text:
Teese v. Huntingdon/Opinion of the Court

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

The history of the trial in the court below is fully set forth in the opinion of this court.

It was argued by Mr. Phillips for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Grifford for the defendants. The arguments of the counsel upon many of the points which occurred are omitted, and only the two following will be noticed.

With respect to impeaching the character of a witness, Mr. Phillips said:

Evidence was offered to impeach the character of one of defendants' witnesses, by showing his 'general reputation for moral character.' It was objected, that 'the inquiry should be limited to his general reputation for truth and veracity;' and the objection was sustained.

The authorities on this point are to be found carefully collated in 21 American Law Journal, N. S., p. 145, where it is said, that so far as the decisions in England are concerned, 'they are unanimous to the point that the true criterion of the credit of a witness is his general character and conduct, and not his general character for truth and veracity. The English books will be examined in vain for a single authoritative case which in any respect limits the examination upon this point to the character for truth and veracity.'

Upon examination, it will be found that this rule obtains in most of our States.

Other evidence was then offered to prove the reputation of the witness for 1850 to 1853 for truth and veracity. To which it was objected, that 'the dates named were too remote, and that the reputation of the witness at a period less remote from the time of trial could be alone put in issue.' This objection also was sustained.

The judgment was rendered on the 26th October, 1857, and the time covered by the inquiry was from 1850 to 1853, so that the intermediate period was less than four years.

This is certainly a short statute of limitations in favor of reputation. Whatever influence the question of time was entitled to, was for the jury to consider. The judge could not exclude the evidence as incompetent, for there is neither common-law rule nor statute to justify it.

The view which Mr. Gifford took of these points was the following:

The objection to the inquiry as to Jesse Morrill's reputation for 'moral character' was properly sustained.

1. It is not in any case proper to seek to impeach a witness, by proving what was his reputation for moral character. The inquiry should be as to his reputation for truth and veracity.

U. States v. Van Sickle, 2 McLean, 219.

Goss v. Stimpson, 2 Sumner, 610.

Gilbert v. Sheldon, 13 Barb., 623.

The People v. Rector, 19 Wend., 569.

Jackson v. Lewis, 13 John. R., 504.

The State v. Bruce, 24 Maine, 71, 72.

Phillips v. Ringfield, 1 Appl., 375.

Commonwealth v. Morse, 3 Pick., 194, 196.

Morse v. Pine, 4 Vermont R., 281.

State v. Smith, 7 Vermont R., 141.

State v. Forrest, 15 Vermont R., 435.

State v. Randolph, 24 Conn. Rep., 363.

State v. Howard, 9 N. Hampshire, 485.

Gilchrist v. McKee, 4 Watts, 380.

Chess v. Chess, 1 Penn. R., 32.

Uhl v. Commonwealth, 6 Grattan, 706.

Ward v. the State, 28 Alabama R., 53-court divided.

Ford v. Ford, 7 Humphrey, 92.

Jones v. the State, 13 Texas, 168.

Perkins v. Nobley, 4 Warden's Ohio State Rep., 668.

Taylor on Evidence, sec. 1083.

The testimony was properly excluded as to what was the reputation of Jesse Morrill in 1852 or 1853-about five years before the trial.

1. Because it does not appear that said Morrill was a witness called by the defendants. He is not named in the notices of special matter of defence as one of the defendants' witnesses, and he is not named in the lists of witnesses examined by the defendants.

It must appear by the record that he was called by the defendants, or this objection for that reason must fall.

The law requires that an authenticated transcript of the record and an assignment of errors shall be returned with the writ; and there can be no error cognizable by this court, unless it appear from the record.

The mere assertion of facts in the assignment of errors to show error, cannot be substituted for the record.

Judiciary Act of 1789, sec. 22.

Conkling's Treatise, 3d ed., 689.

Stevens v. Gladding & Proud, 19 How., 64.

Parsons v. Beddford et al., 3 Peters, 433, 445.

All the information the record gives is, that this Morrill 'had, as a witness in said case, given material evidence for the defence on said trial.'

There is nothing more common than for a witness called by one party to give 'material evidence' for the other party. This is constantly done on cross-examinations, and often by the party opposed to the one calling the witness, making him his own witness as to certain facts.

A party cannot impeach a witness called by himself, by proving him unworthy of belief.

Graham and Waterman on New Trials, page 953.

The court below ruled out the evidence offered to impeach Morrill, and, except in so far as the record shows, this court has no means of knowing why. All presumptions are in favor of the correctness of the ruling. This court is bound to consider the determination of the court below to have been correct, on the common presumption that the judge exercised his jurisdiction soundly, until the facts are presented showing the contrary.

2 Graham and Waterman on New Trials, page 596 to 599, and cases.

2. Said testimony was properly excluded, because, if it had appeared that this Morrill was a witness in behalf of the defendants, an attempt to impeach him by proving what his reputation was four or five years before the trial, was not admissible.

There must be a limit of time, back of which a party cannot go to prove the reputation of a witness to impeach him; else to impeach a man on a trial to-day, it might be proved what his reputation was for truth and veracity fifty years ago.

There is no specific time fixed by law, and it must be left to the discretion of the judge at the trial.

There was no offer or suggestion in the present case, on the part of the plaintiffs, to add anything to the proof proposed.

They called one witness who, as appears from the record, did then know Morrill, and proposed to prove by him what Morrill's reputation was for moral character. This being ruled out as an improper form of question, they dropped that witness, and called another, who did not know Morrill, and had not known him for four or five years, and then varied the question, and put it as to his reputation for truth and veracity.

Why did they not put the question in that form to the first witness who had the information? Obviously for the reason that they dared not properly interrogate a witness having to requisite knowledge, but preferred rather to weave snares to suspend the case and bill of exceptions.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of California. According to the transcript, the declaration in this case was filed on the eighteenth day of March, 1856. It was an action of trespass on the case for an alleged infringement of certain letters patent purporting to have been duly issued to the plaintiffs for a new and useful improvement in a certain machine or implement called a sluice-fork, used for the purpose of removing stones from sluices and sluice-boxes in washing gold. As the foundation of the suit, the plaintiffs in their declaration set up the letters patent, alleging that they were the original and first inventors of the improvement therein described, and charged that the defendants, on the second day of July, 1855, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the commencement of the suit, unlawfully and without license vended and sold a large number of the improved forks made in imitation of their invention. To this charge the defendants pleaded the general issue, and in addition thereto, set up in their answer to the declaration two other grounds of defence. In the first place, they denied that the plaintiffs were the original and first inventors of the improvement described in the letters patent, averring that the supposed improvement was known and used by divers other persons in the United States long before the pretended invention of the plaintiffs. They also alleged that the improvement claimed by the plaintiffs, as their invention, was not the proper subject of a patent within the true intent and meaning of the patent law of the United States.

By the fifteenth section of the patent act of the fourth of July, 1836, the defendant, in actions claiming damages for making, using, or selling, the thing patented, is permitted to plead the general issue, and for certain defences, therein specified, to give that act and any special matter in evidence which is pertinent to the issue, and of which notice in writing may have been given to the plaintiff or his attorney thirty days before the trial. Within that provision, and subject to that condition, he may, under the general issue, give any special matter in evidence tending to prove that the patentee was not the original and first inventor or discoverer of the thing patented, or a substantial and material part thereof claimed as new, or that it had been described in some public work anterior to the supposed discovery by the patentee, or had been in public use, or on sale, with the consent and allowance of the patentee, before his application for a patent. But whenever the defendant relies in his defence on the fact of a previous invention or knowledge or use of the thing patented, he is required to 'state in his notice of special matter the names and places of residence of those whom he intends to prove to have possessed a prior knowledge of the thing, and where the same had been used.' Two written notices were accordingly given by the defendants of special matter to be offered in evidence by them at the trial, in support of the first ground of defense set up in the answer to the declaration. One was dated on the twenty-eighth day of August, 1856, and the other on the nineteenth day of September of the succeeding year, but they were both duly served and filed in court more than thirty days before the trial. Upon this state of the pleadings the parties on the twentieth day of October, 1857, went to trial, and the jury, under the rulings and instructions of the presiding justice, returned their verdict for the defendants. After the plaintiffs had introduced evidence tending to prove the alleged infringement of their patent, they claimed that counsel fees were recoverable as damages in this action, and offered proof accordingly, in order to show what would be a reasonable charge in that behalf.

That evidence was objected to by the defendants, upon the ground that counsel fees were not recoverable as damages in actions of that description, and the court sustained the objection, and excluded the evidence. To which ruling the plaintiffs excepted. Little or no reliance was placed upon this exception by the counsel of the plaintiffs, and in view of the circumstances one or two remarks upon the subject will be sufficient. Suppose it could be admitted that counsel fees constituted a proper element for the consideration of the jury, in the estimation of damages in cases of this description; still the error of the court in excluding the evidence would furnish no ground to reverse the judgment, for the reason that the verdict was for the defendants. For all purposes connected with this investigation, it must be assumed, under the finding of the jury, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages whatever; and if not, then the evidence excluded by the ruling of the court was entirely immaterial. But the evidence was properly rejected on the ground assumed by the presiding justice.

Counsel fees are not a proper element for the consideration of the jury in the estimation of damages in actions for the infringement of a patent right. That point has been directly ruled by this court, and is no longer an open question. Jurors are required to find the actual damages incurred by the plaintiff at the time his suit was brought; and if, in the opinion of the court, the defendant has not acted in good faith, or has caused unnecessary expense and injury to the plaintiff, the court may render judgment for a larger sum, not exceeding three times the amount of the verdict. 5 Stat. at Large, page 123. Day v. Woodworth, 13 How., 372. To maintain the issue on their part, the defendants offered three depositions, each tending to prove that the plaintiffs were not the original and first inventors of the improvement described in their letters patent.

Objection was seasonably made by the plaintiffs to the introduction of each of these depositions on two grounds: 1. Because the first notice of special matter to be introduced at the trial did not accord with the proof offered, as contained in these depositions. 2. Because the second notice of special matter to be thus introduced was served and filed without any order from the court, and therefore should be disregarded.

Exceptions were duly taken to the respective rulings of the court, in admitting each of these depositions; but as they all depend upon the same general considerations, they will be considered together.

It is conceded by the defendants that the first notice was, to some extent, insufficient. On the other hand, it is admitted by the plaintiffs that the terms of the second notice were sufficiently comprehensive and specific to justify the rulings of the court, in allowing the depositions to be read to the jury. They, however, insist upon the objection, taken at the trial, that it was served and filed without any order of the court, and that it was insufficient, because it was served and filed subsequently to the time when the depositions were taken and filed in court.

But neither of these objections can be sustained. All that the act of Congress requires is, that notice of the special matter to be offered in evidence at the trial shall be in writing, and be given to the plaintiff, or his attorney, more than thirty days before the trial. By the plain terms of the law, it is a right conferred upon the defendant; and of course he may exercise it in the manner and upon the conditions therein pointed out, without any leave or order from the court. When the notice is properly drawn, and duly and seasonably served and filed in court as a part of the pleadings, nothing further is required to give the defendant the full and unrestricted benefit of the provision.

Such notice is required, in order to guard patentees from being surprised at the trial by evidence of a nature which they could not be presumed to know or be prepared to meet, and thereby subject them either to delay or a loss of their cause. To prevent such consequences, the defendant is required to specify the names and places of residence of the persons on whose prior knowledge of the alleged improvement he relies to disprove the novelty of the invention, and the place or places where the same had been used. Wilton v. Railroads, 1 Wall, jun., 195.

Compliance with this provision, on the part of the defendant, being a condition precedent to his right to introduce such special matter under the general issue, it necessarily follows that he may give the requisite notice without any leave or order from the court; and for the same reason, if he afterwards discovers that the first notice served is defective, or not sufficiently comprehensive to admit his defence, he may give another, to remedy the defect or supply the deficiency, subject to the same condition that it must be in writing, and be served more than thirty days before the trial.

Having given the notice as required by the act of Congress, the defendant at the trial may proceed to prove the facts therein set forth by any legal and competent testimony. For that purpose, he may call and examine witnesses upon the stand, or he may introduce any deposition which has been legally taken in the cause. Under those circumstances, depositions taken before the notice was served, as well as those taken afterward, are equally admissible, provided the statements of the deponents are applicable to the matters thus put in issue between the parties.

After the defence was closed, the plaintiffs offered evidence to impeach one of the witnesses, who had given material testimony for the defendants. When called, the impeaching witness stated that he knew the witness sought to be impeached, and knew other persons who were acquainted with the witness, and that they both resided in the city of Sacramento; whereupon, the counsel of the plaintiffs put the question, 'What is the reputation of the witness for moral character?' To that question, the counsel of the defendants objected, on the ground that the inquiry should be limited to the general reputation of the witness for truth and veracity, with the right to put the further inquiry whether the witness testifying would believe the other on his oath; and the court sustained the objection, and rejected the testimony.

No reasons were assigned by the court for the ruling; and of course the only point presented is, whether the particular question propounded was properly excluded.

Courts of justice differ very widely, whether the general reputation of the witness for truth and veracity is the true and sole criterion of his credit, or whether the inquiry may not properly be extended to his entire moral character and estimation in society. They also differ as to the right to inquire of the impeaching witness whether he would believe the other on his oath. All agree, however, that the first inquiry must be restricted either to the general reputation of the witness for truth and veracity, or to his general character; and that it cannot be extended to particular facts or transactions, for the reason that, while every man is supposed to be fully prepared to meet those general inquiries, it is not likely he would be equally so without notice to answer as to particular acts.

According to the views of Mr. Greenleaf, the inquiry in all cases should be restricted to the general reputation of the witness for truth and veracity; and he also expresses the opinion that the weight of authority in the American courts is against allowing the question to be put to the impeaching witness whether he would believe the other on his oath. In the last edition of his work on the law of evidence, he refers to several decided cases, which appear to support these positions; and it must be admitted that some of these decisions, as well as others that have since been made to the same effect, are enforced by reasons drawn from the analogies of the law, to which it would be difficult to give any satisfactory answer. 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 461; Phillips v. Kingfield, 19 Me., 375, per Shepley, J.; Goss v. Stimpson, 2 Sum., 610; Wood v. Mann, 2 Sum., 321; Craig v. the State, 5 Ohio N. S., 605; Gilbert v. Sheldon, 13 Barb., 623; Jackson v. Lewis, 13 Johns. R., 504; United States v. Van Sickle, 2 McLean, 219; State v. Bruce, 24 Me., 72; Com. v. Morse, 3 Pick., 196; Gilchrist v. McKee, 4 Watts, 380; State v. Smith, 7 Vt. R., 141; Frye v. Bank of Illinois, 11 Ill. R., 367; Jones v. the State, 13 Texas R., 168; State v. Randolph, 24 Conn. R., 363; Uhl v. Com., 6 Gratt., 706; Wike v. Lightner, 11 S. and R., 338; Kemmel v. Kemmel, 3 S. and R., 338; State v. Howard, 9 N. H., 485; Buckner v. the State, 20 Ohio, 18; Ford v. Ford, 7 Humphr., 92; Thurman v. Virgin, 18 B. Munroe, 792; Perkins v. Nobley, 4 Ohio N. S., 668; Bates v. Barber, 4 Cush., 107.

On the other hand, a recent English writer on the law of evidence, of great repute, maintains that the inquiry in such cases properly involves the entire moral character of the witness whose credit is thus impeached, and his estimation in society; and that the opinion of the impeaching witness, as to whether he is entitled to be believed on his oath, is also admissible to the jury. 2 Taylor Ev., secs. 1082, 1083.

That learned writer insists that the regular mode of examining into the character of the witness sought to be impeached is to ask the witness testifying whether he knows his general reputation; and if so, what that reputation is, and whether, from such knowledge, he would believe him upon his oath. In support of this mode of conducting the examination, he refers to several decided cases, both English and American, which appear to sustain the views of the writer. Rees v. Watson, 22 How. St. Tr., 496; Mawson v. Hartsink, 4 Esp. R., 104; Rex v. Rockwood, 13 How. St. Tr., 211; Carpenter v. Wall, 11 Ad. and El., 803; Anonymous, 1 Hill, (S.C..,) 259; Hume v. Scott, 3 A. K. Marshall, 262; Day v. the State 13 Mis., 422; 3 Am. Law Jour., N. S., 145.

Both Mr. Greenleaf and Mr. Taylor agree, however, that the impeaching witness must be able to state what is generally said of the other witness by those among whom he resides, and with whom he is chiefly conversant, and in effect admit, that unless he can so speak, he is not qualified to testify upon the subject, for the reason that it is only what is generally said of the witness by his neighbors that constitutes his general reputation. To that extent they concur, and so, as a general remark, do the authorities which on the one side and the other support these respective theories; but beyond that, the views of these commentators, as well as the authorities, appear to be irreconcilable.

In referring to this conflict of opinion among text writers, and judicial decisions, we have not done so because there is anything presented in this record that makes it necessary to choose between them, or even renders it proper that we should attempt at the present time to lay down any general rule upon the subject. On the contrary, our main purpose in doing so is to bring the particular question exhibited in the bill of exceptions to the test of both theories, in order to ascertain whether under either rule of practice it ought to have been allowed. Under the first mode of conducting the examination, it is admitted that it was properly rejected, and we think it was equally improper, supposing the other rule of practice to be correct. Whenever a witness is called to impeach the credit of another, he must know what is generally said of the witness whose credit is impeached by those among whom the last-named witness resides, in order that he may be able to answer the inquiry either as to his general character in the broader sense, or as to his general reputation for truth and veracity. He is not required to speak from his own knowledge of the acts and transactions from which the character or reputation of the witness has been derived, nor indeed is he allowed to do so, but he must speak from his own knowledge of what is generally said of him by those among whom he resides, and with whom he is chiefly conversant; and any question that does not call for such knowledge is an improper one, and ought to be rejected. No case has been cited authorizing such a question, or even furnishing an example where it was put, and our researches in that direction have not been attended with any better success. For these reasons, we think the question was properly excluded. Some further attempts were made by the plaintiffs to impeach this witness, and with that view they called another witness, who testified that he knew the one sought to be impeached, and had had business transactions with him during the years 1852-'53 in the city where they resided. On being asked by the counsel of the plaintiffs what was the reputation of the witness for truth and veracity, he replied that he had no means of knowing what it was, not having had any dealings with him since those transactions; thereupon the same counsel repeated the question, limiting it to that period.

Objection was made to that question by the counsel of the defendants on the ground that the period named in the question was too remote, and the court sustained the objection and excluded the question. To this ruling the plaintiffs excepted. Such testimony undoubtedly may properly be excluded by the court when it applies to a period of time so remote from the transaction involved in the controversy, as thereby to become entirely unsatisfactory and immaterial; and as the law cannot fix that period of limitation, it must necessarily be left to the discretion of the court. Considering that the witness had already stated that he was not able to answer the question, we do not think that the discretion of the court in this case was unreasonably exercised. None of the exceptions can be sustained, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed with costs.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1836

 INDEX. lxxxv Bmploll Compenaation Commi8Bioft- Continued. deficiency appropriation for allowances from compensation fund_______ 5 for salaries, etc___________________ 886 for expeIl8e8, etc., District of Colum- b1& Compensation Act________ 886 for additional payments, 1929, etc__ 1626 in court proceedings under Longshore- men's, etc., Compensation Act, district attorney of the district to appear for_________________ 490 Emplolleu' Compensation, D. C., proviBions of Longshoremen's, etc., Act1 applicable to injuries or death or employee of an employer______ _ employments excepted, vessel crews_ common carrier railroad ________ _ (}overnment _______ ~ ___ ___ ___ _ _ agricultural, domestic; and CCoBual 600 600 600 600 employment- _ _ __ ____________ 600 effective July 1, 1928______________ 600 Employeu' ComplMation Fund, appropriation for payments from __ 577,1235 deficiency appropriation for expenBes__ 1626 Employeu' Compensation Fund, D. C., appropriation for payments from___ 645,1265 for administrative expenaes_ _____ ___ 1265 deficiency appropriation for allowances, etc:.! from ___________________ 8, 1628 Employus, (iOlll!mment, classUication of positions of civilian, modified_____________________ 776 Emplolleu' Truat8, profiteharingtrusts, etc.Jor employees, not taxed under .Kevenue Act__ 8a9 Employeu' Voluntary Beneficiary A"ocia- nom exempt fro~ income tax_____________ 814 Employmenf of Minors, D. C. work prohibited by chUd under 14; home work, outside of school hours,excepted_______________ 998 boys over 10 may distribute news- papers__ ______________ _______ 999 hours and time of employment re- stricted, if under 18___________ 999 employers to keep posted in their estab- lishments regulations of legal hours,etc____________________ 999 list of minors employed, time record, etc__________________________ 999 evidence of violation if minor present for longer time, etc_ _ _ _ _ ______ 999 work forbidden in any place dangerous to health_ _ _ _ ________________ 999 orders prohibiting, to be issued by Board of Education __________ _ restriction on __________________ _ occupationa forbidden minors under 16_ under 18________________________ _ 999 999 999 999 999 r:J~:ri::rt!~- at- irlght,- m&l~ between 18 and 21-___________ 1000 females between 18 and 21- _ __ __ _ 1000 employment forbidden, between 14 and 18, unleu employee procures, etc., a work or vacation permit_ _ 1000 casual work at home of employer out- side of echool hours permitted without permit; limitations_ _ _ _ 1000 if employment not specifically prohibited_ _ _ ___ _____________ 1000 work or vacation permits to be issued only by director of school at- tendance____________________ 1000 Employment oJ Minor" D. C .- Contd. work or vacation permits, contents; record to be kept, etc_________ _ weekly lists of, to be sent to the sch oo~ __________ __________ _ _ application in person for permits ac- companied by parent if under 16; papers required______________ _ statement from prospective em- Ployer,' details ______________ _ 01:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC) :r;-hyiic;rftiii~-irOm school mecflcal inspector ______ _ de t ~ of_____________________ _ school record, if under 16, issued by minor's teacher______________ _ contentB ______________________ _ proofs of age required; birth certificate_ baptismal record ________________ _ family record, etc ________________ _ certificate of physical age from school medicallDspector, with affidavit of parent, etc _______________ _ no permit to be issued if minor shown to be under 14 ________ _ birth certificate accepted as pre- ferred ______________________ _ others accepted if, can not be ob- uuned______________________ _ vacation permits authorized for minors between 14 and 16; use 0'-;. __ _ difference in color from work permit, etc _________________________ _ 'employer ,receiving permit, to give 8chool department notice of em- ploymentof minor, and termina- tion ________________________ _ effect of failure, etc ______________ _ evidence required of employer that minor employed without permit has reached 18______________ _ if not furnished, employment not to continue____________________ _ proof of demand and failure to show proof age, evidence of unlawful employment ________________ _ "punishment for specified violations, for first offenae ______________ _ for any subsequent offense ________ _ enforcement of provisions by director of school attendance _________ _ authority conferred on 8chool offi- cers, etc ____________ • ______ _ _ restriction on stuffing of newspapers__ _ sales, etc., in streets by boys under 12 or gir~ under 18__________ _ not applicable to fixed routes dis- tribution of newspapers, periodi- cals,etc ____________________ _ prohibited hours for boys under 16__ wearing of work badge required of boys under16____ .. _______________ _ issue of street-trade badges, upon ap- plication of minor, etc________ _ reqUIrements of applications ______ _ acceptance of work permit accepted in lieu of ___________________ _ contents of badge; record, etc _____ _ transfers forbidden ______________ _ wearing, etc., required____________ _ lists of, to be sent to schools, etc., weekly _____________________ _ to expire January 1st, and color changed ____________________ _ warning to minor, and notice to parent, of first offense of violation ____ _ 1000 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 "1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1002 1002 1002 1002 1002 1002 1002 1002 1002 1003 1003 1003 l00a 1003 1003 1008 1003 1003 1003 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1001 1004 1004

�

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


text: Talk:Teese v. Huntingdon/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1837

 lxxxvi INDEX. Bmploymem 0/ Minors, D. C. - Continued. Pap. action of court, etc., for subsequent violations_______ _____________ 1005 supervision by probation officer of juvenile court_ _______________ 1005 revocation of badge, etc__________ 1005 notification to parent, etc________ 1005 effect of. _ _ ______________________ 1005 refusal to surrender a violation of this Act_____________________ 1005 person offering an article to be sold in a public place, to a minor under 16, must ascertain if minor wears his if =TarmstroBot (talk)-no-aiticie-tO-b8 1005 furnmhed____________________ 1005 punishment for failure to comply, etc.; for first offense___________ 1005 for any subsequent offense_______ 1006 punishment (or permitting violations by minor under his controL_______ 1006 loitering of boys under 16 around news- paper offices during school hours not to be permitted by publishers, etc__________________________ 1006 punmhment for permitting_________ 1006 inspectors, etc., to be appointed by Board of Education___________ 1006 competitive examination, etc., lor___ 1006 jurisdiction given juvenile court in all cases arising under this Act_ ___ 1006 former child labor Act, etc., repealed_ _ 1006 invalidity of any provmion, not to affect validity of remainder of Act____ 1006 supervision, etc., of the Board Of Edu- cation______________________ _ 1006 effective July 1, 1928________________ 1006 BmploYment SenJice, D. C., appropriation for mainteuance, etc_ 651. 1268 deficiency appropriation for mainte- nance, 1929__________________ 1692 Employment SffI'Vice, Depart"""" of Labor, appropriation for fostering, etc., welfare of wage earners, etc________ 100, 1139 objects designated ___________ 100.1139 deficiency appropriation for __________ 47 for salaries, 192fL_________________ 1685 Engineer Commisaioner's Ojfice, D. C., appropriation for office personneL _ 647, 1264 for central garage______________ 647,1264 Engineer CorpB, Army (Bee Engineer De- partment, Army). Bngineer Depart"""", Army, appropriation for civilian personnel, Office of Chief of Engmeers_ 326,1349 draftsmen, etc_______________ 326,1349 for printing and binding, under Chief of Engineers_______________ 327,1351 for fortifications, seacoast defenses United States _____________ 336,1359 insular posse8Bions~ _________ _ 336, 1359 PanamaCan.l___ ___ ___ ____ __ 336,1360 for expenses of depots __________ 341, 1363 for maintenance of Engineer SchooL 341, 1363 travel expenses of officers for in- struction__________________ 341,1364 for equipment of troops_________ 341, 1364 for operations in the field ________ 341,1364 allowance for purchase of options on materials_______________ 341,1364 temporary construction for train- ingonly __________________ 341,1364 Engineer Department, Army-O:)Dtlnued. p . . .. appropriation for military surveys and maps _____________________ ~ 1364 assmtance of other Government agencies_ ___ _________________ 342 for care, etc., Washington's birth- place_____________________ 358,1379 for California ~bria COmm~on___ 358, 1379 for roads, bridaes, etc., Alaska___ 358,1379 for regulating 1.owf)1l Creek, Alaska, for protecting adjacent Govern- ment property________________ 358 for rivers and harbors, immediately available___________ " _ __ _ _ _ 858,1379 for Miami harbor; reimbursement__ _ 358 for maintenance, etc., of exiating projects___" _______________ 358,1379 for survey of northern and northwest- ern lakes, ·etf> ______________ 358,1379 for examinations, surveys, etc., of au- thorized projects___________ 359,1380 for preventing injurious deposits, New York harbor__________ 359,1380 for prevention of erosion of Missouri River, etc., at .Niobrara, Nebr., under_______________________ 1380 for p. ·evention of erosion of Mmsouri River, etc., at Yankton, B. Dak_ 1380 for examination and survey for widening Condui-c. Road, etc., from the District line to Great Falls, Md____________________ 1380 for relocation of levee on ArkaIl8&8 River in Conway County, Ark_ 1380 for purchase of Inland Waterways Corporation stock, etc________ 1380 for Dam No.2, Muscle Shoals, Ten- nessee River_______________ 359,1380 for flood relief, M&issippi River_ 359, 1381 for flood control, Miss&ippi and Sacramento Rivers_________ 359,1381 for emergency fund, tributaries of of Missi8Bipp'i River__________ 1381 for return to Cahfornia contribution for Sacramento River, dood control _____ ~- 1381 deficiency appropriation for rivers and harbors, collision damage claims_ for Cape Cod Canal purchase, etc __ _ for military surveys and maps_____ _ 38 38 928 for preserving hmtoric fortifications, San Juan, P. R _____ ______ ____ 928 for flowage easements, protection of Lt.ke of the Woods, and Rainy River/ Minn__________________ 930 for operatlOns in the field_________ 1619 for transportation atlas____________ 1665 for survey, etc., of Interoceanic canals to determine future needs of ship- for i~dg -c -b-;'"u-nel; -B;y~;~-ii~:1667 bor_________________________ 1667 for salaries, 1921!z..~lDder"-- 1689 for California vebris Commission, salaries, 1929 ___________ " _____ 1691 authorized to aid relocation of levee on bank of Arkansaa River, in Con- way' County, Ark., from funds for control of Mississippi River floods___ "___________________ 1380 Engineer School, D. C ., Arm" appropriation for equipment, mainte- nance, etc ___ • __ __ __ __ __ __ 341,1363

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1838

 INDEX. lxxXvii Fnginemng ~zerciau, Nallll, Pue. appropriation for prizes, etc_______ 626, 1454 Bnginurir., Ezperimsntal Station, Naval Academll, appropriation for ________________ 629,1458 England (aea Great Britain). England, Honorable B. T., deficiency appropriation for contested election expenses_____________ 884 England, Thomaa M., name placed on yellow fever honor roll and presented gold metaL_____ 1409 to receive 1125 monthly_____________ 1410 Engraving and Printing Bureau, Treasury Department, appropriation for Director, and office personneL ________________ 172, 1037 work authorizedfor fiscal year 1929_ 172 work authorized for fiscal year 1930_ 1037 for salaries of employees; exception_ 17~ 103'/ for wages of plate printers, etc__ 172,1038 for materials, etc______________ 172,1038 use of proceeds f:om work ____ 172,1038 deficiency appropriation for transfer to Bureau of Standards__________ 915 for plate printing______________ 935,1653 for materials, etc _________ 935,1618, 1653 for salaries, etc___________________ 1653 for salaries, etc., 1929______________ 1688 increase in number to be delivered of checks, drafts, etc____________ 915 increase in withdrawal permit sheets, authorized___________________ 1653 Enid, Okla., terms of court at. ___ ____ ____ _____ __ 1518 Enlisted Men, Armll, appropriation for pay____________ 329,1353 for aviation increase ___________ 329, 1353 for Philippine SCouts ___________ 329, 1353 for longevity pay. __ ___ __ __ __ __ _ 329, 1353 for retired ____________________ 329, 1353 for retired, on active duty ______ 329, 1353 for allowances for quarters ______ 329, 1353 for interest on deposits _________ 329, 1353 for paying cla.im8 of, for damages to private property__________ 330, 1353 for disposition of remains of.. __ _ 354,1375 recovery of bodies ___________ 355,1375 deficiency appropriation for disposition of remains ot. _____________ 936,1672 dishonorably discharged for misrepre- senting ag~ who served dunng the World war, to be considered as honorably discharged_______ 1505 no back pay, etc., allowed_________ 1505 indebtednCllS of, may be deducted from pay rolls. in monthly install- ments_______________________ 698 amount of deduction limited_______ 698 limitation if pay forfeited by court- martial sentence, etc __ ________ 698 remission of unpaid,. on honorable discharge_ _ __________________ 699 collection on final statements, etc_ _ 699 payment authorized for expenses, re- covering bodies of____________ 24B Enlistecl Men, Marina Corpa, appropriation for pay, active list__ 638, 1466 for lodging and subsistence. _ _ _ _ _ 6 39, 1467 for retired ____________________ 639,1467 for clothing ___________________ 639, 1467 for transporting dependents _____ 639,1467 for funeral expenses ____________ 639,1467 54835°-29-1'1' 1-116 ·Enlisted Men, Marina Corp8-C .ontinued. p .. .. deficiency appropriation for subsistence, fort:::~ce-oi~h~ged:-909, 16!g death allowances to beneficiaries of, on active list_____________________ 710 on retired list, on active duty______ 710 Enlisted Men, NIJ.IIY, appropriation for recreation for____ 626, 1454 for pay of retired ______________ 631, 1459 for extra pay on reenlistment ____ 631,1459 for interest on deposits_________ 631, 1459 for pay of_____________________ 631,1459 for death gratuity _____________ 631,1460 deficiency appropriation for travel al- lowancesof, on disch~e ______ ' 908 for transporting, AtC., rem&1ns oL__ 1618 additional pay for submarine or diving duty________________________ 412 extra, for salvage diving in depthB over 90 feet__________________ 412 advances authorized to, for emergency expenses on shore duty _ _______ 712 allowed to make good, time lost by ab- sence for more than day without leave,etc 620 death allowances to beneficiaries of, on active list___________ ________ 710 on retired list, on active duty______ 710 additional deE dent relatives added_ 710 restricted to ar Navy________ 710 dishonorably disc ged for fraudu- lentlL miaf8l)resenting age, dur- ing World War, may be held to be honorably discharged_______ 1084 no back pay, etc__________________ 1084 certificate of honorable discharge may be granted___________________ 1085 Enlisted RUerIIe Corpa, Army, appropriation for pay, transportation, etc_______________________ 348, 1370 Entiat, Wash., time extended for bridging Columbia River, aL___________________ 1546 Entomology BureGu, Department oj Agri- cUlture, _ appropriation for Chief of Bureau, and office personnel____________ 558, 1208 for investigating insects affeetiD,g fruita, grapes. nuts, etc _____ lS58, 1208 Japane88 and Asiatic beetles___ li58, 1208 for insects affecting tropical and sub- tropical plants_______ . : _ _ _ _ _ li58, 1208 Parlatoria date acale and Mediter- ranean etc., fruit fiies _ _ _ ___ 558, 1208 for truck and garden crop insects; affecting forests; moths_____ 558,1208 for cereal and forage crop insects_ 558, 1208 European corn borer; crioket in northwestern COlorado________ 1208 fOr cotton insects _______________ .. _ 1208 boll weevil control in Oklahoma.. _ 1208 for insects affecting man and dom_ tic animals; 8tored products_ 558, 1208 for taxonomy of insects, useful in- sects, insect pest aurvey __ __ 558, 1209 for bee culture_________________ 558, 1209 deficiency appropriation for investigat- ing insecta affecting fruits, nuts, cereals,. forage, etc_ ___________ 12 for insects affecting southern field crops_______________________ 12 for eradication of Mexican fruit worm_______________________ 12 for control, etc., of Japanese and Asiatic beetles_______________ 13

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1839

 lxxxviii INDEX. lIf1lMnolow B~ Depor1trUmt oj Agri- Paae. Cd" ontillueci. defi~d2e01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk)_TarmstroBot (talk)_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 1677 for iJlIeots alfeoting man and domestio animals _n __ n __ nnn_n___ 1634 for tropical and subtropical plant in- sects________________________ 1634 for pneral expeoaee. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 1670 Bf&IomoliJw, IntemanonGl Congreu oj, foreign governments invited to lend delegate. to__________________ 482 BfWOy.1h:traordinM'1/ and Mini8Cer. Pleni.- potrntiary, appropriation for aalarlee __________ 66, 1096 deficiency appropriation for u.lariea___ 48 Epa, Ala., bndp authorized ac1'Oll.l Tombigbee River, at__________________ 308, 7M reconstruotion authorised of bridge acrOllll Tombigbee River, at____ 115 Epidemia appropriation for prevention of____ 174,1040 deficiency appropnation for preTention of___________________ 31,42,48,1619 EquiM Meat, appropriation for inspection, etc.; labels requUed __________________ 548,1198 Equipage, Army, . appropriation for, toilet ldte, etc___ 332,1356 deficiency appropriation for___________ 1619, 1622,1672,1674 Equip1Mnt Shopa, Po. OJJi,ce D~n-', appropriation for care, maintenance, . etc., of ___________________ 188, 1050 for materials, labor etc., for manu- facture of bap" iocka, etc., in_ 192, 10M EquiP-' Supplia, NiBy, appropriation for Bureau of Naviga- tion______________________ 62~ 14M for Bureau of Ellginee~-- 629,1457 for Bureau of COnstruotlon and Re- for lfFureaii--~i-s~pPii~--I- As:.°' 1458 counts___________________ 633, 1461 Erie, Ohio, construction authorised 01 hOllPital, ordnance depot at____________ 1302 Erie, Pa., "ppropr.ation for publio buDding____ 178, 1042 B.cambia and Sa7WJ ROI(J Countiu, Fla., may bridge Santa Roea Bound________ 752 Eacambia County, Ala., bridseautnoriJed acl'Olll Conecah River, in.__________________________ 295 Estate TGJ:, Revenue Ace oj 1918, lUnit on deductions from groIIII eetate of nonreeident deoedents repealed_ 862 applicable to dtoaths he~ter __ ____ 862 suspem.il)n of rUDDin! of statute of limitationa during period of pro- hibition of aa-ment, etc ____ _ until alter fir.al .1eciaion of Board_ applicable to Pl'EJllent CII8eII ______ _ in transferee c_________________ _ applicable to PrNeJlt c_________ _ 862 863 863 863 863 credit of gift red'lction repealed by, revived. as of January 1, 1926___ 863 Estaies and Tnu'" (.ce aUo Income Tax, Revenue Act of 1928),' tax impoeed on inoome ot.___________ 838 deduction for dits under will, etc.• __ 838 E.tonia, Latvia, ana Lithuania, a9Propoiation for minister to_______ 65, 1000 Btlaiopia, Paae. appropriation for expensee of American prisonerain__________________ 1107 allowance for consular prisonain, 1928, 1929 ________________ ~--- 1~12 EthfWlogy, American, . appropriation for researchee in_____ 583,1241 coo~tion authorized of Secretary of Smithsonian Institution with States, etc., in researches among American Indiana_ ___________ 403 Etowah County, Ala., may bridge Coosa River, at Gilberta Ferr,y_______________________ 1526 Etu:1au, Okla., .appropriation for Indian school at__ 219, 1579 EufaUla, Okla., appropriation for Indian school at__ 219, 1579 Eureka, Calif., terms of court at___________________ 1424 Europe, appropriation for expenaea of promoting commerce with, etc _________ 86,1117 deficiency appropriation for headstones for American soldiel'll' graves in_ 37 for expenses, promoting commerce with,etc- 897 European Corn Borer, appropriation for research, etc., on_ 558,1208 for cooperative expenaea to control spread 01.___________________ 565 for special research, etc., for control of___________________________ 568 for preventing spread of__ _________ 1216 amount from former appropriation available____________________ 1216 BUm authorized for applying methods of eradication_ ____ _____ _____ _ 734 expended in cooperation with States, etc_________________________ 734 no expenditure until affected State provides regulatory legialation, and money is contributed for State cooperation_ ____________ 734 limitation of amount for farm clean- nou:a;xro~ril:et, -d~t~yed::: ~g! money received from States to be de- posited into the Treasury as miBcellaneous receipts_________ 734 Emtia, Me., defioiency appropriation for inspection station,oonstruotion-- 1657 Eutaw, Ala., bridge authorized acrOllll Warrior River, at___________________________ 754 Eeam, LleweUyn, m.l. may bridge Puget Mund, Wash., at the ~arro~_____________________ 1403 EeansviUe, Ind., terms of court at____________________ 438 Eoam St~et NE.t D. C., Appropriation lor paving, etc., Twen- tieth to TwentY-BeCOnd Streets; from gasoline tax fund ________ 1270 for paving, etc., Ninth to Tenth Streets· from gasoline tax fund_ 1271 Examining and Retiring Boorda, NQ.IJfI, appropriation for civilian pel'llODDeI' ~avy Department_________ 641,1470 Examining Surgeon. lor Pensiom, appropriation for fees, etc., fiscal years 1928 and 1929_______________ 226

�


text: Lawrence v. Tucker

title: Lawrence v. Tucker


text: Talk:Lawrence v. Tucker

title: Talk:Lawrence v. Tucker


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1840

 INDEX. lxxxix lkGmining Surgeonafor P~on. P .... appropriation for lees, etc., ftsca1 years 1929 and 1930_______________ 1588 examinations hereafter by one phy- sician, etc ___________________ 1588 limitation on physician's fee_____ 1588 Euus Taus, Internal RelJen~, deficiency appropriation for refund to manufacturers, etc., of, on auto- mobile accessories____________ _ 30 1kciae Taze8, Reflen~ Act of 19S6, tax on automobiles repea1ed_________ 865 provisions for refunding____________ 865 E:r:ecvtiue and Independent OjJice8 Appro- priations (see Independent Offices Act). Eucrdive Departments, etc., appropriation for expenses, transferring office supplies_ _ _ __________ 164, 1030 for distinctive mail equipments for_ 192,1055 for care, etc., of grounds ot. ___ ___ 583, 1241 acquisition of designated lands in Dis- trict of Columbia as sites for buildings, for, etc ____________ _ 51 classification of civilian positions in, modified_____________________ 776 cooperative work of scientific investiga- tions, etc., of, with Bureau of Standards _________________ 94, 1124 transfer of funds, etc ____________ 94,1124 details from, etc., to Civil Service Com- mission for work in the District, forbidden, exception _______ 576, 1233 expenses of travel of civilians authorized when transferred from one offi- cial station to another; limit&- tioD_________________________ 1055 extended leaves authorized for Spanish Waz veterans in, to attend their annual convention at Habana, Cuba, in 1928. _______________ 433 field service employees under, to be paid adjusted compensation from ap- propriations for 1929__________ 193 quarters, subsistence, etc., to be fur- nished appropriations for 1929 a'Vailable_ __ _ _ ______ _________ 193 value of, to be considered in fixing salary rate___________________ 193 information, details, etc., from, to befur- nished War Claims Arbiter_____ 259 may prepare, etc., articles for exhibit at Facific Southwest Exposition___ 397 submission to Congress discontinued, of stent of con~ingent appro- pnatlOns_________________ ~--- publications received, etc_________ _ ~ue d, etc ____________________ _ travel outside the District_________ _ exchange of typewriters, etc________ _ rented buildings, D. C ____________ _ 986 986 986 986 986 986 care of Govemment-owned buildings, D. C ., location, etc___________ 986 receipts from sales of war supplies___ 986 of annual estimates only as now re- quired by law________________ 986 condition of business______________ 987 emplOYees, below standard of effi- ciency_ ______ ___________ __ ___ 987 8upplies for, to be31fOCured and distrib- uted by The General Supply Committee_ _ _ __ _ ________ ____ 1341 temporary. detaiis allowed from, to - White House______________ 573, 1230 Bxecutive Departmentl, etc.- Continued. p .... to furnish information to Committees on Expenditures in Executive Departments of the Senate and House, when requested_________ 996 Bxecutive Mansion (see also Executive Office), appropriation for care, repairs, etc_ 574,1230 forgreenhouses ________________ 574,1231 for improving grounds ________ ~ 574,1231 for traveling expenses __________ 574,1231 for portrait of Pi'eBident Coolidge___ 1231 deficiency appropriation for extraordi- nary repairs; amount reappro- priated______________________ 5 for niaintenance, etc., quarters for the President at Mount Weather, Va_ 1625 E:ucutive Of!iea, appropriation for eompensation of the President _________________ 573,1230 for compensation of the Vice Presi- dent _____________________ 57~ 1230 for Secretary to the President, and office personnel ___________ .___ 573 for Secretary to the President, two additional secretaries, and office personnel____________________ 1230 details allowed from Departments, etc ______________________ 57a 1230 for contingent expenses _________ 573,1230 for printing and binding for _____ 573,1230 for traveling and entertainment ex- penses Of the President _____ 573,1230 for care, repair, etc., Executive Man- sionandgrounds __________ 574,1230 for White Houae~ee- 574,1231 defici~ir29TarmstroBot (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)__ ~____: 1675 Execrdive OJlice o/tM District oj Columbia, appropriation for personall!lervices_ 645, 1262 additional to Engineer Commis- sioner___________ ______________ 1262 Experiment Stations Of!iea, Department oJ Agriculture, appropriation for general expeDSef!; StAte allotments ___________ 541,1191 for increased allotments ________ 541,1191 for further endowments. ___ __ __ _ 5 4 1, 1192 for benefits to Hawail_____________ 1192 for administrative expenses _____ 542, 1192 for stations in Alaska. Hawaii. Porto Rico, Guam, and Virgin Islands ________________________ _ 542,1192 construction, Alaska_________ 542,1192 deficiency appropriation for _ _________ 1616 for payment ofadditionalallotmentto Oklahoma Experiment Station_ 1632 EzpWration oJ Arctic Regions bJI Airship, I nlemationaZ SoW:t71 Jor, annual contributions authorized to, for fiveye&rs ____________________ 1222 deficiency appropriation for__________ 1652 Exploaive8, punishment for unauthorized mailing of,etc_______________________ 1072 Export I nduatriea oj tM United Statu appropriation for investigating problems of, relating to production, etc_ 86, 1117 Ex~ of Arms, etc. libel proceedings tor C<'ndemnation and sale of property seized for un- lawful_______________________ 1424 juri.:;dict.ion of COUrt_______________ 1424 disposal of condem»ed property by ~e_________________________ 1424

�


text:
Lawrence v. Tucker/Opinion of the Court

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

The nature of the mortgage and the circumstances under which it was given are set forth in the opinion of the court, and need not be repeated.

The cause was submitted on printed argument by Mr. B. R. Curtis for the appellant, and argued by Mr. Vinton, upon a brief filed by himself and Mr. Hayne, for the appellee.

Mr. Curtis, after giving a narrative of the facts in the case, and contending that the answer did not allege nor was there any evidence tending to prove that the complainant, who was thus admitted to be a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, had any notice of any lien upon this property save what he gathered from the record of the mortgage to the respondent, made the following points:

1. H. A. Tucker, individually, cannot set up this note against a subsequent encumbrance, as intended to cover future advances.

It is true that a mortgage may be taken to secure future advances; and perhaps, where no fraud is intended, a note for a sum of money may be given in consideration of such expected advances; though the policy of allowing such departures from strict truth on the public registries of the country is extremely questionable. But this mortgage, in effect, asserts that the note is not to stand for future advances. For it makes a specific and distinct provision for future advances, and expressly, and clearly distinguishes between them and the note, which is, in so many words, declared not to have been given for future advances, but for that amount of money already due.

If H. A. Tucker, individually, had actually made advances subsequent to the mortgage, he could not have a lien by virtue of it, to secure advances, by himself and his firm, beyond the amount of $6,000, without being allowed to contradict the express and clear terms of the deed, which limits the future advances to that sum.

But he has advanced nothing. And the question is, whether a mortgage to one partner, purporting to secure a debt due to him individually, can, as against a bona fide purchaser, without notice of any parol understanding between mortgagor and mortgagee, be set up as a security for advances made by the firm of which he is a member.

2. The mortgage expressly declaring that it was to stand as security for future advances only to the extent of six thousand dollars, it cannot stand as security for any greater amount of such advances, as against a junior encumbrancer, who has no notice of any parol agreement between the mortgagor and mortgagee, that it shall stand as security for a greater sum.

The public registry informed the complainant that future advances were not to exceed $6,000; that the note was not given for future advances to be made by any one, but for money then due; that the note had reference to dealings between H. A. Tucker, individually, and the mortgagors, and not between the mortgagors and the firm of H. A. Tucker & Co.

A decree allowing H. A. Tucker to set up the mortgage as security for $9,689.56 of advances made by his firm, contradicts each of these material representations, on which the complainant had a right to rely when he purchased the property.

3. Upon the face of the mortgage and the whole evidence, it is not made out with the requisite certainty that there was an original agreement between the mortgagors and the mortgagees, that the $5,500 note should stand as a continuing security for all future advances; and when advances to that amount had been made and repaid, that part of the security, if ever applicable to advances, was extinguished.

Truscott et al. v. King, 2 Seld., 147.

4. This mortgage to H. A. Tucker, to secure future advances by the firm of H. A. Tucker & Co., cannot stand as security for advances made after the admission of new partners into the firm. As against the mortgagors, their conduct and understanding may prevent them from taking this objection. But a junior encumbrancer is affected only by the precise terms of the mortgage itself, which provides only for advances to be made by the then firm of H. A. Tucker & Co. Either the admission or retirement of a partner puts an end to the right to make further advances upon the credit of the security, as against the junior encumbrancer, and, if the amount due at the time of such change of the firm is afterwards balanced by payments on account, nothing remains due on the mortgage.

Bank of Scotland v. Christie, 8 Cl. and Fin., 214.

Spiers v. Houston, 4 Bligh. N. S., 515.

Pemberton v. Oaks, 4 Russell's R., 154.

Cremer v. Higginson, 1 Mason, 323.

Simpson v. Cook, 1 Bing., 452, 441.

There are cases in which it has been held that the security continues, though new partners are introduced into the firm. But this was only as against the debtor, or his assignees in bankruptcy, who have only his rights, and by force of an agreement by the mortgagors to extend the operation of the security to the new firm.

Without such agreement, which binds only the debtor and his representatives, there is believed to be no case which holds that the right to make advances on the credit of the security continues after a change in the members of the firm.

See Ex parte, Oakes, 2 M. D. and De G., 234.

Ex parte, Marsh, 2 Rose, 239.

If there was such an agreement in this case, the complainant had no notice of it, and is not bound by it.

The firm of H. A. Tucker & Co. was changed by the admission of new partners, January 1, 1857, and all advances made previous to that date have been repaid.

Mr. Vinton replied to these points as follows:

Question 1. The first question that arises in this case is, what was the mortgage to Tucker intended to secure?We claim that it was intended to secure any indebtedness that might arise in the manner specified therein, to an amount not exceeding, at any one time, the sum of eleven thousand five hundred dollars; and that the actual knowledge of defendant's claim by the subsequent encumbrancers, and by Lawrence, the purchaser, made them chargeable with what was in fact due on the mortgage, not exceeding that sum, as the only condition on which they or any of them would be allowed to redeem the property. In other words, they can only redeem subject to the satisfaction of Tucker's prior equity, whatever that may be.

Question 2. May a mortgage be taken as a security for future advances, and be a lien on the property to the extent of the sum or sums provided for in it?

The cases which affirm the doctrine that a mortgage may be given to secure future advances, or future liabilities, are very numerous.

Shirras v. Caig, 7 Cranch, 34; Leeds v. Cameron, 3 Sumner, 492; Lyle v. Ducomb, 5 Binney, 590; Collins v. Carlisle, 13 Illinois, 256-are some of the leading American cases on this head.

In Leeds v. Cameron, Judge Story said: 'Nothing can be more clear, both upon principle and authority, than that, at the common law, a mortgage bona fide made may be for future advances and liabilities for the mortgagor by the mortgagee, as well as for present debts and liabilities.' He cites 3 Cranch, 73; 1 Pet. Rep., 448.

There are cases which question the prior lien of the first mortgage for future advances made after a second mortgage has been given; but in this case no such question arises, as all the advances were made before the execution of either of the subsequent mortgages.

The advances covered by the first mortgage having been made prior to a subsequent lien, and prior to complainant's purchase, it could make no difference, nor work any injury to the subsequent encumbrancers, nor to the complainant as purchaser, that at times during the continuance of the dealing under the first mortgage there was actually due less than the whole amount secured by it, or, if such were the fact, that there was no indebtedness or balance due; and they cannot avail themselves of that objection, because, during the continuance of the dealing, the mortgage and note for $5,500 were treated as and understood by the parties to be a continuing security for whatever advances might be made during the two years the contract was to last. And neither subsequent encumbrancers nor purchasers could suffer any prejudice, if due inquiry were made, from a mortgage, the record of which was notice to all persons of an encumbrance to the extent of eleven thousand five hundred dollars. They were interested in knowing what was in fact due when the subsequent encumbrance was taken, and when the subsequent purchase was made, and they were interested no further.

The note for $5,500 states on its face that it was given for an actual loan of money, and consequently the mortgage, to the extent of that note, appears to have been given to secure a debt then due, and this presents the question:

Question 3. Whether parol evidence can be given to show that the note mortgage were taken as a collateral security for advances thereafter to be made, and that in fact such advances were subsequently made, on the faith of that security?

As between the parties to the mortgage, there can be no question but such proof would be let in. Indeed, it is one of the most ancient principles of a court of equity, that if a deed be absolute on its face, it may be proved by parol, in a court of equity, that it was a conditional conveyance given to secure a loan of money.

Whether such proof will be let in against third persons will depend upon the fact whether the mis-statement or misrepresentation in the deed was made for a dishonest purpose, and whether such third person has been deceived or injured by it. This objection was made in the case of Shirras v. Caig, (2 Pet. Cond. Rep., 410.) Judge Marshall said: 'It is true the real transaction does not appear on the face of the mortgage. The deed purports to secure a debt of thirty thousand pounds sterling, due to all the mortgagees. It was really intended to secure different sums due at the time to particular mortgagees, advances afterwards to be made, and liabilities to be incurred to an uncertain amount.'

After remarking that misrepresentations of a transaction are liable to suspicion, he says: 'But if, upon investigation, the real transaction shall appear to be fair, though somewhat variant from that which is described, it would seem to be unjust and unprecedented to deprive the person claiming under the deed of his real equitable rights, unless it be in favor of a person who has been in fact injured and deceived by the misrepresentation. That cannot have happened in the present case.'

The same may be said of the case now in hand; the misrepresentation in Tucker's mortgage, if it may be called such, has neither injured nor deceived the subsequent encumbrancers nor the purchaser under them, nor was it made for an unfair or dishonest purpose. If the complainant could prove any of these facts, he had the right and an opportunity to do it. And they are not to be presumed in the absence of proof.

Question 4. Judge Curtis, in his brief, has raised the question, whether the mortgage can stand as a security for advances made by the firm of H. A. Tucker & Co., after the admission of new partners into that concern.

The complainant comes into court asking for equity, and praying that the defendant's legal title to the property mortgaged may be taken from him by a decree of the court. That being his attitude, he will not be likely to meet with much encouragement in setting up technicalities to deprive the defendant of his honest rights.

It ought here to be borne in mind, that all the securities claimed to be now due, with one exception, are notes of hand given by Floyd & French, payable to the order of H. A. Tucker alone, and consequently within the precise letter of the mortgage. The demand note of the 18th of December, 1857, for $2,000, is made payable to H. A. Tucker & Co.

If H. A. Tucker raised money through the firm of H. A. Tucker & Co., for Floyd & French, and took their notes for it, payable to himself personally, thus bringing the transaction within the precise letter of the mortgage, who, it may be asked, has a right to complain of that? Was this dishonest or unfair?

This fact would seem to dispose of this objection to all the claims except the $2,000 note. And what, it may well be asked, is the equity or justice of the objection to that note?

In January, 1857, two new partners were brought into the firm of H. A. Tucker & Co. But the stipulation respecting this fact, at page 34 of the record, shows that no new capital was brought into the concern. No change was made in the name of the firm; all the old accounts, and that of Floyd & French among the rest, were carried forward without any change. Tucker retained in his own hands the exclusive right to manage and control the affairs of the concern, and to sign the partnership name; it was in fact his concern. Floyd & French continued to get advances as before, with the understanding by both parties that they were made on the faith of the mortgage.

This understanding and this course of dealing could work no injury to subsequent encumbrancers, because they then had no mortgage or claim on the property, nor is it pretended they were misled or deceived by it to their injury.

Lyle v. Ducomb (5 Binney, 590) was a case where defendant Ducomb gave a bond for $18,000, conditioned to pay $9,000, with a mortgage on real estate. By an endorsement on the mortgage, it was stated that it was made to secure the plaintiff for notes drawn and to be drawn by him, and by Lyle and Newman, for Ducomb's accommodation.

Objection was made, that a mortgage intended as an indemnity against acts to be performed at a subsequent time, ought not to have any effect against third persons.

Tilghman (Justice) said: 'This point was very properly abandoned. There cannot be a more fair, bona fide, and valuable consideration, than the drawing and endorsing of notes at a future period, for the benefit and at the request of the mortgagor, and nothing is more reasonable than the providing a sufficient indemnity beforehand.'

In that case, six months after the making of the mortgage, and after a builder's lien had attached to the property, the mortgagor and mortgagee entered into an agreement, that a description of notes not before embraced by the mortgage, and made by a different drawer than the drawers named in the mortgage, should be embraced therein. Held, that the parties had a right to make such agreement, as between themselves, and that it was also good as to third parties, who were intervening encumbrancers, if the amount of the mortgage encumbrance were not thereby increased beyond the amount which the mortgage was intended to secure.

5 Binney, 589.

This doctrine would seem to dispose of the objection we are now considering. In the case of the Commercial Bank v. Cunningham, (24 Pick., 270,) the mortgagors, who were a firm under the name of Edgarton, Whitecomb, & Co., made a mortgage to secure their existing debts, and also future debts they might owe mortgagees; and afterwards mortgagors admitted a new partner into the firm, which assumed a new name. Held, that notes given by the new firm were covered and secured by the mortgage.

In conclusion, we think it may be safely affirmed, that upon no known principle of equity can the defendant be deprived of his legal and equitable lien upon the property mortgaged to him, until he is paid the full amount equitably covered by the mortgage, and due to him and to the other parties named in the deed. In other words, the complainant himself must do what is equitable, as the sole condition on which he can claim to redeem and obtain possession of the property discharged of the defendant's lien.

Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

We have been unable to find anything in this record to authorize us to change or modify the decree made by the Circuit Court in this case.

Andrew Lawrence filed his bill in that court, for the northern district of Illinois, against Hiram A. Tucker, to redeem the furniture of a hotel in the city of Chicago, called the Briggs House, upon which Tucker has a mortgage.

On the 1st of September, 1856, John J. Floyd and George H. French, who then were the keepers of that Hotel, wishing to have a current business credit with Tucker and firm of H. A. Tucker & Co., and the bank named in the mortgage, executed, under the name and firm of Floyd & French, to Hiram A. Tucker, a mortgage of the furniture of the hotel, to secure a note of Floyd & French, made to Tucker, for $5,500, and such advances of money as there had been or might be made within two years, by H. A. Tucker, H. A. Tucker & Co., or the Exchange Bank of H. A. Tucker & Co., not to exceed in all an indebtment of six thousand dollars in addition to the sum for which their note was given. The note was dated on the 1st of September, the day on which the mortgage was made, payable one day after date, with interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum. The note was to be held by Tucker, as a collateral security for such advances as have just been stated, and the amount of the note also. Under this arrangement, successive advances were made to Floyd & French, on their checks or by discount of their notes, until some time in October, 1857, when they ceased.

Tucker, during this time, continued to hold the note for $5,500. He also held several other promissory notes of Floyd & French, as appears by the exhibits, C, D, E, G, H, annexed to Tucker's answer to the complainant's bill. All of these notes, except that for $2,000, are drawn payable to H. A. Tucker; all of them are prior in dates to other mortgages upon the same furniture, except the note just mentioned for $2,000, and that was a renewal of a note for a loan made on the 26th September, 1857, prior to the date of the mortgages made to Briggs & Atkyns. The mortgage to Briggs was made on the 19th November, 1857, by Floyd & French, and one Ames, who had been taken into their firm. It was given to secure debts due to Briggs, and liabilities he had assumed for them, and also for such advances of money as Briggs might thereafter make to them, with a power of sale on default. When Briggs took this mortgage, he knew that Tucker had a prior mortgage on the same furniture, and he states in his evidence that he knew advances of money had been made upon it by Tucker, for which he knew it stood as a security.

On the 12th of January, 1858, Floyd & French and Ames made a third mortgage of the same property to Henry Atkyns, as trustee, with a like power of sale, to secure debts mentioned in it. Both of these mortgages refer to Tucker's mortgage as an existing encumbrance upon the furniture, &c., &c. Briggs and Atkyns had then, of course, notice of Tucker's mortgage.

Atkyns sold the furniture under his power of sale on the 27th February, 1858; Briggs sold under his power of sale on the 12th March following. Lawrence became the purchaser at both sales. Briggs sold to him expressly subject to the mortgage of French & Floyd to H. A. Tucker; and Lawrence admits, by a stipulation in the record, that when he purchased the property under the mortgages, he had notice that either the defendant Hiram A. Tucker or H. A. Tucker & Co. held the notes against Floyd & French, as they are set forth in the defendant's answer, and that the amount was claimed to be due upon them, as it is set out in the answer.

Upon referring to that answer, and its exhibits, C, D, E, G, H, we find that the only securities now claimed to be due are, with one exception, notes of hand given by Floyd & French, payable to the order of H. A. Tucker alone, precisely within the mortgage, and that the note of December 18th, 1857, payable to H. A. Tucker & Co., for the sum of two thousand dollars, payable at the counting-house of H. A. Tucker & Co., in Chicago, was for an actual loan of money, and that it was the renewal of a former note for the same sum, dated the 26th September, 1857.

We have, then, the admission of the complainant, that when he purchased under the mortgages of Briggs & Atkyns, he knew the particular items constituting the outstanding unpaid debt of Floyd & French to Hiram A. Tucker and H. A. Tucker & Co. for advances. One of these notes, dated the 14th October, 1857, was for $1,000, exhibit C; another, dated 22d October, 1857, exhibit D, was for $3,000; the third, exhibit E, dated July 11, was for $450; exhibit G, of the same date, was a note for the sum of $5,000; and exhibit H, dated the 18th December, 1857, was for $2,000.

Floyd, who did the financial business of the firm of Floyd & French, testifies that the notes just mentioned were given for advances; but he claims a credit of $1,500 on the note, exhibit D; and states that the note for $450, exhibit E, had not been given for money advanced, but that it and another note for the same amount were given for the interest for one year on the note for $5,500. Floyd also states that the note marked exhibit I, for $5,500, was signed by himself when he signed the mortgage, and that he personally made the negotiation with H. A. Tucker & Co.

It is further stated by him, that the aggregate amount of all the advances which had been made by the defendant to his firm upon the faith of the note and the mortgage, since the first of September, 1856, amounted to 'from fifty to a hundred thousand dollars,' and that the sum now remaining due was 'somewhere in the vicinity of ten thousand dollars.' He verifies the notes named in the exhibits, C, D, E, G, H, with the originals; confirms the statement in exhibit A of the discounts which his firm had received under the note and mortgage; and adds, that when the note and mortgage were given, his firm then owed to H. A. Tucker & Co. twenty-five hundred dollars, which was paid on the 7th September, 1856; and repeats in his cross-examination what he had said in his examination in chief, concerning the amount of the discounts and cash received from H. A. Tucker & Co. under the note and mortgage.

It must have been upon the testimony of this witness that the court below gave its decree.

But we have not referred to it with the view of testing the correctness of the sum allowed to the defendant, as the condition upon which the complainant might redeem the mortgage-though, having made the computation, we find it to be correct, with a small mistake. Our object has been to show that the parties to the original transaction understood it alike, and acted upon it accordingly; that there never was a difference between them, as to the character of the mortgage and its purpose; and that it was intended to be a security for and a lien upon the property mortgaged for future advances, to the extent of the sum provided for in it. So also Floyd & French represented it to be in their transactions with others, when they found it convenient to their business to give other mortgages upon the same property for the security of other creditors.

We consider it to be a mortgage for future advances, that they were subsequently made in conformity with its provisions, and that the proofs that they were so, were rightly received by the court below to substantiate them. There is neither indirectness nor uncertainty in the terms used in the mortgage, to make it doubtful that it was intended to cover the note for $5,500 and for future advances. It is stated in terms that it was intended for that purpose. The note, though expressed to be an existing indebtedness at the date of the mortgage, secured to be paid by a promissory note, payable one day after date, is associated with the advances to be made to Floyd & French to the amount of $6,000; but it is proved that the note and mortgage were in fact taken as a security for advances thereafter to be made, and that it was done without any other purpose than to get a credit extended to them of eleven thousand five hundred dollars, instead of advances only to the amount of $6,000. It is objected that the difference makes the transaction subsidiary.

An objection of this kind was made in the case of Shirras v. Caig, 7 Cranch, 34; but this court then said, it is true the real transaction does not appear on the face of the mortgage; the deed purports to have been a debt of thirty thousand pounds sterling, due to all of the mortgagees. It was really intended to have different sums due at the time to particular mortgagees, advances afterwards to be made, and liabilities to be encountered to an uncertain amount. After remarking that such misrepresentations of a transaction are liable to suspicion, Chief Justice Marshall adds: 'But if, upon investigation, the real transaction shall appear to be fair, though somewhat variant from that which is described, it would seem to be unjust and unprecedented to deprive the person claiming under the deed real equitable rights, unless it be in favor of a person who has been in fact injured and deceived by the misrepresentation.' In this case, the complainant has not been deceived, and the variance between the alleged indebtedness and that advances were to be made afterwards gives to his suit no additional force or equity.

No proof was given by the complainant that he had been injured or deceived by it into making his purchase under the mortgages of Briggs and Atkyns, and that cannot be presumed in his behalf. In fact, there is not an averment in the complainant's bill in favor of the equity of his demand, which is not met and denied in the defendant's answer, and which has not been disproved by competent testimony. We do not think there is anything in the objection that the mortgage to H. A. Tucker to secure future advances by the firm of H. A. Tucker & Co. cannot stand as security for advances made after the admission of new partners into that firm. The cases cited in support of this objection do not sustain it, and we have not been able to find any one that does. They relate exclusively to stipulations for an advancement of money to a copartnership after a new member has been taken into the firm.

In respect to the validity of mortgages for existing debts and future advances, there can be no doubt, if any principle in the law can be considered as settled by the decisions of courts. This court has made three decisions directly and inferentially in support of them: United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch, 73; Conrad v. Atlantic Insurance Company, 1 Peters, 448; Shirras v. Caig, 7 Cranch, 34. Tilghman, C. J., says, in 5 Binney, 590, Lyle v. Ducomb, 'there cannot be a more fair, bona fide, and valuable consideration than the drawing or endorsing of notes at a future period, for the benefit and at the request of the mortgagors; and nothing is more reasonable than the providing a sufficient indemnity beforehand.' Mr. Justice Story declared, in Leeds v. Cameron, 3 Sumner, 492, that nothing can be more clear, both upon principle and authority, than that at the common law a mortgage, bona fide made, may be for future advances by the mortgagee as well as for present debts and liabilities. I need not do more upon such a subject than to refer to the cases of the United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch, 73, and Conrad v. the Atlantic Insurance Company, 1 Peters, 448.

We affirm the decree of the Circuit Court in this case, and shall remand it there for execution.

title: Lawrence v. Tucker/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1841

 xo INDEX. ..",., of A"..., ••-ccmtbuJed. r-. "'odit~tinu'l!d. PuB. 913 fibel prooeedinp for condemnation, etc.; arms ana mWli~0D8 cI. war ~ be delivered to W.a" Depa.rimeDt __ 1424 llzport of CtJfllc, .., examfn·tJoo authorlHd of aD ~ which carry to foreign oounkiel, cattle, honM, mWel, .... abee~lO&ta,or.wiDe_________ 789 ruJeep~per r=p!,~: =~u~ mane R.tlDeDt______________ '190 ownera of vtlllela violat.iDt, may be prohibited from C&n'yiDg the eame for preecribed J>8ri9d- ____ 790 vseel IDA7 be nlUMil cIMnDca from an.y UDit.ed State. port. _ _ _ 790 Bzporq 0/ ,r." ,nnu, V~, .., approprlatfonfor ~tfonand oertify- q OODdition 01_ _ ____________ 1216 &porilWw.. C,..,. (HI ~ World's ~ Palr). B~I~ deleIeDtiy appropriah for Beville, ~-- 913 ~1~P~ 8tatea aDd forelp. couDtria in~ted to ~ta!n. at TuIaa, Olda.. _ _ 788 ~J1... D.C., AppiroprlaUOD for burial ollDdipDt, ill ~ eta., oemeteria.__ 017,12N BTarmstroBot (talk)of~.. appropridlola foi ~. ex- for .&:::;> ~penit;.i 1193 tlDD work_________________ M2, 1193 ac::1t:fe_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_ 1193 for add1tio1aal cooperative exteaafon work _____________________ ~ 1193 pla:)a CII ezpeDdItve________ - M3, 1193 co~ ...ta _______________ 1t3,1193 for ~:r~_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_~__, 1193 for further COODer&tion of State col- iegee and the PePNtment- __ _ _ 1193 for cooperati'fe fa:rIn fol'elltq- - __ 6'3. 1193 for cooperative UIIe of farm IIpDto. in rebabilltatInB 1looded &reaL____ 643 defiekmcy appropriation fOr pneral ~- 44 for coo.,...U~ mdeDsIon worlt.. __ __ _ 894 _ Q re1&tlDg to, e:dended to Hawaii_ _ li7l permanent annual appropriationa for, increased_____________________ 672 ~ WIri, A~wal, cooperation With State co1lepe for further develop.eDt of ________ 711 amouat authoriaed aDnuaDy for work in &&ri!:ulture and home economics 711 8118eDt. of govErnor, if legislature Dot in eeeslOD____________________ 712 annual increasing appropriatloDl____ 712 proportion of approp~tion for county q'ents to develop system with men, women, boys, and girls___ _ 712 appointment of men and women in fmrpropo~D._______________ 712 use of agricultural trains___________ 712 BUlD8 authorized, are additions to, and Dot substitutes for, former appropriations________________ 712 BslraditWn appropri~tion for expenses bringing home criminalS from abroad__ 76,1107 de1ioiency appropriation for bringing home CnmInall from abroad___ _ F. 'aiT/a C01&,.", Va., bridge authorised aeroM Potomac River, between Montgomery County, Md., and_____________________ m Pairji,eld, 1D1DG, appropriation for publio building__ ___ 1042 de6cl81lcy appropriation for publio FairjWd, =!'1r!;-Air~--u 920 amOUD~ autiborUed for constructios fuel oU tanks______________________ 130 construction autho~ at________ 7~9, 1304 Fairlalm A_lUI BE., D. C., name of Railroad Avenue changed to_ _ 997 'air.. &aI.e, I.ural4le, de., appropriation for makinc agricultural exhib~t. at________________ M3, 1193 FalUmAal, Bergeonl Charla, Armr deficiency appropriation for, ios. of personal property____________ _ Fall Rifler, Mau., appropriation for public buildin8_ _ _ ___ 1042 deficiency appropriation for public building at___________________ 920 Fallcm, Nfff1., deficiency appropriation for public buildilll at__________________ _ 32 Fallootr., Virgil, etc., may ~_TarmstroBot (talk)_TarmstroBot (talk),___TarmstroBot (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 390 time extended for bridgilll Mi8>uri River, at Rulo, Nebr., by______ 1524 'uB,., TAe, appropriation for develcoping commerce _____________________ 86, 1117 deficiency appropmtion for promoting tb ________ ____ gsa,1617 Fargo, N.IW., appropriation lor public building_ _ _ 179, 1042 -- ~mlary authc;rlty as to site, eonstruetion, ute______________ 179 lDay bridae Red River of the North, to MoorhMd, Minn___________ 472 time extended for bridging Red River of the North, at, by__ ___ __ ______ 1534 P_Pir_, l!oppropriatioD for developing methods ofpreventing______________ 557,1207 F_ PMWIrV, CooptJr'GliH. appropriation for _Ulliating establish- ment,etc., of______________ 643,IHI3 ,-Im,oeion, appropriation for investigations, etc_ 660, 1211 PGrm Landi, cooperati~e emplo~ent with States, etc., of county extension for rehabilitating, in flood areas of 1927 _______________________ _ Parm LocI" Auoc&anona, exempt from income tax_____________ 814 Parm Loan Bureau (,u Federal Farm Loan B\II"8&U, Treasury Depsr,t. ment). Farm MGftCIg"'" ~ Prod,", sppropriation for investigating, etc. improved methods of______ • . 5th, 1211 for ascerta.lni~ cost of production 01 staple agncultural product._ 6 61, 1212

�


text: Talk:Lawrence v. Tucker/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1842

 INDEX. xci , .... ProtIw:A, 1'aaIt. ap~tioD for ~11IiDc bIlormatioD d. marketiq, etc., 01 _______ 661, 1212 coUoDPdby-proclueieftllle&rCb... __ j,212 ooopen&iftwi~0th8r~_661, 1212 forma of wool aDd. mohafr padeI to beDd.. ___ ___ __ ___ ___ __ ___ M l,1212 for oooperatifte8lploJmeDt ~ apmts to cliffu.laformaUoo as to mar- ketiDc,etc.,oI_____________ 661,1212 for iIlvellf;ip.tiDa and oertifylDc eon- ditioD ~periababJe, etc_____ 661, 1212 forutiliafDlt.iIltbehome ________ 664, 1216 'arm PrtHltu:U, "Peri.JwJW., appropriation for purchuee 01, for deteetiDc violationl 01 Standard CooWMr, etc., Acta _______ 663, ]214 defi~cy appropriation for ageDcy eqMIDIIeI, preYentiDgdumpin«oI, in intentate commerce_ _ _ _ ___ _ 13 'arm Relief, membenl elect to 711t qo~ of Commi$tee on Aptculture, Houae of Repn.entativea, to hold meetinp, etc., to gather In- formation and prepare bUla, ,~.,it- 1624 appropriation for printing and bind- inI--- M1,1191 ,~.' Cooper-ali" Dem.cnutration W 01'1, appropriationlornpeD8ElloL_____ M2, 1193 acceptance of contributione with- ina&ate_________________ M2, 1193 P(JNM;rt' C MorluAiJlf, tCc., ANO- ~--;-- exempt from income w_____________ 813 'af'fMf"'I~IMtrid, appropriation for operaW1g, etc., Nine Mile Drain, North 1'latte proj- ect__________________________ 1593 FarmtIf'I' Mutual CatUaltJl IMVTQ~ Cum- pam.,. exempt from mcome tax_____________ 813 'tJNMrI' Prodvu Mark«, D. C., aequillitioo 01 lite and conatruction of, autho~___________________ ]487 'auUm.r Cov.fIlr, Ark. all richt, etc., of United State. to ~ acribed lands in, relinquiahed to otrDeTB______________________ 1187 only United States right, etc., aban- doned_______________________ 1188 valid rights 01 any pel'llOD not Im- 'auat, C=r::L~:i4t.-;.R;p;;.~iNi~ 1188 Ctmgr_, deficiency appropriation for pay to fatherof_____________________ 1623 'aJlfllk City Brid4e CtnnJlGftr, may bridge Monongahela River, at Fayette City, Pa_____________ 1488 Fayette Citr, Pa., bridge authorized acrou Monongahela Rive~ at____________________ 1488 FGrtJlt«Jilk, N. C., terma of court at____________________ 496 Fed#oI Board lor VooaIionol BducatiMl, appropriation for additional amount for salaries and expeDIIe8__________ 12M for extending benefits of vocational education to HawaiL_______ 678, 1236 for rehabilitation of pel'llODI diaabled in industry________________ 678, 1236 apportionment to State. com- putedL____________________ 678, 1235 ,.ural BOGf'd JfIr VoMioMl .d~ ~ Continued. appropriation for invOltiptiODl, etc., of rehabDit.tiona, plaoemeDta,etc__ tl:6 for oftlee perIODDel,.etc- 678, 1236 for print.iq and biDdiDc for _____ 678, 1236 attend&li08 at ehoaUonal, etc., meetiDp allowed from ft- peDa. ____________ _______ 678, 1236 deficieDcy appropriation for _ _ _ _______ 45 for ~tive vocational education in acriculture and home eeo- n~______________________ 1826 for cooperative rehabilitation of c&- abled relddents of D. C ___ _____ 1626 for ~ pd e~ 1930; education ill acriculture &Del home 8OOnomiCl______________ 1626 for aalariel, U~2I__________________ 1675 additional apJN'OpriatioDl authoriaed.._ 1161 allotments for farm populatiOD, 01 acricultural lubjeCts___________ 1151 for rural population, of home eeo- noaUCI______________________ 1151 authoriaatiODl additional &Dd subject to conditione of fol'JllW Acta __ ._ 1151 attendance at meetinp authori.ed____ 1161 to provide fot vocational rehabilitation of diaabled resldenta ~ the Dia- triet of COlumbia_____________ 1280 to cooperate with Employeee' Com- pensation COlDlDlaldon in formu- lating plan for dlaabJed civil em- 'ed#ol~P~-A~- 1260 appropriation for enfOl"eiDa, etc_ __ _ 667, 1218 deficIeineY appropriation tOr ~ting sale, etc., 01. aeida, alkalies, etc., under_______ - ______________ • 14 ' ..01 ,_ Loa.. Board, to eatabliah land banka in each district. 1668 branchOll authorised; extended to Porto Ricoand Alulta.._ _ __ _ _ __ 1568 l'ed#ol Farm Loa" B1U'ICJu, Treanrr De- J'CI"f1IN"', appropftation for members of the Board oftbI peraonnel, etc ________ lii7,l033 for travelinK espen88II, etc_______ 167, 1033 payable troui ..e mfllts on land banke, etc ________________ US8,1033 allowance for motor vehicle travel _____________________ 168,1033 e%peD8Ell, destruction of paid bonda, ete__________________________ 1033 deftcien~ff:OPriation for I&lariCl_ •• 30 form eouaexpeD8Ell_________ 30 motor vehiole allowance_ _ _ ______ 30 for aalarieB and expeDICI___________ 1613 verification of deatruetion of can- celed aeeuritiOll________________ 1613 Fed#oI HiglnDo" Ael, appropriation for forest roeda and traila under ____________________ 66~ 1220 for rural post roads· allotment ___ 669,1221 for aid to Statee, etc ___________ Mil, 1221 authorizatioDl of appropriatioDl for roads and traila In national forests, 1930 1 1931. ___________ ·750 share of Federal aid inoreased to any State with unappropriated pu~ lic, and nontaxable Indian lan~, exceeding I; per cent of area of au landa________________________ 683 amount to be expended by State on other projects_ _ _ _____________ 683

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1843

 xcii INDEX. PerUral HightIJ(JII Act-Continued. planting of lhade trees to be included in project lpeoiJioationB_ _________ 683 Federal funda may be increaaed by mDeage of roads in national for- en.,etc ______ r ______________ 683 allowance of Federal funda on highways in emaJl municipalities_________ 683 no allowance for bri~ in municipal- ities of population over 30,000_ _ 684 not ~plicable io interatate bridges ccmneotinc with amall municipal- ity ill adJoinin« State__________ 684 inconaiatent laWI repealed____________ 684 FedMal HorHcultural Board, Department 0/ ACIricultwe, deficiency appropriation for eradicating pink bollworm of cotton, in Ari- lIODa, etc_____________ " _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13 for eradicating Parlatoria date leale_ 14 foreatablfBhing, etc., noncotton zones_ 895 for general expeDBel_______________ 933 for salaries and exp6DBe1________ 1617,1621 functions of, transferred to Plant Quar- antine and Control Admin,iatra- tion_________________________ 565 Chief of, ex officio, &8 chairman of Ad- vieory Board, etc_____________ 565 FedMal IRdmtrialI""titution/or Women, appropriation for maintenance, etc __ 82,1113 deficiency appropriation for construc- tion work; reappro'friation ____ _ acceptance authorbed 0 funda for a 22 chapel on premlaee of_______ .. __ 1509 chapel to be maintained at Govern- ment eXJ)CDae_________________ 1509 preliminary Iketches, working draw- ings, etc.., to be procured_______ 1509 by office or Superiiaing Architect; reimbursement from donated funda________________________ 1509 right of way. granted ac1"08l, to Alder- liOn, W. Va., for publio high- way________________________ _ FedMal Land Bana, 53 establiBhment of, in each Federal land bank, by Federal Farm Loan ~ __________________ ~____ 1558 branches authorized_______________ 1558 dealgnation for, in Alaska and Porto FUco___________________ 1558 loans authorized not exceeding 125,000; interest rate__________ 1558 term limit for loana by, in Porto Rico or Alaska_______________ 1558 uempt from Income tax_____________ 814 FedMal Oil ComenKltion Board, deficiency appropriation for expenses; reappropnation____________ 887,1626 FedMal Point LitihthouttJ RUIlf'Htion, conveyance o(l..authorized to Wilming- ton,N. ,-, .,aaamemorial to com- memorate Battle of Fort Fisher_ 1066 Federal Power Commiaion, appropriation for ex~ of______ 579, 1236 transfer of civilian employees to rolla ol; no ~ reductIOns___ 579 for printing and binding for _____ 579,1236 deficienl01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk)_o_~_ TarmstroBot (talk)_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 1676 may iBaue permits for power develop- ment on Salt River, within Fort Apache and White Mountain LidIaD Reservations, Ariz______ 1344 . FtdtJral Power Commiuion-Continued. Pap. no permit to be iuued by, for develop- ment of water power on Potomao River from Rock Creek to above the Great Falla, until further ac- repo::~be~--&ndN~ti;'n~ 1012 Capitol Park an1Pt";nnlng Com- million, sa to utlUzation of the are&_________________________ 1012 permits, lioe~ etc., not to be iuued 1 upon Colorado River and mDutaries, except the Gila, in ~:-frao~ _TarmstroBot (talk)__TarmstroBot (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC) _TarmstroBot (talk) a46 allowed, if prior thereto, the Boulder Canyon Project Act becomes. effective_ _ ___ _______ ___ ______ 1"6 to report on compensation to Apache Indiana, for power plant at Coolidge Dam, Ariz___________ 211 Federal Priaon. Camp', establiahment, etc., of, authorized by Attorney General_____________ 1318 selection of, by Attorney General and Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior__________________ 1318 convicts may be transferred to, for road and trait building_____________ 1318 good conduct commutation appli- cable________________________ 1318 additional deduction for actual em- ployDlent____________________ 1318 criminal laWI affecting prisoners made applicable to thoee transferred to___________________________ 1318 payment of earnings of inmates_______ 1318 expenses ofl payable from appropria- tion lor IUpport of United States prisoners______ _ _ __ ___ ____ ____ 1318 FedMal Radio Commi&rion (see olio Radio Act of 1927), appropriation for Commiaaionera___ 579,1236 iorotherexpenaes______________ 579,1236 for printing and binding ________ 579,1236 deficiency appropriation for aalaries and expeDleB_____________________ 5 for Commissioners; amount immedi- atelyavailable________________ 887 for general expenses_______________ 887 contracts for reporting___________ 887 for stenographic aervice, 1927 and 1928________________________ 1626 authority of, continued until Maroh 16, 1929; aalary continued_________ 373 term of present, to expire February 23, 1929; of SUCceBSOrs_ ____ ____ ___ 373 powers vested in, continued until December 31, 1929____________ 1559 periodfTarmstroBot (talk)_~_~:TarmstroBot (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_l 1559 term of each member to expire Feb- ruary 23, 1930; terms of ap- pointees thereafter____________ 1559 appointment of general counsel, legal aBliatanta, etc_________________ 1559 FedMal Re~rler, appropnation for purchase of continu- ation of____________________ 81, 1112 Federal Reaerve Act.! Amendments, • discount by Reserve bank of com- mercial paper for Dlember banks secured by nonperishable staples_ 975 prompt collection and payment re- quired.______________________ 975

�