MARITIME LIENS.

United States, 600; Eastern Dredging Co. v.

Same, Id.; Bay State Dredging Co. v. Same,
As affecting interstate commerce, see "Com-Id.
merce," § 1.

Dredging channel in Boston harbor held not
Persons entitled to raise constitutionality of a public work of the United States within the

statute relating to see “Constitutional Law,” meaning of the Eight-Hour Act Aug. 1, 1892,
8 1.

c. 352, 27 Stat. 310 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.

2521]. - Ellis v. United States, 600; Eastern
$ 1. Enforcement.

Dredging Co. v. Same, Id.; Bay State Dredging
*A lien given by a state statute for materials Co. v. Same, Id.
furnished in construction of ship may be en-
forced in a state court.-Iroquois Transp. Co.

Delay in obtaining timber for construction of
v. De Laney Forge & Iron Co., 509; Same v. pier at Boston navy yard held not an extraor-
Edwards, Id.

dinary emergency within exceptions in Eight-

Hour Act Aug. 1, 1892, c. 352, 27 Stat. 340
*Enforcement of a lien given by a state stat-[U. S. Comp. št. 1901, p. 2521].-Ellis v. Unit-
ute on a vessel for materials furnished after ed States, 600; Eastern Dredging Co. v. Same,
she was launched held within jurisdiction of Id.; Bay State Dredging Co. v. Same, Id.
state court.-Iroquois Transp. Co. v. De Laney
Forge & Iron Co., 509; Same v. Edwards, Id. in dredging harbor channel 'held not laborers

Employés on tugs, dredges, and scows used

within meaning of Eight-Hour Act Aug. 1,
MARRIAGE.

1892, c. 352, 27 Stat. 340 [U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 2521].-Ellis v. United States, 600;

Eastern Dredging Co. v. Same, Id.; Bay Staté
See "Husband and Wife."

Dredging Co. v. Same, Id.
Rights of persons intermarrying with Indians,
see "Indians."

§ 2. Master's liability for injuries to

servant.
Persons whose alleged marriage in Virginia *Evidence, in action for injuries to a servant,
might have been invalid for want of license held to make it a question for the jury whether
had they remained there and invalid in Mary. or not he was injured by the negligence of a
land for want of a religious ceremony held fellow servant.-Gila Valley, G. & N. Ry. Co.
married in New Jersey, where they took up | v. Lyon, 145.
their permanent residence and lived together in
good faith up to the time of the man's death. 1893, c. 196, $ 2, 27 Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp.

A shovel car is a "car” within Act March 2,
Travers v. Reinhardt, 503.

St. 1901, p. 3174), requiring car used in inter-

state traffic to be equipped with automatic coup-
MARRIED WOMEN.

ler.-Schlemmer v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co.,

407.
See "Husband and Wife.”

*That a railroad employé while coupling a
car not equipped with an automatic coupler, as

required by Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, $ 2, 27
MASTER AND SERVANT.

Stat. 531 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174), might

miscalculate the height to which he might raise
Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in ac- his head, held the risk which, under section 8 of

tion for death caused by violation of regula- that statute, he does not assume.-Schlemmer
tions of interstate carrier as to appliances, v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 407.
see "Courts," $ 14.
Applicability of instructions to evidence in aç, itself within the exception in favor of four-

*The burden of proof is on a carrier to bring
tion for default of mine employé, see "Trial,” wheeled cars, made by proviso in section 2 of
§ 1.
Denial of privileges and immunities of citizens Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 [U.

the automatic coupler act of March 2, 1893,
by laws relating to liabilities for injuries to S. Comp. St._1901, p. 3174].-Schlemmer v.
servants of interstate carriers, see “Constitu- Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 407.

tional Law," $ 5.
Harmless error in action for injuries to servant,
see "Appeal and Error," $ 6.

MECHANICS' LIENS.
Intent as element of crime in violation of eight-
hour law, see "Criminal Law," $ 1.

Attempt to enforce as election of remedy, see
Laws relating to liabilities of railroad compa-

"Election of Remedies."
nies for injuries to servants as denial of due
process of law, see "Constitutional Law,'
§ 7.

MERGER.
Laws relating to liabilities of railroads for in-

juries to employés as interfering with inter- of cause of action in judgment, see "Judg-
state commerce, see "Commerce,'' $ 3.
Priority of claim against bankrupt estate for

ment," $ 5.
wages, see "Bankruptcy," $ 5.
Railway postal clerks, see "Post Office," $ 1.

MEXICAN GRANTS.
Removal to federal court of action for injuries
to servant, see "Removal of Causes," 82, 3.

See "Public Lands," 8 2.
§ 1. The relation.

Prohibition against requiring laborers on any
public works of the United States or District of

MINES AND MINERALS.
Columbia to work more than eight hours a
day, in Act Aug. 1, 1892, c. 352, 27 Stat. 340 Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in ac-
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2521], held not re- tion involving validity of laws relating to em.
pugnant to the federal Constitution.-Ellis y. ployés in mines, see "Courts," 8 14.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

Applicability of instructions to evidence in ac- Limitation of five years prescribed by Rev.
tion for default of mine employé, see "Trial," St. U. S. $ 1047 [U. s. Comp. St. 1901, p. 727),
f 1.

does not apply to action for threefold damages
Laws relating to liabilities of mine owners as for injury to business or property, authorized

denying equal protection of law, see “Consti- by Anti-Trust Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat.
tutional Law," $ 6.

209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3202] $ 7.--
Laws relating to liabilities of mine owners for Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of

negligence as denying due process of law, see Atlanta, 65.

"Constitutional Law," $ 7.
Mining laws invading privileges and immunities Ten-year limitation prescribed by Code Tenn.
of citizens, see "Constitutional Law," $ 5.

§ 2776, rather than the one-year limitation
Proximate cause of explosion in mine, see "Neg- prescribed by section 2772, or three-year lim-
ligence," $ 1.

itation prescribed by section 2773, governs an
Sale of mining property by broker, see "Brok- action for damages for injury to business or
ers," $ 1.

property brought under Anti-Trust Act July 2,
State laws as rules of decisions in federal courts 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
as to construction of conveyance of mining p. 3202] § 7.-Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe

Works v. City of Atlanta, 65.
property, see "Courts," § 8.
f 1. Public mineral lands.
*The requirement of parallelism of end lines

MORTGAGES.
of lode mining locations made by Act May 10,

1872, c. 152, & 2, 17 Stat. 91, Řev. St. U. Ş. Lis pendens under mortgage law, see "Lis Pen-
§ 2320 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1424, 1425),

dens."
held not to apply where the location had been of personal property, see “Chattel Mortgages.'
made at the time of the passage of that act
and the proceeding under Act July 26, 1866, § 1. Foreclosure by action.
c. 262, 14 Stat. 251, had so far advanced as Jurisdiction in foreclosure held not defeated
to exclude adverse claims.-East Cent. Eureka by inability to join all the parties and to sell
Min. Co. v. Central Eureka Min. Co., 258. all the land because of conveyance of part of
Rights in mining propery entitled to protec- the property to the territory.–Kawananakoa v.

-
tion under Act May 10, 1872, c. 152, 2, 17 Polyblank, 526.
c§

.
Stat. 91, Rev. St. U. S. § 2320 (U. S. Comp. St. *Foreclosure sale may be set aside before
1901, pp. 1424, 1425), held to exist where a lode confirmation because of gross inadequacy of
mining location had been made at the time of price.-Ballentyne v. Smith, 527.
the passage of such act and the proceeding
under act July 26, 1866, c. 262, 14 Stat. 251,
had so far advanced as to exclude adverse

MOTIONS.
claims.-East Cent. Eureka Min. Co. v. Central
Eureka Min. Co., 258.

Presentation of objections for review, see "Ap-
An election by the grantee of a patent for

peal and Error," $ 3.
lode mining claim to abandon rights acquired
under Act July 26, 1866, c. 262, 14 Stat. 251,
held not shown because patent, in addition to

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
granting such rights, purports to grant all
that would have been acquired by location See "Counties."
under Act May 10, 1872, c. 152, § 2, 17 Stat. Action by city for damages caused by con-
91, Rev. St. U. S. $ 2320 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, spiracy to monopolize trade, see “Monopolies,”
pp. 1424, 1425).- East Cent. Eureka Min. Co. $ 1.
v. Central Eureka Min. Co., 258.

Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court on ques-

tion of validity of paving assessment, see
§ 2. Title, conveyances, and contracts.

"Courts," § 14.
An adjustment of subsurface rights held ac- | Conclusiveness of decree restraining city from
complished by an agreement to compromise ad-

constructing waterworks, see "Judgment," $ 6.
verse proceedings, followed by execution of a Denial of due process of law to abutting owners
bond by the locator of one of two_conflicting on streets, see “Constitutional Law," $ 7.
claims.-Montana Min. Co. v. St. Louis Min. Mandamus to compel

levy of tax to pay munici-
& Mill. Co., 254.

pal warrants, see "Mandamus," $ 2.

State laws as rules of decision in federal
MISSIONS.

courts on questions relating to rights of abut-

ting owners on streets, see "Courts," § 8.
Conditions in deed by board of missions, see Street railroads, see "Street Railroads.'
"Deeds," § 2.

§ 1. Contracts in general.

Contract with waterworks company fixing
MONOPOLIES.

maximum water rates to private consumers for
§ 1. Trusts and other combinations in tract clause of federal Constitution, could be

30 years, protected against impairment by con-
restraint of trade.

made by city of Vicksburg, under Laws Miss.
Action for threefold damages for injury to 1886, p. 698, c. 358, $ 5.-City of Vicksburg
business or property authorized by Anti-Trust v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co., 762.
Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 3202] § 7, may be main-1 8 2. Public improvements.

1
tained by a city in Georgia against foreign cor- The apportionment of costs of widening alley
porate members of combination, where the city in city of Washington must be limited to bene-
was led thereby to purchase from an Alabama fits under Act July 22, 1892, c. 230, 27 Stat.
corporation pipes needed for its waterworks.-255, as amended by Act Aug. 24, 1894, c. 328,
Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City 28 Stat. 501.-Martin v. District of Columbia,
of Atlanta, 65.

440; Brandenburg v. Same, Id.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

NATIONAL BANKS.

Decisions of courts impairing, see "Courts," § 2

Impairing obligation of as ground of jurisdic-
See "Banks and Banking," $ 1.

tion of federal court, see "Courts," $ 4.
Former judgment as bar to action against di-Laws impairing, see "Constitutional Law," $ 4.

rectors of, see "Judgment," § 5.
Jurisdiction of federal court of action against

OFFICERS.
agent for shareholders of, see “Courts," $ 4.

Denial of due process of law in punishment of
NATURALIZATION.

officers for embezzlement, see "Constitutional

Law," SS 7-10.
See "Aliens," $ 1.

Mandamus, see "Mandamus," $ 1.
Under laws relating to presentment of land.

claims, see "Public Lands," $ 2.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.

Particular classes of officers.
See "Canals"; "Waters and Water Courses.” See "Clerks of Courts"; "Receivers"; "United.

States Commissioners.'
As state boundary, see "States," $ 1.
Construction of bridge over navigable stream in United States officers, see "United States," § 1.

exercise of power of eminent domain, see

“Eminent Domain," $$ 1, 2.
Delegation of power under river and harbor act,

OPENING.
see "Constitutional Law," $ 2.

Judgment, see "Judgment," $ 2.
NAVY.

OPINION EVIDENCE.
See "Army and Navy."

In civil actions, see "Evidence," $ 3.
NEGLIGENCE.

OPINIONS.
By particular classes of persons.
See "Carriers," $ 2; "Pilots."

Of courts, see "Courts," § 1.
Employers, see “Master and Servant,” $ 2.
Condition or use of particular species of prop-

ORDERS.
erty, works, machinery, or other instru-
mentalities.

Review of appealable orders, see "Appeal and

Error."
See “Street Railroads," $ 2.
Vessel, see "Shipping," $ 1.

ORDINANCES.
Contributory negligence.
Of servant, see "Master and Servant," $ 2. Relating to street railroads, see "Street Rail-

roads," $ 1.
§ 1. Proximate cause of injury.

*Mineowner held not absolved from his neg-
lect to prevent accumulation of gases leading

PANAMA CANAL.
to an explosion, because there was another
cause contributing to the injury.– Wilmington | See "Canals,” g 1.
Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 412.

Zone of, see "Territories."
NEW TRIAL.

PARENT AND CHILD.
Opening or vacating judgment, see "Judgment,”
§ 2.

Effect of naturalization of parent on rights of

alien child, see "Aliens," 1.
NORMAL SCHOOLS.

Review by supreme court of questions relating

to custody of child, see "Courts," f 12.
Validity in general of laws relating to see "Con-
stitutional Law," $ 1.

PAROL EVIDENCE.
NOTICE.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," $ 2.
See "Lis Pendens."
To principal or agent, see “Principal and

PARTIES.
Agent," $ 2.
OBJECTIONS.

Character ground of jurisdiction, see "Courts,"

Dismissal of appeal in Supreme Court for defect
For purpose of review in supreme court, see

of parties, see "Courts," $ 14.
"Courts," $ 15.

In equity, see "Equity," $ 1.
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT.

PARTNERSHIP.
Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in ac-

tion involving issue of impairing, see “Courts," Bankruptcy of, see "Bankruptcy,” $ 2.
§ 14.

Pilot association, see "Pilots."
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

PATENTS.

PENALTIES. For public lands, see “Mines and Minerals,”. $ 1: Parol or extrinsic evidence of penalties under Restraining infringement suits, see "Injunction," contracts, see "Evidence," 2. § 1.

Under contracts, see "Damages," $ 1. $1. Persons entitled to patents. Appeal from primary examiner, on a motion

PENDENCY OF ACTION. to dissolve interference, that party had the right to make interfering claims, may be prohibited Effect as to property involved, see “Lis Penby rules of patent office without infringing the dens.” right of appeal in interference given by Rev. St. U. S. $$ 482, 483, 4904, 4909 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 272, 3389, 3390].—United States v. PERCOLATING WATERS. Allen, 141.

See "Waters and Water Courses," $ 1. § 2. Regulation of dealings in patent

rights and patented articles. Regulation of sale of patent rights by Laws

PERPETUITIES. Kan. 1889, c. 182, is not a violation of Const. U. S. art. 1, § 8, granting to congress the right Parties to suit in equity to determine question to secure to inventors the exclusive right to of violation of rule against, see "Equity," $ 1. their discovery, nor Rev. St. U. S. & 4898 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3387], authorizing assign- Trusts for perpetual maintenance of cemetery ments of patents.-Allen v. Riley, 95.

lots and monuments, authorized by Code D. C. The requirement that a negotiable instrument $ 669, held not forbidden by section 1023 of taken on a sale of a patent right shall show on such Code.-Iglehart v. Iglehart, 329. its face for what it was given or be void, under Testamentary trusts in favor of cemetery of Kirby's Dig. Ark. g 513, held not to violate Brooklyn, permitted by laws of New York, for Const. U. š. art. 1, § 8, nor Rev. St. U. S. & perpetual maintenance of lot and monument, 4898 [U. S. Comp. št. 1901, p. 3387].—John will be upheld in the District of Columbia Woods & Sons v. Carl, 99.

where testatrix was domiciled at her death,

since under Code D. C. $ 669, grants on similar $ 3. Infringement.

trusts are permitted to domestic corporations.Defendant's rights under final decree of fedIglehart v. Iglehart, 329. eral court in a patent infringement suit held violated by act of complainant in filing a bill against one of the former's creditors on account

PERSONAL INJURIES. of the use of the article passed upon in a prior suit.-Kessler v. Eldred, 611.

See "Negligence." Final decree of federal court in favor of de- Harmless error in action for, see "Appeal and fendant in a patent infringement suit entitles Error," $ 6. him to continue the business free from all in-Laws relating to injuries to mail clerks as deterference by complainant.--Kessler v. Eldred, nying equal protection of law, see “Constitu611.

tional Law," § 6.

To employé, see "Master and Servant," $ 2. § 4. Decisions on the validity, construc

tion, and infringement of partic-
ular patents.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Claims of Hayden patent, No. 700.919, for improvement in spring-balance computing scale, Delegation of legislative power relative to, see considered and limited.-Computing Scale Co.

"Constitutional Law," 2. of America v. Automatic Scale Co., 307.

Evidence held insufficient to show infringement of claims of Hayden patent, No. 700,919,

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS. for improvement in spring-balance computing scales.-Computing Scale Co. of America v. In navy, see "Army and Navy." Automatic Scale Co., 307. 8 5. Patents enumerated.

PILOTS.
UNITED STATES.

*Members of voluntary unincorporated pilot

association held not liable to owners of piloted ORIGINAL.

vessels for negligence of each other.-Guy y. 106,869. Computing scale, cited... 310 Donald, 63. 378,382. Spring scales, cited.

311 421,805. Computing scale, cited...

310

PLEA. 492,913. Electric lamp lighter, cited. 611 545,616. Price scales, cited

311 In civil actions, see “Pleading," $ 1. 545,619. Computing scales, cited.

310 651,801. Price scales, cited.....

311 700,919. Spring-balance computing scale,

PLEADING. held limited and not infringed.. 307

Allegations of diverse citizenship as ground of jurisdiction of United States court,

see PAVING.

*Courts," $ 5.

Harmless error in rulings on, see "Appeal and Duties of street railroad as to paving streets, Error," $ 6. see "Street Railroads," & 2.

In equity, see "Equity," $ 2.

*Point annotated. See syllabus. 27 S.C.-53

8 1. Plea or answer, cross complaint,

PRACTICE. and affidavit of defense. Plea, in an action on a bond given to secure Adoption by United States courts of practice of sales of merchandise on credit, held insufficient

state courts, see "Courts," 7. to constitute a valid set-off.—McGuire v.

In land office, see "Public Lands," $ 1.
Gerstley, 332; Clark v. Same, 337.
Particulars of damages from breach by ob-

In particular civil actions or proceedings. ligees in a bond securing sales on credit, plead- See “Contempt,” s 2; "Mandamus,” $ 2. ed as a set-off, should show that the damages Condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent Doare not obscure, but such as would naturally main,” $ 2. result.--McGuire v. Gerstley, 332; Clark v. Same, 337.

Particular proceedings in actions. Pleas in an action on a bond given to secure

See “Appearance"; "Evidence”; “Judgment” sales on credit held insufficient.-McGuire v.

"Judicial Sales" ; "Limitation of Actions" Gerstley, 332; Clark v. Same, 337.

"Pleading"; "Removal of Causes"; "Trial.' § 2. Defects and objections, waiver,

Particular remedies in or incident to actions. and aider by verdict or judgment. See “Injunction"; "Receivers.” Question whether election by a trustee in

Procedure in criminal prosecutions. bankruptcy to avoid a preference should be exercised by a demand before suit, or can be See “Criminal Law”; “Extradition.” exercised by the suit itself, held not open to Procedure in exercise of special or limited jurisdefendant, where it did not stand on its de

diction. murrer, but answered.—Eau Claire Nat. Bank In admiralty, see "Admiralty.” V. Jackman, 391.

In bankruptcy, see “Bankruptcy,” § 1.
PLEDGES.

In equity, see "Equity.'

Procedure in or by particular courts or tribunals. Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bank- See “Courts."

ruptcy," 88 3–5. Of bank stock, see "Banks and Banking," $ 1.

Procedure on review. Of warehouse receipts, see "Warehousemen.” See “Appeal and Error”; “Exceptions, Bill of."

POLICE POWER.

PREFERENCES. See "Constitutional Law," $ 3.

By carriers, see "Carriers," $ 1.

Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "BankPOLICY.

ruptcy," $ 3. Of insurance, see "Insurance."

PREJUDICE.
PORTO RICO.

Ground for reversal in civil actions, see “Ap

peal and Error," $ 6. Laws relating to community property in terri

tory of, see "Husband and Wife,” š 1. Lis pendens under Porto Rico mortgage law, see

PRESCRIPTION. “Lis Pendens." Removal of causes from courts of, see "Remov- Acquisition of rights, see "Adverse Possession," al of Causes," $ 1.

8 1.
Review by Supreme Court on appeal from courts
of, see "Courts," $ 12.

PRESUMPTIONS.
POSSESSION.

On appeal or error, see "Appeal and Error,"

$ 6. See "Adverse Possession."

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
POST OFFICE.

See "Brokers." Laws relating to liabilities for injuries to mail Power of attorney distinguished from deed, see clerks as denying equal protection of law, see "Deeds," § 1. “Constitutional Law," $ 6.

§ 1. The relation. $ 1. Post-office department, post offices, *An interest in the property of which a power postmasters, and other officers.

is to operate held essential to make a power Power of Congress to establish post offices of attorney one coupled with an interest so as and post roads held not infringed by Act Pa. not to be subject to revocation. -Taylor v. April 4, 1868, under which a railway postal Burns, 40. clerk can have no greater rights against railway company for injuries than an employé.-Martin | 8 2. Rights and liabilities as to third v. Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co., 100.

persons.

*Knowledge of local attorney and president POWERS.

of board of directors of foreign building asso

ciation must be imputed to company.-ArmOf attorney, see "Principal and Agent.” strong v. Ashley, 270. Power of attorney distinguished from deed, see *Fraud of agent cannot alter legal effect of "Deeds," $ 1.

his knowledge with respect to his principal in *Point annotated. See syllabus.