Page images
PDF
EPUB

of breach, violation thereof not enjoined; American Lighting Co. v. Public Service Corp., 134 Fed. 131, refusing to punish as contempt the disregard of restraining order issued in case where adequate remedy at law existed; American Alkali Co. v. Salom, 131 Fed. 50, 65 C. C. A. 284, subscriber to corporate stock may plead rescission of sale for fraud as defense to action for assessment on subscription; Southern Pine Co. v. Hall, 105 Fed. 89, 44 C. C. A. 363, to point State statute enlarging equitable rights, enforceable in Federal court, unaffecting parties, right to jury trial; Roland Park Co. v. Hull, 92 Md. 310, 48 Atl. 367, refusing to restrain action at law for damages where equitable estoppel available to defendant in action at law; Buzard v. Houston, 119 U. S. 351, 353, 30 L. Ed. 453, 454, 7 Sup. Ct. 251, 253, denying jurisdiction in equity of a bill to rescind contract on ground of fraud and recover money paid under it, as an action of deceit would afford a full, adequate and complete remedy; Walker v. Brown, 58 Fed. 25, dismissing bill against administrators to enforce an alleged lien on bonds of deceased arising under contract; In re Foley, 76 Fed. 395, holding that Federal courts had no jurisdiction of administration proceedings, but could decide a question of fact presented by a petition of an illegitimate son claiming an acknowledgment of paternity; Alger v. Anderson, 92 Fed. 708, holding that where equitable relief is sought and secondary relief of a legal nature, if suit in equity fails, the Federal courts cannot retain jurisdiction in equity to administer the legal relief; Home Life Co. v. Selig, 81 Md. 204, 31 Atl. 503, refusing relief in equity to cancel policies alleged to have been obtained through fraud and to restrain actions thereon. Distinguished in Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U. S. 328, 39 L. Ed. 174, 15 Sup. Ct. 134, enjoining prosecution of an action of ejectment to recover possession of lands to which the title was in dispute.

Where defendant has good defense at law to purely legal demand, he should be left to it, unless he is prepared to prove some special circumstance to show that he may suffer irreparable injury if denied a preventive remedy.

Approved in Boise Artesian Hot etc. Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U. S. 282, 53 L. Ed. 798, 29 Sup. Ct. 426, holding equity would not interfere on ground of unconstitutionality with suit to collect license fee imposed on public service corporation; City Council of Augusta v. Timmerman, 227 Fed. 175, refusing to enjoin collection of tax alleged to be illegal when person assessed had right to pay under protest and bring action to recover back; Henderson v. Mound Coal Co., 181 Fed. 491, 104 C. C. A. 235, holding in action on lessee's bond, sureties could show that unsigned lease of even date but differing from signed lease was shown them as lease to obtain which bond was given; Scottish Union etc. Ins. Co. v. Bowland, 196 U. S. 633, 49 L. Ed. 628, 25 Sup. Ct. 345, refusing

to enjoin prosecution of suits against foreign corporation for personal property taxes on ground that corporation is not personally liable therefor; Cable v. United States Life Ins. Co., 191 U. S. 305, 309, 48 L. Ed. 188, 24 Sup. Ct. 74, denying jurisdiction of equitable suit to cancel. policy because State license revocable if pending suit removed; Barrett v. Twin City Power Co., 118 Fed. 865, entertaining jurisdiction appointing receiver of corporation holding options to purchase about to expire and refusing redelivery or to purchase thereunder; Des Moines Life Ins. Co. v. Seifert, 210 Ill. 159, 71 N. E. 350, refusing to cancel insurance policy because of false statements by insured in application; Seymour Water Co. v. Seymour, 163 Ind. 127, 70 N. E. 516, refusing to cancel contract between city and water company granting latter exclusive right to furnish water at exorbitant rate; Security Sav. Bank v. Carroll, 128 Iowa, 233, 103 N. W. 380, receipt of notice from treasurer of intent to assess property alleged to have been omitted is no ground for injunction prior to time fixed for hearing; Home Sav. & Trust Co. v. Hicks, 116 Iowa, 119, 89 N. W. 105, refusing to enjoin foreclosure of mortgage on ground mortgage paid, if statute unconstitutional, such defense available in foreclosure suit; Lynch v. United States, 13 Okl. 145, 73 Pac. 1097, refusing at suit of government to cancel patent obtained by bribery and perjury of entrymen who has sold to bona fide purchaser; Johnson v. Swanke, 128 Wis. 73, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1048, 107 N. W. 482, maker of non-negotiable note procured by fraud is not entitled to its cancellation or to injunction against its transfer; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 783, 26 L. Ed. 610, holding suit in equity will not lie to give effect to defenses which might have been fully set up in an action at law; Deweese v. Reinhard, 165 U. S. 389, 41 L. Ed. 758, 17 Sup. Ct. 341, refusing to enjoin prosecution of an action of ejectment where any defense to the apparent legal title was created by matters of statute and record and was available in action at law; Gindrat v. Dane, 4 Cliff. 263, Fed. Cas. 5455, holding that where the cause of action was a purely legal demand and the defense will be as complete at law as in equity, a suit in equity will not be sustained; San Diego Flume Co. v. Souther, 90 Fed. 167, 32 C. C. A. 548, dismissing bill for cancellation of contract for default of proof that there was no adequate remedy at law; Grangers' Life etc. Ins. Co. v. Kamper, 73 Ala. 347, refusing equitable relief in delivery up of stock notes and cancellation of stock subscriptions, where there was adequate defense at law, and no special circumstances shown; Payson v. Lamson, 134 Mass. 598, dismissing bill to restrain prosecution of action at law, where the defense was equally available at law or in equity; Teft v. Stewart, 31 Mich. 372, dismissing bill, charging fraud in obtaining deed to land, and praying only a judgment in damages, the remedy at law being adequate.

Distinguished in United States Life Ins. Co. v. Cable, 98 Fed. 766, 39 C. C. A. 264, entertaining jurisdiction of bill by nonresident to cancel policy on ground of fraud, notwithstanding action pending in State court; Hancock v. Dick, 114 Mich. 340, sustaining bill to declare a policy obtained by fraud, void, and to have same canceled, and enjoining prosecution of action at law on the policy already commenced.

Cancellation in equity of instrument procured by fraud when adequate remedy at law exists. Note, 8 Ann. Cas. 548, 550. Injunction against proceedings in court of law in case of fraud, accident or mistake. Note, 5 Ann. Cas. 729.

Equity jurisdiction to cancel instrument notwithstanding remedy at law. Note, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1053.

Jurisdiction to cancel policy for fraud, and enjoin action at law thereon. Note, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 881.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bear, 26 Fed. 583.

13 Wall. 623-632, 20 L. Ed. 474, UNITED STATES v. RUSSELL.

Exigencies arising in time of war or impending public danger defined, and held to justify taking of private property by government. In such case the government is not a trespasser, but is bound to make full compensation to owner.

Approved in United States v. Lynch, 188 U. S. 476, 47 L. Ed. 551, 23 Sup. Ct. 359, holding United States liable for lands totally flooded by construction of dams and other public works; Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U. S. 234, 24 L. Ed. 75, holding use of a patented caisson coffer-dam, by authority and under directions of the United States, was no defense to an action for infringement; United States v. Pacific R. R. Co., 120 U. S. 239, 30 L. Ed. 638, 7 Sup. Ct. 496, holding that where railroad bridges had been destroyed during the Civil War and rebuilt by the government as a military necessity, it was not entitled to offset the cost of reconstruction against the company's claim for transport service; Brady v. Atlantic Works, 4 Cliff. 412, Fed. Cas. 1794, holding government contractors not entitled to make a patented dredging-boat, without consent of patentee; Sumner v. Philadelphia, 23 Fed. Cas. 396, holding the city liable to make compensation for undue detention of a vessel in quarantine by city officers; dissenting opinion in Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 171, 25 L. Ed. 637, majority holding army officer not liable to civil action in local courts for injuries resulting from acts ordered by him in his military character in time of war.

Distinguished in New Orleans-Belize etc. S. S. Co. v. United States, 239 U. S. 207, 60 L. Ed. 230, 36 Sup. Ct. 78, holding where vessel char

tered by United States was injured while assisting another vessel of United States, United States was not liable.

What constitutes damage for public use for which compensation must be made. Note, 4 Am. St. Rep. 403.

Liability of soldiers for destroying property during war. Note, 87 Am. Dec. 509.

Responsibility of soldiers and militiamen. Note, L. R. A. 1915A, 1166.

Continuance of constitutional guaranties during war or insurrection. Note, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1019.

When employment and use of private property by government is such as to raise an implied promise on its part to reimburse owner for services rendered and expenses incurred, and ownership of the property is not disturbed, it is not appropriated by government so as to prevent jurisdiction of Court of Claims.

[ocr errors]

Approved in Harvey v. Denver etc. R. Co., 44 Colo. 265, 130 Am. St. Rep. 120, 99 Pac. 33, complaint considered and held broad enough to admit evidence of either express or implied contract; Coleman v. United States, 152 U. S. 99, 38 L. Ed. 369, 14 Sup. Ct. 474, denying that in suits to vacate patents to public lands brought by private owners in the name of the United States, there was any implied contract by the United States to compensate the attorneys as assistant district attorneys; United States v. Berdan Firearms Co., 156 U. S. 569, 39 L. Ed. 536, 15 Sup. Ct. 425, holding that the use of an invention in the government musket, with the permission of the inventor and his assignee, raised an implied contract to pay compensation, of which the court could take cognizance.

Distinguished in Bigby v. United States, 188 U. S. 407, 47 L. Ed. 524, 23 Sup. Ct. 471, holding action against United States for damages sustained by fall from government elevator sounding in tort not maintainable; United States v. Kimbal, 13 Wall. 646, 20 L. Ed. 505, holding that a claim for damage to a private steamboat after its impressment by government on termination of its chartered voyage, during the Civil War, was not within jurisdiction of Court of Claims, but must be settled by the executive or legislative branches of the government; Schillinger v. United States, 155 U. S. 170, 39 L. Ed. 111, 15 Sup. Ct. 87, denying jurisdiction of Court of Claims in claim against government for tort in infringing a patent; United States v. Winchester etc. R. Co., 163 U. S. 254, 256, 41 L. Ed. 150, 151, 16 Sup. Ct. 996, 997, holding the court had no jurisdiction of claim for rails removed by the government from railroad seized and appropriated by it during the Civil War.

3

Right of one whose property taken for public use without consent or condemnation to maintain action for compensation or permanent damages. Note, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 968.

Demise of vessel by charter-party. Note, 5 Ann. Cas. 623. Miscellaneous. Cited in Christie Street Commission Co. v. United States, 126 Fed. 993, quaere, whether United States Circuit Court has jurisdiction to recover taxes illegally exacted by collector under color of revenue laws; Hockaday v. Commissioners, 1 Colo. App. 377, 29 Pac. 292, erroneously.

13 Wall. 633-635, 20 L. Ed. 711, PUGH v. UNITED STATES.

Court of Claims has no jurisdiction of a claim for destruction of property by military forces of government during Civil War, nor for rents collected by government from abandoned lands.

Approved in United States v. Winchester etc. R. Co., 163 U. S. 255, 256, 41 L. Ed. 150, 151, 16 Sup. Ct. 997, denying jurisdiction of Court of Claims for rails removed by government from a railroad, seized and appropriated during the Civil War.

13 Wall. 636-646, 20 L. Ed. 503, UNITED STATES v. KIMBAL.

Court of Claims has no jurisdiction of a claim for injuries to a vessel, occasioned by tortious act of a government officer in compelling its master to put to sea after termination of its government charter.

Approved in New Orleans-Belize etc. S. S. Co. v. United States, 239 U. S. 207, 60 L. Ed. 230, 36 Sup. Ct. 78, holding United States not liable for injuries to vessel under charter to United States caused while assisting another United States vessel; Morgan v. United States, 14 Wall. 534, 20 L. Ed. 739, holding that the stranding of a ship, chartered to government, in crossing the bar, was a sea risk, for which government was not liable, although master was compelled to put to sea by military order, and the Court of Claims had no jurisdiction; Reybold v. United States, 15 Wall. 207, 21 L. Ed. 58, to same effect, where the act of master in putting to sea was voluntary.

Marginal clause placed by quartermaster on bill of lading of vessel chartered by United States providing that order of consignee to discharge at another port though destination should be in writing on bill is no part of contract entered into by vessel.

Approved in West Hartlepool Steam Nav. Co. v. 450 Tons of Kainit, 151 Fed. 889, holding marginal note on bill of lading referring to terms of charter-party was not part of contract where it did not appear by whom written.

« PreviousContinue »