« PreviousContinue »
restrain enforcement of certain taxes.-South See Customs Duties; Internal Revenue.
ern R. Co. v. Watts, 301. I. NATURE AND EXTENT OF POWER IN
XIII. LEGACY, INHERITANCE, AND GENERAL.
TRANSFER TAXES. 13 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Right to tax privilege inheritance tax as to shares of stock of non
ww859(8) (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Statute permitting of doing business is corollary of right to ex. resident in foreign corporation invalid.Tyler clude corporation.-Procter & Gamble Co. v. Newton, 1013.
v. Dane County, Wis., 013. Ow20 (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Tax must be limited to m868(!) (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Shares of stock property within territorial jurisdiction of state. have their situs at domicile of owner and state -Tyler v. Dane County, Wis., 843.
creating corporation.-Tyler v. Dane County,
Wis., 843. III. LIABILITY OF PERSONS AND PROP- Corporation cannot bind stockholders to asERTY.
signment of new situs to his stock to permit (A) Private Persons and Property in Gen. | levy of transfer tax thereon.-Id.
eral. Om98 (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Interest from TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES. notes and bonds and deposits of Hawaiian su- I. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND gar plantation held by agent in California is
MAINTENANCE. taxable as income from property.-Ewa Plantation Co. v. Wilder, 664.
Om 10(9) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Ordinance helil not Situs of personalty follows domicile of owner. City of Chicago v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co.
to require payment of fee for empty conduits.--Id.
of Illinois, 254. (B) Corporations and Corporate Stock
TENDER. and Property. Omw 164 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) State law held not to under contract in installment held sufficient.
Om 12(3) (D.C.) Tender of lump sum payable impose tax on corporation, unless it is doing -No-Leak-O Piston Ring Co. v. Chandlee, business within the state, so as to be subject 526. to tax levy.-Procter & Gamble Co. v. New
TIME. ton, 1013.
Foreign corporation does not do business in cm 9(4) (D.C.) Notice given July 1st to terstate by owning stock of subsidiary corpora- minate monthly tenancy July 31st is not suffition doing such business; "doing business." cient.-Merritt v. Thompson, 631. --Id. V. LEVY AND ASSESSMENT.
TORTS. (D) Mode of Assessment of Corporate Stock, Property, or Receipts.
See Collision; Malicious Prosecution, 20,
21; Negligence, m5–136. 382 (U.S.C.C.A.Hawail) Strike claim settlement held income of the year in which re
TOWAGE. ceived, though paying for loss to crops maturing in subsequent years.-Ewa Plantation Co. na 15(1) (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Libelant's delay in v. Wilder, 664.
making claim ground for dismissal.-Great
Lake Transp. Co. v. Hand & Johnson Tug VII. PAYMENT_AND REFUNDING OR RE. Line, 130. COVERY OF TAX PAID,
Om 15(2) (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Evidence held inCw543(1) (U.S.D.C.Wis.) In Wisconsin, in- sufficient to show injury to tow.--Great Lakes dependent action lies to recover taxes paid un- Transp. Co. v. Hand & Johnson Tug Line, 130. der invalid statute.-Tyler v. Dane County, Wis., 843.
TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES VIII. COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
AND UNFAIR COMPETITION. AGAINST PERSONS OR PERSONAL
I. MARKS AND NAMES SUBJECTS OF PROPERTY.
OWNERSHIP. (C) Remedies for Wrongful Enforcement. 21 (D.C.) Red band as trade-mark for Amw 608(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Injunction not vacuum cleaners held anticipated.—United Elecauthorized on sole ground of illegality of tax. trie Cov: Replogle, 626. --Long v. Norman, 5.
21 (D.C.) Tractors for agriculture and exCw608(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Remedy provid-cavation and those for shop work have same ed by Massachusetts tax laws held adequate to descriptive properties.-Marsh Capron Mfg. Co. remedy illegal assessment, and equity without v. Bates Machine & Tractor Co., 633. jurisdiction at suit of nonresident to restrain
“Steel mule" and "shop mule" are deceptiveillegal assessment.--Long v. Norman, 5.
ly similar.-Id. w 611 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Dismissal of injunction suit without prejudice to enable plain-11. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CONtiff to sue at law to test validity of tax.---Long
TRACTS. v. Norman, 5.
Com 34 (D.C.) Conveyance by retiring partner Cw611(9)' (U.S.D.C.N.C.) Bills and affidavits held to include interest in trade-mark.-Varshheld not to warrant interlocutory injunction to alltown Laboratories v. Brady, 630,
1018. "Safepack” held not descriptive as mark for “Aviolina."-In re Midwest Oil Co. (App. D. wrapping paper.-Id.
C.) 1018. Registration not refused because mark in- “Juvenile."-Juvenile Shoe Co. Federal cludes corporate name of applicant.-Id.
Trade Commission (C. C. A.) 57. 43 (D.C.) Arguable differences do not dis- "Juvenile Shoe Company."-Juvenile Shoe Co. prove deceptive similarity.-Broderick v. L. v. Federal Trade Commission (C. C. A.) 57. Mitchell & Co., 618.
"Magic Marvel.”—Broderick v. L. Mitchell & “White Magic" and "Magic Marvel” are de Co. (App. D. C.). 618. ceptively similar.-Id.
"Red Ring."_United Electric Co. v. Replogle Ow43 (D.C.) "Avio” and “Aviolina” held de (App. D. C.) 626. ceptively similar.-In re Midwest Oil Co., 1018. “Safepack,”-Arkell Safety Bag Co. v. Safem44 (D.C.) Oppoşer cannot raise objection pack Mills (App. D. C.) 616. mark is descriptive, unless damaged thereby. “Shop mule.”—Marsh Capron Mfg. Co. v. Bates -Arkell Safety Bag Co. v. Safepack Mills, Machine & Tractor Co. (App. D. C.) 633. 616.
"Steel mule.”—Marsh Capron Mfg.Co. v. Mistake in one order held not to show de Bates Machine & Tractor Co. (App. D. C.) ceptive similarity.-Id.
See Criminal Law, em 629-898; New Trial.
see also the various specific topics.
1. NOTICE OF TRIAL AND PRELIMINARY
m 4 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Equitable defense interTITION.
posed by plea raises preliminary issue.-Wil
liams v. Mason, 812.
II. DOCKETS, LISTS, AND CALENDARS. strain unfair competition, irrespective of in: 11(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Fraud is legal detent to mislead.-Juvenile Shoe Co. y. Federal fense to action on note.-Carey V. McMillan, Trade Commission, 57.
380. w70(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Adopting similar name on 11 (2) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Equitable plea in and trade-mark under which to market inferior action ať law must be heard by court as changoods warrants injunction.-Juvenile Shoe Co. cellor.-Huff v. Ford, 858. v. Federal Trade Commission, 57.
Voluminous character of testimony and tediw71 (U.S.C.C.A.) Name not subject to ap- ous nature of testimony no ground of equitable propriation may be entitled to protection as jurisdiction.-Id. trade-name. -Juvenile Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 57.
V. ARGUMENTS AND CONDUCT OF
COUNSEL. (C) Actions.
133(6) (D.C.) Misconduct of plaintiff's 80/2 [New, vol. 8A Key-No. Series] counsel in argument held not to require re
(U.S.C.C.A.) Finding advertised opinion versal, in view of court's instruction.-Washas to breed of hogs was not true held not to ington & 0. D. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 582. establish unfair competition.-L. B. Silver Co. v. Federal Trade Commission of America, 985. Definition of unfair methods of competition
VI. TAKING CASE OR QUESTION FROM
JURY. is question for the courts.-Id. Public policy declared in Sherman Act con- (A) Questions of Law or of Fact in Gen
eral. sidered in defining unfair competition.--Id.
Order to desist from advertising weight of w143 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Court should direct two hogs held unsupported by complaint or verdict, where evidence would not sustain verfacts.-Id.
dict for other party.-Peck v. Stafford Flour 84 (U.S.C.C.A.) That unfair competition Mills Co., 43. has ceased no ground for refusing order to Cum 146 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Refusal to permit cease unfair methods.- Juvenile Shoe Co. v. withdrawal of juror during trial held discreFederal Trade Commission, 57.
tionary.-Schnerb v. Holt Mfg. Co., 1001. 289 F.-67
VII. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.
tends to subcontracts for ships and material.(D) Applicability to Pleadings and Evi- Todd Dry Dock & Construction Corporation v. dence.
Sumner Iron Works, 217. Om 25! (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Tepn.) Requests inap
Anticipated profits not recoverable on canplicable to issues properly refused.-Southern cellation of government shipbuilding contract. Ry. Co. v. Douglas, 325.
-Id. (E) Requests or Prayers.
IV. CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES. ww260(0) (U.S.C.C.A.) Refusal of requested mill (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Assignment of instructions otherwise given not error. claim prior to allowance creates no lien.-Hall --(III.) Hoyt Metal Co. v. Atwood, 453; v. Chandler, 675. (Neb.) Nemaba County, Neb., v. Harmon, OI!! (D.C.) Contract giving attorney lien 795.
on claim before allowance is void.-Lindberg v. On 260(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Requests cover- Humphrey, 901. ed by general charge properly refused.-South- Valid assignment by operation of law of al. ern Ry. Co, v. Douglas, 325.
lowed claim does not include contract with his
attorney.-Id. (F) Objections and Exceptions.
Attorney cannot claim equitable lien on claim 278 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Exceptions should of client against United States.-Id. specifically point out propositions complained of.-Hays v. Stine, 224.
V. ACTIONS. 281 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Sufficiency of ex- C 125 (D.C.) Suitor must bring case within ceptions to charge.-Hays v. Stine, 224.
form and substance of consent to be sued.
Swiss Nat. Ins. Co, v. Miller, 571.
Om 125 (D.C.) Suit for property in hands of (B) Findings of Fact and Conclusions
Alien Custodian is in effect against the United of Law.
States.--Banco Mexicano de Commercio e InOm392 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Request for find-dustria v. Deutsche Bank, 924. ings and conclusions too late, when made after ed, and cause be within the consent.-Id.
Terms of permission to sue must be followfiling of court's findings and conclusions.Ewert v. Robinson, 740.
Om 126 (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Secretary of In
terior held authorized to intervene in action to On 392(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Instruction not applicable to case under court's finding of fact collect income tax on government instrumentalproperly refused.-Pennok Oil Co. v. Roxana tory of Alaska v. Annette Island Packing Co.,
ity to assist Indians to self-support.-TerriPetroleum Co. of Oklahoma, 416.
671. 404 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Finding cashier was authorized to sign draft for payment of
USURY. personal obligation held not a conclusion of
I. USURIOUS CONTRACTS AND TRANSAClaw.-Citizens' Trust Co. v. Croll, 421.
(A) Nature nad Validity. TRUST DEEDS.
Om2(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Fla.) Maryland Usury See Mortgages.
statute applicable wherever Maryland contract TRUSTS.
involved. - United Divers Supply Co. v. Com.
mercial Credit Co., 316. See Monopolies, Cm12.
m2(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Fla.) Usurious contract
governed by law of state where made and to be I, CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND VA- performed, notwithstanding express provisions LIDITY.
of contract to the contrary,-United Divers (B) Resulting Trusts.
Supply Co. y. Commercial Credit Co., 316. 81 (2) (D.C.) Trust does not result in fa
VENDOR AND PURCHASER. vor of husband for payment of half of purchase price of property taken in wife's name. See Sales. -Fry v. National Savings & Trust Co., 589.
Husband has no lien on wife's property for II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF advances voluntarily made to secure a home.
68 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Contract giving noUNFAIR COMPETITION.
tice of permanent easement presumed to ex
cept easement.--Schafroth v. Ross, 703. See Trade-Marks and Trade-Names and Un- Where purchaser knew, from language of confair Competition, me 69-84.
tract and having been .on the land, that there
was railroad right of way over it, such right of UNITED STATES.
way deemed excepted.-Id. See Army and Navy.
III. MODIFICATION OR RESCISSION OF
(C) Rescission by Purchaser. Cm72 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) President's authori-114 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Right to rescind for ty under Defense Act to cancel contracts ex- | mistake held waived.-Schafroth v. Ross, 703.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
II. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.
im 31 (D.C.) Capacity to make valid deed or Omw254(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Vendor's lien is contract is "testamentary capacity."-Lewis v. unknown to law of Washington.-Haskell v. American Security & Trust Co., 916. McClintic-Marshall Co., 405.
V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND AN
(U) Evidence. See Criminal Law, C877, 878.
ww292 (D.C.) Record of proceedings to
charge estate with money intrusted to testaVESTED RIGHTS.
tor held properly excluded. --Lewis v. AmeriSee Constitutional Law, 110.
can Security & Trust Co., 916. WAR.
(I) Hearing or Trial.
322 (D.C.) Requiring caveator to read 12 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Government has ample constitutional power to seize and sequester letters, at rebuttal stage held within court's alien enemy property.--Koppel Industrial Car Trust Co., 316.
American Security & & Equipment Co. v. Orenstein & Koppel Ak- 330 (1) (D.C.) Charge as to testamentary tiengesellschaft, 446.
Conveyance of alien enemy property entitled capacity held correct.-Lewis v. American Se to equity protection, to same extent as if
Zyrity & Trust Co., 916.
Instruction as to testator's duty under cerconveyance voluntarily by owner.-Id.
Purchasers from Alien Property Custodian tain statutes as bearing on mental capacity held entitled to injunction to protect owners from correct.-Id. unfair competition.-Id.
(L) Fees and Costs. Om 12 (D.C.) Property of Swiss corporation doing business in Germany was subject to sei-m 409 (D.C.). Court held authorized to rezure by Custodian.-Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. quire security for part of cost of transcript of
previous testimony as condition to inspection. Miller, 571. Withdrawal from business in Germany did Lewis v. American Security & Trust Co.,
916. not change status of property of neutral corporation.--Id.
III. EXAMINATION. to return of property impliedly excludes all (B) Cross-Examination and Re-examinaothers.-Id.
tion. Amendment authorizing return to specified claimants did not abandon original purpose of held not abuse of discretion.- Washington & 0.
275(1) (D.C.) Exclusion of cross-question Trading with the Enemy Act.-Id. Amendment of Trading with the Enemy Actem 288(2)(0.c.) Can be examined on redi
D. Ry, Co. v. Smith, 582. does not require resort to correspondence for rect as to disease brought out on cross examconstruction.-Id. Cam 12 (D.C.) Purpose of Trading with Enemy ination.-Washington & 0. D. Ry. Co. v. Smith,
582, Act was to cripple Germany and Austria, but not to confiscate property of others.-Banco IV, CREDIBILITY,' IMPEACHMENT, CONMexicano de Commercio e Industria v. Deut- TRADIOTION, AND CORROBORATION. sche Bank, 924. Neutral cannot collect unrestricted loan to
(A) In General. enemy from property in. Custodian's hands not w323 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) When cross-examinarelated to debt.-Id.
tion by prosecution of its own witnesses is perww33 (D.C.) Termination of war did not en- | missible.-Shaffman v. U. S., 370. title neutral corporation to return of property Ow328 (D.C.) Permitting questions to test seized by Alien Property Custodian.-Swiss memory and credibility of witnesses rests in Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 571.
court's discretion.-Washington & O. D. Ry.
Co. v. Smith, 582.
(B) Character and Conduct of Witness. See Executors and Administrators.
C337 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Credibility of an
accused person may be tested by questions as I. NATURE AND EXTENT OF TESTAMENTARY POWER.
to previous convictions.-Nutter v. U. S., 484.
345(1) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Accusation of ofC5 (D.C.) Lien for advances cannot be con- fense held incompetent to impeach witness verted into title which may be devised without Dunham v. U. S., 376. further proceedings.-Fry v. National Sav- 345(1) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Crebibility may ings & Trust Co., 589.
be tested by previous convictions.-Nutter v. en 6 (D.C.) Life tenant under will held to U. Š., 484. have acquired only life estate in property re- 350 (D.C.) Accused can be cross-examceived in exchange.-Fry v. National Savings & ined as to previous convictions, without record Trust Co., 589.
thereof being at hand.--Gordon v. U. S., 552.
289 FEDERAL REPORTER
(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. "Fresh fish."-U. S. V. Two Hundred Cases, m 382 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence of state
More or Less, of Canned Salmon (U. S. D.
C. Tex.) 157. ment not admissible to impeach witness, when he
McClintic-Marshall was not permitted to answer question
"Furnished."-Haskell whether he made it.-Bennett v. Hoffman, 797. "General appearance." —Bacon v. Federal Re
Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Wash.) 405. Omo 383 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Rebuttal evidence held proper, though involving collateral mat
serve Bank of San Francisco (U. S. D. C. ters.--Zimmerman v. U. S., 799.
Wash.) 513. Ow388(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Attention must
“Good cause."-U. S. v. Montgomery (U. S. D. be called to admission or contradictory state- “Income of trade or business."—Woods v. Lew
C. Ariz.) 125. ment, in order to prove it as impeachment.Bennett v. Hoffman, 797.
ellyn (U. S. D. C. Pa.) 498. Em388(3) (D.C.) Cannot be impeached by in- "Infamous crime."-U. S. v. Stovall (U. S. D. consistent statements, unless foundation has “Inhabitant." -Bacon v. Federal Reserve Bank been laid.-Washington & O. D. Ry. Co. v.
of San Francisco (U. S. D. C. Wash.) 513. Smith, 582. Ow388(10) (D.C.) Cannot be impeached by
"Invested capital."-Lincoln Chemical Co. 6.
Edwards (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 458. contradictory statements, before specific foun- “Liquidated by litigation.”—In re J. Menist Co. dation has been laid.—Gordon v. U. S., 552. Om 389 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Rebuttal evidence “Maritime lien." -The Anna R. Heidritter (U.
(U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 229. held proper, though confirming admissions.
S. D. C. Mass.) 112.
“Material." -Todd' Dry Dock & Construction
Corporation v. Sumner Iron Works (U. S. party cannot be brought out on cross-examina
C. C. A. Wash.) 217. tion of her witness.- Washington & O. D. Ry. "Merchandise." —Bruno v. U. S. (U. S. C. C. Co. v. Smith, 582.
A. Mass.) 649.
“Misbranded.”-Ninety-Five Barrels, More or WORDS AND PHRASES.
Less, Apple Cider Vinegar v. U. S. (U. S. C.
C. A. Ohio) 181; U. S. v. Two Hundred “Action concerning the same.”—U. S. v. A
Cases, More or Less, of Canned Salmon (U. Quantity of Intoxicating Liquors (U. S. “Monopoly:"-Empire Gas & Fuel Co. Lone
S. D. C. Tex.) 157. D. C. Mass.) 278. "Additional rentals."-Central R, Co. of New Star Gas Co. (U. S. D. C. Tex.) 826.
Jersey v. Duffy (U. S. C. C. A. N. J.) 354. / “Novation."-Coyle v. Morrisdale Coal Co. (U. "Adulterated."-U. S. v. Two Hundred Cases,
S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 429; In re Brewer (U. More or Less of Canned Salmon (U. S. D. “Only."-Bacon V. Federal Reserve Bank of
S. D. C. N. C.) 79. C. Tex.) 157.
San Francisco (U. S. D. C. Wash.) 513. “Article.”—U. S. v. Two Hundred Cases, More or Less, of Canned Salmon (U. S. 'D. C. “Open."—Dale v. Hartson (U. S. D. Ć. Wash.)
493. Tex.) 157. “Business."-Woods v. Lewellyn (U. S. D. c. "Pledge.”—In re German Publication Society Pa.) 498.
(U. S. D. C. N. Y.) 509. “Certificates of indebtedness.”—Fidelity Trust “Podiatry."-Howerton' v. District of ColumCo. v. Lederer (U. S. C. C. A. Pa.) 1009.
bia (D. C.) 628. “Chattel mortgage."-In re German Publica- "Proof.”—The Spica (U. S. C. C. A. N. 1.) tion Society (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) 509.
436. "C. i. f."-Rand v. Morse (U. S. 6. C. A. Mo.) “Properly guarded.”-Foster v. E. I. Du Pont 339.
de Nemours & Co. (U. S. C. C. A. Va.) 65. "Collection services.”- Liberty Cent. Trust “Property taxes."-Northern Commercial Co. Co. of St. Louis, Mo., V. Gilliland Oil Co.
of Alaska v. Territory of Alaska (U. S. C. (U. S. D. C. Del.) 75.
C. A. Alaska) 786. “Confession."-Ziang Sun Wan F. U. S. (D. “Removal.”—U. $. v. One Kissell Touring AuC.) 908.
tomobile (U. S. D. C. Ariz.) 120. "Conformity."-Guettler v. Alfsen (D. C.) 613. “Removed."-U. S. v. One Kissell Touring Au“Cost.”—The Spica (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) tomobile (U. S. D. C. Ariz.) 120. 436.
"Seaman.”-Cassil v. U. S. Emergency Fleet “Doing business.”_Procter & Gamble Co. v. Corporation (U. S. C. C. A. Or.) 774. Newton (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) 101
"Seizure."-Dale v. Hartson (U. S. D. C. "Earned surplus."-Lincoln Chemical Co. v. Wash.) 493.
Edwards (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) 458. "Special appearance."-Bacon v. Federal Re. "Entire time."-First Calumet Trust & Say. serve Bank of San Francisco (U. S. D. C.
ings Bank v. Rogers (U. S. C. C. A. Ind.) Wash.) 513. 953.
“Testamentary capacity."-Lewis v. American "Estoppel."-In re Brewer (U. S. D. C. N. C.) Security & Trust Co. (D, C.) 916. 79.
"Trade."—Woods v. Lewellyn (Ú. S. D. C. Pa.) "Excise tax."-Northern Commercial Co. of 498.
Alaska v. Territory of Alaska (U. S. C. “Trade or business."—Woods v. Lewellyn (U. C. A. Alaska) 786.
S. D. C. Pa.) 498. "Fraudulent concealment.”—In re Plank (U. S. “Traffic."- Bruno v. U, S. (U. S. C. C. A. D, (). Mont.) 900.