text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1855

 oiv. INDEX """Monroe, V a., Pap. appropri&t1on:,for wharf,' roada, and ' "~_L __ :' ____________ ' 335, 1359 . for Coast .Artillery SehoolAt.. ____ '345,1366 'deficieDcy appropriation for sewerage 8y~______________________ 938 Co~11' of buildings authorized at_ 748 of ofIioera'quarien:~ ________ .. _____ 1302 Fore NiGgarGr N. Y ., Old,. apPl'Q,Priatlon for repair'restoration of, etc~_____:~:.:~'______~ ______ ~, 1878 ecjuallocal contributions required_ 1376 Fore Pecic Agnw:r, Mont., appropriation' for support, etc., of Indians ~t ___________ 223,1671,1084 Fore Pecic Indian HoapilGl, Mont., appl'C)priatioJl ~OJ;'·.llPport etc., of__ 221,1681 X-r&J',1III~-_-- 221 FottPd Ifldian Ramration, Mont., " appropriation lor JDllinteilance,·etc., of irriptioh 'systema on; repa~ '" meat_'; ___ L __ ~ ____________ 213, 1574 reaeriIIII:I iDbal iandad:;may be aold._ _ 774 'determination by Secretary :of the InteriOl', and general ooUliaL",. I 775 JDineral rights reservoed _____ • __ ~;. __ ·, 776
 * 'proaeedlt.., 0J'fJdi$ Of ___________ ; ._ _

775 FOre PlaIW{N. Y.," ' Fore T1t.omcJa, Ky., P- .e; deficiency appropri&1iiOD:, for road re- Jl&i!'a--.;:,,-~-.:.---'- . 1664 authoriHd to widen,ek." street abut- ting the military l"eIiervation_ ___ 1015 lUDlauthorized for cost 888t!8I8d.. _ __ _ IOU Fore TotUn, N.Dak.j. ' appropriation for Indian school at__ 218, 1579 unexpended balanceof appropriation for Indian achool at, covered In____ 215 Fort WGdaworth, N. Y ., deficieDcy appropriation for construe- tioD_____T ________________ ~__ 927 construction authorized of buildinp at_ 1302 amount authorized for completing bar- racks, etc., aL ____________ 453,1425 construction Of bullding8 authorized at_ 748 sum authoriBed for oonstruction, etc., of barracksat. ______ _______ ___ 1425 Fort Warne, Ind., ' appropriation for public bl1!ldlng __ 119,1042 granted easement over portion of post " oBiceaite,forstreetpurp0ae8____ 1414 terms of court at___ :..' _____,~.:. __ __ _ ~___ 438 Fort Wingate! N. MtI!&., . appropriation for Charles H. Burke Indian School at~ _____ ~ ____ 218,1679 defiC~eDb01:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)01:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC) deficiency appropriation for ,acquiring , portion of, for Navajo Indians, 32 from trust tund8 ___________ ~__ 899 Fort Worth, T«I:., f or:t Riley, 'KtJft3., " appro¢iation· fOf' Cavalry' School ex-, penses __________ ~ ___ __ __ _ 34~ 1366 c;leficiency 'appropriation for officers' ,quarters __________________ ~__ 36 construction authorized of buildings at_ 748, , ,t, ' ',,', 1302 FMi; S.m' HomUmj ,T«r!,Ji '",' , amount authorised for Air Corps han- gars;etc___ ---~ _____________ _ construction at bUildingiJ authorized at_ , ', for Air COrps ___________, ______ _ 129 748, 1303 749 Fort Sill, Qkla., ' appropriatioJ:itor Field Artillery SchooL 345, 1366 _ for Instruction In field artillery activi- . ties, etc __ :._:: ___ __ ___ __ _ 345,1366 for Kiowa, etc., oInc:Uan school at_____ ' 1578 ~ficii~:i=i~--TarmstroBot (talk)-TarmstroBot (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 1642 amount authoriBed for constructing addition to hospital at_________ 130 Fort Slocum, N. Y., construction of buildings authorized at_ 748, 1302 Fort Smith, Ark., , terms of court at____ " __ - Fort Snelling, Minn., construction -authorized of officers' . quartersat__ .; _______________ _ Fort Stanton; N. M«r., deficiency .approp~B:tion for marine hospltal; additional power _____ _ Fort Sumter, S. C ., ', erection .of flagstaff, etc.;' at; in eom- memoration of delense thereof by .~«:d~__01:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC),TarmstroBot (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC) design and materials subject to ap- ·proval.of. 8ecret~ry' of War and CoDlIIllSI!lOn of Fme Arts______ _ acceptance of, in lieu of statue under legacy ______________________ _ 59 1302 1655 499 499 499 appropriation for acquiring site and , ' erecting publio building at_____ 179 defiCiency ap'f.ropriation for' 'repJaee- .' ,ment 0 present post oftice, 'etc_ _ 1657 Fort Yuma Indian Hoapit4l, Calif., , appropriation for support, etc., of_____ 1581 Forti~iona, appropriation for preparing plans for __ 336, 1359 336, 1309 336, 1309 for construction, maintenance, etc., of_ for submarine mine defense structures for allotments; United Statei!; insular po_ions, and Panama Canal_ 33a, 1359 deficiency appropriation for armament 01. ____ 43/45,49,936,1619,1622, Hi72 for armament msular possessions___ 936 for, Panama Canal________________ 936 for fire controL_. _________________ 936 forsuppliesfor________________ 1622,1672 Forty-fird StrutNW., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Wiscon- sin Avenue to Davenport Street; from gasoline tax fund________ 652 Forty-fourth Strut NW'., D. C., use authorized of designated Govern- , ment lind for widening__ :. .. __, _ _ _ 1341 Fortll-second Btrut NW., D. C ., appropriation for paving, eto., Fessen- den Street to Wisconsin Avenue; from gasoline tax fund_ _ _ ______ 12Q9 for paving,' etc., Jenifer Street to Military Road; from gasoline tax fund______ ~______________ 1269 Forty-third PlauNW., D. C., appropriation for paving,etc.,·Chesa- peake Street to Murdock Mill Road; from gasoline tax fund_ _ 652 for paving, etc. Chesapeake to Brandywine Streets; from gaso- line tax fund_ __ __ __ ___ __ _____ 652

�


text:
Oelricks v. Ford/Opinion of the Court

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

It was an action of assumpsit brought by Ford, a citizen of New York, against Oelricks & Lurman, merchants of Baltimore, upon a contract in writing, made by the defendants, who agreed to purchase from Bell, agent for Ford, ten thousand barrels of flour, deliverable at seller's option at the prices and upon the terms stated in the contract, which is fully set forth in the opinion of the court, and need not be repeated. Ballard was the broker who made the contract on behalf of Oelricks & Lurman.

The evidence given upon the trial by the plaintiff and defendants was very voluminous, and was both oral and written.

The points of law which arose in the case will be manifest from the prayers to the court offered by the counsel for the plaintiff, and from the instructions to the jury given by the court, which were as follows:

1. That the evidence in this case is insufficient to authorize the jury to find that there is an usage in the city of Baltimore, with regard to contracts for the sale of merchandise to be delivered at a future time, by which the defendants were authorized to annul the contract bearing date the 7th November, 1855, given in evidence, upon the failure of the plaintiff to put up a margin in money, as security for its performance, in compliance with the demand contained in the letter of the witness, Ballard, to J. W. Bell, of the 21st December, given in evidence.

2. That such an usage, if found by them to exist, is invalid, and not binding, because it is unreasonable.

3. That evidence of such an usage, if it should be established by competent evidence, and be held reasonable by the court, is inadmissible in this case, because it contradicts or waives the written contract dated the 7th November, 1855, given in evidence.

4. That if the jury find, that before the 21st day of December, 1855, J. W. Bell had left the city of Baltimore without authorizing any person to represent him in his absence, and have never since returned, the letters of the witness, Ballard, of the 21st and 24th December, 1855, left at the former place of business of said Bell, as proved by the said Ballard, did not affect the plaintiff with notice of the demand for a margin mentioned in said letters, even if, under any usage or contract, the defendants were authorized to make such demand.

5. That if the jury find that the witness, Ballard, reduced the said contract, dated the 7th November, and given in evidence, to writing, at the request of the defendant, Lurman, and that said Ballard signed two copies of the same and procured the approval of the defendants, and of Bell, as agent of the plaintiff, to the same, by their signatures thereto, and delivered one of the said contracts to the defendants, and the other, which has been given in evidence by the plaintiff, to said Bell, and shall further find all this was done on the 23d November, 1855, after the interview at the Exchange between the defendant, Lurman, and the said Bell, spoken of by the witness, Ballard; and shall also find that, at said interview, the defendant, Lurman, declined to have the clause inserted in said contract having reference to putting up a margin; and if the jury find that said Bell, upon the 12th and 15th December, delivered 2,000 barrels of flour under said contract, which were received by the defendants, and paid for by them; and if the jury shall further find that the plaintiff offered to deliver, and was prepared and willing to deliver, the balance of the 8,000 barrels contracted to be delivered under said contract, at the times and at the prices testified to by the witnesses of the plaintiff, and that the defendants refused to receive the same, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this suit the difference between the price of flour mentioned in said contract ($9.25) and the market value of the parcels of flour tendered by the plaintiff on the days on which they were respectively tendered, with interest thereon from such periods, respectively. But the court rejected the prayers of the plaintiff, and each of them, and, in lieu of them, granted the following instructions to the jury:

1. If the jury shall find, from the evidence in this case, that the defendants entered into the written contract dated the 7th of November, 1855, which has been offered in evidence, and that the plaintiff offered to deliver to the defendants in the months of January and February, 1856, eight thousand barrels of flour, in pursuance of the stipulations of said contract, and in the mode therein pointed out; and that, when said offers were made by the said plaintiff, he had the requisite amount of flour to comply in good faith with said offers, and could have delivered the same, if the defendants had been willing to receive the same, and shall further find that the defendants wholly refused to receive and pay for said flour according to the terms of said contract, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover such damages as the jury may find from the evidence he has suffered from said refusal of defendants to execute the said contract on their part.

2. The rule of damages in this case is the difference between the contract price of the flour and the market value in the city of Baltimore of the same on the several days on which the plaintiff offered to deliver the same in accordance with the provisions of said contract, with interest on such sum in the discretion of the jury. To the granting of which instructions the defendants prayed leave to except, and upon this exception the case came up to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Frick and Mr. Benjamin for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Brown, upon a brief filed by himself and Mr. Brune, for the defendant.

The reader will perceive, from the prayers and instructions, that the two principal points in the case were: 1. Whether the evidence to support an usage was sufficient to authorize the jury to infer an usage; and 2. Whether Ford could maintain the action.

The decision of the first point necessarily involved an examination of the evidence, which, as before remarked, was very voluminous, and a summary of which is given in the opinion of the court. It would require a prolonged statement to follow the counsel through this examination, but the points can be given as follows:

I. That all the evidence in the cause ought properly to have been submitted to the jury, and was sufficient, if they believed it, to establish the existence of an usage, among a certain class of flour dealers in the city of Baltimore accustomed to deal in 'time contracts,' under which, either the buyer or seller might demand security, by way of a margin to be put up by both, whenever the faithful performance of such a contract should be considered doubtful by either party. The amount of such margin to be reasonable, according to the judgment of other merchants in the same business, and the contract to be cancelled, upon a failure to put it up.

II. That there was evidence in the cause, which ought properly to have been submitted to the jury, tending to show, that both the agent of the plaintiff below, and the defendants, made all their 'time contracts' for flour, with reference and subject to such an usage; and that each party knew such to be the special custom of the other's business, when the 'time contract' in evidence was entered into; and that the contract was specially made with reference and subject to such an usage.

III. That the usage, as proved, was a reasonable and lawful usage.

IV. That the effect of the usage was not to vary and contradict the contract, but to add to it something incidental and not inconsistent with it; and that, on this ground, proof of the usage was admissible, although the contract was in writing. And further, that the agreement for a 'time' sale of flour on certain terms and for a margin, if required by either party, to secure it, being one and simultaneous, and a part only of the contract having been reduced to writing, on that ground, parol evidence of the residue was properly admissible.

V. That the agent of the plaintiff below had a right to contract in reference to the usage, so as to bind his principal; that the demand made for a margin, upon the agent, as proved, affected the principal with constructive notice of it; and that moreover there was evidence, proper for the jury, tending to show that the principal had actual notice of the demand, and in fact put his refusal to comply with it only upon the ground that there was no agreement for a 'margin' in the written contract.

VI. That not only by the rules of legal presumption, but by necessary inference from the facts, the credit in this case was given exclusively to the agent, and the principal had no right of action on the contract; and that, even if this were otherwise, the rule of damages, as applied to the case, was erroneous.

Upon the last point, the following authorities were cited:

There is still another view of the case, showing error in the instruction given by the court below. This instruction announced the whole law of the case in the court's own language, and proceeded upon the ground that all the evidence offered to incorporate the usage into the contract was inadmissible. But it had the effect of withdrawing also from the jury all the evidence showing that the credit given in the transaction was to the agent, Bell, exclusively; and if that fact had been found, the defendants could not have charged the plaintiff upon the contract, and the plaintiff had therefore no right of action against them.

The rule laid down by Story as a presumption of law is, that 'a foreign factor, buying or selling goods, is ordinarily treated, as between himself and the other party, as the sole contracting party; and the real principal cannot sue or be sued on the contract.'

Story on Agency, sec., 423.

See also more specially sections 268, 290, and 400.

This is the established English doctrine.

Russell on Factors and Brokers, 288.

Livermore on Agency, vol. ii., p. 249.

Patterson v. Gandasequi, 15 East., 62.

Addison v. Gandasequi, 4 Taunt., 574.

Thompson v. Davenport, 9 Barn. and Cress., 78.

Smyth v. Anderson, 7 Mann. Grang. and Scott, 21, (62 E. C. L. R.)

The rule as stated by Story, in the four sections above quoted, has never been directly questioned in this country, except in one case, (Kirkpatrick v. Steiner, 22 Wendell, 244,) and then by a divided court.

It is reaffirmed by him (and that case examined) in note 1 to sec. 268, 5th edition of 1857, Story on Agency, and has been adopted in McKenzie v. Nevins, 22 Maine, (9 Shepley,) 143; Alcock v. Hopkins, 6 Cushing, 490; Merrick's Estate, 5 Watts and Serg., p. 14.

It is however an open question, whether the rule extends to the different States of the Union, as jurisdictions foreign to each other. There are dicta in 22 Wendell, above referred to, to the effect that it does not. But the point has never been expressly made and decided that way.

On the contrary, in Newcastle M. Co. v. Red River R. R., 1 Rob. Louisiana R., p. 145, it was directly held that it did apply to the different States, as a reasonable rule of presumption; and this would seem to be the true doctrine.

The term used in the books is principals 'beyond seas;' and in construing those words in acts of limitation, they are held to refer to other States of this Union.

And so, bills of exchange are foreign bills when drawn by a party in one State, upon one in another State.

Story on Bills of Exchange, secs. 22 and 23.

Buckner v. Finley, 2 Peters R., 586.

So, both Scotland and Ireland are foreign to England for the purposes of this rule; and the reasons for the decision given in Story, 22, 23, and 2 Peters, in regard to bills of exchange, are similar to those in sec. 290 (Story on Agency) for the distinction made between domestic and foreign principals.

This rule, in the absence of any evidence on the question 'to whom credit was given,' creates a conclusive presumption of exclusive credit to the agent. It is of course liable to be rebutted. But the onus is on the principal. In this case, there is nothing to remove the weight of the presumption. On the contrary, the proof is all the other way.

(Evidence referred to.)

The counsel for the defendant in error made the following points:

I. The evidence is not sufficient to establish a general usage in Baltimore, by which either party to a contract to deliver flour at a future time is entitled to demand a margin or security of the other.

II. Such an usage, if proved, would not be valid and binding, because—

1. It is not ancient, reasonable, and certain. It opens the door to fraud and deception, and offers facilities to parties to escape from contracts which appear likely to occasion loss. The cause for which a margin may be demanded, the amount of the margin and its character, whether money or anything else, the notice to be given, the place of deposit, and the manner in which the deposit is to be made, are not established with reasonable certainty.

2. Because the usage is not generally known in Baltimore.

3. Because an usage may explain the meaning of terms, but cannot avail to contradict or vary a written contract, as in this case is attempted to be done. To permit it to do so would be in violation of a settled rule of evidence and of the statute of frauds.

According to the testimony of Ballard, a witness for the defendants, and the only one who details the circumstances connected with the making of the contract, Bell and Lurman both said that they made their contracts with reference to the usage. Ballard then asked Lurman if he should insert about the margin in the contract. Lurman said, no; he was satisfied with Mr. Bell. Whereupon, the contract was drawn without referring to the usage. The previous conversation in reference to the usage is inadmissible in evidence, because it contradicts or varies the written contract in an important particular.

III. If the conversation with reference to the usage is of any avail at all, it can only bind Bell personally, and was intended only to do so, for Lurman expressly excluded it from the contract, and declared that 'he was satisfied with Mr. Bell.'

IV. The testimony of Ballard would be inadmissible to show the usage of Bell in reference to his own contracts, in a case like this, where it would vary or contradict a written contract, but it certainly cannot bind the plaintiff, who does not appear to have had any notice or knowledge thereof. Bell's clerk, (Manro,) who was well acquainted with his business, never heard of such a usage.

V. Even if the usage be proved, and be good in law and binding on the plaintiff, the defendants cannot avail themselves of it; because, in the letter of Ballard, the broker, in which the margin is demanded, it is expressly claimed on the ground of contract, and not of usage. And in the conversation on the 29th of December, 1856, which took place between Brown and Frick, the attorneys of the respective parties, the attorney of the defendants did not claim a right to security on the ground of usage, or make any reference to usage, but referred to the notice given by Ballard, for defendants, and took the ground that the contract had been rescinded by defendants, because the plaintiff had not given security, as demanded by the notice. The plaintiff's attorney denied the right of the defendants to demand any security, but said that the plaintiff was prepared to do anything required by the contract. Nothing is said of usage until the letter of the 16th of January, 1856, of the defendants, which mentions the usage to the plaintiff for the first time.

VI. Because the notice was not addressed by Ballard to the plaintiff, in New York, but was directed to Bell, in Baltimore, and sent to his counting-room after he had disappeared. The notice is dated 21st December, and required the money to be put up on the 22d, and the plaintiff never saw the notice until Christmas day following.

VII. Bell was not the plaintiff's agent for the purpose of receiving any such notice; and even if he were, a notice addressed to an absconding agent, and sent to his counting-room, and so sent, in fact, because the agent was known to have disappeared, is not sufficient to bind the principal. Bell's absconding put an end to his agency; and his disappearance, which was known to the defendants, was a sufficient notice to them of the fact. Good faith and fair dealing required that the notice should have been sent to the plaintiff in New York.

VIII. But the notice did not give the plaintiff reasonable time to comply, even if it had been communicated to him by telegraph, which it was not. It was left at Bell's counting-room before 12 M. on the 21st, and gave notice to deposit $5,000 in the Merchants' Bank of Baltimore on the following day. Flour had then fallen in price. The object of the defendants, undoubtedly, was to get rid of a losing contract, by giving a notice with which the plaintiff had neither time nor opportunity to comply.

IX. The defendants did not comply with their own notice-they state that on the 22d they would deposit $5,000 in the Merchants' Bank, and required Bell to do the same; but, in fact, they made no such deposit, and therefore under no circumstances could the plaintiff be required to do so.

X. The defendants had no right to require the arbitrary sum of $5,000 in cash to be put up on a contract, on which, at the time of the demand, they were, in fact, losers; and, therefore, no security at all was necessary.

XI. Nor had the defendants the right to select the Merchants' Bank of Baltimore as the place of deposit for the plaintiff, under the penalty of a cancellation of the contract.

XII. Nor had Ballard, the broker, who made the contract, any right to give a notice to put up a margin. The notice, which required immediate action and the deposit of a large sum of money, should have come from the defendants themselves.

XIII. The instructions of the court are correct, and cover the whole case. The rule of damages, as laid down, is sustained both by reason and authority.

XIV. Ford is principal, and has right to sue.

Green v. Kopke, 36 Eng. L. and Eq., 396.

Mahoney v. Kekule, 25 ib., 278.

Kirkpatrick v. Steiner, 22 Wend., 244.

Taintor v. Prendergrast, 3 Hill, 72.

3 Robinson Pr., 57.

2 Kent's Com. 8th ed., 630.

May, 818.

The following authorities are relied on to establish the propositions that the written contract cannot be varied or contradicted by the proof of usage; that the alleged usage is not properly proved, and if proved, is not valid.

United States v. Buchanan, 8 How., 83, 102.

Adams v. Otterback, 15 How., 545.

Brittan v. Barnaby, 21 How., 538.

Foley v. Mason, 6 Md., 50.

1 Greenleaf's Evidence, secs. 275, 278, 281, 284, 288, 292, 293, 294.

Coxe v. Heisley, 19 Penn. State, 247.

Maury v. Insurance Co., 9 Met., 363.

Brown v. Stoddart, 10 Met., 381.

Adams v. Wordley, 1 Mees. and Wels., 374.

Magee v. Atkinson, 2 Mees. and Wels., 442.

Trueman v. Loder, 11 A. and E., 596.

Allen v. Dykes, 3 Hill N. Y., 597.

Hinton v. Locke, 5 Hill N. Y., 437.

Gross v. Criss, 3 Gratt., 262.

Macomber v. Parker, 13 Pick., 182.

Howe v. Mutual Ins. Co., 1 Sandf. Sup. C., 137.

Barlow v. Lambert, 28 Ala., 710.

1 Smith's Leading Cas., 307, 308, 309, margin; and see note of H. B. W. to p. 309.

Browne v. Gatliffe, 11 Cl. and Fin., 45, 70.

Ford v. Yates, 2 M. and Gran., 549.

Browne on St. of Frauds, p. 116, secs. 118, 448, 451.

2 Parsons on Contracts, 59.

3 Cranch, 31.

1 Met., 199.

4 M. and W., 140.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Maryland.

The suit was brought by Ford against the defendants in the court below upon the following contract:

BALTIMORE, November 7, 1855.

For and in consideration of one dollar, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, I have this day purchased from J. W. Bell, agent for Benjamin Ford, New York, for account of Oelricks & Lurman, Baltimore, ten thousand barrels superfine Howard Street or Ohio flour, deliverable, at seller's option, in lots of five hundred barrels, each lot subject to three days' notice of delivery, and payable on delivery, at the rate of nine dollars and twenty-five cents per barrel, viz:

2,000 barrels,  seller's  option, all     December, 1855.

4,000 "   "  "  January, 1856.

4,000 "   "  "  February, 1856.

L. E. BALLARD, Broker.

OELRICKS & LURMAN.

The 2,000 barrels deliverable in December were delivered, accepted, and paid for, as per contract. The 4,000 barrels to be delivered in each of the months of January and February were duly tendered to the defendants, and payments demanded, and which were refused.

The only objection to the acceptance of the flour at the time tendered was the refusal of Ford to a demand made upon his agent to deposit $5,000 in one of the banks in Baltimore to secure the punctual delivery of the flour at the time mentioned. This demand for a deposit of money was denied by the plaintiff, on the ground that the contract contained no such stipulation.

After much testimony given by both parties on the trial, on the subject of a usage among the dealers in flour in the city of Baltimore to demand on time contracts a deposit of money, (or margin, as it is called,) and the right to rescind the contract if refused, the court charged the jury, that if they shall find, from the evidence, the defendants entered into the contract given in evidence, and that the plaintiff offered to deliver the flour therein mentioned according to its terms, and that when the offer was made he had the requisite quantity of flour to comply with the contract, and could have delivered it if the defendants had been willing to receive it, and that they had refused, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The court further instructed the jury, that the rule of damages was the difference between the contract price of the flour and the market value in the city of Baltimore on the several days of the tenders, with interest on this sum, in the discretion of the jury. The jury found for the plaintiff.

One of the principal grounds of objection to the ruling of the court is, its refusal to submit the question of usage, which was the subject of evidence on the trial, to the jury.

The witnesses introduced by the defendants to prove the usage speak in a very qualified manner as to its existence, as well as to the instances in which they have known it to have been adopted or acquiesced in; and all of them admit they have no knowledge that it was general among the dealers. Some of them state that they recognised and had acted upon a custom in their own business, under which either party to the contract might require a margin to a reasonable amount, to be put up to secure the performance, and that the contract might be rescinded, if the party refused; that they could not say such was the general custom; that different persons have different customs; some consider there is such a usage, and some do not. One witness states that he had at all times in his business considered it to be a right which might be exercised by either party to a time contract, whenever he apprehended a risk; that if the party was solvent, he supposed there was no right to demand it; another, that in his business he had always considered such contracts to be subject to the right of either party to demand the margin; that the occasion of exercising it was rare, as contracts made by his house were made with responsible persons; that he did not know that this was a general usage in Baltimore. The broker who negotiated the contract for the defendants states that he considered it a clearly understood right of both parties to such contracts to demand a margin to a reasonable amount; that he entertained the belief, from conversations with various merchants on the subject; that he recollected but one instance where, when the demand was made, the margin was put up, which was a margin of twenty-five cents on the barrel in a contract for 500 barrels.

There were ten witnesses, flour merchants for many years in the city, who state that they knew of no such usage.

It will thus be seen, from a careful analysis of the evidence, that the defendants wholly failed to prove any general or established usage or custom of the trade in Baltimore, as claimed in the defence. Every witness called on their behalf fails to prove facts essential to make out the custom in the sense of the law; on the contrary, most of them expressly disprove it. They express opinions upon the subject of a margin as a right to be exercised in their own business, but admit that it is not founded upon any general usage; and none of them speak of its having been claimed or exercised in his own business but in one or two instances. Whether a usage or custom of the kind set up existed in the trade in Baltimore, was a question of fact to be proved by persons who had a knowledge of it from dealing in the article of flour. Opinions of persons as to what rights they might exercise in their own business in respect to time contracts fall far short of any legal proof of the fact, especially when they admit that there was no general usage of the kind known to them.

Then, as to the precise limit or character of the the custom claimed, the opinions of the witnesses are various and indefinite. The margin, they say, must be reasonable, but the pretended usage contains no rule by which a reasonable margin may be determined. It is said the amount may be referred to merchants. But there is no evidence that this is a part of the custom, or that any such mode of adjusting it ever occurred in the trade. Some of the witnesses state, that the margin must be a sum of money sufficient to make the party safe according to the state of the market. One states, that at the time the demand was made in this case for a margin, flour had fallen, and the price lower than the price in the contract; yet this, in his judgment, did not affect the right to make the demand, as the general opinion among dealers was, that the price would advance; that there were great fluctuations in the price, and that, in such a condition of things, a reasonable margin would depend upon the extent and character of the fluctuations, and upon the speculative ideas of the future value of flour.

The broker of the defendants, who purchased this flour, states his view of the reasonableness of the margin, which is the difference between the intrinsic value of the flour and its speculative value; by intrinsic value, he says he means the cost of the production; and by speculative value, the price at which it was rating above its intrinsic value; and to a question what, in his opinion, would be a reasonable margin under the custom, when flour in the market was lower than the contract price, he answered, that he considered the demand reasonable in this case, because he believed flour was going up to twelve dollars per barrel. It would be difficult to describe a custom more indefinite and unsettled.

But, independently of the total insufficiency of the evidence to establish the usage, we are satisfied, if it existed, the proof would have been inadmissible to affect the construction of the contract. This proof is admissible in the absence of express stipulations, or where the meaning of the parties is uncertain upon the language used, and where the usage of the trade to which the contract relates, or with reference to which it was made, may afford explanation, and supply deficiencies in the instrument. Technical, local, or doubtful words may be thus explained. So where stipulations in the contract refer to matters outside of the instrument, parol proof of extraneous facts may be necessary to interpret their meaning. As a general rule, there must be ambiguity or uncertainty upon the face of the written instrument, arising out of the terms used by the parties, in order to justify the extraneous evidence, and, when admissible, it must be limited in its effect to the clearing up of the obscurity. It is not admissible to add to or engraft upon the contract new stipulations, nor to contradict those which are plain. (2 Kent Com., p. 556; 3 ib., p. 260, and note; 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 295; 2 Cr. and J., 249, 250; 14 How., 445.)

Applying these principles to the contract before us, it is quite clear that the proof of the usage attempted to be established was inadmissible, and should have been rejected. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty in its terms or stipulations, and the condition sought to be annexed was not by way of explanation or interpretation, but in addition to the contract. The plaintiff agrees to deliver a given number of barrels of flour on certain days, at the price of $9.25 per barrel, in consideration of which the defendants agree to receive the flour, and pay the price. This is the substance of the written contract. But the defendants insist, that besides the obligations arising out of the written instrument, the plaintiff is under an additional obligation to give security, whenever called upon, for the faithful performance; and this, by the deposit in bank of the sum of $5,000. The written instrument bound only the personal responsibility of the plaintiff; the parol evidence seeks to superadd, not a responsible name, as a surety, but in effect the same thing, a given sum of money. The parol proof not only adds to the written instrument, but is repugnant to the legal effect of it.

It was also urged on the argument that this contract was entered into between the defendants and the agent of the plaintiff, with the understanding at the time that it should be subject to the usage; but the answer to this is, that no such usage existed; and if it did, the terms of the contract exclude it. Any conversations and verbal understanding between the parties at the time were merged in the contract, and parol evidence inadmissible to engraft them upon it.

We are satisfied the court below was right in excluding the consideration of the evidence of the usage from the jury: 1, because the usage was not proved; and 2, if it had been, it was incompetent to vary the clear and positive terms of the instrument.

An objection has been taken on the argument, which was not presented to the court below, but which, it is insisted, is involved in the exception to the charge; and that is, inasmuch as it appears upon the evidence that the plaintiff was a resident of New York, and the contract made at Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, by an agent, the presumption of law is, that the credit was given exclusively to the agent, the principal being the resident of a foreign State; and hence, that the contract, in legal effect, was made with the agent, and not with the principal, and the former should have brought the suit.

This doctrine is laid down by Judge Story in his work on agency, and which was supposed to be the doctrine of the English courts at the time, and founded upon adjudged cases. (Story on Agency, sec. 268 and note; secs. 290, 423.) It did not, however, at the time receive the assent of some of the courts and jurists of this country. (2 Kent's Com., pp. 630, 631, and note; 22 Wend., p. 224; 3 Hill., 72.) And the doctrine has recently been explained, and Judge Story's rule rejected, by the English courts. In the case of Green v. Kope, (36 Eng. L. and Eq. R., pp. 396, 399, 1856,) the court denied that there was any distinction, as it respected the personal liability of the agent, whether the principal was English or a foreigner. The Chief Justice observed: 'It is in all cases a question of intention from the contract, explained by the surrounding circumstances, such as the custom or usage of the trade when such exists. No usage,' he observes, 'was proved in the present case, and I believe none could have been proved.' Again, he observed: 'It would be ridiculous to suppose that an agent, for a commission of one-half per cent., is to guaranty the performance of a contract for the shipment of 1,000 barrels of tar.' The case was finally put upon the intent of the parties, as derived from the construction of the contract, and which was, that the defendant contracted only as agent, and not to make himself personally liable. Willes, J., doubted if evidence of custom was admissible to qualify the express words of the contract, so as to make the agent liable.

(See also 14 Com. B. R., p. 390; Mahoney v. Kekule, 5 Ellis and Black, pp. 125, 130.)

In the present case, the broker's note, and which is approved by the defendants, affixing the firm name, is too clear upon the face of it to admit of doubt as to the person with whom the contract was made. The purchase is from 'J. W. Bell, agent for Benjamin Ford, of New York,' and the case shows that Bell had full authority. The name of the principal is disclosed in the contract, and the place of his residence, as the person making the sale of the flour, through his agent. This fixes the duty of performance upon him, and exonerates the agent.

The judgment of the court below affirmed.

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

title: Oelricks v. Ford/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1856

 INDEX. cv Fourteenth Cem"., p .... deficien:l_01:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk)_:~:__33, 1617 Fourl«mtJ& 8lrUJl Nil., D. C., appropriation for paying, etc., Keamey to Lawrence Streets; from guo- line tax fund_________________ 1271 Fourteenth Str.. NW., D. C., appropriation for Widening, etc., Park Road to Monroe Street________ 655 Fourtunth Strut SE., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Good Hope Road to S Street; from RB/IOline tax fund______________ 654 forpa101:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)-TarmstroBot (talk) 1272 Fourth A~ Pa.'male1' G~, appropriation for, and office penon- neL_____________________ 187,1049 for field eervice, Post Office Depart- ment, under_______________ 191,1054 for stationery, etc.; Postal Savings System supplies,etc ________ 191,1054 forpostalsupplies ________ ~- 191, 10M for post route' and rural delivery ma~etc- 192,1054 for wrapping twine, etc _________ l92, 1054 for expenses, shippin~ supplies___ 192, 10M for canceling machines and labor savingdevices _____________ 192,1054 traveling mechanicians________. J92, 1054 for mail bags, locka, equipments, etc. ______________________ 192,1054 for material, labor, etc" ·equipment shops ____________________ 192,1054 for equipmenta, departments, Alaska, etc_______________________ 192,1055 for star route transportation, except in AJaska _________________ 192,1055 for Rural Delivery Service_______ 192, 1055 for travel and miscellaneous ex- Fourth Cail(eai8~-po;t8Tser;,je:)~2; 1055 matter included as; rates_________ ___ 941 zone deliveries____________________ 942 special delivery and handling_______ 943 first class treatment, if additional stamps affixed), etc____________ 944 Fourth Street NW., D. v ., appropriation for paving, etc., Quacken- boB to Rittenhouse Streets; from gasoline tax refund_ _______ ____ 652 for paving, etc., Whittier to Aspen· Streets; from gasoline ta.'t fund_ 653 Fourth Street SE., D. C., use authorized of designated Govern- ment land for widening___ _ _____ 1341 Fowl Pest, European, appropriation for eradicating, etc_ _ 548, 1199 Fo:c Riller, bridge across, at East Dundee, Ill., le~alized-- _______ 1478 authonzed acroes, Dear Algonquin, Ill__________________________ 383 in Aurora, 111., at New York Street_ 1078 at North Avenue________________ 1078 at Saint Charles, 111_____________ 383 Framingham, Ma&s., deficiency sppropriation for public buildingat___________________ 1657 France, appropriation for ambassador to ____ 65,1096 for segregating bodies, etc., in Ameri- can cemeteries in_____________ 355 Fra1lC6-Continued. p .... deficiency appropriation for pa~nt to, for d&1ll&gt!8 to French Steam- ship "MaCleleine"_____________ 913 payment to, &8 indemnity for collision damages _to French steaDllhip "Madeleine," authorized______ 512 France FWd, Canal Zone construction for Air Corps. authorized aL _________________ 749 1 1301,1303 heavy seagoing Air Carpi! retnever authOrized for________________ 717 Francis, Okla., bridge authorized aerollB Canadian Francis SeIte~tBridie:-iCc.: 1546 appropriation for operating expeDSe8___ 657 Francois, MaTi"., sum authorized to pay, wounded by Marine Corps enlisted man in Haiti__ _____ ______ ___________ 1477 Frank, Leah, Creek 1Mum AUottee, . deficiency appropriation for equaliza- tion payment__________________ 1641 Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa., balances of appropriations for, covered in__·___·______________________ 365 Frankfort, Mich., quitclaim of portion of lighthouse reser- vation at, to Ann Arbor Rall- road Company_________________ 1025 tract of land to be given by Com- I>any in exchange_______________ 1025 Franklin 1C6 Cream Company, . defieien:lcl:TarmstroBot (talk):TarmstroBot (talk)!_01:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk) 926 Franklin Street NB., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Sixth to Seventh Streets; from gasoline taxfund___ ~_________________ 653 for paving, etc., Thirteenth to Four- teenth Streets; from gasoline tax fund ________________________. 1271 Franks, E. T., may bridge Ohio River&..between Owens- boro, Ky., and .tLOCk~rt, Ind__ 1322 time extenaed for bridging Ohio River byI between Owensboro, Ky., andrt,lnd____________ 146 Fraternal Bene. AlI8Oeiations, D. C., provisions 0 Juvenile Fraternal Act.__ 953 description of; death and disability benefits______________________ 1055 age limit; funds authorized from assessments, etc_______________ 1056 extension of death benefit payments_ 1056 exempt from District insurance laws_ 1056 outstanding agreements with mem- bers, etc., not excluded_ _______ 1056 law not applicable to associations for profit; further exceptiuns added_ 1021 Fraternal Beneficiary Societies, etc., exempt from income tax_____________ 812 Fredericksburg and SpotsuWania County Battle FUlda Meiiaorial MilitGry Parle, . appropriation for continuing establish- ment oL_____________________ 1376 Fredericksburg aM Spotsylvania County BatUe Fields Memorial, Va., deficiency appropriation for commenc- inltcstablishment of, as a national m 'tary park. ______________ 38, 1666

�


text: Talk:Oelricks v. Ford/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1857

 ovi INDEX. Frudmen', Bo,pWd, D. C., .. PQe. appropriation for iJalarIee and expeJl8ell_ 243 for maintenance; half from DiStrict revenues__________________ 243, 1606 deficiency appropriation for aaIarles, 1929_____________ ~_ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ 1684 for nunes' home, etc.; wtapended balance reappropriated_________ 1644 Fr.port, m., appropriation for public building___ 179,1042 FrMghtj N atIV D,partment, appropriation for Department and bureaus____________________ 633,1461 deficiency appropriation for ____ 48,934, 1621 FrtmM&t, Ohio, appropriation for acquiring site and ~ publio building; cost mcreued_____________________ 177 iron gates bet,,'een grounds - of the White House and State etc., pepartment Building, D. C ., . c:_~_01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_:_ 427 Frll1tch Broad Rifler bridge au.thori;;{ .oroaa, at Bridgeport, TenD-___ ______ _____ ______ ___ 1179 at Del Rio, Tenn_________________ 606 Fremo, Calif., terms of court at_____________________ 1424 Frothifl{lMm, Louia A., late G lUpreatmt4- tiN in COfI{Ireas, deficien;rdO:~L01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)o~ _TarmstroBot (talk) _=-'!:._ 1607 Fruita, appropriation for investigating diseases of orchard and other_~ _____ M9,1202 for e:t01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)152, 1202 for investigating - inSecta affecting deciduoils___ .: __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ 658, 1208 for investigating tropical and Bub- tropicaL __________ ~ ___ ___ _ 658,1208 for fixing standards for containers of________________________ 563, 1214 deficiency appropriation for jnvestigat- ing ineects affecting deciduou8__ 12 for fixing standards for hampers, etc., for ___________ -' -___ _______ ____ 895 Fuel AdminiatrGtion, deficiency appropriation for paying 01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)~__01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)~_TarmstroBot (talk) 1669 F_, Marine Corp',- deficiency appropriation for 1929______ 1649 Fuel, N tJfI1I, appropriation for, and transportation of__________ ~ _____________ 633, 1461 Fuela appropriation for investigating min- eral ______________________ 101,1131 Fugitifles from Justice, found in District of Columbia, may, upon complaint being made, be brought before pollce court, on warrant by judge thereoL_____ 440 if complaint believed to be true, and surrender may be demanded, bond required to appear at a future date, etc_______________ 441 commitment to jail, if no bond given, or if charged with murder______ 441 bond forfeited on failure to appear_ 441 discharged, if appearing in court on day ordered, unless demanded by warrant of govemor 441 Fugitiflu from Justiu-Continued. Pal found in Dlatrict of Columbia; further - detention may be required______ 4~ bond discharged on delivery to per- .aD authorized by warrant of govemor_____________________ 4~ notice to police officials of city, etc., of fugitive, of his detention____ ~ limitation of jail detention_ ________ ~ volun~ retum in clHtody of an official allowed________________ ~ acceptance of bood by judge of pollee court, for appearance before official of State from which a return f~r,~:tti;,e--tO--a-Federai"dfa: 4- trict, or to a foreign country not aBected hereby_______________ 4- FuUon, Ark., time extended for bridging Red River, near________________________ _ toll charges on bridge .01'0118 Red River, at___ ______________ _____ _____ 7 · on retirement of bonds, to be a free Fdge-~- 7· appropriation for chemical investiga.. - tion8, etc., ot. _____________ 557,121 for preventing Bale, etc., of adulter- a+.ed.. ________ . ______________ 566,12 deficwncy appropriation for investiga- Fur-TarmstroBot (talk)ft- appropriation for experiments in rear- ing_______________________ lS58, 121 for protecting land, in Alaska______ J;, Furey, Fred_ B., time extended for bridging Columbia _-_ River at Entiat, Wash., by_____ IS. Furmlur'e, Public Buildings, appropriation for, repairs, etc______ 185, lo. deficienoy appropriation for ____________ 4 49,935,939, 1619, 16' G. Gaine8f1ilk, Ala., bridge authorized across Tombigbee River, at___________________ 308,7. Gallatin National Fored, Mont., Bum authorized for adding lands to, etc., for preserving game animals__ __ 61 limited to contributions from private agencies, etc_________ ~________ 61 Gallery of Art, National, appropriation for administration ex- penses________________________ 12· GaUifl{ler Municipal H08pital, D. C ., appropriation for salaries__________ 675, 121 for contingent expenses _________ 675,121 for repairs, etc_________________ 675,121 for incidental expenses __________ 675,121 for domestic service and ward build- ings, completion, etc________ 675,12! for constructing nurses' home; con- tracts authorized______________ 121 deficiency appropriation for mainte- nance, etc____________________ 8l Gallivan, James A., late a &pruentati116 in Congress, deficiency appropriation for pay to Widow ot.____________________ 8l Galveston, Te:z., appropriation for public building, ma- rine hospitaL_________________ 10'

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1858

 INDEX. evii Gal_ton, TG. - Continued. p .... deficiency appropriation for quaran- tine atation___________________ 917 for public building________________ 920 Game, appropriation for preventhag shipment of illegally killed ___________ 669, 1209 Game, Alaaka, ~propriation for protecting, etc___ 669,1209 Game Birda, Migratory, appropriation for enforcing law pro- tecting___________________ 658, 1209 GGfMPru.mle" appropriation for maintenance, etc_ S58, 1209 for )!urchase, etc., of game for ___ 558, 1209 Ganado Irrigation Projed, N GfKJjo 1Rdian ,",.."""ion, A rill., appropriation for open.ting, etc.; re- ~Y1Dent-- 212, 1573 Garbage, D. C. (," aU" City RefUlle, D.C.), appropriation for disposal of_______ 658, 1275 for repail'll, etc., reduction plant· deposit of receipts__________ 65s, 1275 Garden Cit1l, Kana., sale of lands in game preserve Dear, authorized______________ . .. ___ _ 300 proceeds used for purchase of other landa for game preserve________ 300 Gardenifl{/, LafUlacape, VegetabU, etc., appropriation for atudy oL__________ 662 Garfield Countll,_M~ may bridge Miaaoun RiverJ..at Glaagow_ 471 Garfield Memorial HOIIpit4l, u. C., appropriation for mmor CODtagiOUB dis- e&IIe8 ward ________________ 668, 1284 for care of indigent patients________ 674 deficiency appropriation for _______ 892,1631 Garfield 8ired. NW., D. C'l. appropriation for paVlng,etc., Wia- conain Avenue to Bellevue Ter- race; from gasoline tax fund____ 652 for paving, etc., Bellevue Terrace to Thirty-ninth Street; from gas- oline tax fund________________ 1269 Garland City Ark., . bridge authorized acroaa Red River, at_ 742 Garnier. Bayou, Fla., bridge authorized ac~. between SlCaCk Point and w rute Point, in Okaloosa COunty___________ 1311 Gary, Ind.,. . reconstruction authorized of bridge across Grand Calumet River, at_ 1475 East Chicago and.________________ 1475 Gas, Natural, appropriation for investigating ceo- nomic production of________ 102, 1132 Gas or Oil Deposita on Public Landsl permittees granted further additional time for drilling operation8, etc_ 252 extension of expired permita.. ___ ____ 252 Gas Troopa, Army, appropriation for organil'ling, etc., spe- cial ______________________ ~ 1363 Gasoline Ta.:r: Fund, D. C., appropriation for paving, repaving, etc., deaignatedetreeta, etc., from_ 651, 1269 Gatu and Hertford. Countiu N. C., bridge authorized acrose Chowan River, in___________________________ 1434 Gateway Bridge Company, may bridge Rio Grande, between Brownsville, Tex., and Mata- moros, Mexico_________________ 764 approval of Mexico required________ 764 Gat.wa1/ Bridg_ Com~,.r_::CODtinued. _Ie Of portion of Fort Brown Military Relervatfon, Tex., authoiUed to; conditioD8_____________ .. : __ 973 proceed. to JDiHtary po.t oonetruction fund_·_.;..;____________________ 974 Gav,gu, file., for Maftv,fGCtut"e of ArmaJMnt, Arm1/, appropriation for procuring, etc___ 3«,1365 Gav,gtJI,8cretD ThnGdI, eIc., appropriation lor oooperative etand- ai'disation, ~c., 01. _________ 92,1123 General A~", OJli,cc, appropriation for Comptroller Oeneral, Alliatant, and office pel'llOnneL _ 579, .1237 for contiDgellt expeJI8M _________ 679,1237 for printirig and binding for _____ S8O, 1237 decisions of Comptroller General._ 680, . 1237 deficiency appropriation for continplnt expeJI8M__ ~__________________ 6 for payiU(l claim.a certified by_______ 41 .z 43, 4.6, Gall, 937, 1616, 1~ 1670, 167~ .for report on fIecal condition of Iridian tribes________________ ~_ __ _ __ _ 887 for salaries_______________________ 1621 for adctitional aalariea, 1929_ _______ 1626 for eaIarieia, 1929__________________ 1676 equitable claima filed in, but Dot; a~ propriated for, to. be submitted to Conere- by Comptroller Gen- eral with epecial report_ _______ 413 returns office functioD8, eto., tranaferred from Interior.Department to___ 1141 \ submiaaion to C9ngresa die®ntinued, ofreport of recei.pta andexpeJI8M of cuetom. officers_ __ _________ 994 Gm.eral 4,ppraiaerll (ue Customs Court, United States). General Grant Nation4l Perk, Cali/., appropriation for commissioner_____ rg. 1110 for adlniDiBtration, etc__________ 233, 1596 General LaM OjiCtJ, Commiaftoner of, appropriation for_________________ 202, 1564 acting depositary for, of public JDOneye, JD&y designate clerk to act as Buch fn his absence__ _ 202, 1564 clerk to lip Jandpatenw_____ 202,1564 General Land OJ/ia, Interior DeparCJMnt (ue alaI) Public Jands), . appropriation for CommlaJaioner, and office pel'llOnneL ___________ 202,.1564 for genera[ expenses. __ _ __ _ __ _ __ 202, 1564 for maps, 'distribution, etc__ .. ___ _ .~ 1564 deficiency appropriation fOf__________ 933 field work appropriations for, available for·. J Ure of: work animals, ~ cleat etc___________________ 2(3, 1606 General Staff Corm, ANfItI•. appropriation for contingencies, Mili· tary Intelligence Divilion___ 328, 1351 deficiency appropriation for civilian peI'IIOnne1, aalariea,.l929_~_____ 1688 for Milit.&ry InteUiaenee DivieiOD___ 167f eligibility requirements for additions. to; araQuaw .from General 8td . School or COlJe&e--_ . . : 618 other service achooJa on JIeOOIIIlDenda- tion of board of~omcem_ 618 from qualified NationalOuard aDd reserve officera.. ____________ :..___ 618 list of eligibles to bepubliabed annually_ 618 detaila u aotln:g General Staff offieere, if eligibles Jackinr; for vaeaneies_ 618 additional membe1'8 from nonoom- batant branches______________ 619

�


text: Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Company v. Litchfield


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1859

 INDEX1. lhMral Staff Corp_, Army---(:ontinued. details .. aoting General 8t&1f oftioerl; limit of, for War Department, General8ta1f___________ ~ _ __ _ _ Geural&4g SeItool, ,4,.,." Commmacl aM, appropriation for instruction expeDlle8_ Geural Supply Committee, T~ De- P.... 619 329, 1352 , p6rlment, ' appropriation for II&lariM_~.,. ____ ~'~ IM,1030 for 'expeneee, tranefemng B\irplus ' oftioeequipment,etc__ ____ IM,1030 authorised to purchaee and distribute rrJt!ie8 for de~te, eet&b- ente,aB<f District of Ca- ,lumbia-- 1341 for field eervioe ma~.::,.:ncll1ded- _"' _ '1342 deeipation of pure by the Sec- retary of the Treasury__ _______ 1342 departments, etc., to fumieh estimates of requirements for purehallee___ 1342 reimbursement to BUpply fund"'_____ 1342 cost, etc., of BUppH~t to be reim- buned by requiaiuoninS depart- ment~_~ ____________________ ~ 1342 general supply fund Bet aside for paying reim~=!~!:t\;Wn;quwtio~i;;g-Of: 1342 fioe by deposit to iBredit of_ _ ___ 1342 amounts oreidited to fwld and reap- ,t~reto 1342 annual atateineB\ of aaeeta and liabil- ities 01. ___ __________________ 1342 audit by Comptroller General ______ ' 1342 pa~$ei:.Z:-zp=:; 1342 be direct to vendon, by depart- mentor eetalllishment_________ 1342 regulations to be prescribed by Secre- tary of the Treuury__________ 1342 acqMrlng site and conatruction of 'Ware- ,, " house building authorised for storage apaCe, etc., for 8uppJ,y 'Committee, department., DiS- trict government, ate__________ 1343 ~inTarmstroBot (talk).:r:_01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 1343 rental baIiIa for District govern- ment__ : ____ .. :__ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ 1343 plane for building to be prepared by 'Direetor of Public Buildinp, etc_ 1343 'o8Multation with Commission of, ,Fine Arts____________________ 1343 eloIiing of streeta,etc., authorised;- _- : 1343 allowance for' special techniC&l llervi___~ __________'_________ 1843 amount authorised for buildings, etc_ 1343 '~Ne1w., , approp!i&tion for Indian school a~_ 718,1578 Geofroplfic Boord, United Statu, " appropriation for B&lariea and expenses_ _ 585, 1243 for printing and binding for _____ 585,1243 deficiency· apptopriation for I&laries, 1929_______ ...: ___' _ ... __ __ ___ _ ~___ 1676 ~ Bu;"", InterWr DBpGrt-m, appropriation for Director, and other perso~ ~cee__________ ~ 231, 1593 for pneralIexpeD!I88____________ 231, 1593 aUow&lle8for attending scientific Ineetinge ________ ~ _______ __ ,231, 1594 for topopaphio .urveY8__ ~ __ _ .. __ 231,1594 Shenandoah National Parll;, Va___ 1594 for geologic BUrVeys; chemical and ph~ researches_________ 232, 1594 Geological Survey, Inleri.or Department- p .... Continued. ' appropriation for volcanologic BUrveys, etc., in HawaiL ___________ 232, 1594 for mineral resources of Alaska_ _ 232, 1594 for gausing water supply, etc____ 232,1594 operating Lees Ferry, Am., gaug- ing station_ _________ ______ 232, 1594 Colorado River drainage statioDS ____ 232, 1594 reatriction on cooperative work 'with States _______________ 232,1594 for preparing illustrations _______ 232, 1595 for enforcement of Acts relating to mining of coal, nonmetallic min- eral deposits, etc___________ 232,1595 scientific, etc_, work for Depart- ments, etc., by ____________ 232,1595 funds to be transferred_______ 232,1505 amounts received for cooperative work to be used in reimbursing appropriations_____________ 233,1595 aerial photographs to be furnished for topographic mapping proj- ects _________________ '_ ____ ___ 1595 copies to cooperating State, etc., agencies____,____ ____ __ __ _____ 1595 obtaining from civilians__________ 1595 transporting personal effects of em- ployeeson change ofstations_ 233, 1596 foreltpeD8esof, under Meldcan Water Boundary CommissiolL________ 70 for expenditure by, under Canadian Waterways Joint Commission_ 73, 1103 for printing and binding for _____ 202,1564 for expeneee, supervising mining op- erations on restricted, etc., Indian • lands_____________________ 207,1570 for stream gauging, cooperative with Indian ,~ce ____________ 210, 1572 deficiency appropriation for expenses_ 46, 933 , " 1617, 1621, 1643 for' topographic survey, etc.:, Great Smoky Mountains .National Park, N. C . and Tenn ______ 903, 1643 for topographic survey, etc., ShenlUl- doah National Park, Va________ 903 for oill gas, etc., investigations~- 903 for enforcement of nrineralJeases;.etc_ 903 for CanAdian Boundary Waters,\jom- mission transfer____________ 903,1651 for transfer to Navy ______________ 1618 for transfer to War Department_ _ _ _ 1620 for strpervitring mining operations on Indianlands _________________ 1638 for topographic surveys____________ 1M3 for salaries, 1929, under___________ 1683 assistance of, for project to control Miaissippi RIver, etc., floods___ 536 expenditures f~r Mexican water bOund- field w P;('Priationsf~r;;,.~&ii&bi~ for hire of work animals, vehicles, 28 etc________________________ 243,1606 limitation of field use of vehicles for 1929, increased.._ ___ ____ ____ __ 1643 George, Pruton L., deficiency appropriation for extra eerv- ices_____________ .;.;. .. ___ _ '4, 886, 1624 George Rogerll Clark Suquicentennial , CommillBion, deficiency ~pprol?ria~ioD for expenses of partlClpatlOn ID_ ______________ 887 amount authorized in preparing plans, etc__________________________ 1626

�


text: Talk:Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Company v. Litchfield


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1860

 JNDEX. o.'g, Rog~. ,clA,k8,.~uic"""nial COM .1'.... tIIs.tftmt-Continued. . ...;. ptoVisiona for memorial! st· Vincennes, ,, bd.l~ commemorating winning old l'jorthwest, etc., to be con- 8truoted.by______ ..i"'..: ___ ..; __ ~__ . 723 G,org' WGl1ai"~BiI:fe1lUdl Commiliion;': . deficiency a'ptian!Or' general ex- penae!I, fUlids.a.ailable _____ .: . __ 888 George "W I111lIi,.qfon ;~ Uniueraitll HoapiiaZ, . D. C., .'.: appropriation for care .of ind~ent ,patient&____ :.,. _______________ " t}74 GeM'ge Waahi~-WalceJjeld MmnoriGi Bridt/" time extended for bridglng PQtomac ' River, from ,DabllP"'n, Va., to Popes er.ek, Md., b.y __ __ _ _ 115,1322 G-IlUovm, Del., deficiency appropriation: for publio building at. ________ __________1658 G_getmim UniHfo8'it71 iloapital,D. C., appropriation for care of indigent patients_ ___________________ _ 674 deficiency a~p~riatJon for __ - : _ __ ~' 892,1631 G-fria,, " advances authorized. to farmers and , ,fruit growers fu 8to~ and flood '&,tricken areas, of, toP\l1"c~e Seed, feed" and fertilizer lor . crop of 1929_______________ ~__ 1306 may aeqwre, atter completion; 'bridge ,, &Cl"08S "A,ltamaha River, at 'Towna Ferry_________________ 961 Ocmulgee River, at Fitzgerald.. ____ 403 may bridge Savannah River at Burton's Fe~--~' 751 time extended for bridging Chatta- ' hoochee River, at Alaga, Ala., by Alabama aneL_______________ 309 Georgia Allen~ NW., D. C., " appropriation for -'paving, etc.,' Fern Street to District lfue; from psoline'tax fund_____________ .652 GllI'1nGn 87J«ial Dflpoftl ~ocoum (.fJ6 aUo,, Settlement< of Wat' Claims Act of 1928), . oreated in the Treasury______________ 260 sources of_____________ ,-- _ - -- - -- -- - - 260 payments directed from ___ • __ ______ _ 260 (JeI'f.1l(lRlI (aee aUQ Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928), apprion for;~baBsador to_. __ ._ 66,.1096 ' •. for MIXed Claims Comm188Ion, United States and __________ 74,1105 deficiencY. approp~ti?n for Mixed " Claims CO~Ion, expell888___ 913 payment to,' for heir.a of deceased German ~tiona1a, who lost their liv~ while serving 88 lM!&lDeD in American vessels ____ • _ __ .~___ ,414 pro_ona for aettlemellt of awards by Mixed" Claims CommiSBiOIl of, claims of Americans against_ _ 264-~56 by War Claims Arbiter, of claimaof 'nationals of" against United ,States ___ •• __ _ __ • _____ ___ ~: 256-260 Gtrrry, Elbridg, T., '' .; law librarYQf, the gift of Senator Peter (}. ,~y, may: be aooep~ for, 'United States Supre~Court_ _ 457 GettyaWrg N"'i9nal JliliWry PfloTJc,," , 'appropriation,for continuing establish- ment of. __ ._. __ __ __ __ __ __ 356,1376 OObonl, James Cardinal, i'U6. erection' ,01 .,memorial~ldatue ot, 0Ii deelanateci reB8\"Qta.n ill District of COlum,bi&, auth~rized:_,--~,..." ~ apptoval Of delip~y')~ of . ,~ne ~ ....... _..i't ....j.-,.. .. -..____4l14 .. ,,' su~on of erectIoD. _______ . _. __ 454 no Government expell88_________ .. " 45t Gila aM $a", Pr~ etc." ,~) ", F4i*,I..PfliJ"~::-~, __t~l1 " fu n ,tlTarmstroBot (talk):·~rl<;l J;jIpoJ;ro eecon~-~in::iecJjjmit¥ciicf ,tgg ,., com ., silb1~ tQ ~ppro~1ij 1>t ~h. , 'tUte'ft"'d'CQn' "" ,1517 Gila Riv~, Ariz., ~i" ~'i"~:-c?-' defi~cy app~.' fpr CooUc1ge , Dam, can'yon oL_. _ __ •• .;_.:~ 18,1639 disposal, authonzedotbrWe' ~, in San Carlos Apache'Reaeri'a- '" tiona ~____ • ____ ' ___~. __••_~ 973 ,surveys, etl!.; autb:orlze4.tQ;·~ ernlihe' , methods of ~ng, and iii tita.'rie8, .. above· San Ca110e ~rvolr, for . irrigation, etc.,' in lNeW"Mexioo . and JUizo~ ________ ~________ 739 sum authorized from reclamation' fund __ • __ l..Jl.I_..!.::L.,;;,;_~_. __ ;.;_ _ ,739 equal amount from Iooal ao\lroeB_ _ 739 Gila River Indian Reservation, 'Ari,;;' , appropriation for irrigation system... .", lands of~ Indians___ .:.~.>~lO, 1673 deficiency appropriation fIX'diversion > dam_____ .... _____ "'_. _____ .. __ 46, 934 for irrigation project; repayment_;. . 47, 1617 Gilberta Ferry, A!tJ;t !, ',.,,". bridge authoriZed aeroaiI Coosa' Riwr at ______________________ :,.:~- 1526 Girard Placs NE. D:C;. - '," .." ' appropHation fcir ...;:;t,.. ..., etC" ,'., ,'fifth Streetto~illts.. Avt;~ue; , , from ~line tax fund _____ .. : _ _ 1271 for pa.mg, etc:;' 'StXth.~' '.'f~eventh Streets; from ga&Olin~ tll;t f\md_ 654 for l1aving, ~,~i: ,,.-enth ' io ,Twelfth Btree~; fiPm psoline taxt'und_ 654 Glacier N~;r..~qMIl!'J:.. '; " approprla~ici.n for.oDer____ • 79,1110 for admini8tratl,o.n. etc__________ ,233; 1596 for physical iin~femen~.~tc..... --~ 1596 for" commipiTarmstroBot (talk)8; !TarmstroBot (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC) ;e,~ other bUil~,.~.-.,.,,--,.,.:'I-- 1596 fo~ rpada, ,etc-.--,_:"'~i--"-i"':_-"'-:' 1601 deficIe~cy approponJQr-,..--- .., .. -- 46 for ~y ~Q~tion, ·apd ", f!PtinS t~t:-~7;rr-' 1644 GlaaqoU!, ,YORI., ."" ,;', , bndge 'authorized.acro. MiIIaoUrl mver , at_______ ~ __ _ __ ~ __ __ _ .'~·_~ __ 111,,471 Gllllla", ..' ".', " apPl'9priation 10riDv~Ip,pro~ lems in ptoduction of optIcal and, otber,~ypee ol__ ~+ __ ._",_~ _ _ 92, ~122 Glaa8~ Pa., i.' -:.,, ,. bridge a~thorized '1i.Qf9~; ,r4AAQ~aJ¥lla . ,JU,ver, betw:.,n ,~n and. __ 288 Globe, Ariz.,' ,. " C"'! " deficiency appropriation fQrpubllo . blJildingat__ ,.- __ _ .::_ .. _,_ _ _ __ _ ,33 G~,MIil,8B.; ,:".:, ', deficiency appropriation for __________ 1658
 * ,'Gf~td'~:,~rfr\':::::·ttf.ble

�