« ПретходнаНастави »
ices in contemplation of bankruptcy are specifically provided for
5. Jurisdiction; ancillary, in aid of trustee.
Under clause 20 of § 2 of the Bankruptcy Act as added by the amend-
6. Jurisdiction of this court; finality of order of Circuit Court of Appeals;
The seizure of property of the bankrupt by an ancillary receiver is a
7. Title of trustee; law governing effect of pledge, when trustee takes sub-
The legal effect of a transaction involving pledge or hypothecation de-
8. Title and disposition of property seized by ancillary receiver; effect of
Property of the bankrupt when seized by an ancillary receiver or
BILLS AND NOTES.
1. Endorsement; fraud of holder in obtaining; effect on parties otherwise
Where some of the signatures of defendant endorsers had been obtained
by means of fraudulent representations by the plaintiff holder of
2. Renewals; effect as new promise; effect of fraudulent inducement.
3. Defenses; estoppel of plaintiff to defeat.
A party cannot maintain an inconsistent position; and so held that
See LOCAL LAW (N. Mex.).
See ACTIONS, 2;
See INDIANS, 6-9.
See FERRIES, 5, 6;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 14.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 14.
BURDEN OF PROOF.
PUBLIC LANDS, 20.
See PUBLIC WORKS.
See COMMON CARRIERS;
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMIS-
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.
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
Atlantic Coast Line v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, distinguished in
Harley v. United States, 198 U. S. 229, distinguished in United States v.
Hooe v. United States, 218 U. S. 322, distinguished in United States v.
United States v. McMullen, 222 U. S. 460, distinguished in United
United States v. O'Brien, 220 U. S. 321, distinguished in Stone & Gravel
Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, followed in Seaboard
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173, followed in
Atlantic Coast Line v. Mazursky, 216 U. S. 122, followed in Missouri,
Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 54, followed in Atlantic
Ballinger v. Frost, 216 U. S. 240, followed in Lane v. Watts, 525.
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.
Calnan Co. v. Doherty, 224 U. S. 145, followed in Synnott v. Tombstone
Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89, followed in Synnott v. Tombstone Cons.
Chase v. United States, 155 U. S. 489, followed in United States v.
Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222, followed in Cincinnati
Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U. S. 513, followed in Seaboard Air
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,
Conboy v. First National Bank, 203 U. S. 141, followed in Synnott v.
Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, followed
in Prenica v. Bulger, 750; Lewiston v. Chamberlain, 751.
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-
Gibson v. Stevens, 8 How. 384, followed in Dale v. Pattison, 399.
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Lindsay, 233 U. S. 42, followed in Cincinnati
Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi, 217 U. S. 433, followed in Eastern
Hazeltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 130, followed in Northern Trust Co.
Houston & Texas Cent. R. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321, followed in
In re Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443, followed in Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. R.
In re Wood and Henderson, 210 U. S. 246, followed in Lazarus v. Pren-
International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, followed in
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.
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.
Kansas Southern Ry. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 637, followed in Pacific Express
Kauffman v. Waters, 138 U. S. 285, followed in Missouri, K. & T. Ry.
Los Angeles Switching Case, 234 U. S. 294, followed in Interstate Com.
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, followed in
Louisiana Navigation Co. v. Oyster Commission, 226 U. S. 99, followed
McClellan v. Garland, 217 U. S. 268, followed in Meeker v. Lehigh
McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, followed in Lewiston v. Chamber-
Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U. S. 236, followed in Louisville & Nash-
Missouri & K. Interurban Ry. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U. S. 185, followed in
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-
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 169 U. S. 103, followed in Louisville &
National Bank v. Insurance Co., 100 U. S. 43, followed in Lazarus v.
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 234 U. S. 149, followed in Same v.
Noble v. Union River Logging Co., 147 U. S. 165, followed in Lane v.
North Carolina R. R. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248, followed in Carlson v.
Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, followed in Clinchfield Coal Cor-
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, followed in Grannis v. Ordean,
Pons v. Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co., 232 U. S. 720, followed in Northern
Preston v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 447, followed in Clinchfield Coal Corpo1u-