Volume 290 — Federal Reporter

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>Criminal prosecution by the United States against Merl B. Inks. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>G. E. Gill and G. W. Sawyer were indicted for conspiracy to use the mails to defraud. On motion of the United States for an order of removal' of G. W. Sawyer to the Southern district of Mississippi.</p>

<p>In Equity. Suit by Berthold Nagy against the International Cork Company.</p>

<p>1. Bankruptcy <@=>180 — Actual fraud necessary to invalidate mortgage-as fraudulent.</p> <p>To invalidate a mortgage under Bankr. Act, § 67e (Comp. St. § 9651), as given by A bankrupt with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, actual fraud must be shown.</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy <@=>303(3) — Evidence held insufficient to show invalidity of mortgage.</p> <p>Bankrupt executed a mortgage within four months prior to bankruptcy, receiving the greater part of the consideration in cash, which went into his business, but also secured a prior indebtedness due to the mortgagee. There was no evidence of conspiracy or fraud, that the mortgagee had reason to believe the mortgagor insolvent, or that he was in fact insolvent. Held, that the mortgage was not invalid as a fraudulent conveyance, nor in part as a voidable preference.</p> <p><§=>For other eases 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 District of West Virginia, at Elkins; William E. Baker, Judge.</p> <p>Edward R. Pendleton was convicted of violating the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, and brings error.</p>

<p>In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the estate of the Du Pont Young Manufacturing Company, bankrupt. On petition for review of order.</p>

<p>Criminal law <s=»l 68 — Payment of penalties imposed by Internal Revenue Department not bar to criminal prosecution.</p> <p>Tbe assessment of penalties by a collector of internal revenue against a person as a liquor dealer and tbeir payment or compromise by bim under National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 35, does not relieve him from criminal liability under tbe act.</p> <p>©=oFor other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In Admiralty. In the matter of the petition of Castrian Steamship Company, Limited,"for limitation of liability as owner of the steamship Lancastrian, her engines, etc.

In Equity. Suit by Nathan Gray, trading as Gray’s Pharmacy, against Edward C. Yellowley, acting Federal Prohibition Director for the State of New York, and another, to review the action of the prohibition officials in revoking his retail druggist’s permit to sell intoxicating liquors. On motion for injunction pendente lite to restrain defendants from carrying out such order.

<p>In Equity. Suit by the American Can Company against the Goldee Manufacturing Company, Inc.</p>

<p>Patents <§=3328 — 1,229,102, for talking doll, valid and infringed.</p> <p>The Lloyd patent, No. 1,229,102, for a talking doll, claims 1, 2, 3, and 4, held not anticipated, valid, and infringed.</p> <p>cgr^Por other casos see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>At Law. Action by the Bibb Manufacturing Company against C. H. Pope & Co., Inc. On motions to direct verdict, and on motion to set aside verdict.</p>

<p>At Law. Action by the Utah-Idaho Live Stock Loan Company against the Blackfoot City Bank. Judgment for defendant.</p>

In Equity. Suit by M. J. Bashara against George C. Hopkins, Collector of Internal Revenue, to enjoin the collection of a tax. On motion of defendant to dissolve a temporary restraining order and to dismiss the bill.

<p>In Bankruptcy. In the matter of K. G. Whitfield & Bro., bankrupt. On petition to have claim of the American National Bank disallowed.</p>

At Raw. Action by the Title Guarantee & Trust Company and another, as executors of Joseph W. Teets, deceased, against William H. Edwards, Collector of Internal Revenue of the United States for the Second District. On motion by each party for a directed verdict.

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Charles P. Orr, Judge.</p> <p>Action at law by the Atlantic Mill & Lumber Company against the American Lumber & Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>1. Parties <@=>75(3) — Objection must be made promptly.</p> <p>Objections relating to parties must generally be made promptly, or they will be deemed waived.</p> <p>2. Equity <@=>330(1) — Failure to join issue waived by proceeding to trial.</p> <p>Failure to file an- answer, bill, or reply, or any pleading which is necessary to frame an issue, or otherwise failing to join issue properly, or at all, on any and all of the allegations appearing in the pleadings, is deemed waived by voluntary proceeding to trial as though issue was properly joined.</p> <p>3. Copyrights <@=>'82— Plaintiff must by proper averments connect himself with copyright.</p> <p>Where a copyright is not obtained in the plaintiff’s name, the plaintiff in a suit for infringement must connect himself with it by proper averments, showing assignment or transfer of it to him, or a license under it sufficient to entitle him to sue, and, where the facts are properly stated, the legal conclusion therefrom may he pleaded, even in the alternative form, in such an endeavor.</p> <p>4. Copyrights <@=>76 — Owner of equitable rights may sue in equity.</p> <p>The owner of the equitable title to a copyright is not a licensee, and may sue in equity, particularly where the owner of the legal title is an infringer, or one of the infringers, thus occupying a position hostile to the plaintiff, in view of Act March 4, 1909, § 36 (Comp. St. § 9557).-</p> <p>5. Copyrights <@=>81 — Owner of legal title must be generally joined as party.</p> <p>In a suit for infringement by the owner of only an equitable title to a copyright, the owner of a legal title must ordinarily be joined as a party.</p> <p>6. Copyrights <@=>41,42 — One obtaining copyright of joint work holds legal title in trust.</p> <p>The author, who obtains a copyright of a joint work in his own name, has legal title in trust for the benefit of his colleagues.</p> <p>7. Copyrights <@=>77— Infringement is a tort, and infringers are- jointly and severally liable.</p> <p>Infringement of a copyright is a tort, and all persons concerned therein are jointly and severally liable as such joint tort-feasors.</p> <p>8. Copyrights <@=>81 — Persons infringing severally not to be sued jointly.</p> <p>Where the defendants have acted severally, and not jointly or in concert, in committing an infringement of a copyright, they cannot he sued jointly.</p> <p>jg=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>1. Shipping <@=35 — Agents without power to change terms of charter without specific authority.</p> <p>The master of a vessel and the agent of the charterer are without power to change the terms of a charter party made between the owner and charterer without specific authority.</p> <p>2. Shipping <@=35 — New charter made by agents held not to displace original charter.</p> <p>Owner and charterer signed a charter party for a voyage from African to. American ports, the vessel to be loaded only by charterer. On arrival at an African port, the master and charterer’s agent there, without knowledge that a charter had been previously signed and through a misunderstanding, signed a new charter at a higher price, but permitting loading by a subeharterer. The vessel was loaded by a subeharterer, but without greater delay or inconvenience to owner. Held, that the voyage was made under the original charter and that the owner could not recover the additional charter hire, stipulated for in the second charter party.</p> <p>@=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

<p>In Admiralty. Four separate libels, by Haakon Anderson, by Kristen Nielsen, by Iver Madsen, and by Thomas Anderson, against the stearn tug P. R. R. No. '34, in which the claimant of the tug impleaded Di Giorgio & Co., Inc., under the fifty-ninth rule in admiralty (29 Sup. Ct. xlvi). Decrees rendered, dismissing the libels against the tug, and for the libelants against the impleaded respondent. ,</p>

<p>At Law. Action by Frank N. Snell and Jay E. Rice against the J. C. Turner Lumber Company. On motion by plaintiffs for judgment on the pleadings.</p>

<p>I. Bribery <g=»l (I) — Authority of representative of War Department held sufficient basis for bribery.</p> <p>An army officer, who was acting as chief representative of the War Department, though he could not make a valid sale of war materials and could only recommend sales, had such authority as would furnish basis for an offense of bribery in connection with a sale, under Penal Code, § 39 (Comp. St. § 10203).</p> <p>■gc^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>2. Conspiracy <§=>28 — Belief by defendants that officer had authority essential to make out criminal intent to bribe.</p> <p>In a prosecution for conspiracy to bribe a United States officer, under Penal Code, § 39 (Comp. St. § 10203), belief by defendants that the officer had authority was essential to make out their criminal intent.</p> <p>3. Criminal law <§=>37 — Entrapment of conspirators held1 not shown.</p> <p>In a prosecution for conspiracy to bribe an officer, under Penal Code, § 39 (Comp. St. § 10203), acts of officer approached held not to constitute improper entrapment.</p> <p>4. Conspiracy <§=>33 — That purchaser pays value of property not inconsistent with existence of fraud in bringing about sale.</p> <p>The fact that war materials were not worth more than defendant bid therefor, was not inconsistent with existence of fraud in bringing about a sale, and a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the government was not thereby rendered improper.</p> <p>5. Criminal law <§=>423(3) — Letter written by conspirator held admissible as against associates.</p> <p>A letter written by one alleged conspirator to a co-conspirator, but never received by the latter, was admissible against all conspirators, if it was an act adapted to carry out the conspiracy.</p> <p>6. Criminal law <§=>1137(5) — No complaint of admission of confession of another without objection.</p> <p>Where defendants’ counsel acquiesced In court’s ruling that their rights would be preserved by permitting an entire confession of an alleged co-conspirator to be read, to be followed by a motion to strike out portions thought inadmissible, no complaint could be made on appeal as to the admission of the confession, which contained damaging recitals and statements.</p> <p>7. Arrest <@=>71 — Criminal law <@=>393(2) — Documents on person arrested may be seized and used in evidence.</p> <p>Documents found on the person or in the immediate possession of one lawfully arrested are' not to he considered as obtained by unlawful search or seizure, and to use them on his trial is not to compel him to give evidence against himself.</p> <p>@=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

In Admiralty. Suit by the Tietjen & Rang Dry Dock Company against the tug Interstate No. 2, with other libels by the North River Coal & Wharf Company, by Philip Heipershausen and another, by James Shewan & Sons, Inc., by the M. K. Bowman-Edson Company, by the John W. Sullivan Company, and by the Williams & Wells Company against the same tug. On motion by the Tietjen & Rang Dry Dock Company for priority of lien.