text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1570

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cns. 539, 540. 1929. 1519 may postpone or adjourn to a day certain any of said terms by order made in chambers at any other place designated as aforesaid for holding court in said district. " The clerk of the district court for the northern district shall offices of clerks. keep his office at Tulsa ; the clerk of the district court for the eastern district shall ke ep his of fice at M uskogee and shall maintain an offic e in charge of a deputy at Ardmore ; the clerk for,the western district shall keep his office at Oklahoma City and shall maintain an office in charge of a deputy at Guthrie ." Approved, March 2, 1929. CHAP. 540 .-An Act To amend the Act of Febr uary 9, 1907, entitled [II .March 1,192. . . R. 15357.] "An Act to define the t erm `registe red nurse' an d to provide for the reg istration [Public, No . 966 .1 of nurses i n the Distri ct of Columb ia ." Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and District of Columbia. Registration of after June 30, 1929, the Act of February 9, 1907, entitled "An Act nurses. to define the term `registered nurse' and to provide for the regis- eVol . 34, p .987, amend. tration of nurses in the District of Columbia," be amended to read as fol lows : "That from and after the 30th day of June, 1929, no person shall all After s uep representing in the District of Columbia in any manner whatsoever represent to be a nurse to register . herself to be a registered, certified graduate, or trained nurse, or allow herself to be so represented, unless she has been and is regis- tered or is registered by the nurses " examining board in accordance with the provisions of this Act. " SEC. 2 . The nurses' examining board shall be composed of five Nurses' examining members appointed by the Commissioners of the District of Colum- b Appointment, etc . b i a . Those persons who are mem bers of the nurses' examining board on June 30, 1929, shall continue to be members of the said board for the remainder of the terms for which they were appointed . The term of each member of said board shall be five years . All Terms of service . appointments shall be made so that the term of one member expires on the 30th day of June of each year . Each vacancy or unexpired term shall be filled by appointment from a list of . five nominees submitted to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia by the Qualifica tions . Graduate Nurses' Association of the District of Columbia . Each nominee shall have had not less than five years' experience in the profession of nursing, be a registered nurse registered in the District of Columbia, and a member of the Graduate Nurses' Association of the District of Columbia. The Graduate Nurses' Association of the District of Columbia shall make such nominations to the said commissioners. No member of said board shall enter upon the dis- Oath re quired. charge of her duties until she has taken oath faithfully and impar- tially to perform the same ; and the said commissioners may remove any member of said board for neglect of duty or for any just cause. " SEC. 3 . The nurses' examining board shall meet in the District organization of of Columbia between June 30, 1929, and July 15, 1929, and organize board . the board in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and annually there after shall meet i n the month of Apri l for the an nual o rganiz a- tion of the board . At each such organization meeting the board shall officers . elect from its members a president and a vice president, and it shall also appoint an executive secretary of the board, who shall not be a member of the board, but who shall possess the requirements neces- sary for membership in the board . The secretary-treasurer of the office of secretary- said board who is acting in that capacity on July 1, 1929, for the 1,19s er to cease July unex pired term c ommenc ing in April, 1929, shall cease to ho ld off ice as secretary-treasurer of the board on and after July 1, 1929. The

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1571

 1520 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cii. 540 . 1929 . Executive secretary executive secretary shall ex officio act as treasurer of the board and to act as treasurer' as such shall furnish a bond in the penal sum which shall be fixed By-laws. by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. The said board shall adopt such by-laws as it shall deem necessary for carrying into effect the pro visions of th is Act and may amend such b y-laws from and Re•or register t of of nurses . meetings time to time at the discretion of said board. The executive secretary shall be required to keep a record of all meetings of the board and also a registe r of al l nurs es duly regist ered o r rereg istered under this Act, and to furnish a certificate of registration or of reregistration to all such nurses ; also to maintain a registry of nurses' training E xamin atio ns. schools in the District of Columbia approved by said board. The board shall hold examinations not less frequently than once a year, and notice of each examination shall be given in one daily newspaper published in Washington and in one nursing journal at least thirty Inspection of nursing clays prior to the examination. The executive secretary shall inspect schools. all recognized schools of nursing in the District of Columbia, and report to said board as to the sufficiency and quality of training afforded by such schools. The executive secretary may be removed by a majority vote of the said board for neglected duty or any just cause. Applications for regis- " SEC . 4 . That every nurse desiring to register in the District of tration . Columbia shall make application to the nurses' examining hoard for examination and registration, and at the time of making such appli- Evidence required . cation shall pay to the treasurer of said board $10 . Said applicant must furnish satisfactory evidence that she is over twenty-one years of age, or that she will attain the age of twenty-one years within six months after the date fixed for the necessary examination to be held Qualifications, by said board after the date of such application . Except as other- wise provided in this Act, an applicant shall not be registered unless she has passed an examination by the nurses' examining board . No nurse shall be registered i n the District of Columbia who has not attained the age of twenty-one years . Said applicant must also fur- nish satisfactory evidence,of good moral character, and further that she holds a diploma from a training school for nurses which has been registere d by the nurs es' examining board of the District of Req uirement for reg- Columbia : Provided, however, That no training school shall be is tering a tr aining registered which does not maintain proper educational standards and school . give not less than two years' training in a general hospital, or in a special hospital with adequate affiliations, all of which shall be deter- mined by the nurses' examining board. Registration without " SEC. 5 . T hat any nurse who is at le ast twenty-one ears of age examination allow ed y y b graduates of hospital and of good moral character and who presents satisfactory evidence school prior to July 1, 192 4 . that she has, prior to July 1, 1924, graduated from a school of nursing connected with a hospital, and that she has been engaged in nursing in the Distri ct of Columbi a prior to Ju ly 1, 1 929, sh all be entitl ed to registration without examination upon payment of the registration Time required . istr ati on Proviso . fee of $10 : Provided, however, That application for such registration must be made on or before June 30, 1932 . Registration without c SEC . 6 . That the nurses' examining board shall register in like ex amination, nurses with diploma from out- manner without examination any graduate or trained nurse registered side s chool. a s a nurse b y examination in another St ate or Territ ory who holds a diploma from a nurses' training school outside of the District of Columbia which, in the opinion of said board, maintains a standard substantially equivalent to that provided for by this Act. Reregistration. " SEC . 7 . Each nurse who has been registered in the District of Columbia shall be reregistered each year on the 1st day of July upon application to the executive secretary of said board and the payment .Provisos. of a fee of $1 : Provided, That such fee of $1 shall not be payable Fee ' in case the applicant has been originally registered within the twelve months next preceding the day for reregistration . Application for

�

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


text:
Foster v. Davenport

THIS was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Alabama.

The case was similar to the preceding one of Sinnot and others v. Davenport, except that the steamboat Swan was employed as a lighter and towboat upon waters within the State of Alabama. It was therefore insisted that she was engaged exclusively in the domestic trade and commerce, and consequently could be distinguished from the preceding case. Both were argued together by the same counsel.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Foster v. Davenport


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1572

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 540. 1929 . reregistration may be made within sixty days preceding the day of reregistration. Registration of any nurse who does not thus apply for reregistration for any year shall be automatically canceled as of the beginning of such year. The by-laws adopted by the nurses' examining board shall define the conditions upon which the regis- tration of a nurse may be restored. Schools of nursing in the District of Columbia may apply to said board for registration and, with the exception of schools of nursing maintained at Government expense, shall pay a fee of $25 at the time application is made. Each such school registered shall apply each year for reregistration, and, wit h the excepti on of schools of nursing ma intained at G overnment expense, at the same time pay a fee of $1 : Provided fwrther, That on the petition of any applicant to whom registration or reregistration has been denied by the nurses' examining board, the action of the board may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on a writ of certiorari, subject to appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in the same manner as appeals are taken in similar cases. "SEC . 8 . No person shall file or attempt to file with the nurses' examining board of the District of Columbia any statement, diploma, certificate, credential, or other evidence when she knows, or when she might by rea sonable dilig ence ascertain, that it is false and misleading . The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting as a court of equity, may suspend or revoke any certificate issued and any registration effected und er this Act up on evidence s howing to the satisfaction of the court that the registrant has been guilty of misconduct or is professionally incapacitated . Proceedings looking toward the suspension or revocation of a certificate or registration shall be begun by petition filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in t he name of th e nurses' exam ining board, or of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, or of the major and superintendent of police of said District, and shall be verified by oath. Proceedings shall be conducted by the United States attorney for the District of Columbia according to the ordinary rules of equity practice and such supplementary rules as said court may deem expedient to carry into effect the purpose and intent of this Act. An app eal may be ta ken from the decision of th e Supreme Cou rt of the District of Columbia to the Court of Appeals of said District. Any such appeal on behalf of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia or of the major and superintendent of police of said District may be filed without bond. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia may determine whether a certificate or regis- tration shall be suspended or be revoked, and if such certificate or registration is to be suspended said court may determine the duration of such suspensi on and the co nditions under which said s uspension shall terminate. " SEC. 9 . That all expenses incident to the execution of the pro- visions of this Act shall be paid from fees collected from schools of nursing and from registration or reregistration of nurses . The executive secretary of said board may receive a salary to be fixed by said board at its annual organization meeting not to exceed the rate of $200 per month . Each member of the board shall receive a per diem allowance at the rate of $10 per day for each full day suc h member is a ctually engag ed in the perf ormance of du ties as a m embe r o f th e bo ard . The payment of such per diem allowance shall be made from any unexpended balance in the treasury of said board remaining on June 30 of the year during which the services have been rendered, and if the unexpended balance is insufficient to meet the total amount of such per diem allowance, the rate of com- pensation shall be reduced to a rate which will permit payment from 1521 Registration automa- tically canceled if no application for reregis- tration. Fee for schools of nur sing. Ann ual applicat ion. A ppeal fro m de nial of registration by the bo ard . Filing false state- ments with board for- bidden. J urisd icti on of cour t to suspend certificate for misconduct, etc. Procedure. A ppeal to Dist rict Court of Appeals . A uthor ity of Di stric t Supreme Court. Expenses pai d from fees collected. Salary of executive secretary. Per diem to members of board.

�


text: Talk:Foster v. Davenport

title: Talk:Foster v. Davenport


text:
Foster v. Davenport/Opinion of the Court

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

The case is, in all respects, like the one just decided, except it is insisted that the steamboat was employed as a lighter and towboat upon waters within the State of Alabama, and therefore engaged exclusively in the domestic trade and commerce of the State.

According to the admitted state of facts, this boat was engaged in lightering goods from and to vessels anchored in the lower bay of Mobile, and the wharves of the city, and in towing vessels anchored there to and from the city, and, in some instances, towing the same beyond the outer bar of the bay, and into the Gulf to the distance of several miles. This boat was duly enrolled and licensed to carry on the coasting trade at the time she was engaged in this business, and of the seizure under the State law.

It also appears from the answer, and which facts are admitted to be true, that the port of Mobile is resorted to and frequented by ships and vessels, of different size in tonnage, engaged in the trade and commerce of the United States with foreign nations and among the several States; that the vessels of small size and tonnage are accustomed to come up to the wharves of the city, and discharge their cargo, but that large vessels frequenting said port cannot come up, on account of the shallowness of the waters in some parts of the bay, and are compelled to anchor at the lower bay, and to discharge and receive their cargo by lighters; and that the steamboat of claimants was engaged in lightering goods to and from said vessels, and in towing vessels to and from the lower bay and the wharves of the city.

It is quite apparent, from the facts admitted in the case, that this steamboat was employed in aid of vessels engaged in the foreign or coastwise trade and commerce of the United States, either in the delivery of their cargoes, or in towing the vessels themselves to the port of Mobile. The character of the navigation and business in which it was employed cannot be distinguished from that in which the vessels it towed or unloaded were engaged. The lightering or towing was but the prolongation of the voyage of the vessels assisted to their port of destination. The case, therefore, is not distinguishable in principle from the one above referred to.

Judgment of the court below reversed.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1573

 1522 Payment of fees. Auditing accounts, etc. Money repor ts, etc. Penalty for violation. Nursing another not prevented. Pro vis o. If not representing to be r egist ered, etc. Cons truct ion of" s he" and derivatives . March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16082.1 [Public, No . 967.1 C H A P. 541 .-An Act To authoriz e the disposition of unplatted portions o f Government town sites on irrigation projects under the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, and for oth er purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Irrigation fion protects. Sal e Unite d Stat es o f Ameri ca in Congre ss asse mbled, That the Secretary e of unplattedpor ° tions of, at auction. of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to appraise, and sell, at public auction, to the highest bidder, from time to time, for cash, any or all of the unplatted portions of Government town sites created under the Act of April 16, 1906 (Thirty-fourth Stat- utes, page 116), on any irrigation project constructed under the Act of June 17, 1902 (Thirty-second Statutes, page 388), or Acts Proviso . amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto : Provided, That any Disposal at private sale, if not disposed of land so offered for sale and not disposed of may afterwards be at auction. sold, at not less than the appraised value, at private sale, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. Patents made in pursuance of such sale shall convey all the right, cee dss title, and interest of the United States in or to the land so sold. D posal of net pro- SEC. 2 . The net proceeds of such sales after deducting all expendi- tures on acc ount o f such lands, and the pro ject c onstru ction charge , for the irrigable area of the lands so sold where irrigation or drain- age works have been constructed or are proposed to be constructed, shall be dis posed of as provid ed in Subsect ion I of sec tion 4 of th e Act of December 5, 1924 (Forty-third Statutes, page 672). Where the project construction charge shall not have been fixed at the date of any such sale, same shall be estimated by the Secretary of the Interior. Expenses of appraise- SEC. 3. Reclamation funds are authorized to be appropriated for orationfund •m reels° use in defraying the necessary expenses of appraisement and sale of the lands herein authorized to be sold, and the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to perform any and all acts and to make such rules and regulations as, in his opinion, inay be necessary and proper for carrying out the purposes of this Act. Approved, March 2, 1929. Vol. 34, p. 116. Vol. 32, p. 388. Vol.43, p. 703. SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHs . 540, 541. 1929. such unexpended balance. That such expenses shall in no event exceed the total of receipts. All registration or reregistration fees shall be paid to the treasurer of the board, and shall be paid out under the orders of the board. That it shall be the duty of the auditor of the District of Columbia to audit the accounts of the nurses' examining board at the end of each fiscal year and to make report thereof in writing to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. The said auditor shall have free access to all books, papers, and records of the board. The nurses' examining board shall make annual reports to the Commissioners of the District of Colum- bia containing a statement of moneys received and disbursed, and a summary of its official acts during the preceding year. " SEC . 10 . That any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction there of sha ll be punish ed by a fine not ex ceedin g $200 or by impri s- onment in the workhouse for a period not exceeding sixty days . "SEC. 11 . That nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent any person from nursing any other person in the District of Colum- bia, either gratuitously or for hire : Provided, That such person so nursing shall not represent herself as being a registered, certified, graduate, or trained nurse. " SEC. 12. That the word `she' and the derivatives thereof, wherever they occur in this Act, shall be construed so as to include the word 'he ) and deriva tives ." Approved, March 2, 1929.

�


text: Talk:Foster v. Davenport/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1574

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. H. CHs. 542-544 . 1929 . 1523 CHAP. 542 .-An Act To enable the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Com- March 2, 1929. mission, established by Act of March 4, 1913, to make slight changes in the [n° R. 16209 .1	boundaries of said parkway by excluding therefrom certain small areas, and [Public, No. 968.] including other limited areas, the net cost not to exceed the total sum already authorized for the entire project. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the District of Columbia. United States of America in Congress assembled, That the authority t RRock oc Creek d Po- of the co mmissi on cre ated b y sect ion 22 of the Publi c Buil dings Act, Acquisition of addi- approved March 4, 1913 (Thirty seventh Statutes, page 885), is tio nal a joins lands extended to include the acquisition of such additional lands and Vol. 37, p. 885. premises lying adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the taking lines as shown on the map on file in the office of the executive and disbursing officer and known as the map of the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway (in four sheets) dated May, 1923, as may in its discretion, subject to the approval of the Commission of Fine Arts, be necessary for the best development of the connecting parkway between Rock Creek Park, the Zoological Park, and Potomac Park : Pr ovide d, That the total sum expended for lands needed for this Provisos. parkway shall not exceed that authorized by section 22 of the Public Sum authorized. Buildings Act, approved March 4, 1913, and amended by the Second Deficiency Act of May 5, 1926 : Provided further, That the co m- Exclusion of lands mission may exclude such lands and premises, not now owned by the no t desi rable. United States but within the taking lines heretofore authorized for the said parkway, as may in its discretion, and upon the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts, be found not to be desirable or necessary for the connecting parkway. Approved, March 2. 1929 . March 2, 1929. CHAP. 543 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing 	[II. It. 16384 .1 the construction of a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near Burkesville, [Public, No. 969.1 Cumberland County, Kentucky. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives o f the Cumberland River. United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for Time extended for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across b~egigy at Burkes- the Cumberland River, at or near Burkesville, Cumberland County, Kentucky, authorized to be built by the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, by the Act of Congress approved May Arife, p . 613. 18, 1928, ar e here by ext ended one an d thre e year s, resp ective ly, fr om May 18, 1929. SEc. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby Amen dment. expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929. CHAP. 544 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing March 2,197.] g	[A. R. 1&387.j the construction of a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near Iuka, [public, No. 970.] Kentucky. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Cumberland River. United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for Time e xtend ed for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across bridging, at Iuka, Ky. the Cumberland River at or near Iuka, Kentucky, authorized to be buil t by the State Highw ay Commission, Commo nwealth of Ken- Ante, p. 756. tucky, by the Act of Congress approved May 26, 19 28, are hereby extende d one and th ree ye ars, r espect ively, from M ay 26, 1929. SEc. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby Amendment . expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1575

 1524 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS . SESS. II. Cns. 545-548 . 1929 . M arch 2 ,1929 . CHAP. 545 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing [H. R. 16sss.l the construction of a bridge across the Tennessee River at or near Eggners [Public, No. 971 .1 F erry, Kent ucky. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Cumberland River. United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for Time extended for bridging, Eggnersbridging, F Ferry, g y commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the Tennessee River, at or near Eggners Ferry, Kentucky, authorized to be built by the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Ken- Ante, p. 608. tucky, by the Act of Congress approved May 18, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 18, 1929. Amendment. SEC. 2 . The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby exp ressly reser ved. Approved, March 2, 1929. March 2, 1929 . [H .R. 16359 .1 CHAP. 546.-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing [Public, No. 972 .] the construction of a bridge across the Tennessee River at or near the mouth of Clarks River. Tennessee River . Be it enacted b y the Senate and House of Representatives of the Tim e exte nded for United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for Clar ks mouth of Clar ks commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the Riven Tennessee River, at or near the mouth of Clarks River, authorized to Ante, p. 607. be built by the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Ken- tucky, by the Act of Congress approved May 18, 1928, are hereby Amendment. extended one and three years, respectively, from May 18, 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expre ssly r eserve d. Approved, March 2, 1929. March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16423.] CHAP. 547.-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing [Public, No. 973.] the construction of a bridge across Lake Sabine at or near Port Arthur, Texas. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Ti me Takesa extended United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for tended for bridging, at Port Ar- thur, Tea. commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across Lake Sabine, between a point at or near Port Arthur, Texas, and a point opp osite in Camer on Pa rish, Lou isian a, a uthor ized to be bui lt by Ante, p. 609. H. L. McKee, his heirs, legal representatives and assigns, by the Act of Congress approved May 18, 1928, are hereby extended one and Amend ment, three years, respectively, from May 18, 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929. March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16425.] [Public, No. 974 .] CHAP. 548.-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Missouri River at or near Rulo, Nebraska. Missouri River. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Time extended for United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for bridging, at Rulo, Nebr. commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Missouri River, at or near Rulo, Nebraska, authorized to be built by John C. Mullen, T. L. Davies, John H. Hutchings, and Virgil Ante, 390. Falloo n, all of Fa lls Ci ty, Ne braska, their heirs, lega l repr esenta - tives, and assigns, by Act of Congress approved March 29, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from March 29, 1929 . Amendment. SEc. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1576

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHs. 549-552 . 1929 . CHAP. 549.-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the const ruction of a b ridge across the Mis souri River a t or ne ar Neb raska C ity, Neb raska. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Mis souri Ri ver, at or near Nebraska City, N ebraska, authori zed to b e built by the Interstate Bridge Company, its sue ~ssors and assigns, by Act of Congress approved Apri l 23, 1928, are hereb y exte nded one and three years, respectively, from April 23, 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby exp ressly r eserved. Approved, March 2, 1929 . CHAP. 550 .-An Act To extend the time s for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near the mouth of Indi an C reek in Ru ssell Cou nty, Kentu cky. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Cumberland River, at or near the mouth of Indian Creek in Russell C ount y, K entu cky, aut hori zed to be bu ilt by the S tate Hig hway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, by the Act of Congress approved May 18, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 18, 1929. SEc. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929 . CHAP. 551 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Kanawha River between Henderson and Point Pleasant, West Virginia. Be it enacted by the Senate and Hou se of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Kanawha River at or n ear Point Pleasant, Mas on Co un ty, W est V ir- ginia, authorized to be built by the Point Pleasant and Henderson Bridge Company, its successors and assigns, by the Act of Congress approved April 6, 1928, are hereb y exte nded one and three years, respectively, from April 6, 1929. SEc. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929 . CHAP. 552 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Kanawha River between Henderson and Point Pleasant, West Virginia. Be is enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Kanawha River between a point in or near the town of Henderson, West Virginia, and a point opposite thereto in or near the city of Point Pleasant, Mason County, West Virginia, authorized to be built Missouri River. Ti me ext ended for bridging, at Nebraska City, Nebr. Ante, p.444. Amendmen t. March 2, 1929. [H.R.16427.] [Public, No. 976 .1 Cumberland River. Time extended for bridging, at mouth of Indian Creek, Ky. Ante, p. 616. Amendmen t. March 2, 1929. [H.R.16430.] [Public, No. 977 .] Kanawha River . Time extended for bridging, at Point Pleasant, W. Va. Ante, p. 408 . Amendmen t. 1525 March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16426.1 [Public, No. 975.] March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16431.] [Public, No. 978 .] Kanawha R iver. Time extended for bridging, between Hen- derson and Point Pleas- ant, Va. Vol. 44, p. 1267.

�


text:
Collins v. Thompson

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

It was a bill filed by Collins, to set aside certain agreements, upon the ground that he had been imposed upon and deceived by Thompson and the other defendants in error.

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

The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, and Collins appealed to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Sewall for the appellant, and by Mr. Smith and Mr. Benjamin for the appellees.

The arguments of the counsel upon both sides were almost exclusively directed to the evidence, and how far it sustained the charges of fraud brought by Collins against Thompson and the other appellees. To apply these arguments, it would be necessary to give at least an abstract of the evidence, which would throw no light upon any general questions of law or equity. They are therefore passed over.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Collins v. Thompson


text: Talk:Collins v. Thompson

title: Talk:Collins v. Thompson


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1577

 1526 Ante, p. 314. Amen dment. S EVEN TIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cns. 552-554 . 1929. by Henderson Bridge Company, its successors and assigns, by the Act of Congress approved March 2, 1927, extended by Act of Con- gress approved March 14, 1928, are hereby further extended one and three years, respectively, from March 2, 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, Marc h 2, 1929 . March 2, 432.] CHAP. 553 .-An Act Granting the consent of Congress to the highway [H. R.16432 [Pub lic, No .979.] department of the county of Etowah, State of Alabama, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Coosa River at or near Gilberts Ferry. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Etosaowh ah County, Unite d Sta tes of Amer ica i n Cong ress assem bled, That the c onsent t Ala., ma y bridge, at of Congress is hereby granted to the highway department of the Gilberts Ferry . county of Etowah, State of Alabama, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Coosa River, at a point suitable to the interests of navi gation, at or ne ar Gilbe rts Ferry, in accordance with the provisions of the Act entitled " An Con struction . Act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," Vol .34,p.84. approved March 23, 1906, and subject to the conditions and limita- tions contained in this Act. Rates of toll applied SEC. 2. If tolls are charged for the use of such bridge, the rates to operation, s ink ing of fund, etc. ox toll shall be so adjusted as to provide a fund sufficient to pay the re asona ble c ost of main taini ng, re pairi ng, a nd ope ratin g the brid ge and its ap proa che s un der econ omic al m anag emen t, and to provide a sinkin g fund s ufficient to amor tize the cost of the bri dge and its approaches, including reasonable interest and financing cost, as soon as possible under reasonable charges, but within a period bridge, etc ., Maintenance after as amor- fr ee of not to exceed twenty years from the completion thereof. After tizing costs, a sinking fund sufficient for such amortization shall have been so provided, such bridge shall thereafter be maintained and operated free of tolls, or the rates of toll shall thereafter be so adjusted as to provide a fund of not to exceed the amount necessary for the proper maintenance, repair, and operation of the bridge and its tares Record and of receipts. i- approaches under economical management. An accurate record of the costs of the bridg e and its approa ches, the expend iture s for mainta ining, rep airing , and oper ating the s ame, and of the daily tolls collected, shall be kept and shall be available for the informa- tio n of all persons interested. Amendment . SEC. 3. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Ap prove d, M arch 2, 1929. March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16433.1 CHAP. 554 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the [Pub lic, No. 980 .1 construction of a bridge across the Missouri River at or near Decatur, Nebraska. Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives o f the Missouri River. T ime extended for United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for bridging, at Decatur, commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Nebr . Missouri River at or near Decatur, Nebraska, authorized to be built Ante, p .392. by the I nterstat e Bridge Company, its suc cessors and assi gns, by Act of Co ngres s appr oved March 29, 1 928, are h ereby exten ded o ne and three years, respectively, from March 29, 1929. Am endment. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Appro ved, March 2, 1929.

�


text:
Collins v. Thompson/Opinion of the Court

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

The bill was filed by Collins, to set aside certain conveyances of a tract of land situate in the city of Mobile, and particularly a deed from him to the defendants, bearing date the 15th February, 1851, on the ground of fraud and imposition in the procurement of said conveyances.

The pleadings and proofs are very voluminous, the pleadings alone covering nearly one hundred, and including the proofs, exceeding five hundred, closely printed octavo pages. The bill is very inartificially drawn, being stuffed with minute and tedious detail of what might have been proper evidence of facts constituting the ground of the complaint, instead of a concise and orderly statement of the facts themselves. This has led to an equally minute and extended statement of the grounds of the defence in the several answers of the defendants.

In looking closely, however, into the case, and into the nature and grounds of the relief sought, and principles upon which it must be sustained, if at all, it will be found that the questions really involved, as well as the material facts upon which their determination depend, are few and simple, and call for no very extended discussion.

The father of Collins, the complainant, died in 1811, seized, of an interest in the tract of land in dispute. He left three sons, the complainant being then some two years old. The tract subsequently passed into the possession of one Joshua Kennedy, by collusion between Inerarity, the administrator of Collins the elder, and Kennedy, the latter also afterwards obtaining a deed of the land from the heirs at law by fraudulent representations.

In 1844, Thompson, one of the defendants in the present suit, residing in the city of Mobile, and having some knowledge of the original title of Collins to the land, and of the means by which the heirs had been deprived of it, visited the complainant, then residing in Texas, and being the only surviving heir, with a view to purchase his title, or to obtain an arrangement with him in respect to it, so that a suit might be instituted for the recovery of the estate. An arrangement was agreed to accordingly, and a conveyance of the land executed by the complainant and his wife to Thompson; also, a power of attorney, authorizing him to institute suits for the recovery of the land-Thompson, at the same time, executing a bond of indemnity to the complainant against all costs and responsibilities, in consequence of the suit. The complainant was to receive $10,000, in the event of a recovery. A suit was subsequently instituted in the name of the complainant against the heirs of Kennedy, in April, 1844, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama; was heard upon the pleadings and proofs at the April term of the court, in 1847, and a decree rendered in his favor; which, on an appeal to this court, was affirmed at the December term, 1850. The case, as reported in this court, will be found in the 10th How., p. 174.

The litigation extended over a period of some seven years; and, in the progress of it, besides Thompson, who had made the original arrangement with the complainant, three other persons had become interested, and had contributed their services and money in bringing it to a successful termination.

After the affirmance of the decree in this court, and confirmation of the title in complainant, all the parties concerned met in the city of Mobile, at the office of the solicitors, for the adjustment of their respective claims to the property recovered. Its value had increased, during the progress of the suit, from about $100,000, according to the estimate, to some two or three times that amount. The complainant had originally stipulated for the sum of $10,000. In this adjustment, one-third of the whole estate was set apart to him, and one-sixth to each of the other four persons. Conveyances according to this division were executed on the 15th February, 1851. The complainant therefore, according to the general estimate, received $100,000, and the other four associates $50,000 each.

Now, the fraud alleged in the bill, and which is mainly relied on for setting aside this adjustment and division of the estate between the parties, is placed upon two grounds: 1. In obtaining the deed of the land, powers of attorney, and other stipulations relating to the title, dated the 13th January, 1844, preparatory to the institution of the suit in which the property was recovered; and 2. In the adjustment and division of the property among the several parties above mentioned, after the recovery had taken place, and which was consummated by the deed of 15th February, 1851.

1. It is insisted, on behalf of the complainant, that, at the time he executed the deed, powers of attorney, and the other writings, in 1844, he was unacquainted with the value of the property or the condition of the title; that Thompson, who procured these instruments, and the authority to commence the suit, was well acquainted with both; that he fraudulently depreciated the value of the property, and exaggerated the difficulties and expense attending the litigation, and thereby deceived the complainant. This is the substance of the charge.

There is, however, a very brief but most conclusive answer to it, upon the pleadings and proofs in the case. It is, that Mr. Justice CAMPBELL, whose firm had been subsequently employed by Thompson to bring the suit against the heirs of Kennedy, declined the retainer, and refused to have anything to do with it, unless the complainant should not only be made sole plaintiff in the suit, but should have a substantial interest in the estate sought to be recovered; should attend as the party in interest in conducting the proceedings, and take part in the preparation for trial; and insisted that the preliminary arrangement made by Thompson, including the deed of the property and agreement for the payment of the $10,000, should be abrogated and given up. All of which was agreed to by Thompson and the other parties concerned; and the suit was commenced and carried on to a final determination, under this new arrangement. The complainant attended, and participated in the preparation of the case, assisted in procuring and in the examination of the witnesses, and admits, in his bill, that he attended every term of the court at Mobile, while the cause was pending, and until the decree in his favor.

The whole arrangement, therefore, between the parties, in respect to the property, entered into with a view to the institution of the suit, which is complained of, having been given up, and a new one substituted, which was not only unexceptionable, but highly equitable and just, as concerned the complainant, the charge of fraud and imposition depending upon it, even if originally it had any foundation, falls with it. We shall not stop to inquire into the merits or justice of that arrangement, for, having been given up, they are wholly immaterial in any view of the case, as presented upon the evidence before us.

2. The remaining ground of fraud relied on in the bill is, that on the day of the arrival of the complainant at the city of Mobile, from his residence in Texas, and which was his first visit to the city after the judgment in his favor in this court, he was requested to attend at the office of the solicitors, in the evening, and attended accordingly, where he met the defendants, and was then, for the first time, informed that they had been interested in the prosecution of the suit, and had expended much time and money in the litigation, and were therefore expected to participate in the division of the property recovered. That complainant was taken by surprise when the suggestion was made at the meeting, by the solicitor, that in the division, one-sixth part of the estate should be given to each of the defendants, and including Primrose, and only one-third to himself. That he was unprepared to act with judgment in the matter, having been wholly unadvised of the object of the meeting, or of the persons who were to be present; that no time was given him for reflection or counsel; that he was ignorant of the value of the property, and incapable of acting understandingly upon the subject, and had no information as to the amount he was thus suddenly called on to give away That a deed was immediately prepared by the solicitor, to carry into effect the division as suggested, and was executed: and that this meeting was arranged by preconcert, and after consultation between the defendants and others, for the purpose of entrapping and deceiving the complainant. The deed referred to is that of 15th February, 1851, which is sought to be set aside.

This is the second ground of fraud substantially as charged in the bill; and it will be necessary to look into the answers and proofs in the case, with a view to see if it is sustained.

The answer of Thompson, which is responsive to this particular charge, is a denial of every material fact and circumstance upon which the allegation of fraud rests. It states, that one or two days after the arrival of the complainant at Mobile, he requested him (the respondent) to go with him to the office of the solicitor that evening; that he had made an appointment with the solicitor to meet the respondent, and other persons interested in the suit, there, in order to come to an understanding and adjustment of their respective interests. The matters of the adjustment formed the subject of their conversation during the afternoon, and down to the time of the meeting. That the respondent explained to him the understanding he had with his associates, the other defendants, the services they had rendered in the suit, and the advances of money made therein; that, after all the parties had assembled at the office, the subject was again talked over at length, and, in the course of the conversation, the solicitor was referred to, and desired to suggest what, in his judgment, would be a reasonable adjustment and division of the property. Whereupon, he suggested a division into six parts-two parts to the complainant, and one to Thompson and each of his three associates; that this appeared to be generally acquiesced in, and it was proposed by some one that the papers should be drawn and executed. But the solicitor objected, and advised them to postpone the execut on, and reflect upon the matter, and when they had come to determination among themselves, it would be time enough to make out the papers; that the complainant expressed great pleasure and satisfaction at the division; other of the parties were not satisfied. But, in a few days, all met at the office of Primrose, one of the parties in interest, when the deed of the 15th of February, 1851, was voluntarily executed, carrying into effect the division.

The answer of Cleveland, another of the defendants, is equally explicit. He states that the subject of the division was talked over at the office of the solicitor; that all expressed satisfaction at the division suggested, except Primrose, who objected to the allowance of two shares to the complainant, he insisting that the time and labor of others had chiefly contributed to the success of the suit, and that complainant had originally expressed a willingness to be content with a small sum; that the solicitor repelled the idea, and said, that although others had been chiefly instrumental in carrying the case through, the title was in the complainant, and he ought to have the largest share; that the solicitor advised the parties to consider the matter, and, if he could aid them, to call on him; that the deed carrying into effect the division was not executed till several days, and respondent thinks a week, after this, at the office of Primrose.

James Campbell, another of the defendants, states that, after the meeting at the office, the subject of the interests of the parties was talked over; that upon the division suggested by the solicitor all concurred, except Primrose, who represented his claims higher than those of complainant; that he had rendered greater services, and was entitled to a greater share. He depreciated complainant's title to the estate, insisting that he alone could have made nothing out of it, and had always said he would be satisfied with some negroes and cattle; that the solicitor replied to him, that without complainant's title there could have been no recovery; and that, whatever others had done, still the title was in the complainant, and that he, the solicitor, had undertaken the suit with the distinct understanding and agreement that complainant was to have a substantial interest in the recovery. The respondent denies that the deed was drawn or executed the evening of the meeting, nor until several days afterwards.

These several answers are directly responsive to the charges in the bill, and are to be taken as true, unless overcome by the proofs. Instead of impeaching, the proofs are all in support of them.

Primrose, a witness on the part of the complainant, and who was one of the parties in interest, and present at this meeting, confirms the facts as above stated. In his answer to 43d interrogatory, he says, in substance, that, after conversation at the meeting relating to the subject before them, all seemed willing to leave the division to the solicitor, who thereupon suggested one-third to the complainant, and one-sixth to each of the others; that he (the witness) objected, as giving too great a share to the complainant, and that he made some remarks about the condition of the title, when he and the others undertook the suit; that complainant at that time had said he woud be satisfied with a comparatively small sum, and that the solicitor replied to him, that the title to the property was in the complainant, besides making other observations which he (the witness) did not recollect.

This witness further says, in answer to the 43d cross interrogatory, speaking of the division, 'All but myself did acquiesce. So far as I could judge, the complainant was satisfied, and I was disappointed.' 'Judge Campbell maintained Collins's right to two shares against me. The parties talked some of the matters over freely and considerably. It consumed a winter's evening, or greater part of it.' 'I do know Collins was pleased, and considered the settlement fair, just, and liberal towards him.'

Judge Campbell, the solicitor, has also been a witness in the case. He states that, after some reference to the subject at the meeting, and interchange of views, one of the parties stated that he was willing to abide by his opinion as to the share he should be entitled to, and others indicated a wish that he would make some suggestions as to the proper adjustment. In answer to which, he suggested a division of the property into six parts, and that two should be assigned to the complainant; that Primrose expressed dissatisfaction, insisting the part to be assigned the complainant was too large; that his title was good for nothing, and that the success in the suit was owing to the ability with which it was prosecuted, that complainant did not expect so large a share; that he had said all he wanted was a few negroes and some cattle.

The witness further states, that he took pains to answer these objections; and, after some further conversation, the parties left his office; that he told them when they left to take into consideration what had been said, and that if he could be of any service to them, to call at his office again; that no agreement was arrived at that evening, and no papers drawn up of any agreement between the parties; that the deed of February, 1851, was not prepared by him till several days after this, and that he had not learned of its execution till the week after its preparation.

It is useless to pursue the inquiry further, as the proofs in the case are all one way, and show that there is no foundation whatever, not even colorable, for the charge of fraud set forth in the bill.

Besides the entire want of proof to sustain it, the evidence shows that possession of the property was taken by the parties jointly, after the settlement, in the summer of 1851. Extensive and valuable improvements were made in the course of the years 1852-'53, under the direction of the complainant and others. The sales in 1853 had amounted to $92,000, as stated in the bill.

The property continued under the joint management of the parties for the period of some three years, without complaint or dissatisfaction on the part of Collins; when suddenly, without any apparent reason or changed condition of affairs between him and his associates, he seems to have taken up the delusion that he had been circumvented, and deceived into an inequitable settlement of the estate among the parties, in February, 1851, and for the first time set up a claim to the whole of it.

It is suggested in the bill, that the large sales made of the property in 1852-'53 afforded the complainant the first evidence of the great value of the estate; and it appears, from other portions of the case, that the increased and increasing value of the property had the effect to unsettle the views and opinions upon which he had acted in the settlement with his associates in February, 1851, and led to a strong desire to recall and review them.

But the suggested ignorance of the great value of the property at the time of the settlement is against all the proof in the case. His bill, filed against the heirs of Kennedy in April, 1844, for the recovery of this property, contains the following allegation: 'Your orator charges that the said property was worth $20,000 and upwards in 1820, $75,000 in 1830, and is probably worth $200,000 at this time.'

The great value of the property, compared with the consideration paid by Kennedy, was a very material fact in the case. Besides, the complainant had spent much of the time pending that litigation in the city of Mobile, in which the property was situate, and must have been familiar with its value, present and prospective. He was then in the prime of life, and possessed of more than ordinary intelligence in business matters, as is apparent from his correspondence, to be found in the record.

Having succeeded in the recovery, and obtained possession of the estate, he seems to have forgotten the obligations he was under to his associates. Their exertions and means had been mainly instrumental in raising him from poverty to affluence. They had advised him of his claim or title to the property, collected the necessary evidence to establish it, employed the counsel, and even furnished him (Collins) with the means of support, and to enable him to co-operate in the prosecution of the suit pending the litigation. The suit was severely contested, and was of some seven years' duration.

Still stronger evidence that, after his success, he was ready to forget his obligations to those mainly contributing to it, is the fact that his solicitor has not even escaped his insinuations of bad faith in his connection with the suit, though it was disclaimed on the argument by his counsel; thus contradicting all his opinions and feelings, strongly and repeatedly expressed pending the suit, and long after its termination and the settlement between the parties. The solicitor had no interest in the property or in its distribution. His fee was not dependent upon it. He was, therefore, wholly disinterested in the matter, and well situated to act as the friend of all parties in the settlement.

As we have already stated, before the commencement of the suit, he refused to be connected with it, unless the complainant should be permitted to have a substantial interest in the estate, and repudiated the arrangement by which he was to receive only $10,000. After the recovery, and in the settlement among the parties, he stood firmly by this original understanding, and insisted that he should have a double share. So far as appears from the evidence, it is entirely owing to the sense of justice and firmness of Judge Campbell (the solicitor) that the complainant is now in the possession and enjoyment of some $100,000 of his patrimonial inheritance, instead of the $10,000 for which he himself had stipulated.

The decree of the court below is affirmed.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1578

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CHs. 555-558 . 1929 . 1527 CHAP. 555 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing March 2, 1929. the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River at or near the village of [H. R. 16448.] Clearwate r, Minnesota. [Public, No. 981 .] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge authorized by the Act of Congress approved March 4, 1925, as amended by Acts of Congress approved February 26, 1926, and February 16, 1928, to be built by the State of Minnesota and the counties of Sherburne and Wright across the M ississ ippi R iver a t or ne ar the villa ge of Clear- water, in the county of Wright, in the State of Minnesota, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from February 16, 1929. SE C. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929. CHAP. 557 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Ohio River at or near Golconda, Illinois. Mississippi River . Time extended for bridging, at Clear- water, Minn. Vol. 43, p. 1302; Vol. 44, p . 131 . Ante, p. 118. Amendment. March 2, 1929. CHAP. 556.-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing [H. R. 16499.] the construction of a bridge across the Kanawha River at or near Saint Albans, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Be it enacted b y the Senate and House of Representatives of the Kanawha River. United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for Time extended for commencing and co mpleting leting the construction of the bridge across bridging, at saint Al- bans, AV. Va. the Kanawha River, at or near Saint Albans, Kanawha County, West Virginia, authorized to be built by the Saint Albans Nitro Bridge Company, by the Act of Congress approved May 1, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 1 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this ]let is' hereby expres sly re served. Approved, March 2, 1929. [Public, No. 982.] Ante, p .473. Amendment. March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16531.] [Public, No. 983 .1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of th e, Ohio River. United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for Time extended for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the bridging, at Golconda, Ohio River at or near Golconda, authorized to be built by C. J. Abbott, his heirs, legal repre sentat ives, a nd ass igns, by the Act o f Congress approved March 16, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years respec tively from March 16, 192 9. SEC. 2 . The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929. Ante, p. 319. Amendment. March 2, 1929. CHAP. 558.-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing [H. R. 16603.] the construction of a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near Arat, - Cum-berland County, Kentucky. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of .Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the Cumberland River, at or near Arat, Cumberland County, Kentucky, auth orize d to be bu ilt by St ate H ighw ay Co mmiss ion, Comm onwea lth of Kentucky, by the Act of Congress approved May 18, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 18, 1929. [Public, No. 984 .] Cumberland River. Time extended for bridgi ng, at Arat, Ky. Ante, p. 614.

�


text: Talk:Collins v. Thompson/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1579

 1528 Amendment. March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16605.] [Public, No. 985 .] Cumberland River. Ti me ex ten ded for bridging, at Creelsboro, Ky . Ante,p.615. Amendme nt. SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHs. 558-561 . 1929 . SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929. CHAP. 559 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near Creelsboro, in Russell County, Kentucky. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the Cu mberl and River, at or ne ar C reels boro, in Russe ll Co unty, Ken - tucky, authorized to be built by the State highway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, by the Act of Congress approved May 18, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 18, 1929. SEC. 2 . The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expr essly reserv ed. Approved, March 2, 1929. March 2, 1929. [H. R. 76666.] CHAP. 560 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing [Public, No. 986.] the construction of a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near Neelys Perry, in Cumberland County, Kentucky. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Time eaten Ri xtended ver fo . r United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for bridging, at Neelys commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Ferry, Ky. Cumberland River, at or near Neelys Ferry, in Cumberland County, Kentucky, authorized to be built by the State Highway Commission, Ante, p .612. Commonwealth of Kentucky, by the Act of Congress approved May 18, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 18, 1929. Amendment. SEC. 2 . The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929. March 2,1929 . CHAP. 561 .-An Act Extending the times for commencing and completing the [Public, No . 987 .1 construction of a bridge across the Ohio River at Sistersville, Tyler County, West J Virginia. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Ti m eRiver . United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for Tim e ext end ed for brid g ing, at sistersvil]e, commencing and completing the construction of a bridge authorized tii Ante, p. 135. by an Act of Congress approved February 20, 1928, to be built by the Sistersville Ohio River Bridge Company, its successors and assigns, across the Ohio River at or near Sistersville, Tyler County, West Virginia, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from February 20, 1929. Amendment. SEC. 2 . The right to alter, amend, or 'repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March .2, 1929.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1580

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cns. 562-565 . 1929 . CHAP. 562 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River at or near Chester, Randolph County, Illinois. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River, at or near Chester, Randolph County, Illinois, authorized to be built by E. H. Wegener, his heirs, legal representa- tives, and assigns, by Act of Congress approved March 10, 1928, are hereby extende d one and thr ee years, res pectively, fro m March 10, 1929 . SEc. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929. CHAP. 563.-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Ohio River at or near Mound City, Illinois. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Ohio River at or near Mound City, Illinois, authorized to be built by B. L. Hendrix, G. C. Trammel, and C. S. Miller, by the Act of Con- gress approved March 16, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from March 16, 1929. SE c. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929. CHAP. 564.-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the -construction of a bridge across the Missouri River at or near Washington, Missouri. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the Missouri River at or near Washington, Missouri, authorized to be built by the Washi ngton Misso uri Ri ver Br idge Compan y, by the Act of Congress approved February 28, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from February 28, 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929. Mississippi River. Time e xtend ed for brid gin g, at Che ste r, Ill. Ante, p. 283. Amendment. March 2, 1929. [II.R. 16640 .]	[Public, No. 989 .] Ohio River. Time e xtend ed for bridging, at Mound City, 111. Ante, p. 316. Amendment. 1529 Mar . 2, 1929 . [ii. R. 16610.] [Public, No. 988 .] March 2, 1929. [H. R.16641.] [Public, No. 990.1 Missouri River. Time extended for bridging, at Washing- ton, Mio. Ante, p.151. Amendment. March 2,1929. CHAP. 565 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the 	[I1. R .16645 .] construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River at or near Helena, Arkansas. [Public, No. 991 .1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for Mississippi River . Time extended for commencing and completing t he constructi on of a bridge across the bri dgi ng, at He le na, Mississippi River, at or near Helena, Arkansas, authorized to be built Ark-. by D. T. Hargraves and John W. Dulaney, their heirs, legal repre- Ante, p. 762. sentatives, and assigns, by an Act of Congress approved May 26, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 26, 1929. SEc. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby Amendment. expressly reserved. Approv ed, Ma rch 2, 1929.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1581

 1530 March 2, 1929. [H. R.16818.] [Public, No. 992 .] Ohio Riv er. Ti me ex ten ded for bridging, at Wellsburg, W. Va. Ante, p. 503. Amendme nt. March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16924.1 [P ubli c, No . 993.] Missouri River. Ti me ex ten ded for bridging , at Kansa s City, Ka ns. Ante, p. 704. Amendme nt. March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16539 .1	[Public, No. 994 .] Naval airship base. Board of naval offi- cers to investigate and report on site for, etc. March 2, 1929. [H. R. 16982.] [Public, No. 995 .] Tombigbee River. J. E. Robinson may brid ge, at Co ffee ville , Ala. Construct ion. Vol .34,p.84. SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHS. 566-569 . 1929 . CHAP. 566.-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Ohio River at or near Wellsburg, West Virginia. Be it en ac ted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Ohio River, at or near Wellsburg, West Virginia, authorized to be built by the J. K. Mahone Bridge Company, its successors and assigns, by Act of Congress approved May 14, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 14, 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929 . CHAP. 567 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Missouri River at or near Kansas City, Kansas. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives o f the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Missouri River, at or near Kansas City, Kansas, authorized to be built by the Interstate Bridge Company, its successors and assigns, by Act of Congress approved May 22, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 22, 1929. Sic. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929 . CH A P. 5 68 .-An Act To provide for investigation of sites suitable for the esta blishm ent of a naval airsh ip base. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Navy is directed to appoint a board of naval officers to examine and report upon such locations as may be deemed most suitable for the establishment of a naval airship base and to submit to the Con- gre ss the r eport of said bo ard conc erning t he sever al locat ions con - sid ered and hi s rec ommen dation s as to th e loca tion of the airship base, together with estimates in detail of cost of the best sites available and of the structur es, faci lities, and impr ovements necessa ry to th e efficiency of the airship base. Approved, March 2, 1929 . CHAP. 569 .-An Act Authorizing J. E. Robinson, his heirs, legal repre- sentatives, and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Tombigbee River at or near Coffeeville, Alabama. Be it enacted by the Senate and Hou se of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That in orde r to prom ote inte rstate c ommerce, improve the post al servi ce, and provide for military and other purposes, J. E. Robinson, his heirs, legal rep- resentatives, and assigns, be, and is hereby, authorized to construct, maintain, and ope ra te a bridge and approaches thereto across the Tombigbee River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation at or near Coffeeville, Clarke County, Alabama, in accordance with the provisio ns of th e Act ent itled "A n Act to regulat e the co nstruc- ti on of bridges over navigable waters," approved Mar ch 23, 190 6, and subject to the conditions and limitations contained in this Act.

�


text:
Kimbro v. Bullitt

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

The suit was brought upon three bills of exchange, which were accepted and paid by Bullitt, Miller, & Co., the drawees, for the accommodation of the drawers, Dement, Kimbro, & Sons, of which firm Joseph Kimbro was a partner. This action was brought by Bullitt, Miller, & Co., against Joseph Kimbro alone. The place of business of the firm of Dement, Kimbro, & Sons, was in Mississippi. Kimbro resided in Tennessee, and therefore was sued there.

The defence set up in the court below rested on two grounds, viz:

1. That Dement, the principal acting partner of the firm of Dement, Kimbro, & Sons, had no power to draw the bills sued on.

2. That the bills were drawn for the purpose of raising money to be laid out in the purchase of slaves to be carried into Mississippi for sale; which slaves were so carried in and sold, contrary to laws of Mississippi.

On the trial, the judge charged the jury in the following words:

'The court charge the jury that Dement, the principal acting partner of the firm of Dement, Kimbro, & Sons, had power to draw the bills given in evidence, according to the proof adduced to them, if true; that if the bills were accepted and paid at maturity by the plaintiffs for said firm, the defendant, Joseph Kimbro, was responsible, and it mattered nothing to the plaintiffs how the proceeds of the bills were disposed of, as this was a fact the plaintiffs could not know, and were not bound to prove.'

This ruling was excepted to, upon which the case was brought up to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Benjamin for the defendants in error, no counsel appearing for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Benjamin said:1. The charge that Dement had power to draw the bills was correctly given, and is sustained by the proof.

The witness, Ready, deposed that he knew the firm of Dement, Kimbro, & Sons, in or near Lexington, Holmes county, Mississippi; that Joseph Kimbro was a member of the firm; that the firm commenced business on the 1st January, 1853, and continued till the death of Dement, one of the partners, on the 3d October, 1853; that the business of the firm was farming, steam saw-mill, and general trading, and that Dement was the principal business partner.

The witness, West, confirmed the depositions of Ready, and added, that 'Dement was the principal financier of the firm of Dement, Kimbro, & Sons, did the principal trading, borrowed money, and paid it back, &c., in the name of the firm.'

The partnership articles, as introduced by defendant, provide for a copartnership between Dement, the defendant, Joseph Kimbro, and the two sons of the latter, 'for the purpose of farming, and also of running a steam saw-mill-the parties of each part to furnish one-third of the capital stock of the partnership, or the said party of the second part to furnish two-thirds of said capital stock, on behalf of himself and his two sons, parties of the third part; and the said parties are to furnish negroes or hands, stock, provisions for man and beast, and all necessary utensils, in the same proportion, and are to pay and defray the expenses of said copartnership, and share its profits in the same proportion; * * * and the said parties of the third part are to superintend-one of them the said farm, and the other the said mill; and the said party of the first part is to render them such needful assistance as he can, without any extra charge therefor; and at the expiration of said two years, after paying the debts of said copartnership, the profits are to be equally divided between said parties of the first, second, and third parts, & c.'

Botters, a witness for defendant, testified that 'said firm, so far as I know, has never been held out by any of the Kimbros as having any more extensive powers than those conferred by said articles-(Joseph Kimbro, senior, the defendant, left here for Tennessee either a day or two before or a day or two after said articles were signed, and did not return until next fall;) nor did ever said Dement do so with the knowledge of defendant, so far as I know.'

'Planting and mill partnerships in this country are not numerous, and it is no easy matter to say what powers are by usage exercised by the several partners, without the express consent of their copartners in such partnerships; but among the few partnerships of the kind that have come to my knowledge, where money had been needed, and the several partners cannot be consulted, the managing one raises the money on his own credit, and charges the same to the partnership.'

On the foregoing testimony, it is plain that even inter se there was such a trading partnership as authorized the drawing of bills by one partner in the name of the firm; although the farming business might not authorize the exercise of such a power, running a saw-mill for two years necessarily required the purchase of the requisite stock of wood, and its re-sale as boards, planks, scantling, &c. The business of running a steam saw-mill is neither more nor less than a manufacturing business, requiring the purchase of raw material and sale of the manufactured article; all such partnerships are trading partnerships, in which the power to draw bills of exchange in the partnership name is vested in each partner.

In mining partnerships, and farming partnerships, it has been held that such powers are not vested in the partners; and the reason is, that their business is simply to sell the produce of the real estate, to make profits out of the soil by gathering its fruits; but wherever the business imports in its nature the necessity of buying and selling, the partnership is in its essence a trading partnership.

The general doctrine is admirably summed up in the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of a manufacturing partnership.

title: Kimbro v. Bullitt


text: Talk:Kimbro v. Bullitt

title: Talk:Kimbro v. Bullitt


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1582

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cii. 569. 1929 . 1531 SEC. 2 . After the completion of such bridge, as determined by the Acquisition aut hor- ed, of War, either the State of Alabama, any political subdi- blabama co mple tion. vision thereof within or adjoining which any part of such bridge is located, or any two or m ore of t hem join tly, may at any t ime acqu ire and take over all right, title, and interest in such bridge and its approach es, and any inte rest in real pro perty ne cessary t herefor, by purchase or by condemnation in accordance with the laws of su ch Cond emna tion p ro- State governing the acquisition of private property for public pur- ceedings. pos es by condemnation or expropriation. If at any time after the Compensation if ac- quired by condemns- expiration of five years after the completion of such bridge the same tio n. is acquired by condemnation or expropriation, the amount of dam- ages or compensation to be allowed shall not include good will, going value, or prospective revenues or profits but shall be limited to the Limi tatio ns. sum of (1) the actual cost of constructing such bridge and its approaches, less a reasonable deduction for actual depreciation in value ; (2) the actual cost of acquiring such interests in real prop- erty ; (3) actual financing and promotion cost, not to exceed 10 per centum of the sum of the cos t of constructing the bridge and its approaches and acquiring such interest in real property ; and (4) actual expenditures for necessary improvements. SEC. 3 . If such bridge shall at any time be taken over or acquired ete,operations State, by the State of Alabama or by any municipality or other political subdivision or public agency thereof, under the provisions of section Rates applied to op- 2 of this Act, and if tolls are thereafter charged for the use thereof, eration, sinking fund, the rates of tolls shall be so adjusted as to provide a fund sufficient etc ' to pay for the reasonable cost of maintaining, repairing, and operat- ing the bridge and its approaches under economical management, and to provide a sinking fund sufficient to amortize the amount paid there- for, including reasonable interest and financing cost, as soon as pos- sible under re asonable charges, but wi thin a p eriod of not to exceed Maintenance as free twenty years from the date of acquiring the same. After a sinking bridge, etc.,after amor- fund sufficient for such amortization shall have been so provided t'z'n g costs. such bridge shall thereafter be maintained and operated free of tolls, or the rates of tolls shall thereafter be so adjusted as to provide a fund of not to exceed the amount necessary for the proper main- tenance, repair, and operation of the bridge and its approaches under Rec ord of e xpend i- economical management. An accurate record of the amount pa id tures and receipts. for ac quiring the brid ge and i ts appro aches, t he actua l expend itures for maintaining, repairing, and operating the same and of the daily tolls collected shall be kept and shall be available for the informa- tion of all persons interes ted. Swo rn s tate ment of SEC. 4. J. E. Robinson, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, construction costs, etc ., shall within ninety days after the completion of such bridge file with pl e ionfiied after com- the Secretary of War, and with the highway department of the State of Alabama, a sworn itemized statement showing the actual original cost of constructing the bridge and its approaches, the actual cost of acquiring any interest in real property necessary therefor, and the Examination by See- actual financing and promotion costs. The Secretary of War may, retary of War. and at the request of the highway department of the State of Ala- bama shall, at any time within three years after the completion of such bridge, investigate such costs and determine the accuracy and the reasonab leness o f the co sts alle ged in t he statem ent of c osts so filed, and shall make a finding of the actual and reasonable costs of constructing, financing, and promoting such bridge of such investigation the said J. E. Robinson, his heirs, legal repre- sentatives, and assigns, shall make available all records in connection Findings of Secretary with the construction, financing, and promotion thereof. The fin d- conclusive. ings of the Secretary of War as to the reasonable costs of the con- struction, financing, and promotion of the bridge shall be conclusive 54335•-29-pT 1-100
 * for the purpose

�