Page images


2. Regulation of Prices. Classfication of distributors of milk for
purpose of regulating prices. Nebbia v. New York, 502.

3. Insurance Companies. Penalties. Statute making insurer lia-
ble for 12 per cent. damages and attorney's fee for failure to pay
under life policy upon demand after death of insured, sustained.
Life & Casualty Co. v. McCray, 566; Life & Casualty Co. v. Bare-

field, 575.
CONTRACTORS' BONDS. See Constitutional Law, VI, (B), 7.

Public Contracts. Heard Act. Limitations on right of subcon-
tractor to sue; what constitutes “ final settlement.” Globe Indem-

nity Co. v. U.S., 476.
CONTRACTS. See Banks, 4; Constitutional Law, III; VI, (B),

6–7; Contractors' Bonds; Insurance, 3; Interstate Commerce, 2.

Act., 1.


See Alabama v. Arizona, 286.

CORPORATIONS. See Antitrust Acts, 2; Taxation, I, 1, 6.

Ultra Vires. Estoppel. Right of national bank to have set
aside ultra vires pledge of assets. Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Pottorfj,

COURT OF CLAIMS. See Claims, 2.
COURTS. See Constitutional Law, I, 10; Jurisdiction.

CREDITORS' SUITS. See Bankruptcy, 2.
CRIMINAL LAW. See Antitrust Acts, 1; Conspiracy, 1; Consti-
tutional Law, V; VI, (B), 8_14.

1. Effect of Repeal of statute on pending prosecutions. U.S. v.
Chambers, 217.

2. Procedure. When burden of proof may be shifted to de
fendant. Morrison v. California, 82.

3. Evidence of abandonment of conspiracy. Local 167 v. U.S.,

4. View. Statements to jury pointing out specific objects to be
noticed at view held not prejudicial. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 97.

5. Id. Designation of counsel for parties as showers held not
prejudicial. Id.


6. Id. Statement by judge at view in absence of accused that
one of structures pointed out was not there at time of homicide,
held improper but not prejudicial. Id.

7. Id. That judge told jury view was evidence held immate-
rial. Id.

DAMAGES. See Constitutional Law, VI, (B), 5; VI, (C), 3.

Right of Action. Death by wrongful act in place subject to
jurisdiction of United States; right of action held limited by
effect of federal Act and statute of Washington to personal rep-

resentative. Murray v. Gerrick & Co., 315.
DEBTS. See Bankruptcy, 3.

See Alabama v. Arizona, 286.
DEDUCTIONS. See Taxation, I, 14.

DELAWARE. See Boundaries, 1.

DELEGATION. See Constitutional Law, I, 9.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

DEPORTATION. See Aliens, 4.
DEPRECIATION. See Constitutional Law, VI, (B), 4; Public

DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP. See Jurisdiction, I, 9; IV, 3.
DIVIDENDS. See Insurance, 2, 7; Taxation, I, 6.

EJUSDEM GENERIS. See Statutes, 9.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. See Jurisdiction, IV, 2.

1. Effect of Safety Appliance Acts. Provision of Employers'
Liability Act that employee shall not be held guilty of contributory
negligence, or to have assumed the risk, where violation by carrier
of “any statute enacted for the safety of employees” contributed
to the injury, embraces the Federal Safety Appliance Acts. Moore
v. C. & 0. Ry. Co., 205.

2. Actions. Suit under Employers' Liability Act in connection
with Safety Appliance Acts may be brought in federal court of
district where carrier is doing business. Id.


EQUITY. See Fraud; Jurisdiction, I, 5-8.
ESTATE TAX. See Taxation, I, 14.
ESTOPPEL See Antitrust Acts, 1; Taxation, I, 10.

National bank and its receiver not estopped to deny validity of
ultra vires pledge of assets. Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Pottorf, 245;

Marion v. Sneeden, 262.
EVIDENCE. See Constitutional Law, VI, (B), 11; Criminal Law,
3-4, 6–7; Federal Trade Commission, 8-9.

1. In General. In absence of congressional legislation, admissi-
bility of evidence in federal courts is controlled by common-law
principles, not by local statute. Wolfle v. U.S., 7.

2. Judicial Notice that ratification of Twenty-first Amend-
ment consummated December 5, 1933. U.S. v. Chambers, 217.

3. Presumptions. Capacity of woman for childbearing; appli-
cation of presumption. U.S. v. Provident Trust Co., 272.

4. Id. Presumption of official regularity. R. H. Stearns Co. v.
U.S., 54.

5. Statutory Presumptions. See Morrison v. California, 82.
6. Burden of Proof. Alienage. See Morrison v. California, 82.

7. Confidential Communications. Husband and Wife. Rule ex-
cluding confidential communications between husband and wife
is to protect the marriage relation. Wolfle v. U.S., 7.

8. Id. As privilege suppresses relevant testimony, it should be
allowed only where marital confidence can not otherwise reasonably
be preserved. Id.

9. Id. Communication from husband to wife through medium
of his stenographer proved by latter from notes, held admissible.

10. Value. Evidence of value of property of public utility in
rate cases. Clark's Ferry Bridge Co. v. Comm'n, 227.
EXECUTION. See War Risk Insurance.

Action for death by wrongful act. Murray v. Gerrick & Co., 315.
EXEMPTIONS. See Taxation, I, 6; War Risk Insurance.
EXPLOSIVES. See Insurance, 5.
FEDERAL QUESTIONS. See Jurisdiction, I, 2.

[ocr errors]


1. Jurisdiction. In General. Types of practices held subject to
Commission's prohibition in earlier litigation do not mark limits of
jurisdiction. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Keppel & Bro., 304.

2. Id. That practice involve fraud or deception is not essential
to jurisdiction of Commission. Id.

3. Id. Unfair Methods of Competition. Order banning sale of
candy in “ break and take” packages sustained. Id.

4. Id. Order forbidding sale of Western Yellow Pine as Cali-
fornia White Pine,” sustained. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Algoma
Lumber Co., 67.

5. Id. Meaning of “unfair methods of competition," Federal
Trade Comm'n v. Keppel & Bro., 304.
6. Id. . Public Interest. Claim that proceeding was not

to the
interest of the public,” because encouragement of use of Pinus
ponderosa would conserve Pinus strobus, rejected. Federal Trade
Comm'n v. Algoma Lumber Co., 67.

7. Id. Proceeding to restrain sale of candy in “ break and take"
packages held to the interest of the public.” Federal Trade
Comm'n v. Keppel & Bro., 304.

8. Findings. Evidence. Evidence supported findings that "Cali-
fornia White Pine' was inferior to true white pine, and that the
name was misleading and caused confusion and prejudice in the
trade. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Algoma Lumber Co., 67.

9. Id. That “ California White Pine” was classed as trade
equivalent of Pinus ponderosa in "simplified practice recommenda-
tions of Bureau of Standards, held of little weight as evidence on
question whether there was unfair competition in its sale. Id.

10. Orders. Requirement that “White” be omitted from name
California White Pine" was not abuse of Commission's discre-
tion. Id.

11. Review of Orders. Conclusiveness of findings. Federal
Trade Comm'n v. Algoma Lumber Co., 67; Federal Trade Comm'n

v. Keppel & Bro., 304.

Meaning of, as used in Heard Act. Globe Indemnity Co. v. U.S.,

FINDINGS. See Federal Trade Commission, 8-9, 11; Jurisdic-

tion, I, 4.
FRANCHISE. See Contitutional Law, III.

FRAUD. See Collusive Suit; Federal Trade Commission, 2.

Misrepresentation. Equitable fraud in clinging to benefit begot
of misrepresentation, though innocently made. Federal Trade
Comm'n v. Algoma Lumber Co., 67.



Function under Budget and Accounting Act in auditing and
settling claims. Globe Indemnity Co. v. U.S., 476.

[blocks in formation]

INCOME TAX. See Taxation, I, 1-13.
INDEFINITENESS. See Constitutional Law, VI, (B), 12–14;

Statutes, 2-3.

INFANTS. See Negligence, 2.

INJUNCTION. See Antitrust Acts, 1; Claims 2; Jurisdiction,
I, 5-8.

Suit by State against others to enjoin enforcement of statutes;
sufficiency of allegations. Alabama v. Arizona, 286.

INLAND WATERWAYS ACT. See Constitutional Law, I, 9; IV;

Interstate Commerce Acts.

INSOLVENCY. See Banks, 5; Bankruptcy.

INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY. See Constitutional Law, VI, (B), 11;

Criminal Law, 7.


Law, I, 46.

« PreviousContinue »