DEEDS.
SEE ESTOPPEL, 1,
EVIDENCE, 8, 9.
HOMESTEAD.
LANDLORD AND TENANT, 1.
STAMP ACT.
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES, 1-8.
DEPOSITIONS.
SEE EVIDENCE, 14.
PRACTICE, 15.
DEVISE.
SEE WILLS, 4.
2. Where a person became bound to return cer-
tain bonds, the damages for which he is liable for a
failure to return them, is the sum with which the
other party could buy them.
3. Damages which are not capable of legal com-
putation, and which are shadowy, uncertain and
speculative, cannot be allowed.
tion, is meant the place where a person lives and
1. By the term domicil, in its ordinary accepta-
has his home.
Mitchell v. U. S.,
Idem,
4. All damages directly arising from the imper-pensable: first, residence in the new locality; and
584
2. To constitute a new domicil two things are indis-
fect character of a structure, contracted to be built, second, the intention to remain there. Mere ab-
or from interior work upon it, or inferior mate-
rials, may be proved against a demand for its cannot work the change.
sence from a fixed home, however long continued,
price. The principle applied to an imperfect pier
of a railroad bridge.
5. In action for infringement of patent, the dam-
513
ages do not extend to all the profits which defend-
ant has received from the manufacture or sale of
the article to which the improvements have been
applied. The recovery must be confined to the
profits received from the use of the invention.
Littlefield v. Perry,
6. Interest is not allowable in such cases, except
577
under peculiar circumstances.
Idem,
7. Where a barge was sunk against an unlawful
pier, both parties being in fault, the damages are
to be divided according to the admiralty rule.
Atlee v. Packet Co.,
DECREES AND JUDGMENTS.
SEE APPEAL AND ERROR, 3, 4, 14, 19, 29.
ASSIGNMENT, 1, 2.
BANKRUPTCY, 15, 17, 23.
BANKS, 1.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 2, 4.
RES JUDICATA, 1-5.
TAXES AND TAX SALES, 27.
1. In an action on a judgment rendered in another
State, the defendant, notwithstanding the record
shows a return of the sheriff that he was personally
served with process, may show the contrary.
Knowles v. Gas Light, etc.. Co..
2. A state judgment is not void because the cause
was tried by the court without the waiver of a
trial by jury. Such error cannot be taken advantage
of collaterally.
3. To make a record of a state judgment valid
upon its face, it is only necessary for it to appear
See WALL. 19, 20, 21, 22. U. S., Book 22.
2. In proceeding to ascertain the compensation
to be made to the owner of property taken for
public use, the State may vacate any inquest taken
by its direction, and order a new inquest, where
the proceeding has been irregularly or fraudu-
Until the property is actually taken and the com-
lently conducted, or in which error has intervened.
pensation is made or provided, the power of the
State over the matter is not ended.
Idem,
EQUITY.
SEE INSURANCE, 5-8.
PLEADINGS, 6.
RIPARIAN RIGHTS, 3.
TAXES AND TAX SALES, 11.
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES, 5.
1. Where the complainants do not come into
court with clean hands, and are seeking the benefit
of a contract obtained by their fraud, deceit or
unfair means, they can have no standing in a court
of equity.
4. But where the accounting officers were for-
bidden by law to award the claimant anything be-
yond a certain amount, he cannot be held to have
relinquished, by such acceptance, another large
balance found to be due him.
Idem,
2. A court of equity cannot create a remedy in
violation of law, or even without the authority of EVIDENCE.
law.
72
3. A bill by a creditor will not lie against the as-
signee in bankruptcy and another creditor, to pro-
cure a reversal of an order in bankruptcy allowing
the claim of the latter when there is no collusion
between him and the assignee, or other special
ground for equitable interference.
273
4. One who left his State to join the rebellion, is en-
titled to no equitable relief because his creditors
collected their debts by publication, without per-
sonal service.
311
5. He who seeks equity must do equity, and can-
not set aside the proceedings for collection of a
debt without tendering the amount due.
311
6. Equity always refuses to interfere where there
has been gross laches in the prosecution of rights.
There is no artificial rule on such a subject, but
each case, as it arises, must be determined by its
own particular circumstances.
Idem,
311
7. A court of equity has power to annul judg-
ments and decrees and all titles acquired under
them, for fraud, where the rights of bona fide pur-
chasers have not intervened.
449
8. Although, by the organic Act of the Territory
of Montana, common law and chancery jurisdic-
tion is exercised by the same court, the essential
distinction between law and equity is not changed.
Basey v. Gallagher,
452
9. The Statute of Montana, declaring "that an is-
sue of fact shall be tried by a jury unless a jury
trial is waived," does not require the court, in an
equity case, to regard the findings of a jury called
in the case as conclusive, although no application to
vacate the findings be made by the parties, if, in
its judgments, they are not supported by the evi-
dence.
Idem,
452
10. A recovery in an equitable action must be had
upon the case made by the pleadings or not at all.
Grosholz v. Newman,
11. When two or more persons have a common
interest in a security, equity will not allow one to
appropriate it exclusively to himself, or to impair
its worth to the others.
492
12. A court of equity will not give relief by
charging the executor of a will or a legatee, or a
devisee of real estate with a trust, in favor of a third
person alleged to be defrauded by the forged or
fraudulent will, nor will it give relief to parties
who are in laches.
599
13. Ignorance of a fraud, is no excuse for laches
where the circumstances of the fraud were pub-
licly and generally known.
SEE APPEAL and Error, passim.
ESTOPPEL.
SEE ATTORNEY, 2.
CONFISCATION, 13.
CORPORATIONS, 8.
14. Where a deposition is lost, a party is not
bound to supply its place by another, but may give
parol evidence of its contents.
15. Where books of a bank are out of the State
and beyond the jurisdiction of the court, second-
ary evidence to prove their contents is admissible.
Idem,
299
16. Results of voluminous facts or of the ex-
amination of many books and papers, may be
proved by the person who made the examination.
Idem,
17. A copy of an instrument, made by the officer
by whom the instrument was executed, is, under
the Spanish law and the law of Texas, "a second
original,” and was properly received in evidence,
McPhaul v. Lapsley,
38. What declarations fail to prove partnership.
Idem,
780
39. Parol evidence is inadmissible to show that
there was an antecedent parol agreement or under-
standing between the parties, different in a material
particular from that which the written contract
contains.
Gavinzel v. Crump.
783
40. Every admission of a party given in evidence,
is to be taken as an entirety of the fact which makes
for the one side, with the qualifications which limit,
modify or destroy its effect on the other side.
Ins. Co. v. Newton,
792
41. Where the admission related to two particu-
lars, the death of the insured and the manner of his
death, and showed death of the insured only as they
showed that he had committed suicide, the whole
admission should be taken together.
793
42. The preliminary proofs of death of the insured,
are admissible as prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein against the insured and on behalf of
the company.
Idem,
793
43. The way-bill of the goods is admissible in evi-
dence to show the carrier's contract.
Railroad Co. v. Pratt,
827
44. In an action to recover back a tax on certifi-
cates of a railroad company,as illegally exacted, the
annual reports of such company are admissible in
evidence.
840
45. Oral evidence is admissible to prove a new
agreement made subsequently to a written agree-
ment upon a new consideration.
Grosholz v. Newman,
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
SEE EVIDENCE, 23.
HOMESTEAD,
WITNESSES, 1.
12. Insurance agents may, after a loss, fill up a
policy, which they had, previous to the loss, stipu-
1. A voluntary post-nuptial settlement, if it be
reasonable, and not disproportionate to the hus-lated to deliver.
band's means, and clear of any intent actual or con-
structive to defraud creditors, will be upheld.
313
2. It will be held to be in bad faith towards exist-
ing creditors if it is out of all proportion to the
means of the husband, considering his state and con-
dition, and seriously impairs his ability to respond
to the demands of his creditors.
313
3. A wife may incumber her individual property
to secure her husband's debts, by an instrument in
writing, by which she expressly charges her sepa-
rate property for the payment of such debts.
Stephen v. Beall,
INDIANS.
SEE LANDS, 8-11.
INJUNCTIONS.
1. This court will not issue an injunction to re-
strain collecting state and county taxes on public
lands, where patents for the lands have been issued
before the suit was brought, and the United States
has no interest in the land which would forbid their
being taxed.
Hunnewell v. Cass County,
2. The prohibition in the Judiciary Act, against
courts of the United States enjoining proceedings
in State Courts, has no application where the case
bas been removed from the State court into the Cir-
cuit Court.
French v. Hay,
INSURANCE.
SEE CORPORATIONS, 16.
EVIDENCE, 32-34, 41, 42.
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT, 2, 3.
1. In an action on an accident insurance policy,
containing a condition that the insurers would not
be liable for a death by an accident caused by a vio-
lation of law, a recovery cannot be had in a State
where horse-racing is a misdemeanor, for death by
accident while engaged in a horse-race.
2. Such death of the insured was caused by a vio-
lation of the law, although his opponent disregarded
the rules of the course, and intentionally sought to
run him off the track.
3. It is not necessary to a total loss that there
should be an absolute destruction of the thing in-
sured so that nothing of it can be delivered at the
point of destination.
4. A destruction, so that, while some its compo-
nent elements or parts may remain, the thing in-
sured in the character or description by which it was
insured, is destroyed, is a total loss.
17. Where the application for insurance states,and
the policy is made and accepted upon, the express
condition and agreement, that the statements and
declarations contained in said application are in all
respects true, this stipulation is made as to all state-
ments whether material or not, and a false answer
to an inquiry whether the applicant has made any
other application to have his life insured, and
whether he is married or single, will avoid the pol-
icy.
Jeffries v. Life Ins. Co.,
INTEREST.
SEE BILLS AND NOTES, 9.
recovery barred, by the Appropriation Act of July | for further proceedings as the case may require.
12, 1870.
15. Where a federal question has been raised and
2. Neither a sexton at the Arlington Cemetery, has been decided against the plaintiff in error in a
nor a plate printer working under a contract, is in-state court, the jurisdiction of this court attaches
cluded in such Resolution.
and the case must be heard on the merits, although
the state court also placed its decision on another
ground which is not a federal question.
JUDGMENTS.
SEE DECREES AND JUDGMENTS, passim.
JURISDICTION.
SEE CRIMINAL LAW.
PLEADINGS, 1.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 12.
1. Where interest is allowed by the decree, it must
be included with the principal in order to deter-
mine what the sum or value in dispute was at
the time of the appeal; and if with such interest the
amount of the decree is over $2,000, this court has
jurisdiction.
16. Both parties in this court are entitled to be
heard on the federal question and on the sufficiency
of any other point decided, to affirm the judgment,
if the federal question was erroneously decided.
17. Where the only question made and decided in
a state court against plaintiff in error, was the suf-
ficiency of the acts of the President to inaugurate
a war which would render invalid the contract in
suit, this court has jurisdiction of the case.
Matthews v. McStea,
448
18. Where the state court decided that a contract
for the building of a schooner was not a maritime
60 contract, and that the law of the State giving a lien
2. The ruling of a state court, that notes on which for its building does not conflict with the Federal
a judgment was rendered were given for a loan of Constitution or laws,it is sufficient to give this court
Confederate money, and that the transactions jurisdiction.
which resulted in the acquisition of the notes were
487
had between enemies during the late civil war, in
violation of the Proclamation of the President for-
bidding commercial intercourse with the enemy, is
not the subject of review by this court.
162
3. There can be no jurisdiction in equity to en-
force the payment of corporation bonds until the
remedy at law has been exausted.
24. In such a case if due validity and effect has
not been given to the federal judgment,and if such
right or immunity claimed has been thereby lost,
this court will reverse the judgment of the state
court.
Idem,
588
25. If jurisdiction of the case was acquired only
by reason of the citizenship of the parties, and the
state law alone was administered, then only such
validity and effect can be claimed for the judgment
as would be due to a judgment of the state courts
under like circumstances.
588
26. A court of equity has not jurisdiction to avoid
will or to set aside the probate thereof, on the
ground of fraud, mistake or forgery.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.cl/books/content?id=nZYDAAAAQAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA897&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=error&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U2yc9IODJdPagIzWm3E4hBA68o8hw&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=477,1019,407,160)
28. Where the alleged unconstitutionality of a
railroad charter was set up as a defense in a state
court to an action by the State, the state court was
bound to pass upon it; and having decided against
the exemption thus claimed, this court is author-
ized to review the decision.
678
R. R. Co. v. Maryland,
29. Where the question for decision in the state
court was not whether, if the bankrupt had title,
it would pass to his assignee by the operation of the
Bankrupt Act, but whether he had title at all, the
decision of that question by the state court does
not present a question of which this court can take
jurisdiction.
|