sonable searches, required plaintiffs in error to incriminate them-
selves and denied them due process of law. Rhodus v. Manning,
597.
CONTINUANCE.
See MANDAMUS, 3, 4.
1. Breach; retention of securities held not a breach of agreement to turn
certain of them over to Government.
An agreement on the part of one holding securities in trust, to turn over
all that have not been disposed of bona fide, is not necessarily
broken by a failure to turn over some that are held under claim
that they were retained for services and disbursements properly
earned and incurred, even if the claim cannot be sustained, if it is
made in good faith and the question submitted to the court.
United States v. Carter, 286.
2. Performance; duty of Government.
Where a stipulation for surrender of securities in suit is made by the
Government and other partics, even though the Government may
make what appears to be bad bargain, the stipulation must be
observed if it is actually a contract. Ib.
3. Performance; damages as adequate remedy for breach.
Damages in a suit at law for failure to comply with the terms of a con-
tract for delivery of crops is an adequate remedy and specific per-
formance and an injunction against delivery to others should have
been refused in this case. Javierre v. Central Altagracia, 502.
4. Termination; sufficiency of happening of condition on which dependent.
A contract for delivery for a term of years, of sugar, terminable mean-
while only in case a specified new Central was built, could not, in
this case, be terminated unless the particular Central contem-
plated was built; it was not enough that a Central called by the
same name had been built. Ib.
5. Construction of contract for counsel fees.
In this case a contract made by the attorney of record with associate
counsel for professional services to be paid out of fees in an Indian
litigation in the Court of Claims construed; and, although the
contract provided that in case the fees were not provided for by
legislation but had to be proved each party should prove his fee
independently, held, that as the attorney of record had collected
without legislation the entire fee originally contemplated and
allowable he must account for the amount so collected by him and
pay the associate counsel the amount agreed under the contract.
Owen v. Dudley & Michener, 488.
6. Effect of legislation providing for competition for public building, to
create obligation on part of United States.
An act of Congress appropriating for a competition for plans of a pro-
posed building, the successful ones to be transmitted to Congress,
and which does not appropriate for the building itself creates no
obligation on the part of the United States to use the plans of the
successful competitor, and so held in regard to the act of March 2,
1901, c. 805, 31 Stat. 922, 938, providing for competition for
building for Department of Agriculture. Lord & Hewlett v.
United States, 340.
Under the act of February 9, 1903, c. 528, 32 Stat. 806, providing for
plans for a building for the Department of Agriculture not to
exceed $1,500,000, the Secretary of Agriculture was not obliged
to use the successful plans under the competition provided in the
act of March 2, 1901, and in the absence of a contract to use such
plans the architects submitting them have no claim for fees against
the United States. Ib.
8. Essentials; meeting of minds; sufficiency of.
There is no contract unless the minds of the parties meet; and although
there were negotiations in this case the architects, having de-
clined to accept a contract submitted by the Department of
Agriculture, have no contractual claim against the United States.
9. Of sale; effect of provision to make voidable and not void.
Where, as in this case, a condition of forfeiture in a contract of sale of
real estate declaring it to be null and void in case of failure on the
part of the vendee to perform is plainly for the benefit of the
vendor, the word void means voidable with election to the vendor
to waive or to insist upon the condition. Stewart v. Griffith, 323.
10. Of sale; differentiated from option to purchase.
A contract of purchase and sale of real estate, the tenor of which im-
ports mutual undertakings, held in this case to be an absolute
contract and not merely an option to purchase. Ib.
11. Of sale; specific performance; waiver of right to compel.
In this case a letter from an executor to a purchaser under an uncom-
pleted contract of sale held.not to be a waiver of right to compel
specific performance. Ib.
12. Of sale; effect of agency on right to avoid specific performance of sealed
instrument.
The party executing a sealed contract for purchase of real estate as
principal cannot avoid specific performance on the ground that
he executed as agent for another not mentioned in the instru-
ment. Ib.
1. Foreign; what constitutes doing business within State.
The reasonable construction of a state statute relating to foreign cor-
porations doing business within the State does not include the
doing of a single act or the making of a single contract, but does
include a continuous series of acts by an agent continuously
within the State. (Cooper Manufacturing Company v. Ferguson,
113 U. S. 727.) International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 91.
2. Foreign; what constitutes doing business within State by correspond-
ence school.
A foreign corporation engaged in teaching by correspondence anl
which continuously has an agent in a State securing scholars and
receiving and forwarding the money obtained from them, is doing
business in the State; and such a corporation does business in
Kansas within the meaning of § 1283 of the general statutes of
that State of 1901. Ib.
See BANKRUPTCY;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5, 29, 33;
JURISDICTION, C 1.
See COMMERCE, 2;
CONSTITUTIONal Law, 5;
CORPORATIONS, 2.
Boundary disputes; division of costs between States.
The division of costs between States in a boundary dispute is one
governmental in character in which cach party has not a litigious,
but a real, interest, for the promotion of the peace and good of the
communities, and all expenses including those connected with
'making the surveys should be borne in common and included in
the costs equally divided between the States. Maryland v. West
Virginia, 577.
Functions; usurpation by court of functions of jury; what constitutes.
Assertions that parties are not privies to a judgment and cannot plead
it as res judicata and that a judgment can be collaterally attacked
as rendered against one insane at the time, raise questions of law,
and where, as in this case, such questions are to be determined on
the facts appearing in such judgments and in the pleadings the
court does not usurp the functions of the jury by determining that
the contentions raised by such assertions are without merit.
Souffront v. Compagnie Des Sucreries, 475.
COURT OF CUSTOMS APPEALS.
For table of fees to be charged in, see p. 611.
1. Federal; right to abandon jurisdiction.
A Federal court cannot abandon its jurisdiction already properly ob-
tained of a suit and turn the matter over for adjudication to the
state court. (Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 529.) Mc-
Clellan v. Carland, 268.
2. Federal; effect of pendency of suit in state court on jurisdiction.
The pendency of a suit in the state court is no bar to proceedings con-
cerning the same matter in a Federal court having jurisdiction
thereover. Ib.
3. Federal; chancery jurisdiction of; impairment by state legislation.
The constitutional grant of chancery jurisdiction to Federal courts
in cases where diverse citizenship exists, to determine interests in
estates, is the same as that possessed by the Chancery Courts of
England and it cannot be impaired by subsequent state legislation
creating courts of probate. (Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank,
215 U. S. 33.) Ib.
4. Federal; interference with enforcement of state statute.
A Federal court cannot interfere with the enforcement of a state
statute merely because it disapproves of the terms of the act,
questions the wisdom of its enactment, or is not sure as to the
precise reasons inducing the State to enact it. Southwestern Oil
Co. v. Texas, 114.
5. Federal and state; power to determine efficiency of rules of railroad
association relative to cars moving in interstate commerce.
Whether or not the rules of an association of railroads in regard to
exchange of cars are efficient to secure just dealings as to cars
moved in interstate commerce is a matter within Federal control,
and it is beyond the power of a state court to determine that they
are inefficient and to compel a member of the association to violate
such rules. St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. Arkansas, 136.
1. Immunity from prosecution under act of February 25, 1903.
The immunity of one testifying before a grand jury, under the act of
February 25, 1903, 32 Stat. 904, as amended June 30, 1906, 31
Stat. 798, does not render him immune from any prosecution
whatever, but furnishes a defense which, if 'improperly overruled,
is a basis for reversal of a final judgment of conviction. Heike v.
United States, 423.
2. Informations; sufficiency of description of offense under Criminal
Code of Philippine Islands.
Under the Philippine Criminal Code of Procedure a public offense need
not necessarily be described in the information in exact words of
the statute. but only in ordinary and concise language, so as to
enable a person of common understanding to understand the
charge and the court to pronounce judgment. Weems v. Unitel
States, 349.
|