Right of vendor seeking specific performance of contract to have title perfected pending suit. 80 C. C. A. 354. Deficiency judgments and personal liability on foreclosure of vendors' liens. 82 C. C. A. 488. Necessary and proper parties in suits to foreclose or enforce vendors' liens. 83 C. C. A. 359. Conditions and collateral agreements on execution or transfer of bills or notes as affecting bona fide purchasers. 95 C. C. A. 207. WAIVER. Of prepayment of insurance premiums. 13 C. C. A. 292. Of maritime liens. 17 C. C. A. 102. Of conditions of insurance. 27 C. C. A. 46. Of defense by acceptance of premiums. 33 C. C A. 369. Of trial by jury in criminal prosecutions. 39 C. C. A. 281. Of right as to district in which suit may be brought. 52 C. C. A. 192; 87 C. C. A. 634. Of right to remove cause to federal court. 66 C. C. A. 612. Of objections to instructions in criminal prosecutions. 88 C. C. A. 302. WAR. The neutrality laws. 28 C. C. A. 622 WAREHOUSEMEN. Liability of carriers as. 20 C. C. A. 529. WATERS AND WATER COURSES. Pollution of water courses. 37 C. C. A. 538. Abandonment of water rights. 45 C. C. A. 190. Liabilities of companies furnishing water for domestic and municipal purposes for injuries from insufficient supply. 99 C. C. A. 266. WIFE. Death of husband by wrongful act- Probate jurisdiction of federal courts, 36 C. C. A. 276. WITNESSES. Competency in federal courts-Following state practice. 5 C. C. A. 602; 21 C. C. A. 278. Method of summoning - Following state practice. 5 C. C. A. 602. Comments of counsel in argument on failure to produce. 13 C. C. A. 589. Competency of, as to general reputation. 53 C. C. A. 109. Misconduct of witness with reference to cause on trial as ground for impeachment. 71 C. C. A. 411. Time for objection to competency of witness. 74 C. C. A. 3. Impeachment and contradiction of party called as witness by adversary. 74 C. C. A. 142. Excuses for disobedience of subpoenas. 76 C. C. A. 591. Right of accused to be confronted by witnesses. SO C. C. A. 116. Impeachment of witness by evidence of statements, declarations, or admissions, showing bias or prejudice. 86 C. C. A. 593. Credibility of witnesses or parties testifying as question for jury. 88 C. C. A. 143. Right to require plaintiff in action for personal injuries to submit to physical examination. 93 C. C. A. 435. Examination of witnesses by court. 95 C. C. A. 4. Competency of witnesses attesting execution of deed. 95 C. C. A. 331. Competency of physicians or surgeons to testify as to communications by patients or as to information acquir ed professionally as dependent on subject-matter. 97 C. C. A. 129. Communications by or between persons having a common interest as privileged. 97 C. C. A. 340. Absence of witness as ground for introduction of his testimony given at former trial. 98 C. C. A. 3. WRITS. Form and service of process. 5 C. C. A. 594. Issue and service on Sunday. 12 C. C. A. 462. NOTES IN THIS VOLUME Page .... 3 .... 120 Purposes of Incorporation under General Laws... 355 449 Right of Partner to Compensation for Services and Expenses of Winding up Firm Business on Dissolution or Settlement...... 549 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS (177 Fed. 187.) In re HUMPHREY ADVERTISING CO. TRIBUNE CO. et al. v. HUMPHREY ADVERTISING CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. January 4, 1910. Rehearing Denied February 19, 1910.) No. 1,613. 1. CORPORATIONS (§ 14*)-ORGANIZATION-DIFFERENT LINES OF BUSINESS. Under the Illinois statutes authorizing the creation of corporations, a corporation may be organized to carry on two distinct and independent lines of business.1 2. BANKRUPTCY (§ 72*)—CorPORATIONS-SUBJECT TO ACT-BUSINESS. Where a corporation was organized to publish, distribute, and place advertising matter in railroad cars, waiting rooms, and depots along the right of way and in and around other property of railroads and in other places, and also to own and place and operate vending machines and other self-acting mechanical devices, and the corporation carried on both lines of business extensively up to the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition against it so that neither could be said to be its principal business and the other incidental, the advertising business not being within the bankruptcy act, the corporation was not subject to adjudication. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Dec. Dig. § 72.* What persons are subject to bankruptcy law, see note to First Nat. Bank v. Mattoon Nat. Bank, 42 C. C. A. 4.] Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. In the matter of the bankruptcy of the Humphrey Advertising Company. On petition by the Tribune Company and others for a bankruptcy adjudication against the Humphrey Advertising Company. From an order denying the petition, petitioners appeal. Affirmed. Julius Moses and Isaac Rothschild, for appellants. C. H. Poppenhusen, for appellee. Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges. 1 See note at end of case. 101 C.C.A.-1 KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judge. Appellants filed their petition to have appellee declared a bankrupt, making allegations therein, which, if true, would have brought appellee within the provisions of the bankruptcy act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418]). Thereafter, certain other creditors were permitted to and did join in said petition. Appellee thereupon filed its plea denying the jurisdiction of the court. On issue being joined, the cause was referred to the referee, as special master. From the stipulation of facts, it appears that appellee is a corporation of Illinois, and that its corporate objects, as stated in its charter, were as follows, viz.: "Publishing, distributing, and placing of advertising matter in railroad cars, waiting rooms, and depots along the right of way, and in and around other property of railroads, and in other places; and the owning and placing and operating vending machines and other self-acting mechanical devices." And that appellee carried on both of said lines of business extensively up to the time of filing the petition in bankruptcy herein. From all the evidence submitted, the special master found that "for some time prior to filing the petition in bankruptcy," appellee was"actually engaged principally and within its charter powers, in the pursuit or occupation of soliciting and preparing advertising matter to be placed in newspapers, magazines, and other publications, and arranging with the same for the rates at which such advertisements should be inserted and paid for; and that such pursuit is not within the language of the statute; and that the said corporation was not engaged principally in the business of trading, publishing, and mercantile pursuits, or either of them, as alleged in the creditor's petition" -and thereupon recommended that the petition be dismissed. Upon hearing before the District Court, the report was approved and the petition dismissed. The matter is now before this court on appeal. The error assigned is, in substance, that the court erred in holding that appellee was not subject to the bankruptcy act. It will be seen that the statutes of Illinois permit the creation of corporations having more than one corporate object. Consequently, it happens that a corporation may carry on two distinct and independent lines of business, one of which may prosper, while the other languishes; or, both having become insolvent, one may be within the provisions of the bankruptcy act, and the other without the act. There are many cases in the bankruptcy reports in which the question as to which is the principal business of a corporation is discussed. Those cases turn largely upon the proposition as to which business is principal and which is incidental. Here, both lines of business are covered by the articles of incorporation, and neither can be said to be in any sense incidental to the other or to the charter powers. The reasoning in the one case is not applicable to the other. The liberality of the Illinois statute permits a situation not contemplated by the framers of the bankruptcy act. It cannot be that, as between two separate lines of business, one within, and the other without, the act, and both included in the charter, it is the duty of the bankruptcy court to weigh, measure, estimate, balance, and compare the one with the other with a view to ascertaining the relative importance of the |