2. In Illinois, a will probated in Virginia is as available in proof as if pro- bated in Illinois. Long v. Patton, 573.
District of Columbia. See STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
The mandate of this court in this case was fully complied with by the Court of Claims. United States v. Atchison, Topeka &c. Railroad Co.,
A common day laborer in the employ of a railroad company, who, while working for the company under the order and direction of a section "boss" or foreman, on a culvert on the line of the company's road, re- ceives an injury by and through the negligence of the conductor and of the engineer in moving and operating a passenger train upon the company's road, is a fellow-servant with such engineer and such con- ductor, in such a sense as exempts the railroad company from liability for the injury so inflicted. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hambly, 349.
See PUBLIC LAND, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
1. The legislature of Iowa had power to authorize the city of Keokuk to subscribe for and take stock in a railway company, to issue its bonds therefor and to lay a tax to pay the interest thereon. Rogers v. Keo- kuk, 546; Same v. Lee County, 547.
2. It had also power to give validity to bonds informally issued for such purpose. Ib.
3. A plaintiff who purchases such bonds in the open market is not charge- able with defects or irregularities in their issue. Ib.
1. The reissue of June 10, 1884, by which the patent of May 8, 1883, to Joseph T. Dunham, for a combined tag and envelope, with an end flap covering the side of the envelope, was so enlarged as to include an envelope with a flap of any size or shape, is void. Dunham v. Dennison Manufacturing Company, 103.
2. The patent of November 24, 1885, to Joseph T. Dunham, for an im- provement in tag envelopes, with a flap so constructed that it can be opened and the contents taken out without tearing the envelope or removing or breaking the fastenings, is not infringed by an envelope in which the flap is fastened down so that it cannot be opened with- out injury, and the contents are taken out by opening a flap at the opposite end of the envelope. Ib.
1. Dismissed by stipulation of counsel. The Niagara v. Van Pelt, 533. 2. A decree entered by consent of parties modifying the decree of the court below. Coggeshall v. Hartshorn, 533.
3. It appearing that this cause was brought here for delay only, the court dismisses it on motion of the defendant in error, and awards damages at the rate of ten per cent a year. Watterson v. Payne, 534.
4. A motion made by the plaintiff in error after the entry of such judg- ment to appear and for leave to file a brief comes too late. Ib.
5. Two records from the court below being docketed here in the same case and one being heard and disposed of by decree of reversal, the second is dismissed. United States v. Osio, 535.
6. The appellant was a proper party defendant in the court below, and duly took his appeal. Connellsville & Southern Pennsylvania Railroad v. Baltimore, 553.
7. The order assigning the case for hearing at this term is rescinded. Ib. 8. After a cause is at issue, and on the day when it is set for trial before a jury, it is too late to take a peremptory exception that a partner with plaintiff in the transaction sued on is not a party plaintiff. Bur- bank v. Bigelow, 558.
9. An objection in an action at law that the matter of plaintiff's demand is one of equitable cognizance in Federal courts cannot be taken for the first time in this court. Ib.
10. A certified question is answered coupled with a statement that, through subsequent legislation, it has ceased to be of any importance. United States v. Stafford, 590.
11. This case is dismissed without an opinion, as no exceptions appear to have been taken during the trial. Bank of New Orleans v. Caldwell, 592. 12. A judgment is entered according to the stipulation of the parties. Woodman Pebbling Machine Co. v. Guild, 597.
13. A bill of exceptions cannot bring up the whole testimony for review whether the case has been tried by the court, or by a jury. Betts v. Mugridge, 644.
14. The refusal of a charge asked for which is wholly immaterial is no ground for reversal. Bank of Montreal v. White, 669.
PRESCRIPTION.
See LOCAL LAW.
1. A loan was negotiated through a banker, who received the money from the lender, and failed before the borrower called for it. Held, on the facts disclosed by the proof, that he held it as the agent of the bor- rower. Merriam v. Haas, 542.
2. B., who had transactions with the appellees who were bankers, delivered to them his five promissory notes secured by mortgage. The appel- lant was also a creditor of B. and had a claim upon the fund in the appellees' hands. Held, (1) That the fact that the notes were in the possession of the appellees raised a legal presumption that they were their property; (2) that the weight of the evidence was in favor of the position that the appellees were to be first paid before transferring the notes to appellants. Finley v. Isett, 561.
See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.
1. By the grant of public land made to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company by the act of July 2, 1864, c. 217, 13 Stat. 365, all mineral lands other than iron or coal are excluded from its operation, whether known or unknown; and all such mineral lands, not otherwise specially provided in the act making the grant, are reserved exclusively to the United States, the company having the right to select unoccupied and unappropriated agricultural lands in odd sections, nearest to the line of the road, in lieu thereof. Barden v. Northern Pacific Railroad Co., 288.
2. Proceedings to obtain a Mexican grant in California commenced in 1845 and diligently prosecuted up to May, 1847, when judgment is rendered in the applicant's favor, and title issues to him, are held to be binding upon the United States, in the absence of fraud. United States v. Olvera, 538.
3. A plat made in 1853 of land adjudged to be covered by a Mexican
grant, and confirmed in 1862, is sustained as the correct designation of the property covered by the grant. United States v. De Haro, 544. 4. After a careful examination of the proof relating to the identity of the
appellants' ancestor with the grantee from the Mexican government, the court affirms the judgment of the court below, without deciding the questions of law. Hardy v. Harbin, 598. 5. The treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo had no relation to property within the State of Texas. Basse v. Brownsville, 610.
6. When it does not appear that a grant from the Mexican Republic had been deposited and recorded in the proper public office, among the public archives of the republic, this court must decide adversely to a claim under it. Berreyesa v. United States, 623.
1. A railroad company is bound to furnish sound machinery for the use of its employés, and if one of them is killed in an accident caused by a defective snow-plough, the right of his representative to recover dam- ages therefor is not affected by the fact that some two weeks before he was sent out with the defective machinery, he had discovered the defect, and had notified the master mechanic of it, and the latter had undertaken to have it repaired. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Babcock, 190.
2. Some alleged errors in the charge of the court below are examined and held to have no merit. Ib.
3. If an assessing board, seeking to assess for purposes of taxation a part of a railroad within a State, the other part of which is in an adjoining State, ascertains the value of the whole line as a single property and then determines the value of that within the State, upon the mileage basis, that is not a valuation of property outside of the State; and the assessing board, in order to keep within the limits of state jurisdic- tion, need not treat the part of the road within the State as an inde- pendent line, disconnected from the part without, and place upon that property only the value which can be given to it if operated separately from the balance of the road. Cleveland, Cincinnati,Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Backus, 439.
4. Where an assessing board is charged with the duty of valuing a certain number of miles of railroad within a State forming part of a line of road running into another State, and assesses those miles of road at their actual cash value determined on a mileage basis, this does not place a burden upon interstate commerce, beyond the power of the State, simply because the value of that railroad as a whole is created partly and perhaps largely by the interstate commerce which it is doing. Ib.
5. A railroad company which runs its line by telegraph, is bound to have a suitable telegraph line, with a proper number of operators, and in case of an accident it is for the jury to decide whether their duty in this respect has been performed. Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Walker, 653.
See COMMON CARRIER, 2;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 5;
MASTER AND SERVANT; TAX AND TAXATION, 1, 2.
1. A French vessel leaving France for New Orleans in May, 1861, with knowledge of the blockade, and obtaining full knowledge of the same at the Bahamas, continued its voyage and attempted to enter that port. Held, that it was subject to capture, and that so much of the cargo as belonged to citizens of New Orleans was subject to condem- nation as enemy's property, and so much as belonged to citizens of
New York to condemnation for illicit trading with the enemy. United States v. Hallock, 537.
2. This court affirms after the close of the civil war, a judgment con- demning a vessel and cargo for violation of the acts of July 13, 1861, c. 3, and August 6, 1861, c. 60, in transferring goods from Alexandria to a part of Virginia then in a state of insurrection. Duvall v. United States, 548.
3. The liability of the maker of a note given for the purchase of slaves before the civil war was not affected by their emancipation. Holmes v. Sevier, 582.
The removal or appointment of a receiver rests in the sound discretion of the court making the order, and is not revisable here. Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad v. Soutter, 540; Same v. Same, 541.
Part-performance of an oral contract for the conveyance of an interest in real estate in the District of Columbia takes it out of the operation of the statute of frauds, and authorizes a court of equity to decree a full and specific performance of it, if proved. Riggles v. Erney, 244.
1. When a railroad runs into or through two or more States, its value, for taxation purposes, in each is fairly estimated by taking that part of
« AnteriorContinuar » |