Volume 289 — Federal Reporter

<p>1. Abatement and revival <@=46—Mode of suggesting bankruptcy ofguitor.</p> <p>It is not tbe duty of a state court to stay proceedings merely because it bears of tbe bankruptcy of a suitor, but it must be informed of tbe fact by proper pleadings.</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy <@=156— Intervention by trustee in action in state court.</p> <p>A trustee in bankruptcy need not intervene in an action between tbe bankrupt and another party in tbe state court; but, if be does not, be is bound by tbe judgment to tbe same extent that any party acquiring interest in tbe property pending suit is bound.</p> <p>3. Bankruptcy <@=288(2)— Claim supported by judgment of state court held not merely colorable.</p> <p>Claim of one to property as partner of bankrupt, supported by judgment of a state court secured without fraud or collusion, held not colorable merely, so that it could be disposed of in a summary manner by the bankruptcy court.</p> <p><@=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Criminal prosecution by the United States against J. A. Bostick, with intervention- by George F. Jackson, doing business under the trade-name and style of the Southern Arizona Auto Company, claiming title to the automobile irn which defendant was transporting intoxicating liquors.

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi; William B. Sheppard, Judge.</p> <p>Action by J. Numa Jordy against C. W. Fouke and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.</p>

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi ; William B. Sheppard, Judge.</p> <p>Action by S. H. Hindman against C. W. Fouke. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>1. Reformation of instruments <@=»45(2)— Evidence held not to show mutuality of mistake.</p> <p>Omission from a contract prepared by complainant, through inadvertence of the copyist of a material provision which complainant intended to incorporate therein, held not to entitle complainant to its reformation; the evidence being'insufficient to show that the mistake was mutual or known to defendant, or that defendant would have signed the contract if it had contained such provision.</p> <p>2. Reformation of instruments @=>20, 45(2)—To warrant reformation for mistake of one party, evidence must clearly establish fraud and error.</p> <p>To authorize reformation of a contract for mistake of one of the parties, fraud must be shown, and the evidence must be dear and convincing, and lead unmistakably to the certainty of error.</p> <p>3. Patents <@=s2I9(2)—That licensee furnished the invention for use of United States no defense to suit for royalties.</p> <p>Act June 25, 1910, as amended by Act July 1, 1918 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 9465), providing that, wherever a patented invention shall be used or manufactured by or for the United States “without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same,” the owner’s remedy shall be by suit against the United States in the Court of Claims for recovery of reasonable compensation, has no application where the invention is furnished for use of the United States by a contractor who is a licensee under the patent, and is no defense to a suit by the owner against the licensee for royalties under the license contract.</p> <p>4. Patents <@=3218(4)—Ships built by licensee under patent for method of ship construction held within the patent and subject to royalties.</p> <p>Ships built by a licensee under patent No. 1,029,546, for a method of ship construction, held within the terms of the patent and subject to royalties under the license contract.</p> <p>other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

Libel in admiralty by the Morse DryDock & Repair Company against the bark Spica, her tackle, etc., the Susquehanna Steamship Company, as agent, etc., claimant. From a decree for libelant, claimant appeals. The Spica is an Italian vessel, whose owners, in the spring of 1918, desire.d to change her into an auxiliary. They were represented in the United.

<p>1. Criminal law <@=37—Sale of narcotics to addict held not entrapment.</p> <p>Conviction of selling narcotics would not be set aside on the ground that accused was tempted or entrapped into selling, where the government’s inspector merely sent an addict, who testified that he had bought drugs from accused a hundred times before, to make another purchase under conditions which would enable the government to offer corroborative proof that the sale had been made.</p> <p>2. Criminal law <^1059(2) —General exception to charge as a whole raises no reviewabie question.</p> <p>An exception taken to the charge as a whole, without any specification as to what was supposed to be wrong about it, raises no reviewabie question.</p> <p>3. Witnesses <@=337(5), 345(1)—Credibility may be tested by previous convictions.</p> <p>When an accused tenders himself as a witness, his credibility may be tested by asking him as to previous convictions ; and, similarly, a witness against him may be cross-examined in like fashion.</p> <p><§z»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Corporations <§=5629— In absence of statute, stockholders have vested right to share in earnings and property on dissolution.</p> <p>In the absence of a statute, the stockholders are considered to have acquired a vested right to share in the earnings of the corporation and in its property on dissolution, in accordance with the contract of stock ownership.</p> <p>2. Corporations <@=>71—Maine statute held to authorize issuance of treasury stock as preferred stock.</p> <p>Rev. St. Me. c. 51, § 53, authorizing corporations to create two or more kinds of stock, with such restrictions or qualifications as shall be- determined in tlie by-laws or by vote of the stockholders, which, as shown by affidavits, has been practically construed as applying to the issuance of treasury stock as preferred stock, authorizes a Maine corporation to issue common stock, which it had in its treasury after it had once been issued as preferred stock, giving each common stockholder a right to subscribe for shares of the preferred stock in proportion to his holdings of common stock.</p> <p>@=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes *</p> <p>3. Corporations <©=> 198—Proxies in which stockholders wrote names only in blank at beginning are void.</p> <p>Proxies given by stockholders of a corporation,. in which the names óf the stockholders wer,e written in the blank in the body of the proxies, but which were not sighed at the end of the proxy, are void. '</p> <p><gcs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in -all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Maritime liens. <@=>24—Furnisher of coal to tug held entitled to lien.</p> <p>One furbishing coal to a tug, taking slips, signed by the master, stating that it was sold on the credit of vessel and owner, for which it sent bills monthly to the owner, held entitled to a lien, under Act June 23, 1910 (Comp. St. §§ 7783-7787), for so much of the account as . remained -unpaid.</p> <p>2. Maritime liens <@=>61—Lien held not lost by laches.</p> <p>That suit for enforcement of a lien for coal furnished was riot brought until eight months after the last coal was furnished, and after the tug had been sold, held not such laches as defeated the lien, where the tug was in other waters and libelant had no knowledge of the sale.</p> <p><@=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>At Law. Action by Edward A. Woods against C. G. Lewellyn, Collector of Internal Revenue for the Twenty-Third Revenue District.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p> <p>In the matter of the German Publication Society, Inc. Petition to review decision of referee adverse to Crombie & Lamothe, Inc., was dismissed (289 Fed. 509), and petitioner appeals.</p>

Suit in equity by Stanley P. Hall and others against F. Alexander Chandler and another, coreceiyers of the Nelson Blower & Furnace Company. Decree dismissing petitions, and certain petitioners appeal.

Action at law by Nellie J. Quereau and Jennie P. Pratt, administrators with the will annexed of the estate of Wilson R. Quereau, deceased, against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.

<p>Army and navy <@==>511/2, New, vol. I2A Key-No. Series—Evidence held not to show beneficiary in war risk insurance was changed.</p> <p>Where soldier had taken out $10,000 war risk insurance, his wife being beneficiary thereof for $5,000 and his mother beneficiary for the same amount, evidence helot not to show that a later instrument, in form of application for insurance, was or was intended to be a change of beneficiary, as to the wife’s $5,000 part of the policy, from the wife to the mother.</p> <p><@=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>Petition for Mandamus to the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.</p>