikeville, 21 F.(2d)
661.

169 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) In case of doubt as to
meaning of language of contract preliminary
negotiations, subject-matter, and surrounding
circumstances may be considered to assist in de-
termining its meaning.-Drainage Dist. No. 1
of Lincoln County, Neb., v. Rude, 21 F. (2d) 257.
169 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Courts will look be-
hind instrument purporting to pass title to
automobiles in a loan transaction, at what the
parties actually did.-Finance & Guarantee Co.
of Baltimore, Md., v. Stitt, 21 F.(2d) 718, af-
firming decree (D. C.) In re West York Motor
Co., 17 F.(2d) 276.

176(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Construction of
contract in single complete instrument is for the
court.-Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Lincoln County,
Neb., v. Rude, 21 F.(2d) 257.

(F) Compensation.

231(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Specifications for
tunnel by railroad company that tunnel was ex-
pected to be earth and rock formation consti-
tuted warranty. Sartoris v. Utah Const. Co.,
21 F.(2d) 1.

Specifications relative to tunnel excavation,
prepared by railroad, are to be construed against
it, if ambiguous.-Id.

232(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Subcontractor held
entitled to recover additional cost of tunnel,
where railroad authorized him to proceed on
discovering formation was different than stated
in specifications. - Sartoris v. Utah Const. Co.,
21 F.(2d) 1.

232(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Drawings prepar-
ed by railroad engineers, after discovering for-
mation was different than stated in specifica-
tions for tunnel, met contract clause relative
to authorizing payment for extra work. Sar-
toris v. Utah Const. Co., 21 F.(2d) 1.

CORPORATIONS.

I. INCORPORATION AND ORGANIZATION.

(U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Corporation has an

X. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS.

225(1) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Zoning ordinance
forbidding additions to factories or new fac-
tories in "multiple dwelling" district held not
to deny equal protection of the law (Laws
Minn. 1921, с. 217, § 1, as amended by Laws
Minn. 1923, с. 364). -American Wood Products
Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 21 F. (2d) 440.

XI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

257 (U.S.D.C.Ind.) Prosecution under valid
law in state court having jurisdiction according
to settled procedure, with opportunity to de-
fend. is "due process."-Stephenson v. Daly, 21
F.(2d) 625.

284 (2) (U.S.D.C.S.C.) Failure to give no-
tice and opportunity to be heard before assess-
ing state income tax held not denial of due pro-
cess (Income Tax Act S. C. 1922).-Southern
Ry. Co. v. Query, 21 F. (20) 333.

296(2) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Zoning ordinance,
forbidding additions to factories or new facto-
ries in "multiple dwelling" district, held valid
exercise of police power and not to deny due
process of law (Const. Amend. 14; Laws Minn.
1921, с. 217, § 1, as amended by Laws Minn.
1923, с. 364).-American Wood Products Co.
v. City of Minneapolis, 21 F. (2d) 440.

318 (U.S.D.C.Ala.) Department rule 11, de-
nying counsel before board of special inquiry to
alien seeking admission, held invalid as denial
of due process and discriminatory.-Miers v.
Brownlow, 21 F.(2d) 376.

CONTRACTS.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
(A) Nature and Essentials in General.

2 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Place where contract is
made, not place of performance, determines
validity. Langsenkamp v. Broscalsa Chemical
Co., 21 F. (2d) 207.

(F) Legality of Object and of Considera-
tion.

101(2) (U. S. D. C. S. D.) Contract against
public policy of state will not be enforced, entity separate and distinct from its stock-

to sustain finding of no fraud or concealment of
facts in submitting transaction for transfer
of assets between corporations having com-
mon directors.-Hellier v. Baush Mach. Tool
Co., 21 F.(2d) 705.

VII. CORPORATE POWERS AND LIABILI-
TIES.

(A) Extent and Exercise of Powers in
General.

378 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Corporation is not
liable for acts or obligations of another cor-
poration because controlling ownership of stock.
-Majestic Co. v. Orpheum Circuit, 21 F.(2d)
720.

Corporation owning stock of another corpora-
tion operating theater held not liable for rent of
building after sale of stock. Id.

Corporation's scheme of acquiring and hold-
ing stock interest in various theater companies

held not of itself unlawful.-Id.

Corporation owning stock of another corpora-
tion must have managed other corporation as
mere instrumentality, with proximate damage
therefrom to create liability for contractual
obligations after sale of stock. Id.

Corporation is not liable for contract obliga-
tion of another corporation, in which it had held
controlling stock, for wrongful abstraction of
funds by requiring payment of proportionate
part of central service department.-Id.

Corporation owning controlling stock interest
of another corporation held not liable for con-
tractual obligations after sale thereof because
of lawfully declaring dividends.-Id.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
holders. Majestic Co. v. Orpheum Circuit, 21320 (11) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Evidence held

F.(2d) 720.

Courts will ignore fiction of corporate entity
and regard corporation as association of per-
sons only when used as blind.-Id.

IV. CAPITAL, STOCK, AND DIVIDENDS.
(A) Nature and Amount of Capital and
Shares.

65 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) "Shares of stock" con-
stitute title to stock, and confer proportionate
rights in corporate entity and income. In re
Sutherland, 21 F. (2d) 667.

(C) Issue of Certificates.

106 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Rights of stockholder
under executed illegal contract are enforceable.
--In re Sutherland, 21 F. (2d) 667.

(E) Interest, Dividends, and New Stock.

152 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Corporation before
declaring dividend need not set aside against
future sufficient money or assets to pay future
running expenses. - Majestic Co. v. Orpheum
Circuit, 21 F.(2d) 720.

Liability of corporation on capital stock is
not to be considered in determining right to
pay dividends (Code Iowa 1924, § 8378).-Id.

V. MEMBERS AND STOCKHOLDERS.

(A) Rights and Liabilities as to Corpo-

ration.

174 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Relation of corpora-
tion and stockholder is not that of principal
and agent.-Majestic Co. v. Orpheum Circuit,
21 F.(2d) 720.

186 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Controlling stockhold-
ers held not entitled to take advantage of cor-
poration's default in royalty payments under ex-
clusive patent license agreement to cancel
agreement without notice and opportunity to
make good default.-Rees v. Lombard, 21 F.(2d)

276.

(B) Meetings.

197 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Stockholder may
vote stock for purchase of property in which he
has interest, unless unfair or improper means
are employed.-Hellier v. Baush Mach. Tool
Co., 21 F.(2d) 705.

(C) Suing or Defending on Behalf of Cor-
poration,

209 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Stockholder must
sue on behalf of corporation within reasonable
time after acquiring knowledge, or be barred
by laches. Backus-Brooks Co. v. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co., 21 F.(2d) 4.

As respects defense of laches as to suit in be-
half of corporation, consequences of failure
diligently to prosecute prior arbitration are
same as if no such agreement was made. Id.
Minority stockholder, not excusing 12 years'
delay in preparing and submitting claims under
arbitration agreement, held barred by laches
from recovering on claims arising 6 years be-
fore suing (Gen. St. Minn. 1923, § 9191).-Id.

212 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Minority stockhold-
er, suing for corporation on wrongs occurring
over 6 years before filing bill, had burden of
showing application of doctrine of laches ineq-
uitable (Gen. St. Minn. 1923, § 9191).- Backus-
Brooks Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 21 F.
(2d) 4.

VI. OFFICERS AND AGENTS.
(C) Rights, Duties, and Liabilities as to
Corporation and Its Members.

320 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Minority stock-
holder's cause of action for directors' failure
faithfully to serve stockholders held equitable,
and doctrine of laches applied to time of com-
mencement of suit.--Backus-Brooks Co. v.
Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 21 F.(2d) 4.

Payment to corporation of certain sum for
stock in another corporation did not constitute
taking assets creating liability for contract ob-
ligations of other corporation.-Id.

That officers and directors of stockholder
corporation and of subsidiary are the same does
not of itself destroy separate corporate entity.
-Id.

(B) Representation of Corporation by Of-
ficers and Agents.

401 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Acts of two corpo-
rations having common directors will be closely
investigated, but are not necessarily void or
constructively fraudulent.-Hellier v. Baush
Mach. Tool Co., 21 F. (2d) 705.

428 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.)
Promoter's
knowledge is not imputable to corporation.-
Clifton v. Tomb, 21 F. (2d) 893.

Promoter's knowledge of his secret agree-
ment respecting purchase of option held not im-
putable to corporation.-Id.

(D) Contracts and Indebtedness,

448(1) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Corporation is
not liable on contract made by promoter before
its organization, unless it subsequently becomes
so by its own act. Clifton v. Tomb, 21 F.(2d)
893.

To become bound by its promoter's contracts,
made before its organization, corporation must
have full knowledge or notice leading to knowl-
edge on reasonable inquiry.-Id.

457 (U.S.C.C.A. Minn.) Corporation pur-
chaser, failing to act on its notice of rescission,
but retaining and using property, held preclud-
ed from setting up rescission as defense to ac-
tion for price. Albert Lea Foundry Co. v. Iowa
Sav. Bank of Marshalltown, Iowa, 21 F.(2d)
515.

472 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Evidence held not to
authorize cancellation of contract of sale of
corporate bonds for fraud.-Langsenkamp v.
Broscalsa Chemical Co., 21 F.(2d) 207.

(F) Civil Actions.

519(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Evidence held not
to establish that corporation holding controlling
stock interest in another corporation had prac-

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »