Page images

District of Columbia. Maintenance of action by foreign executor under

$329 of Code (see Actions). Stewart v. Griffith, 323.

Georgia. Pleading (see Pleading, 1). Southern Ry. Co. v. King, 524.

Hawaii. Organic act of April 30, 1890, $ 5 (see Jurisdiction, D 2).

Wynne v. United States, 234.

Kansas. Gen. Laws of 1901, 8 1283, regulating the transaction of

business by foreign corporations (see Constitutional Law, 5;
Corporations, 2; Statutes, A 1). International Textbook Co. v.
Pigg, 91.

Kentucky. Act of March 21, 1900, 83, for back assessment of shares

of national banks (see Taxes and Taxation, 4). Citizens' Nat.
Bank v. Kentucky (see Constitutional Law, 9). Ib.
Act of 1906, imposing license tax on rectifiers, etc., of distilled
spirits (see Constitutional Law, 23). Brown-Forman Co. v. Ken-
tucky, 563.

Maryland. Right of action by executor to compel specific perform-

ance of contract made by testator (see Executors and Adminis-
trators, 1). Stewart v. Griffith, 323.

Michigan. Sales-in-Bulk Act of 1905 (see Constitutional Law, 21, 34).

Kidd, Dater & Co. v. Musselman Grocer Co., 461.

Mississippi. Anti-trust statute, $ 5002, Code (see Constitutional

Law, 8). Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi, 433.

Neoruska. Elevator switch law (see Constitutional Law, 15). Mis-

souri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 196.

Philippine Islands. Cruel and unusual punishments. Validity of g 56

of Penal Code (see Philippine Islands, 2; Statutes, A 7). Weems
v. United States, 349.
Provision of bill of rights relative to cruel and unusual punish-
ments (see Constitutional Law, 12). Ib.
Imprisonment for debt (see Penalties and Forfeitures). Freeman
v. United States, 539.
Criminal pleading (see Criminal Law, 2). Weems v. United
States, 349.

Porto Rico. 1. Cautionary notice of pending suit; necessity for. In

Porto Rico a cautionary notice must be filed in accordance with

the local law in order to render an innocent third party liable to
dismembership of ownership by reason of purchase during pend-
ency of a suit to set aside a simulated sale. (Romeu v. Todd, 206
U. S. 358). Todd v. Romeu, 150.

2. Cautionary notice of pending suit; right to file. The right to file
a cautionary notice in Porto Rico under the existing mortgage
law is not absolute in all cases; in certain classes of cases the right
but depends on an express permissive order of the court, and one
having knowledge of a suit to dismember title of his grantor in
which such order is not a matter of right and no such order is
applied for or granted is not bound because he had general knowl-
edge of the pendency of the suit. Ib.

3. Cautionary notice of pending suit. Quære as to effect of want of
such notice on one having actual knowledge. Quære, whether one
buying property in Porto Rico with actual knowledge of pendency
of a suit to dismember title for fraud in which the law gives an
absolute right to a cautionary notice without the prerequisite of
judicial permission would be liable for the ultimate result of the
suit even if no cautionary notice were registered. Ib.

4. Rescission of contracts of insolvent debtors. Under the law of
Porto Rico contracts made by an insolvent debtor which are not
fraudulent simulations are not susceptible of rescission merely
because they operate to prefer a creditor. Will v. Tornabells, 47.

Tennessee. Anti-trust act of 1903 (see Constitutional Law, 4, 29).

Standard Oil Co. v. T'ennessee, 413.

Texas. Kennedy Act of 1905 (see Constitutional Law, 26). South-

western Oil Co. v. Texas, 114.

Wisconsin. Laws of 1903, ch. 90, and 88 2524, 2530, 2533, Wisconsin

statutes (see Jurisdiction, A 11). Vought v. IVisconsin, 590.

Generally. See Riparian Rights, 2.

See RIPARIAN Rights, 1.

1. Transportation; compensation to which lessee of land-aided railroad
195, and 8 13 of the act of July 12, 1876, c. 179, 19 Stat. 78, provid-
ing that mails should be transported over railroads constructed in
whole or in part by aid of land grants at eighty per cent of the
authorized price, apply to such transportation by companies which
carry the mail over a leased line which was partly constructed by
such aid, although the transporting company itself received no
land grant aid from the Government. Chicago, St. P., Minn. &
0. Ry. Co. v. United States, 180.

The acts of May 15, 1856, c. 28, 11 Stat. O; March 3, 1857, c. 99, 11 Stat.


2. Transportation; application of obligation as to rates to be received by

land-aided railroads.
The reduction in mail service which the Government exacts in return

for land grants for building railroads attaches to all tracks includ-
ing those subsequently built, and to all companies operating there-
over. Ib.


1. Will not lie to compel Circuit Court to remand case to state court.
Where the Circuit Court has jurisdiction to determine questions

presented on a motion to remand a case to the state court and
denies the motion mandamus will not lie to compel it to remand
the case.

(In re Pollitz, 206 U. S. 323.) Ex parte Gruetter, 586.

[ocr errors]

2. Same.
In this case diverse citizenship existed but plaintiff moved to remand

because the suit was not of a civil nature but for a penalty, the
record did not show that plaintiff or defendant resided in the
District to which removal was sought, and because defendant did
not specifically pray for removal of cause; held that the Circuit
Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the case was remov-
able and that mandamus would not lie to compel the Circuit Judge
to remand the cause. Ib.

3. Power of Circuit Court of Appeals to issue writ to compel Circuit Court

to vacate stay of proceedings.
Where a case is within the appellate jurisdiction of the higher court

a writ of mandamus may issue in aid of the appellate jurisdiction
which might otherwise be defeated by the unauthorized action of
the court below; and so held that the Circuit Court of Appeals
may issue mandamus to compel the Circuit Court to vacate a
stay pending proceedings in the state court to determine and thus
render res judicata questions within the jurisdiction of the Cir-
cuit Court, and involved in the action in which the stay was
granted. McClellan v. Carland, 268.

4. Duty of Circuit Court of Appeals to compel Circuit Court to vacate stay

of proceedings therein.
In this case held that the Circuit Court of Appeals should have issued

an alternative writ of mandamus to, or order to show cause why,
the Circuit Judge should not vacate a stay in an action brought
against an administrator by one claiming to be an heir while and
until proceedings brought by the State for escheat in the state
court should be finally determined. Ib.

5. Leave to file petition for, denied.
Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus to a Circuit

Judge to remand a case removed from the state to the Federal
court denied. Ex parte Coyle & Co., 590.


See STATES, 3, 5, 6.




1. Right to enforce; effect of fraud of holder of mortgage.
Although one holding a mortgage may have fraudulently endeavored

to prevent another from acquiring the fee of the property, he
may still be entitled to have his mortgage paid if the other finally
gets the property. Stoffela v. Nugent, 499.

2. Discharges; setting aside.
Deeds and discharges of morigages although different instruments may

be parts of one transaction; and one setting aside the deed may.
also be required to give up the discharge so as to restore other
parties to the condition in which they stood prior to the transac-
tion. 16.

See Taxes and Taxation, 4, 5, 6.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »