COMMERCIAL PAPER.

See "Bills and Notes."

COMMISSION.

Interstate commerce commission, see "Commerce," § 1.

COMMISSIONERS.

See "Court Commissioners."

COMMISSIONS.

Of broker, see "Brokers," § 2. COMMON CARRIERS.

See "Carriers."

COMMON SCHOOLS.

See "Schools and School Districts," § 1.

COMPENSATION.

For performance of contract, see "Contracts," § 2.

Salvage, see "Salvage," § 1.

CONFLICT OF LAWS.

As to actions for wrongful death, see "Death," 1.

As to contracts, see "Contracts," § 1. Conflicting jurisdiction of courts, see "Courts," § 4.

CONNECTING CARRIERS.

See "Carriers," § 2.

CONSIDERATION.

Of contract in general, see "Contracts," § 1.

CONSPIRACY.

§ 1. Criminal responsibility.

Where accused was indicted for conspiracy to rob the post office at L., evidence was incompetent to show a general conspiracy, in which accused participated, to rob banks and everything that was "robbable."-Rabens v. United States (C. C. A.) 978.

An indictment against the agents of an interstate carrier and the shipper, for giving and receipt of rebates, held to allege merely a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S. Comp.. St. 1901, p. 3154]) as amended by Elkins Act (Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat. 847

Trustee in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 7.

COMPETITION.

Unfair competition, see "Trade-Marks and Trade-Names," § 2.

COMPLAINT.

was therefore not sustainable as charging a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of Rev. St. § 5440 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3676].-United States v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (C. C.) 298; Same v. Guilford, Id.

On the trial of defendants, charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, evidence is admissible to show the state of mind of one charged as a co-conspirator with respect to the matters to which the alleged conspiracy related

COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT.

See "Payment"; "Release."

CONCLUSION.

Of witness, see "Evidence," § 6.

CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.

Of courts, see "Courts," § 4.

CONDEMNATION.

formed. United States v. Greene (D. C.) 784.

Letters held admissible in evidence, on the trial of defendants, charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, in relation to contracts for public work, as tending to 'show an outside business association and intimacy between defendants and their alleged co-conspirator, who was the government engineer in charge of the public work.-United States v. Greene (D. C.) 787.

*Telegrams and letters passing between alleged co-conspirators prior to the time of the conspiracy charged, but tending to show intimate and improper relations between the parties with respect to the subject-matter of the alleged conspiracy, held admissible on the trial of

CONDITIONS.

n insurance policies, see "Insurance," § 1.

States v. Greene (D. C.) 789.

Previous intimacy between persons charged with conspiracy is competent and important proof on the trial, and proof of close intimacy is especially important if the duties of the parties.

respectively were intended to be in opposition, and, should the occasion arise, might forbid such intimacy.-United States v. Greene (D. C.) 803. Upon the trial of a charge of conspiracy, where the prosecution depends upon inferences to be drawn from facts to prove the conspiracy, great latitude of proof must be allowed, and the jury should have before them, and are entitled to consider, every fact which has a bearing upon and a tendency to prove the ultimate fact in issue. United States v. Greene (D. C.) 803.

Evidence reviewed in the charge to the jury on trial of consolidated indictments and counts severally charging conspiracy to defraud the United States between contractors for public work and the government engineer officer in charge of the same, the presentation of fraudulent claims against and embezzlement from the United States.-United States v. Greene (D. C.) 803.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Provisions relating to particular subjects. See "Eminent Domain," § 1; "Jury," § 1. 1.

Distribution of governmental powers and functions. *The provision of the sundry civil appropriation act of June 4, 1897, c. 2, 30 Stat. 34 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p., 1540] making it a criminal offense to violate any rule or regulation which should thereafter be made by the Secretary of the Interior under the power therein conferred (since transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture) for the protection of forest reservations is void as an attempted delegation of legislative power to an administrative officer.United States v. Matthews (D. C.) 306.

§ 2. Obligation of contracts.

A bona fide purchaser of negotiable bonds for value before maturity and without notice of any infirmity therein is entitled as an incident to his ownership to transfer the title to another with all the rights with which he is vested, and such right once accrued is one of contract which cannot be destroyed or impaired by state legislation.-Gamble v. Rural Independent School Dist. of Allison (C. C. A.) 113; Rural Independent School Dist. of Allison v. Gamble, Id.

The amendment of 1888 to Iowa Code 1873, § 2114 (Code 1897, § 3070) which provides that if negotiable paper has been procured by fraud. upon the maker no holder shall recover thereon against the maker a greater sum than he paid therefor with interest and costs, cannot affect the right of one who was at the time of its passage the bona fide holder of municipal bonds and entitled to recover their full value to sell and transfer such right to another either before or after maturity and the indorsee is entitled to recover the full amount thereon regardless of the sum paid for the bonds.-Gamble v. Rural Independent School Dist. of Allison (C. C. A.) 113; Rural Independent School Dist. of Allison v. Gamble, Id.

§ 3. Equal protection of laws. *Provisions of the New York Gas Commis sion Act, Laws 1905, p. 2100, c. 737, § 21, and of Laws 1906, c. 125, p. 235, § 3, subjecting gas companies to penalties for charging rates in excess of those fixed by the commission or by the later act held unconstitutional as deny ing to the companies affected the equal protec tion of the laws and a preliminary injunction granted restraining their enforcement pending a suit to test the constitutionality of such rates.-Consolidated Gas Co. v. Mayer (C. C.)

150.

The unconstitutionality of state legislation may be manifested either on its face in its ex press provisions or in the manner of enforcing and carrying it into effect.-Douglas Park Jock ey Club v. Grainger (C. C.) 414.

*Where state officers in the exercise or at tempted exercise of their official authority deny to any citizen, whether an individual or a cor poration, the equal protection of the laws of deprive him of his property without due process of law, the act is that of the state, and comes within the prohibition of the fourteenth con stitutional amendment.-Douglas Park Jockey Club v. Grainger (C. C.) 414.

The action of the State Racing Commission of Kentucky, created by Act March 26, 1906 in refusing a license to a racing club to conduc races on its grounds in the exercise of authority claimed under such act, solely on the ground that it had previously assigned the date desired by the club to another association, held a denial to such club of the equal protection of the laws and to deprive it of its property without du process of law, in violation of the fourteent constitutional amendment.-Douglas Park Jock ey Club v. Grainger (C. C.) 414.

CONTEMPT.

Violation of injunction restraining infringement of patent, see "Patents," § 6.

§ 1. Power to punish and proceedings therefor.

*On appeal in proceedings for contempt, ques tions not presented or decided in court below are not open to consideration.-Fairfield v. Unit ed States (C. C. A.) 508.

§ 2. Punishment.

CONTRACTS.

A contract between an association and its secretary to pay him a commission on funds

Contracts of particular classes of persons. See "Master and Servant"; "Seamen."

Contracts relating to particular subjects. See "Mines and Minerals," § 2. Compensation of seamen, see "Seamen."

Particular classes of express contracts. See "Bills and Notes"; "Insurance"; "Partnership"; "Sales."

Affreightment, see "Shipping," § 3.
Agency, see "Principal and Agent."
Charter parties, see "Shipping," § 1.
Employment, see "Master and Servant."
Leases, see "Landlord and Tenant."
Limitation of liability of carrier by vessel, see
"Shipping," § 4.
Sales of realty, see "Vendor and Purchaser."
Stipulations in actions, see "Stipulations."

Particular classes of implied contracts. See "Money Received"; "Payment"; "Work and Labor."

Particular modes of discharging contracts. See "Release."

§ 1. Requisites and validity.

*In a suit for the cancellation of a contract for fraud, complainants held to have waived the fraud by delay in rescinding the contract. -Burk v. Johnson (C. C. A.) 209.

*A contract for the construction of certain buildings for a corporation held tainted with illegality and fraud, precluding a recovery thereon, either for the contract price or the amount originally bid for the work.-Standard Lumber Co. v. Butler Ice Co. (C. C. A.) 359.

*An order to buy or sell stock on the New York stock exchange is governed as to the legality of the transaction by the law of New York, and not by that of the place where the order is given.-Berry v. Chase (C. C. A.) 625. § 2. Construction and operation.

*In a suit to cancel a contract for the assignsociations under a copyrighted plan, complainment of the right to operate mutual burial asants held not entitled to relief because of alleged false representations which they took no steps to discover promptly prior to the final consummation of the contract.-Burk v. Johnson (C. C. A.) 209.

*Opinions expressed concerning the rights of the holder of a copyrighted plan for the establishment of mutual burial associations, in the absence of fraud or bad faith, held insufficient to justify a rescission of the contract, though erroneous.-Burk v. Johnson (C. C. A.) 209.

§ 4. Performance or breach.

*The exercise by a city of an option to stop the work of a contractor for the construction of a reservoir and to complete the work at the contractor's expense held to render inapplicable provisions of the contract requiring the contractor to obtain a certificate from the director of public works as a condition precedent to a question or dispute as to the amount and value recovery under the contract, and to submit any of the work done to such director as arbitrator. -Jonathan Clark & Sons Co. v. City of Pittsburgh (C. C.) 441.

§ 5. Actions for breach.

In an action by a contractor with a city for a public work to recover an amount alleged to be due under the contract, where the city had exercised an option given it to stop work by the contractor and to complete the work at his expense, the burden of proving the cost of such completion does not rest upon the plaintiff, the presumption being that it did not exceed the prices fixed therefor by the contract, unless the contrary is shown.-Jonathan Clark & Sons Co. v. City of Pittsburgh (C. C.) 441.

CONTRADICTION.

of witness, see "Witnesses," § 3.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

Of passengers, see "Carriers," § 3; "Shipping,"
Of servant, see "Master and Servant," § 1.
§ 4.
CONVEYANCES.

In trust, see "Trusts," § 1.

Conveyances of particular species of, or estates or interests in, property.

Particular classes of conveyances.

"Deeds"; "Mortgages."

COPYRIGHTS.

§ 1. Nature and acquisition. *The copyright of a system of by-laws for the organization of mutual burial associations held not to confer on the owner of the copyright the exclusive right to operate under the plan disclosed.--Burk v. Johnson (C. C. A.) 209. Where complainant copyrighted and published a work simultaneously in England and the United States, the fact that the English work did not contain a reference to the American copyright did not constitute a waiver thereof, under Rev. St. §§ 4956, 4962 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3407].-G. & C. Merriam Co. v. United Dictionary Co. (C. C. A.) 354.

Where the English and domestic editions of a copyrighted book were not the same, the publisher of the English edition was prohibited by Rev. St. § 4963 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3412], from inserting therein a notice of the domestic copyright.-G. & C. Merriam Co. v. United Dictionary Co. (C. C. A.) 354.

*Under Rev. St. § 4952, as amended by Act March 3, 1891, c. 565, 26 Stat. 1106 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3406], which authorizes the proprietor of any painting, etc., "or assigns of any such person," to obtain a copyright thereon, the owner of a painting may transfer to another by assignment the right of copyright, although the assignee does not become the owner of the painting.-American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister (C. C. A.) 375.

*Act June 18, 1874, c. 301, 18 Stat. 78 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3411], relating to notice of copyright, does not require such notice to be placed upon the original of a copyrighted painting or upon its mount but only upon the copies thereof.-American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister (C. C. A.) 375.

§ 2. Infringement.

right to maintain it does not depend on plaintiff's ownership or previous right of possession. -American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister (C. C. A.) 375.

In an action under Rev. St. § 4965 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3414] to recover penalties for infringement of a copyright for a painting, the penalty of $10 therein fixed is recoverable or which is shown by the evidence to have been for every copy found in defendant's possession "by him sold or exposed for sale."-American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister (C. C. A.) 377.

The compiler and publisher of a directory while he may not copy and reprint matter from a prior copyrighted directory as his own may use the same for checking up his own canvass, independently made, and where discrepancies are found, after an honest and personal investigation of the same, may publish the result as so verified as his own.-Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory & Publishing Co. (C. C.) 332.

*Where, on a comparison of a copyrighted directory and an alleged infringing publication, it appears that a large proportion of the errors in the former are also found in the latter, such evidence is sufficient to refute the testimony of defendant's witnesses that the accuracy of all items in its directory was personally verified and to show that direct copying had been done.-Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory & Publishing Co. (C. C.) 332.

Where the infringing parts of a directory are intermingled with other parts, about which there is no evidence and defendant makes no effort to separate them, it must account for all profits made on the entire sales.-Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory & Publishing Co. (C. C.) 332.

1.

CORPORATIONS.

Merriam Co. v. United Dictionary Co. (C. C.

A.) 354.

Rev. St. U. S. § 4956 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3407], held not applicable to the reproduction in the United States of a book copyrighted in England, containing no notice of an American copyright on a similar book intended for publication in the United States.-G. & C. Merriam Co. v. United Dictionary Co. (C. C. A.) 354.

Publication in the United States of a photographic reprint of a dictionary published in England as well as the United States from a copy imported from England for that purpose held an infringement of complainant's copyright.-G. & C. Merriam Co. v. United Dictionary Co. (C. C. A.) 354.

An action by the owner of the copyright for a painting brought under Rev. St. § 4965 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3424], for a forfeiture of the plates and copies of an infringing publication, is not the statutory action of replevin, and the