text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2043

 cc.~cii INDEX. Washington-Continued. may acquire, after completion, bridge acr088 Agate PaBB, Bainbridge I&and ______________________ _ Columbia River, at Arlington, Oreg_ Puget Sound, at the Narrows ______ _ time extended for bridging Columbia River by, at Kettle Falls______ _ Washington-Alaaka Military Cable and Telegraph SYltem, Paae. 1447 1023 1403 51 appropriation for operation, etc., of, from its revenues___________ 357, 1378 deficiency appropriation for operation, ete__________________________ 1620 for salaries and expenses, 1929, 1930_ 1691 Washington Aqueduct, D. C. (lee alto Water SerVice, D. C.), appropriation for operation, etc____ 680, 1297 Washington, Bicentennial Celebration oJ. Birth oJ George, deficiency approp'riation for expenses; funds available_______________ 888 Washington, Commisnon Jor Celebration oj Bicentennial oj Birthday oj George, directed to construct memorial highway from Mount Vernon to Arling- ton Memorial Bridge across Po- tomac River__________________ 721 Washington County, Ala., title of lands in, ad the claim of Seth Dean, relinquished to equitable owners, etc___________________ 972 Washington County, Nebr., bridge authorized acr088 Missouri River, between Harrison County, Iowa, and ________________________ _ Washington, D. C. (see alto District of Columbia), 194 appropriation for acquiring triangle properties in, as sites for Federal for di~rt:!'ari-qU&ite~f 1045 Government offiCIals, ete_____. 1045 for navy yard, public works________ 1464 deficiency appropriation for purchase, etc., elevator, city post office___ 1649 for acquiring triangle properties_ 925, 1663 American Republics invited to attend conference of conciliation and arbitration at_________________ 487 foreign governments invited to attend International Conference on Civil Aeronautics at________________ 1011 Washington Missouri Riller Bridge Com- b~d"Y' M' . Ri ...UTh may n ge _issoun ver, a~ "as - ington, Mo___________________ 151 time extended for bridging Missouri Riv~rJ at Washington, Mo., by_ 1529 Washingtonl MO. , bridge authorized across Missouri River, at__________________________ _ 151 time extended for bridging Missouri River, at____________________ 1529 Washington Monument, D. C, appropriation for maintenan..e, etc., of, andgounds_______________ 683, 1241 Washington, . C., terms of court at____________________ 495 Wathington Railway and Electric Com- pany, required to relocate tracks, etc., on Michigan Avenue, as straight- ened,etc_____________________ 1544 costs and expenses to be paid by the Company____________________ 1544 Washington Railway and Electric Com- Pan. pany-Continued. easement granted, over Michigan Ave- nue__________________________ 1545 charter of, amended to provide for relocation of tracks, etc________ 1545 Washington Terminal Company, acceptance of sum in compromise with, for expenses of jqading street, etc., due to subSIdence by con- structing railroad tunnel under First street east, Washington, D. C_____ ____________ _______ 398 Washington's Birthplace, Wakefield, Va., appropriation for maintenance, etc_ 358, 1379 Waste Products, appropriation for industrial utilization of, from the land____________ 94,1124 Water Department, D. C ., appropriation for personal services, revenue. etc., branches______ 680,1297 for operating expenses__________ 680, 1297 deficiency appropriation for salaries, 1929_________________________ 1694 Water Service, D. C., appropriation for expenses, wholly from water revenues_____________ 680,1296 for Washington Aqueduct, reservoir, tunnel, filtration plant, etc__ 680, 1297 for maintenance, etc., CondUIt Road_____________________ 680,1297 control of Secretary of War over Aqueduct, etc., not affected_ 680, 1297 for revenue, inspection, and distribu- tion branches______________ 680,1297 for water department, maintenance distribution system _________ 681,1297 for extending distribution system_ 681, 1297 for installing meters ____________ 681,1297 for fire, etc., hydrants __________ 681,1297 for replacement of old, etc., mains_ 681, 1297 for new mains _________________ 681,1297 deficiency appropriation for site for new third high service reservoir__ ___ 11 for removal, etc., of water mains in- cident to public buildings con- struction____ ___ _____ ____ ____ _ 34 for maintenance, of distribution sys- tem __________________________ 1631 rates of assessment for laying water mains, continued..__ ___ ___ ___ __ 11 Water Street NW., D. C., appropriation for widening roadway, etc., Wisconsin Avenue to Thirty-fifth Street- __ __ __ __ __ _ 655 Water Supply oJ the United States, appropriation for investigating, etc., to detennine the______________ 232,1594 Waterbury, Conn., deficiency appropriation for building for post office, etc_____________ 1662 Water8heds oJ Navigable Waters, amounts authorized for 1928,1929, and 1930, to purchase lands for the protection of, etc_____________ 468 Water8ide Drille NW., D. C ., appropriation for paving, etc., Belmont Road to Allen Street; from gaso- line tax fund_________________ 1270 Watertown, N. Y ., 4 appropriation for public building___ 181, 104 Watt8, Vera M., . stock r~:t01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_TarmstroBot (talk)r:_~:,_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 1157

�


text:
United States v. Castillero (64 U.S. 464)

THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the southern district of California.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

The claim was confirmed by the board of commissioners, and likewise by the District Court. The United States appealed to this court, where it was argued by Mr. Stanton for the appellants.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

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


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2044

 ... INDEX. CCXClll Waukegan, IU., Page. appropriation for public building ___ 181,1044 deficiency appropriation for public building at___________________ 1662 Wayne, General Anthony, deficiency appropriation for erection of historical museum as a memorial to, Fort Defiance, Ohio________ 1666 cooperation with Ohio for a historical museum as a memorial to, on site of Fort Defiance, Ohio_____ 1009 Wayne&burg, Pa., deficiency appropriation for public building at____ __ __ __ __ __ _____ 33 Ways and Means Committee, House oj Representatives, deficiency appropriation for expenses, revising customslaws__________ 3 members of, elected to 71st Congress, authorized to hold hearings, etc., in preparation for a revision of the Tariff Act of 1922_________ 1607 to employ expert, etc., services_____ 1607 printing and binding, and other nec- essaryexpensesauthorized_____ 1607 expenses, except printing ~d binding i r:ldTarmstroBot (talk) _TarmstroBot (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC) _TarmstroBot (talk) _ _01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk)_ 1607 Weather Bureau, Department oj Agricul- ture/ appropriatIOn for salaries and ex- penses ____________________ 543,1194 furnishing forecasts for air naviga- tion______________________ 544,1194 telegraph, etc., rates and contracts, to be adjusted_____________ 544, 1194 cooperation with other Bureaus, etc_______________________ 544,1194 for Chief of Bureau and office Par- sonnel ____________________ 544,1194 for expenses in Washington_ _ _ _ _ 544, 1194 for printing office expenses ______ 544,1195 restriction on printing by Bureau; exception _________________ 544, 1195 for expenses outside of Washing- ton_______________________ 544,1195 for observations, warnings, etc ___ 544, 1195 for aerological stations; atmospheric investigations, etc _ _ _ _ _ ____ 544, 1195 deficiency appropriation for general ex- penses___________ 12,41,4~933, 1616 for expenses, outside of Washington_ 894 for building, etc., San Juan, P. R ., station_ _ _ ___________________ 1633 for study of atmospheric phenomena_ 1633 for salaries, 1929__________________ 1677 care, etc., of Mount Weather, Va., sta- tion transferred to Office of Public Buildings and Public Parks of National Capital; sale of, repealed__________________ 1625 payments for. expert services for Bu- reau building at Lansing, Mich., allowed______________________ 11 station at Mount Weather, Va., to be sold_________________________ 311 proceeds to be deposited as miscel- lan .ts 311 Weatherwal,:;~Wl;:~l, --- name placed on yellow-fever honor roll . and presented gold medaL_____ 1409 WIdow of, to receive $125 monthly____ 1410 Wegener, E. H., may bridge Mississippi River, at Ches- ter, Ill______________________ 283 Wegener, E. H. -Continued. Page. time extended for bridging Mississippi River, at Chester, Ill., by_____ 1529 Weight8 and Measures, International Bu- reau oj, appropriation for contribution_ ____ _ 69, 1100 deficiency appropriation for annual con- tribution to__________________ 1612 Weight8 and Measures, International Com- .mittee oj, appropriation for attendance of mem- ber _______________________ 90,1121 Weight&, Measures, and Market&, D. C ., Superintendent oj, appropriation for office personneL _ 646, 1264 for inspection expenses _________ 6 -7,1264 for maintenance, etc., of markets_ _ _ 647 Western, repairs, equipment, etc __ 647 for motor trucks, etc ___________ 647,1264 Wellsburg, W. Va., bridge authorized across Ohio River, at_ 503 time extended for bridging Ohio River, at__________________________ 1530 Weslaco, Tex. bridge authorized across Rio Grande, at_________________________ 471,776 consent of Mexico required_______ 471,776 We8t, Clyde L., appropriation for monthly payments to________________________ 353, 1374 name placed on yellow-fever honor roll and presented gold medaL_____ 1409 to receive $125 monthly_____________ 1410 West Indian Ialanda Acquired Jrom Den- mark (8ee Virgin Islands). West Indies, appropriation for Weather Service ex- penses in _________________ 543; 1194 We8t Point (see Military Academy). WeBt Swanton, Vt., bridge authorized across Lake Cham- plain, East Alburg to_______ 514,1506 West Virginia, construction of bridge across Potomac River, at Paw Paw, by Mary- land and, legalized_____________ 1077 may acquire, after completion, bridge across Kanawha River, at Cabin Creek_ _ _______ ___ ___ ________ 475 at Dunbar_____________________ 982 at Point Pleasant_______________ 408 at Saint Albans_________________ 473 New River, at McCreery__________ 767 Ohio Ri'1l!J at Moundsville________ 1440 at New \,,"Umberland_____________ 741 at New Martinsville, W. Va__ .. 298,1473 at RavenswoodJ..,Ohio___________ 318 at Sisttirsville, w. Va____________ 135 at Wellsburg, W. Va____________ 503 WeBt Warwick, R.I ., deficiency appropriation for public building at______________ • __ .__ 1663 Western Irrigation AgricuUure, appropriation for investigation of utiliz- ing of lands reclaimed under Reclamation Act, etc_______ 551,1202 Western Na~ajo lndian Boarding School, Artz., appropriation for construction, etc__ 220, 1578 Western Navajo Indian H08pital, Ariz., appropriation for maintenance, etc., of_ 220, 1581

�


text: Talk:United States v. Castillero (64 U.S. 464)


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2045

 ccxciv INDEX. WuUrn ShOlhone Agency, N6IJ., appropriation for support, etc., of Indians at___________________ _ Wutern Sho8hone Indian RfJ8fJMIation, Idaho and Nev., appropriation for irrigation project on__ deficiency appropriation for survey of water supply ________________ _ Weyerhaeaer Timber Company, trestle, etc., in Henderson Inlet ~, legalized ____________________ _ Whatcom County, Wash., completion of road across Lummi Reser- vation, partially constructed by, authorized__________________ _ to be maintained by, free of Govern- Wheat, ment expense________________ _ claims of elevators, etc., of, for money earned in 1919 and 1920, under Government guaranteed price contracts, to be adjusted and Paae. 1584 209, 1572 1639 1430 366 366 Wheeler ~;H-;;ii,- 1148 construction of Army buildings author- ized at_______________________ 748 construction for Army Air Corps, au- thorizedat________________ 749,1301 of buildings, etc., at________________ 1301 Wheelock Academy, Okla., appropriation for dining hall, etc;t im- provements, from funds of \Jhoe- taws________________________ 1577 purchase of pasture land for, from tribal funds of Choctaws, Okla., au- thorized_____________________ 216 repairs to roadway__________________ 216 White County, IU., bridge authorized across Wabash River between New Harmony, Ind.• and, authorized in _plaee of former location at McGregors Ferry, Ill_ 1406 White Earth Indian Ruertlation, Minn., appropriation for boarding school for Chippewa Indians__________ .. __ 1577 White, Honorable Haya B., deficiency appropriation for contested election expenses_____________ 884 White Horae Indian Subagency, S. Dak., bridge authorized across Moreau River, at; half costfromlndianfunds__ 1487 White HOUle, D. C. (866 al80 Executive Mansion), iron gates between grounds of, and State, etc. Department Build- ing, given to Spiegel Grove State Park,/,. Fremont, Ohio__________ 422 White HOUle rolice, appropriation for salaries _________ 5'l4, 1231 for uniforms and equipment_____ 574, 1231 White, John F., and Mary L., deficiency appropriation for paying damae;e claimS 01._____________ 1674 White Mounlatn Indian Ruertlation, permits for power development on Salt River, within, may be issued by Federal Power Commission_ ___ _ 1344 White Pine Blilter Bud, appropriation for stud,., etc., of___ 550, 1200 for expenses of eradicat~gl etc.; local contributions requirea_ _____ 550, 1200 paying for destroyed trees, etc., forbiddeD- ________________ 550, 1200 for preventing spread oL _______ 565,1216 White Plains, N. Y ., pqe. appropriation for public building___ 182, 1044 White POInt, Fla., bridge authorized across Garniers Ba- you, between Smack Point, and_ 1311 White Riller, appropriation for sum to strenlrthen and hold levees on, for flood pro- tection, in Woodruff and Monroe Counties, Ark________________ 592 bridge authorized across, at Augusta, Ark_________________________ 757 at Clarendon, Ark________________ 972 at Cotter, Ark____________________ 470 at Newport, Ark__________________ 984 White Riller and Tributaries, project for flood control of, to be sub- mitted_ __ __ _________________ 538 White River Ute Indians, Utah, appropriation for irrigating allotted lands of__________________ 214,1575 for Pllyment to, from tribal funds of Confederated Bands of Utes_ 224, 1586 from accrued interest_________ 224, 1586 Whitesburg Ferry, Ala., bridge authorized across Tennessee River, at___________________ 287,753 Whittier Street NW., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Fourth to Seventh Streets; from gasoline tax fund_____________________ 652 for paving, etc., Seventh Street to Piney Branch Road; from gas- oline tax fund________________ 1270 for I>aving, etc., Harlan to Second Streets; from gasoline tax fund_ _ 1270 Wholuale Farmers' Pr-oduce Market, D. C., acquisition of designated squares au- thorized for_____ ______________ 1487 sum authorized for all expenses_____ 1487 rules, etc., to be prescribed for oper- ation___ __________ ___________ 1487 charges authorized for use_______ 1487 Wichita, etc., Indiaml Okla., deficiency appropnation for attorneys in c1almS_____________________ 1640 Wichita, Kans., appropriation for public building___ 182, 1044 Wichita National Forest, appropriation for herd of long-homed cattle in_____________________ 1203 Widows Pen8ion, rate of, if married prior to June 27, 1907, to persons who served 90 days . in Civil War and honorably dis- charged, or discharged for disa- bility, and now 75 years of age__ 714 no other pension decreased_________ 71!5 Wilcoz, Agnes W., . deficiencr appropriation for paying, wIdow of consul dying in service_ 29 Wild Life and Fi8h Refuge, Upper MilBiB- sippi River, appropriation for construction, etc____ 1130 for acquiring areas for_____________ 1210 acceptance authorized of gi.ft of lands in Clayton County, Iowa______ 420 Wilkes-Ba1Te, Pa., appropriation for acquiring additional land and enlarging public build- ing at____________________ 182, 1044 minerals reserved_ ______________ 182 Williams, Roger, deficiency appropriation for memorial tablet to____________________ 38

�


text:
United States v. Castillero (64 U.S. 464)/Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court of the United States for the southern district of California, affirming a decree of the commissioners appointed under the act of the third of March, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims.

Pursuant to the eighth section of that act, the appellee in this case presented his petition to the commissioners, claiming title to the island of Santa Cruz, situated in the county of Santa Barbara, in the State of California, by virtue of an original grant from Governor Alvarado. All of the documentary evidences of title produced in the case are dulycertified copies of originals found in the Mexican archives, as appears by the certificate of the surveyor general, which makes a part of the record. They consist of a special dispatch from the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Mexico, addressed to Governor Alvarado; the petition of the claimant to the same, and the original grant to the petitioner, which purports to be signed by the Governor, and to be duly countersigned by the secretary of the Department. Certain other documents were also introduced, to which it will be necessary to refer, as a part of the proceedings that led to the grant.

Islands situated on the coast, it seems, were never granted by the Governors of California or any of her authorities, under the colonization law of 1824, or the regulations of 1828. From all that has been exhibited in cases of this description, the better opinion is, that the power to grant the lands of the islands was neither claimed nor exercised by the authorities of the Department prior to the twentieth day of July, 1838, as was satisfactorily shown in one or more cases heretofore considered and decided by this court.

On that day, the Minister of the Interior, by the order of the Mexican President, addressed a communication to Governor Alvarado, authorizing him, in concurrence with the Departmental Assembly, to grant and distribute the lands of the desert islands adjacent to that Department to the citizens of the nation who might solicit the same. That dispatch bears date at a period when the President was in the exercise of extraordinary powers, and was issued, as appears by its recitals, with a view to promote the settlement of the unoccupied islands on the coast, and to prevent those exposed positions from becoming places of rendezvous and shelter for foreign adventurers, who might desire to invade that remote Department. Grants made by the Governor, under the power conferred by that dispatch, without the concurrence of the Departmental Assembly, were simply void, for the reason that the power, being a special one, could only be exercised in the manner therein prescribed. It was so held by this court in United States v. Osio, decided at the present term, and we are satisfied that the decision was correct.

But the grant in this case was not made under the general authority conferred by that dispatch. In addition to what was exhibited in the former case, it now appears that another dispatch of a special character was addressed by the same Cabinet Minister to the Governor on the same day. Like the other, it bears date at the city of Mexico, on the twentieth day of July, 1838, and is signed by the Minister of the Interior. By the terms of the communication, the Governor is informed that the President, regarding the services rendered by this claimant to the nation and to that Department as worthy of great consideration and full recompense, has directed the Minister to recommend strongly to the Governor and the Departmental Assembly that one of the islands, such as the claimant might select, near where he ought to reside with the troops under his command, be assigned to him, before they proceed to grant and distribute such lands, under the general authority conferred by the previous dispatch.

Beyond question, the legal effect of that second communication was to withdraw such one of the islands as should thus be selected by the claimant from the operation of the previous order, and to direct that it be assigned to this claimant. His attorney, accordingly, on the fifth day of March, 1839, presented his petition to the Governor, asking for a grant of the island of Santa Catalina, which is situated in front of the roadstead of San Pedro, and requested that the expediente might pass through the usual forms.

In conformity to the prayer of the petition, the Governor, on the same day, made a decree that a title of concession should issue, and that the expediente should be perfected in the usual way. Accompanying the order of concession there is also a form of a grant of the island to the claimant; but it is without any signatures, and does not appear ever to have been completed.

On the seventeenth day of March, 1839, his attorney in fact presented another petition to the Governor, asking for a grant of the island of Santa Cruz, which, as he represents, is situated in front of Santa Barbara, on the coast of that Department.

Both of these petitions are based upon the special dispatch addressed to the Governor; and in the one last presented, the claimant represents that the island previously offered is wholly unfit either for agricultural improvement or the raising of stock, and for that reason prays, in effect, that the order of concession may be so changed as to conform to his last-mentioned request. For aught that appears to the contrary, his request was acceded to without hesitation, for, on the twenty-second day of May, 1839, the Governor made the grant, basing it upon the special dispatch referred to in the petition.

To prove the authenticity of the dispatch and the genuineness of the grant, the petitioner called and examined Governor Alvarado. He testified that he was acquainted with the handwriting of Joaquin Pesado, the Minister of the Interior, and also with that of Manuel Jimeno, the secretary of the Department, who countersigned the grant. Both of these signatures, as well as his own, he testified were genuine; and he also stated that he recognised the document as a genuine instrument, and intended it at the time as a perfect and complete title in the claimant. His testimony finds support in this case, to some extent, by the fact that all the documentary evidences of title, including the grant, were found in the Mexican archives; but much stronger confirmation of his statements is derived from the record evidence which those archives are found to contain.

At the argument, we were very properly furnished by the counsel of the appellants with a copy of an index of concessions, prepared by the secretary of the Department. That index covers the period from the tenth day of May, 1833, to the twenty-fourth day of December, 1844. It contains a list of four hundred and forty-three concessions, and among the number is the one set up by the claimant in this case. Its description in the index corresponds in all particulars with the grant produced, except as to the date. As there given, it is dated the fifth day of March, 1839, which is the true date of the concession, under the first petition.

Considering that the name of the grantee and the description of the premises agree with the grant produced in the case, we think it a reasonable presumption that the error of date is in the index, and not in the grant. For these reasons, we think the genuineness of the documentary evidence of title is satisfactorily proved. Having come to this conclusion, the only remaining question is, whether the grant was made by competent authority. Direction was given to the Governor and the Departmental Assembly in the special dispatch on which this grant was issued, that one of the islands, situated along the coast of the Department, should be assigned to this claimant before they proceeded to grant and distribute such lands under the general order. Those communications were of the same date; but it is obvious, from the language of the special dispatch, that it was issued subsequently to the other communication, and must be regarded as qualifying the latter, so far as their terms are repugnant. Had the claimant petitioned for a grant of this description, under the general order, his application would have been addressed to the discretion of the Governor and of the Departmental Assembly; and unless both had concurred in granting the prayer, his application would have been defeated, for the reason that such a title could only be adjudicated by their concurrent action. Power to refuse such applications was vested in the Assembly as well as in the Governor; but when both concurred, and the adjudication had been made, the title papers were properly to be issued by the Governor as an executive act. As the Assembly was a constituent part of the granting power under the general order, it was doubtless thought proper that the withdrawal of one of the islands from its operation, and the disposal of it in another way, should be notified to the Assembly as well as to the Governor. They were accordingly directed not to proceed to make adjudications under that order until the assignment of the title to this claimant was perfected, but they were not required to make the assignment or to cause it to be made. To accomplish that purpose, and carry into effect the command of the President, two things only were necessary to be done: one was to be performed by the claimant, and the other was a mere ministerial act. It was the claimant who was to make the selection; and if it was a proper one, near the place where he was stationed with his troops, nothing remained to be done but to make the assignment as described in the dispatch. Emanating as the dispatch did from the supreme power of the nation, it operated of itself to adjudicate the title to the claimant, leaving no discretion to be exercised by the authorities of the Department. Neither the Governor nor the Assembly, nor both combined, could withhold the grant, after a proper selection, without disobeying the express command of the supreme Government. Nothing therefore remained to be done, after the selection by the claimant, but to issue the title papers, and that was the proper duty of the Governor, as the executive organ of the Department. No doubt appears to have been entertained of the justice of the claim, either by the commissioners or the District Court; and in view of all the circumstances, we think their respective decisions were correct. The decree of the District Court is therefore affirmed.


text: Talk:United States v. Castillero (64 U.S. 464)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2046

 INDEX.
 * ecxcv

William8on, W. Va., 1>&&'8. I deficiency, e.ppropriation for p.ublic , buildiftg at__________________ • ' 34 Willox, JameB C., . land paten~t to issue to____________ -- " 1157 Wilmington.t 1Y. C., ' ,,' Federal roint Lighthouse Reserv~tion, . conveyed to, for a ~morial:to commemorate the Battle of Fort 'Fisher_____ '__ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ ~-- terms of court at______________ .. ; ____ _ Wilmington, Ohio, deficiency appropriation ·for public, 'bufi4ing at__________________ _ WilBon' Coiimy, Tenn.,' ' b .ridl8 authorized across Cumberland , River, in Trousdale COunty and_ Wilson! N. C., defictency appropriation for public building at_____ ~ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ terms of court at; rooms to be }1rovided_ Wi~,M(H• .,- defieiehoy . - apJIIDpriMiOD for' public , 'bQlcfiffg'&t__ ___ '_ _' _ _ ~ __ _ ,;._ Wind Call' National Park, S. Dak.., , appropriation for administration, etc__ deficienoy a]>propriation for________ .! . __ Wind lliv", Indian Reaervtlltitm' (see· GUt1 , Shoshone Indian Reservation, Wyo.), ", appropriation "for "irH""tlon ;sy8tem; , erleDSionof C&Jl&ls, ete___ ~ _ __ _ 1066 495 34 416 34 495 34 235, 1598 1621 214, 157G deficie~y :appropriation for allotments to unaUotted lndians 08 ___ .. __ 899 Windtr, Buildiflf1, D.a., '" ,.' , . ' , appropriation for installation of electrio elevator in.: _____,__ .:~J ___ _ .. _ __ 583 Windom Place NW."D. C., ' ; , , ; , app-o- -.fatlon for, p&'9'ing, etc., Thirty- Gghth; Street to .W:iscowlin' Ave- . " nU8; froDl J~asoline 1iall) funci- ___ 1269 'Winnebago Indian H08pitQJ,;NtIn';, .,' appropriatioufr ma1n*enance, ete., of~ , X-rayequipment ______ .. . _•• 221, 1581 for improvementfl,.etc __ • _ __. _ __ _ _ _ 1581 Wianebaglr'~rib6 u/ Irwlial'lB,. ', ,all claims of, against ·United.States,not heretofore determined, to be ~d" -' judioated, by Court of Claims__ 1027 prboeidure, etc___t _,_" __ _ .:. ____ ~ _ _ _ 1027 attorneys', fees, ,etc., to, be .fi~d· by courl.:.:. _______ '__ ... ~"'~ __ • __ _ _ __ ,1.028 disposal of &mounts recovered; taxing of costs________ ~ __ ,__ _ __ . .. ___ __ 1028 court expe~. payable from tribal fund8___ ~ __ • __ _ _ __ ~-- 1028
 * Winnemucca, Nev.,. :

deficiency appropriation for purchase \>f ~nd, etc.,' for lndian colony. near_~ _____ ____ ____ __ - 899 purchase of land in viciwty of, author- . ized for an Indian colony______ 618 amou,nt for mo'Ving CIl-binl!, e~c__ __ 618 Winslow, Francia.A ., JudgeJor llewYork Southern ,/ild~. Di8trict, Bubcoml[littee of' JudiciarY of House of. Representatives dire~ted to ,in- qup-e in.1iP o,1fi.eial conduct of. _ _ 1325 to rePort to the ComInittee whether the judge believed to be guilty of, acts of;:Wgh crimes .and mis- demeanors under the Constitu- tion_________________________ 1325 94835°-29-PT 1 -129 Winslow, Francia A., JudgeiorN{Jw l':ork ;I.'&~ Southern Judicial DistriCt.:..;,..oon. subcommittee of J~diciary of lloUaeof.. .; RepnlllentatlVt¥l; powe~,.f. to hold meetinp, ~'oaths, etc_________ ~"'\--- ...~ .. - . -, . . ,,1326 to report to Ju4ioiuy CQ~ttee,,~ ,~ij25 the 71st CO~---.TarmstroBot (talk).-,--,..;, ..,0 expen~ ,authoriHd fl'?~ the llouse . contlOgent fund; bmlt. _ __ ~___ 1325 Wireless Communication (su RadIo \.iOlD- mlUlication), Wisconsin, agreement with Michigan, for· COIIatruc- tion, etc;, of bridge, acrou , Menominee River, between Mar- inette, .Wis., and Menominl!l', Mich., consented ,tto" Dr, Coo~" gress____ :... ___ ~_~,,;.._~_..:x.; ...~;.;__ 300 Federal jurisdiction DOtaffeeted.. _ _ '- .; 301 and Michigan may bridge' Menominee River, ~ Marinett;e_,J-' .. _.~ __ :, 301 bridge authorbeci ,1ICrOIIII &iint CroP: River, at Stillwater, Minn., by ,Minnesota and_____ ,,".;... :..;:l.;:;l..~;.: 1172 designated tracts of land eonv,eyed to; ,0 ' for State park_____________ .. __ 417 price, description, etc___ ... ~ .. _"'.: ___ ~ "17 may acquire;·· after eompletion, ,bridge acrosS Saint Crom RiTer, near Grantsburg_;.. __ •• _.~_~_ .. ~__ 703 Mississippi River, ~t Alma" Wis.: __ •
 * 289

at Cassville______ •. -- .. -,- .... .;..:. .. .; ..1 " 294 atJ.Ill!ins,Iow....... ..; .. __ .. . .. .. ,._ __ ,280 at Prairie du Chien _________ .-~.:_ 199 may &TarmstroBot (talk)tfin&~er;-;.t!'~: 282 ville ____ .. . ______ • _____ --'--~.,.~, ,lJ~ Wi8consin A_ue NW., D. C., ,,'" ' .... :, appropriation for widening, e~.J"Rive.r Roadto~tr.i.ct.line; IroIJ1. p,eo~ line!4x fun4_,"1 •. _,_- .. . __ -~-~-- '653 relo<:atlQI;l of car u-acksi ref~_~,- ,653 . for paving, etc., M to Water, Streets; ., from gasollOe~x fUJ¥L.~_--.__ 1272 use authorized of d8ll1gnate<i UOveru- n;wlnt landfor W\4ening--- ___ _. ", 134~i ~:=~fe1t~:Iti :f.~:··.
 * . d~et a\lthprJseAJo "~' ~P~r.i-"

' f I.\eiI1- __ .... .;_~ ... !:;..,~.;,-,-,!-<- .. - - ; ., - - 159 Wise1Mri, WiUiam, B~ViC6 COMUl, deficieocy' 'PPro~ tfVr.'payment '. ,to. :Great. Briti reeolBitlon - ,of services 01. __ ____ ___ .:_ -' __ 912 payment dirccted to at Britain,in recognition of,.senooe. ';of,· .10l" Aroericaainterest.:ia Mexico.. _. oi89 Witne8ses, United States COUn., 'l " ... \ ',(",if appropriation for. mile&&e: and. pW·. :IJ:
 * .diems, subsistence,: etc...: . . _.. .., , _ 81, 1111

deficiency appropriation for'....: .. _. : • .:.:. _ '. - 47, ., ": ,9M.;1617, 1671 Wittenhrg, Albert, ' ,',.,:, payment to Germany, for hei.,vof; 'de- ce~d',!hile ~man in Ani.erieu: merchaiit manne______________ 414 WoIJ Point, Mont., .' time extended for bridging Miasouri River at_______ ___ ______ _____ 11 t W9we8, ',,'."" ', . appropriat.lon for deviSing methods for destroying ________________ 559, 1209

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2047

 eoxovi INDEX. "Mtaan".'l~tlrfJ3' GrlJnd ArmJl oJ 'he Pa&'II. acoe~tiaJ16111 of bronse tablets frumt..to be' 'PJAiced in Ahdersonvfll. l'I& - _ \luHJeJDeterr, Ga___ ~_______ 1447 .~ YlJderal/ndU4Criallftft',uI,icm;/or, . ,.apprbpaUtkIil.fbt malDteliance, etc ___ 82, 1113 ';-defiC~app.ruPriattoD" for ei1lablillh- _.. .. /8fc.: reappropriation of . b _________________.____ 22 Women-in ,.." ..rn - NIJ"', disabled, entItled to benefits of Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldien_ 366 Womm-'R'J..n .trr, . appropriation'fOrinveatigation, etc., of. 108, -". !. 1138 Womm-JiM World lV., MelflOl'ioHo, deficieatj' a?i>ruprlatiion for additional , _ contributIOn to erection of_____ 886 ,: additional· .&moun•. f{}r erecting and equi~ anthoriled_________ 250 Women'. BuUtJu, DeporiMlnt 01 Lobtlr, &pprojJri8ltion'for IIIMarlas aadexpemes_ 108, .i .. i: ri, 1138 _ " attendance at meetinp__ ..:.. _ 109, 1138 deiiciellof.r '1IPPftlPriation for .alaries, . ._, • 1929________________________ 1685 WODd t.Iftd WDOd ProaUllk, am01lQ~i1lilthorUeci ,for -'JIilY8ioal and .bembl, teat. of; pulp and - paper making, etc;.:. ___ ___ _ ~.: __ 701 foreip. ~ etc_________________ 701 Wood DttCilIcrIi., ., Ilk., . "appropriMiort for inveatipttns me~ ,: ef____;.. ________ ~---~---_' 364, 1205 . . :: stud1. 01. hemp for m~*'ture of _., . '~ p IIiDd paper____________ 654, 1205 'WoGdlen CArlatoplief- . deficlGor, approPriation fot .rvicea_ __ 2 W ood1lHltcf.bTclG~·) . . _appropririon • for maiutenance, eto'l ," Hvt!8toOkbreeding atatioftat_ 549, 1199 ( for hortiCUltural expettment, eto., sta- ._ - 'tlon at' ________ .::.. _______ ~____1201 terms of courfI at ___________ -- -__ ___ 1518 W.., ... .. .. "',,' apprOpriatIOn for atanc!atdlilng i from fund crea~ from co1lec~ one of ., ';~ olipof 1918_.:~ ___ :. ____ 8 91,1214: practft!il-'flbmB 'of (P'8de' Of~ to ~ sbld; . depOtdt of reoeipte in the Treas- 1b7.: .. .:.---.i-;..:.:.--~ .611,1212 WI8 aC fua_""oUected· fJ'Olll wool clip of lOl",1or eit..,.bing.tandaldo, ., etc_______________________ ~_ _ 593 uaelOl'~ etc______________ ..: _ 594 TarmstroBot (talk)-!'--- 594 WOol Clip oJ 191,,'; .' apprvPriaUoa for;oompleting work of, , ,/ tc;; ______ .; ______ 663, 1214 .: for. ~ion ~ woola fftJlD' " deficfeDoy appropriation for compJetiq use "'f~'liGipr;; 13 ,;. ticable to diaUlbu.te to power,
 * - r :>fu*!'breated from collection8 of_ 1214
 * or promoting use of authorized

~ of Jradee, etc_______ 593 Wool induttri/, . appropriatfon for investigating prob- lema of, on western IB.nds- __ 547,1197 WOOnaocklll, R. I'J p .... appropriation lor public building. __ _ _ 1044 'deficiency appropriation for public building at_ __ _____ ______ __ ___ 925 WOO3Ier, hio, - appropriatio~ for public bullding___ ~__ 182 Worculer,.MMi;,'·! . - appropdation for demolition "nd com- mencing conStruction .)f public building_ _____ __ ____ _________ 182 for publio building ______ ____ ____ __ 1044 WorkhoUH and B,jtlr'fMlor1l, D. C., appropriation for personalaervie8l_ 672, 1289 advances for expenses in returning, escaped prisoners __________ 672, 1289 for purcllaae of land for railrOad . siding,. _________ . _______ ~_ __ _ 673 for additional IB.nd around beDdings; immediatelyavailable__ ",. __ _ _ _ 673 WMkhou.., .D . C." appropri~tion for salaries _________ 673, 1289 fOf blalDtenance, etc. ___ __ ___ __ ~ 673,1289 , for construction of permanen.. build- ings,. etc________ .. ______ ______ 1289 for fueL ___________________ • __ 673,1289 for reconditioning barges, wharves, etc___ -_. ___ _______ _______ __ 673 for ocmatructioD. zepUp, etc___ ..... 673, 1289 for briok pl&n' __ .;..i __ .! _____.;~ ..l___ 673 for motor vehicles________________ 673 deficie..y .appropriation· for m&inte- . nance, ete_.- .. .;~. _____ ~_ 10.892,1630 Wtlrld WlJr, appropriation .tor preparlDg Medical and Burst_l Hi8tor1 Of,________ 358 for preparing naval reoorda 0'- __ 642, 1471 for GtpeD88I of, :Jua.e Advocate Gen- , . nIl'. 08ioe, War ])epartment, eX8CutinLPN\ti8lone fA "Settle- - nieotof War Ctaima Act, 1928"_ 1352 additio1J&l·amount.'authorized for erect- in« arid- equipping Memarial' to the Women 01________________ 250 mentaByaftUoted veter"111 of, to heiS . . vided .with additional hoe 1, domi~, and. out-patten dis- ~=.iba::~--TarmstroBot (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 715 pilgrimagtllr to ceiDeteries in· Europe arranJle(\ for' mothers and wid- OWl! Of American foreal, who CHed durin«, and are buried therein__ 1508 I18ttleIlMlnt authoriaed of the indebted- n.s :of Kingdom 01 Serbs, Croata, and SlOveDell__________ 399 8ettleme~ of oJaima ariling put of, be- tween United States, Germany Austria, 8!ld Hungary, eto___ 254-279 World WIJ1' Ad,fUitUd Cotnpe1tlotioR, appropriation for administrative ex- TarmstroBot (talk)_01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_TarmstroBot (talk)__TarmstroBot (talk)li 1245 for admllliatratiV'e - ~nses, under NaY; .Department; \uitttpended balAnee reappropriated_ _ ______ 642 deficiency' apprOpriation for adminis- trative expenses, under War IJe~mment---_-- 925 World Wal'. Ad;uated Compemalion Act AmeMmenta, appUoation for benefit1J of.z. .. iI? be flIed n47 before January 2, Iv-.:sO_'_ .,-- "

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2048

 WorZd 'War Adiumd Com~eion Act AmenJmentl-ContinUed. appHcation for benefit of? personally, or by representative of veteran phyaically ucable____ - - _- _- - - - void, it by other than re~ntatlve, or not; filed before January 2, 1930 __________ ~ ________ ~ ___ _ by any person, it veteran dies after JIiatlnI.before6Un!_. - - - - - - - - by widow, it vefAr&n died without making, between Ma.y 19, 1924, and July 1, 1924. _____________ _ valid, if application filed before Jan- uary 2" 1930, whether or not alive at the tlme______________ _ disposition of credits, it pafiments KI!1i~h:~:TarmstroBot (talk):~_~tTarmstroBot (talk) no payment to widow it remanied/ etc_ unleas dependent at death of 'Veteran,, and'before January 3, 193(L __ _ presumption of dependency of widow_ payment to chUd under 18, or physi- cally incapable of support, before January 3,'1930 _____________ _ limitation as to mother or father before January 3, 1930____' __ __ __ _ __ _ time tor applying for benefits extended to JanuaJ:Y 2,1930___________ _ payments only If applications made_ applications personally,' or by repre- .entative, it physically, etc., in- ~pable __ '___ ___ __ _ void,itot~ _________ ~ ____ ___ ' presumption of a})plicatlon for benefits it ])epe.rtment records show filing. though original eannot be founa ______________________ _ transm~ of Dew application it filed, .. of date of former _____ _ continued unexplained abeence from home, etc., for I18ven years, a , presumption of death ________ _ if no application 01 veteran prior to, benefits allowed dependents ___ _ dependency construed; 'Of wldow____ _ mcapacity of child _____________ _ mother or father________________ _ if veteran appears, payments to de- pendents shall eeaee___________ _ deduction of payment. made ____ _ payment to lepUy appointed. 1IWVdian, etc.. of minora, phylll.uy incom- petente,etc_________________ _ directt prior to receipt of, notice of disability _________ - ' ___ ____ __ _ vete~=locii:a_01:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_ payment to estate of, if unable to ascertain the beneficiary llAJDed_ punlablD8l1t lor fraudulent statements, , etc., extended _______________ _ no prior'payments, etc., invalidated__ _ priority of dependents, etc ________ _ loans ~ vef.erans on eervtee certificates allowed by VeteraDS' Bureau from'life iD8\lJ'&1lce fund ______ _ terms and eondltiODS; raie of int.ereet n~to exoeed G percent____ ~_, __ dupUcate· certiftoatee, may be Issued for thQlle lost without bad falth_ boDd~uked-_~- _______ _ INDEX. '~cvii Paae. 947 947 947 947 947 947 947 947 947 948 948 948 948 948 948 948 948 948 948 949 .949 949 949 949 949 949 949 949 949 950 950 1561 1661 1561 1561 World W arAdju.tM Com,*",ation Act '~ Amendmenta--Continued. duplicate certifie&tes; lseue without bol\d ' if lost, etc., before delivery to veteran ________________ ~ ~_~ __ 1561 after delivery, it pattlallr'de- stroyed, etc_________ _______ 1561 World War ClaifM (,ee Mixed Clalma Commil8lons). ' Warid War Foreign Debe Com",i8eion, approval of aettlemeDt made by, of in- debtedness of Serbe, ~.ts! and Slovenes_______________ .. _, ___ _, 399 World War Vmranl' Act, 19B" (,eealto . Veterans' Bureau). , appropriation for expenses of adminia- tratlon ___________________ 587,1245 World War Vetmlna' Act, 19B.; Amend- , fIMntI, ., no suit in claims for inliu~ce allf1W'ed, unless brought, within siX years after right accrued, or one year from date of this Act___________ 964 right accrued on happening of con- tingency on whioh'based________ 964 limitation Buspend«l on denial of claim by Director_____________ 964 time for infanta, etc_______________ 964 allowance of neW' suit, for defects In p~, etc__ ~,_______ 964 former jud~ts that claim barred by limitation, not. b&t' to • ~w 8UU ________________ ~ ____ _ ~__ t64 State, etc., statute of limitations not applicable ___________ ._~_____ 964 pendinlf suite included in pr6viaiODS , hereof__________ :_~ _ _ __ _ _ ,____ 004 in payments to minors, etc., Director to give notice to court on failure of guardian, ete., to prOperly ex&. cute his dutiest.etc _______ ~_.;:__ 964 sUBpension of guaTruaD, etc., D~lect- ing ~ render accounts 01 par- ments_____________ ., ___ __ __ __ ' 964 payment of eourt t:xpenses olin..: vestigations, etc______________ 004 no recovery of compensation payments from benefieiary" if without fault; nonliabillty c)f diabui'sing, officer___'___ -_________________ 005 amount reimbursed to life Insurance fund_~______________________ 005 CO<ltract for translators authorized without regard to civa service laws, etc_______ '_____________ 965 recorda, etc., in Utipted eases. may be medicJ~:=iiQiji/-etC:; eij)e_iii 965 insurancea -. ae s to De paid from Bureau expeDll88______________ 965 in death allowance; compensation to dependent parents; proof of de- pendency required ________ ~ _.. : __ 965 allowance for b'Urlal expenses, for d6ath in the serviee______ ~-_~'~:__ _, __ 966 veterans of any war, ineh=~Awomen ~Y nuraea m Sp .'~Amer- lean War__________________ , ._ 006 beneficiaries of theBureau_~ ___ . :_ _ _ 966 additional, for· beneficiaries in hos- pitals, etc~, a...y from 'h1)Dle_':" _ 966 east of tranaportatlpnofan at- tendant_____ :!'________ ~.:,~-.--- 966

�


text:
Very v. Watkins

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

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Stillwell for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Watkins for the defendant.

The arguments of the counsel were so connected with the facts of the case, that it would be difficult to give a faithful account of them without an extensive statement of the facts.

Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Very v. Watkins


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2049

 cexoviii "- lNDEX. World Wor V~' ,Act, 1984, At"..,.. , R-. ~-iQUeci. " termy~rly~iialUftDOe",o ~:'i'; ClODvert.ed notlMer July 2,1927; payJDent of,:,iiD" bitiaUioentsj aun MIQUIlt...suy ;IIGCUW~ 969 ather pro~lsi0D8lf)r, auihoIizech.__ 969 basla of calculations_________ .. ,;;____ 969 ehaqee CIf. be.oefioI&l1ee 'at 8I\Y~e al101{ed,tC.in,permitted olM8ea__ 969 ~,t eiWe;it DO Uviug.bime-- 1t==~ui$O;t;tDi 969 all i~ _____,_ •• _____ .;_ 969 no payme$ ~--tet If uDder State lam it would ..cheat_ • .; __ ,;,,;,___ 969 eaobwot "to. United States} &ad CNdlted to We'ialuraoce lund_ _ 969 optional lump awn,etc., paymeots may,be provided for. __ _ _ __ ... ... _ 970 eleotiOQ of-beneficiary to ~ve lD- . ~Jlt~ota, autbort.ed. 970 effeotiva.·of JUDe 7f ·IAIfal... ___ . . . . .:. ': 970 insur&DOe in any multbie cI '500, 'ADd, not leu than '1,000, may be granted ~ OI1e who baa apo !'I ete!.01:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_~ 970 healflb reqU1NlD8llt; lliDlted to, $10,000. ___ ;. ____ .;".;.· .. ________ 970 restriction, ,1I·f~r. 1bauranee IUr- . renderedfor.CMh__'___________ 970 applioable only for World War mil- itary or navalaervioe__________ 970 provisions authorized of cn.bWty be~ fit. to. ,lDaureci, .totally diaabled ' for 13 mooth8! ~•.thoulh per- 970 ~tl.y and '1OIalI, diMbJed__ deotive date of disability, ,etc______ <170 inde~n*of"othez\ benefits;. .pze.', JDluma ~ed~ _______ .. ___ _ ..; __ 970 inauraa~ polley to> app~y when in- , aured no lonpr totally diaabled_ other rights n~ pzejudiced______ .i __ co~tio... for P,Dtln3 the benefits. _ , monthly preuuuma.required_____ _ 970 970 970 971 ,lapsed iIlllUl'&Me' .eft'eot of, uncollectible .• compenaatfon..:. __ _ __ _ _ __ _ ,. ..;_ _ 971 Wright Coum'll, Minn.,' " time extellded for bridging MiMiasippi , Rive~ at Clearwater, by, ~te_ 118, 1527 Wright Field, UOf/k1fl OIriO, ;,. , defioieDey app~at(~n fC1t tranaiel' of Army Air Corps testing ~nt to. 928 amount authoriaed for transfer of Air Corp. e~ntal, ete., plant to permanent site at__ ~ _ __ ..r___ 299 Wright,W~tmd omll't, " . .. ' CongreMional committee to atteJ)d tIn- . veiling' of memorial~\, Igtty Hawk, N. C .t to eo~funcSra~, first llUeoeaful a!rpl.ne·D~of.. at Kill Devil Hill _____ ~.:._:.:_~ 1020 Wrightlt1ille, P~., "'. .:': ..: time extended for brJdgi,ng, Susqtie- ba~a River,,~tw~n Coluinota ., and__~,."...,,. .. - ... ~ ..'"\-~ ... - .. -- 113 WritB 01 Error, VniUd SUatIM'Cowte, " abolished in civil and criminal ea.& _ -- reUef o~ta1nabI. by apP84'!s- _•• _ __ . .: procedure.hw appetij C&se8 ____ .. ____ _ 54 54 54, review of jud,gments qf State oourts. allowed in same torm as for __ . 54

�


text: Talk:Very v. Watkins

title: Talk:Very v. Watkins


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2050

 INDEx.. ccxeix Wrmol BrrDl'.UnilldSIGtAClIW'tI-Con. p .. .., 8tatU~ ~tt:tsii= tfentor_._____ _______ ______ __ 466 Wyondotte, AltIlA..", , defic1eDC1' ~pzopriatJon for public ,bUUahi'i at___________________ 34 Wyotrii~, . ',' ,.,\' provisions of Boulder Canyon Project ActappUcable ~, .under COlo- rado lUver"com~-- 1057-1061 water Power permits, on Colorado River and tributaries.. not to ~ luued until March' S, 1930, unl8111 Boulder Canyon Project Act effective prior thereto_________ 1446 x. X Roy., appropriation for inT88tigatioDII, etc. of___________ ~ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ 93,1124 X uireb, BmGnuel, deficibnc), appropriation for ieimbUJ'8&o ment to. for lou of private funds 24
 * Y.

Yachtl, ' tax on use of foreign bullt, repealed; efJ~tive July 1, 1928___ ~______ 867 YakimG 411ency, WlJ8h., . appropriation for support, etc., of In- diana,at __________ -- - _ _ _ _ _ 223,1584 YakimG Indidn Reamlat~ WlJ8h., , appropriation for Toppenfsh-Blmcoe irrigation lIystem" ____ ~ __ _ _ _ 214,1575 for reimbUl'lliDl1'eClamation fund for water:fu,rotllhed landsln ____ 21'- 1576 for additional water supply, Wapato Irrigation project__________ 21'- 1576 unexpended balance of appropriation for dlv$'Siondain, etc., covered in___ ~--~--~-____________ 1576 YakimG 1ndiGn &MIorWm, Waah., appropriation for maintenance, etc., of; X-ray equlPmflIit__________ 221,1582 Y aki11Jll Irrigation Project, Waah., appropriation for mainteriance, etc., of4 229, 1592 for.oonstructiOD, etc ___________ 230,1592 for Kittitas divISion, etc _______ 230,1592 Yankton Agency, S. DtJk., appropriation for support, etc., of In- . d iana at, from. interest on Sioux fun1________________________ 223 Yankton, 8. ·Dak., . . &ppropli~tion'for control of floods, etc., of Missouri River at___________ 1380 Yankton ~if>w; Tribe 0lIndian8, 8. Dak., agancy, etc., lands revested in________ 1167 not available for allotments________ 1167 YGteB, Hicklin, deficiency appropriation for services___ 883 Yazoo River and Tributaries, project& for flood control of, to be sub- mitted__ ___ ____ ____ _____ _____ 538 Yellow Fever, appropriation for prevention of____ 174, 1040 Yellow Fever RoU 01 Honor, Army, ' in recognition of high public services in discovery of cause, etc., of yellow fever in Cuba, designated names to be carried on, in Army Regis- ter,annually _________________ 1409 Yellowaton. Irrigation Project, MOflt.- P .. . . N.D , appropriationlorcol\8tNQiiQa of drain- age system.. _______________ 229, 1591 Yellow.,. . NGlWn4!. For_ W"o., repeal of authorization lor homestead entries In______________ • .;. __ _ _ 622 YeUow8lone National Pork Boundary Com- miaBion appointed to inspect propo8ed &djllSt- ment of Park bouni:laries_______ 1413 recommendations to be reported to the President_________________ 1413 expenses from Park appropriatioDII__ 1413 final report to Congress on or before Jan~ 1, 193L .. ____________ 1413 Y eUow.ton. National Pork, Wyo., appropriation for oommilliouer_____ 7S.,1110 for OOII8truction of trout n~ry ponds at Mammoth Springain_ 98 for aOmInIstratioll, etc_______ ~ __ 23a, 1~8 for improving winter feed facilities, 01 elk, ~tc-___ 1601 deficienc;y a~propriatioD for__________ 46 for adlustmg boundaria. of_________ 1644 administration, etc., appro{)riationa for, made available for Grand Teton National Park________ .:. ______ .:. 1316 appointment,oI commiuion to adjuat boundary of__________ - - - - ___ _ 1644 boundaries of, changed_ _ ____________ 1436 no .nsw r~, hotels, etc., permitted in added area_,.______________ 1436 laws made applicable______________ 1436 Water Power A~ not applicable____ 1436 exchange of lands with private own- ers authorized________________ 1436 no valid existing olaima, etc., af- fected_______________________ 1436 commission to be appointed, foriDllpect- ing and reporting OD proPosed boundaries adjustments_ _ _ _ _ __ 1413 sum authorized for addiJag. landa, to, etc. to iIl!prove winter-teea facilities of elk, etc__________ • _ 603 BU!'plus elk may be sold; deposit of recei,pts__ _________________ ___ 1644 YeUowBton. R,.,.,., Mom., preliminary examination, for flood con- trolof_______________________ 1164 YonkerB, N. Y., ' deficiency appropriation for publio building; limit of cost inc~_ 34 York County, ;P/t" .' mne _e,:c4~/oc P!:'tqgi.ng ~que- WUlna .n. .Iver. De ween Wnghts- ville and Columbia, by Lan- caster County and____________ 113 Yorktown, Va., appropriation for naval mine depot, im- proving lightning protection_ ___ 636 YOBemitB Nati.onal Park, Calif., appropriation for comDlissioner _____ 79,1110 for admftrlstration 1 etc __________ 236, 1598 maintenance 01 roads, camping facilities, etc_ _ _ ____ _____ _____ 236 unexpended balance for watcr sup- ply and camping facilities reap- propriated___________________ 1599 for roads, etc_____________________ 1601 deficiency appropriation for hospital building_ _ ______ ____ ____ _____ 904 for electric power_________________ 1644

�


text:
Very v. Watkins/Opinion of the Court

On the 3d March, 1841, at Little Rock, Arkansas, one James Levy gave his obligation with a mortgage for $4,000, with interest, due six years after date, to one Darwin Lindsley, who soon after assigned the obligation to Martin Very, the plaintiff in error. In March, 1843, Levy paid to Very $2,000, and at the same time executed a promise, in writing, to pay the residue of the debt in jewelry and other wares, which Very agreed to receive in payment, to be selected within a year from that time, from Levy's stock of goods. Very refused to perform the agreement, and in 1848 brought an action on the original obligation, to which Levy pleaded the agreement by way of accord and satisfaction, with an offer to perform on his part. The Supreme Court of Arkansas, on an appeal, held it to be in equity a clear accord and satisfaction, upon a good consideration, because the creditor by that arrangement received payment of nearly half of the debt in advance, and because the residue was to be paid almost four years before the debt became due. In the mean time, Very brought a bill to foreclose the mortgage in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Arkansas, to which Levy set up the same defence by way of answer. In April term, 1850, the court sustained the defence of Levy, and decided that Very should select from the stock of goods in question a sufficient amount according to their value, on the 3d March, 1844, to satisfy the rest of the debt. It then became necessary to appoint a receiver in the cause. John M. Ross was appointed receiver, and gave a bond, with E. Cummins and George C. Watkins as securities, in the penal sum of $5,000, with the condition that he would faithfully discharge his duties as receiver, with respect to such goods as might be brought into court, and that he would carefully keep and dispose of them in conformity with such order and decree as the court might make in that suit.

In consequence of Very's refusal to abide by his agreement, Levy was obliged to keep his stock of goods on hand to tender them to Very, according to the agreement. But Levy had other creditors, who seized upon the same goods in execution, and they were in possession of the sheriff when Ross was made receiver, and from the sheriff he received them. The next step was an order from the district judge, directing Very to select from a box of jewelry in the hands of the receiver such an amount, according to the value of the goods in March, 1843, as would be sufficient to discharge the balance of the debt due to him. This he refused to do, and then the clerk of the Supreme Court of Arkansas was directed, with the assistance of two skilful and disinterested persons, to make a selection from the goods for Very.

It was done. A report was made, that the value of the goods in March, 1844, had been $5,777, and that according to that value a selection had been made to the amount of $2,002.59, to pay Very's claim upon Levy, and that the goods had been set apart for that purpose, with an inventory. A final decree was then made, authorizing Levy to withdraw the remainder of the goods from the hands of the receiver, adjudging also that Very should take the selected goods in payment of the residue still due upon the bond and mortgage, and that Ross, the receiver, should deliver them to him on demand. Very refused to abide by that decree, and prosecuted an appeal to this court. Here the decree of the court below was affirmed. On its return, Very refused to pay the costs. Levy had to pay them in order to get a mandate from this court to carry its decree into execution. Under these circumstances, Levy sued out a writ of execution, and directed it to be levied on the goods belonging to Very, still in the hands of Ross. The receiver and the marshal returned it without further action on the wirt. A venditioni exponas was then issued, and the goods were sold by the marshal for $260, the full value of them at that time, in their then condition. Three years and six months passed, and then Very, having acquiesced all of that time in what had been done, commenced this suit to recover from Watkins, as the security of Ross, damages for a breach of his bond, alleging that he had carelessly kept the jewelry which had been in his possession as receiver, and for not having surrendered it to him when he demanded it, as under the decree of the court he had a right to do.

Watkins filed three pleas to this action. The first is a detailed narrative of the proceedings in the suit between Very and Levy to the appointment of Ross as receiver, and showing that, by the decree, Very had been required to receive, in satisfaction of the debt due to him by Levy, jewelry to the amount of $2,002.59; and that from that decree they had appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the decree of the court below had been affirmed with costs. Very v. Levy, 13 How., 345. And further stating, that Levy had paid the costs of the suit in the Supreme Court, and that the jewelry, still being in the hands of Ross, had been levied upon and sold by the marshal, and that the proceeds of it were applied to the repayment of Levy of the costs, which Very was bound to pay by the decree.

Watkins, in his second plea, denied that the jewelry had been injured from the careless keeping of Ross; and his third plea is a denial that Very had ever demanded it from Ross.

Upon the trial of the case, the plaintiff excepted to the rulings of the court, as well for excluding as for admitting testimony.

We have examined with some pains the plaintiff's assignments of error, without finding cause for sustaining either of them. The first is, that the court refused to permit a witness to testify to a conversation between himself and Cummins, the co-surety of Watkins, for the purpose of fixing upon the latter a liability in this action to the plaintiff. It seems that Watkins was not present at that conversation. Whatever it may have been, it was inadmissible; and had Cummins been alive, and had been called as a witness to narrate it, he would not have been a competent witness to fix upon his co-surety a separate liability for an alleged breach of the bond by their principal, for which they had made themselves mutually responsible. The argument of the counsel for the defendant in error is unanswerable upon this point.

The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error are complaints because the court admitted evidence directly pertinent to the issues which had been made by the pleadings, and defensive as to the imputed negligence of Ross in keeping the goods committed to him as receiver, and as to their condition, quality, and value, when they were turned over to him under the order of the court; and as to their condition when it was levied upon by the marshal to pay the costs of the Supreme Court.

The seventh assignment of error was the refusal of the court to admit a paper in the handwriting of Cummins, the deceased co-surety of the defendant, to show that the testimony of the other witnesses, Dort and Kirk, was not consistent with the appraisement which they had made, pursuant to the order of the court. It was clearly inadmissible.

The eighth and ninth assignments of error relate to the levy upon the jewelry by the deputy marshal; and the court is asked to instruct the jury: 'If the levy was made without seeing the jewelry and taking it into possession, they should disregard it as any evidence of any levy; as, in law, a levy upon personal property-which jewelry is-cannot be made without having a sight of it, and taking possession thereof.'

The court refused the instruction as asked; but said to the jury, that to make a valid levy on goods and chattels on a writ of fi. fa., if the officer charged with the duty has a view of them, and they are in his power, and he declares that he makes a levy or seizure of them in execution, such is a valid levy, without taking them into his possession.

The objection to this instruction seems to be, that there had been an insufficient seizure, because the officer did not take manual possession of the box containing the jewelry, but left it in the keeping of Ross, who had pointed it out to him when he came to make the levy. But the evidence establishes that a levy was made by the officer, and that he returned the execution to the marshal, for further proceedings upon it.

It cannot be implied that the levy was incomplete, on account of the box having been left where it was when the levy was made, where it had been kept by Ross whilst he continued to be receiver, and where it remained afterwards, from Very not having demanded it, as he had a right to do and should have done.

After a levy has been made with a fi. fa. upon goods and chattels, the officer may confide them to another person for safe keeping, until there has been a settlement of the judgment and payment of all costs.

The court, in giving this instruction to the jury, went further than it was necessary to do, without, however, having interfered with the right of the jury to find from the evidence whether or not a levy had been made.

The tenth assignment of error relates to the instruction of the court, that by the decree of the court below in August, 1850, and the affirmance of it by this court in 1851, Ross ceased to act as receiver, and from thenceforth held the jewelry in question only as the trustee of Very. That decree put an end to the controversy, excepting to what remained to be done under the mandate of the court for the execution of its decree. It is true that Ross, as receiver, had not been discharged by a formal order upon motion when the decree was made; but it is also true that the jewelry, by the decree, was made the property of Very, and that he could have demanded it from Ross, and that he could not justifiably have refused to deliver it. It was the property of Very for all purposes, as any other that he owned, or which could have been conveyed to him by any kind of title. It was, as such, liable for his debts. It seems to have been considered by the counsel of Very as liable for the costs of appeal in the Supreme Court, which Very had neglected to pay. Levy, however, paid them, and obtained an execution against Very for his reimbursement, which was as well leviable upon this property still in the possession of Ross as upon any other. It was allowed by him voluntarily to remain where the law had placed it, without having made any proper demand for it under the decree. We do not consider the application for it by Mr. Fowler, as the attorney of Very, a proper demand. Mr. Fowler's relation to him was not that special attorneyship which authorized him to demand it in the manner that he did. No doubt that both Mr. Cummins himself and Mr. Fowler thought themselves empowered, as attorneys in the suit, to withdraw it from Ross, to make a private sale of it for the payment of the costs due by Very.

But Ross had responsibilities in the matter under the decree, which gave him the right to withhold it from the counsel of one of the parties, until a demand was made upon him, according to what the course of equity practice requires to be done under such decrees. It matters not what causes he may have assigned to Mr. Fowler for not delivering the jewelry to him, for, in a controversy to make the security of Ross liable for an alleged breach of his bond, the former is entitled to have the benefit of any irregularity which his principal could have resisted. According to the practice in equity, under such a decree as this is, authorizing Very to demand the jewelry, the demand should have been made under a certified copy of that part of the decree, at least, permitting Very to demand the property, and requiring Ross to surrender it, with a receipt upon it, either by Very or by his attorney, that the goods were surrendered by Ross. Upon the return of such a certificate, the court would have directed it to be put on file with the other papers in the suit, as a voucher for the protection of Ross from further responsibility to the parties, and as evidence that its decree in that particular had been executed. Such a course is not merely a form, to be followed or not, as parties to such a decree may please, but it is a cautionary requirement, to prevent further litigation, by exactness in the performance of a decree in equity. Had it been observed in this instance, this suit would not have been brought.

The instruction as given is in conformity with the decree. Having examined every assignment of error, we shall direct the judgment of the court below to be affirmed.

title: Very v. Watkins/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Very v. Watkins/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/2051

 INDEX. Yonmile NeIIoMlPorlt, CaIi/.--contd. !'lip. acquial.~on of landa in private owner- " eIIIp to _ildded'~,f~ ~ ~c:tDti)bi-:.~G.~t.ed 187 ~________________________ 787 itodjaoea~ ,~ber et.odIt may be added, to, by pooJamatioD of the ~t____________________ 1486 YM' 8".,N••, D. C., ' , appropriation for'pa'flng~ ete., west of .. ',B'IId8MbUttr Road;, fl'om guo- . 'llne t.al[ tUB(l______ ~ __ .;_______ 654 .YOtAfl~ RiHr . l brida'fi' ::&oKHd at'II'OIIII,. between Ver- aaiUea and Boeton, h _____. , ___ 1169 Y 9UNJ(9um, Olrio, - .., ' ~propftatioli'fGr ~ btilldin8~ ____ 1044 deficfellCl1rap~tlo~ ff)r pod oftIee,'
 * ete'j ~OD,. ________ .- -

925 ~ autho~ *'"*" '·MabonIftg. may '='i2!b;PiDiRiver:-AiDlV(' 1168 .•on 8tree"_L,;,_ .. ____ ~'~-_-.: 63 at Weet Av.oe __ ;.._'_~____________ '.114 reco~il'/ ••, ~. brld., tklfOIIi . .iIh·'Rfm'" at, 6U~C)rilfJcL 62 Y"eIG Te. "',,, bri~"'horlled acroeiJ tUo Grande, '!it_ 1017 ,
 * eo~of Mexico:requil'ed.;:;~ __ .:,___

1017 Y-am BiHr Alotk4, ' '" . apPrO~OD ,for maiDtenailee, etc., . of river ateamel'lt, etc., 0-' __ ___ __ 240 Y1imkJ, An •. ,. . 'ooD8truetlon' fbtMmY 'Ah'Oorpe, authOrised at____ '.: ___'_ _ __ _ __ _ _ 1305 YUMa Cou"'", An,.' lands In" to be ie..ed. fr municipal aviation fieid __________ .:. ___ __ _ 149 YUMa Ii&tUtM~, eM". '. apprOprlatioft for ~Uoo, e~., cbaraeaon~dBof-~.-- 212,1574 share- of ericIItae. IIbpiedallrription . dfsCrio&' of water right charle, •., forJandaIn_______ .:.:._____ 1321 Yuma I~PreJ«l, A,b., deficiency appropriation· for reimbure- mg, for Colorado ltIver levees, etc___ ..; ________________ -- __ __ 903 oredit for COnstruotiOB ebaraes of ,water r!ht =rU=lr=c~ ~ __________________ ~_ 1321 pro rata share in y~ Indian ~aUOn___ ._~ ___________ - 1321 Yuma Irrifatio1l Projed, An •. -cootd. p .... where ~etiQdl ~ are paid In ruD,IMI,...... 'of ered!_; to operatlOn aDd maiDtenan",___ ' __ 1321 Yuma Irrigoti.tm Projed, Ari•. -€tIlif., appropriation" -for IilaIB'tenanC8,· • . of _______________ !. . ___ _ ~ __ 228,1590 maintenance of OOQlDlercial Bye- tem_____ ~ ____ __ :. ..:.: ____ ___ 228,1500 lor operatlilg etc., CoI~ RIver levee sy. adjacent to____ 231,1593 z. Zaeitary Ta"lor N~ C." . ., .", KU" deficiency appropriatioD for MtabUsh- 101 __________ .-___ ______ ____ 920 title of land to be donAted_______ '929 burialgrounda of fitnDer PNlicient, " ;. Zachary Taylor,MtabUshed M_ _ 494 Zanurrille, Olio, ' appropriation for acqUlriDC additional ," land for publie bulldfllgat______ 182 Zapata, T~'l . bridge autnorized acrosi! Rio Grande, at_ 387 conaent of M~cq required_ _______ 387 Zion NGtu1nctz Park "".il·' ,'. .' ~ 'h ',' app~riation for AdiniDiStrat.ion/,!.tc...236, 1599 deficiency appropriation for ,uptiDg .8ystem __ . : __ ~__________________ 904, divrion of water from. 8PrU1gi In, to Sp~,au~or.uad- 787 zoolotriCal Park, D. C., N~... .' appropriation for acquiring,.\NlCUI for , connectinc parkway" ~een .Potomac and,. BOok Creek ~h ___________ • _________ 680, 1296 forezpenae8_. ___ .. _____________ &10,1296 deficienCy apPJQpriation for exhibition ~,etc____________________ 893 for salaries, 1929_________________ 1694 Zuni Indian ReaBnlClCion, N. Ma., ,appropriation for :irrigation project OD _______________________ 210,1672 deficiency appropriation for colUltruct- IUID a!t°far ~eti~g- road 902 .Wlthin______ ___________ ______ 501 employment of IndlaD labor________ 501 maintenance free of eost to United 8tatea, by New Mexico,etc- 501 Zvni Indian SaMtorlum, N. M~.# appropriation for 8UPport, etc., OL____ 1582 ADDITIONAL .COPIES f1' ~ PVBLlCAnOIf JUT .11 ROCUIIIID r.>11 DB IIVPIlIlUftIlIfDIIII'1'. or DOCUHIIJmI V •••OOVIIJUOfIlll'1 ' _a ODICII W48IIDICftOIf, D. C. At t&2S PER OOPY V

�


text:
United States v. Murphy (64 U.S. 476)

THESE two cases were appeals from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The cases are stated in the opinion of the court.

They were argued by Mr. Stanton for the appellants.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Murphy (64 U.S. 476)


text: Talk:United States v. Murphy (64 U.S. 476)


text:
United States v. Murphy (64 U.S. 476)/Opinion of the Court

The appellees in these suits were respectively confirmed in their claims to land in the valley of the Sacramento river.

Their applications were made to Micheltorena in 1844; and upon a reference, Captain Sutter reported that the land was vacant. Upon the advice of the secretary, further action was deferred until the Governor could visit that portion of the Department, and leave was given to the petitioner to occupy the land until that time.

In December of that year, the 'general title' to Sutter was issued, and in 1845 or 1846, after the deposition of Micheltorena as Governor, Sutter gave copies of that title to the petitioners. In the testimony of Sutter, in the case of Pratt, he says 'that he applied for the paper a few weeks before the couriers arrived with it; that duplicates were sent to him, and that it was designed as a bounty to the soldiers who had served under him, for their services in the war.'

We have already expressed our opinion upon the merits of this title in several cases, during this and the last term; and it remains only to say that the decrees of the District Court must be reversed, and the causes remanded, with directions to the District Court to dismiss the petition in each.


text: Talk:United States v. Murphy (64 U.S. 476)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Callan v. Statham

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

The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Walter S.C.ox and Mr. Davis for the appellants, and by Mr. Chilton and Mr. Davidge for the appellees.

The arguments and points of law were very dependent upon the facts of the case, and are therefore omitted.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Callan v. Statham


text: Talk:Callan v. Statham

title: Talk:Callan v. Statham


text:
Callan v. Statham/Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia.

The suit below was a creditor's bill, filed by Statham and others, the appellees, to set aside a deed made by J. F. Callan and wife to M. P. Callan, on the 16th October, 1854, conveying lot No. 8, in square No. 456, with the improvements, in the city of Washington, and to subject it to the payment of the plaintiffs' judgments.

Judgments to an amount exceeding $3,000 were recorded against J. F. Callan, 5th May, 1855. The deed was recorded 14th April, 1855.

A second bill was filed against the same parties and others, on the 9th August, 1856, by Austin Sherman, a judgment creditor of J. F. Callan, for the purpose of setting aside the same deed, and subjecting the property to the payment of his judgments recovered 2d April, 1855, and exceeding in amount $9,000.

The two suits were consolidated, as the same proofs were equally applicable in respect to the charge of fraud in the execution of the conveyance sought to be set aside. The court below decreed that the deed was fraudulent as against creditors, and directed the property to be sold, and the proceeds brought into court for distribution. The case is here on an appeal from that decree.

At the date of the deed of October, 1854, Callan was heavily in debt-several suits impending over him and maturing to judgments, to which the property in question would have been subject. The conveyance was made to a brother, for the consideration, as stated in the deed, of $4,900. The premises conveyed, according to the estimate of witnesses who were well acquainted with them, were worth at the time exceeding $15,000, assuming the title to be good, which will be noticed hereafter. The vendor continued to possess and occupy the property after the conveyance the same as before, leasing the buildings and collecting the rents in his own name, and not accounting to the vendee for the same. Indeed, the vendee seems to have taken no part in the management of the property; nor does it appear that he has exercised any act of ownership over it since the purchase, and down to the taking of the proofs in these cases.

In the answer of Callan, the vendor, to the bill of Statham and others, to the charge that the consideration mentioned in the deed was not paid, he simply states that it had been fully paid by his brother, the vendee. The vendee, for his answer, adopts the answer of his co-defendant.

In their answer to the bill of Sherman, they concur in stating that $4,000 of the consideration were paid by the surrender of a note the vendee held against the other party, and $900 in cash, and that the payment was not made in presence of any third person.

No proof was given by the defendants in respect to the payment of the consideration, with a view of sustaining the allegation in the answers. They rely entirely upon the rule of pleading, that the answers are responsible to the bill, and to be taken as true till overthrown by proof on the other side. As they aver the payment was a transaction between themselves, and the principal part a note held by the vendee, which he surrendered, the evidence in respect to which is therefore exclusively within their own knowledge, it would have been more satisfactory if they had given some proof in support of the answers, especially when there were other accompanying circumstances, tending to excite distrust and suspicion as to the bona fides of the deed.

As it respects the defect in the title relied on to reduce the value of the property, it appears that J. F. Callan, in November, 1840, took a lease of this property from one W. Robinson, trustee of Alice Jennings, Alice joining in the lease for the term of her natural life, for the annual rent of $200; and in which lease it is agreed that, upon the death of the said Alice, the lessee shall have the right to purchase the estate for the price of $3,000; upon the payment of which, Robinson binds himself and his heirs to convey the title. Alice died in May, 1851, and Robinson some years earlier.

It is insisted, on the part of the defendants, that the heirs of Robinson, and also of Alice, refuse to carry into execution this contract, and have refused to accept the $3,000. There is some obscurity upon the evidence, as it respects the precise state of this question at the time of the deed from Callan to his brother, in October, 1854. It is claimed on the part of the judgment creditors that this money had been paid, and that the deed from the heirs was kept back, in fraud of their rights. Perhaps the better opinion is, upon the facts, that the money has not been paid, and that the property is subject to this encumbrance. It is clear, however, that there is no serious embarrassment in the way of clearing the title on payment of the money.

It appears, by some arrangement, not particularly explained, with the heirs, after the death of Alice, Callan agreed to pay the interest on the $3,000, and which has been paid down to the month of July, 1854; and the case shows that, upon the payment of the purchase money, with the interest, from the period last mentioned, the title can be obtained. It would have been remarkable if this right of purchase had not been preserved, as it appears Callan has put on the proeprty improvements to the amount of from $7,000 to $10,000.

The question as to the title is only important as entering into the estimate of the value of the property, and as tending to rebut the undervaluation of the price, as charged in the bill. It is clear, however, admitting the property to be subject to the payment of $3,000, that the price was considerably below its true value.

But, independently of this consideration, there are other facts in the case that may well justify the decree below-the most important, perhaps, the unsatisfactory evidence on the part of the Callans in respect to the payment of the consideration stated in the deed. This proof was vital, in order to uphold a deed in other respects surrounded with suspicion. The evidence was in their possession; and their admission that the transaction was secret made the proof still more indispensable on their part. The want of it, under the circumstances, is nearly if not quite fatal to the validity of the deed as against creditors.

The continuance of the vendor in the possession and occupation and full enjoyment of the premises, the same after the deed as before, and absence of interest in the subject manifested by the vendee, are circumstances not satisfactorily explained; also, the heavy indebtedness of J. F. Callan, and suits pending and maturing to judgment-all well known to the vendee.

We are satisfied the decree of the court below is right, and should be affirmed.

title: Callan v. Statham/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Callan v. Statham/Opinion of the Court


text:
Clifton v. Sheldon

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The motion to dismiss the appeal was argued by Mr. Donohue in support of it, and by Mr. Owen against it.

Mr. Donohue's points were the following:

I. The record shows that Mr. Sheldon is ordered and decreed to pay between $1,800 and $1,900, besides costs, and that Mr. Brower does not complain of the decree below.

II. As a matter of law, no appeal lies, unless the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of $2,000.

Udall v. the Ohio, 17 How., 17.

Olney v. the Falcon, 17 How., 19.

Allen v. Newbury, 21 How., 248.

III. In this case, the amount in dispute is less than $1,900 and costs; the only judgment or decree against Sheldon is that, and Brower not appealing, Sheldon cannot appeal for him.

Where the property is bonded, that bond takes the place of the thing, and the judgment goes against the claimant, there Sheldon's cotton could not be held for Brower's freight.

IV. As a matter of equity, the record shows that the appellant has a judgment against Clifton for the very amount he defends against here.

Mr. Owen opposed the motion, on the following grounds:

The right of appeal is given when the 'matter in dispute' exceeds the sum of $2,000, exclusive of costs.

I. The 'matter in dispute' in this action was the freight upon the entire cargo, and which, according to the decree, amounted to $2,338.06, exclusive of costs. Unless, therefore, the apportionment of this sum between the claimants, which the Circuit Court, by its decree, assumed to make, operates as a severance of the action, giving the libellant independent rights against the respective claimants for their particular portion of freight, and no more, the motion must be denied.

II. But the decree did not so operate, and the respective claimants, as to the libellant, were liable for the entire amount.

1. The stipulation or bond given by the claimants, claiming the property, was joint, and the summary judgment thereon, against the stipulators, must be a joint judgment for the entire amount of freight. The court could not order otherwise; certainly not without the consent of the stipulators and of the libellant.

2. The decree was irregular and erroneous in attempting so to sever the liability of the claimants. There was no allegation in the pleadings upon which to found such a decree. The decree should have been secundum allegata.

III. But if the decree apportioning the liability be regular and proper, still the claimant, Sheldon, has a right of appeal, for, as to him, the matter in dispute exceeds $2,000.

1. The decree of the Circuit Court directs Sheldon to pay $1,754.22, together with the costs, taxed at $586.79, amounting, in the aggregate, to $2,341.01. Even if it be considered that he is not to pay the whole, but only his proportion of the costs, still the amount which he is decreed to pay will exceed $2,000.

2. The 'matter in dispute' on this appeal is therefore the sum so decreed to be paid for damages and costs. The costs are as much a part of the judgment debt as the damages; both are merged in one judgment.

3. The costs referred to in the judiciary act are not those which have entered into and become part of the judgment appealed from, but those which may accrue on the appeal.

Such appears to have been the views of this court in the case of Olney v. the Falcon, (17 How. Rep., 19,) where it is said that 'the defendant can appeal when the judgment or decree against him exceeds the sum or value of $2,000.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Clifton v. Sheldon


text: Talk:Clifton v. Sheldon

title: Talk:Clifton v. Sheldon


text:
Clifton v. Sheldon/Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York, in admiralty. A motion has been made, on the part of the appellee, to dismiss the appeal, for the want of jurisdiction.

A libel was filed by Clifton, in the District Court, to recover freight on the two hundred and sixty-nine bales of cotton and nine bags of wool. Brower and Sheldon appeared as claimants, and contested the claim for the freight. Brower claimed sixty-seven of the two hundred and sixty-nine bales, and Sheldon two hundred and two bales. The District Court dismissed the libel.

On appeal to the Circuit Court, this decree was reversed, and decree rendered in favor of the libellant for the amount of the freight, $2,338.06; that J. W. Brower, claimant of a portion of the cotton, pay to the libellant the sum of $583.84, being the freight on the cotton claimed by him in the suit, and that the claimant, W. H. Sheldon, pay for the portion claimed by him the sum of $1,754.22. Sheldon appealed from the decree to this court.

The motion is now made to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the decree against Sheldon is less than $2,000, and which is apparent from a perusal of the decree. The sum decreed against him is only $1,754.22.

The freight was separately awarded against the claimants, in proportion to the cotton shipped by each one. The rights of each were distinct and independent.

But if it were otherwise, and the whole of the freight jointly against the claimants, the appeal must still be dismissed, as then the claimants should have joined in it.

Motion to dismiss granted.

title: Clifton v. Sheldon/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Clifton v. Sheldon/Opinion of the Court


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Long, Dudley


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Long, Edward


text:
Green v. Custard

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the western district of Texas.

The facts and history of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Frederick P. Stanton for the plaintiff in error, no counsel appearing for the defendant.

Upon the principal point involved in the case, Mr. Stanton said:

The court below properly acquired jurisdiction of the case as made by the original petition, which alleged that Custard was a citizen of Texas, and Green a citizen of Massachusetts.

Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 12.

But it had no authority to remand the case to the State court; the only alternative was, to dismiss it altogether.

The right to have his case tried in the Federal court, in a proper case for removal, is an absolute legal right in the party so removing it.

Ward v. Arredondo, Paine's C. C. R., 410.

Beardsley v. Torre, 4 Wash., 286.

Gibson v. Johnson, Peters C. C. R., 44.

Gordon v. Longest, 16 Pet., 97.

It is only causes improperly removed which will be remanded.

Laws U.S.C.ourts, 147, which quotes Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421.

Wright v. Wells, 1 Pet. C. C. R., 220, is an authority to show that a party, after a removal of the cause, cannot amend so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Federal court. And the rule is just; for otherwise a party would only have to exercise his ingenuity to suggest matters of amendment, either true or false, in order to send the case back to the State court. Of these amendments, the Federal court, having no jurisdiction, could not inquire at all.

Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Green v. Custard


text: Talk:Green v. Custard

title: Talk:Green v. Custard


text:
Green v. Custard/Opinion of the Court

This case originated in the District Court for the county of McLennan, in the State of Texas, where Custard had instituted his suit against Green by attachment, claiming to recover from him the balance due on a judgment entered on a mortgage given by Green to one Arthur, on lands in California. Green appeared, and moved to have his cause removed to the District Court of the United States, he being a citizen of Massachusetts, and Custard a citizen of Texas-the case coming clearly within the provisions of the 12th section of the judiciary act of 1789.

It is probably because this case originated in a State court, that the court below permitted the counsel to turn the case into a written wrangle, instead of requiring them to plead as lawyers, in a court of common law. We had occasion already to notice the consequences resulting from the introduction of this hybrid system of pleading (so called) into the administration of justice in Texas. (See Toby v. Randon, 11 How., 517, and Bennet v. Butterworth, 11 How., 667, with remarks on the same in McFaul v. Ramsey, 20 How., 525.) This case adds another to the examples of the utter perplexity and confusion of mind introduced into the administration of justice, by practice under such codes.

Without attempting to trace the devious course of demurrers, replications, amendments, &c., &c., which disfigure this record, it may suffice to say that the plaintiff, beginning, after some time, to discover that he could not recover on his original cause of action, among other amendments set forth an entirely new cause of action, to wit, a note given by Green, payable to 'Arthur or order,' for $5,000, without any endorsement or assignment by Arthur to plaintiff, but which Custard alleged he had obtained 'in due course of trade.'

After further demurrers, exceptions, &c., &c., and after taking testimony in California, wholly irrelevant to any possible issue in the case, the record exhibits the following judgment:

'And now on this day came the parties by their attorneys, and the court being now sufficiently advised upon the questions submitted, is of opinion that the judgment, the original cause of action in this case, is not conclusive-in fact, is a nullity; but because the parties plaintiff have amended their petition herein, setting forth the note the base of said judgment, and as it has become a part of the pleadings in this case, and the court being of the opinion that, upon the note, the court is debarred from entertaining the case further in this court, for want of jurisdiction, it is therefore considered by the court that the cause ought to be remanded. It is therefore ordered and decreed that this case, with all the papers belonging to the same, be and is hereby remanded to the District Court of McLennan county for further action.'

So far as this judgment treats the original cause of action 'as a nullity,' it could not be objected to; and perhaps the same remark might have equally applied to the amended portion. But the conclusion, that the court had no jurisdiction to proceed further, and the order to remand the case to the State court to try the other half of it, is a clear mistake, for which the judgment must be reversed.

If Green had been a citizen of Texas, and Custard had claimed a right, as endorsee of a citizen of Texas, to bring his suit in the courts of the United States, because he (Custard) was a citizen of another State, the case would have occurred which is included in the proviso to the 11th section of the act which restrains the jurisdiction of the court. But the United States court had jurisdiction of this case, by virtue of the 12th section. It is a right plainly conferred on Green, a citizen of Massachusetts, when sued by a citizen of Texas, in a State court of Texas, no matter what the cause of action may be, provided it demand over five hundred dollars. The exception of the 11th section could have no possible application to the case.

Let the judgment be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

title: Green v. Custard/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Green v. Custard/Opinion of the Court


text:
City of New York v. Ransom

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

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was submitted on a printed argument by Mr. Keller for the defendants in error, no counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: City of New York v. Ransom


text: Talk:City of New York v. Ransom

title: Talk:City of New York v. Ransom


text:
City of New York v. Ransom/Opinion of the Court

The plaintiffs in error were defendants in an action for infringement of a patent, 'for a new and useful improvement in the mode of applying water to fire-engines so as to render their operation more efficient.'

On the trial, they took some twenty-four exceptions to the rulings of the court in their charge to the jury; but they have not seen fit to appear in this court, and point out to us on which of these numerous exceptions they principally rely for the reversal of the judgment. The defendants in error have not elected to have the writ of error dismissed for want of prosecution, but have filed a printed argument praying for an affirmance of the judgment.

On examination of the record, we find that the bill of exceptions contains no copy of the specification of the letters patent. Without this, we are unable to test the correctness of the construction of the patent by the court below.

But there is one exception which the record enables us to examine, and in which we think there is error.

The defendants' fourteenth prayer for instruction is as follows:

'The plaintiffs have furnished no data to estimate actual damage, and therefore in no aspect of the case can they recover more than nominal damages.'

If the predicate of this proposition be true, the conclusion was correct, and the instruction should have been given by the court.

Where a plaintiff is allowed to recover only 'actual damages,' he is bound to furnish evidence by which the jury may assess them. If he rest his case, after merely proving an infringement of his patent, he may be entitled to nominal damages, but no more. He cannot call on a jury to guess out his case without evidence. Actual damages must be calculated, not imagined, and an arithmetical calculation cannot be made without certain data on which to make it.

The invention in this case was not one which enabled the patentee to make a profit by a monopoly of its use. Nor was it a separate and distinct machine, by the sale of which he could make a profit. The patent is for an improvement in the apparatus of the common fire-engine, by which the hydrostatic pressure of the water from the hydrant may be combined with the hydraulic pressure of the engine, and thus add to its power and efficiency. There was evidence tending to show the invention to be valuable, and that it could be applied to the engines in use at an expense of twenty-five dollars, thereby greatly increasing the power of the machine. It was proved that the city had applied this invention to fifty engines, but no information whatever of the price or value of a single license is given in the bill; fifty is the coefficient by which an unknown unmber is to be multiplied, and without further data the result is still an unknown quantity. If there had been any proof that the selling price of a single license for a single engine was four hundred dollars, the jury would have had something to support their verdict for $20,000.

In the case of Seymour v. McConnel, (16 Howard, 485,) it was decided by this court, that where the profit of the patentee is derived neither from an exclusive use of the thing patented, nor from a monopoly of making it for others to use, the actual damage which he suffers by the use of his improvement without his license, is the price of it, with interest, and no more. It is to his advantage that every one should use his invention, provided he pays for a license. The only damage to the patentee is the non-payment of that sum when the infringer commences the use of the invention.

As the plaintiffs in this case did not furnish any evidence upon which to found a calculation of actual damages, the court should have instructed the jury as requested by the counsel. Instead of it, the court instructed the jury as follows:

'If the invention is valuable, if by its use the power and efficiency of the fire-engines belonging to the defendant are so increased, that fifty engines used with this improvement are equal in practical effect to seventy-five, or any other number of engines, used without this improvement, the jury are at liberty to infer, if they think the inference a just one, that the defendant, in its corporate capacity, has saved the cost of the purchase and operation of the additional number of engines which would have been required to produce the same results if this invention had not been used; and that the corporate authorities, if they had admitted the plaintiffs' rights, would have paid the amount of this additional cost, or a large portion of it, as the consideration for a license to use this invention, rather than to abandon its use; and that the plaintiffs have therefore lost by the infringement what the defendant would have so paid to secure such license. It is for this reason that the benefits received by the defendant in its corporate capacity, from the use of the invention, in the consequent reduction of its expenditures for fire-engines, and their management and operation, are proper subjects for consideration in determining the plaintiffs' damages; and the jury must determine for themselves, upon the consideration of this and the other facts of the case, (if they find that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover,) what damages have been actually sustained by the plaintiffs in consequence of the unauthorized and wrongful acts of the defendant, being careful only to give the actual damages proved, and not to speculate upon the possibility or even probability of damages beyond such as are proved to have been sustained by the plaintiffs.'

It was of little use to caution the jury from giving speculative or any other than 'actual damages,' after the large margin of inferenee and presumption which they were permitted to take in order to find data by which to calculate them.

It was said, in the case to which we have referred, 'actual damages should be actually proved, and cannot be assumed as a legal inference from facts' which afford no data by which they can be calculated.

In order to find out the plaintiffs' loss or damage, the jury were allowed by the court to infer that the defendants have saved all the money indicated by the comparative powers of the engines with and without the improvement; and after having made this inference, they may presume that the defendants would have paid this amount to the plaintiff for the use of his improvement.

Thus the possible advantage or gain made by the use of plaintiffs' improvement on their machines, is made the measure of his loss. If the plaintiffs unable to furnish any other data for a calculation, had proved that the defendants had made a certain amount of money by putting out the fires in New York, which the plaintiffs would otherwise have made by use of their invention, he might with some reason contend that this was a proper measure.

But if he fails to furnish any evidence of the proper data for a calculation of his damage, he should not expect that a jury should work out a result for him by inferences or presumptions founded on such subtile theories.

We therefore direct the case to be remanded for a venire facias de novo.


text: Talk:City of New York v. Ransom/Opinion of the Court


text:
Morewood v. Enequist Owner of the Brig Gothland

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York.

It was a case in admiralty, arising under the following circumstances:

The brig Gothland, owned by Enequist, was chartered by Burt, Myrtle, & Co., of Batavia, to proceed to Padung, on the island of Sumatra, there to receive a quantity of coffee; to return thence to Batavia and complete her cargo, and deliver the same in New York, freight to be paid by the assignees of the bills of lading on delivery of the cargo.

It was admitted that the bills of lading were assigned for value to the appellants, composing the firm of G. B. Morewood & Company.

Enequist first filed a libel in rem against the cargo for the amount of the freight; but after some proceedings which it is not necessary to mention, this action was discontinued, and a libel in personam filed, which is the present case. The respondents alleged that, owing to the neglect of the carrier, the coffee, black pepper, and cassia, were damaged to the amount of $4,720.60, which they claimed as a deduction from the freight. The whole freight claimed was $9,160.56, with interest from April, 1853.

The District Court referred the case to a commissioner, who reported that the freight due in September, 1857, was $11,372.56, for which amount a decree was rendered, with costs.

The case, being carried to the Circuit Court, was there tried on the appeal from the District Court and on additional evidence taken by the respondents. The decree of the District Court was affirmed with costs, and the respondents appealed to this court.

It was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Dodge and Mr. Johnson for the appellants, and by Mr. Donohue for the appellee.

The counsel for the appellants considered that the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States over an action on contract by a libel in personam in admiralty upon a contract of affreightment was still an open question, and therefore proceeded to argue it. The elaborate arguments against the jurisdiction filed by them, and for it by Mr. Donohue, are omitted by the reporter, in deference to the opinion of the court.

Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.


text: Talk:Morewood v. Enequist Owner of the Brig Gothland