text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1637

 1586 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CII .705. 1929 . Reim burs able fr om paid under this Act to the attorneys shall be reimbursable to the amount decreed by l court. credit of the Semin ole N ation out of any amoun t or amoun ts whi ch may hereafter be decreed by the Court of Claims to said attorneys for their services and expenses in connection with the Seminole tribal claims and suits under the above-mentioned Act of May 20, 1924. osages, Okl a. For the support of the Osage Agency, including repairs to build- Age ncy expenses from trust funds. ings, and pay of tribal officers, the tribal attorney and his stenog- rapher, and employees of said agency, $180,000, to be paid from the funds held by the United States in trust for the Osag e Trib e of Indians in Oklahoma. Oil and gas produc- For necessary expenses enses in connection with oil and gas production tion expenses from trib- al funds. on the Osage Reservation, including salaries of employees, rent of quarters for employees, traveling expenses, printing, telegraph- ing and telephoning, and purchase, repair, and operation of automo- biles, $80,000, to be paid from the funds held by the United States in tr ust for the Osage Tr ibe of Indians in Oklahoma. Visits by Tribal For expenses inc ur red in connection wi th visits to Washington, Council, etc" to wash- ington, b c. Distr ict o f Colu mbia, by the Osage Tribal Counci l and othe r mem- bers of said tribe, when duly authorized or approved by the Secre- tary of the Int erior, $ 10,000, to be pa id from the fund s held b y the United States in trust for the Osage Tribe . ofU nfederated Bands The sum of $123,000 is hereby appropriated out of the principal Distr ibuti on t o, fr om funds to the credit of the Confe derate d Ban ds of Ute Indians, the tri bal principal funds . sum of $48,000 of said amount for the benefit of the Ute Mountain (formerly Navajo Springs) Ba nd of said Indians in Colorado, and the sum of $45,000 of said amount for the Uintah, White River, and Unc omp ah gre Bands of Ute Indians in Utah, and the sum of $30,000 of said amount for the Sout hern Ute Indians in Colorad o, which Self support and ad- sums shall be charged to said bands, and the Secretary of the Interior ministering property, is also authorized to withdraw from the Treasury the accrued interest from accrued interest, to and including J une 30, 19 29, on the funds of the said Confed- Vol.37,p.s34. erate d Bands o f Ute Indi ns a ppro pria ted unde r the Act of Mar ch 4, 1913 (37 Stat., p . 934), and to expend or distribute the same for the pu rp ose of administering the pro pe rty of and promoting self- su pport am ong the said Ind ians, un der such regulat ions as the Secr e- Restc tar of the In teri or ma p resc ribe : Pr ovided , That none of the estiction on road y 3' s construction. funds in this paragraph shall be expended on road construc tion unless, wherever practicable, preference shall be given to Indians in the employment of labor on all roads constructed from the sums herein appropriated from the funds of the Confederated Bands of Utes. Roads and bridges. ROADS AND B RIDGE S Red Lak e Res er va- For the construction and repair of roads and bridoes on the Red tion, DSinn. Construction, etc ., Lake Indian Reservation, including the purchase of material, equip- from s, Chippewa trust ment, and supplies, and the employment of labor, $15,000, to be paid from the funds held by the United States in trust for the Red Proviso. Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota : Pro- Indian labor. vided, That Indian labor shall be emplo yed a s far as pr actic able. Santa Clara Reserva- Not more than $4,000 of the unexpended balance of the appropria- t'`'''1,;. toe Pnye cliff tion for repair and maintenance of the road on the Santa C lara Ro ad to P R Pavtnent t Harvey I ndian Reser vatio n, New Mexi co, l eading to the Puye Cliff Ruins, Co mpan y for con - contained in the Act of March 7, 1928 (45 Stat., p . 212), shall be structing. Ante, p. 225. available for repayment to the Harvey Company for cost of con- Pro , o- struction of said road : Provided That an admission fee of not less chargedissfonfee than 50 cents each for all persons sixteen years of age or over for the Proceeds to credit of Santa C chip Pueblo . P uye Cliff Rui ns is authorized and the proceeds from such fee of admission, les s the c ost of protection and administration of the ruins, shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to

�


text: Talk:Berthold v. McDonald/Opinion of the Court

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1638

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 705. 1929. 1587 the credit of the Santa Clara Pueblo, and shall bear interest at the rate of 4 per centum. For the construction, repair, and maintenance of roads on Indian Roads on etc. oads on re ser ve- r eser vati ons not elig ible to Gove rnme nt a id u nder the Fed eral tions not eligible to aid Highway Act, including engineering and supervision and the pur- Wye Act Fe der al I3i gh- chase of material, equipment, supplies, and the employment of Proviso. Indian labor, $250,000, to be immediately available : Pr o v i de d, T ha t Cooperation, etc ., of where practicable the Secretary of the Interior shall arrange with the local authorities. local authorities to defray the maintenance expenses of roads con- structed hereunder, and to cooperate in such construction. MenomineeReserva. For the construction of two bridges on the Menominee Reserva- Co tion, nst ru Wis. ct ion of two tion, Wisconsin, $6,000, payable from funds on deposit in the bridges on. Treasury to the credit of the Menominee Tribe. E rectio n of monu- ERECTION OF MONUMENTS ments. The une xpen ded bala nce of t he a ppro pria tion of $25, 000 from Memorial to, who tribal funds of the Osage Indians, made in the Act of March 3, 1925 died , during world (43 Stat., p . 1162), for the erection of a monument as a memorial Vol. 43,p .1162. to Indians of that tribe who gave their lives in the recent war with Balance available. Germany, is hereby made available until June 30, 1930, for the erection of a memorial to Indians of that tribe who served in such war. Sioux and Pawnee For the erection of a suitable monument and historical tablets at Indians. or near the site of the battle between the Sioux and Pawnee Indians Memorial on site of battle between. in Hitchcock County, Nebraska, pursuant to the terms and Con- Ante, p. 939. ditions of the Act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat ., p. 939), $7,500 : Pro- Proviso. vided, That no part of this appropriation shall be available for the site et available for purchase of a site. A NNUI TIES AND PER CA PITA PAY MENT S Annuities, etc. For fulfilling treaties with Senecas of New York : For permanent Seeca ,443. annuity in lieu of interest on stock (Act of February 19, 1831, 4 Stat ., p . 442), $6,000. For fulfilling treaties with Six Nations of New York : For per- six Nations, N. Y. V"ol.7,p.46. manent annuity, in clothing and other useful articles (article 6, treaty of November 11, 1794), $4,500 . For fulfilling treaties with Choctaws, Oklahoma : For permanent vol°7a pp. 99a . 212, annuity (article 2, treaty of November 16, 1805, and article 13, 213, 236 . treaty of June 22, 1855), $3,000 ; for permanent annuity for support of light horsemen (article 13, treaty of October 18, 1820, and article vol . 11, p. 614. 13, treaty of June 22, 1855), $600 ; fo r pe rman ent annu ity for supp ort of blacksmith (article 6, treaty of October 18, 1820, and article 9, treaty of January 20, 1825, and article 13, treaty of June 22, 1855), $000 ; for permanent annuity for education (article 2, treaty of January 20, 1825, and article 13, treaty of June 22, 1855), $6,000 ; for permanent annuity for iron and steel (article 9, treaty of Jan- uary 20, 1825, and article 13, treaty of June 22, 1855), $320 ; in all, $10,5 20 . Saint Croia Chi To carry out the provisions of the Chippewa treaty of September was, Wis. ppe 30, 185 4 (1 0 St at . , p . 1109), $10,000, in part settlement of the amount, etc. cur Lace of land for, $141,000, found due and heretofore approved for the Saint Croix Vol. 10, p .1109. Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, whose names appear on the final roll prepared by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to Act of August 1, 1914 (38 Stat ., pp. 582-605), and contained in House Vol- 18, p .606. Document Numbered 1663, said. sum of $10,000 to be expended in the purchase of land or for the benefit of said Indians by the Com- missioner of Ind ian Affairs : Pro vided , That, in the discretion of Diser tionary ca sh the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the per capita share of any of payment. said Indians under this appropriation may be paid in cash.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1639

 1588 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 705. 1929. Pensions Bureau. Army and Navy Army and Navy pensions, as follows : For invalids, widows, pensions. minor children, and dependent relatives, Army nurses, and all other pensioners who are now borne on the rolls, or who may hereafter be placed thereon, under t he provisions of any and all Acts of Navy os from nava l Congress, $221,000,000, to be immediately available : Provided, That fund. the appropriation aforesaid for Navy pensions shall be paid from the income of the Navy pension fund, so far as the same shall be Separate accounting. suf dent for that purpose : Provided further, Th at the amount expended under each of the above items shall be accounted for separately. Commissioner, office personnel. Post, p. 1642. BUREAU OF PENSIONS PENSIONS SALARI ES and For the Commissioner of Pensions and other personal services in the District of Columbia, $1,225,000. SPECIA L INVES TIGATI ONS AND EXAMINATIONS In vesti gatio ns, t rav- eling expenses, etc. For expenses of special investigations pertaining to the Bureau of Pensions, including traveling expenses of persons detailed from t hat b ureau for such purp ose, purc hase of su ppli es an d equ ipme nt for field use, copies of records and documents, and reimbursement of cooperating governmental agencies for expenses necessarily incurred in connection with such investigations ; also including not to exceed $1,000 for necessary traveling and other expenses of the commissioner or employees of the bureau assigned, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to official duty in connection with th e ann ual conve ntion s of orga nized war vete rans, $105 ,000. Examining surgeons. For fees and mileage of examining surgeons engaged in the exami- nat ion of pensi oners and of claim ants f or pens ion, f or ser vices ren- os. dered within the fiscal years 1929 and 1930, $300,000 : Provided, That Exam ination s here- after by one physician, hereafter all necessary medical examinations of claimants or pen- et c. sioners not heretofore ordered shall be made by one physician or Vol.22,p.155. U.S. Code, p. 1194. surgeon, duly appointed under the Act of July 25, 1882, as amended (U . S. C ., p. 1194, sets . 71, 72), and duly designated for such exami- nation by the Commissioner of Pensions, except when in the j udg- ment of the said Commissioner the examination should be made by Feeforeach examina- lion. more than one : Provided further, That the fee paid any such physi- cian making such examination alone, or otherwise, shall be $5 for each examination, foreign or domestic. Retirement Act. REIIHEMENT ACT Expenses of Bureau, under. To enable the Bureau of Pensions to perform the duties imposed 44, .V pol.912, p. 619; vol. upon it by the Act entitled "An Act for the retirement of employees U.S. Code, p.1887. in the classified civil service, and for other purposes," approved May 22, 1920, as amended (U . S . C ., p . 1887, sees. 706a, 707x), including personal services, purchase of books, office equipment, sta- tione ry, an d othe r supp lies, travel ing exp enses, expen ses of medic al and other examinations, and including not to exceed $2 .200 for com- Actuary, etc. pensation of one actuary, to be fixed by the Commissioner of Pen- sions with the ap proval of th e Secr etary o f the Interi or, an d actu al necessary travel and other expenses of three members of the Board Government contri- of Actuaries, $81,000. bution to retirement For financing of the liability of the United States, created by the fund. Vol.41,p. 619; Vol. Act entitled "An Act for the retirement of employees in the classified 0,'sCCode, p. 1887. civil service, and for other purposes," approved May 22, 1920, and Acts amendatory thereof (U . S. C., p . 1887, sec. 707a), $20,500,000, which amount shall be placed to the credit of the " civil-service retir ement and di sabili ty fun d ."

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1640

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. Ca. 705. 1929. 1589 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Reclamation Bureau . The following sums are appropriated out of the special fund in mataynfund. the Treasury of the United States created by the Act of June 17, Vol. 32, p. ass. 1902, and therein designated " the reclamation fund," to be available immediately Commissioner of Reclamation, $10 .000 ; and other personal services commissioner, office personnel, and expen- in the District of Columbia, $140,000 ; for office expenses in the ses. District of Columbia, $23,000 ; in all, $173 .000 ; Attendance at meet- For expenses, except membership fees, of attendance upon meetings lngs. of technical and professional societies required in connection with official work of the bureau, $1,000 of the unexpended balance of appropriations for this purpose for the fiscal year 1929 is continued availabl e for the fiscal y ear 1930 ; For all expenditures authorized by the Act of June 17, 1902 `ol. expenses. 32p .3,iS. (32 Stat., p . 388), and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary Ante, p . 1583. thereto, known as the reclamation law, and all other Acts under which expenditures from said fund are authorized, including not Purposes de signated to exceed $178,000 for personal services and $27,000 for other expenses in the office of the chief engineer, $25,000 for telegraph, telephone, and other communication service, $8,000 for photographing and mak- ing photographic prints, $54,000 for personal services, and $12,000 for other expenses in the field legal offices ; examination of estimates for appropriations in the field ; refunds of overcollections and deposits for other purposes ; not to exceed $20,000 for lithographing, engrav- ing, printing, and binding ; purchase of ice ; purchase of rubber boots for official use by employees ; maintenance and operation of horse- drawn and motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles ; not to exceed $40,000 for purchase of horse-drawn and motor-propelled passenger-carrying ~ ing vehicles ; crating, and transportation Transporting effects packing, b ofemployees. (i nclu ding dra yage ) of personal effects of employees upon permanent change of station, under regulations to be pre- scribed by the Secretary of the Interior ; payment of damage s t y. to prop er- caused to the owners of lands or other private roperty of any kind by reason of the operations of the United States, its officers or emplo yees, in the surve y, con struct ion, op eratio n, or mainte nance of irrigation wor ks, and which may be compromised by agre ement between the claimant and the Secretary of the Interior, or such officers as he may designate ; payment for official telephone service in the field he reafter i ncurred i n case of official telephon es instal led in private houses when authorized under regulations established by the Secretary of the Interior : Provided, That no part of said appro- Provisos. priations may be used for maintenance of headquarters for the Limit on ou tsi de 1 headqua rters. Bureau of Reclamation outside the District of Columbia except for an office for the chief engineer and staff and for certain field officers Medical attendance, of the division of reclamation economics : Provided further, That the etc ., for employees. Secretary of the Interior in his administration of the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to contract for medical attention and service for employees and to make necessary pay-roll deductions agreed to by the employees therefor : Provided further, That no Restriction on use for 7 irrigation districts in part of any sum provided for in this Act for operation and mainte- arrears for charges. nance of any project or division of a project by the Bureau of Reclamation shall be used for the irrigation of any lands within the boundaries of an irrigation district which has contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation and whic h is in arrears for m ore than twelve months in the payment of any charges due the United States, and no part of any sum provided for in this Act for such purpose Lands in arrears. shall be used for the irrigation of any lands which have contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation and which are in arrears for more

�


text: Rey v. Simpson

title: Rey v. Simpson


text: Talk:Rey v. Simpson

title: Talk:Rey v. Simpson


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1641

 1590 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cx.705. 1929 . than twelve months in the payment of any charges due from said lands to the United States ; Exam inati on, etc ., of Examination and inspection of projects : For examination of projects operated by irrigation dist ricts, etc . accounts and inspection of the works of various projects and divisions of pr ojects opera ted an d main tained by irr igatio n dist ricts or wat er users' associations, and bookkeeping, accounting, clerical, legal, and other expenses incurred in accordance with contract provisions for the repa yment of s uch expen ses b y the dis trict s or asso ciati ons, $40,000 ; wOppeerationofreserved For operation and maintenance of the reserved works of a project or division of a project when irrigation districts, water-users' associa- tions, or Warren Act contractors have contracted to pay in advance but h ave fa iled t o pay their propor tionate share of th e cost of su ch operation and maintenance, to be expended under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, the unexpended balance of the appropriation for this purpose for the fiscal year 1929 is con- tinued available for the same purpose for the fiscal year 1930 ; Yuma, Aril : Calif. Yuma project, Arizona-California : For operation and mainte- nanc e, $2 75,00 0 ; for continuation of construction of drainage, oerating commer- $20,000 ; in all, $295,000 : Provided, That not to exceed $25,000 from cial system. the power revenues shall be available during the fiscal year 1930 for the operation and maintenance of the commercial system ; Orland, Calif. Orland project, California : For operation and maintenance, $38,000 ; Grand Valley, Colo. Grand Valley project, Colorado : Not to exceed $15,000 of the unex- Ante,p. 22 g. ablea pended balance of the appropriation of $75,000, for the fiscal year 1929, is her eby ma de ava ilable for c ontinua tion o f cons tructi on dur - ing the fiscal year 1930 ; Boise, Idaho. Boise project, Idaho : The unexpended balance of the appropria- use of balance. tion of $400 000 for continuation of investi _ ttions and construction Vol. 44, p. 958. Ante, p. 228. Pay ette division, for the fiscal year 1928 and of the appropriation of $400,000 for continuation of construction for the fiscal year 1929 shall continue available during the fiscal year 1930 for construction Vol. Al lotments. s80 of the Bayet te div ision, and o f the unexpen ded ba lance of the appro - priation for this project for the fiscal year 1927 there is reappro- priat ed fo r ope rati on an d mai nten ance, Paye tte d ivis ion, $20,0 00 ; for exa minati on and surve ys, Pa yette divisio n, $6, 000 ; for co nt inu a- Use P of r°ais °. revenues from tion of construction, Arrowrock division, $60,000 : Provided, That Black Canyon power all net revenues derived from the operation of the Black Canyon plant . power plant shall be applied to the repayment of the construction cost : First, of the Deadwood Reservoir ; second, the Black Canyon power plant and power system ; and third, one-half the cost of the Black Canyon Dam, until the United States shall have been reim- bursed for all expenditures made incident thereto. Thereafter all net revenues shall be covered into the reclamation fund unless and until otherwise directed by Congress. No charge shall be made against a ny irriga tion dist rict for the cost of constr uction of the said Deadwood Reservoir, the Black Canyon power plant and power system, or more than one-half the cost of the Black Canyon Dam ; Mini doka, Idaho. Minidoka project, Idaho : For operation and maintenance, reserved Balance available. works, $45,000 ; continuation of construction, gravity extension unit, Anl:,228. $300,00 0, tog ether with $ 1,200, 000 of the un expend ed bal ances of the appropriations for the fiscal years 1928 and 1929 for construction of Proviso. power plant at American Falls : Provided, That not to exceed $50,000 Oper ating commo n- from the power revenues shall be available during the fiscal year cial system from power revenues. 1930, for the operation of the commercial system ; and not to exceed $175,000 from power revenues shall be available (luring the fiscal Construction, etc, ye ar 193 0 for contin uation of co nstruc tion, S outh S ide Di vision, and for enlargement of the power system ; in all, $345,000.

�


text:
Rey v. Simpson/Opinion of the Court

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Minnesota.

It was an action brought by Simpson in the District Court of the second judicial district, Ramsey county, in the Territory of Minnesota, upon a promissory note given under the following circumstances:

$3,517.07 1/2.

ST. PAUL, June 14, 1855.

Six months after date, I promise to pay to the order of James W. Simpson, three thousand five hundred and seventeen dollars and 07 1/2-100, value received.

(Signed) ALEX. REY.

Simpson was the creditor, and it was intended to give him the security of Marshall & Co.; but instead of drawing the note in favor of Marshall & Co., and obtaining their endorsement before handing it to Simpson, the note was drawn as above, and give to Simpson with the endorsement of Marshall & Co. upon it. The whole case turned upon the nature of this note. Under the usual form of proceeding, Simpson would have had to write his name over that of Marshall & Co., and thus present the spectacle of the first endorser suing the second endorser. According to the old system of pleading, there might have been a difficulty; but the system of pleading in Minnesota obviated all difficulty, by enjoining upon suitors, in framing their declarations, to give a statement of the facts constituting their cause of action. Simpson's counsel therefore filed a complaint against the maker and endorsers of the note, joining them in one action, and complaining that they sould not pay the note. In this complaint, Marshall & Co. were called endorsers, and the question immediately arose, whether they were endorsers or guarantors. Accordingly, the counsel for the defendants moved to strike out of the complaint all those parts which spoke of Marshall & Co. as endorsers, for the purpose of guarantying the note, and of becoming sureties and security to the plaintiff. But the court overruled the motion. The counsel for the defendants then demurred to the complaint, upon the following grounds, which are inserted because the reporter does not intend to report the arguments of counsel in this court upon this mode of making a promissory note, and this mode of declaring upon it.

The grounds of demurrer were the following, viz:

First. The said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the said defendants, William R. Marshall and Joseph M. Marshall, or either of them, in that—

1. The facts stated in the said complaint show that the contract of the defendants, Marshall, upon the promissory note in said complaint mentioned, was that only of endorsement; and the allegations in the said complaint of the purpose for which the said defendants endorsed the said note, and of the reliance of the plaintiff upon such endorsement as security to him, are incompetent either to vary the said contract, or to change in any respect the legal obligations of the defendants, Marshall.

2. It appears, upon the face of the said complaint, that the plaintiff is the payee of the said note, that the same is payable to the order of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff has never endorsed nor negotiated the said note.

3. The facts stated in the said complaint show, that the defendants, Marshall, could only have been made liable upon the said promissory note in the character of second endorsers, and in that character only upon the endorsement and the transfer of the note by the plaintiff. The note having matured without endorsement or transfer by the plaintiff, no liability can in any event attach to the defendants, Marshall, upon the same.

Second. There is a defect of parties defendant in said action, in that—

1. The defendants, Marshall, are not proper parties to an action by the plaintiff upon the said note, because, as appears upon the face of the complaint, they are but the endorsers of a promissory note payable to the order of the plaintiff, and as such endorsers cannot be held by the payee.

2. The facts stated in the sais complaint show that the maker of the said promissory note alone is liable to the plaintiff for the payment thereof.

This demurrer was overruled, and, after some other proceedings, the court gave judgment for the plaintiff, when the defendants carried the case to the Supreme Court of the Territory. The points made in that court upon both sides are inserted, because they are substantially those which were made in this court.

Points of plaintiff in error, with authorities relied on:

I. The contract of the defendants (plaintiffs in error) was that of endorsers, and a contract of a different character cannot arise and will not be implied in conflict with the written agreement. The defendants being endorsers, they are endorsers of the plaintiff, and not liable to him.

17 Johns., 326; 17 Wen., 214.

2 Hill, 80; 3 Ibid, 233; 7 Ibid, 416.

19 Wen., 202; 6 Barber, 282.

1 Comstock, 321; 1 Spence N. Y., 256.

1 Green Ia., 331; 13 Lin. and Man., 617.

1 Jones's Pen., 46; Story on Promissory Notes, sec. 134, note.

Story on Bills, 215; 11 Johns., 201.

1 Phillips's Ev., 547; 6 Hill, 219.

1 Johns. Ch. B., 429; 4 Selden, 207.

2 Comstock, 553; 5 Denio, 484.

Rev. Stat. p. 268, secs. 281, 282.

II. The complaint charges the defendants as guarantors, and shows that the contract was cotemporaneous with the inception of the note, and no construction of the authorities will charge them upon such fact otherwise than as original maker.

III. In no view can the defendants upon this complaint be regarded, except as endorsers, because, conceding that the written contract of the parties may be varied by a cotemporaneous parol agreement, facts are not stated in the pleadings from which the court can infer the nature of the contract.

IV. The complaint is double. If any contract besides that of endorsers is stated, it contains in the same count a contract of endorsement and of guaranty. There are distinct causes of action, and should be separately stated.

Vide Rev. Stat., p. 340, sec. 7.

2 Code R., p. 145; 4 H. and R., 226.

5 Ibid, 172; 7 Barbour, 80.

The following points and authorities were relied upon for the defendant in error:

First. The plaintiffs in error, William R. Marshall and Joseph M. Marshall, as parties to the promissory note described in the complaint, became and assumed the legal liability of guarantors and sureties for the payment of the same.

See 14 Johns. Rep., p. 349, Campbell v. Butler.

1 Hill's Rep., p. 91, Labran & Ives v. Worane.

13 Johns. Rep., p. 175, Nelson v. Duboiss.

9 Mass. Rep., p. 313, White v. Howland.

11 Mass. Rep., p. 436, Mories v. Bird.

2 Comstock Rep., p. 225, Brown v. Curtis.

7 Mass. Rep., p. 232, Ulen v. Kitridge.

Story on Promissory Notes, secs. 479 and 480, and notes on page 641, 3d ed.

Same, p. 630, secs. 475 and 476, and notes.

Same, secs. 477 and 479, p. 638.

Second. The endorsement of the promissory note by Marshall & Co., at the time of the making and before delivery thereof, was an original undertaking on their part to pay the same, or at least to guaranty the payment thereof.

In support of this point, see the authorities above cited.

Third. The endorsement by Marshall & Co. having been made at the date of the note, and before delivery, for the express purpose of giving credit to the maker, and enabling him to negotiate the same to the payee thereof, renders them primarily liable as original parties to the note.

6 Conn. Rep., p. 315; 7 Conn. Rep., p. 310.

11 Conn. Rep., p. 440; 9 Vermont Rep., p. 345.

12 Vermount Rep., p. 219; 16 Vermont Rep., p. 554.

17 Vermont Rep., p. 285; 1 New Hamp. Rep., p. 385.

2 McCord's Rep., p. 388; 9 Ohio Rep. p. 39.

13 Ohio Rep., p. 328.

Fourth. The time and circumstances when and under which the note was made, endorsed, and delivered, may be properly alleged and proved, to enable the court to apply the law governing the same.

See the authorities before cited, and 4 Watt's Rep., p. 448; 9 Ohio Rep., p. 39; 2 McLean Rep., p. 553.

Fifth. The decision and judgment below is well sustained by the law of the case.

See authorities before cited.

The Supreme Court of the Territory affirmed the judgment of the court below, and the defendants brought the case to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Stevens, upon a brief submitted by himself and Mr. Brisbin, for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Bradley for the defendant.

The arguments turned upon the questions, whether Marshall & Co. were endorsers or guarantors or original parties to the note, and also whether the mode of pleading had been correct.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Minnesota.

According to the transcript, the suit was commenced by James W.Simpson, the present defendant, on the twenty-first day of December, 1855, in the District Court of the Territory, for the second judicial district, against the plaintiffs in error, who were the original defendants. It was an action of assumpsit, and was brought upon a certain promissory note for the sum of three thousand five hundred and seventeen dollars and seven and a half cents, bearing date at St. Paul, in that Territory, on the fourteenth day of June, 1855, and was made payable to the order of the plaintiff six months after date, for value received. At the period of the date of the note, as well as at the time the suit was instituted, two of the defendants, William R. Marshall and Joseph M. Marshall, were partners, doing business under the style and firm of Marshall & Company.

As appears by the declaration, the note was made and signed by the defendant first named in the original suit, at the time and place it bears date.

And the plaintiff further alleges in the declaration, that, after making and signing the note, the same defendant then and there delivered the note to the other two defendants; and that they then and there, by their partnership name, endorsed the same, by writing the name of their firm on the back of the note, and then and there redelivered the same to the first-named defendant, who afterwards, and before the maturity of the note, delivered it so endorsed to the plaintiff. He also alleges that the defendants, William R. Marshall and Joseph M. Marshall, so endorsed the note for the purpose of guarantying the payment of the same, and of becoming sureties and security to him, as the payee thereof, for the amount therein specified; and that he, relying upon their endorsement, took the note, and paid the full consideration thereof to the first-named defendant.

Other matters, such as due presentment, non-payment, and protest, are also alleged in the declaration, which it is unnecessary to notice at the present time, as the questions to be determined arise out of the allegations previously mentioned and described.

Personal service was made on each of the defendants, but the one first named did not appear; and after certain interlocutory proceedings, conforming to the laws of the Territory and the practice of the court, he was defaulted.

On the thirty-first day of December, 1855, the counsel of the other two defendants served notice of a motion to strike out all that part of the declaration which sets forth the purpose for which it is alleged they endorsed the note, and so much of the declaration, also, as alleges that the plaintiff took the note as payee, relying upon the endorsement, and paid to the first-named defendant the full consideration thereof, as before stated. That motion was subsequently heard before the court; and on the ninth day of February, 1856, was denied and wholly overruled. After the motion was overruled, the defendants, whose firm name is on the back of the note, demurred specially to the declaration.

None of the causes of demurrer need be stated, as they will be sufficiently brought to view in considering the several propositions assumed by the counsel on the one side and the other, in the argument at the bar. Suffice it to say, that the demurrer was overruled; and on the tenth day of July, 1856, judgment was entered for the plaintiff against all of the defendants for the amount of the note, with interest and costs.

On the eighteenth day of September, 1856, the defendants sued out a writ of error, and removed the cause into the Supreme Court of the Territory, where the judgment of the District Court was in all things affirmed; and on the fourth day of February, 1857, a final judgment was entered for the plaintiff, that he recover the amount of the judgment rendered in the District Court, with interest, costs, and ten per cent. damages, amounting in the whole to the sum of four thousand three hundred seventy-one dollars and ninety-seven cents. Whereupon the defendants sued out a writ of error to this court, which was properly docketed at the December term, 1857.

All civil suits in the courts of Minnesota are commenced by complaint; and suitors are enjoined by law, in framing their declarations, to give a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action; which statement is required to be expressed in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.

Pursuant to that requirement, and the practice of the courts of the Territory at the time the suit was commenced, the plaintiff in this case set forth the facts already recited as contained in the complaint or declaration.

Facts thus stated in the declaration, pursuant to the directions of the law of the Territory, and which were material to the understanding of the rights of the parties to the controversy, could not properly be suppressed by the court. Irrespective, therefore, of the question whether or not the motion of the defendants to strike out that part of the declaration was waived, because not pressed in the Supreme Court of the Territory, no doubt is entertained by this court that the motion was properly overruled by the District Court upon the merits.

Proof of the attending circumstances under which the defendants, William R. Marshall and Joseph M. Marshall, had placed their firm name upon the back of the note, would clearly have been admissible in a trial upon the general issue; and if so, no reason is perceived why it was not proper for the plaintiff, under the peculiar system of pleading which prevailed in the courts of the Territory at the time the suit was commenced, to state those circumstances in the declaration. Beyond question, they were a part of the facts constituting the cause of action; and if so, they were expressly required to be stated by the law of the Territory prescribing the rules of pleading in civil cases. And having been alleged in pursuance to such a requirement, and being material to a proper understanding of the rights of the parties to the suit, it must be considered, by analogy to the rules of pleading at common law, that they are admitted by the demurrer.

By the admitted facts, then, it appears the defendants, William R. Marshall and Joseph M. Marshall, placed their firm name on the back of the note at its inception, and before it had been passed or offered to the plaintiff. They placed their firm name there at the request of the other defendant, knowing that the note had not been endorsed by the payee, and with a view to give credit to the note, for the benefit of the immediate maker, at whose request they became a party to the same.

Whatever diversities of interpretation may be found in the authorities, where either a blank endorsement or a full endorsement is made by a third party on the back of a note, payable to the payee or order, or to the payee or bearer, as to whether he is to be deemed an absolute promissor or maker, or guarantor or endorser, there is one principle upon the subject almost universally admitted by them all, and that is, that the interpretation of the contract ought in every case to be such as will carry into effect the intention of the parties; and in most instances it is conceded that the intention of the parties may be made out by parol proof of the facts and circumstances which took place at the time of the transaction. Story on Prom. Notes, secs. 58, 59, and 479.

When a promissory note, made payable to a particular person or order, as in this case, is first endorsed by a third person, such third person is held to be an original promissor, guarantor, or endorser, according to the nature of the transaction and the understanding of the parties at the time the transaction took place. If he put his name on the back of the note at the time it was made, as surety for the maker, and for his accommodation, to give him credit with the payee, or if he participated in the consideration for which the note was given, he must be considered as a joint maker of the note. On the other hand, if his endorsement was subsequent to the making of the note, and he put his name there at the request of the maker, pursuant to a contract with the payee for further indulgence or forbearance, he can only be held as a guarantor. But if the note was intended for discount, and he put his name on the back of it with the understanding of all the parties that his endorsement would be inoperative until it was endorsed by the payee, he would then be liable only as a second endorser in the commercial sense, and as such would clearly be entitled to the privileges which belong to such endorsers.

Decided cases are referred to by the counsel of the defendants, which seemingly deny that such parol proof of the attending circumstances of the transaction is admissible in evidence; but the weight of authority is greatly the other way, as is abundantly shown by the cases cited on the other side. Whenever a written contract is presented for construction, and its terms are ambiguous or indefinite, it is always allowable to weigh its language in connection with the surrounding circumstances and the subject matter, and we see no reason, as question of principle, why any different rule should be adopted in a case like the present. Such evidence has always been received in the courts of Massachusetts, as appears from numerous decisions, and the same rule prevails in most of the other States at the present time. 1 Am. Lea. Cas., (4th ed.,) 322. Repeated decisions to the same effect have been made in the courts of New York, and until within a recent period it appears to have been the settled doctrine in the courts of that State.

Recent decisions, it must be admitted, wear a different aspect; but they have not had the effect to produce a corresponding change in other States, and, in our view, deny the admissibility of parol evidence in cases where it clearly ought to be received. Hawkes v. Phillips et al., 7 Grey, 284.

Applying these principles to the present case, it is obvious that the contract of the two defendants whose firm name is upon the back of the note was an original undertaking, running clear of all questions arising out of the statute of frauds.

They placed their names there at the inception of the note, not as a collateral undertaking, but as joint promissors with the maker, and are as much affected by the consideration paid by the plaintiff, and as clearly liable in the character of original promissors, as they would have been if they had signed their names under the name of the other defendant upon the inside of the instrument. Numerous decisions in the State courts might be cited in support of the proposition as stated, but we think it unnecessary, as they will be found collated in the elementary works to which reference has already been made, and in many others which treat of this subject.

Another objection to the right of recovery in this case deserves a brief notice. It is insisted by the counsel of the defendants that the complaint or declaration is not sufficient to maintain this suit against these defendants as original promissors. That objection must be considered in connection with the system of pleading which prevailed in the courts of the Territory at the time the suit was commenced. By that system, suitors were only required to state the facts which constituted the cause of action. In this case the plaintiff followed that mode of pleading, and we think he has set forth enough to constitute a substantial compliance with the law of the Territory and the practice of the court where the suit was instituted. He alleges, among other things, that the defendants whose firm name is on the back of the note placed it there for the purpose of becoming sureties and security to him as payee for the amount therein specified. That allegation, to use the language of the statute of Minnesota, is expressed in ordinary and concise language, and in such a manner as to be easily understood, and that is all which is required by the law of the Territory prescribing the rules of pleading in civil cases. Under the system of pleading which prevailed in the courts of the Territory, the objection cannot be sustained.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory is therefore affirmed with costs.

title: Rey v. Simpson/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1642

 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SEss. IL Cu. 705 . 1929 . 1591 Mi lk River project, Montana : For oper atio n and ma inte nanc e, milk River, Mont. Chi nook and Ma lta d ivisio ns, $17,000 ; continuation of construction, $17,000 ; in all, $34,000 ; Sun River project, Montana : For operation and maintenance, Sun Riv er, Mont. $20,000 ; continuation of construction, $500,000 ; in all, $520,000 : Provided, That the appropriation for continuation of construction Provisos. for the fiscal year 1929 shall remain available for the fiscal year 1930, An te, p available. labia. for the purposes for which originally appropriated : Provided fur- control of works by titer, That on or before July 1, 1929, notice shall be given by the water users. Secretary of the Interior requiring the water users to assume the con trol of the cons tructe d wor ks on Janu ary 1, 1931, and to com- mence pa ment of construction charges in accordance with the con- tra ct of June 22, 1926, between the United States and the Green- fields irrigation district ; Low er Y ello wston e, Lower Yellowstone project, Montana-North Dakota For comple- Mont .-N. Dak. tion of drainage system, $195,000 ; North Platte, Nebr .- North Platte project, Nebraska-Wyoming : Not to exceed $75,000 wy o. from the power revenues shall be available during the fiscal year 1930 for the operation and maintenance of the commercial system ; New la nds project, Nevada : That such portion as may be necessary Boring o f test wells of the u nexpen ded b alance of t he ap propr iation of $50.000 for stow the s bale er for water orag e res voirr survey and exa mination of wate r storag e reserv oir site s on the head- waters of the Truckee and Carson Rivers, made available under the Ante, p . 902. provisions of the Second Defici ency Act, 1928 (Public, Numbered 563, Session Laws, first session, Seventieth Congress, page 902, New- lands project, Nevada), shall also be available for the boring of test wells in the Truckee Meadows, Washoe County, near the city of Reno, Nevada. Carlsbad project, New Mexico : For operation and maintenance, Paorls oad, N. Alex. $50,000 : Provided, That no part of the appropriation of $250 .000 Ava lon Re servoi r en- largement. contained in the Act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat ., p . 902), for beginning Railroad tracks, to be the enlargement of Avalon Reservoir shall be available until contract relocated p . 902. is entered into between the Secretary of the Interior and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway System, whereby said system agrees to pay one-half of the cost of relocating the tracks and right of way of said system where made necessary by said enlargement of the reservoir. Such appropriation of $250,000 shall continue available for the fiscal year 1930 ; Rio Grande project, New Mexico-Texas For operation and main- Tex. R .ioQrande,N.Mea .- tenance, $250 .000, together with $125,000 of the unexpended balances Vol. 44, p. 969 . of the appropriations available for continuation of construction dur- ing the fiscal year 1929 ; Owyhee project, Oregon : For con tinu atio n of con stru ctio n, Owyhee, Oreg. $2 ,000, 000 ; Baker project, Oregon : The unexp ended balan ce of the a pprop ria- B aker, Oreatfon . tion for thi s projec t for th e fiscal year 19 29 is rea ppropria ted and Ante, P .229. made available for the same purpose for the fiscal year 1930 ; Vale project, Oregon For operation and maintenance $6,000 ; Vale, Oreg. f $6,000 ; Warm Springs reser for the purc hase of a propor tionate interest in the e xisting storage voir. reservoir of the Warm Springs proje ct, $230,000 ; in all, $236,000 ; Kla ma th project, Oregon-California : For oera tion and mai nte- O K ama th, Org .- nance, $4 0 . 0 00 ; contin uation o f constr uction,' $301,000 : Pro vide d, Proviso. That the unexpended balance of the appropriation of $30,000 for the' lessees . es nd to Tine rake fis cal y ear 19 29 fo r refund s to les sees of marginal lands, Tule Lak e, A nte, p. 29.ilable . whic h lands because or flood ing coul d not be seeded p rior to June 1, 1927, and/or June 1, 1928, shall remain available for the same pur- poses for the fiscal year 193 0, an d shall also be availabl e for li ke refunds for lands which could not be seeded prior to June 1, 1929 ; in all, $341,000 ;

�


text: Talk:Rey v. Simpson/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1643

 1592 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SESS. IL Cs. 705 . 1929 . Belle Four che project, South Dakota : For cont inua tion of const ruction, $335 ,000 ; Salt Lake Basin project, Utah, first division : The unexpended bal- ance of the appropriation of $1,750,000 for construction of Echo Reservoir and VTeber-Provo Canal, for the fiscal year 1929, shall remain available for the same purposes for the fiscal year 1930 ; Yakima project, Washington : For operation and maintenance, $29 5,00 0 ; contin uation of cons tructi on, $1, 000,000 ; in all, $1,295,000 ; Yakima project (Kittitas division), Washington : For operation and maintenance, $20,000 ; for continuation of construction, $1,112,- 000 : Provided, That the unexpended balance of $138,000 of the appropriation of $1,500,000 contained in the Act making appro - priations for the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year 1929 (45 Stat., p . 277), shall remain available during the fiscal year 1930 for such continuation of construction ; in all, $1,132,000 ; Riverton project, Wyoming : For operation a nd mai ntenan ce, $50,000 ; continuation of construction under force account, $511,000 : Provided, That the unexpended balance of the appropriation for continuation of construction, for the fiscal year 1929, shall remain available for the fiscal year 1930 : Provided further, That not to exceed $20,000 from the power revenues shall be available during the fiscal year 1930 for the operation and maintenance of the commercial system ; in all, $561,000 ; Shoshone project, Wyoming : For continuation of construction Willwood division, $44,000 ; for operation and maintenance, Frannie division, $3,000 ; Willwood division, $16,000 ; in all, $63,000 : Provided, That the unexpended balance of the appropriation for drainage con- struction, Willwood division, for the fiscal year 1929, shall remain available for the same purpose for the fiscal year 1930 : Provided further, That the unexpended balances of the appropriations for drainage construction, Garland division, for the fiscal year s 19 27, 1928, and 1929, shall remain available for the same purpose for the fiscal year 1930 : Provided further, That not to exceed $20,000 from power revenues shall be available during the fiscal year 1930 for the operation and maintenance of the commercial system to exceed $25,000 from power revenues shall be available during the fiscal year 1930 for the construction of transmission lines : Provided furth er, That the net r evenues from the operation of the Shosho ne power plant shall be applied, first, to the repayment of the con- struction cost of the power system ; second, to the repayment of the construction cost of the Shoshone Dam ; and third, thereafter such net revenues shall be covered into the reclamation fund ; Secondary projects : For cooperative and general investigations, $75,000 ; The unexpended balance of the appropriation of $100,000 for the fiscal year 1928 for investigations necessary to determine the economic conditions and financial fe asibility of new projects a nd for investi gation s and o ther ac tiviti es rela ting to the r eorgani zation, settlement of lands, and financial adjustments of existing projects, including examination of soils classification of land, land-settlement activities, including advertising in newspapers and other publica- tions, and obtaining general economic and settlement data, is hereby Proviso . made available for the same purposes for the fiscal year 1930 : Pro- Expenditures supple- mentary to appropria- , vided, That the expenditures from this appropriation for any tion for proje cts. reclamation project shall be considered as supplementary to the appropriation for that project and shall be accounted for and returne d to the recl amation fund a s other expen ditures under the Reclamation Act ; Bel le rourohe, S. Dak. Sal t La ke Basin, Utah. Balance available. Ante, p. 229 . Yakima, Wash. Kittitas division. Proviso. Balance available . Ante, p. 230 . Riverton, Wyo . Provisos. Balance available. Ante, p.230. Use of power reve- nues. Shoshone, Wyo . Provisos. Balan ce a vail able, Willw ood divis ion. Ante, p.230. Gar lan d div is ion drainage. Power revenu e. Operating commer- cial system . Transmission lines. Distribution of power revenues. Secondary projects. Development of new projects, etc . Investigations to de- termine economic con- ditions, etc. Balance available. Vol. 44, p. 900.
 * and not

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1644

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cii. 705. 1929. 1593 Refunds of construction charges : The unexpended balance of the appropriation of $100,000 contained in the First Deficiency Act, fiscal year 1928, for refunds of construction charges theretofore paid on permanently unproductive lands excluded from the Federal reclamation projects specified in the Act approved May 25, 1926 (U. S. C., Supp. I, p. 265, sec. 423a), in accordance with section 42 of said Act, is hereby made available for the same purposes for the fiscal year 1930 ; That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he hereby is, authorized and dir ected to cre dit th e Farm ers' I rrigati on Dis trict with t he sum. of $2,376 .45, as of January 1, 1927, which represents 50 per cent of the expenses incurred by said district in operating and maintaining the Nine Mile Drain from January 1 to June 30, 1926, under contract with sa id dis trict dated June 1 6, 191 7, in c onnect ion wi th the North Platte project, Nebraska-Wyoming ; Under the provisions of this Act no greater sum shall be expended, nor shall the United States be obligated to expend during the fiscal year 1930, on any reclamation project appropriated for herein, an amount in exc ess of the s um her ein ap propria ted th erefor, nor shall the whole expenditures or obligations incurred for all of such projects for the fisca l year 1930 exceed the w hole am ount i n the "recla mation fund " for the fiscal year ; Ten per centum of the foregoing amounts shall be available inter- In terchangeabl e ap. changeably for expenditures on the reclamation projects named ; propriations. but not more than 10 per centum shall be added to the amount appro- priated for any one of said projects, except that should existing pairs. Em ergency floo d re works or the water supply for lands under cultivation be endangered by floods or other unusual conditions an amount sufficient to make necessary emergency repairs shall become available for expenditure by further transfer of appropriation from any of said projects upon approval of the Secretary of the Interior ; Whenever, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1930, the Com- fortravel,etc. rvehicles missioner of the Bureau of Reclamation shall find that the expenses of travel, including the local transportation of employees to and from their homes to the places where they are engaged on construc- tion or operation and maintenance work, can be reduced thereby, he may authorize the payment of not to exceed 3 cents per mile for a motor cycle or 7 cents per mile for an automobile used for necessary official business ; Tot al, fr om rec lamati on fun d, $7, 978,00 0. To defray the cost of operating and maintaining the Colorado ea'f .m0 project, Aril : River front work and levee system adjacent to the Yuma Federal Colorado River front irrigation project in Arizona and California subject only to section wVia44, p 1021. 4 of the Act entitled "An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and pre servat ion of certa in pub lic wo rks on rivers and h arbors, and for other purposes," approved January 21, 1927 (44 Stat ., p . 1010), $100,000, to be immediately available. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geological Survey. S ALAR IES For the Director of the Geological Survey and other personal Director, and office personnel. services in the District of Columbia, $134,800 ; GENERAL EXPENSES General expenses. Authorizations for all For every expenditure requisite for and incident to the authorized services, etc. work of the Geological Survey, including personal services in the An te, , 1ec District of Columbia and in the field, including not to exceed $30,000 for the purchase and exchange, and not to exceed $50,000 for the Refunds of construc- tion charges on per- manentlyunprodue tiv e lands. Ante, p.19. Vol.44,p .647. U.S . Code, Supp. I, p. 265. North Platte project, N ebr .-Wyo . Farmers' Irrigation District credited for expenses in connection with. Exp enditures li mited to specific allo tments .

�


text: Jeter v. Hewitt

title: Jeter v. Hewitt


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1645

 1594 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CIi .705. 1929 . hire, maintenance, repair, and operation of motor-propelled and horse -drawn passe nger-c arryin g vehi cles fo r fiel d use only b y geol o- gists, topographers, engineers, and land classifiers, and the Geologi- cal Survey is authorized to exchange unserviceable and worn-out pass enge r-car rying and frei ght-c arryi ng v ehicl es as par t pay ment Travel by motor ve- for new freight-carrying vehicles, and whenever, during the fiscal blues. year ending June 30, 1930, the Director of the Geological Survey shall find that the expense of travel can be reduced thereby, he may authorize the payment of not to exceed 3 cents per mile for a motor cycle or 7 cents per mile for an automobile used for official business and including not to exceed $4,000 for necessary traveling expenses of the Director and members oƒ the Geological Survey acting under Attendance at meet- his direction, for attendance upon meetings of technical, professional, ings. and scientific societies when required in connection with the author- ized work of the Geological Survey, to be expended under the regu- lations from time to time prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, and under the following heads Topographics urveys. For topographic surveys in various portions of the United States, Frorisos . $635,000, of which amount not to exceed $300,000 may be expended Restr icti on o n co- for personal services in the District of Columbia : Provided, That ope rat ive ork wi th no part of this appropriation shall be expended in cooperation with States or municipalities except upon the basis of the State or munici- pality beari ng all of th e expe nse in cident theret o in e xcess of suc h an amount as is necessary for the Geological Survey to perform its Amount for coopers- share of standard topographic surveys, such share of the Geological tio n. Survey in no case exceeding 50 per centum : Provided further, That $497,0 00 of this a mount shall be ava ilable only f or suc h coop eratio n She nandoahi\rat ional with States or municipalities ; Park, Va. For a topographic survey of the boundaries of the proposed Topographic of boundaries of pr o- Shenandoah National Park in the State of Virginia, for expenditure posed. by the Geological Survey under the direction of he SecrSecretary of Vol. 43, p . 953 . y the Interior, including personal services in the District of Columbia an d e l s ew h e re ; the computation and adjustment of control data ; the office drafting and publication of the resulting maps ; the pur- chase of equipment, not to exceed $700 for the purchase and not to exceed $1,000 for the hire. maintenance, repair, and operation of motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles for field use ; and for the securing of such aerial photographs as are needed to make the field Geologic surveys. surveys, to be immediately available, $45,000 ; For geologic surveys in the various portions of the United States and chemical and physical researches relative thereto, $350,000, of which not to exceed $260,000 may be expended for personal services in the Distri ct of Columb ia ; Vol canologiesur veys, For volcanologic surveys, measurements, and observatories in etc ., nawaii. Hawaii, including subordinate stations elsewhere, $21,000 sources. mineral re- For continuation of the investigation of the mineral resources of Alaska, $67,500, to be available immediately, of which amount not to exceed $29,000 may be expended for personal services in the Dis- trict o f Colu mbia ; Water supply. For gauging streams and determining the water supply r of the Investigations, etc. b United States, the investigation of underground currents and arte- sian wells, and the prep arati on o f rep orts upon the best metho ds c angin gsta tions , of utilizing the water resources, $225,000 ; for operation and main- tenance of the Lees Ferry, Arizona, gauging station and other base- gaugi ng st ation s in the Color ado River drai nage, $50 ,000 ; in all, P ovisos. $275,000, of which amount not to exceed $90,000 may be expended for Cooperation exnenses personal services in the District of Columbia : Provided, That no with states, etc' part of this appropriation shall be expended in cooperation with States or municipalities exce pt upon the basis of the State or municipality bearing all of the expense incident thereto in excess

�


text: Talk:Jeter v. Hewitt

title: Talk:Jeter v. Hewitt


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1646

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cr.705. 1929 . 1595 of such an amount as is necessary for the Geological S urvey to perform its share of general water-resource investigations, such share of the Geological Survey in no case exceeding 50 per centum- r~ Survey r Amount for coopers- Provided further, That $15i,500 of this amount shall be available Lion. only for such cooperation with States or municipalities ; For the examination and classification of lands with respect to Classiflying lands for en lar ged h omest eads , miner al cha racter, wat er resources, and agricultural utility as stock raising, etc. required by the public land laws and for related ad mini stra tive operations ; for the preparation and publication of land classification maps and reports ; for eng inee ring sup ervi sion of powe r pe rmit s an d grants under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior ; and for performance of work of the Federal Power Commission, $180,000, of which amount not to exceed $120 .000 may be expended for per- sonal services in the District of Columbia ; For engraving and printing geologic and topographic maps, $107,000 ; For preparatio n of the illu strations of the Geological Survey, $20,500 ; For the enforcement of the provisions of the Acts of October 20, 1914 (U. S. C., p. 1595, sec. 435), October 2, 1917 (U. S. C., p. 963, sec. 141), February 25, 1920 (U . S. C., p. 964, sec. 181), and March 4, 1921 (U . S . C ., p . 1596, sec . 444), and other Acts relating to the mi ning and recov ery of minera ls on Indian and public lan ds and naval petroleum reserves ; and for every other expense incident thereto, including supplies, equipment, expenses of travel and sub- sistence, the construction, maintenance, and repair of necessary camp buildings and appurtenances thereto, $250,000, of which amount not to exceed $33,000 may be expended for personal services in the District of Columbia ; During the f iscal year 19 30 the head o f any departme nt or inde- pendent establishment of the Government having funds available for scientific and technical investigations and requiring cooperative work by the Geological Survey on scientific and technical investiga- tions within the scope of the functions of that bureau and which it is unable to perform within the limits of its appropriations may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, transfer to the Geological Survey such sun-is as may be necessary to carry on such investigations. The Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer on the books of the Treasury Department any sums which may be author- ized hereunder, and such amounts shall be placed to the credit of the Geological Survey for the performance of work for the department or establishment from which the transfer is made : Provided, That any sums transferred by any department or independent establish- ment of the Government to the Geological Survey for cooperative work in connection w ith this appro priation may be expended i n the same manner as sums appropriated herein may be expended ; During the fiscal years 1929 and 1930, upon the request of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the N avy is author ized to furnis h aerial phot ographs requi red for topog raphic mappin g projects, in so far as th e furnishing of such photographs will be economical to the Federal Government and does not conflict with military or naval operations or the other parts of the regular training program of the Army and Navy flying services, and the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to reimburse the War or Navy Department for the cost of making the photographs, and the D epartment of the Interior i s authorized to furnish co pies to any State, county, or municipal agency cooperating with the Federal Government in the mapping project for which the photographs were taken. In the event t hat the War o r Navy Depart ment is unable to furnish such photographs in time to meet the needs for which they 548 .5'-2f)--PT 1-104 Geologic maps . Illustrations. Nonmetallic mineral minin g Acts . Enforci ng provision s of . Vol.38,p .741;Vol .40 p. 297; Vol.41,p. 437, 1363. U.S. Code, pp.963, 964, 1595, 1.596. Sc ienti fic inves tiga - ti ons wi th Depart- ments, etc ., by the Bureau . Transfer of funds. Proviso . Expenditure of funds trans ferred . Aer ial photogra phs . Authorized for topo- graphic maps , fr om Army and Navy avia- t ors . Reimbursement. Contracts with civil- i ans

�


text:
Jeter v. Hewitt/Opinion of the Court

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

It was an action brought by John P. Jeter, a citizen of Louisiana, resident in New Orleans, against James Hewitt and David Heron, citizens of the State of Kentucky, temporarily within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the district of Louisiana.

The nature and history of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. It was submitted to the Circuit Court upon the pleadings, depositions, oral testimony, and arguments of counsel, which found the facts substantially as they are narrated in the opinion of this court, and then dismissed the petition of the plaintiff. A writ of error was sued out, which brought the case up to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Carlisle, upon a brief filed by himself and Mr. Badger, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Benjamin for the defendants.

As the judgment of this court turned upon the point that it was res judicata, only the arguments upon that subject will be reported.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error made the following points, amongst others:

VI. The validity of this title set up by the defendants is not res judicata, as maintained by counsel in the court below. The monition suit on which this pretension is founded could have no such effect, if the proceedings in the fifth District Court were a nullity. This seems clear upon principle.

5 Monition Act, B. and C.'s Dig., 586.

City Bank v. Walden, 1 Ann., 47.

16 Louisiana R., 596.

Besides, the court where the monition suit was prosecuted had no jurisdiction over the original suit, and could have none over that which was merely incidental.

Again: The judgment in the monition suit was not a judgment upon the merits, even against Mrs. Ford, and was not at all against Jeter.

C. C., 2265.

Finally: The decree of homologation, in its terms, seems really to come to nothing, since it only confirms and homologates the sale, 'in so far as the same has not been opposed,' while the record shows that it was totally opposed.

VII. Jeter is not estopped to claim against the sheriff's sale, or to show the nullity of the proceedings upon which it is based.

In this respect, this case is in striking contrast with Erwin v. Lowry, in 7 Howard. There, Hector McNeill, under whom Lowry claimed, had actively participated in the proceedings at the sale, had joined in the selection of appraisers, had requested the marshal to offer the land and negroes together, which was done, and all this in the presence of Erwin; and, upon the faith of this conduct, Erwin purchased. In the present case, on the contrary, it is distinctly proven, by two witnesses, that Jeter, 'in a loud and audible tone,' announced 'to the sheriff and the by-standers' that he was the owner of the property, and forbade the sale of it; and this announcement was made before the property was adjudicated to Hewitt & Heron.'

'He made his objections known publicly to the crowd.' The sheriff answered, that 'he would proceed with the sale.'

The only facts relied on by the defendants, as creating an estoppel, are, first, that Jeter was present at the sale, and, when the property was first offered, bid for it $70,000, and it was knocked down to him; and secondly, that in 1852 he joined with Mrs. Ford in making a deed for forty arpens of the land, to Hewitt Heron, for $2,000.

As to the first, his bid was for the protection of his own interest, and to avoid litigation. He had already paid Mrs. Ford $5,000, and he had agreed to pay, not only the debts charged on this property, but all the debts. Such a fact, even if the other party had acted upon it, could create no estoppel.

Hearne v. Rogers, 17 Eng. C. L. Rep., 451, 452.

But Hewitt & Heron did not act upon it. The sheriff refused Jeter's draft on Hill, McLean, & Co., of New Orleans, with whom he had arranged for the money, and refused him time to go to New Orleans to produce the money, and 'demanded that he should pay in cash the amount of his bid within half an hour, or he would set up the property and sell it again, which he did.'

Then it was that Jeter gave notice of his title, and forbade the sale; and Hewitt & Heron purchased under this notice.

As to the deed made in 1852, so far from importing a recognition of the title of Hewitt & Heron, it would rather signify an admission by them that, at least as to this fragment of forty acres, it required confirmation by a deed from Jeter.

In no view of these facts can they operate an estoppel. The general current of authorities, English and American, establishes the principle that a declaration in pais shall not work an estoppel, unless it appears affirmatively that it was intended that the party for or to whom it is made should act on the faith of it, and that he actually did so act, and will be prejudiced by the contrary assertion. If it be necessary to cite authorities for this, they will be found collected in Hare & Wallace's note to Howard & Hudson, (2 Ell. and Bl., 13, Amer. ed.,) and in the principal case. Here there was express warning given.

Upon the question that the merits of the case were not open for review in this court, Mr. Benjamin made the following points:

I. This action, plainly, is based on the assumption that the proceedings in the State courts of Louisiana (under which the title of Ford's succession to the property was divested, and the property was sold to defendants) are an absolute nullity.

It is an attempt, indirectly, to bring before the Federal courts jurisdiction of a question which, under the decisions of this court, cannot be examined by them.

Had the courts of Louisiana jurisdiction of the property appertaining to Ford's succession, and have they exercised that jurisdiction by disposing of that property? Manifestly, yes.

How, then, can that disposition of the property be supervised or revised by the Federal courts?

This court has always declined to permit the proceedings of even the inferior State courts to be attached collaterally before it.

Tarver v. Tarver, 9 Peters, 174.

Gaines v. Chew et al., 2 How., 619, 644.

Fonvergne et al. v. City of New Orleans, 18 How., 471.

Hagan v. Preston, decided at present term.

In this case, the plaintiff goes to the extravagant length of calling on the court not to annul the proceedings of an inferior State court as irregular or illegal, but to treat the final decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana as an absolute nullity.

The form chosen for the action (a simple petitory action or ejectment) is a transparent device used by plaintiff to avoid the necessity of bringing an action to set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, he being conscious that such action would be utterly untenable.

II. Jeter was a party to the suit determined by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and it forms res judicata.

It is true, he was not a party by name; but the opinion of the Supreme Court is explicit, that Mrs. Ford's action as executrix was for the use of Jeter. Its language is: 'We think it inequitable to permit this sale to be questioned by the executrix, whom we consider as merely attempting to aid Jeter, her vendee and agent, in a speculation, at the expense of these bona fide purchasers, under the guise of representing a small minority of the creditors, whom she personally and Jeter are bound to pay.'

But, aside from this decision, the record permits no doubt that the suit decided in Louisiana was Jeter's suit. In the sale from Mrs. Ford to him, he exacted a promise that she would furnish him 'my letter of substitution to appear for me and in my stead, to appear and act in any court, * *  * touching matters or interests in any manner connected with the active or passive properties, goods, or effects, of the aforesaid succession.'

She did give him just such a power; and, having sold to him her entire interest in the estate, and obtained his obligation to pay the debts, she withdrew from the whole business, leaving to Jeter, who alone had an interest, permission to use her name, and it was Jeter who brought the suit.

Having once litigated his rights through all the courts of Louisiana, the plaintiff cannot renew the contest in the Federal courts. The exceptio rei adjudicatae is a complete bar to his suit.

III. The monition, proceedings, and judgment on them, are in the nature of proceedings in rem, and bind all the world, even those ignorant of their pendency-a fortiori, do they bind one who, like Jeter, was not only conusant, but was active in opposition.

The monition law of Louisiana (Acts 1834, p. 125, Revised Statutes, 1852, p. 425) is a wise and beneficial statute, and should be liberally construed. It was passed for the protection of innocent purchasers at sheriff's sales, and by the fourth section the court that issued the process had jurisdiction.

By the sixth section, the judgment is conclusive evidence that the proceedings of the court on the monition were regular; and by the seventh section, the judgment of the court confirming the sale operated as res judicata, and a complete bar against all persons, whether of age or minors, whether present or absent; and the judgment is to be considered as 'full proof, and conclusive that the sale was duly made in virtue of a judgment or order legally and regularly pronounced on the interests of parties duly represented.'

There is nothing in the 8th section which can release the plaintiff from the effect of this estoppel, because 'notices of the sale and appraisement were served by the sheriff, by leaving them on the plantation with the overseer, and plaintiff had notice of the sale, and was present at it, and bid for the property.'

Besides, plaintiff was in the place and stead of Ford, and had his rights, and no more. But Ford had confessed judgment in the original mortgage, and had thereby waived citation to make defence.

When a mortgage is granted with confession of judgment, executory process issues at once without citation, (Code Practice, 734,) and is in the nature of the ''fi. fa.'' that is issued on such judgments as are confessed in court.

IV. Jeter's presence at the sale, his bidding, his failure to notify other bidders of any opposition to the sale, form a complete estoppel en pais, as well under the principles of equity jurisprudence as by the settled rules of the law of Louisiana

Harris v. Denison, 8 L. R., 543.

Dozer v. Squires and al., 13 L. R., 130.

Walker v. Allen and al., 19 L. R., 308.

McMasters v. Commissioners, &c., 1 Annual, 11.

Muir, Syndic, v. Henry and al., 2 Annual, 593.

Moore v. Lambeth, 5 Annual, 67.

Bank of Louisiana v. Ford, 9 Annual, 299.

V. Both Mrs. Ford and Jeter were parties to a deed, by which, in consideration of $2,000, they ratified the title of the purchasers.

This deed was passed on the 11th April, 1851. It had reference to the property now in dispute. Compare description in deed with testimony of Robert Maurin, the plan H, the testimony of P. O. Ayraud, and T. Ayraud, Chapman's testimony, and the description in the mortgage of Bank of Louisiana, the identity of the tract will be apparent. Besides which, the recitals of the deed admit that the land which surrounds that described by its terms, on each side and in the rear, belongs to defendants.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff commenced this suit to recover a plantation and slaves, with the horses, mules, implements, and other things enumerated in the petition, destined to the use and convenience of the plantation, and for an account of rents and issues for a term of years. He deduces his title from Christopher Ford, who was in possession of the plantation at his death, in 1849, through a conveyance from Louisa W. Ford, the widow, executrix, and instituted heir of her deceased husband, dated in November, 1850.

The defendants show, that in November, 1845, two banking corporations of Louisiana (Bank of Louisiana and New Orleans Canal and Banking Company) sold to Christopher Ford this plantation and twenty eight slaves, for the price of $40,000, a portion of which was paid in cash, and for the remainder a credit was given, and that Ford mortgaged the property conveyed to him, and sixty-eight other slaves, which he agreed to place on the plantation. On the same day, he obtained from the Bank of Louisiana a loan of money, which was secured by another mortgage on the same property. At the time of the death of Ford, he was in arrears for the debt and interest that had accrued.

In the mortgage to the Bank of Louisiana, Ford agrees not to alienate, deteriorate, or encumber, the property mortgaged, and confesses judgment for the sum of money to be paid. He renounces the benefit of the laws that require property seized on execution to be sold on credit or after appraisement, and agrees, that if the debt shall not be paid according to the tenor of the mortgage, then the banking company may obtain an order of seizure and sale, and sell the mortgaged premises and slaves by public auction, for cash, after an advertisement of thirty days. He waives his privilege to be sued in any other district than the first judicial district of the State, and agrees that process may issue from the District Court for the first district, or any other court in New Orleans having jurisdiction.

The charter of the bank provides, that upon all mortgages executed under the act, the bank shall have the right to seize the property mortgaged, in whatever hands it may be, in the same manner and with the same facilities that it could be seized in the hands of the mortgagor, notwithstanding any sale or change of the title or possession thereof, by descent or otherwise.

On the 16th December, 1850, after the conveyance of Mrs. Ford to the plaintiff, the Bank of Louisiana instituted a suit upon the second mortgage above mentioned; a writ of seizure and sale issued, and the property was advertised for sale the 1st February, 1851. Jeter was present at the sale that took place on that day, bid for the property the sum of seventy thousand dollars, and it was adjudicated to him at that price. He offered a draft for the amount of the execution, on merchants residing in New Orleans, and asked for time to go for the money; and these being refused, the property was again offered for sale, and purchased by Heron & Hewitt for the price of sixty-six thousand dollars; and thereupon the sheriff executed a deed to the purchasers, conformably to the adjudication.

This sum being insufficient to discharge the encumbrances on the property, proceedings were taken for the seizure and sale of other slaves, which were sold in September, 1851, and adjudicated to the defendants.

The defendants resist the claim of the plaintiff under these titles. The plaintiff objects to them—

1. That Ford, the mortgagor, was dead at the commencement of these proceedings, and that the notice issued to him was nugatory; that his heir and executrix was not notified at all, and did not reside in the parish of Ascension, nor have any title to the plantation at which the notices of the seizure were left; and that the plaintiff is not concluded by his presence at the sale and bid for the property, having forbade the sale before the offer at which the defendants became the purchasers was made.

2. That the sale was irregular and illegal, in respect of the notice of the seizure, the advertisements, appraisement, and refusal to allow the plaintiff time to complete his purchase.

3. That the fifth District Court was not authorized to entertain a suit for a thing in the parish of Ascension; and that, if consent could give jurisdiction, the consent given by Ford in his mortgage was personal, and binding only in respect to his own privilege, and did not affect his heir or her assignee.

The purchasers, Heron & Hewitt, in April, 1852, applied to the District Court of New Orleans, under a statute of Louisiana, for a MONITION, citing all persons who can set up any right to the property adjudicated, in consequence of any informality in the order, decree, or judgment of the court, under which the sale was made, or any irregularity or illegality in the appraisements and advertisements, in time or manner of sale, or for any other defect whatsoever, to show cause why the sale so made should not be confirmed and homologated, and, after due proceedings in the premises, that the said sales be confirmed, homologated, and made the final judgment of the court.

The executrix (Louisa W. Ford) appeared to this monition, and made opposition to the homologation of the sale, and disclosed at large the objections above specified, and prayed that the sale be declared null and void, and that the property might be restored to her possession.

To this opposition Heron & Hewitt replied, that they were bona fide purchasers at a public sale by the sheriff of Ascension, under a writ from the court, without any knowledge of neglect, or illegality, or want of jurisdiction; that the opponent had sold her interest in the property, and was estopped to oppose the sale by her acts. They pleaded that the mortgage contained a confession of judgment, and no notice was necessary to any one to obtain a judgment; and assert there is no just cause to deny the homologation of the sales.

The District Court, at the November term, 1852, entered an order describing the property embraced in the sheriff's deed, and reciting the facts relative to the grant of the monition, and the motion for the homologation of the sale, and conclude:

'The court being satisfied, from inspection of the record and evidence adduced, that all the formalities of the law have been complied with; that the advertisements required have been inserted and published for the space of time and in the manner required by law; that the property has been correctly described, and the price at which it was purchased truly stated; and there being but one opposition filed thereto, to wit: by Mrs. Christopher Ford, it is adjudged and decreed that said sheriff's sale be confirmed and homologated according to law, in so far as the same has not been opposed.'

The cause was continued in the District Court, upon the opposition proceedings of Mrs. Ford.

In June, 1853, District Court rendered the judgment upon this opposition, that the sale was null and void, for the reasons pleaded, and condemned the petitioners (Hewitt & Heron) to costs. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. That court rendered its judgment in 1854.

The court say: The appellants are bona fide purchasers at a judicial sale of the plantation and slaves, at the instance of a mortgage creditor, at a fair price, which has been paid, and possession taken, and improvements made. That, as executrix, Mrs. Ford had done nothing, except to obtain probate of the will, and as heir she has sold her interest to Jeter in the estate, he covenanting to pay the debts, and that she gave him a power to sell and administer the estate. That Jeter had failed to comply with his bid at the sheriff's sale, and that then the appellants had become the purchasers, settled with mortgage creditors, and took possession. 'Under these circumstances,' the court conclude, 'we think it inequitable to permit this sale to be questioned by the executrix, whom we consider as merely attempting to aid Jeter, her vendee and agent, in a speculation, at the expense of these bona fide purchasers, under the guise of representing a small minority of the creditors, whom she personally and Jeter are bound to pay. It is obvious, under the facts above stated, that neither of them, Jeter and Mrs. Ford, would be permitted personally to question the sale, on account of the alleged informalities.' And thereupon the decree of the District Court was reversed, and the opposition dismissed, reserving to the creditors their right, if any, to sue for a rescission of the sale. Bank of Louisiana v. Ford, 9 Ann., 299.

The effect of the judgment confirming and homologating the sale is declared in the statute that authorizes the monition to issue, in favor of purchasers of property 'at sheriffs' sales,' at those 'made by the syndics of insolvents' estates,' at those 'made by the authority of justice,' or of courts, and to enable them 'to protect themselves from eviction from the property so purchased,' and 'from any responsibility to the possessors of the same.' It confers upon the order made by the court upon the monition, 'the authority of res judicata,' so as to operate 'as a complete bar against all persons, whether of age or minors, whether present or absent, who may thereafter claim the property so sold, in consequence of all illegality or informality in the proceedings, whether before or after judgment;' and the judgment of homologation is to be received and considered 'as full and conclusive proof that the sale was duly made according to law, in virtue of a judgment or order legally and regularly pronounced on the interest of the parties duly represented,' saving and excepting, 'that it shall not render a sale valid made in virtue of a judgment, when the party cast was not duly cited to make defence.'

The judgment of the District Court homologating the sale concluded all parties except Mrs. Ford, who had filed opposition to the order. Subsequently the Supreme Court overruled her opposition, assigning as the reason that the sale was fair, the purchasers bona fide, and the opponent had no interest in the subject of contest. The plaintiff, whether we consider him as acting independently or in connection with Mrs. Ford, and under the 'guise of her name' and character, is affected by these orders.

By the very terms of the statute, all the objections that apply to the manner of conducting the sale and to the form of the judgment are cut off by the judgment of homologation.

The only question that the judgment leaves open is, whether the court that rendered the original judgment had jurisdiction of the person. But this question was presented to the District Court and the Supreme Court upon the opposition of Mrs. Ford, in the same manner in which it is presented to this court. The facts of the death of Ford, the probate of his will in the parish of Ascension before the order of seizure, the seizure within three days from the date of the order, the notice directed to Ford, and left at the house of the overseer, in the absence of Mrs. Ford, and after her sale to Jeter, the presence of Jeter at the sale, the adjudication to him of the property upon his bid, and the resale upon his neglect to comply with the terms of the sale, and the purchase by Heron & Hewitt, with the sheriff's deeds to him, were presented to those courts upon the evidence that has been submitted to this court.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana was, that as executrix, Mrs. Ford did not really and truly represent the interest of the creditors of her husband in her opposition, and that she used that title to protect her own interest and that of Jeter, her agent and vendee-but that they would not be permitted 'personally to question the sale, on the score of the alleged irregularities.'

The authority of res judicata as a medium of proof is acknowledged in the civil code of Louisiana; and its precise offect in the particular case under consideration is ascertained in the statute that allows the proceeding by monition. Under the system of that State, the maintenance of public order, the repose of society, and the quiet of families, require that what has been definitely determined by competent tribunals shall be accepted as irrefragable legal truth. So deeply is this principle implanted in her jurisprudence, that commentators upon it have said, the res judicata renders white that which is black, and straight that which is crooked. Facit excurvo rectum, ex albo nigrum. No other evidence can afford strength to the presumption of truth it creates, and no argument can detract from its legal officacy.

The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, in cases like the present, is derived exclusively from the fact that the parties are citizens of different States. The rights of these parties originate in the law of Louisiana, and must be ascertained by a reference to the principles adopted and administered by her constituted authorities. We are not invested with power to review the sentences of her courts, except in a few cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States; nor is it our province to augment or diminish their value, or to place any different estimate upon them than they have in the municipal code of the State. They are entitled to the same force and effect here as they have in Louisiana.

The statement of the case of these parties shows conclusively that the whole subject of this controversy has been legally submitted to the tribunals of Louisiana, and that the adjudication was in favor of the defendants.

This was the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States in Louisiana, from whose judgment this writ of error has been taken. It remains for us only to affirm that judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

title: Jeter v. Hewitt/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Jeter v. Hewitt/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1647

 1596 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cu. 705. 1929. are requested, the Geological Survey is authorized to contract with civilian aerial photographic concerns for the furnishing of such Transporting pe r- photographs ; sonal effects of employ- Appropriations herein made shall be available for payment of the easchanging stations. costs of packing, crating, and transportation (including drayage) i of personal effects of employees upon permanent change of station, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior Total, United States Geological Survey, $2,085,800. National Park Serv- ice. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Director, and office personnel . For the Director of the National Park Service and other personal Accounting service« services in the District of Columbia, including accounting services in checking and verifying the accounts and records of the various operators, licensees, and permittees conducting utilities and other Bryce Ca nyon, Utah. enterprises within the national parks and monuments, $80,830. Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah : For administration, protec- tion, and maintenance, $6,300 ; for construction of physical improve- ments, $19,800, including not exceeding $8,200 for the construction of buildings, of which $4,000 shall be available for an employee's residence and $3,600 for two comfort stations ; in all, $26,100. Crater Lake, Oreg. Crater Lake National Park, Oregon : For administration, protec- tion, and maintenance, including not exceeding $800 for the main- tenance, operation, and repair of motor-driven passenger-carrying vehicles for the use of the superintendent and employees in connec- tion with general park work, $42,000 ; for construction of physical improvements, $17,800, of which not exceeding $2,600 shall be avail- able for a ranger station, $6,000 for a bunkhouse and mess hall, and $2,.000 for a comfort station ; in all, $59,800. General Grant, Calif. General Grant National Park, California : For administration, protection, and maintenance, $15,650. Glacier, Mont. Glacier National Park, Montana : For administration, protection, and maintenance, including necessary repairs to the roads from Glacier Park Station through the Blackfeet Indian Reservation to various points in the boundary line of the Glacier National Park and the international boundary, including not exceeding $800 for the maintenance, operation, and repair of motor-driven passenger- carrying vehicles for the use of the superintendent and employees in connection with general park work, including $15,000 for fire preve ntion, $183,000 ; for construction of physical improvements, $36,400, including not exceeding $13,860, for the c onstr uctio n of buildings, of which not exceeding $3,235 shall be available for a residence for the chief mechanic, $5,000 for a residence for the United States Commissioner, $4,055 for fire caches and three fire lookout towers, $310 for the completion of a bunk house, $200 for the completion of a mess house, $600 for the completion of a duplex cottage, and $10,350 for one-third of the cost of constructing a telephone line partly outside the park boundary ; in all, $219,400. Grand Cany on, Ariz. Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona : For administration, pro- tection, and maintenance, including not exceeding $1,000 for the maintenance, operation, and repair of motor-driven passenger-carry- ing vehicles for the use of the superintendent and employees in con- nection with general park work, $123,000 ; for construction of physi- cal improvements, $22,000, including not exceeding $9,050 for the construction of buildings, of which not exceeding $2,250 shall be avail able f or a r esiden ce bui lding, $3,800 for t wo com fort s tation s, and $3,000 for a ranger cabin ; in all, $145,000. Hawaii: Hawaii National Park : For administration, protection, mainte- nance, and improvement, including not exceeding 8500 for the maintenance, operation, and repair of motor-driven passenger-carry-

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1648

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cii. 705. 1929. 1597 ing vehicles for the use of the superintendent and employees in connection with general park work, and including not exceeding $ 6,000 for the const ructi on of bui lding s, of whi ch no t exc eedi ng $2,000 shall be available for the construction of a ranger sstatio n, $2,500 for a ranger cottage, and $1,000 for the completion of a ranger cottage to cost not to exceed $2,500 ; in all, $27,400. Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas : For administration, pro- Hot springs, Ark . tection, maintenance, and improvement, including not exceeding $1,400 for the purchase, maintenance, operation, and repair of motor- dr iven p asseng er-car rying vehicl es for the us e of t he sup erinte ndent and employees in connection with general park work ; in all, $70,900 : provisos . Provided, That so much as may be necessary out of " Proceeds sales Reser ve A venu e . of town lots, Hot Springs Reservation " is hereby made available for Paving, etc ., from the paving or oiling of that portion of Reserve Avenue bordering sales of town lots. Hot Spring National Park and blocks 27, 81, 82, 83, 84, and those portions of Laurel and Spring Streets bordering block 82 on which is loca ted th e Gove rnment free bathho use in the ci ty of Hot Sp rings, Arkansas : Provided farther, That the said city of Hot Springs or Abutt ing owne rs to abutting property owners shall provide for the payment of one-half pay one-half' of the cost thereof. Lafayette National Park, Maine : For administration, protection, Lafayette, Me. maintenance, and improvement, including $2,900 for George B. Dorr Ante, p.1083. as superintendent, and including not exceeding $1,300 for the main- tenance, operation, and repair of motor-driven passenger-carrying vehicles for the use of the superintendent and employees in connec- tion wi th gen eral p ark wo rk, no t exce eding $ 7 .500 for repairs, altera- tions, and improvements in the Homans resid ence and the Homans farmhouse, and not exceeding $3,000 for the construction of an equipm ent st orage buildi ng, $5 2,600. Lassen Volcanic National Park, California : For administration, La ss en Volcanic, protection, and maintenance, including not exceeding $1,250 for the purchase, maintenance, operation, and repair of motor-driven pas- senger-carrying vehicles for the use of the superintendent and em- ployees in connection with general park work, $19,500 ; for construc- tion of physical improvements, $5,800, including not exceeding $4,300 for the construction of buildings ; in all, $25 .300. Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado : For administration, pro- Mesa Verde, Bolo. tect ion, and m ainte nanc e, in cludi ng n ot ex ceedi ng $ 1,725 for the purchase, maintenance, operation, and repair of motor-driven pas- senger-carrying vehicles for the use of the superintendent and em- ployees in connection with general park work, $48,100 ; for construc- tion of physical improvements, $8,900, including not exceeding $6,050 for the construction of buildings, of which $3,550 shall be available for two ranger stations, $2,500 for a road maintenance camp, and not exceeding $2,100 for the onstruction of a telephone line ; in all, $57 .000 . Mount McKinley National Park, Alaska : For administration, Mount Meuinley, protection, maintenance, and improvement, including not exceeding Alaska. $11,400 for the construction of buildings, of which $ 8,500 shall be available for a residence for the superintendent ; in all, $40,000. Mount Rainier National Park, Washington : For administration, wa nunt Rainier, protection, and maintenance, including not exceeding $2,300 for the purchase, maintenance, operation, and repair of motor-driven pas- senger-carrying vehicles for the use of the superintendent and employees in connection with general park work, $94,800 ; for con- struction of physical improvements $27,800, including not exceeding $15 .300 for the construction of buildings, of which not exceeding $2,200 shall be available for an employee's cottage, $3,000 for an employees' dormitory, $4,000 for a warehouse, $3,600 for a checking station, $2,000 for the installation of a heating plant in the Long-

�