Слике страница
PDF
ePub

ices in contemplation of bankruptcy are specifically provided for
and are subject to revision in the court of original jurisdiction and
not elsewhere. (In re Wood and Henderson, 210 U. S. 246.) Laz-

arus v. Prentice, 263.
5. Jurisdiction; ancillary, in aid of trustee.
Under clause 20 of § 2 of the Bankruptcy Act as added by the amend-

ment of June 25, 1910, the bankruptcy courts have ancillary juris-
diction over persons and property within their respective terri-
torial limits in aid of a trustee or receiver appointed in any court

of bankruptcy. Ib.
6. Jurisdiction of this court; finality of order of Circuit Court of Appeals;

administrative order.
The seizure of property of the bankrupt by an ancillary receiver is a

summary proceeding and not a plenary suit and the decision of the
bankruptcy court in the jurisdiction of seizure that an intervenor
claiming by virtue of an assignment of the bankrupts made after
the petition and in payment of attorney's fees must assert the
claims in the court of original jurisdiction is an administrative
order, and the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the
same is not reviewable in this court. Ib.

7. Title of trustee; law governing effect of pledge, when trustee takes sub-

ject to rights of pledgee.
The legal effect of a transaction involving pledge or hypothecation de

pends upon the local law; and if the state law permits the pledged
property to remain under certain conditions in the possession of the
pledgor and those conditions exist, the trustee in bankruptcy of the
pledgor takes subject to the rights of the pledgee. (Taney v.
Penn Bank, 232 U. S. 174.) Dale v. Pattison, 399.

8. Title and disposition of property seized by ancillary receiver; effect of

assignment subsequent to petition.
Property of the bankrupt when seized by an ancillary receiver or

trustee is held by virtue of the terms of the Bankruptcy Act to be
turned over to the court of original jurisdiction and no right can be
acquired in it by assignment subsequent to the petition which can
defeat this purpose. Lazarus v. Prentice, 263.

See CORPORATIONS, 5, 6;

JURISDICTION, A 2.

BILLS AND NOTES.
1. Endorsement; fraud of holder in obtaining; effect on parties otherwise

liable.
Where some of the signatures of defendant endorsers had been obtained

by means of fraudulent representations by the plaintiff holder of
the paper, the whole transaction is vitiated even as to those en-
dorsers who were liable on former existing paper of which that in
suit was a renewal. Schmidt v. Bank of Commerce, 64.

2. Renewals; effect as new promise; effect of fraudulent inducement.
A note, although given in renewal of an older note, constitutes a new

promise with distinct legal consequences and cannot be enforced if
fraudulently induced, even if there were no defense to the older
note. 16.

3. Defenses; estoppel of plaintiff to defeat.
A party cannot maintain an inconsistent position, and so held that

where the court, on plaintiffs' motion, has denied the right of de-
fendants to show that the note sued on was void as to them because
of subsequent alteration by addition of signatures of other co-
makers, the plaintiff cannot defeat defendants' defense of fraud in
obtaining the later signatures on the ground that the notes were
completed instruments and binding upon the makers before the
others had signed. Ib.

See LOCAL LAW (N. Mex.).

BONDS.
See ACTIONS, 2;

CONTRACTS, 6-9.

BOUNDARIES.
See INDIANS, 6-9.

BOUNDARY FERRIES.
See FERRIES, 5, 6;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 14.

BRIDGES.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 14.

BURDEN OF PROOF.
See EVIDENCE;

PUBLIC LANDS, 20.

CANALS.
See PUBLIC WORKS.

CARMACK AMENDMENT.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 25.

CARRIERS.
See COMMON CARRIERS;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMIS-
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Act; SION;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; SAFETY APPLIANCE Act.

CASES APPROVED.
Chicago &c. Ry. Co. v. United States, 196 Fed. Rep. 882, approved in

Southern Ry. Co. v. Crockett, 725.
United States v. National Surety Co., 92 Fed. Rep. 549, approved in

Equitable Surety Co. v. McMillan, 448.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.
Atlantic Coast Line v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, distinguished in

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 412.
Harley v. United States, 198 U. S. 229, distinguished in United States v.

Buffalo Pitts Co., 228.
Hooe v. United States, 218 U. S. 322, distinguished in United States v.

Buffalo Pitts Co., 228.
United States v. McMullen, 222 U. S. 460, distinguished in United

States v. Axman, 36.
United States v. O'Brien, 220 U. S. 321, distinguished in Stone & Gravel

Co. v. United States, 370.

CASES FOLLOWED.
Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, followed in Seaboard

Air Line Ry. v. J. M. Pace Mule Co., 751.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173, followed in

Pacific Express Co. v. Rudman, 752.
Atlantic Coast Line v. Mazursky, 216 U. S. 122, followed in Missouri,

K. & T. Ry. v. Harris, 412.
Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 54, followed in Atlantic

Transport Co. v. Szczesek, 63.
Ballinger v. Frost, 216 U. S. 240, followed in Lane v. Watts, 525.
Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U. S. 516, followed in Selig v. Hamilton,

652.
Blythe v. Hinckley, 180 U. S. 333, followed in Jones v. Jones, 615.
Bogart v. Southern Pacific Co., 228 U. S. 137, followed in Gallagher v.

Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 753.
Calnan Co. v. Doherty, 224 U. S. 145, followed in Synnott v. Tombstone

Cons. Mines Co., 749.

Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89, followed in Synnott v. Tombstone Cons.

Mines Co., 749.
Chase v. United States, 155 U. S. 489, followed in United States v.

Buffalo Pitts Co., 228.
Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222, followed in Cincinnati

Northern Ry. Co. v. Dillon, 753.
Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U. S. 513, followed in Seaboard Air

Line Ry. v. J. M. Pace Mule Co., 751.
Coder v. Arts, 213 U. S. 223, followed in Synnott v. Tombstone Cons.

Mines Co., 749.
Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, followed in Malone v. Kentucky,

639,
Conboy v. First National Bank, 203. U. S. 141, followed in Synnott v.

Tombstone Cons. Mines Co., 749.
Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, followed

in Prenica v. Bulger, 750; Lewiston v. Chamberlain, 751.
Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U. S. 243, followed in Selig v. Hamilton, 652.
De Bary & Co. v. Louisiana, 227 U. S. 108, followed in Prenica v. Bul-

ger, 750.

Ex parte Harding, 219 U. S. 363, followed in Ex parte Roe, 70.
Fore River Shipbuilding Co. v. Hagg, 219 U. S. 175, followed in Gal-

lagher v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 753.
Gibson v. Stevens, 8 How. 384, followed in Dale v. Pattison, 399.
Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, followed in Sault

Ste Marie v. International Transit Co., 333.
Grand Trunk Ry. Go. v. Lindsay, 233 U. S. 42, followed in Cincinnati

Northern Ry. Co. v. Dillon, 753.
Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi, 217 U. S. 433, followed in Eastern

States Lumber Asso. v. United States, 600.
Hazeltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 130, followed in Northern Trust Co.

v. Illinois, 748.
Houston & Texas Cent. R. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321, followed in

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Beatty, 753.
In re Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443, followed in Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. R.

Co., 749.
In re Wood and Henderson, 210 U. S. 246, followed in Lazarus v. Pren-

tice, 263.
International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, followed in

Same v. Same, 589; Collins v. Kentucky, 634.
International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579, followed in

Same v. Same, 589.
Intermountain Rate Cases, 234 U. S. 476, followed in United States v.

Union Pacific R. R. Co., 495.
Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U.S. 245, followed in Craig v. Jarrett, 752.

Kansas City Star Co. v. Julian, 215 U. S. 589, followed in Lewiston v.

Chamberlain, 751.
Kansas Southern Ry: v. Carl, 227 U. S. 637, followed in Pacific Express

Co. v. Rudman, 752.
Kauffman v. Waters, 138 U. S. 285, followed in Missouri, K. & T. Ry.

Co. v. Goodrich, 754.
Los Angeles Switching Case, 234 U. S. 294, followed in Interstate Com.

Comm. v. Southern Pacific Co., 315.
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, followed in

Intermountain Rate Cases, 476.
Louisiana Navigation Co. v. Oyster Commission, 226 U. S. 99, followed

in Northern Trust Co. v. Illinois, 748.
McClellan v. Garland, 217 U. S. 268, followed in Meeker v. Lehigh

Valley R. R. Co., 749.
McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, followed in Lewiston v. Chamber-

lain, 751.
Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U. S. 236, followed in Louisville & Nash-

ville R. R. Co. v. Higdon, 592.
Missouri & K. Interurban Ry. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U. S. 185, followed in

Northern Trust Co. v. Illinois, 748.
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642, followed in Missouri,

K. & T. Ry. v. Harris, 412.
Missouri, K. & T. Ry.Co. v. Goodrich, 229 U. S. 607, followed in Same

v. Same, 754.
Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Harriman Bros., 227 U. S. 657, followed in Sea-

board Air Line Ry. Co. v. J. M. Pace Mule Co., 751.
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 169 U. S. 103, followed in Louisville &

Nashville R. R. Co. v. Higdon, 592.
National Bank v. Insurance Co., 100 U. S. 43, followed in Lazarus v.

Prentice, 263.
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 234 U. S. 149, followed in Same v.

Same, 166.
Noble v. Union River Logging Co., 147 U. S. 165, followed in Lane v.

Watts, 525.
North Carolina R. R. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248, followed in Carlson v.

Curtiss, 103.
Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, followed in Clinchfield Coal Cor-

poration v. Maness, 748.
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, followed in Grannis v. Ordean,

385.
Pons v. Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co., 232 U. S. 720, followed in Northern

Trust Co. v. Illinois, 748.
Preston v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 447, followed in Clinchfield Coal Corporus

tion v. Maness, 748.

« ПретходнаНастави »