Page:North Dakota Law Review Vol. 2 No. 1 (1925).pdf/4

4 In an action to recover damages for breach of contract to buy goods valued at more than $3,000, federal jurisdiction is not defeated by the fact that the plaintiff, after rescinding the contract, sold the goods at a price which reduced his actual loss below $3,000.—Stein vs Tip-Top Baking Co., 45 Sup. Ct. Rep——.

The statute denying jurisdiction to the district court in an action to recover upon any chose in action in favor of an assignee unless such suit might have been there prosecuted if no assignment had been made, includes a suit by an assignee for specific performance of covenants in a lease, and for additional relief. Realty Holding Co. vs. Donaldson, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 521.

The assignee clause does not exclude the district court from jurisdiction in cases where the sole ground of federal jurisdiction is that the suit arises under the laws of-the United States.—Sowell vs. Federal Reserve Bank, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 528.

The provision in the Criminal Appeals Act, which says: "No writ of error shall be taken or allowed the U. S. in any case where there has been a verdict in favor of the defendant," applies where the Court announced that the indictment was invalid and that, therefore, no valid conviction could be had, and directed a verdict for the defendant before any evidence had been taken.—U. S. vs. Weissman, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185.

The arrest, by a U. S. Court, of a person who is passing through the jurisdiction on his way to stand trial under an indictment found against him in the federal court of another State, does not violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision of a third federal district which had previously discharged the defendant on habeas corpus proceedings, brought after removal proceedings by the State making the arrest, is not res judicata of the sufficiency of the indictment of the Court making the arrest.—Morse vs. U. S., 45 Sup. Ct. Rep.

The discharge by a U. S. Commissioner in a habeas corpus proceeding of one in custody for removal to another district for trial, is not a bar to a proceeding before a federal district judge for the same purpose. The Commissioner's decision is persuasive, but not controlling.—U. S. vs. Levy, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 513.

The sufficiency of an indictment for failure to allege venue cannot be called in question in habeas corpus Proceedings: —Knewell vs. Egan, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522.