Volume 253 — Federal Reporter

<p>1. Indians «5=15(2) — Indian Lands — Alienation.</p> <p>After Act April 26, 1906, c. 1876, § 22, and Act May 27, 1908, c. 199, § 5, lands of all full-blood Seminole Indian heirs were inalienable, save on approval of the court, etc.</p> <p>2. Taxation «5=6 — State Taxes — Government Instrumentalities.</p> <p>It is the universal rule that every instrumentality lawfully employed by the United States to execute its constitutional laws and exercise its lawful governmental authority is necessarily exempt from state taxation or interference.</p> <p>8. Taxation <@=181 — .Indian Lands.</p> <p>Lands of full-blood Seminole Indian heirs, inalienable under Act April 26, 1906, c. 1876, § 22, and Act May 27, 1808, c. 199, § 9, are not subject to state taxation, notwithstanding provisions in each of the acts that all lands upon which restrictions are removed shall be subject to taxation.</p> <p>4. Taxation «5=611(8) — .Restraining Collection — Judgment — Inconsistency.</p> <p>In a suit by the United States to enjoin the county treasurer of an Oklahoma county from selling or conveying allotted lands formerly owned by the Seminole Nation on account of taxes levied, a decree that all lands belonging to enrolled citizens of the Seminole Tribe, except homesteads then owned by the original allottees, which were alienable at the times of the. assessments, were taxable, and that upon conveyance of all such lands, including homesteads, the same were taxable, held not erroneous, in that the two clauses were inconsistent.</p> <p>5. Taxation <@=181 — Indian Lands.</p> <p>While homesteads of Seminole allottees were not subject to taxation, both because inalienable and by reason of the direct terms of the Seminole Agreement, yet when the restrictions on alienation were removed, and the homesteads became alienable, they were subject to taxation whenever the allottees disposed of them.</p> <p>6. Equity <@=364 — Propriety of Dismissal — Defect of Parties.</p> <p>A court of equity will on its own motion dismiss a bill, if to grant the relief prayed for would injuriously affect persons materially interested in the subject-matter who are not made parties.</p> <p>7. Judgment <@=17(1) — Jurisdiction—Authority of Courts.</p> <p>A court may not directly adjudicate a person’s claim of right, unless he is actually or constructively before it.</p> <p>other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>8. Parties <@=>32 — “Indispensable Parties” — Who Are.</p> <p>An “indispensable party” is one wbo has such an interest in the subject-matter of the controversy that a final decree cannot be made, without affecting his interests or leaving the controversy in such a situation that its final determination may be inconsistent with equity and good conscience.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Indispensable Party.]</p> <p>9. Taxation <@=3611(4) — Collection—Injunction—Parties.</p> <p>AVhere purchasers of lands formerly belonging to the Seminole Nation, which had been sold for taxes, were not made parties to a suit by the United States against the treasurer of the Oklahoma county in which the lands lay to enjoin him from collecting Hie taxes and from selling or convoying the lands, the suit must be dismissed for the want of sucn parties, for they are indispensable.</p> <p>^s>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska; Joseph W. Woodrough, Judge.</p> <p>Suit by Sarah A. Bressler against Mary C. Rudwig and another. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal.</p>

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Bills by John A. S. Brown and Frank E. Schermerhorn, as trustees for Clara Schermerhorn under the will of Thomas Cunningham, deceased, against Austin B. Fletcher, as testamentary trustee of Conrad Morris Braker, under the will of Conrad Braker, Jr., deceased, and Conrad Morris Braker. From decrees (244 Fed. 854) dismissing the bills, plaintiffs in each suit appeal.

Libels b¡y the Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Company to enforce maritime liens against the fishing steamer Walter Adams and certain other fishing steamers; the Seaboard Fisheries Company, claimant. Decrees for libelant, and claimant appeals.

<p>1. Bankruptcy ©=>440 — Jurisdiction of Referee — Review—“Question of Procedure.”</p> <p>The question raised in the District Court by denial of a referee’s jurisdiction to investigate the merits of a controversy under the forms of a plenary suit by the trustee is a question of procedure, which, under Banlir. Act, § 24b (Comp. St. 1916, § 9608), may be raised before the appellate court by petition to revise, though a decision on the merits, had there been jurisdiction, could have been reviewed only on appeal.</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy @=224 — Jurisdiction of Referee — Suit to Avoid Transfers.</p> <p>In a case referred generally, after adjudication, under Bankr. Act, §■ 22 (C'omp. St. 1916, § 9606), and according to General Order XII,- whereby all proceedings, except such as are required to be had before the judge, were thereafter to be had before the referee, who was to perform duties he was empowered by the act to perform, the referee had jurisdiction of a bill in equity, filed by the trustee under section 70e (Comp. St. 1916, § 9654), to avoid transfers in fraud of creditors; nothing in the act or general orders expressly requiring such proceedings to be had before the judge, and sections 1(7), 38(4), 42a, 42c (Comp. St. 1916, §§ 9585, 9622, 9626), and General Order III, permitting an inference in favor of the referee exercising jurisdiction.</p> <p>@=For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; Jas. M. Morton, Judge.</p> <p>In the matter of W. P. B. Brooks & Co., Incorporated, bankrupt. A bill in equity by the trustee, John R. Graham, against Rillian M. Faith, before the referee, was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and from an order of the District Court, affirming the dismissal, the trustee appeals.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Western District of Washington; Edward E. Cushman, Judge.</p> <p>Action by Alexander Matson against the Puget Sound Electric Railway. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington; Benjamin F. Keller, Judge.</p> <p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against Edwin Firth, Hilton Bias, Raymond Green, and Henry Howes. Judgment of conviction, and defendants bring error.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; Ralph E. Campbell, Judge.</p> <p>Suit by Helen Welch against John A. Daniels, guardian, and others. Erom a decree dismissing the suit, complainant appeals.</p>

Petition to Superintend and Revise, in Matter of Raw, Proceedings of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk, in Bankruptcy; Edmund Waddill, Jr., judge. .Tn the matter of August Scriber Seeley, bankrupt. Petition by the Bridgeton National Bank for review of order. On motion by Ruther B. Way, trustee, to strike cause from docket and to dismiss petition.

<p>Collision <S=»153 — Sura for Damages — Review on Appeal.</p> <p>Where the decree iu a suit for collision has ample support in conllicting evidence, it cannot be reversed by the appellate court.</p> <p>tgsjFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Master and Servant <§=»350 — Master’s Liability toe Injury to Servant— "Workmen’s Comttonsation Act.</p> <p>Under Bhode Island Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 1, providing that it shall not he a defense “that the employé has assumed, the risk of the injury,” it is immaterial whether the risk was assumed by acts of the employs or by liis contract of employment.</p> <p>(graEor other cases see samo topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska; Thomas C. Munger, Judge.</p> <p>Action by Louis Pagenstecher against the La Crosse Plow Company, a corporation. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>1. Patents ®=»90(1) — Anticipation—Prior Art.</p> <p>Where two bona fide applications for patents are pending at the same time, neither is prior in art to the other.</p> <p>2. Patents <S=>90(1) — Priority Between Patents.</p> <p>When two patents for the same invention have been issued to independent inventors, the rule is that the dates of their inventions are (1) the dates of the patents, (2) the dates of the applications, provided they sufficiently describe the invention, and (3) the dates of actual reduction to practice.</p> <p>3: Patents <§=>90(5) — Date op Invention — Reduction to Practice.</p> <p>In the absence of other proof, the filing of application for a patent is taken to be a reduction to practico of the invention.</p> <p><§^s>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Nurqberecl Digests & Indexes</p> <p>4. Patents <§=>91 (1) — Priority Between Patents — Burden and Measure of Peo of.</p> <p>As between rival inventors whose applications are .pending at the same time, the burden is on him whose application is second to show that ne was first to reduce the invention to practice.</p> <p>5. Patents <§=?91 (3)- — Priority Between Patents — Measure of Proof.</p> <p>In a contest between rival inventors l'or priority of invention, their applications being pending at tho same time and both Inventors having reduced their conceptions to practice, the one whose application is second, in sustaining the burden of proving that he was (he first to reduce the invention to practice, is required to establish his priority only by fair preponderance of evidence and not by proof conclusive in character or beyond a reasonable doubt.</p> <p>6. Patents <§=>26(1) — -Validity—Combinations.</p> <p>The more fact that human agency intervenes in an operation does not render a combination unpatentable, nor is it necessary that the action of tho elements be simultaneous, nor that one of tho elements shall so enter into the combination as to change the action of the others; but it is sufficient if there be some joint operation of the elements producing a result due to their co-operative action.</p> <p>7. Patents <§=>26(2) — “Combination”—New Result.</p> <p>To constitute a patentable “combination,” the result itself need not he new, but it is sufficient if an old result be produced in a more facile, economical, or efficient way.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, seo Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Combination.]</p> <p>8. Patents <§=>328 — Validity and Infringement- — Well-Boring Apparatus.</p> <p>The Willard and Wilcox patent, No. 1,064,270, for a well-boring apparatus, claims 6, 7, 8, and 9, held not anticipated, valid, and infringed. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for combinations held invalid as not for true combinations in a unitary structure.</p> <p>9. Patents <§=>25 — Aggregation—-Detached Parts.</p> <p>A well-boring apparatus patent, for combination of a drive bushing device for rotating the string, with “slips” for bolding the string in position while removing or restoring it, the slips being removable by band when not in use, held a mere aggregation, and not a combination, since the manual use of a tool or an unattached movable device cannot be made an element of a combination claim.</p>

Suit by the Gilchrist Company against the Liquid Carbonic, Company and Wjlliam J. Eisenhardt. Erom a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. The patent involved is for a straw dispensing device for use at bars, soda fountains, and the like, to contain straws used for drinking purposes, so I hat. customers may take some therefrom, leaving the rest covered and protected. A patent therefor, No. 962,300, was issued to Berman June 21, 1910. The device is shown in patent Fig. 1.

<p>1. Patents @=174 — Minos Improvements. — Construction.</p> <p>Claims in patents for minor improvements in an art already well understood should be strictly construed.</p> <p>2. Patents @=246 — InertnítE.meivt—Omission ojt Elements.</p> <p>The omission of one element of a claim to a patent averts infringement,</p> <p>other cases see same topic & KEY NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>3. Patents <§=»328 — Infringement—Machines.</p> <p>Patent No. 1,103,958, for an improvement in die blocks used in" metal heading machines, held not infringed by patent No. 1,166,608, for an improvement in swinging die caps for heading machines.</p> <p>cgxsaFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Equity. Suit by the I. T. S. Rubber Company against the Panther Rubber Manufacturing Company. On hearing on pleadings and proof.</p>

<p>In Equity. Suit by Herbert L. Hildreth against Jim M. Mastoras.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the Crawford Plummer Company, bankrupt. On review of order of referee.</p>

<p>Homer De Bolt and another were indicted and tried for violating Sabotage Daw, § 3. On motions for directed verdicts.</p>

<p>At Law. Action by the Grant Lumber Company, a corporation, against the North River Insurance Company of New York, a corporation.</p>

<p>In the matter of the petition of S. D. Fusion for writ of habeas corpus.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy. Involuntary proceedings in the matter of Hyman Bloomberg, alleged bankrupt.</p>

<p>Petition by William C. Prout for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Francisco Rezendes and others.</p>

<p>1. Army and Navy -Seaeotive Draft Act — Status of Hegistkants.</p> <p>Selectivo Draft Act does not give persons within the draft ages any military status solely by virtue of their being within, such ages, but they retain their ordinary status as civilians and citizons until it is changed through the operation of the law by their selection for service.</p> <p>2. Army and Navy <3=>20 — Selective Draft A,ct — Powers of Hoards.</p> <p>The courts are bound to respect the determination of local and district draft boards on all matters within their respective jurisdictions, and have no power to revise their decisions, where their jurisdiction has been lawfully exercised; but the courts may determine to what effect the boards have acted.</p> <p>8. Army and Navy <@=»20 — Selective Draft Act — Powers of Boards.</p> <p>Both the local and district draft boards, within „their respective jurisdictions, retain their power to hear and determine matters pertaining to a registrant until the hour specified in the notice of Hie local board when he is required to report for service.</p> <p>4. Army and Navy <@=»20--Selective Draft Act — Authority of District Boards.</p> <p>Where after notice by a local board to a registrant to report for service, but before the time arrived, he was given deferred classification by the district board on industrial grounds, he could not lawfully be arrested and imprisoned by the local board for failure to report.</p> <p>other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Equity. Suit by the Marquette Cement Mining Company against the Oglesby Coal Company.</p>

<p>In Equity. Suit by the St. Eouis-San Francisco Railway Company against J. M. McElvain. On motion for preliminary injunction.</p>

In Bankruptcy. Iii the matter of George W. Roseboóm, bankrupt. Application by receiver for an order requiring delivery to him of certain personal property by G. G. McNamara.

In Admiralty. Suit by the Russell Company against the steamer Middlesex. Intervening petition of Edmund Winfield and Edward Lawrence, and libels by Mary E. Thomas, administratrix of the estate of John Thomas, by Erederick Poster, administrator of the estate of John W. Cook, and by James H. Dooley, administrator of the estate of Arthur Carberry, against the Coastwise Transportation Company.

<p>In Admiralty. Libel by the Pendleton Shipbuilding & Navigation Company against the steamship Chepsto.w Castle, with cross-libel by the Union-Castle Mail Steamship Company, Limited, against the Pendleton Shipbuilding & Navigation Company and others.</p>

<p>1. Constitutional Law <S=o68(1) — Distribution of Governmental Powers— Executive Department:</p> <p>Tbe question of the sovereignty of a foreign government is a political question determination of which by the executive or legislative department of tbe United States government binds the judicial department.</p> <p>2. Evidence <@=»334(1) — Law of Foreign Country — Certificate' of Ambassador.</p> <p>The certificate of the ambassador of a foreign country to the United States as to the law of his country or the personnel and authority of officials of his government is admissible in the courts of the United States.</p> <p>3. International Law <®=>9 — Effect of Change of Sovereignty.</p> <p>The principle is firmly established in our courts that the rights and liabilities of a state are unaffected by a change either in the form or personnel of its government, however accomplished, whether by revolution or otherwise.</p> <p>4. Trial ®=»55 — Reception of Evidence — Discretion of Court — War Condi- ’ TTONS*</p> <p>The trier of facts may determine whether as matter of fact a cable dispatch purporting to be sent by authority of a foreign government is genuine and was sent as indicated, war'exigencies requiring that court shall deal with such situations in a sensible way, not too much fettered by inelastic rules while safeguarding against receptiqn in evidence of fabricated communications.</p> <p>igmoFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Application by Frederick Fischer for writ of habeas corpus.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio; Howard C. Hollister, Judge.</p> <p>Action at law by the H. Neuer Glass Company against the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>1. Contracts <§=>23 — Offer and Acgettanoe — Condition—“It Being Understood” — “Agreed”—•“Understood.”</p> <p>The word “understood” in a contract is synonymous with “agreed,” and the words “it being understood,” in an answer to an offer, moan provided or on condition it is so agreed.</p> <p>[Ed. Noto. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First Series, Agreed; It being Understood; First and Second Series, Understood.]</p> <p>2. Contracts <§=>23 — Offer—Conditional Acceptance.</p> <p>An acceptance of an option making no mention of the optionee’s having a certain right, which he would have as a matter of la.w if the option should be accepted absolutely, hut which acceptance is conditional on the option- or’s agreeing that he should have such right, is a qualified acceptance, and such as to prevent the creation of a contract unless the optionor thereafter in some way agrees thereto.</p> <p>8. Contracts @=23 — Offeb and Acceptance — Form of Contract.</p> <p>A difference between the offer and acceptance, as to the form of a contract, is just as effective to prevent the entering into the contract as one as to its substance.</p> <p>4. Sales <§=>168(2)- Rights of Buyer — Place of Inspection.</p> <p>A statute providing that, “unless otherwise agreed, when a seller tenders delivery of goods to the buyer he is bound, on request,” to afford a reasonable opportunity for inspection, does not give a buyer of goods to be delivered to a carrier an absolute right of inspection at the point of shipment.</p> <p>5, Customs and Usages <@=>18- ■Pleading and Proof.</p> <p>In an action for breach of a contract alleged to have been made by telegrams set out, which were insufficient to create a contract, plaintiff cannot aid his case by proof of a custom not pleaded.</p> <p>^ss>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Bourquin, Judge. Action by the Northern Pacific Railway Company against J. R. Thompson, as County Treasurer of Flathead County, Mont. There was judgment for plaintiff on two of the three counts, and for defendant on the other, and both parties bring error.

Dili el by the International Taper Company against the schooner Gracie D. Chambers, her tackle, etc., claimed by Florence G. Payne. From a decree for libelant, claimant appeals.

<p>1. Patents €=>69 — Validity—Prior Publication.</p> <p>A prior patent tor a machine, although fhol machine may not be practically operative, may operate as a prior publication, which wil) invalidate a subsequent patent to another, which embodies the same principle in an operative machine.</p> <p>2. Patents €=>32 — Improvement—Presumption from Grant of Separate Patents,</p> <p>There is a presumption, from the grant of separate letters patent for two improvements on the prior art, that there is a specific difference between the Inventions.</p> <p>3. Patents €=>49 — Sura for Infringement — Proof of Utility of Prior Structure.</p> <p>As against complainant in an infringement suit, the presumption of utility of the machine o£ a prior patent is greatly strengthened by the fact that complainant for many years represented it to be useful.</p> <p>4. Patents €=>66 — Anticipation-- Opeeativeness of Prior Machines.</p> <p>The machine of a. patent relied on as an anticipation is not to be deemed inoperative, if it can bo made to work by a slight alteration.</p> <p>5. Patents €=>46— -Anticipation — Opebativenehs op Prior Device.</p> <p>The test of operativeness is to ascertain, whether the patented device does, even imperfectly, perform the things claimed for it in the methods described.</p> <p>6. Patents €=>49 — -Presumption of Validity — -Primary Invention.</p> <p>The presumption of validity of a patent tor a. primary Invention, covering a machine absolutely now in the. art, is much stronger than in the ordinary case.</p> <p>7. Patents €=>328 — Validity and Infringement-Adding Machine.</p> <p>The Hopkins patent,. No. 1,089,180, for an adding and writing machine, as to the adding machine claims is valid, but is; for a.n improvement on a prior machine, and limited to the precise structure shown; also held not infringed, by a machine made under another improvement patent.</p> <p><j¡$££3ji,Gr otilar cases see same topic & KíU Y-NU jVLBKR in all Kuy-Ntinibered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Equity. Suit by Edward J. Knapp against the Will & Baumer Company. On final hearing.</p>

<p>I,ibei by the United States for condemnation of six barrels of ground pepper.</p> <p>On May 24, 1936, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and condemnation of six barrels of ground pepper, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about April 18, 1910, by McCormick & Co., Baltimore, Md., and transported from the state of Maryland into th.e state of New York, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of Food and Drug Act June .‘50. 1900, c. 8915, 84 Stat. 708 (Comp. St. 1916, §§ 8717-8728). The article was labeled in part: “Pure Ground Black Pepper. McCormick & Co. * > * Baltimore, Md.” Adulteration of the article was alleged, in substance, in tho libel, cor the reason that added pepper shells had been mixed and packed therewith, so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted wholly or in part for the article. Misbranding was alleged in the libel (ns amended during the trial) for the reason that the statement, to wit, “Pure Ground Black Pepper,” was false and misleading, in that said article was an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another article, to wit, black pepper, when it was not, and for the further reason that it was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead a purchaser in that it purported to be another article.</p> <p>On September 16, 1916, the said McCormick & Co., claimant, filed its answer denying the allegations of the libel. On December 20, 21, 22, 27, and 29, 1916, the case came on to be heard before the court, trial by jury having been waived by stipulation, and after the introduction of evidence and arguments by counsel, the case was taken under advisement by the court. On February 10, 1917,-final arguments were made by respective counsel and briefs filed. On February 27, 1917, a finding was made sustaining the contentions of the government, as will more fully appear from the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Admitíai\ty <§=320 — Action fob Injury to Servant — Caw Governing.</p> <p>.A stale Workmen’s Compensation Act, which in actions against an employer who has not accepted Us terms provides a different measure of compensation from that of the maritime law, does not apply to a seaman injured while employed on a vessel ou the navigable waters of the United States.</p> <p>®c»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Application by Robert Henry for writ of habeas corpus.</p>

<p>Aliens <S=j23(2) — Deportation op Chinese — Lawful Entry as Student.</p> <p>A Chinese'person entering the United. States in good faith as a minor child of a member of the exempt class and for the. purpose of study, and who is still a student, although obliged to work a part of each day to earn” living expenses, is not subject to deportation.</p> <p><gs^Por other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Criminal Law <@=>423(3) — Acts of Conspirators — Evidence.</p> <p>In a prosecution for conspiracy to obstruct tlie draft, minutes of meetings of an executive committee kept by one of defendants, a committee member, showing passage of resolutions pursuant to which the other defendant caused circulars to be printed and mailed to persons drafted, held admissible-against both defendants.</p> <p>2. Conspiracy <@=>24 — Criminal Conspiracy.</p> <p>It is immaterial at what time a defendant joined a criminal conspiracy, where it is shown that he joined with others in carrying out the common design.</p>

<p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against Jin Fuey Moy. On motion in arrest of judgment.</p>

<p>1. Gas @=»ld(l) — Gas Companies — Charges—Franchise Ordinance — Contract.</p> <p>The voluntary acceptance by a gas company of an ordinance granting it a franchise on condition that it should never charge more than a stated price for gas to consumers created a contract which, if within the powers of the city, is binding on the company during its term.</p> <p>2. Gas <S=>14(1) — Contract Fixing Rates — Constituttonaiaty.</p> <p>A contract between a. gas company and a city, fixing a maximum, price to be charged by the company for gas, if reasonable and valid when made, cannot be set asido by a court of equity as confiscatory and unconstitutional, because subsequent conditions have made such rate unremunerative.</p> <p>3. Gas <S=14(2) — Gas Companies — Power of City to Fix Rates — Conditional Franchise.</p> <p>Under Shannon’s Code Train. 1896, § 2208, providing that a gas company shall not nse the streets of a city “until the consent of the municipal authorities shall have been first obtained, and an ordinance shall have been passed prescribing the terms on which the same may be done,” a city has authority in such ordinance to fix maximum rates to be charged by the company.</p> <p>■tgssoFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>4. Gas @=>14(2) — Gas Companies — Regulation of Rates.</p> <p>A statute providing that gas companies shall charge reasonable rates, not exceeding a rate named, does not impair the right of a city, authorized by another statute to prescribe terms on which a gas company may use its streets, to prescribe a maximum rate as one of such terms.</p> <p>• (gs^For otter cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>John Edward McHugh, James A. McHugh, and James Gordon were indicted for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States by violating the Selective Service Act of May 18, 1917.</p>

Peter Olson and Abraham Suransky were indicted for failing to register as required by the Selective Service Act, and for failing to exhibit their registration certificates when called upon by a police officer. On demurrer to the indictment.

Felix Gouled and others were indicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States. On motion by defendant Gouled for a bill of particulars.

<p>Criminal prosecutions by the United States against Felix Gouled, Aubrey VV. Vaughan, and David Podell, and against Felix Gouled. On motion to quash indictments.</p>

<p>1. Courts @=299 — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction—Federal Question-Pleading,</p> <p>Although bill to restrain collection of drainage tax, imposed pursuant to Laws Fla. 1917, c. 7430, § 7, did not specifically attack section 7, where it contained allegations that said section deprived complainants of their property, without due process of law, it raised a federal question, vesting federal court with jurisdiction, provided matter in controversy exceeded $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs.</p> <p>2. Courts @=329 — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction—Amount—Pleading.</p> <p>In suit to restrain collection of drainage tax, complaint alleging generally that amount exceeds $3,000, and making Exhibit A, attached to bill, a part of the same, and praying reference, held to sufficiently show that amount in controversy was over $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, so that federal court had jurisdiction.</p> <p>3. Equity @=152 — Exhibits—Incorporation by Reference.</p> <p>Making exhibit attached to bill a part thereof, and praying reference, had the same effect as though the facts set out in the exhibit were alleged in the body of the bill.</p> <p>4. Courts @=326 — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction.</p> <p>• Where bill showed jurisdictional amount in controversy in B. county, between one of complainants and all defendants, except tax collector of D. county, joinder of other parties complainant and said tax collector defendant ceases to be a jurisdictional question, and bill will not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of federal court.</p> <p>5. Courts @=347 — Equity Rules — Multifariousness.</p> <p>In suit by voluntary association of landowners against a drainage district and the respective tax collectors of two counties, to restrain collection of drainage tax imposed pursuant to Laws Fla. 1917, c. 7430, contention being that act is in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, bill held not multifarious, in view of equity rule 38 (198 Fed. xxix, 115 C. C. A. xxix), as to one or more of a class suing or defending for the whole; each complainant being interested in the subject-matter, but in different amounts, and each defendant being connected, though differently, with the whole dispute:</p> <p>6. Equity @=147 — Multifariousness.</p> <p>That complainants prayed for relief to which they were not entitled, or alleged facts not material to relief, would not make bill multifarious.</p> <p>7. Statutes @=3 — Enactment—Legislature De Facto.</p> <p>• That there had been no compliance with Const. Fla. art. 7, §§ 3-5, which requires Legislature every 10 years to apportion representation, would not make invalid laws passed by a subsequent Legislature; a Legislature regularly organized and recognized as the existing Legislature being the “Legislature de facto.”</p> <p>8. Drains @=13 — Reclamation—Subdistricts—Authority to Create.</p> <p>It is within the authority of the Legislature to create a subdistrict for reclamation of a larger district theretofore created.</p> <p>9. Courts @=351% — Federal Procedure — Motion to Dismiss — Functions.</p> <p>A motion to dismiss under equity rules takes place of a demurrer, and admits the facts alleged.</p> <p><©c»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NTJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>10. Drains ©=>2(1) — Statute—Validity.</p> <p>Laws Fla. 1917, c. 7430, does not violate Const. Fla. art. 6, § 7; it not creating the office of drainage supervisors for a greater i>eriod than four years.</p> <p>11. Drains ©=>88 — Collection or Taxes — Failure to Make Deunquknt Returns.</p> <p>That drainage supervisors, instead of having tax collectors return books as delinquent, authorized books to be retained and tax continued to be collected, would not invalidate tax, although such action was unauthorized.</p> <p>12. Drains @=>69- -Taxes — 'Validity.</p> <p>That uniform acreage tax of 25 cents per acre, instead of 24% cents, imposed by drainage board, pursuant to Laws Fla. 1917, c. 7430, § 7, would produce a surplus over estimated expense, would not invalidate tax.</p> <p>13. Equity @=>264 — Motion to Strike — Sumtciisnoy.</p> <p>Motion, undertaking to reach certain parts of bill by setting out effect of portions to which It refers, will not be considered, as court cannot be required to go through the entire pleading to find what portion is attacked by motion to strike.</p> <p><§rs>Eor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>At Law. Actions by the Commercial Credit Company against the United Divers’ Supply Company. On demurrers to pleas to declarations and replies to pleas.</p>

<p>3. SltTrUING @=>145 — rioVEBNMENTAH INTERFERENCE-PREPAID FREIGHT — ‘RETENTION by Carrier.</p> <p>Whore libelant shipped Tarnishes upon a steamship, prepaying freight, and receiving a bill of lading, releasing carrier from loss through restraint of rulers or people, and providing prepaid freight he considered as earned and retained by carrier, ‘‘vessel or cargo lost or not lost,” and after loading the United States refused the owner license to ship, the carrier could retain prepaid freight.</p> <p>2. Shipping @=»145 — Bums of Lading — Earned Freight Boss — Pitbeio Por,toy — Time of War.</p> <p>Insertion by shipowner of clause In bill of lading providing that prepaid freight be considered earned on shipment and retained by carriel’, “vessel or cargo lost or not lost,” is not in contravention of public policy in time of war.</p> <p>S. Shipping @=>] Id-Bill of Daring — Consideration.</p> <p>Whore a carrier loaded goods on a vessel for shipment, and freight was prepaid, and carrier was forced to unload the goods through ship-ports failure to secure license from the United States, such was not a “commercial frustration of the adventure,” constituting failure of consideration.</p> <p>^saJTov other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBIÜR in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In Admiralty. Libel by the Gulf Refining Company against the bark Portugal, in which certain members of the crew of the steamship Gulf of Mexico intervened.

<p>1. Bankruptcy <@=342 — Re-examination of Claim — Referee's Order.</p> <p>Order of referee in bankruptcy, on petition to re-examine claim, allowing insolvent bank’s claim conditionally on receiver making payment to trustee in bankruptcy, is not justified under Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, § 57k (Comp. St. 1916, § 9841), providing that claims which have been allowed may be reconsidered for cause, and reallowed or rejected, in whole or in part.</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy <@=159 — Voidable “Preference” — Deposit in Bank.</p> <p>Deposit of money by receiver of bankrupt in cheeking account with hank to which bankrupt was indebted, and which subsequently closed its doors, was not a “preference” voidable under the Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, § 60b (Comp. St. 1916, § 9644).</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Wiords and Phrases, First and Second Series, Preference.]</p> <p>3. Bankruptcy <@=178(1) — “Conveyance”—“Transfer.”</p> <p>Deposit of money by receiver of bankrupt in checking account with hank to which bankrupt was indebted, and which subsequently closed its doors, was not a “conveyance” or “transfer,” etc., void or voidable under Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, § 67e (Comp-. St. 1916, § 9651).</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Conveyance; Transfer.]</p> <p>4. Bankruptcy <@=169 — Right of Set-Off.</p> <p>' Where, on date of adjudication, bankrupt was indebted to bank, and his receiver, between date of adjudication and date when bank closed its doors, deposited in general cheeking account sum less than bankrupt’s indebtedness to bank, under federal Bankruptcy Act, neither bank nor its receiver could apply deposit to payment of debt to bank, nor could the bankrupt’s trustees apply it to discharge pro tanto of the debt.</p> <p>5. Bankruptcy <@=314(2) — Insolvency—Right of Creditor.</p> <p>On bankruptcy, creditor becomes equitable cestui que trust in assets in proportion that his claim bears to total amount, and his right to participate may not be diminished by claims arising, subsequently to bankruptcy; right to participate being determined as of date of bankruptcy.</p> <p>6. Banks and Banking <@=288 — Insolvency—Claims.</p> <p>On insolvency of national bank and appointment of receiver, creditor becomes equitable cestui que trust in assets in proportion that his claim bears to total amount, and his right to participate may not be diminished by claims arising subsequently to insolvency; right to participate being determined as of date of insolvency.</p> <p>@=For other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>7. Banks and Banking —General Deposit — Relationship op “Debt- or and Qkeditor.”</p> <p>A general deposit of money in a checking account with a bank created simply the relation of “debtor and creditor” between the bank and the depositor.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Second Series, Debtor and Creditor.]</p> <p>.<§=>For other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against Theodore B. Pape. On demurrer to indictment.</p>

<p>1. Salvage ©=»30 — Compensation—Salving Stranded Steamship.</p> <p>A tug, which at the second trial on the next high tide floated a steamship worth, with her cargo, $1,000,000, which was stranded off the Florida coast at a dangerous season, although the weather was fair, the work being efficiently done, held entitled to an award of $40,000.</p> <p>2. Salvage <3==>26 — Elements op Award.</p> <p>A tug. which anchored her two barges while salving a stranded steamship, and then proceeded alone to a port and remained two days while trying to adjust the salvage, held not entitled to recover for damage subsequently suffered by the barges, consequent upon the delay.</p> <p><g^>For other cases see samo topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy. In the matter of W. C. Evans, bankrupt. On review of order of referee.</p>

<p>1. Bankruptcy <@=>400(4) — Petition to Review — Record.</p> <p>The file marks, showing when the trustee’s report setting aside exemptions, and the creditor’s exceptions thereto were filed, must be accepted as establishing those dates, where on petition to review the referee’s order sustaining the exceptions it was contended they were not filed within 20 days as required by General Order XVII.</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy <@=>396(1) — Exemptions—Precedents.</p> <p>The bankruptcy court, in allowing exemptions under the state laws, must be governed by the construction and interpretation of the highest court of the state.</p> <p>3. Bankruptcy <@=>399(3) — Exemption—Allowance.</p> <p>A Florida, bankrupt held not entitled to the full homestead exemption claimed out of his stock, which he undervalued, it appearing that he made preferential payments shortly before his bankruptcy, and that in contemplation of that event he ceased making deposits in the bank and to keep proper accounts; so the referee’s reduction of the amount allowed by the trustee was proper.</p> <p><§moFor other cases .see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>4. Bankruptcy <@=»444 — Petition to Keview--Trans for Settings Down.</p> <p>The District Court has power, upon cause shown, to suspend the rule requiring petitions for review to bo set down in 20 days.</p> <p>other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Army and Navy <S==>20 — Seueotive Draft Law — ■Faii.urio to Register — Absentees from Country.</p> <p>Tinder Selective Draft Act, § 5, and the regulations thereunder, which require persons subject to registration who were absent from the United States on registration day to register within five days after their return, such a person cannot avoid the duty by again leaving the United States before the expiration of the five days.</p> <p>sg=»For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1, Bankruptcy <gs»138(l) — Administratrix™Property Passing to Trustee.</p> <p>Where an administratrix, without authority from the probate court, continued the mercantile business of decedent, purchasing new goods and contracting new debts, all merchandise on hand acquired by her and all accounts accruing to her after her appointment are property of her estate in bankruptcy, as well as proceeds of accounts made while the business was conducted by her receiver.</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy @=»143(9) — Beceiver—Collection or Bents.</p> <p>Where an intestate left real estate which was conveyed by the next oí kin to bankrupt, who held it at the time of bankruptcy, and no proceedings for its sale lo pay debts of decedent had been taken, a receiver in bankruptcy is entitled to collect the rents.</p> <p>©=»3ror other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBEB in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexe»’</p>

<p>At Law. Action by the United States against Tv. Rosenburg & Sons, a corporation. On demurrer to declaration.</p>

In Equity. Bill of interpleader by the New York Fife Insurance Company against Georgia Kennedy and others. On complainant’s motion to strike out certain portions of answer of defendant Thomas R. L. Daughtery.

<p>Seamen <§=>28 — Shake in Earnings — Supplies.</p> <p>IViiere cruise is made on agreement for sharing in net earnings, the owner of the boat, being a merchant, and furnishing the supplies, may charge the market price, and need not furnish goods from his store at cost, or give the crew the benefit of trade discount in purchase from other merchants.</p> <p><§s»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>At Law. Action by the United States against the Guaranty Trust & Savings Bank.</p>

<p>in Equity. Suit by the Central Trust Company of Illinois and William T. Abbott against the Union Terminal Company and others. On exceptions to the master’s report.</p>

<p>Bankruptcy <@=>213 — Powers of Court — Determining Validity oe Mort- ■ Gage.</p> <p>Wliere a trustee has possession of mortgaged real estate in another state, the court of original Jurisdiction has power to. summarily determine the validity of the mortgage and to restrain a sale thereunder if it has jurisdiction over the person of the mortgagee; but the customary procedure is to permit a foreclosure suit to be brought in which the validity of the mortgage may be determined.</p> <p><§z»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Bankruptcy <@=>84 — Involuntary Petition — Amendment.</p> <p>A petition in involuntary bankruptcy may be amended, although the alleged act of bankruptcy has occurred more than four months prior to the amendment.</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy <@=>84 — Involuntary Petition — Amendments.</p> <p>Where a petition for leave to amend an involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed, and a consent order was entered that the petition “be and the same is hereby amended as prayed,” and the petition for and containing the amendments was properly signed and sworn to by the petitioning creditors, the amendments were sufficiently signed and sworn to.</p> <p><@=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Carriers <@=5411 — Carriage of Passengers — Assault—Liability os* Pullman Company.</p> <p>Where the porter of a Pullman car conspired and colluded with a passenger in the latter’s making of an assault upon another passenger while in her berth, the Pullman Company was liable to the assaulted passenger.</p> <p>2. Carriers <@=5411 — Carriage of Passengers — Liability for Assault.</p> <p>Where passenger on Pullman car indicated he intended to assault woman passenger in her berth, who rang bell for porter and conductor, and they failing to respond, whereupon assault was committed, Pullman Company was not liable, unless it or the porter had reasonable ground to believe violence was imminent.</p> <p><§s^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-N UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Index*»</p>

<p>Iti Bankruptcy. In the matter of the bankruptcy of Adela Abramovitz. On motions to strike specifications of objection to discharge.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Charles Minners, bankrupt. On petition to reopen estate.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Morris Kaufman, bankrupt. On petition to set aside order of dismissal.</p>

<p>Master and Servant <§=»25, 59 — Contract of Employment — Impossibility of Performance.</p> <p>It is an implied condition of a contract for employment in a special service for a term of years that in case of involuntary inability, to perform by either party no damages for breach are recoverable.</p> <p>other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

C. Van Elect, Judge. Action at law hy the Trojan Powder Company against the firemen’s Fund Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Dooling, Judge. Suit in admiralty for collision, by the San Francisco '& Portland Steamship Company, owner of the steamship Beaver, against the steam schooner Necanicum, the Deggett Steamship Company, claimant, with cross-libel. Decree for respondent on cross-libel, and libelant appeals.

Dietrich, Judge. Suit in equity by J. Paul Thompson and others against the Emmett Irrigation District and others. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal.

Cushman, Judge. Action at law by the Lloyds’ Plate Glass Insurance Company against the City of Seattle. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

<p>1. Subrogation <S=»7(1) — Rights op Surety — Payment of Debt.</p> <p>It is a general rule that a surety on payment of the debt is entitled to all the collaterals, securities, and other protection held by the principal creditor, to whom the debt is paid, emanating from the principal debtor, for whom the debt is paid.</p> <p>2. Subrogation <@^31(3) — Payment oe Debt by Surety — Right to Assignment ojt Securities.</p> <p>Unless in exceptional circumstances, the' surety on a supersedeas bond given pending proceedings in error to reverse a judgment, on payment of the judgment after affirmance is entitled to an assignment of the same,' where necessary to its efficient and prompt enforcement against the judgment defendant.</p> <p>3. Appeal and Error <S=al244 — Suit by Surety on Supersedeas Bond— Parties.</p> <p>A judgment defendant is not a necessary party to a suit by the surety on Ms supersedeas bond brought after affirmance of the judgment to enjoin prosecution of an action on the bond by the judgment plaintiff.</p> <p><S=oFor other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Suit in admiralty by Harriett A. Healey against the Moran Towing & Transportation Company and the Cranford Company, impleaded. Decree for libelant, and the Cranford Company appeals. This cause comes here upon appeal from a final decree entered, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 1, 1917.

<p>1. Contracts <§=>23 — Meeting oe Minds — Additional Agreement.</p> <p>Where defendants accepted plaintiff’s proposal to buy notes of a corporation to be organized by defendants, the notes to be secured by a mortgage on ships, plaintiff’s demand for an abstract of title, and that the deal be not consummated until title was approved by its attorneys, did not warrant defendants in repudiating the agreement on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds, for the offer was impliedly conditioned that title was good.</p> <p>. 2. Contracts <§=>2S(3) — Action—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action for profits which plaintiff claimed to have lost because of defendants’ breach of an agreement whereby plaintiff was to purchase notes of a corporation to be organized by defendants, the notes to be secured by a mortgage on a fleet of ships, evidence held to warrant a finmng that a binding contract had been entered into.</p> <p>3. Corporations <@==>30(5) — Actions—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action for breach of an agreement whereby plaintiff was to.purchase notes of a corporation to be-organized by defendants, the notes to be secured by mortgage on ships, held, that defendants could not escape liability on the ground the contract was one of promoters, which defendants were making as agents for a corporation then in existence, whose name was not disclosed.</p> <p>4. Corporations <§=>218 — Contracts by Stockholders — Persons Bound.</p> <p>Where persons agree that a corporation shall do a certain thing, which they can compel it tó do because of their ownership of a majority of the stock, the corporation is not bound by the agreement; but such persons bind themselves individually, unless the agreement specifies to the contrary.</p> <p>5. Appeal and Error <§=>273(5) — Review—Sufficiency of Objections Below.</p> <p>A general exception to a portion of the court’s charge, which did not specifically point out the error relied on, is insufficient to warrant an appellate court in reviewing the same on error.</p> <p>6. Contracts <§=>346(3) — Actions—Defenses—Pleading.</p> <p>Where defendants repudiated a contract that plaintiff should purchase notes of a corporation they were to organize, the notes to be secured by a mortgage on ships, and impossibility of the condition as to insuring the ships was not pleaded as a defense, it cannot be relied upon.</p> <p><§=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Petition to Revise and Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. In the matter of the bankruptcy of G. Franklin Stringer, individually and as sole surviving partner of Stringer & Co. The referee held that certain property was firm property, and his action was sustained by the District Court. From such order Mary E. Lewis and others appeal, and also petition to revise.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Western District of Washington; Edward E. Cushman, Judge.</p> <p>In the matter of A. E. Brown and the community consisting of A. E. Brown and Emma Brown, his wife, alleged bankrupts; W. H. Kenworthy & Son and .others, petitioners. The alleged bankrupts and the Dexter Horton National Bank of Seattle appeal from an order of adjudication.</p>

<p>Public Lands <3=29 — Reserved Lands — Rights of Homestead Applicant.</p> <p>Where the statute opening an Indian reservation to settlement authorized the Secretary of the Interior to reserve land for town sites and the proclamation issued pursuant thereto in terms applied only to unreserved land, no rights on a tract reserved for a town site can be acquired by a homestead application.</p> <p><@c»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Idaho; Frank S. Dietrich, Judge.</p> <p>Action at law by Andy Anderson against tire Federal Mining & Smelting Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

Bill by Max Taigman against Samuel Desure, trading as D. & D. Eledtric Company, and'another. From a decree for complainant, holding the first patent valid and infringed, and dismissing the hill for infringement as to the second patent, the parties cross-appeal.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; Frederic Dodge, Judge.</p> <p>Suit in equity by the Matteawan Manufacturing Company against the Emmons Bros. Company. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals.</p>

<p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against Charles G. Schulze. On motion for new trial.</p>

<p>In Admiralty. Suit for salvage by Carl F. Andersen, master of the Danish steamer Jelling, and others, against the schooner William Cobb.</p>

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Conrad C. Reiswig, bankrupt. On petitions of John Vallely, trustee, for review of order of referee, and of John P. Galbraith for review of second order.

<p>In Admiralty. Libel by William Crone against the gasoline schooner Magnolia.</p>

<p>Richard Murphy, Baron Eugene Francois Ernest Oppenheim, and Howard J. Rogers were indicted for crime. On motion to direct a verdict of acquittal in favor of Oppenheim and Rogers.</p>

<p>Tu Bankruptcy. In the matter o£ Celestina Fernandez and Manuel Fernandez, doing business as the El Sevilla Restaurant and the El Moderno Restaurant, alleged bankrupts. On motion to open decree fixing liability of petitioning creditors and sureties.</p>

<p>Petition of Morris Platt for writ of habeas corpus and of certiorari.</p>

<p>In admiralty. Suit for collision by the Noiton-Crossing Company against the French bark Quevilly. Decree for libelant.</p>

M. Bourquin, Judge. R. R. Sidebotham and J. G. G. Wilmot were convicted of using the post office for a scheme to defraud and they bring error.

<p>1. Appeal and Error <©=v784 — Federal Courts — Dismissal Because op Error in Method op Review.</p> <p>By the express terms of Act Sept. 6, 1916, § 4 (Comp. St. 1916, § 1649a), a federal appellate court having jurisdiction to review a cause may not dismiss a writ of error solely because an appeal should have been taken, but must disregard the error.-</p> <p>2. Master and Servant <®=3316(1) — Master’s Liability fob Injury to Servant- — Independent Contractor.</p> <p>Where a steamship, lying in a harbor and being unable to reach' the docks, employed and paid a firm to carry passengers and others to and from the shore in launches, such firm was not an independent contractor as to one injured in a launch, but its employés were pro hac vice employés of the ship.</p> <p>3. Master and Servant <S=v89(1) — Master’s Liability por Injury to Servant — Safe Place to Work.</p> <p>The rule respecting a safe place to work and approaches to it does not apply to the case of a seaman in returning to liis ship from the shore, . where he had been on his own business, not connected with his employment.</p> <p>4. Master and Servant <©=>120 — Personal Injuries — Liability op Ship.</p> <p>Injury to a seaman by falling, while attempting to step_ from a launch to the gangplank of the ship in rough weather and carrying packages in his arms, held not due to negligence of the ship.</p> <p><§rxoFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

H. Sawtelle, Judge. Action by Nick Kucban against the United Verde Copper Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. This is an action for damages Cor personal injuries received by the defendant in error while employed by the plaintiff in error in its mine in Yavapai county, Ariz.

<p>Salks ©=3359(1) — Action for Purchase Price — Sufficiency of Evidence.</p> <p>Evidence held to sustain a verdict finding that there was a sale and delivery to defendant of personal property and its acceptance.</p> <p>@=»JTor other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Evidence <3=122(6) — Bes Gestas--Statement Connected with Event.</p> <p>A statement made by plaintiff, shortly before he fell from an unlighted station platform on defendant’s railroad and was injured, that he was there to take an incoming train, held admissible as part of the res geste.</p> <p>2. Evidence <®=155(11) — Competency—Similar Evidence by Adverse Party.</p> <p>Testimony in rebuttal that plaintiff in personal, injury case was not intoxicated, reinvent in contradiclion and explanation of testimony introduced by defendant over plaintiff’s objection, held properly admitted.</p> <p>3. New Trial <s=6 — Discretion op Court.</p> <p>The denial of a motion for a new trial in the federal courts is within the discrelion of the court.</p> <p>4. Appeal and Error <3=977(1) — -Review—New Trial.</p> <p>Where the court exercises its discretion in denying a motion for new trial, and there is evidence supporting the judgment, motion is not reviewable on writ of error.</p> <p>@=oFor other cases see same topic & KE Y -NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>L Patents <@=328 — Validity—Cap for Bottles.</p> <p>Tbe Recht patent, No. 796,356, for improvement in caps for bottles, held void for lack of patentable novelty, in view'of the prior art.</p> <p>2.'Patents <@=42 — Improvement Patents — Validity.</p> <p>In considering the claims of a first improver upon a specific device, when asserted against third persons, it is often useful to inquire whether his claims could have been asserted by the improver against the inventor and patentee of the specific device upon which the improvement was made.</p> <p><@=For other oases Bee same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States, for the West-'em Division of the Northern District of Ohio; John M. Killits, Judge.</p> <p>Suit in equity by the Mathews Gravity Carrier Company against the IIuebner-Toledo ¡Breweries Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Patents i@=>328 — Invention—Dumping Body fob Vehicles.</p> <p>The Windsor patent, No. 1,181,192, for a dumping body for vehicles, held void for'lack of invention.</p> <p><§x»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Equity. Suit by the Politeer Toy Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, against the National French Fancy Novelty Company, Incorporated, involving patent No. 844,577, to Martha Borchardt, dated February 19, 1907.</p>

In Equity. Suit by the Gas & Electric Securities Company against the Manhattan & Queens Traction Corporation. On petition of William R. Begg and Arthur C. Hume, receivers of defendant, for permission to charge an increase in fare and increase wages of employes.

<p>In Bankruptcy. In the matter of George D. Bishop, bankrupt. On application for discharge.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy.' In the matter of Maurice Bightstone, bankrupt. On review of decision of referee.</p>

<p>Appeal and Error <§=>461- — Supersedeas-Cost Bond.</p> <p>A bond given by plaintiff in error in an action at law, conditioned for payment of “all costs and damages that may be awarded against it, if it shall fail to make its plea good,” unless so specified in the approval, does not operate as a supersedeas.</p> <p><@^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Bankruptcy <@=^412 — Discharge—Notice to Creditors op" Application.</p> <p>The provision of Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, § 58a, requiring 30 days’ notice to 'creditors of an application for discharge, is mandatory, and the notice jurisdictional.</p> <p><@c»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

At I,aw. Action by Nellie Wainwright, administratrix, against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. On demurrer to plea in abatement. The plaintiff on May 6, 1918, instituted this action to recover damages under the Employers’ Liability Act (Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 [Comp.

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Arthur E. Simmons and John J. Griffin, partners, bankrupts. On petition to review order of referee directing Arthur É. Simmons, one of the bankrupts, to turn over to the trustee a certain life insurance policy.

<p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against Sarah Lewis, Roy Lewis, and Louis Valencia. On demurrer to indictment.</p>

<p>1. Assumpsit, Action of <®=»1, 10 — Pennsylvania Practice — Equitable Defenses — Interpleader.</p> <p>Under the Pennsylvania practice,' an action in assumpsit is open to equitable defenses, and when the real issue-is, not whether the defendant owes, or how much, but to whom the money owed rightfully belongs, tlie action is transformed from one in debt to an interpleader proceeding between the respective claimants.</p> <p>2. Interpleader <s^>32 — Money Paid into Court by Defendant — Ricura to Have Ownership Determined.</p> <p>When a court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter, and emphatically when that subject-matter is money paid into court for the express purpose of having its ownership determined therein, there is no legal procedure obstacle in the way of such determination.</p> <p>8. Bankruptcy <3=>172 — Property Passing to Trustee — Money Assigned by Bankrupt.</p> <p>An assignment by a contractor for city work of all money to become due under the contract to tho surety on his bond, which on his default completed the work at a loss, held to entitle the surety, as against, the contractor’s trustee in bankruptcy, to sums earned before default, but reserved by the city, although the city was not notified of the assignment.</p> <p><gs»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against Charles Bordonaro and John Marino. On demurrer to indictment.</p>

<p>Removal or Causes <§=>73(6) — Time fob Riling Petition- — Extension or Time to Plead.</p> <p>Under Code Oiv. Proc. Cal. § 585, subd. 1, requiring defendant to answer within the time specified in the summons, “or such: further time as may have been granted,” an extension may be granted by stipulation of counsel, and at any time within such extension defendant may file a petition for removal.</p> <p><gs»For other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Leonard Foster and others were convicted of violating the Espión age Act (Act June 15, 1917, c. 30, 40 Stat. 217), and they bring error. The plaintiffs in error were civilian employes for a contractor who was doing work at the Camp Lewis cantonment. They were indictment in six counts, throe of which charged offenses committed on November 10, 1917, and the others charged offenses committed on November 13, 1917.

In Admiralty. Suit against the schooner Malcolm Baxter, Jr., for breach of charter. This is a suit in rem in the admiralty against the schooner Malcolm Baxter, Jr., to recover freight prepaid under the terms of a charter party entered into between the parties on January 23, 1917. The claimant was the owner of the schooner, and the libelant the owner of a cargo of com oil meal which they wished to ship to Holland.

<p>In Admiralty. Suits by H. Baars & Co., a corporation, against the British steamship Adriatic and against W. H. Cockerline & Co., owners of the Adriatic. Sur trial hearing on libel, answer, and proofs.</p> <p>The ship was chartered to libelant; the charter party containing the following provisions:</p> <p>“20. The act of God, * * * arrests and restraints of princes, rulers, and people, * * * excepted.”</p> <p>“28. If vessel he requisitioned by the British admiralty, this charter is to be null and void.”</p> <p>The suit was for breach of such charter. On hearing of the case the British embassy appeared by counsel, who, as amici curiae, filed the following suggestions:</p> <p>(1) That the British steamship Adriatic was duly requisitioned by the British admiralty, which is an integral part of the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, by a notice dated the 8th day of November, 1915, served on her owners, W. H. Cockerline & C'o., at Hull, England, on or about that date. Pursuant to such requisition the British consul general at Philadelphia, Pa., by order of the admiralty, gave instructions to the master of the Adriatic, on November 23, 1015, as to the subsequent movements of the vessel. The period of tho requisition was indefinite, and after it became operative as aforesaid the steamship Adriatic was continuously in tho service of the British government until her loss at sea on or about October 31, 1916, and during that period she was operated solely under the orders and directions of the British admiralty.</p> <p>(2) That the steamship Adriatic was of British registry, and belonged to subjecls of Great Britain, and the requisition of said steamship was a governmental action, by the government of Great Britain, and should not be inquired into by this court.</p> <p>(3) That by reason of the said requisition the steamship Adriatic was, - at the time of the service of the process, of this court in these causes, a vessel in the service of the British admiralty and under its direction and - control, and as such was not subject to arrest or detention "by process of this court.</p> <p>(4) That this court should decline to adjudicate these cases, on the ground that they involve the relations between the British government and the owners of a British steamship, and call for a determination by this court of the effect of governmental acts of the British government, and are, in effect, an attempt on the part of the libelants to hold the respondent liable for such acts.</p> <p>(5) That this court should decline to adjudicate upon any rights or claims of the libelants as charterers of a British steamship against the said steamship or her owner, in so far as such rights or claims arise out of the requisition of the said steamship by the British government.</p>

<p>1. Constitutional Law <@=>284(2) — ■“Due Process of Law” — Taxation.</p> <p>Taxation, general or special, is a legislative function, and it is not necessary to “due process of law” that the matter of assessment and levy shall ever come before a court, but it is sufficient that at some stage in the proceedings the parties affected shall have an opportunity to be board.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Se'cond Series, Due Process of Law.]</p> <p>2. Removal of Causes <@=>23 — Supplemental Opinion-Right of Removal —“Suit”—Transposition of Pakties.</p> <p>Under a state statute establishing drainage districts, authorizing them to construct drains and assess the cost on property benefited, and giving the property owner a right of appeal from the assessment to the district court, such an appeal is a “suit,” in which the appellant is defendant, within the meaning of the Removal Act (Comp. Si. 1916, § 1910).</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Suit.]</p> <p>3. Removal of Causes <g=>3 — Right of Removal — Designation of Pakties in State Court.</p> <p>A state statute cannot deprive a party of the right of removal by designating him as plaintiff in a particular class of suits where he is essentially defendant.</p> <p><@=>ffor caller cases see same topic & KBi-NU AIDER, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In Equity. Suit by the Columbus Railway, Power & Light Company against the City of Columbus, Ohio, George J. Karb, Mayor, and others. On motion by complainant for preliminary injunction, and by defendants to dismiss.

<p>In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Myer Myerson, individually and as surviving partner of the firm of Strat & Myerson. Sur motion for attachment.</p>

<p>In Equity. Suit by Jared Y. Sanders against the Southern Traction Company of Illinois and others. On exceptions to the master’s report.</p>

" At Raw. Action hy Harry C„ Netherwood against George W. Raymer. On July 1, 1911, the defendant sold to the plaintiff 28 shares of the capital stock of the Democrat Printing Company. The purchase price was §65,000, of which 35,000 was paid in cash, and 10 notes for §6,000 each, payable at the Capital City Bank of Madison, Wis., on or before 10 years from date, were given for the balance.

<p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against Colgate & Co., a corporation. On demurrer to indictment.</p>

<p>1. Chattel Mortgages <S=>198 — Withholding from Record — Validity Against Creditor.</p> <p>An unrecorded mortgage on a stock of goods is subject to be vacated as a fraud on subsequent creditors, if witlilield from record by agreement or understanding between its parties, so as not to affect mortgagor’s credit.</p> <p>2. Appeal and Error <@=»H77(6) — -Remand fob New Trial — Misapprehension of Fact.</p> <p>, It fairly appearing from trial court’s opinion that the conflicting evidence, on the question of an unrecorded mortgage on stock of goods being in fraud of subsequent creditors, was not duly considered, because of misapprehension that mortgagee had agreed to sell mortgagor all the goods it needed, and so did not contemplate that mortgagor would seek credit elsewhere, there will be a reversal and remand for new trial.</p> <p>other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes^</p>

Petition to Revise Order of the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. In the matter of the bankruptcy of D'ave Phillips. Petition by George R. Bassett, trustee in bankruptcy, against herd Evans and others to set aside a mortgage as a preference. From a decree denying the petition, the trustee appeals, and also petitions to revise.

<p>1. Bankruptcy <§=»205 — Trustee—Rights of.</p> <p>Though the trustee in bankruptcy of a mortgagor be conceded to have ■ the rights of an attaching creditor, and not mortgagor, in property of bankrupt, he would not have any greater rights than mortgagor to fixtures annexed to mortgaged property prior to bankruptcy.</p> <p><®=aFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>2. Appeal and Error <g=>50JL(3) — Presentation op Grounds of Review in Oourt Below — Assignments of Error.</p> <p>An assignment of error, based on an offer of proof therein set forth, presents nothing for review, where the record fails to disclose that it was excluded, or, if excluded, that an exception was taken thereto.</p> <p><£=oFor other caaes see same topic & K33Y-NUMBQR. in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Army and Navy <@=>40 — Obstruction of Recruiting — Indictment.</p> <p>An indictment charging that defendant made statements in a public address that any person who enlisted for service in France would be used for fertilizer, etc., with the intent of obstructing the enlistment service of the United States, held sufficient to charge the offense of obstructing the recruiting and enlistment service, in violation of Espionage Act, tit. 1, § 3.</p> <p>2. Army and Navy <§=>40 — Enlistment and Recruiting — “Obstruct.”</p> <p>A speech in which defendant stated that any one enlisting for service in France would be used for fertilizer, etc., held to violate Espionage Act, tit. 1, § 3, denouncing the offense of willfully obstructing the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States; the expression “obstruct” contemplating more than a physical obstruction.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Obstruct.]</p> <p>3. Criminal Law <§=>829(1), 834(2) — Trial—Instructions.</p> <p>The refusal of a requested instruction substantially covered by the principal charge was not error, for the court is not required to use the precise language of counsel.</p> <p>4. Army and Navy <§=>40 — Obstruction of Enlistment — Essentials.</p> <p>To sustain a conviction of willfully obstructing the recruiting and enlistment service, etc., in violation of Espionage Act, tit. 1, § 3, by speeches calculated to have that effect, it is not necessary to show any particular person was prevented from enlisting.</p> <p><gn=For other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Courts <§=308 — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction—Diversity oe Citizenship.</p> <p>Suit is not maintainable in federal court on ground of diversity of citizenship, defendants and one of plaintiffs being citizens of the same state.</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy <@=293(1)--Suit Ancillary to Bankruptcy Proceeding.</p> <p>A suit having for one object discharge of one plaintiff from liability on payment of fund into court, to be interpleaded for by defendants, one of whom was trustee in bankruptcy, and for its other object enjoining proceedings by the trustee against the other plaintiff, held not ancillary to bankruptcy proceeding, as regards jurisdiction of federal court without diversity of citizenship.</p>

<p>1. Internal Revenue @=>11 — Habrison Anti-Narootic Act.</p> <p>Tlie Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. 1916, §§ 6287g-G287q) is valid as a revenue measure, having substantial relation to the raising of revenue, by bringing the traffic in such drugs into the open, and it is immaterial that another purpose of Congress may have been the suppression of the drug habit.</p> <p>2. Criminal Daw @=>394(4) — Judicial Knowledge — Meaning of Words.</p> <p>Evidence that morphine, heroin, and cocaine are derivatives of opium and coca leaves is unnecessary, on prosecution for .violation of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. 1916, §§ 6287g-6287q); it being a matter of meaning of words long in common use, about which there is no obscurity, controversy, or dispute.</p> <p>3. Poisons @=>4 — Harbison Anti-Narcotic Act — Sale by Physician as Dealer.</p> <p>Relative to violation of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. 1910, §§ 6287g-6287<l) by selling without written orders from purchasers, it is immaterial that defendant is a phvsician; his sales not being in the practice of his profession, but as a registered dealer.</p> <p><3^s>For other cases seo same topic & KIQY-NUA1BEÍI in ail Key-Numbered Digests & indexes</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri; Arba S. Van Yallcenburgh, Judge.</p> <p>U. S. G. Hughes was convicted of violation of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Act Dec. 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Slat. 785 [Comp. St. 1916, §§ 6287g-S287q]), and brings error.</p>

W. Woodrough, Judge. Action between George A. McNee and James E. Whitehead. There was a judgment for the latter, and the former brings error.

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Utah; Tillman D. Johnson, Judge.</p> <p>Action by Catherine Savage and others, widow and minor children of John Savage, deceased, against the Daly-West Mining Company and others, for death of deceased. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.</p>

<p>Indians <@=13 — Allotment—Selection.</p> <p>As Act Feb. 8, 1887 (Comp. St. 1916, § 4195 et seep), Act Jan. 14, 1889, and Act April 28, 1904, do not require the distribution of all lands embraced in tho White Earth reservation, reservation of land by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the treaty of 1867 for an agency farm, etc., will not be reviewed, and, there being other land, an Indian is not entitled to select such land as an allotment.</p> <p>other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri; David P. Dyer, Judge.</p> <p>Suit by the Mazer Cigar Manufacturing Company against Harriet Ury and another. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal.</p>

Petition to Review and Revise Order of, and Appeal from, the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. In the matter of Francis G. Porter, bankrupt. Petition by James W. Taylor, trustee in bankruptcy, against Elbridge Hanecy. There was an order in favor of petitioner, and defendant petitions to review and revise, and also appeals.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas; John C. Pollock, Judge.</p> <p>Petition for a writ of habeas corpus by August Brinkman against Thomas M. Morgan, Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan. From an order denying his discharge, petitioner appeals.</p>

Pollock, Judge. Proceeding by the United States of America against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company for violation of the Hours of Service Act. There was a judgment for the United States, and defendant brings error.

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia; Beverly D. Evans, Judge.</p> <p>Will Hunnicutt and others were convicted of illicit distilling, and they bring error.</p>

Cross-Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Oliver B. Dickinson, Judge. Bill by the Union Special Machine Company against the Quaker City Flour Mills Company. Bill dismissed (236 Fed. 246), and complainant appeals; defendant prosecuting cross-appeal.

At L,aw. Action by J. A. Hailey, J. W. Stneecl, and C. R. Smeed, copartners doing business as the Caldwell Horse & Mule Company, against the Oregon Short L,ine Railroad Company, a corporation. On motion to strike a portion of the answer, and demurrer thereto.

<p>In Equity. Suit by Mathilde Cardoner against Eugene R. Day and others.</p>

<p>Action by the United States against Antonio Fabata and the National Surety Company. On application by the Surety Company for remission of penalty of bail bond.</p> <p>This is an application by the National Surety Company for the remission of the whole or a part of the penalty of a bond in a criminal case executed by Antonio Fabata, as principal, and the National Surety Company, as surety, for the appearance of said Fabata to stand trial on an indictment found against him and which bond has been reduced to a judgment.</p>

<p>1. Contracts <3=»284(á) — Decision of Engineer or Architect — Effect.</p> <p>Where construction contract provided, that work should be done under the supervision of an engineer, who was empowered to determine classification and allow estimates, his decision can be impeached only for fraud and gross mistake, implying bad faith.</p> <p>2. Municipal Corporations @=»374(1) — -Contracts—Construction.</p> <p>Where city enters into a contract with a contractor to build a building or lay a sewer, it warrants, just the same as a private owner would warrant, delivery of the site upon which the work is to be constructed, and in event of failure is responsible to the contractor for damages resulting.</p> <p>;>. ¡Municipal Corporations <g=»370 — Contracts—Liability.</p> <p>Where municipality, which contracted for the laying of a sewer, did not have title to the site selected, and the contractor was by that reason delayed and injured, held that, the municipality being liable for such damages, payment could properly be made without any supplemental contract.</p> <p>4. Municipal Corporations i3s»370 — Contracts—Liability.</p> <p>Where a municipality, which contracted for the laying of a sewer, did not own the site selected, and the contractor was damaged, held that, having paid such damages, the municipality could not recover the same, nor set them off in an action by the contractor, though the procedure for payment was irregular.</p> <p><®=s>Eor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Replevin ©=>8.(5) — Who may Maintain — Joint Owners.</p> <p>Where at most an assignment could only make plaintiff a joint owner of property held by defeudant as joint owner, replevin cannot be maintained;- for, being a possessory action, replevin cannot be maintained, unless plaintiff is entitled to immediate exclusive possession.</p> <p>2. Carriers ©=58~Transfer of Bill of Lading — Effect on Title — Bulky Artioms.</p> <p>The transfer to plaintiff of hills of lading for a shipment of logwood consigned by the owner to defendant, together with an assignment, etc., held, in view of the bulky character of the, property to vest plaintiff with title thereto.</p> <p>S. Sales ©=233(8) — Rights as Against Third Persons — Notice—Evidence —Sufficiency.</p> <p>Defendant held to have had notice, etc., of the transfer to plain!iff of logwood consigned to defendant, before the logwood was manufactured Into extract.</p> <p>4. Replevin ©=>108 — Actions—Recovery of Damages.</p> <p>Replevin is a mixed action, being both a demand for a thing and damages for withholding; and in replevin for property that defendant knew belonged to plaintiff, held, that plaintiff could recover damages for that eloigned.</p> <p>^ss>For other case? seo samo topic & KEY-NUMB RR in all Key-Nmnfcered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Colmsion <@=>61 — Steamer and Barge — Faui/t of Overtaking Vessel.</p> <p>An overtaking steamer, which, several miles off Point Judith, on a clear night, ran into n barge, with lights set, in tow of tug, held at fault; her navigator's attention having been fixed on another vessel, till too late to avoid the collision, and she having shortly before changed her course.</p> <p>2. Collision <@=>61 — Faith or Tug with IjOng Hawser — Exercise oe Judgment.</p> <p>The rules allowing use, from Race Bock to Gay Head, of a hawser longer than 75 fathoms, when in the judgment of the tug's master, in view of wind and weather conditions, safety requires, he should not be held in fault, iu an honest exercise of that judgment, relative to collision of steamer with one of barges in tow of tug.</p> <p>9. Collision ©=>58 — Tug with Dong Hawser — Care Required.</p> <p>TJso by tug, with barges In tow, of hawsers longer than generally permitted by the rules, requires exercise by it of extreme care in navigation to avoid collision.</p> <p>4. Collision ©=>16, 61 — Vessel at Fault — Officer Without Authority.</p> <p>No vessel, and least of all, one which, with tows, occupies half a mile of sea room, should be left in charge of an officer who is not allowed to exercise what skill and competency he has, and for such fault, if possibly contributing to a collision, she must be held in part responsible.</p> <p>5. Collision ©=>76 — Duty to Warn--Overtaken Vessel.</p> <p>A tag, with barges in tow, seeing that an overtaking steamer is likely to ran into one of the barges, is not without duty to sound danger signals, merely because the steamer has not sounded passing signals.</p> <p>6. Collision ©=>58 — -Duty of Overtaken Tug — -Preserving Course and Steed.</p> <p>The captain of a tug, with two barges in tow, the first of which was struck by an overtaking steamer, though supposing the steamer was likely to pass between the barges, was under the duty of the privileged vessel of preserving course and speed, and was in fault in slowing engines to let hawsers sink.</p> <p>7. Collision ©=>108 — Fault—Emergency.</p> <p>Act of captain of overtaken tug in slowing engines will not be excused, on ground of emergency, because he had just come from below, but will be judged as if he, or some one free to exercise a free and independent judgment, had been in charge of navigation when danger first appeared.</p> <p>^ssTTor other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Disests & Indexes</p>

At Law. In the matter of the petition of the Tri-State Coal & Coke Company and others to have returned to them certain books, papers, and writings. Search warrants quashed, and books, etc., ordered restored.

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Western District of Washington; Edward E. Cushman, Judge.</p> <p>William M. Collins was convicted of violating the Espionage Act, and he brings error.</p> <p>This cause is here on writ of error at the instance of William M. Collins, defendant below, who was charged with a violation of the Espionage Act of Congress (Act June 15, 193.7, c. 30, 40 Stat. 217). The indictment contains two counts. Count 1 charges that Collins, on or about December 16, 1917, at Montesano, Wash., “when the United States was at war with Germany, did willfully, knowingly, unlawfully, and feloniously make and convey false reports and false statements, with intent to interfere with the operation and success of the military forces of the United States, and to promote the success of its enemies.” The second count is of like tenor, except that the charge is based upon tbe declaration of the act for causing and attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, and refusal of duty in the military forces of the United States.</p> <p>The indictment was returned January 9, 1918. The defendant was arraigned, and entered a plea of not guilty January 14, and the cause was set for trial January 29,1918. On January 2Sth, .apparently without withdrawing his plea of not guilty, the defendant filed a demurrer to the indictment, assigning as reasons therefor that neither of the counts charged an offense against the laws of the United States, nor did they state facts sufficient lo constitute a crime. After argument, the demurrer was overruled, and tho court thereupon required the prosecuting attorney to file forthwith a bill of particulars of tbe offenses charged, which was done.</p> <p>When the cause came on for trial before a jury duly impaneled, defendant’s counsel objected to the court’s receiving any evidence in support of the allegations of the indictment, and at the same time moved the court for an instructed verdict acquitting the defendant, upon the ground that the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime. The objection was overruled, and tbe motion denied, and an exception was saved and allowed. The trial resulted in a conviction under count 1 and ail acquittal under count 2. There was a motion at the conclusion of the testimony offered by tbe government for a directed verdict acquitting the defendant, but none at the close of the entire testimony. The motion was denied.</p>

In Error and Cross-Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Rufus E. Foster, Judge. Action by Rowell R. Gaidry against the Mcllhenny Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and each party brings error.

Cushman, Judge. Action by the United States, for the use and benefit of the Washington Iron Works against Haus Pederson, Marie Pederson, his wife, and the National Surety Company, with the Western Electric Company as intervener. Judgment for plaintiff and intervener, and defendants bring error.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Western District of Washington; Edward E. Cusbtnan, Judge.</p> <p>Libel by W. M. Baumert against the steamship Hoquiam; E. C. Bowes and another, claimants. Judgment for libelant, and claimants appeal.</p>

Petition by the Louisville Bridge Company to intervene in a foreclosure suit against the Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Company and have its claim allowed as a prior claim. The petition was opposed by the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company, and petitioner appeals from a decree denying the petition.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>Libel and petition by the St. Joseph-Chicago Steamship Company for limitation of liability, in which the Great Lakes Towing Company and others file claims. From a decree denying the motion of the Great Lakes Towing Company that its claim be decreed a preferred and first lien, it appeals.</p>

Meek, Judge. Bill by the Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Company against the City of Amarillo and others. Erom an interlocutory order' directing the. issue of an injunction pendente Hie, defendants appeal.

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota; Charles F. Amidon, Judge.</p> <p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against Henry Von Bank. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>Walter Ragansky was convicted of threatening the life of the President, and brings error.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota; James D. Elliott, Judge.</p> <p>Charles Doll was convicted of willfully obstructing the recruiting service, etc., in violation of Espionage Act June 15, 1917, tit. 1, § 3, and he brings error.</p>

<p>1. Patents ©=328 — Validity and Inmiingement — Cónchete Mixer.</p> <p>Patent No. 899,434, for combinations in a concrete mixer, in view of the Mik German patent, No. 3(5,807, for lime-slacking apparatus, the arts being analogous, held, if valid, limited to a machine as specifically described, and not infringed.</p> <p>2. Patents ©=328 — Anticipation- Cónchete Distributor.</p> <p>Reissue patent No. 13,017, for concrete distributor, hold anticipated by machines on sale more than two years before filing of application for original patent.</p> <p>©rs>Foi other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMB-Eil in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Appeal and Error <S=>877(1) — Review—Questions Presented.</p> <p>Where plaintiff appealed from a decree of noninfringement, and not from the part of tbe decree sustaining the validity of the patent, held, that the question of infringement was the only one presented.</p> <p>2. Patents <@=>174 — Improvement Patents — Construction.</p> <p>Doubtless an improvement patent may be relieved in a measure from the operation of the rule of limited construction, if the merit of the invention warrants it; but the merit is not ordinarily accepted as sufficient when the invention only slightly advances the art.</p> <p>3. Patents <@=>328 — Construction—Infringement.</p> <p>The Rauskolb patents, Nos. 1,072,992, and 1,103,222, for a method of gold leaf mounting, held limited to the use of pressure, and not infringed by the attachment of metal leaf by adhesive in accordance with the Davis and Schumacher patent, No. 1,124,114.</p> <p><§^}For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Patents <§=>328 — Validity—Invention.</p> <p>The Pratt patent, No. 1,166,629, for an improvement in bracelets, consisting of a series of curved links with a slot at each end, adapted so the same could be worn on a flexible band or united by metal connections, held invalid as not showing invention, but only a mechanical improvement over the prior art, etc.</p> <p>2. Patents <§=>22 — Invention—Substitution.</p> <p>It is not invention to substitute for one element in an article of manufacture another which performs the same functions in substantially the same way, and accomplishes substantially the same effect.</p> <p>3. Patents <§=>32, 112(3) — Validity—Presumptions.</p> <p>The presumptions from the issuance of a patent and the commercial success of the patented article cannot sustain the patent, where there was manifest equivalency of functions, and the commercial success was directly attributable to the unique advertising of the article.</p> <p><g=x>For otter eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In Equity. Suit for infringement of patent for improvement in incandescent electric lamp sockets by the Weber Electric Company against the E. H. Ereeman Electric Company.

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the bankruptcy of John R. Cunningham. On order to show cause, granted by the referee, to stay Virgil I). Selleck from taking further proceedings on a judgment obtained against the bankrupt, except to prove same.

In Bankruptcy. In the matters of the Grafton Gas & Electric Light Company, bankrupt, the Grafton Traction Company, bankrupt, and the Grafton Light & Power Company, bankrupt. Heard on motions of state court receivers .and others to vacate injunction and appointment of trustee.

<p>Action by Charles Cocker, Jr., an infant under the age of 14 years, by Charles Cocker, his guardian ad litem, against the New York, Ontario & Western Railway Company. On motion to stay trial.</p>

<p>1, Electricity <S=o;t — Licenses— Right of Way — Indian Reservation — Revocation by Patent.</p> <p>in view of the ruling of the Secretary of Interior a license granted plaintiff pursuant to Act Feb. 15, 1901, to maintain a power line across the Occur d’Alene Indian reservation, held not revoked by the granting of a patent under Act June 21, 1906, to lands used as part of the right of way, though no reservation was contained therein.</p> <p>2. Electricity —Licenses—Right of Way — Indian Reservation.</p> <p>A permit under Act Feb. 15, 1901, to construct a power line over the Occur d’Alene Indian reservation, held a mere license revocable by the</p> <p><S=oEar other eases see samo topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes Secretary of Interior, together with a right of way for a telephone lino granted to the same company under Act March 3, 1901, § 3; the latter being a mere incident to the license.</p> <p>3. Electricity —Rights of Way — Duties of Owner.</p> <p>Where a patentee of public lands took same burdened by license for power line granted power company, held, that power company was entitled to access under certain conditions prescribed to govern both parties.</p> <p>other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Admiralty. Libel by John Siebert against the Patapsco Ship Ceiling & Stevedore Company, the Prince Line, Limited, and Furness Withy & Co., Limited.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota; Page Morris, Judge.</p> <p>Uibel by the W. S. Moore Grain Company against the steamer Corsica, claimed by the Corsica Transit Company. From a decree for libelant, claimant appeals.</p>

<p>1. Criminal Law- <@=>970(7) — Motion in Arrest — Information.</p> <p>An information charging ■ defendant made an interstate shipment of drugs misbranded in violation of Food and Drugs Act June 30. 1906, § 8, as amended by Act Aug. 23, 1912 (Comp-. St. 1916, § 8724). which alleged false statements were applied by defendant to the article knowingly and in wanton disregard of their falsity, held sufficient as against motion in arrest, in view of Rev. St. 1025 (Comp. St. 1916, § 1691).</p> <p>2. Indictment and Information <@=>59 — Sufficiency.</p> <p>In view of Rev. St. § 1025 (Comp. St. 1916, § 1691), the allegations of an information need only fairly inform defendant of crime intended to be alleged, and to make available a plea of former acquittal or conviction, if a second prosecution were instituted for the same offense.</p> <p>3. Druggists <@=>12 — Misbranding—Offenses.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Food and Drugs Act, § 8, as amended (Comp. St. 1916, § 8724), for misbranding an interstate shipment of drugs, an actual intent to deceive, which may be inferred from the circumstances is essential to conviction, so an instruction that one who makes a statement, not knowing whether it is false, is as guilty as one knowingly making a false statement was erroneous.</p> <p>4. Criminal Law <@=>823(1) — Instructions—Cure of Errors.</p> <p>Though a portion of the charge stated the correct rule, error in another portion was not cured, where the jury were left free to follow the erroneous charge, and there was no attempt to correct it.</p> <p>5. Criminal Law <@=>S29(1) — Trial—Instructions.</p> <p>The refusal of a requested instruction was not error, where it was substantially covered by the charge given.</p> <p>6. Criminal Law <@=>476 — Evidence—Opinions—Effect of Drugs.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Food and Drugs Act, § 8, as amended (Comp. St. 1916, § 8724), for misbranding an interstate shipment of drugs, where physicians testified the drugs were not effective for treatment of disease as asserted by the labels, etc., testimony that there was no difference of medical opinion on the matter was competent, though the individual opinions of such physicians were incompetent.</p> <p>7. Criminal Law <@=442 — Evidence—Documents.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Food and Drugs Act, § 8, as amended (C'omp. St. 1916, § 8724), for misbranding an interstate shipment of drugs, testimonials, etc., are admissible on the question of defendant’s good faith, without proof of their execution, etc., where the officer in charge of defendant’s business testified he relied thereon, but not where no such reliance was asserted.</p> <p>®=For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>8. Druggists <§=»12 — Misbranding—Evidence.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Food and Drugs Act, § 8, as amended (Comp. St. 1916, § 8721), for misbranding an interstate shipment of drugs, evidence held sufficient to carry to the jury the charge that statements in tlie labels, etc., were made in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.</p> <p><@E»For oilier cases see samo topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Suit by R. .E. Buchanan, trustee, against the St. Louis & Memphis Railroad Company and others. A motion to dismiss the bill was sustained, and plaintiff appeals.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma; John H. Cotteral, Judge.</p> <p>Suit by the Lawton Refining Company against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. From an order granting a temporary injunction, defendant appeals.</p>

Action by Harvey K. Benson against the Puget Sound Electric Railway, a corporation, and others. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

Cross-appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia; Henry Clay McDowell, Judge. In the matter of the Sulphur Springs Lumber Company, bankrupt. Claim by Charles F. Hagan, trustee, opposed by W. D. McNiel, trustee in bankruptcy. Cross-appeals from order of District Court allowing claim in part as secured claim.

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. In the matter of the bankruptcy of the German Savings & Doan Association. The claims of the National Bank of Kentucky and others were disallowed on objection of Devi N. Reeder, trustee in bankruptcy, and claimants appeal.

Call, Judge. Suit by Edna M. Rawls against the Penn Mutual Rife Insurance Company of Philadelphia on two life insurance policies. From a judgment. rejecting her demands, she prosecutes this writ of error.

St. 1916, § 8603, and they bring error. Plaintiffs in error were tried and convicted on eight counts of an indictment charging violations of section 8603, U. S. Comp. St. 1916. Each was sentenced to serve five years in the penitentiary, and to pay the costs of prosecution.

, Judge. . . In the matter of the bankruptcy of August Scriber .Seeley. Petition by the Norfolk Manure Company, in which Luther 13. Way, trustee in bankruptcy, joined, praying that a deed of trust be declared a voidable preference. The referee having set aside the deed of trust, the Bridgeton National Bank filed a petition for review, and the matter was sent back to the referee. A second order setting aside the deed of trust was affirmed on review, and lie Bank appeals.

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk; Edmund Waddill, Jr., Judge.</p> <p>Action by Frank Peyton against the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond; Edmund Waddill, Jr., Judge.</p> <p>Action by George W. Pitchford against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.</p>

Dickinson, Judge. Suit by the Pair & Carnival Supply Company, Incorporated, against Max Shapiro and Nathan Karr, doing business under the firm name of Shapiro & Karr. From an order denying a preliminary injunction, complainant appeals.

<p>1. Patents <§=>328 — Construction—Validity.</p> <p>Tiie Baker patent No. 1,063,102, for a material for use in making up, repairing, and replacing linings, etc., of metallurgical furnaces, which consisted of a socially burned dolomite, held valid, showing invention.</p> <p>2. Patents <S=»250' — Infringement—Product Patent — Identity.</p> <p>Where the issue of infringement arises on a product patent, the processes are immaterial, except as they show characteristics of the two products that are eilhej" identical or dliferent.</p> <p>3. Patents <§=>828 — Construction—Infringement.</p> <p>The Baker patent, No. 1,063,102, for a material for use in making up, etc., linings, etc., of metallurgical furnaces, which consisted of specially burned dolomite, held, not infringed by defendant’s product, which also had. a dolomite base; 1he two products being essentially different.</p> <p><S=>J'or toller eases see same topic & KET-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Appeals from the 'District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. Two suits by the Varley Duplex Magnet Company against the Dudlo Manufacturing Company. From decrees for complainant, defendant appeals.

<p>1. Patents <@=>170 — Claims—Construction.</p> <p>A patentee is entitled to protection against changes, etc., involving only mechanical skill; but a patentee late in. an art is entitled only to what ho allows and claims.</p> <p>2. Patents <@=>328 — Construction—Infringement.</p> <p>The McBean patent, No. 745,454, for a method of constructing a tunnel under water, which combined two of the older methods and contemplated the preparation of a chamber and construction of the tunnel in place therein, held not infringed.</p> <p>3. Patents <3=3328 — Construction--Infringement.</p> <p>The McBean patent, No. 745.456, for a subaqueous working chamber in tunnel construction, held not infringed.</p> <p>4. Patents <@=>328 — Construction—Infringement.</p> <p>The McBean patent, No. 745,457, for a subaqueous tunnel, etc., held, not infringed.</p> <p>5. Patents <3=3328 — Construction—Infringement.</p> <p>The McBean patent, No. 797,524, for a subaqueous tunnel, etc., held not infringed.</p> <p>6. Patents <@=3.328 — Construction—Infringement.</p> <p>The McBean patent, No. 797,525, for a method of tunnel construction under water, held not infringed.</p> <p><@33>Por other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Theodore C. E. Blanchard, bankrupt. On petition to review an order of the referee,.to whom this matter was referred, dismissing a petition of the trustee to re-examine and reduce the claim filed against the bankrupt’s estate by Emeline C. Blanchard, and allowing the same, as a general unsecured claim against the estate, in the sum of $297,719.26.

<p>In Admiralty. Ribel by Peder Christian Moller Pederson, master of the steamship Sarmatia. against the steamship Barharigo ; Umberto Nobile, claimant.</p>

Criminal prosecutions by the United States against Felix Gouled, Aubrey W. Vaughan, and David U. Podell, and against Felix Gouled. On motion of defendant Gouled for return of books and other property seized under search warrants.

In Equity. Suit by the West Virginia Traction & Electric Company against the Elm Grove Mining Company and others. On motions to award temporary injunction and, per contra, dissolve restraining order.

In Bankruptcy.. In the matter of Harry Kligerman, bankrupt. On petition for confirmation of composition, and on exceptions to report of special referee.

<p>1. Aliens @=>23(2) — Chinese Persons — Deportation.</p> <p>Where the entry of a Chinese person as a merchant or student Is valid, he does not lose his right to remain because he subsequently becomes a laborer.</p> <p>2. Aliens @=>23(2) — Chinese Persons — Inferences as to Entry.</p> <p>Where a Chinese person is admitted as a student, merchant, or miner child of a merchant, the weight to be accorded -the inference from his immediate adoption of the occupation of a laborer depends on the circumstances, etc.</p> <p>3. Aliens @=>32(5) — Chinese Persons — Certificate of Admission.</p> <p>Where a Chinese'person, admitted as the minor child of a merchant, received a regular' certificate of admission, the government, in subsequent deportation proceedings based on the fact such person had become a laborer, has the burden of showing that the entry was not for the purpose of conserving the family relation and following the occupation of a merchant.</p> <p>4. Aliens @=>32(8) — Chinese Persons — Certificate of Admission — Evidence to Overthrow.</p> <p>The effect of a certificate .of admission issued to a Chinese person as the minor son of a merchant can be destroyed only by substantial evidence, and cannot be overthrown by a mere suspicion that such person entered to become a laborer.</p> <p>5. Aliens @=>32(8) — Chinese Persons — Deportation—Evidence.</p> <p>In proceedings to deport a Chinese person, who was admitted as the minor son of a merchant, but subsequently became a laborer, evidence held insufficient to warrant deportation, not showing that such person entered intending to become a laborer.</p> <p><§x^>For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Equity. Bill by Arthur D. Robinson against Henry G. Wemmer and others. On motion to dismiss.</p>

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Anthony Dubosky, bankrupt. Sur certificate for review of an order of the referee disallowing the claim of C. E. Christ and others.

<p>1. Constitutional Law <@=»46(1) — Constitutionality of Act — Necessity of Determination.</p> <p>It is an almost universal rule of the courts not to decide constitutional questions until the necessity for decision arises in the record before the court.</p> <p>2. Habeas Corpus <@=»27, 30(1) — Function of Writ.</p> <p>Generally the writ of habeas corpus will not issue, unless the court under whose warrant the petitioner is held is without jurisdiction, and it cannot be used to correct errors.</p> <p>• 3. Habeas Corpus <S=o32 — Constitutionality of Statute.</p> <p>Petitioners who refused, without invoking the Fifth Amendment, protecting against self-incrimination, to obey a subpoena duces tecum, or to -answer questions propounded to them in a grand jury investigation, under Act Cong. June 25, 1910, as amended by Act Aug. 19, 1911, and Act Aug. 23, 1912 (Comp. St 1916, §§ 188-198), of corrupt practices in a senatorial primary election cannot, having been committed for contempt, secure release on habeas corpus on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional.</p> <p><§=x>For other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Courts <@=489(18)- -Federal Courts — Jurisdiction.</p> <p>While the federal court will not interfere in the administration of estates of decedents, where it is necessary for the court to interfere with the actual administration, etc., held, the necessary diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount existing, that the federal court could entertain a suit looking to the determination of plaintiff’s rights in the estate of a deceased person, wlioro the management, etc., was not affected.</p> <p>it. Wills <@=802(2) — Electooií—Acceleration oe Remainder.</p> <p>Where a widow renounced the will, which gave her a life estate, etc., and was assigned dower, held that, as the husband’s will providing that children in being at death of wife should take in remainder, etc., showed an intention that only those of the testator’s blood should take, remainders in the dower cannot lie deemed accelerated, so as to allow a spouse of a child dying before the widow to take.</p> <p>3. Wills <©=858 — Acceleration oe Remainder.</p> <p>To work an acceleration of a remainder, the particular estate as a whole must terminate, and even then the acceleration results only from the presumed intent of the testator, and will not take place, if contrary to such intent.</p> <p>4. Courts <@=>305 — Federal Courts — State Decisions.</p> <p>la determining rights under a will, decisions of the courts of the state of the testator’s residence, wherein Hie property was located, are controlling.</p> <p>ii. Judgment <2=743(2)' — Conolusivenkss—Titus to Land.</p> <p>Where plaintiff claimed property on the ground that, as testator’s willow renounced the will and dower was assigned, remainders to children were accelerated, held, that the record of a case to which me heirs and executors were parties, involving disposition of properly in which the widow would otherwise have had a life interest, was not admis- • sible.</p> <p><j=i<’or other cases seo samo topic & KHY-NUM13EE in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Certiorari by the United States, on the relation of Isadore Roman, against Adolph Rauch and others, as members of the Rocal Board on. Classification, under Selective Service Act May 18, 1917, for Division No. 157, City of New York.</p>

<p>1. Habeas Corpus <3=»1, 53 — Nature—Petition—Sufficiency.</p> <p>The writ of habeas corpus is of the highest remedial character, intended to summarily protect the liberty of the citizen from, unlawful detention, and the petition is of informal character; a simple application, stating that the'party is unlawfully confined, being in most cases sufficient.</p> <p>2. Habeas Corpus <S=»53 — -Petition—Sufficiency.</p> <p>A petition for habeas corpus, stating that petitioner was unlawfully and ■wrongfully confined under order of tiie commander of a mililary camp, etc., held sufficient.</p> <p>other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>3. Statutes <©=>219 — Construction by Secretary of War.</p> <p>Tiie construction placed by the Secretary of War on article 2, Articles of War (Rev. St § 1342, as amended by Act Aug. 29, 1916 [Comp. St. 1916, § 2308a]), is not conclusive; but the construction is for the courts specially, in so far as it affects the relations between the armies and civilian population.</p> <p>4. War <©=>32 — Military Law — Civilian Employés — “In the Field.”</p> <p>A civilian stenographer, employed as a clerk during war at a camp or cantonment in the United States, is not subject to military law, under .article 2, Articles of War (Rev. St. § 1342, as amended by Act Aug. 29, 1916 [Comp. St. 1916, § 2308a]), for he is not serving with an army in the field, there being no hostilities in the United States; and this is true, despite the language of Act April 16, 1918.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, In the Field.]</p> <p>©=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests & Indexes</p>

At Faw. Actions by Roland M. Smythe and by Elinor G. Sammis against the Inhabitants of the Township of New Providence. On demurrers to twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth pleas in the Smythe suit, and to twelfth, thirteenth, and sixteenth pleas in the Sammis suit.

<p>1. Bankruptcy <@=3418(1) — Effect of Discharge.</p> <p>A discharge in bankruptcy does not automatically relieve the bankrupt from a debt, even if scheduled and provable, but may be pleaded by him in defense to an action thereon; its effect in the particular case to be determined by the court in which the action is brought.</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy <$=3391(1) — Powers of Court — Stay of Actions Against Bankrupt.</p> <p>The power of the bankruptcy court to protect a bankrupt against claims in another court is limited to the period before the question of his discharge has been decided.</p> <p>3. Bankruptcy <@=3391(1) — Contempt of Bankruptcy Court — Legar Proceedings Against Bankrupt.</p> <p>A creditor of a bankrupt, though having a dischargeable claim, does not become guilty of contempt of the bankruptcy court merely by taking proceedings In another court to enforce his claim, where no order forbidding such action has been made, and especially when the creditor had no knowledge of the bankruptcy proceeding's.</p> <p>other capes see same topic & KEY-NUMB13R in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Bankruptcy <®=»407(1) — Grounds fob Refusal of Discharge — False Statement.</p> <p>Objections to the discharge of a bankrupt sustained, on the grounds that he made a materially false statement in writing as a basis for credit and knowingly concealed property.</p> <p><@c»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In the matter of the application of the wife of William Short for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his discharge from the custody of military authorities.

In Admiralty. Suit for collision by the Egerton Towing Company against the steamer New London, with cross-libel by the Central Vermont Transportation Company against the steam tug Egerton.

<p>Bankruptcy <S=»186(1) — Fraudulent Transms© oi? Property-Subrogation.</p> <p>A family corporation, organized by a bankrupt when insolvent, to which he transferred his property in an attempt to place it beyond the reach of creditors, and which borrowed money and paid off certain judgment liens on tho property, occupies no better position with respect to the property than tho bankrupt, and is not entitled to subrogation to such liens.</p> <p><S=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBElt in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Waters and Water Courses <@=>217 — Companies Subject to Regulation as Private Corporations — “Public Utility.”</p> <p>A private corporation owning an irrigation system, though authorized by its articles of incorporation to engage in the business of selling water to the public, does not thereby become a “public utility,” subject to regulation by the Public Service Commission, organized under Laws Or. 1911, p. 483, where such company has never in fact either sold, or held itself out to sell, water to the public generally, but only to purchasers of irrigable land from it, in fulfillment of private contracts, at a specified contract price.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Second Series, Public Utility.]</p> <p>2. Corporations <@=394 — Public Utility — Regulation—Charter Authority.</p> <p>The charter authority of a corporation to become a public utility is a mere naked authority to do business as such, and until its business is so pursued such charter does not make the corporation a public utility subject to regulation.</p> <p>3. Waters and Water Courses <@=217 — Appropriation — Dedication to Public.</p> <p>That a private corporation appropriated water for “general rental, sale, and disposition for the purpose of irrigation, etc.,” did not make the appropriating corporation or its successors in interest a public utility, without a subsequent act of dedication of the water so appropriated to public use.</p> <p><§=For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In Admiralty. Suit by the Cherokee against the Hugo; the Susan A. Moran being impleaded. Libel in rein, by the scow Cherokee against the Danish steamer Hugo for a collision at sea. about three miles south oí a line drawn between Ambrose Light and the Scotland Lightship. The Hugo impleaded the tug Susan A. Moran, which was towing the scow. The Hugo was bound for New York, on the evening of December 5, 1916.

<p>At Law- Action .by the San Francisco & Portland Steamship Company against John J. Scott, Collector of Internal revenue, etc., and another.</p>

In Admiralty. In the matter of the libel and petition of O’Brien Bros., Incorporated, owners of the steamtug O’Brien Brothers, for limitation of liability. On exceptions to awards for damages caused by the death of two married women.

<p>1. Removal of Causes @=>3 — Action fob Injury to Railroad Employ! — Employers’ Liability Act.</p> <p>An action for injury to a railroad, employe, while assisting in raising an engine, which had fallen into the pit of a turntable used by defendant in turning its engines employed in interstate traffic, one purpose of the work being to clear the track for such traffic, is one arising under the federal Employers’ Liability Act (Comp. St. 3916, §§ 8657-8665), and under section 6 of said act, as amended by Act April 5, 1910, § 1 (Comp. St. 1916, § 8662), is not removable from a state court.</p> <p>2. Removal of Causes @=3102 — Motion to Remand — -Effect of Decision of Statu Court.</p> <p>That a state court granted a petition for removal of an action for injury to a railroad employé does not affect the duty of the federal court to remand the cause, where it appears that it is one arising under the federal Employers’ Liability Act (Comp. St. 1916, §§ 8657-8665), and not removable.</p> <p>, <£=»For other caaes see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>OOPYRIGHTS <S=»87- — DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT-M/USJCAL COMPOSITION.</p> <p>Damages recovernWe for infringement of a copyright for a musical composition are governed by the provision of Copyright Act, § 25b (Comp. St. 1916, § 9546), that “damages shall in no other case exceed the sum of $5,000 nor be loss than the snm of $250.” The provision of subdivision 4, fixing the damages in such case at “$10 for every infringing performance,” is intended to apply, within the above limits, where a large number of infringing performances are shown, and no actual damages are proven.</p> <p>other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Equity. Suit by Leo Feist, Incorporated, against the American Music Roll Company.</p>

<p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against F. A. Echols.</p>

<p>In Equity. Suit by Abraham Rosenblum against Samuel Rosenblum.</p>

Bean, Judge. Criminal prosecution by the United States against W. F. Hallowell and W. F. Dick. Judgment of conviction, and defendants bring error. The plaintiffs in error were convicted under a charge of conspiracy to use the mails in furtherance of: a scheme to defraud.

<p>3. Railroads <3=167 — Mortgages—After-Acquired Property.</p> <p>Ordinarily the lien of a railroad mortgage having the usual after-acquired provisions does not, on the consolidation of the mortgagor corporation with another, spread to the property contributed by the other constituent, or to after-acquired property of the consolidated company.</p> <p>2. Railroads <3=171(2) — Mortgage—Registration—Aeter-Acquired Property — Consolidation oe Raidroad Corporations.</p> <p>A provision in a consolidation agreement that a mortgage on the property of one constituent railroad company, which contained after-acquired provisions, should have the force and effect of first mortgages executed by the consolidated company, held, in view of the failure of the mortgagee to record such mortgage in accordance with statute in counties where the consolidated company extended its lines, not to extend the security of the mortgage to the after-acquired property of the consolidated company, or the property contributed by the other constituent company to the consolidation.</p> <p>3. Railroads <3=167 — Mortgages—Consolidation—Property Included.</p> <p>A mortgage on the property of one railroad company, which was thereafter consolidated with another, held not to extend the lien to equipment acquired after the consolidation, etc.</p> <p>4. Railroads <3=167 — Mortgage — Aeter-Aoquired Property — Construction of Mortgage.</p> <p>A mortgage on the property of one constituent railroad company, which was thereafter consolidated with another, held not to apply by virtue of tbe replacement covenants to equipment purchased by the consolidated company to replace equipment originally owned by such constituent company.</p> <p><©^}For other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>5. Railroads <©=>167— Mortgage — Aiter-Aoqiured Property — Rei'lacement Covenants.</p> <p>A mortgagor’s breach of a covenant for the maintenance and replacement of railroad equipment covered by the mortgage held to create no lien as to after-acquired equipment.</p> <p>6. Railroads <©=>167 — Mortgage—Property Covered.</p> <p>Where a consolidated company, which succeeded the original mortgagor, disposed of equipment subject to the mortgage, and such sums went into the general coffers of the company and became mingled with its general funds, held, thiit the mortgagee could not establish a lien thereon after receivership.</p> <p>7. Railroads <©=>192 — Mortgage--Foreclosure—Sale.</p> <p>Where receivers were appointed for a consolidated railroad company, and mortgages foreclosed, held, that property, being susceptible of division into several systems, might be divided for sale, if for the benefit of creditors, and a mortgagee holding a mortgage on the property of that constituent company which had been run at a loss cannot complain of the severance.</p> <p>8. Railroads <©=>192 — Mortgage—'Foreclosure—Severance tor Sale.</p> <p>In the separation of a railroad into parcels for sale under the foreclosure of divisional mortgages, a court of equity is not bound by any hard and fast rule to fix the division to correspond absolutely with the several mortgage grants, but the division should be mudo so as to leave each parcel as nearly as may be iu a situation to be operated, as a railroad.</p> <p>9. Railroads <©=>192 — Mortgage—Foreclosures-Severance eor Foreclosure.</p> <p>On foreclosure of constituent mortgages on the property of a consolidated railroad company, held, that the division should be made so that each portion might be operated as a railroad system, and for that purpose the division located in Indiana should be given a line to Chicago, etc.</p> <p>10. Railroads <©=>192 — Mortgages—Foreclosure—Sale.</p> <p>Where there were separate mortgages on the property of the constituent railroad companies, which wore consolidated, held that, on division for sale it was proper, other creditors and lienholders being protected, to sell, with one of the constituent parcels, equipment used for the operation of that parcel, though it was not subject to the mortgage on the lien.</p> <p><@=»For other cases see same topic & Ki3Y“NUMBFit in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Middleton Smith, Judge. Suit by the Navassa Guano Company against Elle Nixon Cockfield and George W. Dickson, as executors of the will of S. R. Cockfield, deceased, and others. Decree (244 Eed. 222) for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

<p>.1. Criminal Daw <§=>619 — Consolidation of Indictments — Discretion.</p> <p>The trial court may, in its discretion, consolidate several indictments before trial, and try the same together.</p> <p>2. Post Office <§=>49 — Scheme to Defraud — -Evidence.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Pen. Code, § 215 (Comp. St. 1916, § 10885), for use of the mails in connection with a scheme to defraud, whereby defendants induced ocean carriers to issue bills of lading though no shipments were delivered, and drafts with bills of lading attached were negotiated. though persons on whom drafts were drawn accepted them knowing all circumstances, held, that evidence was sufficient to go to jury.</p> <p>8. Post Office <§=>35 — Offenses—Scheme to Defraud.</p> <p>To sustain a conviction under Pen. Code, § 215 (Comp. St. 1916, § 10885). denouncing use of mails in connection with a scheme to defraud, proof only of the devising of the scheme or artifice to defraud, without proof that any one was defrauded, is sufficient.</p> <p>4. Criminal Daw <§=>822(1) — -Instructions as a Whole.</p> <p>An extract is not to be considered apart from the charge, and error cannot bo predicated thereon where the charge as a whole is correct</p> <p>5. Criminal Daw <§=>829(1)- — Refusal of Requests.</p> <p>The refusal of requests to charge, covered substantially by the charge given, is not error. ■</p> <p>6. Criminal Daw <§=>829(8) — Instructions—Good Character.</p> <p>Where; the court correctly and fully charged on good character, the refusal of a requested charge that good character itself might generate a reasonable doubt of guilt held proper.</p> <p>7. Criminal Daw <§=>398(2) — Evidence Compulsorily Produced.</p> <p>In a prosecution, under Pen. Code, § 215 (Comp. St. 1916, § 10385), for using the mails in connection with scheme to defraud, hooks of ae-</p> <p><§r=>For other casos see same topic & KEY-NUMBBB, in all Roy -Numbered Digests & Indexes count of partnerships in which defendants were partners, which were produced by the trustee in bankruptcy of the firms, who had taken possession of them, held admissible over objections that they were compulsorily produced.</p> <p>8. Post Office <@=>49 — Offenses—Evidence.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Pen. Code, § 215 (Comp. St. 1916, § 103S5), for using the mails in connection with a scheme to defraud, where defendants contended that money obtained, etc., went into firms of which they were members, held that the government could show the amounts defendants drew from such firms, etc.</p> <p>9. Criminal Law <@=>351(10) — Attempt to Destroy Evidence.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Pen. Code, § 215 (Comp. St. 1916, § 10385), for using the mails in connection with a scheme to defraud, whereby ocean carriers were induced to issue bills of lading though no shipments were delivered, etc., "a cablegram sent by one of the defendants directing destruction of bills of lading, etc., held admissible against him, being an attempt to destroy evidence.</p> <p>10. Criminal Law <@=>371(1) — Evidence—Other Offenses — InteNt.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Pen. Code, § 215 (Comp. St. 1916, § 10385), for using the mails in connection with a scheme to defraud, whereby ocean carriers were induced to issue bills of lading though no shipments were delivered, etc., proof of the use of other bills of lading, to cover which no goods were shipped, was admissible on the issue of fraudulent intent, the evidence not being confined to transactions set out in the indictment.</p> <p>11. Criminal Law <@=>448(12) — Opinion—Evidence.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Pen. Code, § 215 (Comp. St. 1916, § 10385), for using mails in connection with a scheme to defraud, whereby defendants induced ocean carriers to issue bills of lading though no shipments were delivered, and drafts with the bills of lading attached were negotiated, etc., testimony by bankers that they would not have made advances had bills not been attached, or had they known no goods were shipped, was admissible, being, evidence of-effect of recitals according to course of business of bankers, rather than mere opinion as to effect in a specific instance.</p> <p>12. Criminal Law <@=>448(3) — Evidence—Ihtent.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Pen. Code, § 215 (Comp. St. 1916, § 10385), for using the mails in connection with a scheme to defraud, whereby defendants induced ocean carriers to issue bills of lading though no shipments were delivered, and drafts with bills attached were negotiated, etc., testimony that witness did not personally expect to make shipments when he drew bills was not incompetent, as a statement of opinion, where answer was limited to his own expectation, and amounted to no more than that witness gave no instructions for shipment when he-drew the 'bills.</p> <p>13. Post Office <@=>49 — Offenses—Evidence.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Pen. Code, § 215 (Comp. St. 1916, § 10885), for using the mails in connection with a scheme to defraud, whereby defendants induced ocean carriers to issue bills of lading though no shipments were delivered, and drafts with the bills of lading attached were negotiated, etc., held, that testimony that witness drawing bills of lading declined to accept power on ground bills of lading were not regular was admissible on question of defendant’s intent. .</p> <p>14. Witnesses <@=>277(4) — Cross-Examination of Accused — Scope.</p> <p>Where a defendant charged with violating Pen. Code, § 215 (Comp. St. -1916, § 10385), by using mails in connection with scheme to defraud, whereby ocean carriers were induced to issue fraudulent bills of lading, which were attached to drafts that were negotiated, testified that acceptors who understood transaction were able to pay, etc., cross-examination as to amount"of acceptances was not objectionable as relating to matter not brought out on direct examination. '</p> <p>@=>For other cases see same topic & KKY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>15. Witnesses <3=277(1)- — Cross-Examination of Accused — Discretion.</p> <p>Where a defendant voluntarily takes the stand he waives his constitutional privilege, and the extent of his cross-examination is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge.</p> <p>16. Criminal Law <3=721(2) — Argument—Defendant’s Failure to Testify.</p> <p>Where defendant took the stand, but ■ was prevented from answering questions on cross-examination by objections that they did not come within the scope of the direct examination, the prosecutor could comment in his argument on defendant’s failure to answer.</p> <p>17. Criminal Law <3=722% — Argument-—Other Offenses.</p> <p>In a prosecution under Pen. Code, § 235 (Comp. St. 1916, § 10385), for using the mails in connection with a scheme to defraud, etc., where defendants, who had become bankrupt, contended that moneys realized from the scheme went into their business, argument of the prosecutor as to disposition of the prooeeds, held warranted, not being in effect an attempt to charge defendants with the offense of concealment in bankruptcy.</p> <p>18. Criminal Law <3=1.13-1(4) — Motion for New Trial-Review.</p> <p>The overruling of defendant’s motion for new trial cannot be reviewed on writ of error. ' "</p> <p>4£=pFor other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Newman, Judge. Action by W. P. Tatum against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. There was a judgment sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the petition, and plaintiff brings error.

<p>In Error to the District Court oí the United States for the District of Colorado; Robert E. Lewis, Judge.</p> <p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against Perley B. Doe. From a judgment of conviction, defendant brings error.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>The Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company' was convicted -of violating Interstate Commerce Act, § 10, and it brings error..</p>

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. Bill by the William Wrigley, Jr., Company against the L. P. Earson, Jr., Company, together with another bill by the same complainant against the same defendant, which counterclaimed. The first bill was dismissed, and complainant appeals; while the second bill and counterclaim were dismissed, and defendant appeals — -the appeals being consolidated.

<p>1. Partnership <@=>104 — Action Between Partners — Nature oe Suit.</p> <p>A suit, in view of pleadings, evidence, and findings, held not one to dissolve a corporation, but one within the power of a court of equity, to reestablish the status prior to fraud.</p> <p>2. Partnership <@=>311(5) — Contract to Dissolve — Fraud—Evidence.</p> <p>Evidence held to warrant finding of fraudulent representations, relied on, justifying rescission of the executed agreement between plaintiff, a young woman without business experience, and defendant, sole business manager, who had been partner of plaintiff’s husband up to his death, for dissolution of partnership between them, organization of a corporation, and transfer to it of partnership assets.</p> <p><g=>For other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>35. Partnership <@=»311(5) — Contract" to Dissolve — Fraud—Nature op Representations.</p> <p>Representations whereby defendant induced plaintiff to agree to dissolution of equal partnership between them, organize a corporation with the controlling share in defendant, and transfer to it the partnership assets, while some of them were promissory in character, being in substance a statement of defendant’s state of mind towards plaintiff, which, if true, would have made the change immaterial, being false, to her prejudice, were representations of facts.</p> <p>4. Partnership <®r5>311(5> — Contract to Dissolve — Fraudulent Representations — Cake less Reliance.</p> <p>A young inexperienced woman held not careless in relying on the representations of her partner, the sole business manager, former partner of her deceased husband, for falsity of which she seeks rescission of her agreement with him for dissolution of the partnership, organization of a corporation in which he should have the controlling share, and transfer to it of the partnership assets.</p> <p>5. Partnership <sr=>311 (4) — Rrivate Dissolution and Settlement — Fraud- - Laches.</p> <p>Plaintiff held not guilty of laches in bringing suit for rescission of her agreement for dissolution of parlnership with defendant, organization of a corporation in which he should have the controlling share, and transfer to it of partnership assets, much of the most convincing proof of the fraud not' coming' to light till a few months before suit.</p> <p><i Partnership ®r»:ill(B) — Contract to Dissolve — Avoidance bob Fraud- - Partners!! j p Ag rioement.</p> <p>On avoidance for fraud o£ contract for dissolution of partnership, the partnership agreement, providing that all patents and inventions of either partner shall belong to the partnership, governs rights of the parties, and patent taken out by one of them is properly adjudged to lie-long to the partnership.</p> <p>7. Partnership €=»83 — Agreement for Compensation — Effect of Fraud.</p> <p>Absolute right of a partner to 20 per cent, of profits as compensation ' as business manager, under agreement of copartner that he should have this for faithful services, is avoided by his attempt to defraud co-partner.</p> <p>other cases see samo topic & KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Petition to Revise Order of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. ,In the matter of the Arkin Dress Company, Incorporated, bankrupt. Reclamation proceeding by Heyman Cohen & Sons. Report of special master, recommending denial of petition for reclamation, reversed by District Court, and order entered directing trustee to pay over to Hey-man Cohen & Sons, or their attorneys, the sum of $1,283.25.

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston; Benjamin E. Keller, Judge.</p> <p>Action by the Courtney Company against the Hardwood Package Company. To review judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Portoi Rico; Hamilton, Judge.</p> <p>Suit by Hector H. Scoville and others against Alejandrp Ruiz Soler, Commissioner of Health for Porto Rico. From an interlocutory decree, granting a temporary injunction, defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>Suit by the Independent Harvester Company against Samuel H. Tinsmau. From an adverse decree, complainant appeals.</p>

In the matter of tire Clark Realty Company, bankrupt. On petition by August Richter, Jr., trustee, to compel Julius J. Goetz, trustee in bankruptcy, to pay certain tax certificates, etc. From an order of tbe District Court, affirming- an order of the referee denying the relief sought, petitioner appeals.

<p>Petition to Superintend and Revise from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; George W. Jack, J udge.</p> <p>In the matter of the bankruptcy of Jacob Richter. Petition by the bankrupt and another to superintend and revise an order affirming an order of the referee requiring the bankrupt to pay or secure to George F. Rockhold, trustee, the cash surrender value of insurance policies. Likewise a petition to superintend and revise a' similar order made in the bankruptcy of Morris Saul.</p>

<p>1. Fraudulent Conveyances <@=>241(3) — Equitable Beliee.</p> <p>A simple contract creditor, who has no lion or security of any kind, and who asserts no right to subject any specific property to the payment of his debt, cannot invoke the aid of equity for the collection of his claim, and is not entitled to have conveyances by his debtors set asidd on the theory that they were made to hinder.</p> <p>2. Courts <§=>366(1) — Precedents—State Decisions.</p> <p>The decisions of the highest state court, interpreting the local statutes, are binding on the federal courts.</p> <p>3. Creditors’ Suit <@=>32 — Executors and Administrators' <@=>535 — Fraudulent Conveyances <§=>221 — Sureties—Judgment Against Principal— Bestraining Conveyance.</p> <p>In West Virginia, a judgment against an executor is only prima facie evidence of liability of the sureties on the executor’s bond, so a legatee, securing judgment, cannot maintain a bill against sureties on the bond to restrain them from conveying their property, or to set aside their conveyances as in fraud of creditors.</p> <p><§E5>Far other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBElt in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Bankruptcy <S=o440 — 'Allowance op Claims — Review.</p> <p>The allowance of a claim of more than $500 can be reviewed only by . an appeal within 10 days, as provided in Bankruptcy Act, July 1, 1898, § 25a (Comp. St. 1916, § 9809), and not by petition to superintend and review in matter of law, provided for by section 24b (section 9608).</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy <®=^>446 — Petition to Superintend and Revise — Scope op Review.</p> <p>A disputed question of fact on which the allowance of a claim depended cannot be reviewed on petition to superintend and revise in matter of law provided for by Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, § 24a (Comp. St. 1916, § 9608).</p> <p><§=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; W. H. Seward Thomson, Judge.</p> <p>Action by Albert U. Devine against the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri; David P. Dyer, Judge.</p> <p>Action at law by James N. Alsop against Ruddell M. McCombs and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.</p>

<p>Patents <@=>328 — Construction—Validity.</p> <p>The Luten patents, No. 852,970, claims 14, 15, and 16, No. 853,202, claim 17, No. 979,776, claim 1, and No. 989,272, claim 3, all for reinforced concrete construction, held invalid; not showing invention in view of the prior art. •</p> <p><gxsoPor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia; William T. Newman, Judge.</p> <p>Bill by Henry L,. Tiffany against the Paper Products Company for infringement of patent No. 986,379. From a decree dismissing the bill (244 F. 178), complainant appeals.</p>

<p>Suit by the Buminous Unit Company against the Freeman-Sweet Company and the Reflectolyte Company. From a decree for complainant (249 Fed. 876), defendants appeal. On motion by defendants (appellants) for a restraining order pending appeal.</p>

Action by William H. Pearce against Sears, Roebuck & Co. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Action at law for damages for infringement of patents Nos. 705,287 and 997,002. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant in error, herein called plaintiff, the owner of two patents, brought suit against plaintiff in error, herein called defendant, and one Robert Gordon, for damages arising out of the alleged infringement of both patents.

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of William West, individually and trading as the William West Company, bankrupt. On petition for review of order allowing claim of landlord for rent. Order reversed, and ca.use remitted to referee, with instructions. On certificate for review of claim of landlord to fixtures.

<p>1. Time <5=10(10) — Computation—Expiration.</p> <p>Where a timber deed gave the grantee the right to demand an extension, etc., on expiration of the time fixed for removal, and the time expired on Sunday, a tender and demand, etc., made on the following secular day, will be treated as made on the day of expiration.</p> <p>2. Time <5=9(10) — Computation—Timber Deeds.</p> <p>Where a timber deed giving the grantee 10 years for removal provided for an extension of time on demand by the grantee and payment of interest, etc., the 10-year period should be computed by excluding the day of the deed and counting the last day, and a demand and tender on such day was in time, the grantee’s estate not havirig determined.</p> <p>3. Dogs and Logging <5=3(11) — Timber Deed — Construction.</p> <p>Where a timber deed gave the grantee 10 years for removal, and provided for an extension, etc., the grantee took a determinable fee, which would expire at the end of 10 years unless the period should be extended.</p> <p>4. Logs and Dogging <5=3(11) — Timber Deeds — Demand for Extension.</p> <p>AVhere a timber deed fixing a period for removal provided that the grantee should have additional time desired on payment of interest on original purchase year by year, a demand for 15 years’ additional time, or so much as desired, coupled with a tender of one year’s interest, held sufficient.</p> <p>5. Logs and Logging <5=3(11) — Timber Deeds — Extension of Time — Reasonable Time.</p> <p>Where a timber deed allowing 10 years for removal, provided that the grantee should have such additional time as desired, held that a demand for 15 years’ additional time, or so much as desired, was reasonable.</p> <p>6. Injunction <5=36(3) — Interference With Access to Land.</p> <p>Where the owner of land, who had granted the timber, together with rights of way for removal, denied the grantee access to the lands, asserting the period for removal had expired without extension, held that, as the grantee’s rights had not been determined, equity had jurisdiction to enjoin the owner from denying access, etc., there being no adequate remedy at law.</p> <p><gz^Por other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Wak <®==>4 — Offenses—Violation of Espionage Act.</p> <p>The publication of a book challenging the sincerity of the aims of the United States in entering war, and of a nature calculated to arouse dissatisfaction and induce opposition to its continuance by falsely stating that this country entered war to save England from defeat and to aid munition manufacturers, etc., held to violate Espionage Act, § 3, denouncing the willful making of false statements with intent to interfere with military operations, to cause insubordination or to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service.</p> <p><@=s>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the Growe Construction Company, bankrupt. On motion by the Truscon Steel Company to compel the special master in a reclamation proceeding to file his report, without being paid his compensation, etc. Special master ordered to file his report on payment of specified amounts.

<p>At Law. Petition by Willis Fronklin for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States marshal for the Northern district of Mississippi.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.</p>

In Error from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division; Thomas S. Maxey, Judge. Action by Allan Bond and another against J. L. Hume. Judgment for defendant, and plainül'fs bring error.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.-</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of New Mexico.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for' the Eastern District of Oklahoma.</p>

H. Seward Thomson, Judge. Action by the Fidelity Title & Trust Company, administrator of the estate of V. W. Pancoast, against the Du Bois Electric Company. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Wyoming.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia; Emory Speer, Judge. Suit by Henry C. Ferriot against the Atlantic, Waycross & Northern Railroad Company and another. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern. District of California.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Montana.</p>

Libel by the New York Central Railroad Company against the ferryboat Lakewood, her engines, etc.; the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, claimant. Decree for libelant, and claimant appeals.

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma. Preston A. Shinn, of Pawhuska, Okl., for appellant. John A. Fain, U. S. Atty., of Lawton, Okl.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Melvin C. Goss, of Boulder, Colo., for appellant. Harry B. Tedrow, U. S. Atty., of Boulder, Colo., and John A. Gordon, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Denver, Colo.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of! Georgia; Emory Speer, Judge. In the matter of the Rawlins Mercantile Company, bankrupt. On petition for review by B. S. Denver, trustee, findings of referee in favor of J. S. Nicholson, intervening claimant, were reversed (251, Fed. 164), and said claimant appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the First Division of the Northern District of California.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma.</p>

Elliott, Judge. Action by Herbert M. De Witt against Mark A. Skinner, Collector of Internal Revenue, etc., to recover taxes, etc., assessed under Act May 9, 1902, § 4, against plaintiff as a manufacturer of adulterated butter. There was a judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error.

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma.</p>