Page images
PDF
EPUB

2. The patent of November 21, 188.), lo 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 oper with-
out injury, and the contents are taken out by opening a flap at the
opposite end of the envelope. Ib.

PRACTICE.
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 disinissed. United States v. Osio, 535.
6. The appellant was a proper party defendant in the court below, and

duly took his appeal. Connellsville f Southern Pennsylvania Railroad

v. Baltimore, 553.
7. The order assigning the case for hearing at this term is rescinded. 16.
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.

Muyridge, 614.
14. The refusal of a charge asked for which is wholly immaterial is no

ground for reversal. Bank of Montreal v. While, 669.

PRESCRIPTION.
See Local Law.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

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.

PROBATE COURT.

See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.

PUBLIC LAND.

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. Burden 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
he 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.

VOL. CLIV-45

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.

PRACTICE.

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. Unite
States v. Stafford, 590.

11. This case is dismissed without an opinion, as no exceptions appear
have been taken during the trial. Bank of New Orleans v. Caldwell, 59
12. A judgment is entered according to the stipulation of the partie

Woodman Pebbling Machine Co. v. Guild, 597.

13. A bill of exceptions cannot bring up the whole testimony for revie
whether the case has been tried by the court, or by a jury. Bells
Mugridge, 644.

14. The refusal of a charge asked for which is wholly immaterial is
ground for reversal. Bank of Montreal v. Whit

PRESCE

[ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

a

RAILROAD.
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 dani-
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 liinits 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 rumuing 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, beyoud 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;

MASTER AND SERVANT ;
CoxSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 5; Tax AND Taxation, 1, 2.

REBELLION.
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

« PreviousContinue »