Слике страница
PDF
ePub

(113 Fed. 1019.)

THE MCDONALD. THE JOHN LANG. (Circuit Court of Appeals. Second Circuit. January 7, 1902.) No. 20. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Le Roy S. Gove, for libelant. Amos Van Etten, for claimant. Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges, and TOWNSEND, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. Decree of district court affirmed, with interest and costs. See 50 C. C. A. 423, 112 Fed. 681.

(113 Fed. 1019.)

In re MAINS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 7, 1902.) No. 804. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petition denied.

(113 Fed. 1020.)

In re MAINS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 12, 1902.) No. 805. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petition denied.

(114 Fed. 1020.)

In re MAINS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 7, 1902.) No. 804. Application for writ of habeas corpus was docketed on the 7th day of March, 1902. Application denied.

(114 Fed. 1020.)

In re MAINS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 12, 1902.) No. 805. Application for a writ of certiorari and habeas corpus was docketed on the 10th day of March, 1902. Application denied.

(113 Fed. 1020.)

MARINE INS. CO. ▼. GRAHAM & MORTON TRANSP. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. January 24, 1902.) No. 690. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Charles C. Kremer, for appellant. Robert Rae and Louis C. Ehle, for appellee. Same decree entered in this cause as in Chicago Ins. Co. v. Graham & Morton Transp. Co., 48 C. C. A. 397, 109 Fed. 352, per stipulation of counsel.

(114 Fed. 1020.)

MATTHEWS v. MCCALLUM et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals. Third Circuit. March 4, 1902.) No. 5. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Alex Simpson, Jr., for appellant. J. G. Johnson, for appellees. Case dismissed, at cost of appellant.

(114 Fed. 1020.)

ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. EWING et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. February 25, 1902.) No. 1,086. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas. John L. Henry (W. T. Henry, on the brief), for plaintiff in error. Frank P. Poston, for defendant in error Southern Ry. Co. Rhodes S. Baker, W. A. Rhea, Jr., and George H. Plowman, for defendants in error Ewing. Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. A majority of the judges are of opinion that there is no reversible error in the record, and the judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.

PARDEE, Circuit Judge (dissenting). This case shows that prior to removal and after taking nonsuit in the state court, the plaintiffs below so amended their petition as to conform strictly to the contract of transportation as embodied in the ticket signed by Mrs. L. S. Ewing, changing their declaration from one against all the defendants upon a joint obligation to transport over the entire distance from Dallas, Texas, to La Grange, Tennessee, to a declaration against each of the defendants separately for a violation of contract of transportation over the respective lines of each.

It seems to be settled general law that, unless a carrier whose line constitutes a portion of the entire route contracts otherwise, its obligation for transportation and its liability for damage extends only to its own line. Myrick v. Railroad Co., 107 U. S. 102, 107, 1 Sup. Ct. 425, 27 L. Ed. 325; Railroad Co. v. Jones, 155 U. S. 339, 15 Sup. Ct. 136, 39 L. Ed. 176. This rule has been recognized and declared in the supreme court of Texas in McCarn v. Railway Co., 84 Tex. 352, 19 S. W. 547, 16 L. R. A. 39, 31 Am. St. Rep. 51; Railway Co. v. Looney, 85 Tex. 158, 19 S. W. 1039, 16 L. R. A. 471, 34 Am. St. Rep. 787.

Therefore, in my opinion, the court below committed reversible error in overruling the exception of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to the fourth original petition of the plaintiff, which excepted to the said petition on account of a misjoinder of parties defendant and causes of action apparent upon the face thereof; and the court below also committed reversible error in instructing the jury over the objections of the plaintiff in error that the plaintiff below was a passenger on the line of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company from the time she entered its custody at Fair Oaks until she was delivered by it to the Southern Railway Company at Memphis. This instruction gives the jury to understand that the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company was under an obligation to deliver the plaintiff below to the Southern Railway Company at Memphis, whereas the real contract between the parties sued on was to deliver the plaintiff at Memphis. This error becomes particularly important when it is considered that most of the damages suffered by the plaintiff were after the delivery at Memphis and before the plaintiff actually entered in the cars of the Southern Railway.

This statement sufficiently indicates the grounds why I cannot agree to the affirmance of the judgment below.

(113 Fed. 1020.)

TERLINDEN v. AMES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. March 1, 1902.) No. 849. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. A. C. Umbreit and Albert C. May, for appellant. William Vocke, for appellee. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

(113 Fed. 1021.)

UNITED STATES v. KLIPSTEIN et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. January 7, 1902.) No. 64. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. D. Frank Lloyd, for appellant. Albert Comstock, for appellee. Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. The new testimony does not present a different case from that which was before us in U. S. v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co., 39 C. C. A. 651, 99 Fed. 552. Decision of circuit court affirmed.

(113 Fed. 1021.)

UNITED STATES ▼. McCOY et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Cir cuit. March 3, 1902.) No. 7C8. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the District of Washington. Wilson R. Gay, U. S. Atty., and Edward E. Cushman, Asst. U. S. Atty. W. T. Dovell, for defendants in error. Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.

MORROW, Circuit Judge. This case has been before this court before, and was returned to the lower court, with directions to take further proceedings therein. U. S. v. McCoy, 44 C. C. A. 125, 104 Fed. 669. There is nothing in the present record showing any error in the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of such directions. The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.

(113 Fed. 1021.) .

UNITED STATES v. WADDELL et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. December 3, 1901.) No. 73. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed on consent in open court.

(113 Fed. 1021.)

WITHEROW v. CARNEGIE STEEL CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 5, 1902.) No. 117. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. H. M. Hitchings, for appellant. John R. Bennett, for appellee. Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in open court for lack of jurisdiction.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 51.

INDEX.

ABANDONMENT.

Of right to patent, see "Patents," § 2.

ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL.

Right of action by or against personal representative, see "Executors and
Administrators," § 2.

§ 1. Another action pending.

The pendency of a suit in a federal court to obtain a judgment and a
decree establishing a mechanic's lien, in which the court does not take
possession of the property which remains in the defendant, does not
affect the jurisdiction of a state court to entertain a suit for the fore-
closure of a mortgage on the property; nor does the decree in the lien
suit bind the mortgagee, who is not a party thereto, or affect the rights
of a purchaser at the foreclosure sale.

-National Foundry & Pipe Works v. Oconto City Water Supply Co.,
113 Fed. 793..
..51 C. C. A. 465

ACCIDENT.

Accident insurance, see "Insurance," §§ 4, 5.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

See "Payment"; "Release."

ACCOUNT.

Accounting by receiver, see "Receivers," § 3.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

Of indebtedness barred by limitation, see "Limitation of Actions," § 3.
Operation and effect of admissions as evidence, see "Evidence," § 2.

ACTION.

Abatement, see "Abatement and Revival.”

Jurisdiction of courts, see "Courts."

Laches, see "Equity," § 2.

Limitation by statutes, see "Limitation of Actions."

Pendency of action, see "Lis Pendens."

[blocks in formation]

Actions between parties in particular relations.

See "Master and Servant," § 5.

Actions by or against particular classes of parties.

See "Carriers," § 2; "Executors and Administrators," § 2.
Corporate officers, see "Corporations," § 2.

Stockholders, see "Corporations," § 1.

Trustees, see "Trusts," § 2.

Trustees in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 7.

Particular causes or grounds of action.

See "Bills and Notes," §1; "Collision," § 6; "Insurance," § 6; "Negligence,"
§ 2.

Avoidance of judicial sale, see "Judicial Sales."

Breach of contract, see "Contracts," § 4; "Sales," § 4.

Cancellation of release, see "Release," § 1.

Compensation of physician, see "Physicians and Surgeons."

Infringement of patent, see "Patents," § 4.

Infringement of trade-mark or trade-name, see "Trade-Marks and Trade-
Names," § 2.

Personal injuries, see "Carriers," § 2; "Master and Servant," § 5.

Price of goods, see "Sales," § 4.

Unfair competition in trade, see "Trade-Marks and Trade-Names," § 2.

See "Ejectment."

Particular forms of action.

See "Injunction."

Particular forms of special relief.

Construction of will, see "Wills," § 1.

Enforcement or foreclosure of lien, see "Railroads," § 1.

Establishment and enforcement of trust, see "Trusts," § 2.

Foreclosure of mortgage, see "Mortgages," § 1; "Railroads," § 1.

Particular proceedings in actions.

See "Damages"; "Evidence"; "Judgment"; "Judicial Sales"; "Limitation of
Actions"; "Trial."

Particular remedies in or incident to actions.

See "Injunction"; "Receivers."

Notice of pendency of action, see "Lis Pendens."

Proceedings in exercise of special jurisdictions.

Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law."

Suits in admiralty, see "Admiralty"; "Collision," § 6.
Suits in equity, see "Equity."

Review of proceedings, see "Appeal and Error."

ADJUDICATION.

In bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 2.

Operation and effect of former adjudication, see "Judgment," § 3.

ADMINISTRATION.

Of estate of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 6.

Of estate of decedent, see "Executors and Administrators."

Of property by receiver, see "Receivers," § 2.

Of trust property, see "Trusts," § 1.

« ПретходнаНастави »