text:
Bliven v. New England Screw Company/Opinion of the Court

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

Bliven was of Westchester county, and Mead of Brooklyn, in the State of New York, and the New England Screw Company were a corporation created by Rhode Island. The suit was brought by Bliven & Mead in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and removed by the defendants into the Circuit Court of the United States. The Screw Company brought an action against Bliven & Mead in the Circuit Court, which will be the subject of the case next reported. The suit by Bliven & Mead was against the company for not furnishing them with screws enough; and the suit by the company against Bliven & Mead was to make them pay for what had been furnished. Both suits grew out of the same series of transactions, which are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The judgment of the court below, in both cases, was against Bliven & Mead, and hence both were brought up to this court.

They were submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Wright for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Stoughton and Mr. Jenckes for the defendants in error.

The following were the points made by the counsel, respectively:

I. The specific contracts on which the screws for the recovery of the value of which suit was brought, neither of them having been fulfilled, no recovery can be had for the partial performance.

2 Kent's Commentaries, 509.

See Note a, and cases cited.

II. The delivery of the full quantity of goods agreed upon cannot be excused by any custom to deliver only a part.

Linsley v. Lovely, 26 Vt., (3 Deane,) 123.

Schooner Reeside, 2 Sumner, 567.

III. The custom (as well as the contract) must be mutual. Bliven & Mead might with equal propriety set up a custom, when they order 10,000 gross of screws, to receive but 1,000, as the New England Screw Company, on accepting such order unconditionally, to deliver only the smaller quantity.

Here the custom alleged was all on one side. If screws fell in price, Bliven & Mead were obliged to receive the whole. If the screws rose in value, Bliven & Mead could only claim what the company, in its discretion, saw fit to deliver them. Such rise took place.

See Holford v. Adams, 2 Duer, (N. Y.,) 471.

IV. The custom proved was illegal as dangerous, and contrary to the policy of the law.

1. It varied express and written contracts.

Hone v. Mutual Safety Ins. Co., 1 Sanford's Superior Court Rep., 137.

The Reeside, 2 Sumner, 569.

2. The delivery of goods at the time and in the quantity expressly agreed on is as obligatory as the payment of money. A debtor's custom to pay his debts 'in course, and as far as he consistently can in view of his obligations to his other creditors,' will not excuse him from paying his notes given without any such limitation.

V. 1. Custom, to be legal, must be the general custom of the trade, and not, as was this case, the custom of the party only.

2. What was proved was not properly a custom, but was a habit of the defendants in error, to fulfil their obligations only so far as they found it convenient.

VI. If such custom (or habit) could legally be proved, the extent and effect thereof should have been submitted as a question of fact to the jury under the evidence, and not determined by the court.

The points on behalf of the defendants in error were the following, as taken from the brief of Mr. Jenckes:

I. The evidence of the custom of the New England Screw Company to fill orders in part only was properly admitted under the general rules as to the admissibility of evidence of customs and usages.

These rules have been fully established in this court.

'Evidence of this character is received for the purpose of ascertaining the sense and understanding of parties by their contracts, which are made with reference to such usage or custom, for the custom then becomes a part of the contract, and may not improperly be considered the law of the contract,' &c.

Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheaton, 581, citing Yeaton v. Bk. Alexandria, 5 Cranch, 49.

Mills v. Bank of U.S., 11 Wheaton, 431.

Bank of Washington v. Triplet et al., 1 Pet., 25.

Van Ness v. Packard, 2 Pet., 137.

Cookendorfer v. Preston, 4 How., 324.

Bowling v. Harrison, 6 How., 258.

Adams v. Otterback, 15 How., 544.

And in the Circuit Courts of the United States—

Trott v. Wood, 1 Gallison, 442.

The Reeside, 2 Sumner, 569.

1 Black. Com., 75.

2 Stark. on Evidence, 258.

1 Phill. on Evidence, 556.

2 Greenleaf on Evidence, secs. 251, 252.

Smith's Merc. Law, 29, 30, and note.

Gabbay v. Lloyd, 3 Barn. and Cres., 793.

Stewart v. Cautty, 8 Mees. and Wels., 160, citing Perly v. Royal Exch. Co., 1 Burr, 341.

Ougier v. Jennings, 1 Camp., 505.

Palmer v. Blackburn, 1 Bing., 61.

Yeates et al. v. Pim et al., 1 Holt., 92.

Noble v. Kennoway, Doug., 510.

Loring v. Gurney, 5 Pick., 15.

Naylor v. Semmes, 4 G. and J., 274.

II. The contracts for the sale of screws by the defendant company were subject to the custom of the defendant company, to fill the same in part only.

1. Because it was a usage of trade.

The defendant company were the only manufacturers of gimlet or sharp-pointed screws in the world, at the time of making the contract. Any usage or custom, therefore, which they had established, which was 'known, certain, uniform, reasonable, and not contrary to law,' was the usage and custom of the trade. This usage was, and was well known to be, to fill orders in part only; and the contract with the plaintiffs was made subject to and controlled by this custom.

Renner v. Bank of Columbia.

Mills v. Bank of United States.

Van Ness v. Packard.

Cookendorfer v. Preston.

Bowling v. Harris.

Adams v. Otterback, as cited above.

2 Greenleaf on Evidence, secs. 251, 252, and notes.

Stewart v. Cautty, ubi sup.

2. Because it was the usage of an individual, and the plaintiffs, having dealt with the defendant company, and corresponded with them, were chargeable with notice; and in this case, the evidence showed that they had actual notice.

See, also, as to the law governing the usage and habit of trade of an individual, the following authorities:

2 Greenleaf on Evidence, secs. 251, 252.

Loring v. Gurney, 5 Pick., 15.

Naylor v. Semmes, 4 G. and J., 274.

Noble v. Kennoway, Doug., 510.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York.

According to the transcript, the suit was originally instituted in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by the present plaintiffs, who were citizens of that State; but was afterwards regularly removed, under the twelfth section of the judiciary act, into the Circuit Court of the United States, because the corporation defendants were citizens of the State of Rhode Island.

It was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover damages for the supposed breach of six separate and distinct contracts, in which the defendants, as was alleged in the declaration, stipulated to deliver to the plaintiffs, pursuant to their written orders given at sundry times, certain quantities of screws, usually denominated wood screws, of various sizes and descriptions, as were therein specified. Readiness to perform on the part of the plaintiffs, and neglect and refusal on the part of the defendants to deliver the goods, after seasonable demand, constituted the foundation of the respective claims for damages, as alleged in the declaration. Those claims are set forth in eighteen special counts, to which are also added the common counts, as in actions of indebitatus assumpsit. Of the several contracts, the first is alleged to have been made on the seventh day of October, 1852, and the last on the nineteenth day of April, 1853.

At the May term, 1855, the parties went to trial upon the general issue. To prove the several agreements, the plaintiffs relied on certain correspondence which had taken place between the parties upon this subject, consisting of letters written by the plaintiffs to the defendants, in the nature of orders or requests for the goods, and the replies thereto written by the defendants.

As appeared by the proofs, the plaintiffs were merchants, engaged in buying and selling hardware, and the defendants were engaged in manufacturing the description of goods specified in the declaration. They were in point of fact the sole manufacturers of the article in the United States, and were constantly receiving orders for the article from their customers faster than they could fill them, and for larger quantities than they were able to produce.

Orders had been given for this article by the plaintiffs prior to the date of this controversy; but the evidence in the case does not show when their dealings commenced. Six orders of like import were given by the plaintiffs, during the fall of 1852 and the early part of the year 1853, for large quantities of the article, of various sizes and description. This suit was brought to recover damages for not filling those orders, which, it is insisted by the plaintiffs, had been accepted without any reservation. Some of them had been filled in part only, and others had not been filled for any amount, when the suit was commenced.

It was denied by the defendants that the orders had been accepted without condition. On the contrary, they insisted that the plaintiffs well knew that the supply was greatly less than the demand, and that the orders were only accepted to be filled in their turn, as the defendants were able to produce the article.

To support the first three counts of the declaration, the plaintiffs, among other things not necessary to be noticed, introduced three letters-two from themselves to the defendants, and the reply of the defendants to the same. Reference will only be made to such brief portions of the correspondence as appear to be essential to a proper understanding of the legal questions presented in the bill of exceptions.

Dissatisfaction was first expressed by the plaintiffs in their letter dated on the 30th day of September, 1852. In that communication, they simply refer to the long delay that has occurred in filling their orders, and furnish a memorandum of the amount and sizes of the article claimed by them to be due and not delivered, under their order of the 29th of June of the same year. They state, that after three months' delay, only about one and one-fourth per cent. of the same has been filled, and that they have not a gross of screws under an inch in their stock. Request was also made in the same communication that the plaintiffs would send at once all they could of the article, and the balance of the same as soon thereafter as it was possible. That request was, in effect, repeated in another letter, written on the 5th day of October, 1852; and on the 17th day of the same month, the defendants replied, saying that the order referred to would be taken up at the earliest possible day.

No further correspondence applicable to the first three counts was introduced by the plaintiffs in the opening of the case.

They then gave evidence to prove the second agreement, as alleged in the fourth, fifth, and sixth counts of the declaration. For that purpose, they introduced two letters-one from themselves to the defendants, dated on the 15th day of October, 1852; and the other from the defendants to them in reply, dated on the following day. Their letter to the defendants contained an order for three thousand seven hundred and fifty gross of screws, half to be delivered by the 15th day of March then next, and the other half a month later, subject to the regular discount at the time of delivery. That order was given thus early, as the plaintiffs stated, with a view to avoid thereafter the inconvenience they had suffered from not having their orders filled, and because they anticipated a short supply of the article the next season. In the same letter, they informed the defendants that it was given as an additional order, and requested that those previously sent might be filled without further delay.

To that communication the defendants replied, acknowledging its receipt, and saying that the order had been entered in their books, to be executed at the times named. They also referred to the previous orders, saying they would do what they could to fill them before navigation closed on the canals; but added, that they could only take them up in course, as they had a great many orders from other parties in the same condition.

Evidence was then offered by the plaintiffs to prove the third agreement, as alleged in the seventh, eighth, and ninth counts of the declaration. To support those counts, two letters were introduced-one from the plaintiffs to the defendants, dated the 4th day of November, 1852; and the reply of the defendants to the same, which was dated on the sixth day of the same month. By the letter first named, the defendants were furnished with another order of the plaintiffs for an additional quantity of screws, and were requested to place the order in their books, to be filled as fast as possible, at a given rate. Previous orders were also referred to in the same letter, and the plaintiffs complain that they have not been filled in their turn; adding, that they have not a gross of gimlet-point screws in their store, and earnestly requested the defendants to send them a lot by steamboat on the following day. Two days afterwards, the defendants acknowledged the receipt of the order, and informed the plaintiffs that it had been entered in their books, to be taken up in course.

Those letters constitute the only evidence offered by the plaintiffs in the opening to prove the third agreement.

They then gave in evidence another order from themselves to the defendants, to prove the fourth agreement, as alleged in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth counts of the declaration. It was dated on the 7th day of November, 1852. In the same communication, they stated that they were in great want of a certain description of screws, and expressed the hope that the plaintiffs would send what they could of the article by steamboat without delay, adding: 'We have always said, send what you can of our orders as fast as you get a case or two ready, or to that effect.' To that letter the defendants replied, under date of the 19th of the same month, saying that the best they could do was to enter the order, to be taken up in course, intimating that perhaps it might be accomplished in about two months.

Similar evidence was given to prove both the fifth and the sixth agreements, as alleged in the six remaining counts of the declaration. Two orders given by the plaintiffs were introduced for that purpose. One was dated on the 10th day of February, 1853, and the other on the 19th day of April, of the same year. They were each for twenty thousand gross of screws; and the defendants were requested to enter the orders in their books, to be filled as soon as possible after they should have completed those previously given. Separate answers were given by the defendants to each of these orders, to the effect that they would be entered in the books of the defendants, to be taken up in course or in their turn, and be filled when they reached them, as far as they should be able to do so, consistently with their obligations to other customers.

No part of the two orders last named had been filled when this suit was commenced. Demand was made of the defendants, on the 30th day of September, 1853, for the delivery of such proportions of the several orders as had not been previously filled. At the same time, the plaintiffs rendered their account, and tendered to the defendants their promissory notes for the respective sums which would become due to the defendants on making such delivery.

Such was the substance and effect of the evidence introduced by the plaintiffs in the opening, so far as it is necessary to consider it at the present time. Many other matters were stated in the correspondence; but as they are not material to this investigation, they are omitted.

To maintain the issue on their part, the defendants, among other things, introduced a letter from the plaintiffs, addressed to them, dated on the 3d day of September, 1852, in which inquiry was made of the defendants why they did not fill the orders given by the plaintiffs. They also stated in the same letter that not a week passed without their hearing of the defendants taking and executing orders from other customers; but admitted in effect that they had long since been given to understand the rule of business adopted by the defendants in that behalf, and only complained that precedence was given to the first orders from other customers.

Testimony was also introduced by the defendants, that they had some five hundred customers, and that the orders of the plaintiffs had been taken up and filled in proportion to the orders given by other customers, as the defendants manufactured the article and were able to deliver the goods. To that testimony the plaintiffs objected; but the court overruled the objection, and it was admitted, and the plaintiffs excepted.

All of the orders given by the plaintiffs, except the two last named, were filled in part, and, as the defendants proved, in due proportions to the orders of other customers, as the article was produced. They also proved, that when orders were given and accepted without the price of the article being agreed, it was their custom, and according to the usage of their business, to charge at the rates ruling at the time of the delivery; and if during the interval the discount from fixed rates had increased, the purchaser had the benefit of the allowance; but if prices had risen, and the discount was less, then the purchaser paid according to the increased price. To this testimony, as to the usage of the defendants' business, the plaintiffs objected, but the court overruled the objection; and the testimony having been admitted, the plaintiffs excepted. That practice, however, was not applicable to customers who were not duly notified of the usage, but all such had their orders filled at former rates. Orders from other customers were received by the defendants throughout the period of these transactions, but they refused to accept orders from new parties.

Proof was also offered by the defendants, tending to show that the profit to the manufacturer was less upon the small sizes of the article than upon the large, and it was admitted by their counsel that the market price of the goods advanced after the orders of the plaintiffs were given. Much additional testimony was introduced on the one side and the other, to which it is not necessary to refer, for the reason that it presents no question for the decision of this court. On this state of facts, the presiding justice instructed the jury to the effect that the several contracts for the sale of the goods by the defendants to the plaintiffs were subject to the custom of the defendants to fill the same in part only, and that the plaintiffs, from having been dealers with the defendants, and from the correspondence between them, were chargeable with notice of the defendants' custom to fill their contracts only in the order they were accepted, and in proportion with each other, and not in full, according to the strict terms thereof. Under the rulings and instructions of the court, the jury returned their verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiffs excepted to the instructions. Exception was taken to two of the rulings of the court and to each of the instructions to the jury, but they present only one question for decision, and therefore may well be considered together. No evidence of general usage or custom in the ordinary sense of those terms was offered in this case, and no question touching the general rules of law upon that subject is presented for the decision of this court. It may also be safely admitted that the custom of a party to deliver a part of a quantity of goods contracted to be delivered, though invariable, cannot excuse such party from a full compliance with his contract, unless such custom is known to the other contracting party, and actually enters into and forms a part of the contract. Mere knowledge of such a usage would not be sufficient, but it must appear that the custom actually constituted a part of the contract. But when it appears that such custom was well known to the other contracting party as necessarily incident to the business, and actually formed a part of the contract, then it may furnish a legal excuse for the non-delivery of such a proportion of the goods as the general course of the business and the usage of the seller authorize, for the reason that such general usage, being a part of the contract, has the effect to limit and qualify its terms. Linsley v. Lovely, 26 Vt., 137. Customary rights and incidents, universally attaching to the subject matter of the contract in the place where it was made, are impliedly annexed to the language and terms of the contract, unless the custom is particularly and expressly excluded. Parol evidence of custom, consequently, is generally admissible to enable the court to arrive at the real meaning of the parties, who are naturally presumed to have contracted in conformity with the known and established usage. But parol evidence of custom and usage is not admitted to contradict or vary express stipulations or provisions restricting or enlarging the exercise and enjoyment of the customary right. Omissions may be supplied, in some cases, by the introduction of the custom, but the custom cannot prevail over or nullify the express provisions and stipulations of the contract. 2 Add. on Con., 970. Proof of usage, says Mr. Greenleaf, is admitted either to interpret the meaning of the language of the contract, or to ascertain the nature and extent of the contract, in the absence of express stipulations, and where the meaning is equivocal or obscure. 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 292. Its true and appropriate office is to interpret the otherwise indeterminate intention of the parties, and to ascertain the nature and extent of their contracts, arising not from express stipulations, but from mere implications and presumptions, and acts of a doubtful or equivocal character. The Reeside, 2 Sum., 564. Nothing can be plainer than the proposition, that the evidence in the case proved that the supply with the defendants was much less than the demand of their customers. To avoid dissatisfaction, therefore, they were obliged to devise some system which would enable them to do equal justice among those who were properly competing for the article. Accordingly, they adopted a rule to accept all such requests, and to enter the list in a book kept for the purpose, and to fill them as far as possible in the order they were received. They had been in business for some time, and that rule had become the custom of their trade. and, as such, was well known to the plaintiffs during all the time of these transactions. Many of their orders thus given at short intervals had been expressly accepted to be filled in turn or in course, and the correspondence plainly showed that the plaintiffs well knew what was meant by those terms. Evidence to prove that the orders had been taken up in turn, and filled in proportion to the orders given by other customers, was therefore admissible, in order to show that the defendants had fulfilled their contract, and done no injustice to the plaintiffs; and it is equally clear that evidence to show what had been the usage of the defendants' business was also admissible, because that usage constituted an essential part of the several contracts which were the subjects in controversy. Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat., 588. After what has been remarked, one or two additional observations respecting the instructions given to the jury will be sufficient. Written evidence, as a general rule, must be construed by the court, and the first instruction was confined to that purpose. It gives the true exposition of the correspondence, and therefore is not the subject of error. It is insisted by the counsel of the plaintiffs that the second instruction withdrew the evidence of notice from the consideration of the jury.

We think not, and for two reasons. In the first place, it was the proper duty of the court to construe the correspondence, and that of itself was sufficient to justify the charge. But the charge must receive a reasonable interpretation. In effect, the jury were told that the evidence, if true, showed that the plaintiffs had notice of the custom of the defendants in regard to the filling of the orders. It did not withdraw the question as to the credibility of the witnesses from the consideration of the jury, and that was all that could properly be submitted to their determination. In view of all the circumstances, we think the exceptions must be overruled. The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed, with costs.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2006

 INDEX. Sergeant at Arnu and Doorkuper, Senate, appropriation for, assistants, messen- Palr6. gers, etc __________________ 579,1389 for police force, Senate Office Build- ing _______________________ 519, 1389 deficiency appropriation for services, custody of certain ballot boxes, etc., of Pennsylvania election, 1926________________________ 2 Sergeant at Arnu, Houa6 0/ Representatifle8, appropriation for, de]!uty, cashier, etc_522, 1392 for police foree, House Office Build- ing_______________________ 522,1392 deficiency appropriation for cashier, and messenger, additional pay______ 884 authorized to make proper deductions in disbursing gratuity appropri- ations_ _ __ ____ ______ __ __ ____ _ 885 Serunu, etc. (8ee a130 Biologic Products), appropriation for regulating propaga- tion, sales, etc., oL ________ 175,1040 Serunu lor Domestic Animals, appropriation for investigating, etc_ 547, 1197 for regulating sale, etc., 01- ___ ___ 547,1197 Service Medal8, Army (see Medals, Army Service). Sesquicentennial of Hawaiian Islands, deficiency appropriation for expenses of participation in celebration of_______________________ ____ 913 invitation authorized to Great Britain to participate in celebration of__ Settlement 01 War Claim8 Act, 1928, appropriation for legal, etc., services, protecting United States interests under ______________________ _ employment of experts _________ _ reimbursing regular appropriations_ pay restriction ________________ _ 247 1109 1109 1109 1109 for expenses for executing provisions of, in Office of Judge Advocate General, Army_______________ 1352 deficiency appropriation for payments under_______________________ 914 for expenses, under War Depart- ment _______________________ _ title of AcL _______________________ _ claims of Americans against Germany_ awards of Mixed Claims Commission to be certified by Secretary of State to Secretary of the Treas- 926 254 254 ury_________________________ 254 payment directed of principal of, with accrued interest__________ 254 interest annually of unpaid awards_ 254 all from German special deposit account______________________ 255 expenses deducted, and not con- sidered in computing award_ __ _ 255 to the United States not payable hereunder____________________ 255 time limit for making applications for__________________________ 255 payment authorized only to claim- ant_________________________ 255 to legal representative of deceased person_______________________ 255 to terminated partnership, etc_ __ 255 to duly appointed receiver Or trus- tee_________________________ _ to assignee of award __________ _ payment of, by United States, not construed as assumption of a liability ____________________ _ 255 255 255 SeUlement 01 War Claim. Act, 1918-Con. awards of Mixed Claims Commission, payment of by United States; rights held as assignment to United States to be enforced against Germany ____________ _ consen~i~fo:~Yt~=~ _TarmstroBot (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC) _~ TarmstroBot (talk) agreement with Germany requested to extend Claims Commission to July I, 1928_________________ _ awards under, to be certified, etc___ _ claims of Germans against United States ______________________ _ War Claims Arbiter to be appointed by the President, etc.; salary _____ _ to determine fair compensation to Germans for merchant vessels taken by United States_______ _ basis of value; prior payments de- ducted _____________________ _ findings of Board of Survey ac- cepted as evidence ___________ _ to determine value of radio sold to United States by Alien Prop- erty Custodian ______________ _ prior payments deducted_______ _ to determine compensation for pat- ents sold to United States by Custodian ___________________ _ prior payments deducted; excep- tion ________________________ _ to determine compensation for use by United States of patented in- ventionsconveyed by Custodian_ period during war not included; defenses available____________ _ procedure, hearings, etc____________ _ witness fees, etc., payable from Ger- man special deposit account___ _ Arbiter to make tentative awards from time to time, of fair compensa- tion for each claim; interest al- lowed ______________________ _ action by, on vessel claims failing to show that German Government, etc., has no interest therein ___ _ tentative award on determination of interest of German Govern- ment _______________________ _ only total amount to be awarded Dot to exceed $100.00 _________ ___ _ deduction of expenses by Arbiter, and prior payments__________ _ pro rata reduction of, if tentative awards exceed aggregate au- thorized ____________________ _ awards to be certified by Arbiter to Secretary of the Treasury_____ _ payment of, directed; interest on un- paid, claims_________________ _ from German special deposit 8C- count _______________________ _ no payment of, to German Govern- ment, etc ___________________ _ amount to be credited on final pay- ment by Germany on account of awards by Claims Commis- sion ________________________ _ time limited for making application for payment____________________ _ payments only to claimant direct __ _ to legal representative of deceased person ______________________ _ to terminated partnership, etc___ _ cc1v Pap. 255 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 258 258 258 258 258 258 258 258 258 258

�

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


text: Talk:Bliven v. New England Screw Company/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2007

 cclvi Sf1ttkmmtl 01 W /I,. CltJim. Act, 1918-Con. time liIDlted for makin, applications; payments to receiver or trustee, dulf appointed by a court_____ _ to assignee of an award _________ _ information, upon request of Arbiter, to be furnished from records, etc., of departments, Government tem=esdei;--oT-~iifciai8--io-r~ assignments from Department of Justice _____________________ _ Arbiter authorized to appoint and fix salaries of nec888ary pel'8Onnel, make expenditures, etc., within funds avaUable ______________ _ additional pay allowed persons de- tailed: travel and subsistence expenses allowed_____________ _ office of, etc., to cease when awards are certified to Secretary of the 1reasury____________________ _ records, equipment, etc., to be transferred to Treasury Depart- ment_______________________ _ restriction on making awards; if claim filed too late ________________ _ final judgment of compensation awarded against United States__ suits pending, and not dismissed by claimant____________________ _ sum of $50,000,000, authorized to be
 * tfe'__TarmstroBot (talk) _01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

additional after awards are certified_ aggregate limited to $100,000,000 __ _ provisions hereof the exclusive method for presenting and paying claims anslDg out of acts, etc., of United States______________________ _ consent to, by claimants, assumed by filing claim__________________ _ claims for vessels "Carl Diederich- sen" and "Johanne," not barred by _________________________ _ apportionment if aggregate of award is for two or more claims________ _ pro rata payments of tentative awards_ aggregate of, limited _____________ _ German special deposit account created; funds to be deposited in, and payments made from_________ _ deposits directed in; sums transferred by Alien Property Custodian __ _ awards to German nationals_____ _ money received on account of Mixed Claims Commission awards _____________________ _ payments from, directed in priority of order: administration ex- penses______________________ _ awards for death orinjury, by Com- mission _____________________ _ other Commi88ion awards not ex- ceeding $100,000_____________ _ amount of $100,000, on account of awards in excess thereof; limit to one pel'8OD.. _______________ _ additional, on awards equal to 80 per cent of all payments; basis of__________________________ _ installmen~ }5endin~ completion of work of U>mmiBBlon __________ _ tentative awards of Arbiter for Ger- man ships, etc_______________ _ INDEX. Pap. 258 258 259 259 259 259 259 259 259 259 259 259 259 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 261 261 261 261 261 Settlement 01 W/lr Claim. Act, 1918-Con. German special deposit account created; paymentsfrom, to Germans equal to 50~rcentof aggre~ateawards of Arbiter; funds av81lable ____ _ accrued interest on participating certificates_________________ _ accrued interest on unpaid awards_ repaying investments in partici- !:t~n:::~:01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)~:TarmstroBot (talk) difference between amounts of German claims, and prior pay- ments thereoL ______________ _ difference between total of Com- millsion awards and prior pay- ments thereoL ______________ _ apportionment of, if funds not available for total____________ _ reJ.>ay investment of unallocated Interest fund ________________ _ the Treasury, awards of Claims Commission to the United States the Treasury funds remaining after completion of authorized pay- ments ______________________ _ availability of 50 per cent of awards of Arbiter___________________ _ allowance for expenses from _______ _ investment of, in Federal securities; credit for interest, etc ________ _ deduction from award to an Ameri- can, of debt paid by Custodian which not credited by Claims COmml8810n _________________ _ Commissioner of Tripartite Claims Commission to certify to Secre- tary of 1reasury awards to Americans against Austria and lIungary____________________ _ payments authorized _____________ _ from Austrian or lIungarian special deposits ____________________ _ expenses to be deducted from; amount deposited in the Treas- ury ________________________ _ amounts awarded to the United States ______________________ _ time limit for making applications for _________________________ _ only to claimants: exceptions____ _ Arbiter to determine compensation for claims against United States by Austrians and Hungarians ____ _ patents sold, etc., to United States by Alien Property Custodian __ _ basis for compensation; prior pay- ments deducted______________ _ use by UIiited States of patented in- ventions, etc., conveyed by Cus- todian______________________ _ period excluded; defense available_ procedure, hearings, etc_____________ _ witness fees, etc., payable from special deposits accounts____________ _ Arbiter to make tentative awards to claimants of fair compensation including interest ____________ _ total amount limited _____________ _ expenses and prior payment de- ducted______________________ _ pro rata deduction if awards exceed totaL____________________ - -- - awards to be certified to Secretary of the Treasury ________________ _ p .... 261 261 261 261 261 261 261 262 262 262 262 262 262 262 262 262 262 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2008

 Settlement oj War Claim. Act, 19B5-Con. payment of awards with interest _____ _ only out of special deposit accounts __ time limit for makmg applications for_________________________ _ manner making__________________ _ direct to beneficiaries_____________ _ allocation of expenses from special de- posits______________________ _ if in first instance from German de- posit, to be reimbursed from Austrian and Hungarian______ _ amount authorized to be appropriated__ provisions hereof the exclusive method for presenting and paying claims arismg out of acts, etc., of United States______________________ _ consent of claimant to, assumed ___ _ apportionment, if aggregate of award is for two or more claims______ _ Austrian and Hungarian special de- posit accounts created; funds to be deposited in, and pay- ments made from ____________ _ deposits directed in; amount appro- priated for paying Austrian and Hungarian patent claims______ _ moneys, etc., of Austrian and Hun- garian Governments transferred by Custodian________________ _ money received for American claims against Austria or Hun- gary- payments fr<bn; administration ex- penses ______________________ _ awards of American claims_____ _ awards to Austrians and Hun- garians _____________________ _ no payments, etc., of awards against Austria, or to Austrians until certificate of Commissioner to Secretary of the Treasury _____ _ that special deposit is sufficient to pay American awards against Austria ______________ _ rate of exchange for conversion of interlocutory judgments, be fixed ________________________ _ no payment, etc., of awards against Hungary or to Hungarians until certificate of Commissioner to Secretary of the Treasury_____ _ that special deposit is sufficient to ftJng!:;01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC) _TarmstroBot (talk)r~_s__01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)~ rate of exchange for conversion of interlocutory judgments befixed_ administration expenses payable from special deposits ______________ _ investment of special deposits in Fed- eral securities________________ _ deduction from award to an American of debt paid by Custodian which was not credited by Commis- sioner_______________________ _ awards to United States to be paid into the Treasury____________ _ disposal of amounts remaining in the deposits ____________________ _ excess of appropriation over author- refut!laieTarmstroBot (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)de; ti; -A~;tria -o~ Hungary____________________ _ INDEX. cclvii Pap. 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 265 2M 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 365 365 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 267 267 SeUZement oj War Claim. Act, 19B5-Con. decision of Secretary of the Treasury in respect of special deposit funds ~t:e:::!_~_~:TarmstroBot (talk)_~:__: administration accounts excepted __ _ report of all expenditures to Congress_ reasonable fees for services to be fixed by Arbiter and Claims Commis- sioner_________________________ _ notice of, to be mailed applicants __ _ none fixed unless written request for, be filed _________________ _ punishment for accepting excess fees; amount of fine _______________ _ meaninlf of "attorney," extended to, at law or in fact" ___________ _ amendments to Trading with the En- emy Act ____________________ _ Alien Property Custodian to invest out of funds held, $40,000,000 in participating certificates ______ _ credit of amount of returned trusts temporarily retained _________ _ investment of excess ____________ _ payment from German special de- posit, if investment exceeds credited amount; priority of payments ___________________ _ investment by, out of unallocated interest fund, of $25,000,000 ___ _ additional, if amount allocated to trusts is in excess thereof. __ _ __ _ correction, if less _______________ _ balance remaining after invest- ments and payment of allocated earnings ____________________ _ if Interest fund remaining insufficient to pay allocated earnings, de- ficiency to be made up from German special deposit _______ _ to transfer all money, etc., owned by German Government, etc., to special deposit_______________ _ proper~, etc., considered as owned by German Government_____ _ amounts transferred credited to payment due from Germany for awards of Mixed Commission __ _ issue tO l of interest-bearing partici- pat ng certificates for awards temporarily postponed payment_ noninterest bearing certificates for other awards ________________ _ interest of, in funds of German special deposit_______________ _ no Federal liability for, payment of, except from special deposit funds_ transfers limited _______________ _ allocations of payments by, to persons consenting to receive 'SO per cent of award____________________ _ in case of death, etc____________ _ to deposit in special depositsl all money and property proceeas of Austrian or Hungarian Govern- ments, after payment of debts __ _ additional returns of property by Cus- todian directed ______________ _ to partnerships, etc., entirely owned WunTarmstroBot (talk)i!nstTarmstroBot (talk) _01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)__TarmstroBot (talk) partnerships, in business outside of Austria or Hungary __________ _ individual Germans ______________ _ 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 270 270 270 270

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2009

 cclviii 8eUlemmi 01 W Dr Claim& Ad, 191J8-Jon. additional returns of property by Cus- todian; to liquidators of Austro- Hungarian Bank_____________ _ persons consenting to receive 80 per cent, and having no suit against United States, etc____________ _ partnerships, etc., entirely owned by Austnans ___________________ _ partnerships, etc., with principal business in Austria___________ _ individual Austrians______________ _ partnerships, etc., entirely owned by Hun~-- partnerships, etc., with principal business in Hungary__________ _ individual Hungarians____________ _ property of decedents to legal repre- sentatives without filing consent to 20 per cent reduction _____ _ pending claims included________ _ security to be returned_________ _ to nationals of allies, on prior notice of claim being filed ___________ _ property of decedent, who would be entitled to return on filing re- duction consent, to legal repre- sentative filing consent _______ _ without requiring appointment of administrator________________ _ noaGdTarmstroBot (talk):_ ~_ i__~_ !l~ patents, trade marks, etc., conveyed to Custodian, and not disposed oL _________________________ _ if licensed, subject to license, etc_________________________ _ patents, etc., of Austrians and Hun- garians _____________________ _ royalties paid under decree of court; exception ___________________ _ no returns to Germans, etc., unless consent filed to postponement of return, amount equal to 20 per cent of value thereoL ________ _ amount to be deducted from money, proceeds of sales of property, etc.; restriction on sales _______________________ _ return of retained amount_______ _ provisions for sales of property___ _ written consent to retention not required, if value less than $2,000, and return to be made in fulL ______________________ _ to owner, or assignee, of securities, etc., rights to which, but not actual transfer conveyed to the Custodian ___________________ _ recognition of assignment, etc___ _ consent to 20 per cent temporary reduction required ___________ _ to Germans, Austrians, and Hun- garians, not to diminish prior rights ______________________ _ in trust, in name of successor in in- terest of claim, etc ___________ _ applicable to debts of successor __ _ retur~ by successor____________ _ limitation, if 20 per cent temporary reduction required ___________ _ to Austrians and Hungarians, subject to special deposits conditions __ _ new sections added to Trading with the Enemy Act _________________ _ INDEX. Pap. 270 270 2iO 270 270 270 270 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 272 272 272 272 272 272 272 272 272 272 273 273 273 273 273 273 273 273 Settlement 01 War Claim. Ad, 191J8-Con. Alien Property Custodian to allocate among the trusts the "unallo- cated intcrest fund" _______ : .. __ _ based on average rate of earnings pay~!~eTarmstroBot (talk)to persons-e;;tlt.led-by decision of a. court, etc________ _ to Germans, etc., to be credited against interest-bearing partici- pating certificates____________ _ distribution pro rata, of amounts repaid ______________________ _ unallocated interest fund available for expenses ____________________ _ amounts paid to Custodian by United Jtates for patents, etc., to be re- turned______________________ _ unallocated interest fund consists of ac- cumulation of earnings and profits of investments_________ _ Custodian may waive demand for money, etc., of enemy which would be returnable under this Act; conditions______________ _ approval of Attorney General ra- quired__ - ___________________ _ subject to consent for 20 per cent temporary reduction _________ _ may waive demand for property not previously vested in him ______ _ terms to be prescribed__________ _ approval of Attorney General re- quired______________________ _ not required to make waiver or com- promise, but may proceed for enforcement of demand_______ _ money, etc., received by, resulting from any action, considered as part of a. trust to be returned__ _ returnable money or other property sub- ject to attachments __________ _ writs to be served upon Custodian __ _ taking actual possession by court officer not authorized_________ _ meaning of term" member of the former ruling family" _______________ _ fugitives from justice not entitled to re- o turn of property under this Act_ income of property held in trust by Cus- todian to be paid to person enti- tled thereto _________________ _ income, etc., taxes on property held by Custodian, to be computed the same as if not seized, etc., by him ________________________ _ payment by Custodian ___________ _ return of amounts consistent with payment oC ________________ _ gains from sales, etc., of property by Custodian, may be segregated at option of taxpayer from net in- come _______________________ _ tax at rate of 30 per cent _________ _ determination of, as capital net gains_ sales, etc., by Custodian considered as involuntary conversions_______ _ application of laws, etc., relating to conversions __________________ _ date of conversion considered to be of return of proceeds to person en- titled_______________________ _ no penalty imposed on taxpayer while Jfi~:rTarmstroBot (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC) _~= _TarmstroBot (talk)t_o_d! _ Pa,p. 273 273 273 273 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276

�


text:
Minturn v. Larue

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

Minturn filed his bill against the defendants, claiming a right, under the authorities of the town of Oakland, to establish a ferry, exclusively, between the city of San Francisco and the city of Oakland. The bill prayed for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from running the steamboat San Antonio or any other steamboat or vessel between the two places. The defendants demurred to the bill, and the Circuit Court sustained the demurrer. The complainant appealed to this court.

The case was argued by Mr. Johnson for the appellant, and by Mr. Stanton for the appellees.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Minturn v. Larue


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2010

 Settlement a/War Claims Act, 1928-Con. sales, etc.; nor credit of interest on re- fltnd, etc____________________ _ benefits extended to taxpayer filing claim therefor, withm stated period______________________ _ suits for royalties on patents, etc., con- sidered as brought by owners, for period prior to sale by Cus- todian______________________ _ restriction on return to insurance com- panies repealed ______________ _ Arbiter to hear and determiBe compen- sation for vessels "Carl Diede- richsen" and "Johanne," taken by United States, and sold ____ _ limitation of compensation ________ _ ownership as Germans when taken, and now of other nation, to be sho~ ______________________ _ award to be certified to Secretary of the ~asury ________________ _ payment directed and appropria- tion for, authorized___________ _ time limit for making applications __ _ restriction on payees _____________ _ provisions hereof, exclusive method for presenting the claims ______ _ presenting of other claim as Ger- man nationals allowed ________ _ awards restricted _____________ - - definition of terms; "person" ______ - - "German national" ______________ _ "memberoftheformer ruling family" - " Austrian national" ____ - -- -- - -- -- "Hungarian national" ___________ - - "United States"_________ - __ _ _ salaries established, of legislative counsel Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury ________________ _ Seventeen Twenty-three F Street NW., D. C ., custody, etc., of War Department annex, transferred to office of Public Buildings, etc _________ _ Seventeenth Street NE., D. C ., appropriation for paving, etc., Newi:on to Otis Streets; from gasohne tax fund ____________________ _ fo'!' pavin~, etc., A to B Streets, from gasohne tax fund ____________ _ Seventeenth Street NW., D. C ., appropriation for paving, etc., Varnum to Webster Streets; from gaso- line tax fund ________________ _ for widening roadway, H to K Streets; replacing defective sewer Seventeenth Street SE., D. C ., appropriation for paving~ etc., Admiral Barney Circle to J!j Street; from gasoline tax fund____ - - - __ - --- Seventh Place NW., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Far- ragut to Gallatin Streets; from gasoline tax fund ____ - _____ __ _ Seventh Street,NW., appropriation for widening, etc., Massa- chusetts to New York Avenues __ for paving, etc., Rittenhouse to.Tuck- erman Streets; from gasoline tax fund _______________________ _ Seville, Spain, appropriation for expenses, Interna- tional Exposition at _________ _ deficiency appropriation for expe~lses, • participatmg in internatlOnal exposition at ______________ - -- INDEX. cclix Pa1l8. 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 279 279 888 1271 1272 653 655 654 653 655 1270 Seward, Ala8ka, Paae. issue of bonds by, authorized for public school building_ _ _ ___ _____ ____ 375 special election to determine, inter- est, etc.; payment, etc_ _ _ _ ____ 375 proc~ds to be used for no other pur- pose; sale of bonds___________ 376 Sewer Department, D. C ., appropriationforsa1aries _________ 647,1264 Sewers, D. C ., appropriation for cleaning and re- pairing ___________________ 658,1274 for motor trucks _______________ 658,1274 for pumping service ____________ 658,1274 for main and pipe______________ 658,1274 for Buburban __________________ 658,1274 for aB'Iessment and permit work; use of unexpended balance _____ 658, 1274 for ri.shts 01way_______________ 658,1274 for Stickfoot Branch storm-water, contsruction_ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ _____ 1274 for upper Potomac interceptor__ 658, 1274 for upper Anacostia interceptor ____ 658 deficiency appropriation for removal of, etc., incident to construction 34 of public buildings ___________ _ for upper Anacostiainterceptor; unex- pended balance reappropriated_ 1629 assessment rates for service, continued_ 11 Shafer, L. N., etc.] time extended tor bridging Rio Grande, near Tornillo, Tex., by ________ 765 Shallberg, G. A .• etc., may bridge Mississippi River, at Bet- tendorf, Iowa_ __ _ ____________ 759 time extendea for bridging Mississippi River t at Bettendorf, Iowa, by__ 1512 Sharp Point, F£a., bridge authorized across Santa Rosa SOund,near__________________ 752 Shawnee Indian Sanatorium, Okla., appropriation for maintenance, etc., of; X-rayequipment________ 221,1582 for repairs, improvements, etc______ 221 Shawnee Indians, Loyal, deficiency appropriation for payment of awards to, under treaty stipu- lations _____________________ _ amount allowed attorneys_______ _ beneficiaries required to relinquish all treaty claims. etc _________ _ sum authorized for paying award for 18 18 18 war losses of, under treaty of 1868________________________ 1550 allowance to attorneys____________ 1550 receipts required_ _ ___ _ _ __________ 1550 committee of Tribe to execute re- leases for .beneficiaries without legal representatives_ _ _ _ _ _ ____ 1550 Shawneetown, Ill., bridge authorized across Ohio River, aL 478 Sheep (see also Cattle), appropriation for eradicating scabies in________________________ 547,1196 for experiment station, Clark County, Idaho ____________________ 547,1197 for investigating problems in West- ern States________________ 547,1197 provisions for hUDlane treatment, etc'l of cattle for export, extendea to__________________________ 789 75 Sheep Growing Experiments, exchange of public land with Utah 8tatelandin Box Elder County, 913 for__________________________ 1188

�


text: Talk:Minturn v. Larue

title: Talk:Minturn v. Larue


text:
Minturn v. Larue/Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of California.

The bill was filed by the complainant in the court below to restrain the defendants from running a ferry between the city of San Francisco and the city of Oakland, on the opposite side of the bay, and which, it is claimed, is in violation of the exclusive privileges belonging to him under the authority of law. The authority, as set forth in the bill, is derived from the charter of the town (now city) of Oakland. The 3d section of the charter (passed May 4, 1852) provided that 'the board of trustees shall have power to make such by-laws and ordinances as they may deem proper and necessary;' among other things, 'to lay out, make, open, widen, regulate, and keep in repair, all streets, roads, bridges, ferries,' &c., 'wharves, docks, piers, slips,' &c.; 'and to authorize the construction of the same;' 'and with a view to facilitate the construction of wharves and other improvements, the lands lying within the limits aforesaid, (that is, of the corporation,) between high tide and ship channel, are hereby granted and released to said town.'

It is admitted, if the authorities of the town of Oakland possessed the power under the charter to grant an exclusive right of ferries between that place and the city of San Francisco, the complainant has become vested with it. The question in the case, therefore, is, whether or not the power was conferred by this 3d section of the charter.

It is a well-settled rule of construction of grants by the Legislature to corporations, whether public or private, that only such powers and rights can be exercised under them as are clearly comprehended within the words of the act or derived therefrom by necessary implication, regard being had to the objects of the grant. Any ambiguity or doubt arising out of the terms used by the Legislature must be resolved in favor of the public. This principle has been so often applied in the construction of corporate powers, that we need not stop to refer to authorities.

Now, looking at the terms of the grant in this case, and giving to them their widest meaning either separately or in the connection in which they are found, or with the object for which the power was conferred, we find, indeed, a power to establish and regulate ferries within the corporate limits of the town, but not an exclusive power. Full effect is given to the words in which the power is granted, when the simple right is conceded to establish and regulate ferries. If the grant had been made to an individual in the terms here used, the question would have been too plain for argument. In our judgment, it can have no wider interpretation, though made to a corporation. It must be remembered that this is not the case where the Crown or the Legislature has aliened to a municipal corporation its whole power to establish and regulate ferries within its limits, as may be found in some of the ancient charters of cities in England and in this country. In those cases, the municipal body, in respect to this legislative or public trust, represents the sovereign power, and may make grants of ferry rights in as ample a manner as the sovereign. The error, we think, in the argument for the appellant is, in confounding this grant with these ancient charters, or those of a like character. But on referring to them, it will be seen that the form of the grant is very different, much more particular and comprehensive, leaving no doubt as to the extent of the power. (25 Wend. R., 631, Costar v. Brush.) So here: if the Legislature had intended to confer their whole power upon this corporation to establish and regulate ferries within its limits, or a power to grant exclusive ferry rights therein, a very different form of grant would have been used-one that would have expressed the intent of the law maker to part with the exclusive power over the subject, and vest it in the grantee. In the form used, no such intent appears or can be reached, except by a very forced interpretation, which we are not at liberty to give, according to well-settled authority. (11 Pet., 422; 8 How., 569; Mills et al. v. St. Clair Co. et al., 16 ib., 524, 534; Fanning v. Gregoire.)

In Mills v. St. Clair Co., the court, speaking of a ferry grant, said that in a grant like this by the sovereign power, the rule of construction is, that if the meaning of the words be doubtful, they shall be taken most strongly against the grantee and for the Government, and therefore should not be extended by implication beyond the natural and obvious meaning of the words; and if these do not support the claim, it must fall. And again, in Fanning v. Gregoire, speaking on the same subject, the court say: The exclusive right set up must be clearly expressed or necessarily inferred, and the court think that neither the one nor the other is found in the grant to the plaintiff, nor in the circumstances connected with it.

As the town of Oakland had no power, according to the above construction of the charter, to establish an exclusive right of ferries within its limits, it follows that it did not possess the power to confer upon others an exclusive privilege to establish them.

The power conferred is to make (meaning to establish) and regulate ferries, or to authorize the construction (meaning the establishment) of the same.

We think the court below was right, and that the decree must be affirmed.

title: Minturn v. Larue/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2011

 cclx INDEX. SlIMp GrolDing Ezpmmenta-Continued. p .. .. exchange of public land, etc.; eXJl8ri- ments to be carried on by Utah Agrioultural Experiment Station_ 1189 8Mjfield, AlG., deficiency appropriation for public ShdbyCTarmstroBot (talk)jf--- 924 bridge aut~orized across Coosa River, between Talladega County and_ 288 SheUJy, N. C., terms of court at; rooms to be pro- vided________________________ 457 S~,Ky., deftciencl appropriation for public bUilding at___________________ 33 Shenandoah NatWn4l Park, Va., appropriation for administration and development of, by National Park Service______________ 236,1599 for topographio survey____________ 1594 defioiency appropriation for topographic survey, etc., of proposed_______ 903 minimum area established for, repealed_ 109 leases authorized to prior occupants of lands in______________________ 109 Shepherd Strut NE., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Twelfth to Thirteenth Streets; from gasoline tax fund_____________ 1271 Sherburne County, Minn., time extended for bridging Mississippi I River, at Clearwater by, etc_ 118, 1527 Sheridan Street NW., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Third to Fourth Streets; from gasoline tax fund________________________ 652 for paving, etc., Fifth to Ninth Streets; from gasoline tax fund..______ __ 652 Sherman Imtitute, River8ide, Calil., appropriation for Indian school at_ 217,1578 Shiloh National Military Park, appropriation for continuing establish- ment of__________________ 356, 1377 for extra pay to superintendent of, for care, etc., of Meriwether Lewis NatIonal Monument__________ 357 deficiency appropriation for additional land within boundaries ot._ _ __ _ 37 for acquiring land to connect, with Corinth National Cemetery, Miss________________________ 37 for school building and equipment_ _ 37 Ship Island Lighthouse, Miss., portion of reservation transferred to Ship Island Military Reserva- tion_________________________ 1556 Ship Island ;Jilitary Reservation, Mi8s., portion of Ship Island lighthouse reser- vation transferred to _ _ ________ 1556 appraisal and sale 0!t directed________ 1556 Ship, Steamboat, and way Letter8, appropriation for ________________ 190,1052 Shipping, load lines established for merchant ves- sels loading in United States for sea, except the Great Lakes____ 1492 American vessels loading at foreign ports, the Great Lakes excepted_ 1493 load water lines and marks of maximum loading depths to be established by regulations________________ 1493 not above line of safety; regulations to have force of law___________ 1493 Shipping-Continued. Paae. marking of load lines conspicuously dete::l:Ji-oTcorrect:::::::: ::: tTarmstroBot (talk) certificate from examiners approv- ing,etc______________________ 1493 copy to master; departure without loading as to submerge marked load lines or where load lines should be,unlawful__________________ 1493 exempt from this Act, vessels of for- eign country, complying with its laws relating to load lines______ 1493 not applicable, if the country does not similarly recognize these load lines________________________ 1494 position of load line :mark, etc., to be entered on log boOk before de- ~ing-- 1494 detention by collector of customs, of vessel about to depart believed to be loaded in violation here- of, etc________________________ 1494 examination and report by disinter- ested surveyors_______________ 1494 release, or detention until reloaded_ 1494 appeal to Secretary of Commerce by master, and further survey may be ordered, etc _______________ 1494 clearance refused to vessel detained. _ 1494 penalty for permitting departure with- out certified marking, etc______ 1494 foreign vessel to depart without load line marked as required by laws ofits country_______ __ _____ __ 1494 discretionary remission, etc., by the Secretary _______. . ______ _ 1494 failing to make required entry in log book before departing_________ 1494 dlscretionary remission, eto., by the Secretary________________ 1494 permitting vessel to depart, or owner, eto., failing to take care to pre- vent its departure with sub- merged load line, etc__________ 1494 applioation to foreign vessels_ ____ 1495 punishment for permitting, etc., de- tained vessel to depart________ 1495 ooncealing, obliterating, etc., marks on a veBSel__________________ 1495 liability of vessel when owner, etc., subjecttofineormoneypaymenL 1495 seizure and proceedings against, in district court_________________ 1495 Act effective in 18 months___________ 1495 Shipping Board, United States (8ee also Merchant Marine Act, 1928), appropriation for Commissioners_ _ _ 585, 1243 for secretary, technioal, and other personneL ________________ 585,1243 for aU otherexpenses___________ 585,1243 for inv€8tigating discriminations against American vessels and shipping-- 585,1243 for expenses Merchant Fleet Corpo- ration, from shipping fund __ 586,1244 sources of; amount on hand___ 586, 1244 specified amount, and unexpended balance for operating ships carry- ing coal to foreign ports, experi- ments in ship design, etc_______ 1244 direct appropriation_ __ ____ ___ ___ 586 from operatIOn of ships__________ 586 only ourrent claims payable from_ 586
 * TarmstroBot (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)__01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)~: 1493

�


text: Talk:Minturn v. Larue/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2012

 INDEX. cclxi Shi.pping Boo.rd, UniWlStatu-Con. Pap. appropriation for investigating trans- porting immigrants in Shipping Board vessels _____________ 585, 1243 estimates to include Fleet Corpora- tion employees assigned to the board ____________________ 585, 1243 printing and binding for ______ 585, 1243 receipts, other than l:l8les of ships and other rroperty 1244 from sales 0 ships, etc., limit for liquidation expenses, etc ____ 586,1244 no payment therefrom of claims for requisitioning of vessels________ 1244 interest earned on funds, except construction loan fund- __ _ _ _ 586, 1244 unexpended balance of special cl&ims appropriation continued available until June 30, 1929___ 586 balance of ~cial claims appropria- tion contmued available___ .. _ __ 1244 for operating ships taken back from purchasers' reappropriation; ap- proval of President required_ 586, 1244 employment of attorneys subject to approval of Attorney General_ 58?l 1244 pay restriction ______________ 586,1244 rent restriction in the District_ 586, 1245 amount authorized for paying at- torneys______________________ 1245 for reconditioning steamships" Mount Vernon" and "Monticello"____ 586 selling price limited_ _ _ __________ 586 deficiency appropriation for judgments, United States courts under_____ 40 for judgments in Federal courts against, under specialacts__. _ __ 40 for salaries and expenses_ ____ _ _ __ _ 41, 932 for judgments, Court of Claims under________ ____ __________ ___ 932 Merchant Marine Construction Fund, additional loans authorized_____ 889 restriction on sales of vessels__________ 690 remodeling and improving of United States vessels by__ ______ _____ _ 690 replacements by new vessels to be recommended by, to Congress__ 690 construction loan fund to be set aside__ 690 sources and uses oL_______________ 690 increase of, by $250,000,000, author- ued_________________________ 692 Shipping Commissioner8, aPEropriation for salaries__________ 90,1121 or clerk hire ___________________ 90, 1121 for contingent expenses __________ 90, 1121 Shipping Service, Department of Commerce, deficiency appropriation for contingent expenses_____________________ 1636 Ship8, American (8ee Vessels, American). Shipwrecked A merican Seamen, etc., appropriation for relief, etc., of, in Alaska,etc _________________ 68,1098 for life saving testimonials in rescu- ing, etc___________________ 69,1100 Shipwrecked Persons, appropriation for furnishing temporary relief to, by Coast Survey___ 97, 1127 Shivwits Indian Reservation, Utah, appropriation for irrigation project on _______________________ 209, 1572 Shooting GaUeries and Ranges, Army, appropriation for expenses_ _ _ _ ___ _ 335, 1358 deficiency appropriation for expenses__ 1619 Shoshone Agency, Wyo., Paae. appropriation for support, etc., of In- dians at_____________ 223,1571,1584 for support, etc.,of Indiana at; amount for hydro-electric plant, etc., im- mediatelyavailable_____________ 223 Sho8hone and Arapahoe Indians, W 110., per capita paymentto, from truBtfunds. 467 Shoshone and Paiute Indians'~:1 lands at Summit Lake, 1'Iev., Bet aside for_____________________ 160 Sho8hone Indian Reseruation, Wyo., deficiency appropriation for allotments to unallotted Indians on ____ 899,1641 allotments to unallotted living children on___________________________ .617 issue of trust patents for____________ 617 mineral deposits reserved to In- dians; leases authorized________ 617 sum authorized for surveys, etc_____ 617 time extended for completing mining entries on ceded lands of_______ 371 continuance of claima______________ 372 not applicable to coal, oil, and gas lands______ __________________ 372 restriction as to placer locations____ _ 372 Shoshone Indians, Northwestern Bands of, all claims of, against United States, under treaties, not heretofore ad- judicated, referred to Court of Claims _______________ - - - - - -- 1407 sho8e:1:Ji~!~CWy~.:--- 1407 appropriation for fulfilling treaty with _____________________ 222,1583 Shoshone·Irrigation Project, Wyo., appropriation for continuing drainage of divisions _______________ 230, 1592 balance for operating 'Frannie and Willwood divisions____________ 230 use of power revenues for commer- cialsystem________________ 230,1592 deficiency appropriation for continuing drainage system, Deaver irriga- tion district__________________ 1643 Shreveport, La., construction for Army Air Corps at, authorized___________________ 1304 acceptance of gift of site for aviation field_________________________ 1304 Shrubs, appropriation for study of diseases of ornamental _______________ 550,1200 Sia Indian Pueblo, N. Mex., deficiency appropriation for bridge across JeIj:lez River, at__________ 902 Siam, appropriation for minister to_______ 65, 1096 admission permitted of two subjects of, into Military Academy, for in- struction; conditions, etc_______ 737 Siege Cannon, Army, appropriation for purchase, manu- facture, etc__________________ _ for ammunition for________________ _ for ammunition, etc., for practice__ _ Sierra National Forest, Calif., deficiency appropriation for recon- 343 343 343 structing Wawona Road in_____ 904 Signal Corps, Army (see also Signal ServiCe, Army), appropriation for fortification). etc., sea- coast defenses, United .:states_ 336, 1359 insular possessions _ _ _ __ _ _____ 336, 1359 Panama. CanaL _____________ 336, 1360

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2013

 cclxii INDEX. Signal Corp8, Army-Continued. approprIation for expenses, Washing- ton-Alaska cable, etc., sys- tem ________ ~- _______ 357,1378 from reccipts thereoL ___________ 1379 deficiency appropriation for salaries, 1929, under__________________ 1689 for salaries, Washington-Alaska cable, etc., 1929 and 1930____________ 1691 Signal Officer, OjJice of Chief, Army, appropriation for civilian personnel, War Department. __ __ _ __ _ _ 326,1349 Signal Service, Army (6ee also Signal Corps, Army), appropriation for expenses, telegraph and telephonesystems______ 336,1360 electrical installations at posts, etc_______________________ 337, 1360 civilian employees, etc________ 337,1360 experimentalsignaling research_ 337,1360 buildings for supplies, etc_ _ ___ 337, 1360 deficiency appropriation for __________ 43,49, 1619, 1672, 1674 for aviation______________________ 936 balances of appropriations for, covered in___________________________ 365 Simmon8, Herman, jr., may bridlJ6 Tampa Bay, from Pinellas Pomt to Piney Point, Fla_ _ _ __ 405 Sioux and Pawnee Indiam, appropriation for monument on site of battle between, in Hitchcock County, ~ebr________________ 1587 monument authorized on site of battle between, fought in 1873, in Hitchcock County, Nebr_______ 939 Sioux City, Iowa, bridge authorized across Missouri FUver, at____________________ 1169 Sioux Fall8, S. Dak., deficiency appropriation for public building at___________________ 924 Sioux Indians, appropriation for day and industrial schoo~ ___________________ 22~ 1581 for site and monument, to commemo- rate battle of, with forces of Majors Reno and Benteen_____ 225 continuance of allowance of articles or commutation, to allottees in severalty_____________________ e84 one allowance to a person; applica- tion required_________________ 684 invcstigationl etc., authorized of claims of indlVidual members of, at des- ignated agencies, against tribal funds or the United'States_____ 484 regulations to be made_ _ _ _________ 485 nature of claims; adjustment, etc., of meritorious_ ___ ___ ________ _ 485 per capita payment to Pine FUdge, S. Dak., from tribal funds________ 747 Sioux Indiam, Different Trib68, Nebr., N. Dak., and S. Dak., appropriation for day and industrial schools ___________________ 220,1581 for fulfilling treaties with_ __ _ ___ 222, 1583 deficiency ap.{!ropriation for support and civilization, S. Dak________ 41 Sioux Nation, 47 deficiency appropriation for education_ Sirups, Table and Sweet, appropriation for investigating manu- facture of; utilizing new sources__________________ 556,1207 Siakiyou National FOT68t, Oreg., Page. appropriation authorized for improve- ments, etc., of Oregon Caves, in___________________________ 1407 Siatersville Ohio River Bridge Company. may bridge Ohio River, at Sistersville, W. Va______________________ 135 time extended for bridging Ohio FUver, at Sistersville, W. Va., by______ 1528 Si8ter8ville, W. Va., bridge authorized across Ohio River, at. 135 time extended for bridging Ohio River, at__________________________ 1528 Siuslaw Tribe of Indiam, Oreg., suit against United States for unceded lands, to be brought in Court of Claims_ _ _ __ ____ _____________ 1256 Si;c Natiom lndiam, N. Y., appropriation for fulfilling treaties with _____________________ 22~ 1587 Si;cteenth Street NW., D. C ., appropriation for pavin~, etc., Alaska Avenue to KalmIa Road; from gasoline tax fund_____________ 652 for paving, etc., Kalmia Road to District Line; from gasoline tax fund_ _ ______ ____ ____ __ __ _____ 1272 Si;cteenth Street SE., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., E to G Streets; from .&asoline tax fund_ 654 for paving, etc., U Street to Good Hope Road; from gasoline tax fund________________________ 654 for paving, etc., Good Hope Road to ~i:9~__TarmstroBot (talk)c_e!_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_ 654 Sixth Judicial Circuit, four circuit judges authorized for _ _ _ _ _ 492 Sixth Street NE., D. C ., appropriation for paving, etc., Franklin to Girard Streets; from gasoline tax fund__ __ _____ _ __ __ __ _____ 654 Sixth Street NW., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Whittier to Aspen Streets; from gasoline tax fund_____________________ 652 Sloven68, Serbs, CroatB, and, appropriation for minister to _______ 65,1096 Smack Point, Fla., bridge authorized aCross Garniers Bayou, between White Point, and_________________________ 1311 Small Arms Firing School, appropriation for ________________ 351,1373 Smallpax;, appropriation for prevention of epi- demic ____________________ 17 ~ 10 4 0 Smith, Maynard D., may bridge Saint Clair FUver, between . Port Huron, Mich., and Sarnia, Ontario, Canada______________ 1483 S"I'Iithland, Ky., . bridge authorized across Cumberland River, at __________________ 141,608 time extended for bridging Cumber- land FUver, at_______________ 1501 Smithsonian lmtitution, appropriation for administrative ex- penses ____________________ 583, 1241 an additional assistant secretary __ 583, 1241 for supplies and equipment, etc_ _ 583, 1241 for international exchanges______ 583, 1241 for American Ethnology ________ 583,1241

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2014

 INDEX. cclxiii Smithsonian I natitution-Continued. appropriation for International Cata- logue of Scientific Literature_ 584, 1241 for Astrophysical Observatory __ 584, 1242 for National Museum __________ 584, 1242 for National Gallery of Art_ _ _ _ _ 584, 1242 for printing and binding for __ ____ 584, 1242 deficiency appropriation for Natural History Building______________ 6 for American ethnology___________ 45,889 fC'r Astrophysical Observatory______ 1627 for salaries, 1929, under___________ 1676 Soil Brosion, appropriation for investigations to devise means of controlling de- structive__ ___________________ 1207 Soil Fertility, appropriation for investigations, etc_ 557, 1208 Soils Bureau (s" also Chemistry and Soils Bureau, Department of Agricul- ture), appointment as Regent, Charles Evanll Hughes_____________________ _ John Campbell Merriam__________ _ sums authorized for research of, and Mines Bureau. for determinillg improved methods of recovering potash from various potash 1 bearinl{ defositB- _ _ ______ _____ 1248 2 Soldiers and Sallors Home, D. C., Grand reappointment of Frederic A. Delano and Irwin B. Laughlin on Board of Regents_____________ 1146 cooperation authorized of Secretary of, with States, etc. in researches among American Indians_______ 413 amount authorized for expenses_____ 413 allowances to contributing States, etc__________________________ 414 Smokeless Powder, NallY, appropriation for purchase and manu- factureof _________________ 631,1459 Snake River, bridge authorized across, near Indian Cove, Idaho__________________ 111 near Swan Valley, Idaho___________ 111 construction legalized of bridge across, at Heyburn, Idaho____________ 286 at Idaho Falls____________________ 117 Snow and Ice, D. C., appropriation for removing, from streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc_ _ 6581 127'1 Soboba Indian Hospital, CaliJ., appropriation tor construction and equipment___________________ 221 for support, etc., of. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 1581 Soboda Indian Reservation, Calif., sum authorized for half the cost of bridge across San Jacinto River_ 1229 remainder from California or River- side County; maintenance by State or county______________ 1229 Sodium, Deposita oj, pr08pec;'fict_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_TarmstroBot (talk),__ 1019 exclusive for two years____________ 1019 maximum area included___________ 1019 leases to permittee of area, on dis- covery______________________ 1019 royalty on output; form of lands taken_______________________ 1019 lands containing known deposits to be leased by competitive bidding__ 1019 minimum royalty; advance rentals__ 1019 terms of leases; renewals__________ 1019 sales of sodium compounds under p0- tassium leases, not forbidden___ 1019 mining, etc., of potassium compounds as by-product of leases, allowed_ 1019 modification of present leases author- ued_________________________ 1019 Soil Bacteriology, appropriation for investigations, etc_ 557, 1208 for testing bacterial cultures for inOCUlating legumes ________ 557,1208 publishing tests; names of dealers in impure, etc _____________ 657,1208 54835°-29-Pl' 1-127 Army, appropriation for expenses ________ 676, 1293 ,sold,era Home, D. C., portion of land vacated from Michigan Avenue transferred to ·grounds of___________________________ 1543 US!) of part of grounds of, authorized for street uses; transfer to be made to Commissioners of the District_____________________ 1543 owners of designated lands to transfer them to_____________________ 1544 to receive portion of grounds of Home therefor_______________ 1544 Soldier's Medal, etc., Army, unauthorized wearing, etc., of, pro- hibited.i. . punishm!lnt for _- _ _ _ _ _ 437 Solicitor lor the rOBt OjJic6 Department, appropriation for, and office person- neL ______________________ 187,1049 Solicitor General, appropriation for _________________ 77,1107 for assistant to, in interstate com- merce matters________________ 78 Solicitor 01 the Department oj Commerce, appropriation for, and office person- neL _______________________ 77,1107 Solicitor oj the Department 01 Labor, appropriation for, and office person- neL ________________ . . _____ _ 7 7,1107 Solicitor 01 the Department 01 State, appropriation for _________________ 77, 1107 Solu:itor oj the Interior Department, appropriation for office personnel _ _ 201, 1563 deficiency appropriation for personal services____ ____ ___ ___ ________ 1610 Solicitor oj the Treasury Department, appropriation for, and office person- nel ________________________ 77, 1107 Somerset Hospital, Cape Town Africa, appropriatIOn for annu~ contribu- tion _______________________ 73,1104 Somerset Place NW., D. G ., appropriation for pavingl etc., Fifth to Eighth Streets; trom gasoline tax fund_____________________ 1270 Sonntag, Charles G., name placed on yellow fever honor roll and presented with gold medal__ 1409 to receive $125 monthly _____________ 1410 Soriano, Juan, deficiency appropriation for indemnity to Domimcan RepUblic for death of___________________________ 911 payment directed to Dominican Repub- lic, as indemnity for death of _ _ _ 488 Sound, appropriation for applying principles of, to military and lDdustrial purposes __________________ 93, 1123

�


text:
Castro v. Hendricks

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

It was a petition to the Circuit Court for a mandamus to Hendricks, commanding him to prepare a patent for some land in California; secondly, to cause said patent, when ready for the requisite signatures of the appropriate officers, to be presented to the recorder of the land office and the President of the United States, or other proper officers of the Government, for their respective signatures; thirdly, to deliver the patent so prepared and duly subscribed to the petitioner.

A rule was laid upon the Commissioner to show cause why a mandamus should not issue as prayed. On the 10th of June, 1858, he filed his answer and exhibits. Whereupon the court adjudged that the cause shown was sufficient, and dismissed the petition. The petitioner appealed to this court.

In 1839, there was a grant of land to Antonio Buelna, of the extent of four square leagues, a little more or less. In 1849, the widow of Buelna and her then husband sold to Castro one league of land in the location known by the name of San Gregorio, situated on the coast to the north of Santa Cruz, and which land, consisting of four leagues, was the property of Antonio Buelna.

In 1852, another deed was made for more definite boundaries, which contained certain courses and distances. Three leagues of this land were confirmed to the widow of Buelna, (then Madame Rodrigues,) and surveyed for her, giving her that quantity. About this there was no controversy.

Castro petitioned for his confirmation, and in January, 1856, the District Court decreed in his favor, referring to the description substantially the same as that contained in the second deed, above mentioned, adding these words: 'The tract hereby confirmed, containing by estimation one square league, and being the same land described in the conveyance to claimant, filed before said board, and constituting a part of the record in this cause.'

After the confirmation, a survey was made on behalf of the petitioner, under the authority of the surveyor general of California, who signed it on the 19th of November, 1857. Being approved by him, it was returned to the General Land Office.

The Commissioner examined the survey in connection with the grant to Buelna, the two deeds, and the decree of confirmation, and came to the conclusion that the lines of the survey ran out of the grant to Buelna into the Government land, and gave to Castro two leagues and a half more land than he ought to have, the surplus being taken from the lands of the United States.

On the 3d of February, 1858, the Commissioner signed, with a view to transmission, instructions to the surveyor general to the effect that he should cause a further and careful examination to be made in the whole matter, and report the result, with his decision as to the true boundaries of the league confirmed to Castro, and the three leagues to Madame Rodrigues.

The petitioner appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, who affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of the Land Office, who refused to issue a patent founded upon what he considered to be an erroneous survey.

In May, 1858, the petitioner applied to the Circuit Court for a mandamus, as before stated.

The case was argued in this court by Mr. Hepburn, upon a brief filed by himself and Mr. Brent, for the appellant, and by Mr. Black (Attorney General) for the appellee.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Castro v. Hendricks


text: Talk:Castro v. Hendricks

title: Talk:Castro v. Hendricks


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2015

 cclxiv INDEX. South Bend, I nd'J • Paae. appropriation lor public building_ _ _ ___ 1044 deficiency appropriation for public building at_ ___ ________ ____ ___ 924 terms of court at____________________ 438 South Capitol Street, D. C ., appropriation for paving, _ . Kto Canal Streets; from gllSoline tax fund________________________ 1272 South Carolina, advances authorized to farmers and fruit growers in storm and flood stricken areas of, to purchase seed, feed, and fertilizer for crop of 1929__________________ 1306 may bridge Savannah River, at Bur- tons Ferry _ _ _ _ _ _____________ 751 South Carolina Agricultural Ezperiment , Statio/l, appropriation for cooperative agricul- tural investigations with _ ___ 569, 1220 deficiency appropriation for coopera- tion with In developing dairying and livestock industries, etc____ 14 annual appropriations authorized for experiments by_______________ 56 South CarOlina Ecutern and Western Judicial Di,tricta, additional judge authorized for________ 1319 South Charleston, W. Va., appraisa.l and sale directed of property furnishing electricity to Navy ordnance plant at__ _ __ _ ______ 499 South Dakota, and Nebraska may bridge Missouri River, at Niobrara, Nebr______ 409 constructing of designatea highway by, the condition for setting apart Badlands National Monument__ 1555 lands granted to, for park purposes, within Custer State Park______ 501 may acquire, after completion, bridge across Missouri River, at Nio- brara} Nebr__________________ 708 South Dakota Avenue NE.} D. C., appropriation for pavmg, etc., Rhode Island Avenue to Twentieth Street; from gasoline tax fund__ 1271 use authorized of designated Govern- mentland for widening_________ 1341 South Dakota Judicial Di,trict, additional judge authorized for________ 1317 vacancy occurring in office of existing Judge.! .not to be filled_ _ _ _______ 1317 South Fork oj (Jumberland River, bridge authorized across, at Burnside, ]{y_________________________ 612 South McAle8ter, Okla., terms of court at____________________ 1518 South Park Commi,sioners, Chicago, !U., may bridge Michigan Canal, in Cnicago_ 1079 South Saint Paul, Minn., approp~ation for public building; cost Increased____________________ 1044 deficiency appropriation for public buildingat___________________ 924 Southbridge, Mcus., deficiency appropriation for public building at___________________ 33 Southern Cattle Ticks (866 Cattle Ticks, Southern.) Southern Field Crops, deficiency appropriation for investi- gating insects affecting________ 12 Southern Great Plains Area, 'Pap. appropriation for horticultural experi- ment, etc., work at Woodward, Okla________________________ 1201 Southern Na.vajo Indian General Hospital, Anz., appropriation for support, etc., of__ _ __ _ 1581 Southern Pacific Railroad Company, granted right of way for railroad pur- poses, across Benicia Arsenal Military Reservation, Calif_____ 1139 Southern Pacific Railway Company, deficiency appropriation for relocating railroad, by Coolidge Dam con- structionacross Gila River, Ariz_ 18 Southern Railway, D. C ., appropriation for purchase of square 256, offices oL________________ 182 Southern Relie/ Society, D. C., appropriation for aid to Confederate veterans, etc ______________ 676,1293 Southern Statu, appropriation for survey of salt marsh areas in, to control breeding of mosquitoes__ ____ __ ______ ____ _ 175 for cooperative experiments, etc., in livestock production, etc., in_ 567, 1218 Southern Ute Agency, Colo., appropriation for support, etc., of Indians at___________ 222,1571,1573 Southern Ute Indian Reservation, Colo., appropriation for irrigation project on _______________________ 210,1572 Southern Ute Indians, Colorado appropriation for purchase o/sheep for; from tribalfunds_____________ 209 for payment to, from tribal funds of Confederated Bands of Utes_ 224, 1586 from accrued interest_________ 224,1586 Spain, appro~riation for ambassador to____ 65,1096 Spain, War with, deficiency appropriation for pay, etc., of the Army __ 42,44,49,1619,1672,1674 Spanish Campaign Medal, gratuitous 188ue of, to persons entitled_ 500 Spanish Land Grants, N. Mez., exchanges authorized of lands in, for additions to specified national forests__ ____ __ __ ______ _______ 431 Spani8h War Service Medal, gratuitous issue of, to persons entitled_ 500 Spanish War Veterans, extended leave authorized in executive departments, etc., to attend annual convention in Habana, Cuba________________________ 433 annual leave provisions not modified, but accumulation permitted____ 434 Spartanburg, S. C ., appropriation for public building__ _ ___ 1044 deficiency appropriation for public building at_ _____ ___ ______ ____ 924 Speaker 0/ the Hou3e 0/ Representatives, aPEropriation for Secretary to_____ 520,1390 or parliamentarian _____________ 520,1390 for preparing Digest of the Rules_ 520, 1390 for assistant parliamentarian ____ 520,1390 for clerks and messengers _______ 520,1390 for maintenance, etc., of automobile for _________________. ___ __ 524, 1394 deficiency appropriation for additional ckrk________________________ 884 for automobile for_________________ 885 to serve on Commission for Enlarging Capitol Grounds______________ 420

�


text:
Castro v. Hendricks/Opinion of the Court

The appellant petitioned the Circuit Court for a writ of mandamus, to be directed to the Hon. Thomas A. Hendricks, Commissioner of the Land Office, commanding him to prepare and provide a patent to the appellant for a parcel of land in California, which had been confirmed to him by the decree of the District Court for the northern district of California, and is described in a survey approved by the surveyor general of that State.

It appears from the petition and answer, and the papers filed in the Circuit Court, and forming a part of the record, that in the year 1839 the Governor of California granted to Antonio Buelna a tract of land known as San Gregorio, of the extent of four square leagues, a little more or less, as is shown in the sketch attached to the expediente. In 1849, the representatives of Buelna (his widow and her husband) sold to the appellant one league of land in the location of San Gregorio; and in 1852 they executed a deed, conveying the same land, by the description of one league of land, in the place known by the name of San Gregorio, on the coast north of Santa Cruz, being part of a tract of land of four leagues, granted by the Government to Antonio Buelna, and the same is declared to be situate and bounded as follows, and containing one league, more or less: commencing at a stake marked A, in the Canada de los Tunis, where the Arroyo de los Tunis comes out of the mountains; thence running southerly with the ridge of the mountains to the stake marked B, in the Arroyo Hondo; thence following said Arroyo Hondo until it meets the Arroyo de San Gregorio; thence, following the Arroyo de San Gregorio, to a stake marked C on a white rock in the mountain, situate on the west side of said arroyo; thence northwardly, about two miles, to a high conical peak of the mountain, on which is placed stake marked D; thence easterly to the place of beginning.

Separate claims were presented by the widow of Buelna and Salvador Castro for their respective portions of the rancho San Gregorio, and separate decrees of confirmation were made in the District Court. The decree in favor of Madame Buelna is for three square leagues of the land within the boundaries described in the plan attached to the expediente, and referred to in the original grant, copies of which are on file in the cause. Salvador Castro was confirmed to the tract of land described in the deed by the metes and bounds before mentioned, with the addition, 'being portion of the four leagues granted April 16, 1839, by J. B. Alvarado to Antonio Buelna, and known as San Gregorio, the tract hereby confirmed containing, by estimate, one square league, and being the same land described in the conveyance to the claimant.' The two decrees were communicated to the surveyor general of California in 1857, and his returns are filed as testimony in the cause. He has laid off to Madame Buelna the three square leagues confirmed to her, and has surveyed for the appellant a tract within the specific calls of the deed and decree of fifteen thousand seven hundred and 54-100 acres. It is apparent, from this statement, that the surveyor general has entirely disregarded the limits of the rancho San Gregorio, and the restrictions as to quantity in the grant of Alvarado, Governor of California, of April, 1839. But these, for the object before the court, were the controlling calls in the deed, as well as in the decree. The primary object of the act, 'To ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California,' approved 3d March, 1851, was to distinguish the vacant and public lands from those that were private property; and for this purpose, an inquiry into pre-existing titles became necessary. To accomplish this, every person claiming lands in California, by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican Government, was required to present the same to a board of commissioners. The mesne conveyances were also required, but not for any aim of submitting their operation and validity to the board, but simply to enable the board to determine if there was a bona fide claimant before it under a Mexican grant; and so this court have repeatedly declared that the Government had no interest in the contests between persons claiming ex post facto the grant. United States v. Sutter, 21 How. S.C.. R., 170.

The authentic evidence of what is private property is to be found in the grants of the Government of California, and not in the mesne conveyances. Nor is this Government charged to decide between claimants in the condition of those interested in the rancho San Gregorio. It was entirely competent for the District Court to connect the claims arising under the same grant, and it will be its duty, in superintending the execution of the decrees of that court in such cases, to look to the evidence furnished by the grant itself as overruling in determining questions of boundary and location.

In the case of the United States v. Fossatt, 21 How., 445, this court had occasion to refer to the limits of the authority of the courts of the United States under the act of the 3d March, 1851, before cited. We stated in that case, that if questions of a judicial nature arose in the settlement of the location and boundary of the grants confirmed to individuals, the District Court was empowered to settle those questions upon a proper case being submitted to it before the issue of the patent; and in such a case, the judgment may properly extend to the confirmation of the survey, and an order for a patent to issue. But it was not the expectation of this court that the surveyor general should make returns to the District Court in every case, nor did they imply that the validity of a survey depended on the recognition of that court, or its incorporation into a decree of the court. The surveyor general of California was charged with the duty to cause all private claims which shall be finally confirmed to be accurately surveyed, and to furnish plats for the same; and in the location of the said claims, he was invested with such power and authority as are conferred on the register of the land office and receiver of the public moneys of Louisiana, in the sixth section of the 'Act to create the office of surveyor of the public lands for the State of Louisiana,' approved 3d March, 1831. 4 Statutes at Large, 492. Under this act, the surveyor general exercises a quasi judicial power; and the claimant, with an authentic certificate of the decree of confirmation, and a plat or survey of the land, duly certified and approved by the surveyor general, is entitled to a patent. But, then, the Commissioner of the Land Office, by virtue of enabling acts of Congress, exercises a supervision and control over the acts of the subordinate officers charged with making surveys; and it is his duty to see that the location and survey made by that officer under the decree of the court, and which has not had the final sanction of the judicial tribunals, is in accordance with the decree. The refusal of the Commissioner of the Land Office to issue a patent upon this survey was an appropriate exercise of the functions of his office, and the decree of the Circuit Court refusing a mandamus is affirmed with costs.