text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1430

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cu. 366. 1929 . 1379 be available until th e close o f the fis cal year 1931, fro m the rec eipts of the Washington-Alaska Military Cable and Telegraph System which have been covered into the Treasury of the United States, the extent of such extensions and betterments and the cost thereof to be reported to Congress by the Secretary of War, $171,930. MEDICAL DEPARTMENT Artificial limbs : For furnishing artificial limbs and apparatus, or commutation therefor, and necessary transportation, $75,000. Appliances for disabled soldiers : For furnishing surgical appli- ances to persons disabled in the military or naval service of the United States prior to April 6, 1917, or subsequent to July 1, 1921, and not entitled to artificial limbs or trusses for the same disabili- ties, $600. Trusses for disabled soldiers : For trusses for persons entitled thereto under section 1176, Revised Statutes of the United States, and the Act amendatory thereof, approved March 3, 1879 (U . S . C ., p . 1204, sets. 247-249), $300. CORPS OF ENGI NEERS From receipts. Med ical Depart - ment. Artificial limbs. Surgical appliances. Trusses. R. S., sec. 1176, p. 211. Vol. 20, p. 353. U. S. Code, p. 1204. Engineer Corps. BI RTH PLA CE OF GEOR GE WAS HIN GTO N, WAKEFIEL D, VIRGINIA Washington's birth. place. For maintenance, care, and improvement of reservation and monu- Car e of monu ment, etc. ment, $2,500. California Ddbris CALIFORNIA DEBRIS CO MMI SSI ON Commission. For defraying the expenses of the commission in carrying on the Vol. Expenses. 507 . work authorized by the Act approved March 1, 1893 (U . S . C ., p . U.S. Code, p. 1086. 1086, sec . 661), $15,340. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ROADS, BRI DGES, AND TRAILS, Alaska. ALASKA For the construction, repair, and maintenance of roads, tramways, et Ro a ds, bridges, trails ferries, bridges, and trails, Territory of Alaska, to be expended construction expens- es, etc., under r oad und er th e di recti on of the Boar d of Road Comm issio ners desc ribed commissioners. in section 2 of an Act entitled "An Act to provide for the construc- tion and maintenance of roads, the establishment and maintenance Vol . 34, p. 192. of schools, and the care and support of insane persons in the Dis- U.S. Code, p.1594. trict of Alaska, and for other purposes," approved January 27, 1905, as amended (U . S . C ., p. 1584, sees . 321-337), and to be expended conformably to the provisions of said Act as amended, president of board of $800,000, to be available immediately, and to include $1,000 corn- road commissioners. pensation to the president of the Board of Road Commissioners for Alaska, in addition to his regular pay and allowances. RIVERS AND HARBORS Rivers and harbors. To be immediately available and to be expended under the direc- able. Imediately avail- tion of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers For the preservation and maintenance of existing river and har- Preserving, con- structing, etc., ar- bor works, and for the prosecution of such projects heretofore thor ized proj ects. authorized as may be most desirable in the interests of commerce Boundary wa ter s, and navigation ; for survey of northern and northwestern lakes, etc., surveys. Lake of the Wo ods, and other bound ary and connecting w aters between the said lake and Lake Superior, Lake Champlain, and the natural navigable waters embraced in the navigation system of the New York cana ls, i nclu ding all n ecess ary expen ses f or p repar ing, correcting, extending, printing, binding, and issuing charts and bul- letins and of investigating lake levels with a view to their regula-

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1431

 1380 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 366. 1929. Examinations, sur - tion ; for examinations, surveys, and contingencies of rivers and veys, etc' harbo rs, provided that no funds shall be expe nded for any prelim- inary examination, survey, proje ct, or estima te not author ized by New York Har bor law ; and for the prevention of obstructive and injurious deposits deposits. within the harbor and adjacent waters of New York City, for pay of inspectors, deputy inspectors, crews, and office force, and for maintenance of patrol fleet and expenses of office, $50,000,000. Missouri River. For bank protection for the control of floods and the prevention Bank protection, etc ., of er osion of the Missouri River at and near the town of N iobrara at Niob rara ,Nebr. in the State of Nebraska, $85,000, said work to be carried on under the control and supervision of the Chief of Engineers of the War Loc al Proviso. interests to Department : Provided That the local interests shall contribute two- contribute. thirds of the cost of said work. Ban k pr otect ion, etc ., For bank protection for the control of floods and the prevention of at l ankton, s. Dak. ero sion of the M issouri River at and near t he town of Ya nkton in the State of South Dakota, $85,000, said work to be carried on under the control and super-vision of the Chief of Engineers of the War Proviso. L Loc al 30 interes ts to De par tmen t : Provi ded, That t he loca l inte rests s hall co ntribu te two- contribute thirds of the cost of said work. Arkansas River . That as a. contribution in aid from the United States, in view of Relocation ofleveeon the unprecedented conditions obtaining in Conway levee district bank of, in Conway b~ County, Ark. numbere d 1, Conway C ounty, Arkansa s, in the rec onstruction of the Ante, p. 537. levee along the left bank of the Arkansas River iii the said Conway levee district numbered 1, as provided under the terms of section 7 of the Flood Control Act, approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat ., p . 537), authority is hereby granted to the Secretary of War, upon the recommendation and approval of the Chief of Engineers, to relocate all or any part of said levee when in the opinion of the Chief of Proviso. Enginee rs such reloc ation shall be deemed pract ical and feasi ble . Exp ense limi ted. Provided, That the total expense occasioned to the United States by reason of the provisions of this paragraph shall not exceed $20,000. Inland Waterways INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION Corporation. Purchase of capital For the purchase of the capital stock of the Inland Waterways Ante, p. 978. Corporation, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled "An Act to Vol . 43, p. 360. amend the Act entitled `An Act to create the Inland Waterways Cor- u. S. Code, p.3685. poration for the purpose of carrying out the mandate and purpose of Congress, as expressed in sections 201 and 500 of the Transpor- tat ion Ac t, and for o ther purpos es,' " approved May 29, 1928 . Use of amounts. $10,000,000, to remain available until expended : Provided, That of of the amount herein appropriated $2,500,000 shall be available immedi- ately, and of the balance not more than $1,500,000 shall be withdrawn from the Treasury during the fiscal year 1930, not more than $3,000,000 during the fiscal year 1931, and not more than $3,000,000 during the fiscal year 1932. Con du it Roa d, D . C., That the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, under et survey, etc ., to Great the direction of the Secretary of War, is authorized and directed to Falls, id ., for widen- ing road, etc. make an examination and survey of the Conduit Road from the District of Columbia li ne to Great F alls, Marylan d, of Cabin Jo hn Bridge, and of land contiguous to that part of such road and to such bridge, for the purpose of making recommendations for improving and widening that part of such road and such bridge, and, upon the Report with rocom- completion of such examination and survey, to report to Congress rneu datio n. the results thereof, together with estimates of the probable cost of carrying out such recommendations, and together also with recom- mendations as to the amount, if any, which justly should be advanced therefor by the Governm ent of the Un ited States. The re is he reb y appropriated the sum of $3,000 to carry out the provisions of this paragraph.

�

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


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1432

 SEVE NTIET H C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 366. 1929 . MUSCLE SHOALS For operating, maintaining, and keeping in repair the works at Dam Numbered 2, Tennessee River, including the hydroelectrical development, $270,000, to remain available until June 30, 1930, and to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers. FLO OD CONTROL Flood c ontrol, Miss issipp i Rive r and tributa ries : For pros ecut ing work of flood control in accordance with the provisions of the Flood Control Act, approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat., p . 534), $30,000,000. Emer gency fund for floo d con trol on t ribut aries of Missi ssipp i River : For rescue work and for repair or maintenance of any flood- control work on any tributaries of the Mississippi River threatened or destroyed by flood, in accordance with section 7 of Flood Control Act, approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat., p . 534), $800,000. Flood control, Sacramento River, California : For prosecuting work of flood control in accordance with the provisions of the Flood Control Act approved March 1, 1917 (U . S . C., p . 1090, sec . 703), as modified by the Flood Control Act approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat., p . 534), $1,000,000. Return of funds contributed for flood control, Sacramento River, California : For return to the State of California of funds contrib- uted by the State for flood control in the Sacramento River, under the provisions of section 2 of the Flood Control Act approved March 1, 1917 (U. S . C ., p . 1090, sec . 703), as authorized by section 13 of the Flood Control A ct approve d May 15, 1928 (45 Stat., p. 534) , $4 ,370, 000 . ORDNA NCE D EPART MENT Upon th e fili ng wit h the Comptr oller General of th e Unit ed Sta tes of evidence establishing to his satisfaction that John W. Stockett has been released by the other party thereto of all claims and demands whatsoever under a certain agreement dated April 11, 1927, and expressly released of the obligation as therein stipulated for the payment of 40 per centum of the amount involved for assistance and expenses in securing compensation from the United States, the sum of $50,000 is hereby appropriated for the payment as herein- after speci fied i n full settl ement of all claims and d emands whats o- ever arising out of the use by the United States of the Stockett prim ing devic e and /or the S tocke tt br eech mech anism on guns, and thereupon there shall be paid under this appropriation the sum of $45,000 to the said John W. Stockett, and the sum of $5,000 shall be paid to and retained by the other party to said agreement as com- pensation for his services : Provided, That if the evidence of release aforesaid is not filed with the Comptroller General of the United States upon his request within the time specified by him this appro- priation shall lapse and revert back to the Treasury and be as if no appropriation had been made. For the relief of the following States as a reimbursement or con- tribution in aid from the United States, induced by the extraordinary conditions of necessity and emergency resulting from the unusually seriou s financi al loss t o such St ates thro ugh the d amage to or destru c- tion of roads and bridges by the floods of 1927, imposing a public charge against the property of said States beyond their reasonable capacity to bear, and without acknowledgement of any liability on the part of the United States in connection with the restoration of such local improvements, namely : Mis so uri, $2 58 ,4 18 ; Mississippi, Operating, etc ., works at Dam No.2, Tennessee River. Flood control. Mi ssi ssi ppi River, et c. Ante, p. 534. Emergency fund for tributaries. Ante, p. 537. Sac ramen to R iver. Vol.39,p.949. U.S. Code, p. 1090. Ante, p. 539. Return to California of funds contributed for flood control. Vol.39,p.948. U.S. Code, p. 1090. Ante, p. 539 . Ordnance Depart. ment. John W. Stockett. Payment for Govern- ment use of gun inven. tion of. Pr oei so. Condition . Relief of States for lo ss of r oads and bridges by floods of 1927. States specified. 1381 Muscle Shoals.

�


text: Parker v. Kane

title: Parker v. Kane


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1433

 1382 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cii. 366. 1929 . Proviso. Restorati on of roads and bridges on ap- proval of Secretary of Agriculture. Equal expen ditu re by the State, required. If mo re exp ens ive type used, appropria- tion not to defray in- creased cost. National H ome for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers. Sup port. Day ton, Ohio. Cur rent expe nses. Pro vis o. Rec ei pts fr om de- ceased members. Subs isten ce. Household. Hospital. $628,000 ; Louisiana, $967,582 ; Arkansas, $1,800,000 ; in all, $3,654,000, to be available immediately and to remain available until expended Provided, That such portion of the sums hereby appropriated as will be available for future construction shall be expended by the State highway departments of the respective States with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture for the restoration, including reloca- tion, of roads and bridges so damaged or destroyed, in such manner as to give the largest measure of permanent relief, under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture : Pro- vided further, That any sum hereby appropriated for any State shall become available when the State shall have actually expended or shall have made available for expenditure a like sum from State funds for the purposes contained herein : Provided further, That where any roads or bridges shall be or shall have been constructed of a more expensive type than those which were damaged or destroyed, the appropriation contained herein shall not be used to defray any part of the increase in cost occasioned thereby. NATIONAL HOME FOR DISABLED VOLUNTEER SOLDIERS For support of the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Sol- dier s, as f ollows Central Branch, Dayton, Ohio : Current expenses : For pay of offi- cers and noncommissioned officers of the home, with such exceptions as are hereinafter noted, and their clerks, weighmasters, and order- lies ; chaplains, religious instruction, and entertainment for the mem- bers of the home, printers, bookbinders, librarians, musicians, tele- graph and telephone operators, guards, janitors, watchmen, fire com- pany, and property and materials purchased for their use, including repairs ; articles of amusement, library books, magazines, papers, pic- ture, m usical instru ments, and rep airs not done by the home ; s ta - tionery, advertising, legal advice, payments due heirs of deceased members : Provided, That all receipts on account of the effects of de- ceased members during the fiscal year shall also be available for such payments ; and for such other expenditures as can not properly be included under other heads of expenditures, $104,500 ; Subsistence : For pay of commissary sergeants, commissary clerks, porters, laborers, bakers, cooks, dishwashers, waiters, and others employed in the subsistence department ; food supplies purchased for the subsistence of the members of the home and civilian em- ployees regularly employed and residing at the branch, freight, preparation, and serving ; aprons, caps, and jackets for kitchen and dining-room employees ; tobacco ; dining-room and kitchen furniture and utensils ; bakers' and butchers' tools and appliances, and their repair not done by the home, $492,500 ; Household : For furniture for officers' quarters ; bedsteads, bedding, bedding material, and all other articles, including repairs, required in the quarters of the members and of civilian employees permanently employed and residing at the branch ; fuel ; water ; engineers and firemen, bathhouse keepers, janitors, laundry employees, and for all labor, materials, and appliances required for household use, and repairs, if not repaired by the home, $228,000 ; Hospital : For pay of medical officers and assistant surgeons, matrons, druggists, hospital clerks and stewards, ward masters, nurses, cooks, waiters, readers, drivers, funeral escort, janitors, and for such other services as may be necessary for the care of the sick ; bur ial of t he dea d ; surgi cal instrument s and applian ces, medical books, medici ne, li quors, fruits, and o ther ne cessari es for the si ck not purchased under subsistence ; bedsteads, bedding and all other spe- cial articles necessary for the wards ; hospital furniture, including

�


text: Talk:Parker v. Kane

title: Talk:Parker v. Kane


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1434

 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 366 . 1929 . 1383 special articles and appliances for hospital kitchen and dining room carriage, hearse, stretchers, coffins ; and for all repairs to hospital fur niture and ap pliances not done by the ho me, $500,000 ; Transportation. Tr ans por tat ion : For transportation of members of the home, $1,000 ; epirs : For pay of chief engineer, builders, blacksmiths, carpen- ters, painters, gas fitters, electrical workers, plumbers, tinsmiths, steam fitters, stone and brick masons, and laborers, and for all appli- ances and materials used under this head ; and repairs of roads and other improvements of a permanent character, $103,000 : Provided, That no part of the appropriation for repairs for any of the branch homes shall be used for the construction of any new building ; Fa rm Farm : For pay of farmer, chief gardener, harness makers, farm hands, gardeners, horseshoers, stablemen, teamsters, dairymen, herd- ers, and laborer s ; tools, appli ances, and ma terials requi red for farm, garden, and dairy work ; grain and grain products, hay, straw, fertilizers, seed, carriages, wagons, carts, and other conveyances ; animals purchased for stock or work (including animals in the park) ; gasoline ; materials, tools, and labor for flower garden, lawn, park, and cemetery ; and construction of roads and walks, and repairs not done by the home, $37,000 ; In all, Central Branch, $1,466,000. Speci fied expe nses at For " Current expenses," " Subsistence," " Household," " Hospital," branches. " Transportation," " Re pair s," and " Farm," at the following branches, including the same objects respectively specified he rein under each of such heads for the Central Branch, namely : Milwaukee, Wis. Northwestern Branch, Milwaukee, Wisconsin : Current expenses, $84,000 ; Subsistence, $314,000 ; Household, $165,500 ; Hospital, $440,000 ; Transportation, $500 ; Repairs, $73,000 ; Farm, $22,000 ; In all, Northwestern Branch, $1,099,000. Eastern Branch, Togus, Maine : Current expenses, $73,000 ; Togus, Me . Subsistence, $135,500 ; Household, $117,500 ; Ho spit al, $112 ,000 ; Transportation, $500 ; Repairs, $44,000 ; Farm, $31,000 ; In all, Eastern Branch, $513,500 ; Southern Branch, Hampton, Virginia : Current expenses, $82,000 ; Hampton,Va . Subsistence, $286,000 ; Household, $141,000 ; Hospital, $252,000 ; Tr ansp orta tion, $1 ,000 ; Repairs, $67,000 ; Farm, $24,000 ; In all, Southern Branch, $853,000 ; Western Branch, Leavenworth, Kansas : Current expenses, $89,100 ; Leavenworth, Kans. Subsistence, $286,000 ; House hold, $168,00 0 ; Hospital, $220,000 ; Transportation, $500 ; Repairs, $82,700 ; Farm, $30,000 ; In all, Western Branch, $876,300. Proviso. New buildings for. bidden.

�


text:
Parker v. Kane/Opinion of the Court

THIS was a writ of error to the District Court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin.

The plaintiff in error commenced an action of ejectment to recover an undivided moiety of land in Milwaukee county, included in the fractional section twenty-one, in township seven north, of range twenty-two east. This fractional quarter contains one hundred and twenty-nine acres, and lies east of Milwaukee river. It is subdivided into three lots. The northern portion is called lot number one. The southern half of the quarter is divided into the east half of the south half of the quarter, which is also designated as lot number six, and the southwest quarter of the northeast fractional quarter of the section. A patent for this land issued to William E. Dunbar, in August, 1837, by the description of lot number one, and the south half of the northeast quarter of section twenty-one, in township seven north, of range twenty-two east, in the district of land subject to sale at Green Bay. It appears from the case that Richard Montague was equally interested with Dunbar in the entry of this parcel of land at the land office; and in the spring of 1836, Dunbar executed to him a deed for the undivided half of the fractional quarter, which he did not place on the records of the county. Subsequently, under a contract between Dunbar and Montague, the interest of the latter was reduced to one-fourth of the fractional quarter, and thereupon Montague surrendered his first deed, and received one in December, 1837, for one equal undivided fourth part of the following described parcel or tract of land, viz: lots one (1) and six, (6,) being that part of the northeast quarter lying east of the Milwaukee river, in section number twenty-one, in township number seven (7) north, of range twenty-two (22) east of the fourth principal meridian, in Milwaukee county. This undivided interest was claimed through mesne conveyances by the plaintiff in this suit, and it became a question whether, upon a construction of this deed, a fourth part of the entire fractional quarter passed, or only a fourth part of the parcels, lots one and six.

The plaintiff, in addition to the right of Montague, also acquired a title to a fourth part of the fractional quarter, from assigns of Dunbar; so that his title to an undivided moiety of lots one and six, and to an undivided fourth part of the remainder of the fractional quarter, being the southwest quarter of the fraction, was not disputed. After the death of Dunbar, the undivided half of the entire fraction, and an additional fourth of the southwest quarter of the traction, vested in persons with whom the defendant was connected. The only controversy at this stage of the transaction was for the one-fourth part of the southwest quarter of the section, arising out of the ambiguous description in the deed of Dunbar to Montague, and the sale by the guardian of the children of Dunbar of the fourth part which was claimed by Montague and his assigns in that portion of the fraction. In 1850, the claimants of three-eighths of the parcels one and six, filed a bill in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee county for a partition against the known and unknown owners of the remaining interests, the plaintiff in this suit being made a party. Publication was made of the proceeding, and the owners appeared to the bill. The plaintiff, Parker, answered, claiming to have one-half. In June, 1851, an order of the court describes the interest of the respective parties, and that of the plaintiff (Parker) is recognised. On the same day, a report of the clerk, that the greater part of the land was so situated as to be susceptible of division, but that the water power on the Milwaukee river could not be divided, and that ten acres, or whatever was necessary to the water power, should be sold, was submitted to the court. This report was made pursuant to an order of the court previously made. Three commissioners were appointed to make the partition. The proceedings were continued until April, 1854, when the commissioners made their report. In this report, thirty-seven and four hundred and ninety-seven thousandths acres were allotted by metes and bounds to the plaintiff, 'the same being, quality and quantity relatively considered, one full equal one-half part of the said lands, except the portion set apart to be sold in connection of the water power on and appurtenant to the land. There were two and thirty-six hundredths acres in this parcel. This report was confirmed in April, 1854; and the several parcels vested in the several allottees, to be had, held, and enjoyed, by them and their heirs. In May, 1854, the plaintiff, upon affidavits filed, moved to set aside the order of confirmation:

1. Because the commissioners appointed herein have not designated the several shares and portions of the different parties, by posts, stones, or other permanent monument.

2. Because their report does not describe the lands divided and the shares allotted with sufficient certainty.

3. Because said commissioners have not divided the real estate in their report mentioned, allotting to the respective parties herein the several portions, quality and quantity respectively considered, according to the respective rights and interest of the parties, as adjudged and decreed by this court, but that said division is manifestly unfair, and against the rights of the defendant.

4. Because, by said division, this defendant does not receive, either in quantity, quality, or value, one-half of the lands divided by said commissioners, but receives less than one-half of said land.

The adverse parties also filed affidavits. The surveyor was required to remove the first objection by placing the monuments prescribed by the statute; and in January, 1855, the report was again ratified and confirmed, and the partition decreed to be valid. From this decree an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, and that court affirmed the decree, and remanded the cause, with directions to establish posts and monuments according to the partition made.

The parties who filed the bill for partition of the lots one and six, filed another bill for the partition of the southwest quarter of the fractional quarter section. To this bill, the plaintiff, Parker, was also made a party, and filed an answer. This suit has not been brought to a conclusion. But about the time of filing his answers in the two cases, the plaintiff himself filed a bill disclosing the circumstances in which Montague had become interested in the entire fractional quarter; the surrender of his first deed, and the execution of the second; the ambiguous description of the property in that second deed, and the justice of his claim to an interest in the fourth part of the entire quarter under it. He insisted that he had a good title, either in law or in equity, to this fourth part. To this bill the heirs and representatives of Dunbar were parties, as well as the purchasers of the three-fourths part of that parcel of the quarter section.

The prayer of the bill was, that the heirs and purchasers of the estate of the heirs might be compelled to convey an undivided fourth of that quarter to him, and, if necessary, that the deed of Dunbar to Montague and the mesne conveyances might be corrected according to the right of the parties. But in case that the claimants had a good title, then that he might have a decree for the money paid by them to the representatives of Dunbar. He prayed that the partition suit be connected with his suit, and that they might be heard together.

The several defendants answered the bill, and upon a hearing in the Circuit Court it was dismissed. In the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, an appeal from the claim of the plaintiff to relief against one of the purchasers who had failed to plead the statute of limitations, and had notice, was recognised; also his claim to the money paid to the heirs of Dunbar for the undivided fourth of the land in dispute. The decree of the Circuit Court was affirmed as to those who had pleaded the bona fides of their purchase and the act of limitations.

The suit in the District Court of the United States proceeds upon the assumption that the plaintiff is not concluded by either of these decrees. That the partition made of lots one and six was illegal, because the formalities prescribed by the statute were not complied with. That the purchasers at the sale of the estate of the minor heirs of Dunbar acquired no title from that sale, because the heirs were not represented in the proceedings by a guardian, and were minors. But if they acquired any title, they took it subject to the rights and claims of the plaintiff, and those under whom he claims, whether such purchasers at the guardian's sale had notice or not. The plaintiff contended that, upon a fair construction of the lost deed to Montague, an interest equal to one-fourth of the fraction passed; but if that were not the case, that he was entitled to hold under the deed executed by Dunbar, in 1836, to Montague. That the destruction of this deed did not defeat the title of Montague under it, or revest the title in Dunbar. Appropriate prayers for instructions were made and refused in the District Court, and exceptions were duly taken. The jury were instructed that the plaintiff, Parker, was a party to the partition suit in Milwaukee county, and that the decree in that suit was conclusive, and that the decree in the case of Parker v. Kane and others, in equity, bound this suit to the extent of that decree.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

It was argued in this court by Mr. Gittings and Mr. Machen for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Brown for the defendant.

The brief filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error was very voluminous. The argument upon one point only can be given.

6. The bill in equity prosecuted by the plaintiff against Tweedy, Kane, Montague, and others, furnishes no bar to this suit. That was a bill to obtain a reformation of the second deed from Dunbar to Montague, and of the deed from Montague to Fisk, in order that those deeds should so describe the land as to relieve the case from further controversy.

The plaintiff filed that bill in the Milwaukee Circuit Court, January 10th, 1851, against the heirs of Dunbar and their guardian, and the purchasers, Kane, Brown, and Tweedy, and against Montague, to have certain mistakes in the deeds corrected. The bill set forth the agreement in 1835 between Dunbar and Montague, that Montague should furnish money to purchase the quarter section, and that they should own the land together as tenants in common. That Montague did advance the money, and Dunbar did purchase the land. It set forth deed of 1836, conveying one-half of the land, the sale by Montague of one-fourth to Dunbar, the agreement to deliver up the deed of 1836, and to take a deed of one-fourth of the tract described in it; that Dunbar executed what was understood and intended to be a deed of one-fourth of all said land; that, in drawing this deed, there was a mistake in not inserting and conveying an undivided fourth of said southwest quarter, of said northeast quarter, and, if an undivided one-fourth of said southwest quarter of said northeast quarter did not pass by that deed to Montague, he had by virtue of said prior deed the legal title thereto, and, by virtue of such subsequent agreement, the equitable title thereto, when said last deed was delivered and recorded. The bill then set out the conveyance by Montague to Chapin, in 1838, of one-sixteenth, by a warranty deed, and by a description which embraced the whole quarter section, and a conveyance by Chapin to the plaintiff of that one-sixteenth, May 18, 1841.

It then set forth, that Montague, October 27, 1842, conveyed to Fisk three-sixteenths of lots one and six, (giving the same description as is given in Dunbar's last deed to Montague;) that Fisk purchased, and Montague intended to convey, and it was understood between them that the deed did convey, three-sixteenths of the whole quarter; and that if it did not, there was a mistake in the deed.

It then set out a conveyance through the heirs of Fisk to plaintiff, of all their right and interest, and thereupon averred that the plaintiff had the title, either legal or equitable, to one undivided fourth part of the west half of the southwest quarter of said northeast quarter, under and by virtue of the conveyances aforesaid, and of the agreements therein set forth.

The bill then set forth the death of Dunbar in 1846; that the guardian of his infant heirs had sold to C. J. Kane an undivided fourth of said west half, being the precise fourth which the plaintiff claimed; and that Kane bid it off, and conveyed to Tweedy, Brown, and Becman. It alleged notice to them, &c., and prayed that Montague and the heirs and purchasers under Dunbar might be compelled to convey one-fourth part of the southwest quarter to the plaintiff, and if necessary, that the deeds, Dunbar to Montague, and Montague to Fisk, might be corrected so as to conform to the understanding, intention, and agreement, between the parties; and he prayed for all general and equitable relief in the premises.

But a small part of the answers is material to the present question. Montague admitted the statements of the bill, and set forth, that since the commencement of the suit, he had executed a quit-claim deed to the plaintiff.

Tweedy made a statement of facts, from which it appeared that he had notice. Kane denied notice, and, alleging that the mistake, if any, in the deed Dunbar to Montague, was made more than ten years before the suit, claimed the benefit of the statute of limitations. Waldo (made a defendant on the death of Becman) did the same.

Upon a hearing, the Circuit Court entered a decree, which it was not competent for the court to make, because the matter in question was only, whether the plaintiff was entitled to have the deed of 1837 corrected. Even supposing that the deed does, as the plaintiff contends, in fact, convey one full quarter of the section, it does not convey it in the terms which should have been used. The description of the premises should have been precisely like that in the first deed, except the substitution of one-fourth part for one-half, and then there would have been no further controversy. The plaintiff, in his bill, sedulously excluded any admission that he had not a legal title. He alleged that he was remediless at law respecting the subject matter of the bill, to wit: respecting the mistake. The plaintiff never proposed to try his legal title in a bill in equity, and no attempt was made to sustain the bill on that title.

There was no claim set up under the deed of 1836 as an instrument of conveyance; but it was referred to, to show the equity. The decree filed in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee is a legal curiosity, the credit for which is perhaps due to the defendant's counsel. The plaintiff brought his bill to have a mistake in a deed from Dunbar to Montague corrected. The decree assumes, in the first place, to find that certain of the defendants are bona fide purchasers without notice of the plaintiff's equities, and therefore it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that a deed from Dunbar to Montague, the description of which, by the way, does not agree with any deed in the case, is held and declared to be inoperative and ineffectual to affect the rights of said defendants, as such purchasers; then that those defendants, as such purchasers, have acquired a good and perfect title as against the complainant; and not only so, but against all others claiming or to claim by, through, or under said deed, to the land in dispute; and then the decree undertakes to settle and establish the proportions in which the defendants own the land as between themselves.

Why it did not proceed to order that the plaintiff, and all others claiming or to claim anything against the defendants, should deliver up their deeds to be concelled, and be forever estopped to prosecute any other suit, does not distinctly appear. That might, it is submitted, have been ordered with equal propriety. In the conclusion, it does the only thing it was proper for the court to do, if the suit was not maintained; that is, it dismisses the plaintiff's bill.

In determining the effect of the suit, the court and decree will look to the whole record, and not merely to what the counsel have caused to be filed as a decree.

Bainbrigge v. Baddeley, 2 Phill. Ch., 710.

Guert v. Warren, 9 Ex. Ch., (W. H. and Good.,) 379; Hob., 53.

The insertion in a decree of matter which ought not to be there, cannot affect the right of a party entitled.

Holland v. Cruft, 3 Gray, 187.

See Mondel v. Steel, 8 M. and W., 858, 872.

In fact, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin understood the bill to be for a reformation of the deed only. In the opinion, it is said, 'the cause, or matter of complaint, to relieve him from which the complainant filed his bill in this cause, originated in a mistake committed in the descriptive part of a deed executed on the 18th day of December, 1837,' &c.; and then it is said that the cause for such a bill had occurred and was complete upon the delivery of the defective deed.

The decree of the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the court below as to Kane, Waldo, and Brown, and reversed it as to all the rest, by which the court doubtless meant to affirm the decree so far only as it determined the matters in issue. Brown had disclaimed, and his disclaimer was not controverted. Kane and Waldo had insisted upon the statute of limitations of ten years, applicable to remedies for mistakes; and the decree of the court below and the court above gave them the benefit of it. A decree was entered against Tweedy, because he had not pleaded the statute.

The plaintiff submits therefore that the plaintiff's equitable title to have relief, on account of the mistake in the second deed, Dunbar to Montague, and the deed, Montague to Fisk, were the only matters in issue in that suit; and that he failed to sustain his suit against Kane and Waldo, only upon the ground, that that remedy was barred by the statute. This furnishes no bar to any other remedy which he seeks, and no decree which the court could enter would bar the present suit.

Bainbrigge v. Baddeley, 2 Ph. Ch., 705.

Mason's Ex'rs. v. Alston, 5 Seld., 28.

Callander v. Dittrich, 4 Scott N. R., 682.

Kelsey v. Murphey, 26 Penn., 78.

Buttrick v. Holden, 8 Cush., 233.

Pleasants v. Clements, 2 Leigh, 474.

Hotchkiss v. Nichols, 3 Day, 138.

McNamara v. Arthur, 2 Ball and Beat., 353.

Lessee of Wright v. Deklyne, Pet. C. C., 198, 202.

Upon this point, the argument of Mr. Brown was as follows:

Point Third. A bill for the partition of the southwest forty acres was also filed, in which Kane and Parker were parties.

For the purpose of enabling the court properly to adjudicate upon the interests of the parties, and of establishing his rights to the ten acres in question in this ejectment suit, Parker filed his bill in chancery, in the nature of a cross-bill, setting forth, substantially, the same facts upon which he here seeks to recover.

To this bill, Kane and others filed answers; and a decree was entered, confirming the title of Kane, under the deed of the guardian, and also disaffirming every right of Parker under the alleged deed from Dunbar.

From this decree, the plaintiff in this suit (Parker) appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin; and by them the decree of the court below was affirmed as to Kane, and the whole matter was thereby disposed of.

Parker v. Kane et al., 4 Wisconsin, 1.

The whole matter thereby became res adjudicata, and no court can collaterally set aside those decrees.

Gould v. Stanton, 16 Conn. Rep., 12.

Wendell v. Lewis, 6 Paige Ch. Rep.

Woodruff v. Cook, 2 Edw. Ch. Rep., 259.

Bank of the U.S. v. Beverly, 1 Howard Rep., 134.

Hopkins v. Lee, 6 Wheaton, 109.

Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 3 How. Rep., 413.

Kerr v. Watts, 6 Wheaton, 550.

Outrom v. Morehead, 3 East. Rep., 346.

Eastman v. Laws, 5 Bing. N. C., 450.

Manchester Mills, Douglas, 222.

And this court has, in cases where adjudications have been made by inferior tribunals, recognised the necessity of leaving titles undisturbed.

Grignon, Lessee, v. Astor, 2 Howard, 319.

See, also, United States v. Booth, 21 Howard, 506.

Haskell v. Rowe, 1 McCord Ch., p. 22.

Kennedy v. Meredith, 1 Monroe, 409.

Campbell v. Price, 3 Munford, 227.

White v. Atkinson, 2 Call., 376.

Dodd v. Astor, 3 Barbour Ch. Rep., 395.

Schurman v. Weatherton, 1 East., 541.

Downer v. Cross, 2 Wisconsin, 371.

Cole v. Clark, 3 Wisconsin, 329.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff sued in ejectment to recover certain parcels of land included in the northeast fractional quarter of section twenty-one, in township seven north, of range twenty-two east, in the district of lands subject to sale at Green Bay, and are situated in the city of Milwaukee.

The fractional quarter is subdivided into three lots. Lot number one is north of a line running east and west, that bisects the quarter section; lot number six corresponds to the southeast quarter of the quarter section; and the third lot is a tract of forty acres, and is known as the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of the section, township, and range, above mentioned.

A patent issued to William E. Dunbar for this fractional quarter, in 1837, from the United States, in which the land is described as 'the lot number one, and south half of the northeast quarter of section twenty-one, in township number seven north, of range twenty-two east, of the district of lands,' &c. In the same year, Dunbar and wife conveyed to Richard Montague 'one equal undivided fourth part of the following described parcel or tract of land, viz: Lots one (1) and six, (6,) being that part of the northeast quarter lying east of the Milwaukee river, in section number twenty-one, in township number seven (7) north, of range twenty-two east,' &c.

The plaintiff, upon the trial of the cause in the District Court, connected himself with this deed (which was duly recorded) by legal conveyances. Besides the title under this deed, he exhibited a title from Dunbar and wife to an undivided fourth of the whole fraction; all of which lies east of Milwaukee river. That the plaintiff had at one time a title to an undivided half of lots one and six, was not disputed; but his claim to an undivided fourth of the southwest quarter of the fraction, under the deed of Dunbar to Montague, was a matter of controversy.

The defendant connected himself with the patent of Dunbar, by showing a sale by the administrator of his estate, under the authority of the Court of Probate of Milwaukee, of an undivided one-half of the entire fractional quarter patented to him, and a sale and conveyance by the guardian of the heirs of Dunbar of an undivided fourth part of the southwest quarter of the fraction, under a decree of the Circuit Court of Milwaukee, sitting in chancery, and a purchase by persons under whom he claims.

The defendant, to repel the claim of the plaintiff to any interest in the land possessed by him in lots numbers one and six, produced the record of proceedings and decrees in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee county, in chancery, for the partition of those lots among the plaintiff and his co-tenants, with the latter of whom the defendant is a privy in estate. This record shows that a petition was made by the co-tenants of the plaintiff for a partition of these lots, according to their rights and interests. The plaintiff was made a party, appeared and answered, and there was a decretal order for a partition Commissioners were appointed to divide the lots, who made a report to the court that appointed them. That the plaintiff made objections to the proceedings, was overruled, and afterwards appealed to the Supreme Court. That the Supreme Court revised the proceedings of the Circuit Court, and affirmed its decree in the most important particulars, and gave some directions, which, being fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Circuit Court, a final order of confirmation, and to vest the title in the parties to their several allotments, was made.

The plaintiff objects to these proceedings:

1. That there was no authority to make a several partition between the complainants. 2. There was no authority to make a partition, subjecting the land set off as his share to an easement. 3. There was no authority to make a partition by a plat, without the establishment of permanent monuments. 4. There was no reference to a proper person to inquire into the situation of the premises, after the decree settling the rights of the parties. 5. The commissioners had no power to set apart and designate any portion of the land for sale, as they undertook to do. 6. The court did not ascertain and distinctly declare whether any part or what part should be sold; but its language was hypothetical and uncertain. All the subsequent proceedings must fall, for want of the foundation of such a decree. 7. It does not appear that all the commissioners met together, in the performance of their several duties, as required by the statute.

The statutes of Wisconsin provide for the partition of estates held in common, by a bill in equity, filed in the Circuit Court of the county in which the land is, and for a sale of the premises when a partition would be prejudicial to the owners. The court upon the hearing may determine and declare the rights, titles, and interests, of the parties to the proceedings, and order a partition. It may appoint commissioners to execute the decree, who are required to make an ample report of their proceedings to the court, in which it can be confirmed or set aside. When a partition is completed, the court may enter a decree; and thereupon the partition is declared to be 'firm and effectual forever,' and 'to bind and conclude' all the parties named therein.

The decrees are subject to the revising power of the Supreme Court. In reference to the objections made by the plaintiff, it is sufficient to say that some of them were made in the courts of Wisconsin without effect, and all might have been urged there at a proper stage in the proceedings. Kane v. Parker, 4 Wis., 123.

That it sufficiently appears that the subject was within the jurisdiction of those courts, and the proper parties were before them; and this court, conformably to their established doctrine, acknowledge the validity and binding operation of these orders and decrees, and determine that this court cannot inquire whether errors or irregularities exist in them in this collateral action. Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet., 157; Grignon v. Astor, 2 How., 319; Beauregard v. New Orleans, 18 How., 497.

At the time that the partition of lots numbers one and six was sought for, a petition was filed in the same court by the same parties for a partition of the southwest quarter of the fractional quarter section described in Dunbar's patent. The plaintiff had an acknowledged interest in that parcel, independently of his claim under Montague, and was made a party to that suit.

In his answer to the petition he refers to this claim under Montague, and the mesne conveyances that connect him with the deed of Dunbar to Montague. He stated, that, it being uncertain whether that deed of Dunbar would be sustained as sufficient by the court to convey a legal title to a fourth part of that parcel, he designed to file a bill in equity, for the purpose of having his title ascertained, and to have his conveyances reformed, if need be, so that his claim under that deed could be established and confirmed. In the same month he filed in the same court a bill in equity against the heirs of Dunbar and their guardian, and the purchasers under the decrees, obtained by the administrator and guardian, for the sale of the parcels in the fractional quarter described in Dunbar's patent.

He charges in this bill that Montague was equally interested with Dunbar, at the date of his entry in the land office, in the entire fraction, and furnished the money for the purpose of making it; that Dunbar gave to Montague a deed for one-half, according to the description in the certificate of purchase from the register of the land office. That by a subsequent contract his interest was reduced to one-fourth. That his first deed not being recorded, he surrendered it to Dunbar, who destroyed it. That the deed for the fourth part was made to fulfil the agreement for title to a fourth of the whole fraction; and that Dunbar represented this deed to be sufficient, and during his life acknowledged that it was sufficient, and that Montague was a joint and equal owner with him.

He avers that these facts constitute him the owner of one-fourth of the entire fraction, either at law or in equity. He refers to the sales of a larger interest than they really owned, by the heirs of Dunbar, through their guardian, and to the pendency of the suits of partition. He prays that the court will require the defendants in the bill to release their title to the interest embraced in his claim, and that his conveyances may be reformed, if need be, to express his legal and equitable rights; but if the court should decide that the guardian of the children of Dunbar had conveyed a good and valid title as against him, he prayed for a personal decree for the proceeds of his sale. He also prayed that this suit might be heard with the partition suit of the claimants under Dunbar's administrator and the guardian of his children, and for all general and equitable relief.

The purchasers asserted in their answers the superiority of their legal and equitable title, and pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers, and all, except one, also pleaded the statute of limitations. The guardian answered, that he had made the sale in good faith, under a valid decree, and under the belief that his wards were entitled to the estate.

The Circuit Court, upon the pleadings and proofs, dismissed the bill of the plaintiff, and declared in the decree that the defendants had a valid title as bona fide purchasers, not affected by the registered deed from Dunbar to Montague.

From this decree the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. That court affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court as to all the purchasers, except one. They say the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under the first deed of Dunbar to Montague, which had been destroyed; for, admitting that the destruction of the deed did not disturb the title, nevertheless, in view of the statute of frauds, and the rule of evidence that statute established, a grantee in a deed, who had voluntarily, and without fraud or mistake, destroyed his deed, could not establish his title. One of the purchasers, who had notice of the plaintiff's claim, and had failed to plead the statute of limitations, was decreed to release his title to the plaintiff, and the guardian was required to account to him for the price he had received. Parker v. Kane, 4 Wis., 1. The defendant is a privy in estate with the successful litigants in this cause, and relies upon the decree as a bar.

We have seen that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Milwaukee, under the statute of Wisconsin, in matters of partition, extends to the ascertainment and determination of the rights of the parties in matters of partition, and that its decree is final and effectual for their adjustment. That court is also clothed with power, at the suit of a person having a legal title and possession, to call any claimant before it, to quiet a disputed title. Rev. Stat. Wis., 573, sec. 20; 417, sec. 34.

The bill seems to have been framed on the distinct and declared purpose of obtaining from the courts of Wisconsin an authoritative declaration of the legal as well as equitable rights of these parties under their conflicting titles, with a view to the partition of the entire fractional quarter section, suits for which were then pending; and the prayer of the bill, that if the conveyance of the guardian 'passed a good and valid title against the plaintiff,' that then he might be indemnified by a decree for the proceeds of the sale in the hands of the guardian, submitted the legal as well as the equitable relations of the parties, under their respective titles, to the judgment of the court.

The reversal of the decree of the Circuit Court by the Supreme Court, and their decision that the guardian should account for the proceeds of the sale in his hands, is a direct response to this prayer, and implies that the recorded deed of Dunbar to Montague did not convey a legal title to this fraction. We question whether the voluntary dismissal of the bill, as to Martineau, the guardian, subsequently to its return in the Circuit Court, will qualify this decree, or limit its effect as res judicata of the legal right. 30 Miss. R., 66; 2 Free Ch. R., 158; 9 Simon R., 411; Eng. Orders in Ch., 1845, n. 117.

In Great Britain, a Chancellor might have considered this as a case in which to take the opinion of a court of law, or to stay proceedings in the partition and cross-suits until an action of law had been tried, to determine the legal title. Rochester v. Lee, 1 McN. and G., 467; Clapp v. Bronagham, 9 Cow., 530. But such a proceeding could not be expected in a State where the powers of the courts of law and equity are exercised by the same persons. The parties to this ejectment and the suit in chancery court of Wisconsin are the same, or are privies in estate. The same parcel of land is the subject of controversy, and the object of the suit, if not identical, is closely related.

The object of the bill in chancery, as we have seen, was to obtain from the court a decision upon the legal and equitable titles of the plaintiff, with the immediate view to a partition. If the decision had been made in his favor, it is true that a change of possession would not have taken place, as an immediate consequence, but it would have conclusively established the right of the plaintiff, either in an action of ejectment or upon a writ of right.

The object of the suit of the plaintiff in chancery was to obtain a recognition of the sufficiency of his deeds, as entitling him to the land, or to supply their defects, or to afford him indemnity, by subjecting the price that his adversaries had paid for the land to a tortious vendor having the legal title.

The object of the ejectment suit is to recover the land by means of the title disclosed in the deeds. A portion of the judges find in the two suits eandem causam petendi, and that the decrees of the Circuit and Supreme Courts of Wisconsin embraced the decision of the same questions, and are conclusive of this controversy. Bank of U.S. v. Beverly, 1 How., 135. But if the plaintiff is not concluded by the proceedings of the courts of Wisconsin, the question arises, whether his legal title will support his claim to the interest in the southwest quarter of the fraction.

The first deed from Dunbar to Montague was destroyed before the second was made, and in never was placed upon record. The decree of the courts of Wisconsin shows that the purchasers of the guardian were bona fide purchasers without notice. That deed is therefore inoperative, under the statutes of Wisconsin in relation to the registry of deeds. Territorial Statutes of Wisconsin, 179, sec. 10; Rev. Stat. of Wis., 329, 350, secs. 24, 34, 35.

We agree with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, that the recorded deed from Dunbar to Montague did not convey any part of the fractional quarter, except that contained in lots numbers one and six. Lot number one is a subdivision of the fractional quarter section, and is designated in the plat of survey, as well as in the patent. Lot number six is referred to in the pleadings and proofs as a known and recognised parcel, corresponding with an official subdivision; and, upon referring to the official surveys in the General Land Office, we find that it is, as we had supposed it from the evidence in the record to be, noted there. The deed of Dunbar designates these subdivisions as the corpus of his conveyance; and, as a further description, adds, 'being that part of the northeast quarter lying east of the Milwaukee river.'

These lots lie east of the Milwaukee river, but there is within the fractional quarter a tract equally distinct, and marked as lots numbers one and six, and this fact has occasioned this controversy. The description of the property conveyed as lots numbers one and six of the fractional quarter is a complete identification of the land, having reference to the official surveys of the United States, according to which their sales are made. The more general and less definite description cannot control this; but whatever is inconsistent with it will be rejected, unless there is something in the deed, or the local situation of the property, or of the possession enjoyed, to modify the application of this rule. It cannot be controlled by the declarations of the parties, or by proof of the regotiations or agreements on which the deed was executed. Hall v. Combes, Cro. Eliz., 368; Jackson v. Moore, 6 Cow., 706; Drew v. Drew, 8 Foster, 489; 4 Cruise Dig., 292; 35 N. H. R., 121; 5 Metcalf, 15.

Upon the whole case, we are of opinion there is no error in the record injurious to the plaintiff, and that the judgment of the District Court must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD dissented.

title: Parker v. Kane/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Parker v. Kane/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1435

 1384 SEV ENTIE TH C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 366. 1929 . Santa Monica, Calif. Paci fic Bran ch, Sant a Mo nica , Ca lifo rnia : Current expenses, $93,000 ; Subsistence, $509,000 ; Household, $167,000 ; Hospital, $535,000 ; Transpor tation, $1,000 ; Repairs, $82,000 ; Far m, $38,000 ; In all, Pacific Branch, $1,425,000. Marion, Ind. Marion Branch, Marion, Indi ana : Current expense s, $71,4 00 ; Subsistence, $271,000 ; Household, $111,000 ; Hospital, $394,000 ; Transpor tation, $1,000 ; Repairs, $63,000 ; Far m, $23,000 ; In all, Marion Branch, $934,400. Danville, Tll. Danville Branch, Danville, Illinois : Current expenses, $82,600 ; Subsistence, $252,000 ; Household, $138,500 ; Hospital, $162,000 ; Transportation, $500 ; Repairs, $60,000 ; Farm, $20,000 ; In all, Danville Branch, $715,600. Johnson City. Mountain Branch, Johnson City, Tennessee : Current expenses, $84,000 ; Subsistence, $291,000 ; Household, $104,000 ; Ho spital, $311,000 ; Transportation, $500 ; Repairs, $60,500 ; Farm, $35,000 ; In all, Mountain Branch, $886,000. Hot Springs, S. Dak. Battle Mo unta in S anit ariu m, Hot S prin gs, Sout h Da kota : Cur- rent expenses, $60,000 ; Subsistence, $124,000 ; Household, $83,300 ; Hos pital, $ 180,000 ; Transportation, $500 ; Repairs, $26,000 ; Farm, $8,500 ; In all, Ba ttle Mou ntain Sa nitarium, $482,3 00. propriations. Interchangeable ap- When approved by the Board of Managers, 10 per centum of each of the foregoing amounts for the support of the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers shall be available interchangeably for expenditure on the objects named, but the total for each home shall not be increased by more than 10 per centum. Clothing, all For clothing for all branches ; labor, materials, machines, tools, branches. and ap plian ces e mploye d and for use in the tailo r shop s and shoe shops or other home shops in which any kind of clothing is made or repaired, $187,000. Board of Managers . Board of Managers : President, $4,000 ; secretary, $500 ; general Salaries and expenses. treasurer, who shall not be a member of the Board of Managers, $7,000 ; chief surgeon, $6,000 ; assistant general treasurer, $5 .000 ; i nsp ect or gen era l, $5, 000 ; clerical service s for th e office s of the president, general treasurer, chief surgeon, and inspector general, $22,320 ; clerical services for managers, $2,700 ; traveling expenses of the Board of Managers, their officers and employees, including officers of branch homes when detailed on inspection work, $14,000 ;

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1436

 SEVENTIET H C O NGR ESS. SESS. II. CH. 366. 1929 . outside relief, $100 ; legal services, medical examinations, stationery, telegrams, and other incidental expenses, $1,700 ; in all, $68,320. Total, National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, $9,506,420. State and Territorial homes for disabled soldiers and sailors : For continuing aid to State or Territorial homes for the support of dis- abled volunteer soldiers, in conformity with the Act approved August 27, 1888 (U . S . C ., p . 677, sec . 134), as amended, including all classes of soldiers admissible to the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, $560,000 : Provided, That for any sum or sums collected in any manne r from inmates of such Stat e or Territor ial homes to b e used for the support of said homes a like amount shall be deducted from the aid herein provided for, but this proviso shall not apply to any State or Territorial home into which the wives or widows of s oldi ers are admi tted and mai ntai ned. THE PANA MA CA NAL 1385 Sta te or Territorial homes. Continuing aid to. Vol . 25, p. 450. U.S . Code, p . 677. Proviso. Collections from mates. Pana ma Canal. in- Limitations not ap- plicable to appropria- tions for. All expenses. Objects specified. Claims for da mages. Acquisition of land. Disposal of un service. able material, etc. Traveling expenses, etc. The limitations on the expenditure of appropriations hereinbefore made in this Act shall not apply to the appropriations for the Panama Canal. For every expenditure requisite for and incident to the mainte- nance and operation, sanitation, and civil government of the Panama Canal and Canal Zone, including the following : Compensation of all officials and employees ; foreign and domestic newspapers and period- icals ; law books not exceeding $500 ; textbooks and books of reference ; printing and binding, including printing of annual report ; rent and personal services in the District of Columbia ; purcha se or exchange of typewriting, adding, and other machines, purchase or exchange, maintenance, repair, and operation of motor-propelled and horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles ; claims for damages to vessels passin g through the locks of the Panama Canal, as author- ized by the Panama Canal Act ; claims for losses of or damages to property arising from the conduct of authorized business operations claims for damages to property arising from the maintenance and operation, sanitation, and civil government of the Panama Canal ; acquisition of land and land under water, as authorized in the Pan am a Ca na l Ac t ; expenses inc urred in asse mbling, assor ting, storing, repairing, and selling material, machinery, and equipment heretofore or hereafter purchased or acquired for the construction of the Panama Canal which are unserviceable or no longer needed, to be reimbursed from the proceeds of such sales ; expenses incident to conductin g hearings an d examining e stimates for a ppropriations on the Isthmus ; expenses incident to any emergency arising because of calamity by flood, fire, pestilence, or like character not foreseen or otherwise provided for herein ; traveling expenses, when prescribed by the Governor of the Panama Canal to persons engaged in field work or traveling on official business ; and for such other expenses not in the United States as the Governor of the Panama Canal may deem necessary best to promote the maintenance and operation, sani- tation, and civil government of the Panama Canal, all to be expended under the direction of the Governor of the Panama Canal and accounted for as follows For maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal : Salary of Main tenan ce, etc. the governor, $10,000 ; purchase, inspection, delivery, handling, and et Purchase of supplies, storing of materials, supplies, and equipment for issue to all depart- ments of the Panama Canal, the Panama Railroad, other branches of Payment to alien the United States Government, and for authorized sales, payment in cripples. lump sums of not exceeding the amounts authorized by the Injury u.ls3cde, p. 81. Compensation Act approved September 7, 1916 (U. S . C ., p . 81, sec . 793), to alien cripples who are now a charge upon the Panama

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1437

 1386 Dam across Chagres River at Alhajuela. Ante, p. 1386. Addit ional from r ev- en ues . Chagres River dam, etc ., to be designated Madden Da m, lake, plant, and road. Sa nitat ion, etc. Artificial limbs, etc., for injured employees. Civil government ex- penses. Codif ying laws. Ante, p. 696. Available until ex- pended. Purchases from Army surplus stock. Mo neys from des ig- nated sources credited to ori ginal app ropri a tions. Net profits to be cov- ered into the Treasury. Operation of water- works, etc., in Panama and Colon. SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cri. 366. 1929 . Canal by reason of injuries sustained while employed in the con- struction of the Panama Canal ; in all, $8,000,000, including $1,000,000 for continuing the construction of a dam across the Chagres River at Alhajuela for the storage of water for use in the maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal, together with a hydroelectric plant, roadways, and such other work as in the judg- ment of the Governor of the Panama Canal may be necessary, to cost in the aggregate not to exceed $12,000,000, together with all mon eys arising f rom the condu ct of business operations a uthorized by the Panama Canal Act ; That in recognition of the exceptionally distinguished services in Congress for nearly twenty-four years of Honorable Martin B. Mad den, the late chairman of the Committee on Appropriat ions, and in appreciation of his active and efficient interest in the Panama Canal throughout its entire construction and operation, and in rec ently causing the commence ment of the co nstruction of said dam across the Chagres River at or near Alhajuela, the said dam and the lake created thereby and the entire plant and the road leading t hereto shall herea fter be kno wn and desi gnated on th e publ ic records as the Madden Dam, lake, plant, and road ; Fo r sa nita tion, qu aran tine , ho spit als, and med ical aid and sup port of the insane and of lepers and aid and support of indigent persons legally within the Canal Zone, including expenses of their deporta- tion when practicable, and the purchase of artificial limbs or other appliances for persons who were injured in the service of the Isth- mian Canal Commission or the Panama Canal prior to September 7, 1916, and including additional compensation to any officer of the United States Public Health Service detailed with the Panama Canal as chief quarantine officer, $820,000 ; For civil government of the Panama Canal and Canal Zone, including salaries of district judge, $10,000 ; district attorney, $5,000 ; marshal, $5,000 ; codification of Canal Zone laws as authorized by the Act of May 17, 1928 (45 Stat ., p . 596), $10,000 ; and gratuities and necessary clothing for indigent discharged prisoners. $1,191,000 ; Total, Panama Canal, $10,011,000, to be available until expended. The Governor of the Panama Canal, so far as the expenditure of appropriations contained in this Act may be under his direction, shall, when it is more economical, purchase needed materials, sup- plies, and equipment from available surplus stocks of the War Department. In addi tion to the f oregoing sums there is appr opriated for t he fiscal year 1930 for expenditures and reinvestment under the several heads of appropriation aforesaid, without being covered into the Treasury of the United States, all moneys received by the Panama Canal from services rendered or materials and supplies furnished to the United States, the Panama Railroad Company, the Canal Zone government, or to their employees, respectively, or to the Pan ama governmen t, from hotel and hospital supplies and services ; from rentals, wharfage, and like service ; from labor, materials, and supplies and other services furnished to vessels other than those pass- ing through the canal, and to others unable to obtain the same else- where ; from the sale of scrap and other by-products of manufac- turing and shop operations ; from the sale of obsolete and unservice- abl e materials, supplies, and equipment pur chased or acq uired for the operation, maintenance, protection, sanitation, and government of the canal and Canal Zone ; and any net profits accruing from such business to the Panama Canal shall annually be covered into the Treasury of the United States. In addition there is appropriated for the operation, maintenance, and extension of waterworks, sewers, and pavements in the cities of

�


text:
Hawkins v. Wright, Williams & Company

THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Louisiana by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act.

It originated in the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, upon the petition of Hamilton W. Wright, who stated that he was the sole assignee of the rights and interests of the late commercial firm of Wright, Williams, & Co. The petition then stated that J. J. B. White, who resided out of the State of Louisiana, was indebted to the petitioner, as such assignee, in the sum of $9,509.32 with interest, and prayed for an attachment upon his property. The writ was issued, and levied upon one hundred and fifty-four bales of cotton on board the steamboat Sallie Robinson. The consignees, Oakey, Hawkins, & Co., intervened, and claimed the cotton as the property of O'Donnell; and afterwards Rebecca J. White, the wife of the defendant, and Mrs. S.C.. W. Faust, intervened, and claimed the cotton attached as their joint, undivided, separate property.

The writ of attachment was issued on the 17th November, 1856.

On the 29th May, 1857, the case thus being at issue, the plaintiff filed an amended and supplemental petition, in which he states that since the institution of this suit, upon the 29th of December, 1856, at a Circuit Court in and for the fifth judicial district of the State of Mississippi, in and for the county of Yazoo, a judgment was rendered in favor of petitioner, against the defendant, White, for the same subject matter stated in the original petition filed in this cause, as appears by the annexed transcript of the proceedings in this case filed for reference, and as part of said supplemental and amended petition, and prayed for judgment as in said original petition.

On June 11th, 1857, the defendant through his curator filed an exception to the amended petition, on the ground that the original cause of action, if any ever existed, had been merged in the judgment rendered in the State of Mississippi; that this court, by the proceedings of plaintiffs, had been divested of jurisdiction in the matters in controversy, and should be dismissed at plaintiffs' costs. He further plead res judicata.

On the 19th of November, 1857, the intervenors filed similar pleas.

The Fourth District Court decided as follows, viz:

Article 419, C. P., declares: 'After issue joined, the plaintiff may, with the leave of the court, amend his original petition, provided the amendment does not alter the substance of his demand by making it different from the one originally brought.'

The original debt sued on has been merged in the judgment rendered in the State of Mississippi; and, as the judgment is entitled to the same force and effect as if rendered in Louisiana, no action can be maintained on the original cause of action, viz: the open account.

2 N. S., 604.

The allegations in the supplemental petition alter the substance of the demand within the meaning of article 419, C. P.

See Dennistoun v. Payne, 7 Ann., 334.

Oakey v. Murphy, 1 Ann., 372; 3 Ann., 375, 388.

The amendment cannot be allowed; and, as the original cause of action has been destroyed by the plaintiffs' own showing, it follows that the exceptions must be sustained, and plaintiffs' petition be dismissed with costs, which is accordingly hereby ordered.

Upon the construction of article 419, Code of Practice, (together with other points which have no connection with this report,) the case went up to the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment of the court below, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.

The opinion of the Supreme Court upon the point whether the allegation of the judgment in Mississippi altered the substance of the demand, within the meaning of article 419, was as follows:

3. The exception filed by the attorney appointed to represent the defendant should have been overruled. The plaintiff had the right, under the law of Louisiana, to sue the defendant in the courts of this State, and also in the courts of Mississippi, at the same time, and for the same cause of action. This right necessarily carries with it the accessory right to prosecute the suits in the courts of the two different States to final judgments on the merits. This right is remedial, and is intended to secure to the creditor all possible means for the collection of his debt in different jurisdictions. If the exception filed on behalf of defendant were sufficient in law to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, the right to institute separate actions in different States for the same debt would be nugatory; for, so soon as a judgment should be obtained in one State, it could be made the means of dismissing the suit in the other, and thereby deprive the creditor of the fruits of his diligence in the undecided suit.

Conceding that the account sued on was merged in the Mississippi judgment, the debt was not thereby extinguished, but established to be due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiff. This judgment in Mississippi is only evidence of the existence of the debt, for the recovery of which this suit was instituted, the affidavit was made, the attachment bond was given, and the writ of attachment issued, and there is no legal reason why this judgment should not be substituted, by way of amendment, as the cause of action, in place of the account, for the purpose of maintaining the attachment.

The fact that the judgment is for a greater amount than claimed and sworn to by the plaintiff is immaterial, for the reason that the attachment is only valid as against the property for the amount sworn to, whatever may be the amount claimed in the petition.

The supplemental petition did not change the substance of the demand. The prayer of the original petition is, that the attachment be maintained, and that the defendant be condemned to pay the sum of $9,509.32 and interest, with privilege upon the property attached, and the prayer of the supplemental petition is the same.

The defendant and intervenors sued out a writ of error under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act, and brought the case up to this court.

Mr. Benjamin moved to dismiss the writ of error, because this case is not one in which this court has jurisdiction to revise the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana under the twenty-fifth section.

Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Hawkins v. Wright, Williams & Company


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1438

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. Sass. II. CHs. 366, 367 . 1929 . Panama and Colon, during the fiscal year 1930, the necessary por- tions of such sums as shall be paid as water rentals or directly by the Government of Panama for such expenses. Approved, February 28, 1929. CHAP. 367. - A n Act Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1930, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep rese ntat ives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not other- wise appropriated, for the Legislative Branch of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1930, namely SENATE S ALARIE S AND MILEAGE OF SENATORS For com pensation of Senators, $9 60,0 00. For mileage of Senators, $51,000. For compensation of officers, clerks, messengers, and others OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT Salaries : Secretary to the Vice President, $4,200 ; clerk, $2,080 ; assi sta nt cle rk, $1,940 ; assi sta nt cle rk, $1,830 ; in all, $10,050. CHA PLA IN For Chaplain, $1,520. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY DOCUMENT ROOM Salaries : Superintendent, $3,600 ; first assistant $3,000 ; second assistant, in lieu of employee heretofore paid under Senate Resolution Numbered 90, $2,400 ; two clerks, at $1,770 each ; skilled laborer, $1,520 ; in all, $14,060. COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES Clerks and messengers to the following committees : Agriculture and Forestry-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,500 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Ap propri a- 54835«-29 PT1 .-91 Feburary 28, 1929. [H. R. 17053.] [Public, No. 844 .] Legislative appro- p riat ions for fisc al y ear 1930. S enate. Senators. Compensation. Mileage. Officers, clerks, mes- sengers, etc. V ice Pre side nt's office. Secretary, and clerks. Chaplain. Salaries : Secretary of the Senate, including compensation as dis- Secretary, bursing officer of salaries of Senators and of contingent fund of the clerks, etc' Senate, $6,500 ; assistant secretary, Henry M. Rose, $4,500 ; chief clerk, who shall perform the duties of reading clerk, $5,500 ; financial clerk, $5,000 ; principal clerk, $3,420 ; assistant financial clerk, $4,200 ; minute and Journal clerk, $4,500 ; leg isl ati ve cle rk, $3,1 50 ; chie f bookkeeper, $3,000 ; librarian, $3,000 ; enrolling clerk, $3,150 ; print- ing clerk, $3,150 ; executive clerk, $2,890 ; file clerk, and assistant Journal clerk, at $2,880 each ; first assistant librarian, and keeper of stationery, $2,780 each ; assistant librarian, $2,150 ; skil led lab orer, $1,520 ; clerks-three at $2,880 each, one at $2,590, one at $2,460, two at $2,100 each, one at $1,800, one at $1,770 ; two assistant keepers of stationery, at $1,800 each ; assistant in stationery room, $1,520 ; messenger in l ibrary, $1,310 ; special of ficer, $2,150 ; assistant in library, $1,80 0 ; laborer s-two at $1,350 each, three at $1,140 each, one in stationery room, $1,440 ; in all, $106,350. 1387 Secretary's office. assistant, Document room. Superintendent, etc. Committee employ- ees. Clerks and messen- gers to de signa ted c om- mittees.

�


text: Talk:Hawkins v. Wright, Williams & Company


text:
Hawkins v. Wright, Williams & Company/Opinion of the Court

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.

The defendant in error, by his counsel, J. P. Benjamin, Esq., moves the court that the writ of error issued in this cause be dismissed, for the reason that this case is not one in which the court has jurisdiction to revise the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

On looking into the record, there appears to be no ground on which this writ of error can be maintained. There is no complaint that the obligation of a contract has been impaired, nor that any right has been claimed and refused under any treaty or act of Congress. The cause must therefore be dismissed, for want of jurisdiction.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1439

 1388 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 367. 1929 . tions-clerk, $6,000 ; assistant clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $3,000 ; three assistant clerks, at $2,700 each ; two assistant clerks, at $2, 100 each ; messenger, $1,770 . To Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $1,940 ; assist- ant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Banking and Currency- clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; two assistant clerks, at $1,830 each. Civil Service-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $1,940 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Claims-clerk, $3,300 ; assist- ant clerk , $2,7 50 ; assis tant cl erk, $2,3 60 ; two assistant clerks, at $1,830 each. Commerce-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,590 ; assist- ant clerk, $2,150 ; assistant clerk, $1,830. Conference minority of the Senate-clerk $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; two assistant clerks, at $1,830 each. District of Columbia-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,500 ; assistant clerk, $2,480 ; assista nt cler k, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Education and Labor-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; assistant clerk, $1, 830 ; additional clerk, $1,520 . Enrolled Bills-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $1,940 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520 . Expe nditur es in the E xecuti ve Dep art- ments-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Finance-clerk, $3,600 ; special assistant to the committee, $3,150 ; assistant clerk, $2,590 ; assistant clerk, $2,460 ; assistant clerk, $1,940 ; two assistant clerks, at $1, 830 each ; two exper ts (one for t he majority an d one for the minority) at $3, 000 each ; messenger, $1,520. Foreign R elations-clerk, $ 3, 30 0 ; as sis tan t clerk, $2,590 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; addi- tional clerk, $1,520 ; messenger, $1,520. Immigration-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Indian Affairs-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,570 ; assistant clerk, $2,040 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. In tero cean ic Canals-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Interstate Commerce-clerk, $3,300 ; assist- ant clerk, $2,500 ; two assistant clerks, at $2,150 each ; assistant clerk, $1,830 . Irrigation and Reclamation-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Judi ciar y- clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,590 ; two assistant clerks, at $2,150 each ; assistant clerk, $1,830. Library-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $1,940 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; addi tional clerk, $1,520 . M anuf ac- tu res- cler k, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,040 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Military Affairs-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,590 ; assistant clerk, $2,400 ; additional clerk, $1,9 40 ; two assistant clerks, at $1,830 each. Mines and Mining-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $1,940 ; assis tant cl erk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520 . Naval Affairs-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,590 ; assist- ant clerk, $1,940 ; two assistant clerks, at $1,830 each. Patents- clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $1,940 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; addi- tional clerk, $ 1, 52 0. Pensions-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; four assistant clerks, at $1,830 each. Post Offices and Post Roads- clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,460 ; three assistant clerks, at $1,830 each ; additional clerk, $1,520 . Pri nting-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Privi- leges and Elections-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,040 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520 . Public Buildings and Grounds-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,040 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520 . Pub lic La nds an d Surv eys-c lerk, $3 ,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,360 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; two assistant clerks, at $1,830 each. Revision of the Laws-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $1,940 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Rules - clerk, $3,300, to i nclude full compe nsatio n for the pr epara tion biennially of the Senate Manual under the direction of the Committee Preparing Senate Manual.

�


text: Talk:Hawkins v. Wright, Williams & Company/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1440

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 367. 1929. 1389 on Rules ; two assistant clerks, at $2,150 each ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520. Territories and Insular Possessions-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; additional clerk, $1,520 ; in all, $383,640. CLERICAL ASSISTANCE TO SENATORS Clerical assistance to Senators. For clerical assistance to Senators who are not chairmen of the All owa nce to Se na- tors not chairmen of committees specifically provided for herein
 * Seventy clerks at $3,300 designated committees.

each, seventy assistant clerks at $1,940 each, seventy assistant clerks at $ 1,83 0 ea ch, $494 ,900 : Provi ded, That such clerks and assistant Proviso- Authority as co m- clerks shall be ex officio clerks and assistant clerks of any committee mittee clerks, of which their Senator is chairman ; Seventy additional clerks at $1,520 each, one for each Senator Additional clerks. having no more than one clerk and two assistant clerks for himself or for the committee of which he is chairman, $106,400 ; messenger, $1 ,5 20 ; in all, $602,820. OFF ICE OF SERGEA NT AT A RMS AN D DOORK EEPER Offic e of Serg eant at Arms. Salaries : Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, $6,500 ; two Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, As- Sergeants at Arms, at $4,500 each ; two floor assistants, at $3,600 sistants, etc ƒ each ; messengers-five (acting as 'assistant doorkeepers, including Messengers, etc . one for minority) at $2,400 each, thirty-seven (including one for minority) at $1,770 each, one at $1,310, one at card door, $2,580 ; clerk on Journal work for Congressional Record, to be selected by the official reporters, $2,800 ; Deputy Sergeant at Arms and store- keeper, $4,000 ; clerk, $2,140 ; stenographer in charge of furniture accounts and records, $1,520 ; upholsterer and locksmith, $2,100 ; cabinetmaker, $1,800 ; three carpenters, at $1,800 each ; janitor, $1,800 ; skilled laborers-four at $1,440 each, one at $1,310 ; laborer in charge Laborers, etc. of private passage, $1,440 ; three female attendants in charge of ladies' retiring rooms, at $1,240 each ; three attendants to women's toilet rooms, Senate Office Building, at $1,240 each ; telephone operators-chief, $2,160, seven at $1,320 each ; night operator, $1,140 ; telephone page, $1,010 ; laborer in charge of Senate toilet rooms in old library space, $950 ; press gallery-superintendent, $3,300 ; assistant superintendent, $2,240 ; messenger for service to press cor- respondents, $1,500 ; laborers-three at $1,100 each, thirty-four at $1 ,0 10 e ac h ; twenty-one pages for the Senate Chamber, at the rate Pages. of $3 .30 per day each during the session, $14,691 .60 ; in all, $215,461 .60. For police force for Senate Office Building under the Sergeant Building. senate Office at Arms : Sixteen privates, at $1,360 each ; special officer, $1,520 ; in all, $23,280. POST O FFICE Salaries : Postmaster, $2,740 ; chief clerk, $2,150 ; wagon master, $1,800 ; seven mail carriers, at $1,520 each ; two riding pages, at $1,220 each ; in all, $19,770. FOLDING RO OM Folding room. Salaries : Foreman, $2,160 ; assistant, $1,940 ; clerk, $1,520 ; folders- chi ef, $1,7 70 ; seven at $1,310 each, seven at $1,140 each ; in al l, $24,540. CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE For stationery for Senators and the President of the Senate, in- cluding $7,500 for stationery for committees and officers of the Senate, $25,000. Postage stamps : For office of Secretary, $250 ; office of Sergeant at Arms, $100 ; in all, $350. Post off ice. Postmaster, etc. Foreman, etc. Contingent expenses . Stationery. Postage stamps.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1441

 1390 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. ` CH. 367. 1929 . For maintaining, exchanging, and equipping motor vehicles for carrying the mails and for official use of the offices of the Secretary and Sergeant at Arms, $13,000. Vice President's au- For driving, maintenance, and operation of an automobile for the tomobIIe. Vice President, $4,000. Folding. For materials for folding, $1,500. For folding speeches and pamphlets, at a rate not exceeding $1 per thousand, $10,000. For fuel, oil, cotton waste, and advertising, exclusive $2,000. For the purchase of furniture, $5,000. For materials for furniture and repairs of labor, $3,000. For servi ces in cleanin g, $2,000. For packing boxes, $970. For rent of warehouse for storage of public documents, $2,000 . For miscellaneous items, exclusive of labor, $125,000. For expenses of inquiries and investigations ordered by the Sen- ate, including compensation to stenographers of committees, at such rate as may be fixed by the Committee to Audit and Control the Conti ngent Expense s of the Senat e, but not ex ceeding 25 cents per hundred words, $250,000. For reporting the debates and proceedings of the Senate, payable in equal monthly installments, $55,340. For repairs, improvements, equipment, and supplies for Senate kitchens and restaurants, Capitol Building and Senate Office Build- ing, including persolnal and other services, to be expended from the contingent fund of the Senate, under the supervision of the Com- mittee on Rules, United States Senate, $40,000. Vehicles. Fuel, oil, etc. Furniture. Packing boxes. Document ware- house . Miscellaneous items. Inquiries and inves- tigations. Reporting debates. Senate kitchens and -restaurants. House of Represent- atives. Memb ers. Pay of Members, Delegates For compensation of Members of the House of Representatives, , and Resi- dent Commissioners. Delegates from Territories, the Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico, a nd the Reside nt Commissione rs from the P hilippine Isla nds, $4,407,500. For mileage of Representatives and Delegates and expenses of Resident Commissioners, $175,000. For compensation of officers, clerks, messengers, and others Mileag e. Officers, clerks, et c. Speaker's office. Chaplain. Cler k's offi ce. For Chaplain, '$1,520. rep airing, and v arnishing fur niture, HOUSE OF REPRESENT ATIVES SALARIES AND MILEAGE OF MEMBERS OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER Secretary, parliamen- tari an, etc . Salaries : Secretary to the Spe aker , $4,200 ; parliamentarian, Digest of the Rules. $4,000, and for preparing Digest of the Rules, $1,000 per annum ; assistant parliamentarian, $2,500 ; clerk to the Speaker, $1,940 ; clerk to the Speaker, $1,200 ; messenger to the Speaker's table, $1,520 ; messenger to the Speaker, $1,440 ; in all, $17,800. CHAP LAIN OFFICE OF THE CLERK same, of labor, ex clus ive of Clerk of the House, Sa l ar i es : Clerk of the House of Representa tives, includ ing com- clerks, etc. pensation as disbursing officer of the contingent fund, $6,500 ; Journal clerk and two reading clerks, at $5,000 each ; disbursing clerk, $3,570 ; tally clerk, $5,000 ; file clerk, $3,420 ; enrolling clerk, $3,200 and $1,000 additional so long as the position is held by the present

�


text:
Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Monrovia

MONROVIA, the capital of Liberia. It is situated on the mouth of the St. Paul river. It contains two colleges and is the seat of Protestant Episcopal bishop and of an American and a Roman Catholic mission. Its chief exports are palm oil, coffee, cocoa, dyewoods, and rubber. Prior to the World War a large portion of trade was done with Germany. Pop. about 6,000.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1442

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. IL CH. 367. 1929 . incumbent ; property custodian and superintendent of furniture and repair shop, who shall be a skilled cabinetmaker or upholsterer and experienced in the construction and purch ase of furniture, $3,600 ; two assi stant custo dians at $3 ,000 each ; chief bill clerk, $3,150 ; assistant enrolling clerk, $2,880 ; assistant to disbursing clerk, $2,780 ; stationery clerk, $2,570 ; librarian, $2,460 ; assistant librarian, $2,240 ; assistant file clerk, $2,250 ; a ssistant librari an, and assistant Journal clerk, at $2,150 each at $ 2,020 each ; bookkeeper, and assistant in disbursing office, at $1,940 each ; four assistants to chief bill clerk, at $1,830 each ; stenog- rapher to the Clerk, $1,730 ; locksmith and typewriter repairer, $1,620 ; messenger and clock repairer, $1,520 ; assistant in stationery ro om, $1,520 ; three messe ngers, at $ 1,410 each ; steno graph er to Journal clerk, $1,310 ; fifteen telephone operators, at $1,320 each ; substitute telephone operator when required, at $3 .30 per day, $1,200 ; laborers-three at $1,200 each, nine at $1,010 each ; purchase, exchange, operatio n, maintenance, and repair of mot or ve hicle, $1 ,20 0 ; in all, $136,150. j Clerks, messengers, and janitors to the following committees Accounts-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; janitor, $1,310 . Agriculture-clerk, $2,880 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; janitor, $1,310. Appropriations-clerk, $5,000, and $1,000 additional so long as the pos ition is held by the present incumbent ; assistant clerk, $4,500, five assistant clerks at $3,300 each, assistant clerk, $2,700 ; janitor, $1,440. Banking and Currency-clerk, $2,360 ; assistant clerk, $1,520 ; janitor, $1,010 . Census clerk, $2,360 ; janito r, $1 ,010. Ci vil Service-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010. Claims-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $1,520 ; janitor, $1,010. Coin age, Wei ghts , and Measures-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010. Disposition of Use- less Executive Papers-clerk, $2,360 . District of Columbia-clerk, $2,880 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; janitor, $1,010. Education-clerk, $2,360. Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress-clerk, $2,360. Elections Numbered 1-clerk, $2,360 ; anitor, $1,010. Elections Numbered 2-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010 . Elections Numbered 3-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010. Enrolled Bills-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010. Expenditures in the Executive Departments-clerk, $2,880 ; janitor, $1,010. Flood Con- trol-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010. Foreign Affairs-clerk, $2,880 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; janitor, $1,010. Immigration and Naoturali- zation-clerk, $2,880 ; janitor, $1,010. Indian Affairs-clerk, $2,880 ; assistant clerk, $2,150 ; janitor, $1,010 . Insular Affairs-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010. Interstate and Foreign Commerce clerk, $3,300 ; additional clerk, $2,360 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; janitor, $1,310. Irrigation and Reclamation-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010. Invalid Pensions-clerk, $2,880 ; stenographer, $2,560 ; expert exam- in er ( Norma n E . Ives), $2,400 ; assistant clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,240 . Judiciary-clerk, $3,300 ; assistant clerk, $1,940 ; janitor, $1,240 . Labor-clerk, $2,3 60 ; janitor, $1,010 . L ibra ry-c lerk , $2,360 ; ja nit or $1,010. Merchant Marine and Fisheries-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010. Military Affairs-clerk, $2,880 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; janitor, $1,310. Mines and Mining-cle rk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010. Naval Affairs-clerk, $2,880 ; assistant clerk, $1,830 ; janitor, $1,310. Patents-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,010. Pensions- c le rk, $ 2, 880 ; assistant clerk, $1,940 ; jani tor, $1,0 10. Post Office and Post Roads-clerk, $2,880 ; assistant clerk, $1,730 ; janitor, $1,310. Printing-clerk, $2,360 ; janitor, $1,310. Public Buildings and Grounds-clerk, $2,880 ; assistant clerk, $1,520 ; janitor, $1,010. Pub- 1391 Commi ttee empl oy- COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES ee s. Clerks and janitors.
 * cler ks-one a t $2,150, three

�