Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

intended should be cast upon the parties having dealings with him in

the new business. Schreyer v. Scott, 405.
2. When real estate is acquired by a husband in his own name by the

use of the separate property of his wife, a subsequent conveyance of it
by him to her is not a voluntary conveyance, but the transfer of the

legal title to the equitable owner. 16.
3. Case stated in which a husband is held not to be an incompetent wit-

ness, under the statutes of Illinois, in support of his wife's claim to
property. Kingsbury v. Buckner, 650.

See Local Law, 2.

[ocr errors]

INDICTMENT.
1. An indictment against a letter carrier of the United States Postal Ser-

vice, charging that “he did wrongfully secrete and embezzle a letter
which came into his possession in the regular course of his official
duties, and which was intended to be carried by a letter carrier, which
letter then and there contained five pecuniary obligations and securi-
ties of the government of the United States,” is a sufficient charge that
the letter embezzled was intended to be carried by a letter carrier of

the United States. In re Wight, 136.
2. In an indictment against a letter carrier for the embezzlement of a let-

ter received by him in his official character to carry and deliver, it is
not necessary to aver that “the letter has not been delivered " if an
embezzlement of it is charged. Ib.

INFANT.
1. An infant, by his prochein amy, having elected to prosecute an appeal to

the Supreme Court of Illinois from the decree rendered in the original
suit brought by him, and having appeared by guardian ad litem to the
appeal of the cross-plaintiffs in the same suit, is as much bound by
the action of that court in respect to mere errors of law, not involving
jurisdiction, as if he had been an adult when the appeal was taken.

Kingsbury v. Buckner, 650.
2. The statutes of Illinois, relating to suits by infants, are not to be inter-

preted to mean that no suit in the name of an infant, by next friend,
can be entertained, unless such next friend is selected by the infant.
Nor does the right to bring such a suit depend upon the execution by
the next friend of a bond for costs; though he may be required to
give such bond before the suit proceeds to final judgment and execu-

tion. Ib.
3. While a guardian ad litem or prochein amy of an infant cannot, by ad-

missions or stipulations in a suit in equity, surrender substantial rights
of the infant, he may, by stipulation, assent to arrangements which
will facilitate the trial and determination of the cause in which such
rights are involved, and the infant will be bound thereby. Ib.

See Equity, 11, 12, 14;

JURISDICTION, D, 3.

INSURANCE.
A policy of insurance on a building and its contents against fire, contain-

ing a printed condition by which “kerosene or carbon oils of any
description are not to be stored, used, kept, or allowed on the above
premises, temporarily or permanently, for sale or otherwise, unless
with written permission endorsed on this policy, excepting the use of
refined coal, kerosene, or other carbon oil for lights, if the same is
drawn and the lamps filled by daylight; otherwise this policy shall be
null and void,” is avoided if kerosene or other carbon oil is drawn
upon the premises near a lighted lamp by any person acting by direc
tion or under authority of the assured's lessee; although there was
attached to the policy at the time of its issue a printed slip, signed by
the insurer, “privileged to use kerosene oil for lights, lamps to be
filled and trimmed by daylight only;” and although the insurer has
since written in the margin of the policy,“ privileged 10 keep not
exceeding five barrels of oil on said premises." Gunther v. Liverpool
and London and Globe Ins. Co., 110.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
See ConstiTUTIONAL LAW, 6, 8, 9.

JURISDICTION.

A. OF THE SUPREME Court.
1. An order remanding a cause from a Circuit Court of the United States

to the state court from which it was removed is not a final judgment
or decree, and this court has no jurisdiction to review it. Richmond

& Danville Railroad Co. v. Thouron, 45.
2. An order in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, at special

term, admitting a writing to probate and record as the will of a
deceased person, in conformity with the findings of the jury empanelled,
in the same court, to try the issue of will or no will, is one involving
the merits of the proceeding, and may be reviewed by the same court
in general term, and such review will bring before the general term
all the questions arising upon bills of exceptions taken at the trial
before the jury: and if the value of the matter in dispute be sufficient,
this court has jurisdiction to reëxamine a final order of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia affirming the order of the Probate
Court, and to pass upon the questions of law raised by such bills of

exceptions. Ormsby v. Webb, 47.
3. The value of the property in litigation determines the jurisdiction of

this court. Kenaday v. Edwards, 117.
4. In an appeal from a decree removing a trustee of real estate, and deny-

ing him commissions, the jurisdiction of this court is to be determined,
not by the amount of the commissions only, but by the value of the
real estate as well. Ib.

a

5. This court has jurisdiction over judgments of a territorial court: (1)

denying an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary
of the Territory to record certain proceedings as part of the proceed-
ings of a session of the legislature of the Territory; and (2) denying
an application for a like writ to compel the chief clerk of the House
of Representatives of the Territory to bring his minutes and jour-
nals into the court in order that they may be there corrected in the
presence of the court; and it is held that there was no error in deny-
ing applications for such writs of mandamus, when they were not
asked for by one claiming to have a beneficial interest in sustaining
or defeating the measures which it was sought to have incorporated

into the official records. Clough v. Curtis, 361.
6. The courts of the United States cannot be required, in a case not involv-

ing the private interests of parties, to determine whether particular
bodies, assuming to exercise legislative functions, constitute a lawful

legislative assembly. Ib.
7. A stipulation was filed in this cause to the effect that the court should

consider the cause as if the general issue and other named pleas had
been pleaded and issue joined ; that the cause should be heard upon

an agreed statement of facts annexed with leave to refer to exhibits
filed therewith; and that the cause might be submitted to the court to
decide on such statement, exhibits and pleadings. No bill of excep-
tions was taken, there was no finding of facts by the court below, nor
was any case stated by the parties, analogous to a special verdict,
stating the ultimate facts, and presenting questions of law only ; Held,
that this stipulation could not be regarded as taking the place of a
special verdict, or a special finding of facts, and that this court had no
jurisdiction to determine the questions of law thereon arising. Glenn

v. Fant, 398.
8. Where a case is tried by the Circuit Court without a jury, and it makes

a special finding of facts, with conclusions of law, alleged errors of
fact are not, on a writ of error, subject to revisions by this court, if
there was any evidence on which such findings could be made.

Hathaway v. Cambridge Bank, 494.
9. Where the Circuit Court finds ultimate facts, which justify the judg-

ment rendered, its refusal to find certain specified facts, and certain
propositions of law based on those facts, will not be reviewed by this
court, on a writ of error, if they were either immaterial facts or
incidental facts amounting only to evidence bearing on the ultimate

facts found. 16.
10. Gibson v, Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, afirmed as to the point that “in a

suit in equity brought in the Circuit Court by two or more persous
on several and distinct demands, the defendant can appeal to this
court as to those plaintiffs only, to each of whom more than $5000

is decreed.” Wheeler v. Cloyd, 537.
11. The voluntary payment of a municipal tax while a suit is pending in

[ocr errors]

this court between the party taxed and the officers of the corporation,
to determine whether it was legally assessed, leaves no existing cause
of action, and requires the dismissal of the writ of error.
Little v.
Bowers, 547.

12. When one of two defendants in a suit in equity demurs to the bill and
the demurrer is sustained, and the other defendant answers, and the
bill is then dismissed, and the plaintiff appeals, and files an appeal
bond running to "the defendants." and the appeal is duly entered here
within the prescribed time, this court has jurisdiction of the appeal;
and, if the defendant as to whom the bill was dismissed on demurrer
does not appear, he may be cited in, and the court may then proceed
to hear and determine the cause. Mendenhall v. Hall, 559.

13. To give this court jurisdiction of a writ of error to a state court it
must appear affirmatively, not only that federal question was pre-
sented for decision to the highest court or the State having jurisdic-
tion, but that its decision was necessary to the determination of the
cause, and that it was actually decided, or that the judgment as
rendered could not have been given without deciding it. Blount v.
Walker, 607.

14. The disregard by the highest court of a State of an opinion of this.
court in another case in which no judgment has been entered, gives this
court no jurisdiction on error. Giles v. Little, 645.

15. The refusal of the highest court of a State, in a suit to quiet title, to
give effect to a judgment of the circuit court of the United States
against the present plaintiff and in favor of a grantee of the present
defendant, gives this court no jurisdiction on error. Ib.

See APPEAL, 3, 4, 5;

CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 19;

TAX AND TAXATION, 1.

B. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

1. When the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court of the United States is founded
upon any of the causes specially mentioned in section 1 of the act of
March 3, 1887, as amended by the act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat.
433, c. 866, (except the citizenship of the parties,) the action must be
brought in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant; but
where the jurisdiction is founded solely upon the fact that the parties
are citizens of different States, the suit may be brought in the district
in which either the plaintiff or the defendant resides. McCormick

Harvesting Machine Co. v. Walthers, 41.

2. In an action against a national bank in a Circuit Court of the United
States, if all the parties are citizens of the district in which the bank
is situated, and the action does not come under section 5209 or section
5239 of the Revised Statutes, the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction;

[ocr errors]

and, if it has taken jurisdiction and dismissed the bill upon another
ground, its decree will be reversed and the cause remanded with a
direction to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction. Whittemore v.
A moskeag Bank, 527.

See ADMIRALTY, 1, 2;

Equity, 1;
JURISDICTION, A, 2, 6.

C. OF TERRITORIAL COURTS.
1. The jurisdiction of the several courts of the Territory of Idaho is a

rightful subject of legislation by the territorial legislature. Clough v.

Curtis, 361.
2. An act of the territorial legislature conferring upon the Supreme Court

of the Territory original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate, review,
prohibition, habeas corpus and all writs necessary to its appellate juris-
diction is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.

or with any act of Congress. 1b.
3. Section 1910 of the Revised Statutes does not forbid a territorial legis-

lature from conferring original jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court
of the Territory in such cases. Ib.

a

D. OF STATE COURTS.
1. The courts of a State have no jurisdiction of a complaint for perjury in

testifying before a notary public of the State upon a contested election
of a member of the House of Representatives of the United States;
and a person arrested by order of a magistrate of the State on such
a complaint will be discharged by a writ of habeas corpus. In re

Loney, 372.
2. The courts of a State have jurisdiction of an indictment for illegal

voting for electors of President and Vice-President of the United
States;

and a person sentenced by a state court to imprisonment upon
such an indictment cannot be discharged by writ of habeas corpus,
although the indictment and sentence include illegal voting for a

representative in Congress. In re Green, 377.
3. Appeals and writs of error may be taken to the Supreme Court of

Illinois held in the grand division in which the case is decided, or, by
consent of the parties, to any other grand division. A guardian ad
litem or next friend of an infant may consent that the case, in which
the infant is a party, be heard in some other grand divisions than the
one in which it was decided, or at a term of the Supreme Court earlier
than such appeal or writ of error would be ordinarily heard, and may
waive the execution of an appeal bond by the opposite party. Kings-

buy v. Buckner, 650.
4. An appeal bond is not essential to the jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court of Illinois, any more than in this court, where the appeal is
allowed and a transcript of the record is filed in due time; although

« ПредишнаНапред »