text:
Kimbro v. Bullitt/Opinion of the Court

Winship v. Bank of the U.S., 5 Peters, 529.

So it was held that one partner could bind the firm by a promissory note, where the partnership was for carrying on the business of farming and coopering.

McGregor v. Cleveland, 5 Wendell, 475.

And although there be no partnership in real estate, the parties being tenants in common, yet if they are common tenants of timber land, and do a lumber business, they are trading partners in the timber cut from the land.

Baker v. Wheeler, 8 Wendell, 505.

Coles V. Coles, 15 Johns. R., 160.

Partners in a steam saw-mill are bound by the note of the partnership given by some of the partners for partnership purposes.

Johnston v. Dutton, 27 Alabama, 245.

And even where the partnership is limited, a note by one of the partners, in the name of the firm, is prima facie for the firm's account.

Holmes v. Porter, 39 Maine, (4 Heath,) 157.

See, also, Story on Partnership, sec. 102.

And it makes no difference as to the power of a partner to bind the firm, that the trade was a particular and limited trade.

Chitty on Bills, 10th Am. ed., p. 44.

2. But, independently of the question as to the powers of the partners in controversies inter se, as regards the present ease, where the holders of the bills are third persons, ignorant of the special partnership agreement, the partnership is bound, because it was actually engaged in general trading, and Dement, who signed the bills, was the ostensible principal business partner. It was in the light of a general trading partnership that this firm exhibited itself to the public; it adopted by its articles a partnership style or firm of 'Dement, Kimbro, & Sons,' without any indication of a restriction in its business; the fact of its carrying on a general trading business was proven by Ready and West, and the charge was, that under this proof, if true, Dement's signature of the bills in the firm name bound the firm. It was quite immaterial whether or not there existed a secret contract limiting his powers.

Story on Partnership, secs. 111, 126, 130.

Collyer on Partnership, sec. 386.

Gow on Partnership, pp. 52 to 55.

3 Kent's Commentaries, pp. 40 to 45.

Winship v. Bank U.S., 5 Peters, 529.

Cargill v. Cosby, 15 Miss., 425.

Nicholls v. Cheairs, 4 Sneed, (Tenn.,) 229.

Frost v. Hanford, 1 E. D. Smith, 540.

And in the above case of Cargill v. Cosby, the test of the power to draw bills and notes in the name of the firm is stated to be, whether the business was to 'buy and sell.' It is plain that the business of a steam saw-mill cannot be conducted without buying and selling.

3. Independently of the legal presumption that the bills drawn in the partnership name were for partnership account, Ready's testimony shows that Dement, the deceased partner, was at his house at about the date of the bills, with certain negroes; 'spoke of them as firm negroes, and employed Nesbit to take them in charge and sell them, and keep McAfee from having anything to do with them, or the funds arising from the sale of them; his object being to save Joseph Kimbro from loss, and to meet the liability to Bullitt, Miller, & Co., and to Bolton, Dickens, & Co., incurred in the purchase of these negroes by the firm of Dement, Kimbro, & Co., in connection with Morgan McAfee and William M. Joyne.'

The partnership articles show that negroes were necessary for their business, and that the parties promised to furnish them for carrying it on.

4. The only remaining point to be considered is the legality of the second charge of the judge, '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.'

It may be proper to premise that it is perfectly immaterial in the present case whether this charge was well founded in law or not, because the plaintiffs' replication to the defendant's fourth plea joined issue on the fact whether or not the bills were drawn and accepted for the purpose of raising money to purchase slaves for importation into Mississippi for sale contrary to law; and there is not a particle of evidence to support the plea, the only evidence on the point being that of Ready, (above referred to,) which establishes the purchase in Vicksburg.

But in point of law the instruction was clearly right.

The idea that money loaned or advanced cannot be recovered because the borrower applies it to an unlawful purpose was never countenanced by any jurist.

It is true that ex turpi causa non oritur actio. But what is the contract now before the court? A contract for advancing money. There is nothing illegal in that. If the money was to be applied to an unlawful purpose, the illegality was in the application, not in the borrowing. The contract for purchasing the slaves might be in contravention of law; and if so, would not be enforced in a court of justice; but, on the ground now assumed by plaintiffs in error, it would be incumbent on the court to refuse to maintain an action for the price of goods sold, if the purchaser could prove that the vendor intended to raise money by the sale, to be applied to an unlawful purpose. The proposition will not bear an instant's examination. The whole doctrine on the subject was scrutinized and the true principles governing it settled by this court in 1826, and the law is now too well established to re quire any further citation of authorities.

See Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat., 258.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes before the court upon a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the middle district of Tennessee. It was an action of assumpsit brought by the present defendants against the plaintiff in error, to recover the amount of three several bills of exchange, particularly described in the declaration. As exhibited in the transcript, the several bills of exchange bear date at Lexington, in the State of Mississippi, on the second day of April, 1853, and purport respectively to have been drawn and addressed to the original plaintiffs by one Morgan McAfee, and by Dement, Kimbro, & Sons. They were each for the sum of two thousand dollars, and were severally made payable to the order of the first-named drawer, by whom also they were duly endorsed. Two of them were likewise endorsed with the firm name of the other drawers. At the time the bills of exchange were executed, the original defendant was a member of the firm of Dement, Kimbro, & Sons; and it was conceded, in the pleadings and at the trial, that the bills of exchange were drawn and negotiated by the senior partner of that firm. All the members of that partnership, except the defendant, were citizens of the State of Mississippi at the time the suit was commenced, and were residing out of the jurisdiction of the court; and for that reason, as alleged in the declaration, the other partners were not sued in this action. In the court below, the plaintiffs claimed to recover against the defendant, upon the ground that the firm, of which he was a member, were the drawers of the bills of exchange, and that they, the plaintiffs, had paid the amount, or the principal portion of the same, out of their own funds, as acceptors, for the accommodation of the drawers. Without attempting to give any very definite analysis of the several pleas filed by the defendant, it will be sufficient for the purposes of this investigation to state that he set up two distinct grounds of defence in answer to the claim of the plaintiffs:

1. To the merits of the claim he pleaded the general issue, and denied specially that he ever drew the bills of exchange described in the declaration, or that he ever authorized any one to draw them in his name, or in the name of his firm.

2. For a further defence, he also alleged, in his fourth plea to the amended declaration, that the bills of exchange were drawn and endorsed by Dement, and accepted by the plaintiffs, for the purpose of raising money to be laid out in the purchase of slaves, to be imported from some other State or Territory of the United States, for sale, into the State of Mississippi, which slaves he alleged to be afterwards purchased with the money and imported into the State, and there sold, according to the original intent, contrary to the form of the statute of that State in such case made and provided. To that plea the plaintiffs replied, traversing the allegations of fact, and tendering an issue, which was duly joined. Some of the pleas 'esulted in issues of law, all of which were ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants acquiesced in the rulings of the court.

Evidence was then introduced on both sides upon the issues involving the merits of the claim, and the court instructed the jury that Dement, the principal acting partner of the firm, 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 the firm, the defendant was responsible, and it mattered nothing to the plaintiffs how the proceeds of the bills were disposed of, as that was a fact the plaintiffs could not know, and were not bound to prove.

Under the charge of the court, the jury returned their verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, deducting certain admitted credits, according to the account exhibited in the transcript, and the defendant excepted to the instructions of the court. It is obvious, on the first reading of the instruction, that it contains two distinct propositions, and no doubt is entertained that both were intended to be controverted by the exceptions. In the first place, it affirms that the evidence adduced, if found to be true, was sufficient to show that the acting partner of the firm, of which the defendant was a member, had power to draw the bills of exchange described in the declaration. According to the proofs introduced by the plaintiffs, the firm commenced business at Lexington, in the State of Mississippi, in January, 1853, and the partnership was continued, without interruption, until the third day of October, of the same year, when it was terminated by the death of the senior partner. They also proved, by two witnesses, that the firm was engaged during that period in farming, carrying on a steam saw-mill, and in general trading. Both of these witnesses testified that the senior partner, who drew the bills of exchange in question, was the active business partner of the firm; and one of them added, that he did the principal trading, and borrowed money, and paid it back in the name of the firm.

Their partnership agreement was introduced by the defendant. It bears date on the fifth day of January, 1853; and the partnership was formed, as recited in the instrument, to continue for the term of two years, for the purpose of farming and of carrying on a steam saw-mill. By its terms, one-third of the capital stock was to be furnished by the senior partner, one-third by the defendant, and the remainder by his two sons. Those five persons constituted the firm, under the name and style before mentioned. And it was further stipulated that negroes or hands, stock, provisions, and all necessary utensils, should be furnished by the respective parties, according to their interest in the capital stock, and that they should defray the expenses of the copartnership and share its profits in the same proportions. They also designated the farm to be carried on, and stipulated that the steam saw-mill should be located at such place as a majority of the partners in interest should determine.

After the partnership agreement was executed by the parties, it was deposited with a third person; and it appeared from his deposition, taken by the defendant, that it remained in his possession from that period to the time of his examination. In the same deposition, the witness testified that the firm, so far as he knew, had never been held out by the defendant as having any more extensive powers than those conferred by the partnership agreement.

Some attempt was made by the defendant to prove that it was the usage, in partnerships of this description, when money was wanted to carry on the business, and the several partners could not be consulted, for the managing partner to raise it on his own credit, and charge it to the partnership; but the proof was not sufficient to show any such general usage.

Such was the substance of the evidence on which the charge of the court was based, and we think it was of a character to justify that part of the instruction under consideration. Our reasons for that conclusion will now be briefly stated.

That one of several partners composing a trading firm has power to draw bills of exchange, unless restricted from so doing by the terms of the copartnership agreement, is a proposition which, it is presumed, no one will dispute. Whenever there are written articles of agreement between the partners, their power and authority, inter se, are to be ascertained and regulated by the terms and conditions of the written stipulations. But, independently of any such stipulations, each partner possesses an equal and general power and authority, in behalf of the firm, to transact any business within the scope and objects of the partnership, and in the course of its trade and business.

Acts performed by one of the partners, in respect to the partnership concerns, and in the usual course of its business, differ in nothing, so far as their legal consequences are concerned, from those transactions in which they all concur; and for the reason, that, by the commercial law, each partner of a trading firm is presumed to be intrusted by his copartners with a general authority in all the partnership affairs. Accordingly, it was held, in Hawkin v. Bourne, (8 Mee. and Wels., 710,) that one partner, by virtue of the relation he bears to the firm, is constituted a general agent for another, as to all maters within the scope of the partnership dealings, and has conferred upon him, by virtue of that relation, all authorities necessary for carrying on the partnership, and all such as are usually exercised in the business in which they are engaged. Any restriction which, by agreement among the partners, is attempted to be imposed upon the authority which one partner possesses, as a general agent for the other, is operative only between the partners themselves, and does not limit the authority as to third persons, who acquire rights by its exercise, unless they know that such restrictions have been made.

Contracts made by one of several partners, in respect to matters not falling within the ordinary business, objects, and scope of the partnership, are not binding on the other partners, and create no liability to third persons, who have knowledge that the partner making the contract is acting in violation of his duties and obligations to the firm of which he is a member. But whenever credit is given to the firm, within the scope and objects of the partnership, and in the course of its trade and business, whether the partnership be of a general or limited nature, it will bind all the partners, notwithstanding any secret stipulations or reservations between themselves. which are unknown to those who give the credit. Harrison v. Jackson, 7 Term., 207; Pinkney v. Hall, 1 Salk., 126; Lane v. Williams, 2 Vern., 277; Swan v. Steele, 7 East., 210; Byles on Bills, p. 31; 3 Kent Com., p. 40; Story on Part., sec. 105; Collyer on Part., sec. 401.

Apply these principles to the facts disclosed in evidence, and it is clear that the power of the acting partner was ample to authorize him to draw the bills of exchange in the name of the firm, unless it can be shown that the firm of which he was a member was not one falling within the general rules of law defining and regulating the rights and obligations of partners engaged in the transactions and business of trade.

All partnerships, says Chancellor Kent, are more or less limited; and there is none that embraces, at the same time, every branch of business. Such limitations are generally to be found in the terms and stipulations of the articles of co-partnership; but they may arise from general usage, or, to a certain extent, from the character of the business, and the nature of the objects to be accomplished.

Partnerships are sometimes formed by those who are interested in real estate, for the mere purpose of farming; and in respect to that class of business arrangements, it has been held, that one of the several partners does not possess, by virtue of that relation merely, the right, without the consent of his associates, to draw or accept bills of exchange, for the reason that such a practice is not usual, nor is it necessary for carrying on the farming business. Collyer on Part., (ed. 1848,) sec. 402; Greensdale v. Dower, 7 Barn. and Cres., 635; Dickerson v. Valpy, 10 Barn. and Cres., p. 138, per Littledale, J.

In the case last named, it was held that a certain mining company fell within the same exception; and, on the facts disclosed, no doubt the question was well decided. But the mere circumstance that the business consists in making profits out of real estate, as in working a stone quarry, will not necessarily take the case out of the operation of the general rule. Thicknesse v. Brownilow, 2 Cromp. and Jerv., 425.

Farming partnerships, when strictly confined to that purpose, are held to be within the exceptions to the general rule, upon the ground, as assumed by the counsel for the plaintiffs, that their principal object is to make profits out of the soil, by gathering its fruits, and that the partners are in no proper sense engaged in trade; but wherever the business, according to the usual mode of conducting it, imports, in its nature, the necessity of buying and selling, the firm is then properly regarded as a trading partnership, and is invested with all the powers and subject to all the obligations incident to that relation. McGregor v. Cleaveland, 5 Wen., 475; Winship v. Bank of United States, 5 Pet., 529; Baker v. Wheeler, 8 Wen., 505; Coles v. Coles, 15 Johns. R., 160; Johnston v. Dutton, 27 Alabama Rep., 245; Hedley v. Bainbridge, 3 Q. B., 321.

Another answer, however, may be given to the objection to this part of the instruction, which is entirely conclusive against it. According to the evidence, farming was not the sole business of the partners composing this firm. They were also engaged in running a steam saw-mill, for manufacturing purposes; and common observation will warrant the remark, that those who engage in that business always want capital to carry it on, and frequently find it necessary to ask for credit. Like those engaged in other branches of manufactures, they buy and sell, and have occasion to remit money and collect it from distant places.

Two witnesses also testified at the trial that this firm was engaged in general trading; and there was no evidence introduced by the defendant to contradict their statements. Whether the witnesses were entitled to credit, and whether, in point of fact, this firm was a trading firm, were questions which were properly submitted to the jury. By the verdict, both questions were found in favor of the plaintiff, and the finding of the jury is conclusive.

2. One other point only remains to be considered, which arises out of the second proposition contained in the charge of the court. It was to the effect, that if the bills of exchange were accepted and paid at maturity by the plaintiffs for the firm, then the defendant was responsible, and it mattered nothing to the plaintiffs how the procceds were disposed of.

No evidence was offered by the defendant in support of the issue raised by his fourth plea to the amended declaration, and there was none in the case tending to show that the proceeds had been applied to any illegal object, or in any manner misappropriated. Such being the fact, it is obvious that this part of the instruction became entirely immaterial; which, of itself, is a sufficient answer to the objection.

But another answer may be given to the objection, which perhaps will be more satisfactory; and that is, we think it was clearly correct. It will be observed, that this part of the charge was based upon the theory that the bills of exchange were drawn by the firm of which the defendant was a member; and properly so, for the reason that the question of authority to draw them had been disposed of in the preceding part of the charge.

In considering this objection, then, it must be assumed that the bills were drawn by the firm, and that they were duly accepted and paid by the plaintiffs at maturity, on account of the firm; and if so, it is not perceived how their right to recover the amount can be affected by the fact that one of the drawers applied the money to an unlawful purpose. Where a contract grows immediately out of and is connected with the illegal or immoral act of the party claiming the benefit of it, courts of justice will not lend their aid to enforce it. Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat., 258.

But the illegal act, if any, in this case, was performed by one of the drawers of the bills, and not by the acceptors. Suppose one of a firm should borrow money of a third person, in the name of the partnership, and apply it to an unlawful purpose, it surely could not defeat the right of the lender to recover on the contract.

Regarding this point as too clear to be the subject of dispute, we forbear to pursue the discussion.

After a careful examination of the exceptions, we think they cannot be sustained. The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed, with costs.

title: Kimbro v. Bullitt/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1583

 1532 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CT's. 569-571 . 1929 . P Ri ght to sell, etc ., conferred. Construction con- tracts to be let to lowest bidder. Advertising, etc. Contracts void for violati ons. Amendment. March 2,1929. [H. R.170071 [Public, No . 990.) Mississippi River . Time e xtended for bridging, at nickman, Ky. Ante, p.321. Amendme nt . for the purposes mention ed in sec tion 2 o f this A ct, subj ect only to review in a court of equity for fraud or gross mistake . SEC . 5. The right to sell, assign, transfer, and mortgage all the rights, powers, and privileges conferred by this Act, is hereby granted to J. E . Robinson, his heirs, legal representatives, and a ssigns, and any corpor ation to which or any pers on to whom such rights, powers, and privileges may be sold, assigned, or transferred, or who shall acquire the same by mortgage foreclosure or otherwise, is hereby authorized and empowered to exercise the same as f ully as though conferred herein directly upon such corporation or person . SEC . 6 . All contracts made in connection with the construction of the bridge au thor ized by this Act and whi ch s hall inv olve the expenditure of more than $5,000, shall be let by competitive bidding. Such contracts shall be advertised for a reasonable time in some ne wspaper of gener al circu lation p ublished in the State in which t he bridge is located and in the vicinity thereof ; sealed bids shall be required and the contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. Verified copies or abstracts of all bids received and of the bid or bi ds accepted shall be promptly furnished to the highway department of the State in which such bridge is located. A failure to comply in good faith with the provisions of this section shall re nder nul l and vo id any c ontract made in violatio n thereo f, and t he Secretary of War may, after hearings, order the suspension of all w ork u pon s uch bridge until the provisions of thi s sec ti on sh all ha ve b een full y co mpli ed with. SEC. 7. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929 . CHAP. 570 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River at or near Hickman, Ken tucky. Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives o f the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the M ississ ippi River at or near Hick man, K entuc ky, a uthori zed t o be built by A. Robbins, of Hickman, Kentucky, his heirs, legal repre- sentatives, and assigns, by the Act of Congress approved March 16, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from March 16, 1929 . SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expr essly re served. Approved, March 2, 1929 . March 2,1929 . [n. R.17e2o.) CHAP. 571 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing [Public, No. 997 .[ the construction of a bridge across Lake Champlain at or near Rouses Point, New York . Lake Champlain . Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Tim e ext end ed for United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the times for bridging, at Rouses Point, N. Y. commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across Lake Champlain at or near the city of Rouses Point, New York, authorized Ante, p, s 12. by the Act of Congress approved May 14, 1928, entitled "An Act granting the consent of Congress to the Gulf Coast Properties, Inc ., to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across Lake Champlain at or near the city of Rouses Point, New York," are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 14, 1929.

�

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


text: Talk:Kimbro v. Bullitt/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1584

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CHS. 571-574 . 1929 . 1533 SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby express ly reser ved. Appro ved, Mar ch 2, 1929 . March 2,1929. CHAP. 572 .-An Act To extend the time for commencing and completing 	[H. R .17023.1 the construction of a bridge across Lake Champlain at or near East Alburg, Vermont. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Th at the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across Lake Champlain at or near East Alburg, Vermont, authorized to be built by the Gulf Coast Properties, Inc ., by the 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 express ly reser ved. Approved, March 2, 1929 . Amendme nt. [Public, No. 998 .1 Lake Champlain. Time ext ended for bridging, at East A1- burg, V t. Ante, p. 514 . Amendmen t. March 2,1929. [H. R. 17026.1 CHAP. 573 .-An Act Granting a part of the Federal building site at Savan- nah, G eorgia, to th e city of Sava nnah f or stre et purp oses. [Public, No. 999 .] Be it en act ed by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized in his discretion to convey by quit-claim deed to the city of Savannah, Georgia, for street purposes, the following-described strip of land : Not to exceed twenty- two feet south of and abutting on State Street from Bu ll Street to Whitaker Street, in the city of Savannah, Chatham County, Georgia, in exchange for sixty-five and five-tenths feet, given by the said city of Savannah to the Government as part of a public-build- ing site, in c losing President Street in said city. Approved, March 2, 1929 . Savannah, Ga. Part of building site, at, conveyed to city in exchange. March 2, 1929. CHAP. 574 .-An Act To readjust the commissioned personnel of the Coast [11 . R. 17060.] Guard, and for other purposes. [Public, No . 1000 .] Be it enacted b y the Senate and House o f Representatives o f the United States o f America in Congress assembled, Th at on and af ter July 1, 1929, the total number of commissioned officers on the active list, regular and temporary combined (exclusive of the commandant and commissioned warrant officers and additional numbers that have been authorized by law), authorized in the Coast Guard shall be five hundred and eighty-eight, consisting of five hundred and twenty- six line officers distributed in the proportion of four in the grade of captain, to eig ht in th e grade of comma nder, to fifteen in the grade of lieutenant commander, to thirty in the grade of lieutenant, to forty-three in the grades of lieutenant (junior grade) and ensign, inclusive ; and of one engineer in chief, eight captains (engineering), sixteen commanders (eng ineering), and eighteen li eutenant com- mand ers (eng inee ring ), and of fi ve c onst ruct ors, and fou rtee n Pr ov i soB. district commanders : P rovide d, That the nu mber of temp orary Temporary officers. commissioned officers, not above the rank of lieutenant, within the total of c ommiss ioned offi cers h erein auth orized shal l be as the President sha ll determine : And prov ided fur ther , That notwith- standing the number of officers herein authorized in the grades of cap ta in (engineering) and commander (engineering), respectively, Coast Guard. Readjus tment of comm issi oned pers on- nel. Vol. 42, p. amended. 1130, Promotion of engi- neer officers at same time as line officers

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1585

 1534 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS . II. CFis. 574-576 . 1929 . an engineer officer may be promoted, subject to examination as provided by law, to either of these grades at the same time as a line officer of the same length of total service in the Coast Guard is promote d to e ither of the corre spondi ng grad es in the li ne. Effec t of vacancy at SEC. 2. That each vacancy occurring at the bottom of the list of bottom of list of en- gineers. commissioned engineer officers on the active list after July 1, 1929, shall o perate to re duce b y one the to tal num ber of engin eer of ficers and to increase by one the total number of line officers authorized by section 1 of this Act. computations to or- SEC. 3 . In making any computation required or authorized by or elude officers carried as additional numbers. pursuant to this Act there shall be excluded from consideration those officers carried by law as additional numbers, and whenever a final fraction of one-half or more occurs the whole number next above shall be regarded as the authorized number. Escor t for burial of SEC. 4. That the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, is of ficer or enlis ted man in service. hereby authorized to furnish an escort, not to exceed one person, to the place of burial for the body of an officer or enlisted man who has lost his life in the Coast Guard. Such expenses as are incurred for this purpose shall be paid from the proper appropriation. No pay red uc tio n, SEC. 5 . That nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to et C' reduce the rank, pay, or allowances of any commissioned officer of the Coast Guard as now provided by law. inconsistent laws re- SEC. 6 . That all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent with the pealed. provisions of this Act are hereby repealed. Approved, March 2, 1929. March 2, 1929 . [H. R. 17075.] [P ubli c, No . 1001 .] CHAP. 575 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota. Red Riv er of the Be it enacted by the Senate .and House o f Representatives o f the North. United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for Tim e extended for bridging, between Far- commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the go, N. llak ., and Moor- Red River of the North between Fargo, North Dakota, and Moor- beAnt Minn. 72. head, Minnesota, authorized to be built by the State of North Dakota, the State of Mi nnesot a, the count y of C ass, No rth Da kota, the co unty of Clay, Minnesota, the city of Fargo, North Dakota, and the city of Moorhead, Minnesota, or any one or more of them, by an Act of Congress approved May 1, 1928, are hereby extended one and three Amendme nt. years, respectively, from May 1, 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expr essly reserv ed. Approved, March 2, 1 92 9. March 2, 1929. [13. R. 17079 .] _ CHAP. 576 .-An Act To repeal the provision in the Act of April 30, 1908, [Public, No. 1002 .1 and other legislation limiting the annual per capita cost in Indian schools. Indian boarding Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the schools. United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the provi- co Limit , repealed capita sion in the Act of April 30, 1908 (Thirty -fifth Statu tes at Large, pealed .35,. P. 72, re- page 72), and all other Acts imposing a limit upon the per capita cost in Indian boarding schools, be, and the same are hereby, repealed. Appr ove d, Mar ch 2, .929.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1586

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cxs. 577-580 . 1929 . 1535 CHAP. 5 77 .-An Act To ex tend the times for comm encin g and com pleti ng the construction of a bridge across the Des Moines River at or near Croton, Iowa. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives o f the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the Des Moines River at or near Croton, Iowa, authorized to be built by Henry Horsey, Winfield Scott, A. L. Ballegoin, and Frank Schee, their heirs, le gal repre sentative s, and as signs, by the Act of Congre ss approved May 22, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from May 22, 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expre ssly r eserve d. Approved, March 2, 1929. March 2,192D. [H. R. 17127.]	[Public, No. 1003 .] Des Moines River. Time extended for bridging, at Croton, Iowa. Ante, p. 706. Amendment. March 2, 1928. CHAP. 578 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing 	[H. R. 17140.] the construction of a bridge across the Mahoning River at or near Warren, [Pub lic, N o . 1004 .] Trum bull Coun ty, O hio. Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f 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 Mahoning River at or near the city of Warren, Trumbull County, Ohio, autho rized to be built by the board of cou nty co mmissi oners of Trumbull County, Ohio, by an Act of Congress approved March 12, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from March 12, 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expres sly re served. Approved, March 2, 1929. Mahoning River. Time extended for bridging, at Warren, Ohio. Ante, p. 309. Amendment. CHAP. 579.-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing March 2, 1929. the construction of an overhead viadu ct across the Mahoni ng River at or near [H. R o. [Public, No 1005 .1 Niles, Trumbull County, Ohio. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the times for Mahoning River. Time extended for commencing and completing the construction of an overhead viaduct viaduct across, at Niles across the Mahoning River at or near Niles, Trumbull County, Ohio, •Vol .44, p. 7S0. authorized to be built by the board of county commissioners of Ante, p.761. Trumbull County, Ohio, by an Act of Congress approved July 1, 1926, heretofore extended by an Act of Congress approved May 26, 1928, are hereby further extended one and tree years, respectively, from May 26, 1929. SEC. 2 . The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby Amendment. expres sly re served. Approved, March 2, 1929. March 2, 1929. CHAP. 580 .-An Act To extend the time for commencing and completing 	[H. R. 17185 .1 the construction of a bridge across the Ohio River at or near Cairo, Illinois. [Public, No. 1006.] Be is enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Ohio River. Time exten ded fo r times for comme ncin g and comp leti ng th e con struc tion of a brid ge bridging, at Cairo, Ill. across the Ohio River at or near Cairo, Illinois, authorized to be Ante, p. 196. built by the Cairo Association of Commerce, by the Act of Congress

�


text:
Clark v. Bowen

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

The facts were these:

In 1854, the defendants in error were merchants in New York, trading under the name of Bowen & McNamee, and the plaintiffs in error, merchants in Wisconsin, trading under the name of H. O. Clark & Co.

In July, 1854, H. O. Clark & Co. had notes outstanding, due to the firm of Bowen & McNamee, to the amount of $7,950.75. Being embarrassed, an arrangement was made between them and the agent of Bowen & McNamee, to the following effect, viz:

1. That they would make an assignment for the benefit of their creditors.

2. That they would confess a judgment in favor of Bowen & McNamee in the Circuit Court for Rock county, (State court.)

3. That the agent should give them a receipt in full, and agree that the notes should be cancelled.

All these things were done. The assignment was made, the judgment entered, and the receipt given.

Whilst these transactions were going on, Smith was absent.

On the 17th of August, 1854, the assigned property was taken out of the hands of the trustee, in virtue of a mortgage prior in date to the assignment just mentioned. Smith, finding that the weight of the judgment would fall upon his private property, applied to the court of Rock county to have the judgment vacated as to him, upon the ground that it had been entered without sufficient authority. This application was successful, and the court vacated the judgment as to him.

A bill was filed in the District Court of the United States by Bowen & McNamee, in conjunction with some other creditors, to enforce the assignment made for their benefit. No further notice need here be taken of this bill than to say, that it was dismissed without prejudice.

After the judgment was vacated as to Smith, Bowen & McNamee applied to the court to vacate the judgment as to Clark and Justin also. This was granted, and the judgment vacated entirely.

The assignment for the benefit of Bowen & McNamee being thus ineffectual, and the judgment vacated, they considered that the entire arrangement with H. O. Clark & Co. had become null and void; and in 1856 they commenced a suit in the District Court of the United States, upon the promissory notes of H. O. Clark & Co., the possession of which they had retained. Several questions were raised upon the trial, which it is not material to notice; the principal one being an exception to the charge of the court, which was in substance as follows, viz:

1. That the notes were merged in the judgment as long as the judgment stood.

2. That the court of Rock county had power to vacate all the judgments.

3. That when they were thus vacated, the original debt was revived, and the receipt by the agent was not a bar to the suit.

Under this instruction, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs.

The case was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Doolittle for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Lynde for the defendants.

The counsel for the plaintiffs in error directed his attention chiefly to the point that the notes were cancelled by the arrangement which had been made between the parties, and consequently could not be afterwards sued on. This position was illustrated in various ways, the principal one of which was the following:

Taking the note of one partner for a liability of the firm is a valid discharge of the firm, when the creditor agrees that the original liability shall be considered paid, and cancels or delivers up, or agrees to deliver up or cancel, the evidences of the firm liability.

This is the ordinary rule upon these facts, other than the particular agreement. The intention of parties to this end is presumed.

1 Smith's Leading Cases, Note to Cumber v. Wane, 391 to 398.

If this is the law on the giving the note of one partner, a fortiori must the giving a sealed warrant of attorney to confess, and the actual confession of judgment, binding upon two of theree members of a firm, and taking also an assignment of property to a trustee for the benefit of the condition, be a discharge. Such is the case at bar.

Mr. Lynde's fourth point was as follows:

The exception to the judge's charge may be embraced in a single point. That the court entering the judgment had vacated it, and therefore the promissory notes still in possession of the plaintiffs uncancelled were still valid, and plaintiffs were entitled to recover upon them.

Is it not a common occurrence in all courts to vacate judgments for cause, upon application from either party, and proceed to trial de novo upon the original cause of action?

Does not this court reverse judgments entered in the courts below, and send cases back for new trial upon the original cause of action?

Whether the State court erred in vacating the judgment, this court will not inquire; it is enough that the judgment was vacated by the court in which it was entered.

A receipt may be contradicted or explained.

Graves v. Key, 3 Barn. and Adol., 318.

Harden v. Gordon, 2 Mason, 561.

Chunn v. McCarson, 2 Dw. Eq. R., 73.

Fuller v. Crittenden, 9 Conn. R., 401.

1 Greenleaf's Evidence, sec. 305.

1 Cowen and Hill's Notes to Phil. Ev., 381.

2 Cowen and Hill's Notes to Phil. Ev., 581.

Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Clark v. Bowen


text: Talk:Clark v. Bowen

title: Talk:Clark v. Bowen


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1587

 1536 Am endment. March 2, 1929. [S. 5836.] CHAP. 582 .-An Act To extend the times for commencing and completing [Pub lic, No. 1008.] the constru ction of a b ridge across the Missouri at or near Arrow Rock, 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 a bridge across the Missouri River, at or near Arrow Rock, Saline County, Missouri, authorized to be built by F. C. Barnhill, his heirs, legal representa- tives, and assigns, by an Act of Congress approved February 28, 1928, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from Febr uary 28, 1929. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expres sly re served. Approved, March 2, 1929. Missouri River. Tim e extended for bridging, at Arrow Rock, Mo. Ante, p. 156. Amendment. March 2, 1929. [H. R. 17101.] [Pub lic, No. 1009.] Rocky Mountain National Park, Colo. Acceptance of juris- diction of Colorado, over territory included in. Rights reserved to the State and citizens thereof. SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cxs. '580-583 . 1929 . appr oved March 6, 1 928, are hereb y ex tende d one and thre e yea rs, respectively, from March 6, 1929. SE C. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, March 2, 1929. March 2,1 929 . [S. 40,39 .]	CHAP. 58 1 . - A n Act To exempt joi nt-stock land banks from the provisions [Public, No. 1007 .] of section 8 of the Act entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes," approved October 15, 1914, as amended. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives o f the Ant itrust Act. Vol. 38, p. 733, amend- United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first eaL .S. Code, p.353 o proviso of the second paragraph of section 8 of the Act entitled "An Interlocking directo . Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and rates . monopolies, and for other purposes," approved October 15, 1914, as amended (United States Code, title 15, chapter 1, section 19), is amended to read as follows Further exten sion of "Provided, That nothing in this section shall apply to mutual exemptions . savings banks not having a capital stock represented by shares, to, oi nt-sto ck lan d bank s orga nized under the pro vision s of t he Fed eral Farm Loan Act, or to other banking institutions which do no com- mercial banking business ." Approved, March 2, 1929. CHAP. 583 .-An Act To accept the cession by the Sta te of Colorado of excl usive juri sdict ion over the l ands embr aced with in th e Roc ky Mo unta in National Park, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That the provi- sions of the act of the Legislature of the State of Colorado, approved February 19, 1929, ceding to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over the territory embraced and included within the Rocky Mountain Nation al Par k, are hereb y acce pted, and sol e and exclus ive ju risdic - tion is hereby assumed by the United States over such territory, saving, however, to the State of Colorado the right to serve civil or criminal process within the limits of the aforesaid park in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed outside of said park; and saving fur- ther to the said State the right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and property on the lands included in said tract; and sav-

�


text:
Clark v. Bowen/Opinion of the Court

We deem it to be a matter not open to controversy in this suit, that the State court of Rock county properly vacated its own judgment, as respected Clark and Justin, after Smith, the solvent partner, had been released from it-because Clark had no power to bind Smith by the confession; and secondly, because the goods that were assigned to a trustee to secure the judgment had been taken from the assignee, by a previous mortgage of them.

The following admission is found in the bill of exceptions, and is conclusive of the merits of this controversy:

'It is conceded by defendants, that the judgment in the Circuit Court was confessed at the time of the execution of the assignment, and that the assignment was to secure the judgment, and the judgment and assignment were the mode adopted to secure the plaintiffs' debt; and that Clark executed the assignment and judgment for Smith.'

The whole arrangement to secure the debt being in effect annulled, the original indebtedness stood revived, and was properly enforced by the judgment of the Circuit Court-which we order shall be affirmed.

title: Clark v. Bowen/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1588

 SEVENT IETH CON GRESS. Suss. II. Ca. 583. 1.929 . 15~ i ing also to the persons residing in said park now or hereafter the right to vote at all elections held within the county or counties in which said tracts are situated ; and saving to all persons residing within said park upon lands now privately owned within said park access to and from suc h lands, and all rights and privileges as citizens of the State of Colorado ; and saving to the people of Colorado all vested, appropriated, and existing water rights and rights of way connected therewith, including all existing irrigation conduits and ditches. All the laws applicable to places under the ed States laon of Unit- sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall have force and effect in said park. All fugitives from justice taking refuge Extraditio n of crim- in said park shall be subject to the same laws as refugees from justice found in the State of Colorado. Assigned to Colorado SEC. 2 . That said park shall constitute a part of the United States judic ial d istri ct. judicial district for the State of Colorado, and the district court of the United States in and for said district shall have jurisdiction of all offenses committed within said boundaries. SEC. 3. That if any offense shall be committed in the Rocky Moun- fenns sh a,n t t state tain National Park, which offense is not prohibited or the punish- laws. went for which is not speci fically provi ded for by any law of the United States, the offender shall be subject to the same punishment as the laws of the State of Colorado in force at the time of the coin- mission of the offense may provide for a like offense in said State and no subsequent repeal of any such law of the State of Colorado shall affect any prosecution for said offense committed within said park. SEC. 4 . That all hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at Hnnting,fishing,etc., b pro hib iti ons. any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or in- flicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of said park ; nor shall any fish be taken out of the waters of the park in any other way than by hook and line, and then only at such seasons and in such times and manner as ma .y be directed by the Secretary of the Regulations, etc ., to Interior. That the Secretary of the Interior shall make and publish be prescribed. such general rules and regulations as he may deem necessary and proper for the management and care of the park and for the pro- tection of the property therein, especially for the preservation from injury or spoliation of all timber, natural curiosities, or wonderful objects within said park, and for the protection of the animals and birds in the park from capture or destruction, and to prevent their being frightened or driven from the park ; and he shall make rules and regulations governing the taking of fish from the streams or lakes in the park. Possession within said park of the dead bodies, or do s 'dence of viola- any part thereof, of any wild bird or animal shall be prima facie evidence that the person or persons havi ng the same ar e guilty of violating this Act. Any person or persons, or stage or express com- pany, or railway company, who knows or has reason to believe that punishment for vio- they were taken or killed contrary to the provisions of this Act and rati ng sp ecif ied p rovi- who receives for transportation any of said animals, birds, or fish lions hereof, etc . so killed, caught, or taken, or who shall violate any of the provisions of this Act or any rule or regulation that may be promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior with reference to the management and care of the park or for the protection of the property therein, for the preservation from injury or spoliation of timber, natural curiosi- ties, or wonderful objects within said park, or for the protection of the animals, birds, or fish in the park, or who shall within said park commit any damage, injury, or spoliation to or upon any building, fence, hedge, gate, guidepost, tree, wood, underwood, timber, garden, crops, vegeta bles, plants, land, spring s, natu ral cur iositi es, or other

�


text: Talk:Clark v. Bowen/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/339

Rh caused by Temperance Lloyd, "just as though pins and awls had been thrust into her body, from the crown of her head to the soles of her feet." Temperance was brought to confess that she had met the devil, as a little blackamoor, in a lane, and that she had gone with him invisibly to the bedroom of Grace Thomas, who lodged in the house of Thomas Eastchurch, and that she "did then and there pinch with the nails of her fingers the said Grace, in her shoulders, thighs, and legs." She further admitted that the black man had sucked her teats, and that he was about the length of her arm. She was subjected to examination by some matrons, who professed that they found suspicious marks upon her body. Before the rector of Bideford she confessed that, having assumed the form of a cat, she fetched out of Thomas Eastchurch's shop a puppet, commonly called a child's baby, and left it near Grace's bed, but she would in no way admit that she had run pins into this figure. It appears that Grace Thomas had been pricked in nine places about the knee, as though pricked by a thorn, and according to the evidence of Elizabeth Eastchurch, Temperance had confessed that she had taken a piece of leather and driven a pin into it nine times, purposing thereby to cause injury to the skin of Grace. She allowed that she had been accused of assuming the form of a red pig, but would not admit that the accusation was true. According to the evidence, the devil had appeared to her at various times, sometimes in the form of a magpie, sometimes in that of a grey or braget cat.

Susanna Edwards confessed that she first encountered the devil, dressed very respectably and gravely in a black suit, in the Parsonage Close, and that afterward, shrinking in size to a small boy, he had sucked blood from her breast. She had pricked and pinched Grace


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1589

 1538 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 583. 1929. matter or thing growing or being thereon or situated therein, shall Penalty be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, and be adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings. Forfeiture of guns, traps, "to ., ille~all SEC . 5 . That all guns, traps, teams, horses, or means of transporta- used . tion of ever y nature or d escription us ed by any pers on or persons within said park limits, when engaged in killing, trapping, ensnar- ing, or capturing such wild beasts, birds, or animals shall be for- feited to the United States and may be seized by the officers in said park and held pending the prosecution of any person or persons arrested under charge of violating the provisions of this Act, and upon conviction under this Act of such person or persons using said guns, traps, teams, horses, or other means of transportation, such forfeiture shall be adjudicated as a penalty in addition to the other punish ment p rovide d in this A ct . Suc h forfeited p roperty shall be disposed of and accounted for by and under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior . Commissioner for . A ppoin t SEC. 6 . That the United States District Court for the State of Appointment, au-t hor i ty ,etc . Colorado shall appoint a commissioner who shall reside in the park and who shall have jurisdiction to hear and act upon all complaints made of any violations of law or of the rules and regulations made by the Secretary of the Interior for the government of the park and for the protection of the animals, birds, and fish, and objects of interest therein, and for other purposes authorized by this Act. Judicial powers in Such commissioner shall have power, upon sworn information, to violations of rules, etc. issue process in the name of the United States for the arrest of any person charged with the com mission of any misdemeanor, or charged with a violation of the rules and regulations, or with a violation of any of the provisions of this Act prescribed for the government of said park and for the protection of the animals, birds, and fish in said park, and to try the person so charged, and, if found guilty, to impose punishment and to adjudge the forfeiture prescribed. court. to district In all cases of conviction an appeal shall lie from the judgment of said commissioner to the United States District Court for the State of Colorado, and the United States district court in said dis- trict shall prescribe the rules of procedure and practice for said commissioner in the trial of cases and for appeal to said United States district court. Pro cedure fn cri minal SEC. 7. That such commissioner shall also have power to issue cases. process as hereinbefore provided for the arrest of any person charged with the commission within said boundaries of any criminal off ense not cove red by the pr ovisions of se ction 4 of th is Act to hear the evidence introduced, and if he is of opinion that probable cause is shown for holding the person so charged for trial shall cause such person to be safely conveyed to a secure place of confine- ment within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the State of Colorado, and certify a transcript of the record of his proceedings and the testimony in the case to said court, -which Proviso. B Bail tallowed. court shall have jurisdiction of the case : Provided, That the said commissioner shall grant bail in all cases bailable under the laws of the United States or of said State. Service of process. SEC. 8 . That all process issued by the commissioner shall be Summary arrests directed to the marshal of the United States for the district of Colorado, but nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the arrest by any officer or employee of the Government or any person employed by the United States in the policing of said reservation within said boundaries without process of any person taken in the act of violating the law or this Act or the regulations prescribed by the said Secretary as aforesaid.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1590

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHs . 583, 584 . 1929 . 1539 SEC. 9. That the commissioner provided for in this Act shall be pay of commissioner_ paid an annual salary as appropriated for by Cong ress, payable Provisos. quarterly : Provided, That the said commissioner shall reside within Residence required. the exte rior bou ndar ies of s aid Rock y Mo unta in N atio nal Park , at a place to be designated by the court making such appointment And provided further, That all fees, costs, and expenses collected by Disposal of fees. the commissioner shall be disposed of as provided in section 11 of this Act. SEC. 10. That all fees, costs, and expenses arising in cases under United States fees. this Act and properly c hargeable to the United St ates shall be certified, approved, and paid as are like fees, costs, and expenses in the courts of the United States. SEC. 11. That all fines and costs imposed and collected shall be ooDeposit of fines and deposited by said commissioner of the United States, or the marshal of the United States collecting the same, with the clerk of the United States District Court for the State of Colorado. SEC. 12. That the Secretary of the Interior shall notify, in writ- Acceptanc eofeession. ing, the Gov erno r of the Sta te of Co lora do of the pa ssag e and approval of this Act. Approved, March 2, 1929 . CHAP. 584 .-Joint Resolution Authorizing an investigation and survey for the 1S. J. ResMarch 2,1 929 . . 117.1	purpose of ascertaining the practicability and the approximate cost of constructing [Pub. Res ., No. 99.1 and maintaining additional locks and other facilities at the Panama Canal, and for the purpose of ascertaining the practicability and probable cost of construct- ing and maintaining an interoceanic ship canal across the Republic of Nicaragua. Re solved b y the Se nate and House o f Repre sentativ es of th e United States o America in Congress assembled, That the President is In ves tig ati on In tea f tigat i io author- hereby authorized to cause to be made, under the direction of the ized astop ract icabi lity of providing for future Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and sliippingneedsbyaddi. tional facilities to Pan- with the aid of such civilian engineers as the President shall deem ama `•n al ca nal . ties to Pan- . advisable, a full and complete investigation and survey for the purpose of ascertaining the practicability and the approximate cost of constructing and maintaining (1) such additional locks and other facilities at the Panama Canal as may be necessary to provide for the future needs of interoceanic shipping ; and (2) any other route for a Any other route. ship canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In ves ti gat ion and SEC. 2. The President is hereby authorized to cause to be made, survey to revise, etc ., under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of reports of Isthmia n 3r Canal Co mmission as the Chief of Engineers, and with the aid of such civilian engineers to practicability of ca- as the President shall deem advisable, a full and complete investiga- nal across Nicaragua. tio n and survey for the purpose of rev is ing and bringing down to date the report s of the Isthmian Canal Commission transmitted to Congress, with respect to the practicability and advantages and approximate cost of constructing a canal across Nicaragua, and for the purpose of obtaining all additional available information respect- Information as to ing (1) the most practical route for an interoceanic ship canal across most practical route. the Republic of Nicaragua by way of the San Juan River and the Great Lake of Nicaragua, or by way of any other route over Nicara- guan territory, including suitable locations for harbors at each of the termini thereof ; (2) the practicability and approximate cost of Approximate cost. constructing and maintaining such canal ; and (3) the approximate co st of acquiring private rights, fran- cost of acquiring all private rights, properties, privileges, and fran- chises, etc. chises, if any, included in or necessarily affected by such canal route. Stations for ascertain- SEC. 3 . The Chief of Engineers, under the direction of the Secre- ing available water sup- ply of War, may establish and maintain, during the investigations ope ratin g Nicaragua nadaditiona and surveys authorized b this resolution, such stations as he ma la ocs a, at Panama y ~ y Cnal directed. deem necessary for ascertaining the water supply available for the

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1591

 Sum authori zed to be expended . Post, p . 1667. Report with recom- menddations not later than two ye ars . March Res. 377 377 . .] III.J	CHAP 585 .-Joint Resolution Authorizing the erection on public grounds in [Pub. Res., No. 100.] the District of Columbia of a monument or memorial to Oscar S. Straus. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to select a suitable site and to gra nt per missio n to a ny ass ociatio n or a ssocia tions organi zed within two years from the date of the approval of this resolution for that purpose, to erect as a gift to the people of the United States, on public grounds of the United States in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, a monument or memorial in memory of Oscar S. Straus : Provided, That the site chosen and the design of the monument or memorial shall be approved by the Commission of Fine Arts, that it shall be erected under the supervision of the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, and that the United States shall be put to no expense in or by the erection of said monument or memorial. Approved, March 2, 1929. Oscar S. Straus . Erection authorized of monume nt as me- morial to, on grounds in Washington, D. C. Proviso. Approval of site, de- sign, etc, required. No Federal expense. SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHS. 584-586 . 1929 . operation of a canal across Nicaragua or elsewhere and for the opera- tion of the additional locks and other facilities at the Panama Canal. SEC. 4. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $150,000, to be expended by the Secretary of War for the purposes of this resolution and to remain available until expended. SEC. 5 . The President is hereby requested to report to the Congress not later than two years from the approval of this resolution the results of the investigations and surveys hereby authorized, together wit h suc h re comme ndati ons in co nnect ion there with as he may deem advisable. Approved, March 2, 1929. March 2,1929. CHAP. 586.-Joint Resolution Providing more economical and improved [H.J. Res. 399.] methods for the publication sand distribution of the Code of Laws of the United [Pub. Res., No. 101.] States and of the District of Columbia, and supplements. Resolved by the Senate and House o f Representatives o f the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to avoid duplication and waste- (a) Publication of Supplement I to the Code of Laws of the United States (Public-No . 621, 70th Congress) as a part of the Statutes at Large is dispensed with ; (b) Publication in slip or pamphlet form or in the Statutes at Large of any of the volumes or publications enumerated in the Act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat . 1007), as amended by this resolution, shall, in event of enactment, be dispensed with whenever the Committee on Rev ision of the Laws of the House of Re present atives so di rects the Sec retary of St ate ; (c) Curtailment of the number provided by law to be printed and distributed of the volumes or publications enumerated in such Act of May 29, 1928, as amended by this resolution, may be directed by such committee, except that the Public Printer shall print such numbers as are necessary for depository library distribution and for sale ; and (d) Such committee may direct that the printing and distribution of any supplement to the Code of Laws of the United States or to the Code of the District of Columbia be dispensed with entirely, except that there shall be printed and distributed for each Congress at least Code of Laws of United Stat es. Printing Supplement I as part of Statutes at Large dispensed with. Ante, p. 1007. Publishing in slip or pam phiet fo rm or in the Statutes, may be dis- pensed with. .Ante, p. 1007 . Curtailment of num- ber and distribution of the volumes by law may be di rected by Committee . Exception. Printing and distil- huldon of the pamphlets may be dispensed with. One for each Congress to be printed, etc .

�


text:
United States v. Garcia

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

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Stanton and Mr. Black (Attorney General) for the United States, and by Mr. Benham for the appellee.

The Attorney General, after stating the case, said that the board of land commissioners rejected the claim unanimously. Judge Hoffman delivered an opinion concurring with the board, but Judge McAllister decided in favor of the claimant, expressing 'considerable doubt' of its legal justice. The United States have appealed. We ask the court to reverse the decree of confirmation, and reject the claim, upon the ground that there is absolutely no title whatever, nor anything that even by courtesy could be called a show of title. A Governor of the Department in 1844 gave the claimant a passport, so that he might go out and hunt for nine leagues of land, and, if he should happen to find any, gives him authority to take possession of it until a title could be made out. The claimant now says that he did happen to find exactly nine leagues of land, but he did not report to the Governor who gave him the roving commission under which he was travelling when he made the discovery. He waited nearly two years, until another Governor came into office, and then he did not proceed according to law by presenting a petition, and doing what the regulations of 1828 require. Nor did he ask for any definite action. The order of the Governor was as vague as the petition. It was simply an order that the alcalde of San Rafael might report. The alcalde made report, and in that report falsely stated that the land had been previously granted to the claimant by Micheltorena, and added, somewhat paradoxically, that it did not belong to any private individual, on account of its distance from the frontier. Slight evidence of occupancy is added to this, and there rests the case.

Not a single provision contained in the act of 1824, or in the regulations of 1828, has been complied with or followed in all this business. It bears no sort of resemblance to the proceeding which those laws require to be instituted and carried on before an individual can be vested with a title to a portion of the public domain. It was wholly unlike the measures and acts and records which were usual in such cases. This is not a title derived from Mexico according to the laws or according to the customs of that Government. It is not a grant at all. It does not pretend to be a grant. It is folly to call Micheltorena's passport a grant of land; and Pico signed nothing but an order upon the alcalde to report upon the matter. The claim under such a title as this is so preposterous that it is impossible to argue against it with any sort of seriousness. It never was regarded as a title by the Mexican Government. There was no expediente on file. The papers are all produced from the private custody of the claimant himself. There is no trace of the proceeding to be found anywhere upon record. The genuineness of the papers is extremely doubtful. The proof would be regarded as defective, if the witnesses were men of good character; but the testimony comes from William A. Richardson and Manuel Castro, both of whom have been made utterly infamous by being frequently detected in the commission of wilful and corrupt perjuries.

If anything were wanting to expose this claim to further contempt, it might be found in Micheltorena's proclamation of December 16, 1844, wherein he states exactly how he was employed on the 15th of November, the day upon which his passport to Garcia is dated. It makes it, to say the least, extremely improbable that he could on that day have done what he describes, and been at the same time in Monterey issuing such papers as this to Garcia, and transacting business in the way that Richardson describes.

The seal affixed to Micheltorena's letter is a manifest forgery.

Mr. Benham replied for the appellee:

In this case, a brief for the appellee was filed two years ago, addressed to the views of the law agents of the Government as then known. Novel and startling views having since been offered by Mr. Attorney General in his brief in this case, as in others, it is deemed necessary to reply to them.

In doing so, we shall quote Mr. Attorney General's remarks in the argument accompanying his brief seriatim, subjoining to each quotation such comments as may seem appropriate.

'We ask the court to reverse the decree of confirmation, and reject the claim, upon the ground that there is absolutely no title whatever, nor anything that, even by courtesy, could be called a show of title. A Governor of the Department, in 1844, gave the claimant a passport, so that he might go out and hunt for nine leagues of land, and, if he should happen to find any, gives him authority to take possession of it until a title could be made out.'

We maintain there is title, legal perhaps, certainly equitable. We care not to debate as to its dignity, since, for all purposes connected with this quasi litigation with the Government, an equitable title is as good as a legal title. We think a promise of title is imported at least in the authority to select, occupy with property, (cattle,) and hold possession of a tract, while the procedure (to obtain a titulo) was being had on the presentation of the requisite diseno; and that this promise, performance of the conditions of the decree and of the law being shown, entitles the claimant to a confirmation. He has held this land for sixteen years-save some parts from which he has been forcibly ejected.

'The claimant now says that he did happen to find exactly nine leagues of land, but he did not report to the Governor who gave him the roving commission under which he was travelling when he made the discovery. He waited nearly two years, until another Governor came into office, and then he did not proceed according to law by presenting a petition, and doing what the regulations of 1828 require.'

The delay should not provoke remark. There was no hurry. He was occupying the land during the two years, which was all the Government wanted. He had no reason to anticipate the change of flags.

He did present a petition in substantial conformity with the regulations, and he did ask for definite action. If his petition to Pico was deficient, it is to be presumed that the one addressed to Micheltorena was satisfactory, since that officer acted favorably upon it. His request for appropriate action was sufficient. He informed Pico that Micheltorena had authorized his selection, & c., and required the diseno; that he had selected, &c.; offered the diseno, and prayed for such action as should be most proper.

'Nor did he ask for any definite action. The order of the Governor was as vague as the petition. It was simply an order that the alcalde of San Rafael might report. The alcalde made report, and in that report falsely stated that the land had been previously granted to the claimant by Micheltorena, and added, somewhat paradoxically, that it did not belong to any private individual, on account of its distance from the frontier.'

The order was relative, and so-amply sufficient. It required a pertinent report. Such a one was given. That report certified that Garcia had been for some time in occupation of the land; the transaction which he thought was a grant on Micheltorena's part; that the land was vacant; and assigned as his reason for saying so, that it lay in a section of country where he might well know, from its remoteness, there was no grant, except Richardson's, (which was Garcia's starting point,) and those of Juarez and Vallejo.

'Slight evidence of occupancy is added to this, and there rests the case.'

The occupancy was judicially ascertained by Pacheco in his report to Pico. Richardson, and Rosa, and Vallejo, prove its character.

It was ample. Garcia had a house on the land, cultivated it, and had a large herd of cattle on it; had laborers on it, and this continuously.

He resided alternately there and on another ranch.

'Not a single provision contained in the act of 1824, or in the regulations of 1828, has been complied with or followed in all this business.'

On the contrary, every provision but obtaining the titulo and the approval of the Departmental Assembly was complied with. There was a petition, with a diseno; there were cultivation and improvement; there was at least an implied order or promise to issue the titulo.

'It bears no sort of resemblance to the proceeding which those laws require to be instituted and carried on before an individual can be vested with a title to a portion of the public domain.'

Those laws do not imperatively require any particular proceedings.

'It was wholly unlike the measures, and acts, and records, which were usual in such cases. This is not a title derived from Mexico, according to the laws or according to the customs of that Government.'

The proceeding was substantially the same as the one most usual; the difference was in favor of the Government. Usually the grant was upon conditions subsequent; here they were to be performed in advance of the titulo. Custom and usage were well followed. The proceeding had not arrived at the stage of record.

'It is not a grant at all. It does not pretend to be a grant. It is folly to call Micheltorena's passport a grant of land; and Pico signed nothing but an order upon the alcalde to report upon the matter. The claim, under such a title as this, is so preposterous that it is impossible to argue against it with any sort of seriousness.'

It is plain the paper is not a mere passport. It gives authority beyond the permission to proceed to the northern frontier. It authorizes the selection and occupation of a tract of land, pending the usual proceedings to get a titulo, and by exacting the diseno, and speaking of such proceedings, impliedly promises at the least to give a titulo.

'It never was regarded as a title by the Mexican Government.'

There is no warrant for this remark. On the contrary, one of the Mexican officials pronounced the decree of Micheltorena a grant-a conclusion it is to be wondered Mr. Attorney General forgot, since it provoked him, in a former part of his brief, into pronouncing it a false statement, as if it had been an allegation of fact.

'There was no expediente on file. The papers are all produced from the private custody of the claimant himself.'

They had not yet been returned to the authorities after Pacheco's report. The report was dated April 29th, 1846, and the Government expired July 7th, 1846, having been much disturbed in the interval. The distance between San Rafael, where Pacheco lived, and Los Angeles, where Pico was, is from seven hundred or eight hundred to a thousand miles.

'There is no trace of the proceeding to be found anywhere upon record.'

As was said before, the proceedings had not arrived at the stage of record.

'The genuineness of the papers is extremely doubtful.'

The genuineness of the papers is established; the witnesses are not impeached.

'If anything were wanting to expose this claim to further contempt, it might be found in Micheltorena's proclamation of December 16, 1844, wherein he states exactly how he was employed on the 15th of November, the day upon which his passport to Garcia is dated. It makes it, to say the least, extremely improbable that he could on that day have done what he describes, and been at the same time in Monterey issuing such papers as this to Garcia, and transacting business in the way that Richardson describes.'

This is a mistake. The proclamation does not show he was absent from Monterey on the 15th of November, or employed in any other business.

'The seal affixed to Micheltorena's letter is a manifest forgory.'

There is no proof of this. Mr. Attorney General's repertory of photographic pictures affords no evidence for this court. If he wished the benefit of evidence of this kind, he should have introduced it in the court below. No practice can be more reprehensible than to offer and comment upon evidence dehors the record, and especially upon an issue not raised below.

Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Garcia


text: Talk:United States v. Garcia

title: Talk:United States v. Garcia


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1592

 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 586. 1929 one supplement to each such code, containing the legislation of such Congress. SEC. 2 . Section 2 of such Act of May 29, 1928, is amended to read as fol lows " SEC. 2 . There shall be prepared and published under the super- vision of the Committee on Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives- "(a) A supplement for each session of the Congress to the then current edition of the Code of Laws of the United States, cumula- tively embrac ing th e legi slatio n of t he then curre nt sup plemen t, and correct ing er rors i n such editi on and supple ment ; "(b) A consolidation and codification of the laws, general and permanent in their nature, relating to or in force in the District of Columbia, except such laws as are of application in the District of Columbia by reason of being laws of the United States general and permanent in their nature . Such Code shall be designated `The Code of the District of Columbia' ; "(c) A supplement for each session of the Congress to the then current edition of the Code of the District of Columbia, cumulatively embracing the legislation of the then current supplement, and cor- recting errors in such edition and supplement United States and of the Code of the District of Columbia, correcting errors and incor- porating the then current supplement. In the case of each code new editions shall not be published oftener than once in each five years. Copies of each such edition shall be distributed in the same manner as provided in the case of supplements to the code of which it is a new e ditio n. Supplements published after any new edition shall n ot co ntain the legi slati on of sup pleme nts p ubli shed befor e su ch new edition ." SEC . 3 . Section 4 of such Act of May 29, 1928, is amended to read as follows " SEC. 4 . In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at ho me or abroad, of t he Dis trict o f Colu mbia, and of each State, Territ ory, o r insu lar po ssessi on of t he Uni ted St ates- "(a) The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last se ssion the legislat ion of wh ich is in cluded . "(b) The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of the Dis- trict of Columbia current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws, general and permanent in their nature, relating to or in force in the District of Columbia on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legis lation of which is included, except such laws as are of application in the District of Columbia by reason of being laws of the United States general and permanent in their nature. "(c) The Code of the District of Columbia may be cited as `D .C. Code'. " (d) Supplements to the Code of Laws of the United States and to the Code of the District of Columbia may be cited respectively, as`U.S.C.,Sup. ,' and 'D. C. Code, Sup. ,' the lank in each case being filled with Roman figures denoting the number of the supplement. "(e) New editions of each of such codes may be cited, respectively, as 'U. S. C., ed.' and 'D. C. Code, ed .,' the blank in each case 1541 Ante, p . 1007,amend- ed. Preparing and pu b- lishing und er House Committee on Revision of the Laws, author- ized . Supplements for each sessi on to cur rent edi- tion of the Code . Codification of pen manent laws relating to District of Columbia . To be "The Code of the District of Colum- bia ." Supplements for each sessi on to cur rent edi- tion of District Code . New editions of both Codes . To be once in five years . Dis tri but ion . Ante, p .1007, amend- ed . Acceptance in all courts, etc . Ma tter in cur rent edition of Code of Laws, establish prima f acie, the laws then in force. Ma tter in cur rent e ditio n of the Distr ict Code, est ablis h pr ima f acie the laws relat ing to the District, then in force. Reference titles.

�


text:
United States v. Garcia/Opinion of the Court

The question in this case is, whether the land claimed was private property when we acquired California by treaty, or whether it then was part of the public domain of Mexico, and now belongs to the public lands of the United States.

1. If it was private property, it must have become so by the grant of a vested interest, that was good in equity; made by the granting power in the Territory of California, being authorized to exercise the sovereign power, as no other authority could divest the public title.

2. If the land in dispute was acquired by the United States, as public property, then the courts of justice have no jurisdiction of the subject matter, and cannot interfere. This is a postulate, not open to controversy. United States v. Forbes, 15 Peters, 182.

That the Mexican authorities, exercising the granting power in California, conferred no title on Garcia, we think satisfactorily appears, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Hoffman, delivered in the District Court, and found in the records, the most material parts of which opinion we adopt. The district judge says:

'In support of his claim, the appellant exhibits an order of Michelterona, dated November 15, 1844, which is as follows: 'According to your memorial of the 14th instant, you ask for the grant of a passport to penetrate into the points of the coast on the northern line of this country, with the object of locating a tract of land of the extent of eight to nine leagues, since that which you now occupy with your personal property is so limited. By this order, you are empowered to appear before the military commanding authority of that frontier, in order that, after an examination, you may proceed to your research after the tract of land you ask for, as a recompense for the services rendered by you to the nation.

"If you should happen to select any tract of land, you are empowered to occupy it with your said property, and to take possession of it while the usual procedure is being prosecuted, presenting the requisite sketch.

MANUEL MICHELTORENA.

"God and liberty.

"Monterey, November 15, 1844.

"To Don Rafael Garcia, at his rancho.'

'Availing himself of the permission thus granted, the claimant appears to have selected a tract of land, and to have occupied and improved it to some extent. No steps, however, were taken by him to obtain a title until March 4th, 1846, when Garcia addressed a petition to Gov. Pico, in which, after referring to the order of Micheltorena, he solicits a grant of the land. Gov. Pio Pico, by a marginal order, dated April 7th, 1846, referred the petition to the alcalde of San Rafael, for the usual informe. On the 29th of April, 1846, the alcalde reported that the land did not belong to any private individual. The foregoing constitutes all the evidence of title produced by the claimant. It is not pretended that any grant was ever issued for the land, or that any further action whatever was taken by Pio Pico on receiving the alcalde's informe. Whether he determined not to grant the land, or whether he omitted to do so in consequence of the distracted condition of public affairs, we are ignorant. One fact is clear: no grant was obtained by the claimant.

'A mere petition to search for land, such as that given to the present claimant, finds no place in the Mexican system.

'The application of Garcia to Micheltorena was for a passport to enable him to search for land. In granting this, and also the permission to put his cattle upon the tract he might select, Micheltorena in no respect bound himself or his successors to issue a final title. Such seems to have been the view of Pio Pico and the claimant himself, for a petition, accompanied by the usual diseno, is formally presented to that officer, and by him referred for information, as in other cases.

'If this claim is to be confirmed, every provisional license or permission temporarily to occupy land must be held to constitute an equitable title, provided the claimant has availed himself of the permission-a ruling which would astonish no one more than the old inhabitants of the country, by whom the importance of obtaining a 'title' from the Governor was well understood.

'For aught we know, Pio Pico, when the petition was subsequently presented, found it inexpedient to grant the land; and if the claimant, under a mere permission to occupy it with his cattle, has built a house upon it, and for two years omitted any effort to procure a title, he must attribute the loss of the land to his own neglect.'

The board of commissioners unanimously rejected the claim, from whose decision Garcia, the claimant, appealed to the District Court. There the judgment of the board was reversed, on a division of opinion, and a decree entered, confirming the claim, probably with a view of transmitting the cause to this court for final determination.

For the reasons above stated, it is ordered that the decree of the District Court be reversed. And the court below is directed to dismiss the petition; for which purpose, the cause is remanded.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1593

 1542 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. Cxs. 586, 587 . 1929 . being filled with figures denoting the last year the legislation of which is included in whole or in part. " SEC . 4 . The publications provided for in such Act of May 29, 1928, as amended by this resolution, shall be printed at the Government Printing Office, and shall be in such form and style and with such ancillaries as may be prescribed by the Committee on Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives . The Librarian of Con- gress is directed to cooperate with such committee in the preparation of such ancillaries . Such publications shall be furnished with such thumb insets and other devices to distinguish parts, with such facili- ties for the insertion of additional matter, and with such explanatory and advertising slips, and shall be printed on such paper and bound in such material, as may be prescribed by such committee . SEC . 5 . All bills and resolutions referred to or reported by the Committee on Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives shall be printed in such form and style, and with such ancillaries, as such committee may prescribe as being economical and suitable, to so continue until final enactment thereof in both Houses of Congress ; and such committee may also curtail the number of copies of such bills to be printed in the various parliamentary stages in the House of Representatives. Additional copies of every public Act and SEC. 6. The Public Printer is directed to print ., in addition to the Joint Resolution to be number provided b ex isti ng l aw, and, as soon as prin ted, to dis- furnished the Commit- y tee when printed. tribute in such manner as the Committee on Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives shall determine, twenty copies in slip form of each public Act and joint resolution, beginning with the Functions of the com-second session of the Seventieth Congress. mittee ma y be vested SEC. 7. The functions vested by this resolution in the Committee in agency provided by on Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives may from Co ngre ss& time to time be vested in such other agency as the Congress may by co ncur rent res olut ion prov ide : Pro vide d, That the printing, binding, and distribution of the volumes and publications enumerated in the Act of May 29, 1928, and this Act shall be done under the direction of the Joint Committee oi3 Printing. Approved, March 2, 1929. Form, style, etc ., of publications to be pre- scribed by house Com- mittee on Revision of the Laws. Cooperation of Li- brarian o f Congress. Ad diti onal dir ec- tions. Bills and resolutions to or from the Commit- tee to be printed, etc ., as directed thereby. Proviso. Printing, etc ., un d e r Joint Committee on Printing. March 2, 1929. [H.J. Res.431.] [Pub. Res., No. 102.1 Grover M. Mosco- witz. Preamble. Inv esti gati on of of fi- cial conduct of, as dis- trict judge of New York eastern district. Inquiry by subcom- mittee o f House of Rep- resentatives Judiciary Committee if said judge has been guilty of acts deemed high crimes or misdemean- ors. Post, p. 1697. Pow ers conf erre d. CHAP. 587.-Joint Resolution Providing for an investigation of Grover M. Moscowitz, United States district judge for the eastern district of New York. Whereas certain statements against Grover A12. Moscowitz, United States district judge for the eastern district of New York, have been transmitted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to t he J udic iary Com mitt ee : Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America irn Congress assembled, That Earl C. Michener, J. Banks Kurtz, C. Ellis Moore, Royal H. Weller, and Henry St. George Tucker, being a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, be, and they are hereby, authorized sand directed to inquire into the official conduct of Grover M. Moscowitz, United States district judge for the eastern district of New York, and to report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House whether in their opinion the said Grover M. Moscowitz has been guilty of any acts which in contemplation of the Constitution are high crimes or misdemeanors requiring the interposition of the constitutional powers of the House ; and that the said special committee have power to hold meetings in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, and elsewhere, and to send for persons and papers, to administer the customary oaths to witnesses, all process to be signed by the Clerk of the House of Representatives

�


text: Talk:United States v. Garcia/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1594

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cias. 587, 682 . 1929 . under its seal and be served by the Sergeant at Arms of the House or his special messenger ; to sit during the sessions of the House until adjournment sine die of the Seventieth Congress and there- after until said inquiry is completed, and report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of the Seventy-first Congress. SEC. 2 . That said special committee be, and the same is hereby, authorized to employ such stenographic, clerical, and other assistance as they may deem necessary, and all. expenses incurred by said spe- cial co mmit tee, inc ludi ng t he expe nses of such co mmit tee when sitting in or out side the District of Colum bia, shal l be paid out of t he contin gent f und of the H ouse o f Repr esentat ives o n vouc hers o rdered by said committee, signed by the chairman of said committee : Pro- vided, howe ver, That the total expenditures authorized by this resolution shall not exceed the sum of $5,000. Approved, March 2, 1929. CHAP. 682 .-An Act To provide for the relocation of Michigan Avenue adjacent to the southerly boundary of the United States Soldiers' Home grounds, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representativ es of the United States o f America in Congress assembled, That in orde r to relocate the line of Michigan Avenue from Franklin Street as laid down on the plan of the permanent system of highways for the District of Columbia to Lincoln Road, bordering the southeast corner of the grounds of the United States Soldiers' Home, and to straighten and shorten the route of said avenue, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia be, and they are hereby, authorized to close, vacate, and abandon the portion of Michigan Avenue known and designated as Parcel E on map filed in the office of the surveyor of the District of Columbia and numbered as map 1429, containing fifty-four thousand three hundred and eighty square feet, said part so closed, vacated, and abandoned to be transferred by said Com- missioners of the District of Columbia to the United States as part of the grounds of the United States Military Asylum, known as the United States Soldiers' Home. SEC. 2. That the Commissioners of the District of Columbia are authorized to use for street purposes all that part of the United States Soldiers' Home grounds designated as Parcel A, containing fifty-seven thousand six hundred and thirte en square feet, and Parc el B con tain ing ele ven thou sand eig ht hund red and seve nty square feet, as shown on map filed in the office of the surveyor of the District of Columbia and numbered as map 1429 ; and the proper authorities having title, control, or jurisdiction are authorized to make the necessary transfer of said parcels of land to the District of Columbia for street purposes. SEC. 3 . That the Commissioners of the District of Columbia are authorized to close, vacate, and abandon the portion of Michigan Avenue known and designated as Parcel D, containing sixty-nine thousand three hundred and thirty-six square feet, and Parcel H, containing seven thousand two hundred and seventy-nine square feet, as shown on map filed in the office of the surveyor of the Dis- trict of Columbia and numbered as map 1429, title to said parcels so closed, vacated, and abandoned to revert in fee simple to the owner or owners of the parcel numbered on the assessment records of the District of Columbia as parcel 120/1, said closing of said street and the transfer of title thereto to be upon the condition and with the express stipulation that the owner or owners of said parcel 1543 Report to House Ju- diciary Committee. Clerical, etc ., as sis t- anc e, and exp ens es, autho rize d. Proviso. Expenditures limited. March 4, 1929 . [S. 5843.] [Public, No. 1010 .] District of Colum- bia. Michigan Avenue. Relocation of, from Franklin Street to Lin- coln Road. Portion vacated and transferred to Soldiers' Home grounds. Soldiers' Home grounds. Use of part of, for stree t pur pose s. Transfer auth orized. Desig nate d portion of Michigan Avenue vacated. Reversion in f ee sim- ple to owners of desig- nated parcels. Condition .

�