purchaser on the prescribed form, may be predicated on a single sale.-Hosier v. U. S., 191.
9 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) In a prosecution for violation of Harrison Narcotic Act Dec. 17, 1914, § 2 (Comp. St. § 6287h), by selling narcotic drugs, not in pursuance of written orders on the prescribed forms, evidence that defendant, although a physician registered un; der the act, did not dispense the drugs in good faith in the course of his professional practice, which would bring him within exception (a) of the statute, but sold the same to gratify the appetite of the purchasers, was competent and relevant, and such issue was properly submitted to the jury.-Oakshette v. U. S., 556.
9 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Evidence that defendants charged as unlawful dealers in narcotics, several months before in another district had a considerable quantity of morphine in their possession, held incompetent, where it was shown that they were habitual users of the drug.-Paris v. U. S., 313.
See Brokers; Continuance, 14; Corpora-
tions, 665; Patents, 216, 287.
II. MUTUAL RIGHTS. DUTIES, AND
LIABILITIES.
(A) Execution of Agency. ~~69(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) »An agent senting his principal in the sale of property is not permitted to purchase it for his own benefit, directly or indirectly, without his principal's consent; and a purchaser from him, with notice of his illegal purchase, stands in no better position, and the principal may recover, at his option, the profits made by such purchaser as a trust fund.-Hanson v. Sjostrom, 286.
An agent for sale of land, who sold through a subagent and afterwards bought part of the subagent's interest in the land, which the latter indirectly purchased for himself, with knowledge that it was so required, held liable in a suit by the principal for accounting for the profit made thereon, but not for the capital which he invested.-Id.
(B) Compensation and Lien of Agent.
9 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) In a prosecution, under Penal Code, § 37 (Comp. St. § 10201), for conspiracy to violate Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. §§ 6287g-6287q), evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction of drug-81(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Under a contract by gists, who conspired with a physician who wrote prescriptions for addicts, not in good faith and without regard to any treatment.-Friedman v. U. S., 254.
9 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) A prosecution for violation of Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act Dec. 17, 1914, § 2 (Comp. St. § 6287h), by selling a narcotic drug without a written order from the purchaser on the prescribed form, may be predicated on a single sale, and the indictment need not charge that accused was in the business of selling narcotics.-Hosier v. U. S., 191.
which complainant was given exclusive right to
sell sewing machines made by defendant on com-
mission in a specified territory, and in which
he agreed during the term not to sell or deal in
any machines made or sold by any other concern,
a sale by him of machines made by defendant
outside of his territory, whether the property of
defendant or another, was a breach of his con-
tract, and he is not entitled to commissions on
such sales.-Standard Sewing Mach. Co. of Ohio
v. Jones, 206.
III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO
THIRD PERSONS.
(A) Powers of Agent.
262; Injunction, 74; Ter-102(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Under a general 32.
See Assignments, 57, 137; Criminal Law, 371; Evidence, 71; Notice, 10; Patents, 328.
power of attorney to conduct and prosecute all the principals' business and dispose of all their property, the agent can employ another to find a purchaser for real estate; the net price being fixed.-Springsteen v. Lewis, 14.
171(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Agent's act in entering into an optional agreement is ratified by the principal accepting from the agent and retaining money with full knowledge that it had been received on such an agreement.-Springsteen v. Lewis, 14.
172 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) If a principal elects to ratify any part of the unauthorized act of his agent, he must ratify the whole.-Goodspeed v. Law, 299.
For practice in particular actions and proceed-175(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) A bank, which took ings, see the various specific topics.
PRESCRIPTION.
See Limitation of Actions.
as collateral to a note a contract by which a sum was to be paid the debtor in 30 days, and appointed the debtor its agent to collect, and afterward accepted in place of the contract notes of a corporation formed under a substituted contract made by the debtor, held to have ratified the acts of its agent in making the substitution, and to be affected by his fraud in the transaction, which invalidated the notes as between the parties.-Goodspeed v. Law, 299.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
See Corporations, 665.
PROSTITUTION.
(U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) In a prosecution un-
der Laws Alaska 1913, c. 57, in which de-
fendant was charged with "willfully permitting"
his wife to practice prostitution, an instruc-
tion that the word "willfully," as used in the
statute, means "intentionally or knowingly,"
held correct (citing Words and Phrases, Will-
ful).-Johnson v. U. S., 509.
5 (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) In a prosecution un-
der a statute making it an offense for a man
to "willfully permit" his wife to practice pros-
titution, a requested instruction that the act
must have been done affirmatively and cor-
ruptly held properly refused.-Johnson v. U.
S., 509.
See Ejectment, 11; Mines and Minerals,
16-38.
PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS.
See Carriers; Railroads.
See Commerce, 27; Removal of Causes,
12.
X. OPERATION.
(F) Accidents at Crossings.
314 (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) That a railroad com-
pany permitted two engines under full steam
pressure to stand on a track in its yards near a
highway for a short time while awaiting the pas-
sage of another train before taking out a freight
train, and that while so standing some noise.
though not more than usual, was made by steam
escaping through the automatic pop valves,
held not to constitute negligence which rendered
it liable for injury to plaintiff, who after pass-
ing the engines on the highway drove his team
upon the main track crossing 37 feet distant,
and was struck by a passing train, which was in
view for a quarter of a mile.-San Pedro, L. A.
& S. L. R. Co. v. Mathews, 91.
See Bankruptcy, 288, 391.
IV. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSI-
TION OF PROPERTY.
(C) Receiver's Certificates.
128 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) A mortgage executed
to secure bonds of a holding company for stock
of street railroad companies, but which at the
time did not own or operate any lines, held not
subject to displacement in favor of receiver's
certificates subsequently issued, only a small
portion of the proceeds of which was to be ex-
pended on the mortgaged property.-Westing-
house Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Brooklyn Rapid
Transit Co., 334.
See Bankruptcy, 372, 446.
REED AMENDMENT.
See Intoxicating Liquors, 138.
REFERENCE.
See Bankruptcy, 372, 482.
See Executors and Administrators, 87;
Guaranty, 59, 602.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
I. POWER TO REMOVE AND RIGHT
OF REMOVAL IN GENERAL.
12 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Where an Idaho cor-
poration sued a railroad company, a Utah cor-
poration, in the state court of Idaho for over-
charges claimed to have been exacted in viola-
tion of the Interstate Commerce Act, held
that, under Judicial Code, § 24 (Comp. St. §
991), section 28, as amended by Act Jan. 20,
1914' (section 1010), and section 51 (section
1033), the railroad company could not remove
the cause to the federal District Court for
Idaho on the ground that the action was based
on a federal statute, because the action could
not in the first instance have been begun there
by the Idaho corporation.-Boise Commercial
Club v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 495.
REPORTS.
348(S) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Circumstantial evi-
dence, which warranted the inference that de- See Injunction, 74; Territories, 32.
ceased was struck and killed by a passing train,
while walking on a highway crossing a single
railway track in the daytime, at a place where
a train approaching from either direction could See Witnesses, 357.
be seen for a mile or more, held to also require
the inference that he was chargeable with con-
tributory negligence.-Lancaster v. Foster, 41. See Monopolies, 17.
RATIFICATION.
See Mines and Minerals, 74.
See Bankruptcy, 178, 288; Conspiracy,
43, 45; Corporations, 259; Fraudulent
Conveyances, 181; Poisons, 2, 4.
II. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT.
71(4) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) A contract by a cot-
ton seed oil mill for the sale of its "season's
output of linters, about 400 bales," held not vio-
lated by the closing of the mill before the end
of the season for sufficient reasons not connected
with the contract.-Kenan, McKay & Spier v.
Yorkville Cotton Oil Co., 64.
V. LIABILITIES OF VESSELS AND
OWNERS IN GENERAL.
82 (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) A ship held not
chargeable with negligence for not providing a
step between the deck and the top of a lumber
pile 2 feet 9 inches above the deck, which ren-
dered it liable for injury to a medical inspector,
who, on boarding the vessel, fell when attempt-
ing to step or jump from the lumber pile to the
deck.-The Coolgardie, 264.
177 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Though the cesser
clause of a charter party found in the printed
provisions declared that on shipments of cargo
and acceptance by the master, and on settle-
ment of dead freight, if any, or any freight not
represented by bills of lading, the charterer
shall be deemed to have fulfilled the charter
party, etc., held that, where the charterer did
not have the cargo discharged at destination
within the period fixed by a written provision
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. of the charter party, the written provision pre-
vails over the cesser clause, under the rule
that, where there is a repugnancy between
written and printed provisions of a contract,
the writing will prevail; hence the charterer
was liable for the delay.-Compania Anonima
Maritima Union v. Strachan Shipping Co., 653.
Where a charter party fixed a reasonable
time for discharge of cargo, the charterer is
See Army and Navy, 40; Criminal Law, liable for failure to discharge the cargo within
371, 730; War, 4.
SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT.
See Army and Navy, 40; Estoppel,
Indictment and Information, 3.
SET-OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM.
See Judgment, 822.
SHERMAN ACT.
See Monopolies, 29.
SHIPPING.
See Master and Servant, 120, 200.
that time, it having failed to provide a berth
as required by the charter party, notwithstand-
ing the charter party provided that the master
of the vessel should pay the stevedore select-
62; ed by the charterer.-Id.
Where a charterer failed to discharge cargo
within the time fixed by the charter party, and
the owner of the vessel thus lost profits, the
charterer is liable in damages to the owner.
-Id.
SOLDIERS.
See Criminal Law, 417.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
II. CONTRACTS ENFORCEABLE.
39 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) A charter party con-
taining a cesser clause is to be so construed,
if possible, as not to have the effect of termi-51 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) An oil and gas lease on
nating the charterer's liability to the shipown- a royalty basis held not so unfair as to deprive
er for breach of a provision which is not left the lessee of the right to an injunction pre-
or made enforceable against the cargo or a venting the lessor from interfering with drill-
person or thing other than the charterer.ing, on the ground that the suit was in essence
Compania Anonima Maritima Union v. Stra-
one for specific performance.-Washburn v.
chan Shipping Co., 653.
Gillespie, 637.
54 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Evidence held not to
sustain allegations of a libel that the swinging
around of one end of a barge, after it had
grounded at night while being moved to a new
position at a wharf, which caused such end
to settle on a stone pile when the tide fell, was
due to fault of the charterer, who directed the
movement until the grounding, and then left
IV. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.
121(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Nev.) In a suit for spe-
cific performance of a parol contract, the evi-
dence must be clear and satisfactory, both as to
the existence of the contract and as to its
terms.-Pioneer Reduction Co. v. Beedle, 527.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am,Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
Act 1911, March 3, ch. 231, 36 Stat. 1087.
121(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Nev.) Evidence held not
to establish an alleged parol agreement between
the parties to share jointly in an enterprise
with such certainty as to warrant specific en-21
forcement.-Pioneer Reduction Co. v. Beedle,
121(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Nev.) Evidence held not
to establish an alleged parol agreement between
the parties to share jointly in an enterprise
with such certainty as to warrant specific en-
forcement, and also to show that, if made, com-
plainant was chargeable with bad faith in act-
ing under the agreement, which barred it from
equitable relief.-Pioneer Reduction Co.
Beedle, 527.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
See Limitation of Actions.
For statutes relating to particular subjects, see
the various specific topics.
VI. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.
(A) General Rules of Construction.
184 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Remedial stat-
utes will be liberally construed, to give effect
to the humane purpose of the Legislature.
Camunas v. New York & P. R. S. S. Co., 76.
207 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Inconsistent pro-
visions in a statute must be reconciled, if possi-
ble, by determining the legislative intent from
the act as a whole, construed under the cir-
cumstances surrounding the Legislature at the
time of its enactment.-Camunas v. New York
& P. R. S. S. Co., 76.
Words apparently inserted through inadver-
tence, which would destroy the obvious purpose
of the statute, work injustice, or contradict
other provisions of the act, will be rejected, as
controlled by the general purpose and by other
provisions otherwise impossible of fair inter-
pretation and application.—Id.
§ 28. Amended 1914, Jan. 20, ch. 11, 38
Stat. 278
STATUTES AT LARGE.
1887, Feb. 4, ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379.
Interstate Commerce Act.
1888, June 29, ch. 496, § 4, 25 Stat. 210.. 338
1890, July 2, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209..
1890, July 2, ch. 647, § 1, 26 Stat. 209. 345
1895, March 1, ch. 145, § 8, 28 Stat. 697.. 421
1897, June 7, ch. 4, § 1, art. 27, 30 Stat.
102
1898, July 1, ch. 541, 30 Stat. 544. See
Bankruptcy Act.
1906, June 11, ch. 3073, §§ 1, 4, 34 Stat.
232
1907, March 4, ch. 2939, 34 Stat. 1415... 505
1908, April 22, ch. 149, 35 Stat. 65.. 223
1908, April 22, ch. 149, § 1, 35 Stat. 65.. 597
1908, April 22, ch. 149 (§ 9 added 1910,
April 5, ch. 143, § 2, 36 Stat. 291)..
1909, March 4, ch. 321, 35 Stat. 1088. See
Penal Code.
1909, Aug. 5, ch. 6, § 38(2), 36 Stat. 113.. 563
1910, April 5, ch. 143, § 2, 36 Stat. 291.. 597
1911, March 3, ch. 231, 36 Stat. 1087. See
Judicial Code.
1912, Aug. 24, ch. 387, § 3, 37 Stat. 512.. 509
1914, Jan. 20, ch. 11, 38 Stat. 278......
1914, Dec. 17, ch. 1, 38 Stat. 785....252, 254
1914, Dec. 17, ch. 1, § 2, 38 Stat. 786
173, 191, 254, 556
1915, March 4, ch. 176, § 1, 38 Stat. 1196 561
1916, Sept. 8, ch. 463, § 7, 39 Stat. 761.. 167
1917, Feb. 5, ch. 29, § 3, 39 Stat. 875..140, 180
1917, Feb. 5, ch. 29, § 19, 39 Stat. 889.
1917, Feb. 14, ch. 53, 39 Stat. 903..
470 1917, May 18, ch. 15, § 13, 40
480
Amended 1918, July 9, ch. 143,
327
40 Stat. 885
480 1917, June 15, ch. 30, tit. 1, § 3, 40 Stat.
470
219
658 1917, June 15, ch. 30, tit. 1, § 3, 40 Stat.
219. Amended 1918, May 16, ch. 75, §
1, 40 Stat. 553
645, 649
1917, Oct. 3, ch. 63, § 1004, 40 Stat. 325.. 167
1918, May 16, ch. 75, § 1, 40 Stat. 553
|