n OlnrttplI ICam i>rl]nnl ICtbrary iMaraljall Eqmh] OloUcrttnn (gift of i. i. iJJarHljaU, IC.IQ. Ul 1894 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 924 084 249 899 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924084249899 MODERISr PLEADING AND PRACTICE IN EQUITY FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL PRACTICE, INCLUDING NUMEROUS FORMS AND PRECEDENTS. BY CHAELES FISK BEACH, Jr., OF THiC NBW YORK BAR, Atjthob op "Privatk Corporations," "Modern Equity Jurispbudenos," "Contributory NKGHiiOKNCB," "Eecbivers," kto. IN TWO VOLUMES. TOL. I. CINCINNATI, OHIO: W. H. ANDERSON AND COMPANY. 1800. COPYEIGHT, 1894, BY W. H. ANDERSON AND COMPANY. TO THE HONOURABLE DAYID J. BREWEK, one of the associate justices of the supeemb couet of the united states, and sometime the cieodit judge of the united states foe the eighth judicial cibcuit. My Dear Judgb Brewer : — I take the liberty of dedicating this work on the Modern Practice in Courts of Chancery to you, not more because you are a master of the learning of the subject than because it was my good fortune a few years ago to come frequently before you, at Circuit, in the litigation incident to some complicated railway foreclosures, and in that way to lay, in some sort under your judicial tuition, the foundations of whatever practical knowl- edge of such procedure I may possess. At the same time I was so happy as to foim your acquaintance, — all which I have thought warrants the hope upon my part that you still number me among your friends of the junior bar. You will possibly remember, as I have always done with very great satisfaction, that I was so fortunate as to be present in your court at Topeka upon the day and at the moment when your elevation to the Supreme bench was announced to you from Washington. It is not insignificant perhaps, in this connection, that more than a century ago an English lawyer put out a thin volume, now long forgotten, which he entitled "The Modem Practice of the High Court of Chancery," from which it appears that, even then, there was an antiquated practice in Equity, which the lawyers of that day thought should be revised and mod- ernized. Neither my title, therefore, nor the idea upon which my book has been written, is new. If, however, it shall turn out that, by what is here done, I have contributed something to the orderly development and growth of a science that can, in the nature of things, not cease to grow until chancery courts are closed, perhaps you will think that I have not beaten the air. The little treatise to which I have referred was dedicated " To the Right " Honourable Edward Lord Thuriow, Baron Thurlow of Ashfield, in the " County of Suffolk, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain," and the author concludes his dedication in this quaintly graceful phrase : — "If this per- "formance should find a favourable reception from your Lordship, my "ambition will be gratified, and my pains and attention in compiling it "fully recompenced by the honour which your Lordship's approbation will " confer on My Lord, Your Lordship's most devoted and obedient humble "servant, Robert Hinde. Lincoln's-Inn, Nov. 28th, 1785." In some such a temper as my predecessor thus displayed, I have tlie distinguished honor. My Dear Sir, in dedicating this work to you as a slight expression of my respect and esteem, to subscribe myself. Very Sincerely Yours, Charles F. Beach, Jk. PREFACE. I have designed this Work to be a convenient manual of the present practice in all Courts of Chancery, but with particular reference to suits in the federal courts. Inasmuch as the practice in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals is new, and in consequence at least measurably unsettled, I have given very especial attention to that branch of the subject, endeavoring to include a full statement of every point decided in reference to such appeals down to the time of going to press. After the greater part of my work was written I came across an old volume of English Equity Practice entitled as follows : — " The Modern Practice of the High Court of Chan- "cery, methodized and digested in a manner wholly new. " Interspersed with variety of the most approved and modern " forms of Practical Precedents incidental to every suit in the " progress of it, from the original Bill to the Decree : compris- " ing a system of practical knowledge, according to the course " of the Court as at present established : by Robert Hinde, of " Lincoln's-Inn, Esq.; Dublin: Printed for Messrs. E. Lynch, " G. Burnet, W. Colles, E. Moncrieffe, J. Beatty, J. Davis, " R. Marchbank and J. Jones, mdcclxxxvi." This discovery served at once to inform me that a work upon Modern Equity Practice was not new an hundred years ago, and equally to assure me that such a work as this of mine may now, in this new country of ours and at the end of the nineteenth century, not wholly lack justification. In the preparation of this work substantial assistance has been derived in many particulars from the excellent book on Federal Practice by Roger Foster, Esq., of the New York Bar, to whom the author makes his grateful acknowledgments. I have endeavored to state the rules and precedents of the practice as they are to-day ; and in the forms to furnish mod- els upon which the careful solicitor, having an intelligent re- gard to the particular conditions of his particular case, may safely proceed. Most of the forms which I include have been Tl PREFACE. approved in practice, very many of them in my own practice. The subject is not without its essential difficulties, and I can- not hope entirely to have escaped mistakes. The work, how- ever, has been conscientiously done, and will, I trust, be useful to many lawyers. Chaeles F. Beach, Je. No. 33 Wall Street, New York, March 10th, 1894. TABLE OF CONTENTS. VOLUME L 1. 3. 3. 4 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTORT — GENERAL SURVEY. Chancery practice in England Sources of federal practice in the United States Construction of Equity Rule 90 Code practice in the United States Federal practice in respect of cases involving legal and table claims ... . . Enforcement of new rights created by local law Enforcement of State rules of property Effect of local laws further considered Practice in proceedings between States Equity practice in New Jersey CHAPTER n equi' Page. 1 2 8 4 7 8 9 10 11 JURISDICTION. Page. § 11. Definitions 13 12. General limitation of equitable jurisdiction .... 14 13. Objection of adequate remedy at law .... 15 14. The same subject continued 17 15. Federal jurisdiction exempt from State control . . 18 16. Judges' chambers ........ 19 17. Jurisdictional amount inherent in the court of chancery . 20 18. Jurisdictional amount by statute . . . . 21 19. The same subject continued 23 20. Original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court . 24 21. Appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court . 26 23. The same subject continued — Review of decisions of State courts 28 83. Jurisdiction of the United States circuit court of appeals . 80 24. Suits "arising under the constitution or laws of the United States" 82 25. The same subject continued 84 26. Equitable jurisdiction of the United States district courts . 35 37. Conflict between federal and State jurisdictions . . 35 vm TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLUME I. § 88. Jurisdiction as dependent upon citizenship . 29. The same subject continued 30. Change of citizenship 81. Citizenship of corporations . . ... 83. Citizenship of persons suing in a representative capacity 83. Objections on the ground of citizenship 34 Ancillary jurisdiction of the federal courts 35. The same subject continued — Supplemental and cross-bills 36. Jurisdiction by residence ... . . 37. Residence of corporations . . 38. The same subject continued — Waiver of objections . 39. Suits by assignees . . . . . Page. 37 89 40 41 41 42 48 45 45 47 49 49 CHAPTER IIL 40. Persons capable of suing in equity .... 41. Suits by aliens ... .... 43. Suits against an alien enemy ... 43. Suits against a sovereign 44. Suits on behalf of infants ...... 45. The same subject continued — Functions of the next friend 46. Infant's rights upon attaining majority 47. Suits against infants ....... 48. The same subject continued — Guardian ad litem 49. Suits on behalf of idiots, lunatics and persons of weak mind 50. Suits against idiots, lunatics and persons of weak mind 51. Husband and wife as parties .... 53. The same subject continued .... 53. Suits by and against executors and administrators 54 General rule on the subject of parties . 55. Summary statement of the rule in the federal courts 56. Formal parties and parties without interest 57. Interested but not indispensable parties 58. Omission of parties not within the jurisdiction . 59. Necessary parties illustrated 60. Improper parties illustrated .... 61. Joinder of officers of corporations as defendants . 63. When personal representatives may be omitted . 63. Suits on behalf of numerous parties 64. The same subject continued 65. Suits by members of voluntary associations 66. Effect of the decree on absent parties 67. Joinder of complainants in cases of fraud 68. The same subject continued 69. Suits affecting rights of residuary legatees 70. Parties in cases of trusts 71. Parties to bills for specific performance 73. Suits to set aside fraudulent conveyances P^e. 61 52 58 64 55 56 58 59 60 68 fiS 64 6e 68 01) 70 71 72 78 74. 76 77 78 79 80 81 81 83 84 85 90 TABLE OF CONTENTS - VOLUME I. IX 73. Parties in bills for foreclosure . . . . 74. The same subject continued — Parties defendant 75. The same subject continued — Adverse claimants 76. Complainants in bills to redeem . 77. Defendants in bills to redeem 78. Objection for want of necessary parties 79. Objection for misjoinder of complainants 80. Objection for misjoinder of defendants CHAPTER IV. THE BILL. § 81. Informations 82. Definition and classification of bills 83. Authority to file a bill .... 84. Signature to a bill 85. Affidavit to the bill 86. The same subject continued 87. The several parts of a bill 88. The address and introduction 89. The stating part 90. The interrogating part 91. Prayer for general relief 92. The same subject continued 93. Prayer for special relief 94. The prayer for process 95. General principles of equity pleading . 96. The same subject continued 97. The same subject continued — Illustrations 98. The same subject further illustrated . 99. Relief secundum allegata et probata 100. The same subject continued 101. Jurisdictional averments 103. The same subject continued 103. Jurisdictional averments in the federal courts 104 The same subject continued 105. Allegations of parties' interests 106. Allegations in excuse for laches . 107. Allegations of fraud 108. The same subject continued 109. Scandal and impertinence . 110. The same subject continued 111. Objections for scandal and impertinence 118. The same subject contmued. 113. Inconsistent allegations .... 114. Bills with a double aspect 115. Multifariousness generally . 116. The same subject continued 117. Multifariousness in matter — Bills held multifarious Page. 92 94 96 97 98 99 101 102 Page. 105 106 107 109 110 111 113 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 123 135 136 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 133 134 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 144 145 TABLE OF CONTENTS - VOLUME I. 118. The same aubject continued — Bills held not multifarious 119. Multifariousness by misjoinder of complainants . 120. The same subject continued — Illustrations. 121. MultifariousQess by misjoinder of defendants 122. The same subject continued — Bills held multifarious 123. The same subject continued — Bills not multifarious 134. Multifariousness of bills by and against officers and stock- holders ... . . . 125. Two or more good grounds of suit required . 126. Objections for multifariousness, how taken 127. Objection, by whom taken .... 128. Demurrer for multifariousness 129. Summary statement of the doctrine of multifariousness 130. Bills of discovery . 131. The same subject continued 132. Bills for foreclosure ..... 133. The same subject continued 184. Bills to redeem . . ... 135. Bills for partition .... . . 136. Bills to quiet title . . . . 137. Bills to reform instruments . ... 138. Bills for specific performance 139. Bills to set aside fraudulent conveyances 140. Creditors' bills 141. When a bill of interpleader will lie 142. The same subject continued ... 143. The same subject continued — Complainant's interest . 144. Requisites of a bill of interpleader — Disclaimer of interest 145. Affidavit of no collusion in interpleader 146. Offer to bring the fund into court in interpleader 147. Character of defendants' claims in bills of interpleader 148. Description of defendants' claims in bills of interpleader 149. Bills in the nature of interpleader 150. Bills to perpetuate testimony .... 151. Bills of certiorari . .... 152. Rules in the federal courts regulating amendments 153. How amendments are made 154. Effect of amendments ... . . 155. Amendments confined to what matters 156. Amendments after demurrer sustained 157. Amendments after replication .... 158. Amendments after master's report 159. Amendments after publication .... 160. Amendments at the hearing 161. Amendments to meet the case proved . 162. Amendments changing the ground of action 163. Amendments constituting a departure illustrated 164. Amendments not making a new case illustrated , 165. Miscellaneous matters relating to amendments . Page. 146 148 149 150 151 153 154 155 156 157 157 158 159 160 161 162 164 164 165 167 167 169 171 171 172 173 175 176 177 177 179 180 181 183 183 184 184 18^ 187 188 189 190 191 193 198 194 196 198 TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLUME I. XI CHAPTER V. PROCESS FOR APPEARANCE. 166. Form of subpcena 167. Issue of a subpoena 168. The same subject continued 169. Return day of subpcena 170. Who may serve a subpoena 171. Acceptance of service . 172. Personal service of a subpcena 173. The same subject continued 174 Service upon corporations 175. Service upon persons under disability — Lunatics, married women, convicts 176. The same subject continued — Infants 177. Substituted service of a subpoena 17& The same subject continued . . . . 179. Substituted service in proceedings in rem .... 180. The same subject continued . .... 181. Service by publication 183. Preliminary affidavit — Mailing — Amendment of defects — Effect of irregularities .... 183. Conclusiveness of preliminary affidavit 184 Proof of publication 185. The same subject continued 186. No personal decree on service by publication 187. Return of service ....... 188. The same subject continued — Amendment of return 189. Motion to quash for irregularity . 190. Exemption from service of process Page. 201 203 205 205 206 207 207 208 209 211 312 213 214 215 217 318 219 220 321 222 223 225 226 336 237 CHAPTER VL TAKING THE BILL PRO CONFESSO. g 191. Nature of the proceeding to take bills pro confesso 193. When a decree pro confesso may be taken . 193. Affidavit of regularity ... 194 Decree pro confesso for defective answer 195. When proof of the bill is necessary 196. Effect of answer by one of several defendants 197. Decrees pro confesso against infants 198. Effect of amending the bill . ... 199. Rights of the defendant after decree pro confesso 300. Decree pro confesso as an estoppel . , 201. The same subject continued 203. Opening decrees pro confesso — The general rule 203. Who may apply to open decrees pro confesso 204 Grounds for opening decrees pro confesso . 205. The same subject continued Page. 230 231 233 334 235 235 237 237 238 239 240 240 243 343 243 Xll TABLE OF CONTENTS - -VOLUME I. 206. Requisites of the application to open a decree pro eonfesso 207. Terms upon which decrees pro eonfesso are opened 208. Opening decrees on account of defective process 209. Practice in tailing bills pro eonfesso in the federal courts 210. The same subject continued Page. 244 245 246 247 249 CHAPEER VIL APPEABANCB. 211. Definition of appearance 212. Who may appear in a cause 213. What constitutes an appearance . 214. Appearance gratis .... 315. When an appearance must be made 216. Effect of appearance by guardian ad litem 217. Effect of unauthorized appearance 318. General and special appearance . 319. Extending time for appearance . 220. Appearance by married woman . 231. Mode of entering special appearance . 322. Effect of an appearance 233. The same subject continued Page. 253 253 253 254 255 256 256 257 258 258 259 259 261 CHAPTER VIIL DEMUBEERS. • 234. Definition of a demurrer 235. Nature and office of a demurrer 326. Speaking demurrers . 327. Demurrers to answers 238. Admissions by a demurrer . 229. The same subject continued — Construction of written in- struments 230. Admissions available for what purpose 231. General and special demurrers . 232. When a defendant should demur 233. Classification of demurrers to relief 234. The same subject continued — Demurrers to substance 335. Classification of demurrers to form 336. Classification of demurrers to discovery 387. Demurrere to bills for relief and discovery . 288. What objections are reached by general demurrer 239. What objections are not covered by general demurrer. 240. The same subject continued . . ... 241. Demurrer to part of a bill — Plea or answer overruling de- murrer ... ..... 342. The same subject continued — United States Equity Rules 343. Specification of extent of demurrer Page. 363 263 264 265 266 267 268 268 269 270 271 273 278 273 274 275 276 276 277 278 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I. xni 344 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351. 353. 353. 254. 255. 356. 257. 358. 359. 360. 361. 363. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 268. 269. 370. 371. 373. 373. 274. 375. 376. 377. 37a 279. 380. 381. 383. 283. 384 385. 286. Incorporating demurrer in anawer .... General demurrer — Specification of grounds — Statutes and rules of court . The same subject continued. Demurrers bad in part. Demurrer for want of jurisdiction The same subject continued. Demurrer for incapacity to sue . The same subject continued. Demurrer for want of parties The same subject continued — Effect of sustaining demurrer Demurrer for misjoinder of parties Formal requisites of demurrer for want of parties Demurrer for defect of parties Statute of limitations as a ground of demurrer Demurrer for laches The same subject continued. The statute of frauds as a ground of demurrer Demurrers for want of title in complainant. Demurrer for multifariousness Demurrers to amended bills Demurrer ore fenus ..... The same subject continued — Costs . Filing a demurrer Title of a demurrer Protestation clause Signature to a demurrer Certificate of counsel . Prayer of judgment Demurrer on extension of time to answer Motions to take demurrers off the file . Setting demurrers down for argument. Effect of judgment on demurrer . Overruling a demurrer The same subject continued. Overruling a demurrer upon appeal Sustaining a demurrer — Leave to amend The same subject continued. CHAPTER IX DISOLAIUERS. Nature of a disclaimer Strict rules of pleading applied to disclaimers Form of a disclaimer . ... Oath and signature Disclaimer at the hearing .... Answer accompanying disclaimer Page. 379 280 381 382 283 284 285 286 286 287 287 288 289 290 291 293 293 293 294 295 395 396 396 397 397 398 298 209 299 800 300 301 302 803 305 806 806 Page. 808 309 309 809 809 810 XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS - -VOLDMB L § 287. Disclaimer by one of several defendante 288. Remedy of defendant disclaiming by mistake 289. Dismissal of defendant upon disclaimer 290. Costs on disclaimer in foreclosure suit. 291. Replication, hearing and costs 292. Exceptions for insufficiency — Taking off the file CHAPTER X Page. 811 811 812 812 313 814 5 293. Nature and office of pleas 294. The same subject continued 295. Double pleas without leave 296. The same subject continued 297. Leave to file double pleas 298. Pleas supported by answers 299. Pleas overruled by answers 300. Allowing a plea to stand for an answer 301. Classification of pleas 302. Pleas in abatement 303. Plea of pendency of another suit 304. The same subject continued 305 The same subject continued — Form of 306. Plea of want of parties 807. Plea of the statute of limitations 308. Plea of the statute of frauds 309. Plea of res adjudicata 310. The same subject continued 311. Pleas of release denying fraud 312. Pleas of stated account 313. The same subject continued 314. Plea of 6ona ^de purchase . 315. Plea of usury 316. Frame of a plea . 317. The same subject continued 318. General rules of pleading 319. The same subject continued 320. Amendment of pleas . 321. The same subject continued 322. Verification of pleas 323. The same subject continued 324. Proceedings when a plea is filed 325. Setting a plea down for argument 326. Argument of a plea 327. Allowing a plea on argument 328. Overruling a plea on argument 829. Allowing a plea at the hearing '330. Overruling a plea as false proceedings Page. 815 816 817 818 319 819 820 321 322 324 325 327 828 328 339 330 331 333 334 834 835 336 837 338 338 339 340 341 341 343 345 845 346 347 848 349 .850 :851 TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLDME I. XV CHAPTER .XL ANSWERS. (a) Answer as a Flbadiko. S 331. Nature of an answer 332. Defenses properly taken by answer illustrated 333. Defenses improper for an answer 334. General requisites of an answer . 835. Exceptions to the rule requiring a full answer 336. Answer to bill for account 337. Specific denials requii-ed 338. Sufficiency of interrogatories 339. Answers on knowledge, information and belief 340. Inspection of documents 341. Process to compel an answer 343. Answer in patent cases 343. Answer to charges of fraud 344. Inconsistent defenses . 345. Defense of res adjudicata 346. Answer setting up bona fide purchase 347. Laches and statute of limitations 348. Answer setting up statute of frauds 349. Answer setting up usury 350. Answer by a married woman 351. Answer by a corporation 352. Joinder of several defenses . 353. Frame of answer 354. Status of answer upon removal to federal court 355.. Signature to answer 856. Answer under oath — Waiver of oath . 357. Before whom answer to be sworn 358. Mode of administering oath 859. Jurat 860. The same subject continued — Defendant's signature 361. Service of answer .... 362. Filing an answer — Further time 363. Answer after expiration of time . 364. Taking answers off the file . 365. The same subject continued Cb) Answer as Bvidenob. 366. General statement of the rule 367. Hearing upon bill, answer and replication 368. Hearing on bill and answer . 369. What constitutes a responsive answer 370. The same subject continued. 371. Eesponsive answers illustrated 373. The same subject continued. Pago. 354 356 358 358 860 3fi2 368 361 365 366 367 368 370 371 371 378 373 373 374 375 376 377 378 879 380 381 383 884 385 886 386 387 391 393 893 394 895 396 399 400 XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLUME I. ) 873. Answers not responsive illustrated 874. Answer refuting itself — Contradiction of deeds 375. Answer overcome by circumstances alone 376. Answer alleging facts upon hearsay . 377. Answer on information and belief 378. Answer not direct and positive . 379. Answer alleging ignorance of the facts 380. Answer denying legal conclusions 381. Falsits in uno, falsiis in omnibus . 383. Answer of one defendant against a co-defendant 383. The same subject continued. 384. Answer of one defendant when available by a co-defendant 385. Corroborating evidence 386. Effect of failure to answer fully . 387. Admissions in answer . 388. Answers not under oath 389. Summary statement of the prevailing rule 390. Answer of infants (c) Ambndmi:nt of AifswBBa 391. General rules relating to amendments . 392. The same subject continued 393. The same subject illustrated 394. Application to amend . 395. At what time amendments may be allowed 396. The same subject continued 397. Laches in applying to amend 398. Amending answer upon amendment of bill 399. Amendments setting up new matter 400. Amendment setting up usury and limitation 401. Amendments at the hearing 402. Amendments, how made 403L Amendments to meet views of the court 404. Supplemental answers .... 405. The same subject continued (cO Exceptions to Asbwebs. 406. Definition and object of exceptions 407. What constitutes scandal 408. What constitutes impertinence 409. The same subject continued 410. Impertinence illustrated 411. Wnat is not impertinent 412. The same subject continued 413. Exceptions for insufficiency 414. The same subject continued 415. When exceptions for insufficiency do not lie 416. Exceptions to answer to amended bill 417. Procedure upon exceptions . Page. 400 401 402 403 404 404 405 405 406 406 407 408 408 409 410 410 411 413 413 415 416 417 418 419 419 420 420 421 422 422 423 424 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 433 435 435 486 437 TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLUME I. xvu 418. The same subject continued 419. Further answers . 420. Form of exceptions 421. 423. 423. 424. 435. 426. 437. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. 439. 440. 441. 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. 454. 455. 4.J6. CHAPTER XIL CKOSS-BILLS. Definition and object of a cross-bill Where relief sought is available by answer , Supplemental answer, cross-bill or petition . Jurisdiction of cross-bills .... EquitaMe relief on cross-bills Cross-bill necessary for affirmative relief The same subject continued — Federal practice cases ....... Affirmative relief by a conditional decree . Account and specific performance on an answer Decree between co-defendants without a cross-bill Who may file a cross-bill Cross-bills by direction of the court Relation of cross and original bill as to subject-matter Departure from the original subject-matter . When germane to the original subject-matter Parties to cross-bills Leave to file a cross-bill Time for filing a cross-bill . The same subject continued Evidence on bill and cross-bill Staying proceedings on the original bill The same subject continued Frame of a cross-bill . The same subject continued Process upon cross-bill Original and cross-bill as one cause Effect of dismissal of the original bill Miscellaneous irregularities and waiver in removed Page. 439 440 441 Page. 443 444 444 445 446 446 448 448 449 449 450 451 452 453 455 456 457 458 459 460 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 CHAPTER XIIL DISMISSAL or BILLS OTHERWISE THAN AT A HEABINQ. Page. Motion to dismiss unauthorized suit 468 Right of complainant to dismiss — (a) Exceptions . . 469 (b) Exceptions illustrated 470 (c) Proceedings upon a reference au affecting complainant's right 471 (d) The rule in Illinois 472 (e) The same subject continued — Construction of statute . 474 (f) Where complainant represents a class .... 474 (g) Dismissal by one of several complainants . . . 475 B XVIU TABLB OF CONTENTS — VOLUME L §, 457. "458. 459. 460. 461. 463. 463. 464 465. 466. 467. 468. 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. §481. 483. 483. 484 485. 486. 487. 488. 489. 490. 491. 493. 493. 494 495. 496. 497. (h) Dismissal of part of a bill (i) Dismissal contrary to stipulation (j) Where complainant is in contempt . (k) Dismissal, how effected . (1) Costs upon dismissal (m) Dismissal without costs . (n) Dismissal without prejudice (o) Reinstatement after dismissal Dismissal for want of prosecution The same subject continued — Reinstatement Dismissal for want of equity Dismissal for want of jurisdiction Compelling complainant to elect . The same subject continued CHAPTER XIV. REPLICATIONS. Nature and office of replications . Disuse of special replications Effect of filing a special replication Replication to an answer Replication to a plea . Waiver of a replication Withdrawal of a replication Time for filing a replication Amendments and replications nunc pro tunc Frame of a replioation CHAPTER XV. ABATEMENT, REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT. Abatement of a suit ...... Effect of an abatement ..... Method of i-evivor ...... Title to revive ... Revivor by the defendant r- his representative . Frame of a bill of revivor Subpcena upon a bill of revivor .... Pleadings and proceedings upon a bill of revivor What renders a suit defective General nature of supplemental bills . Petition instead of supplemental bill . Supplemental bill not a substitute for amendments Use of supplemental bills illustrated . The same subject continued Making a new case by supplemental bill . . The same subject continued . ' . Supplemental bills inconsistent with original Page. 475 476 476 477 477 478 479 479 479 483 483 483 485 486 Page. 488 489 489 490 490 491 491 493 493 494 Page. 496 498 499 600 501 503 603 604 506 507 508 509 510 511 513 518 514 TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLUME I. XIX petition — Exer- 498. Retaining original bills to permit supplemental bills 499. Title of complainant in a supplemental bill 500. Leave to file a supplemental bill . 501. Application for leave .... 502. The same subject continued — Hearing on cise of discretion .... 503. Discretion of the court not reviewable 504. Effect of filing without leave 505. Frame of a supplemental bill 506. Parties to a supplemental bill 507. Process upon supplemental bills . 508. Proceedings on supplemental bills — Demurrers and pleas 509. The same subject continued — Answer 510. The same subject continued — Replication and evidence 511. Original bills in the nature of supplemental bills . 513. The same subject continued — Frame of the bill . 513. Original bill in the nature of a bill of revivor 514. The same subject continued — Frame of bill — Proceedings 515. Bill of revivor and supplement CHAPTER XVX EVIDENCE. ) 516. General rules of evidence in equity 517. Judicial notice 518. Judicial notice in the federal courts 519. Bill in another suit as evidence . 520. Method of taking testimony — Federal rules 521. Time for taking testimony in federal courts 532. Production of documents by a defendant 523. The same subject continued 524. Production of documents by the plaintiff 525. Subpoena duces tecum against persons not parties 536. The same subject continued 527. Subpoena duces tecum against parties . 528. Inspection of documents on subpoena duces tecum 539. Inspection before trial 580. Inspection in aid of proof 531. Interlocutory order involving inspection 533. Stipulations relating to evidence . 633. The same subject continued 534. Bills of discovery 535. The same subject continued 536. Commissions to take testimony . 537. Depositions de bene esse under acts of congress 538. Objections to evidence .... 539. The same subject continued . . . 540. Objections to competency of witnesses 541. Compelling a witness to answer . Page. 514 515 515 616 516 517 617 518 519 619 530 531 531 633 523 523 525 625 Page. 527 5'.i9 530 530 531 533 532 634 636 686 537 537 538 ,539 539 540 541 543 543 545 646 647 647 648 549 549 XX TABLE OF CONTENTS TOLUMB I. §542. 543. 544. 545. 646. 647. 548. 549. 650. 551. 553. 553. 554. 555. 556. 557. 558. 559. 560. 561. 562. 563. 564. 665. 566. 567. 568. 569. 570. 571. 572. 678. 674. 575. 576. 677. 578. 579. 580. 581. 582. 683. 584. 585. Return of depositions Admissibility of depositions without cross-examination Right of a party to suppress depositions Re-examination of witnesses .... The same subject continued .... Additional testimony — The general rule The same subject continued — Illustrations The same subject continued — Exceptions to the rule Proof at the hearing ...... The same subject continued .... Letters rogatory CHAPTER XVIL MISCELLANEOUS PEOCEEDINGa Interlocutory applications . Motions ...... Who may make a motion . Motion by a party in contempt . Motions of course ... Special motions ex parte Notice of motions — Federal rules Form and notice of motions The same subject continued — Form of notice Renewal of motions Hearing of motions ... Definition and nature of petitions Use of petitions illustrated . When a bill is necessary Verification of a petition Form of a petition ... Notice of petitions .... Hearing of petitions Petitions of intervention — General right to Intervention by strangers . The same subject continued Intervention by beneficiaries Intervention by stockholders as defendants courts Intervention on a creditor's bill . The same subject continued Intervention as a defendant Requisites of a petition to intervene When an intervention becomes effective Consolidation of causes — (a) In the federal (b) In West "Virginia, Georgia and Indiana (c) In Wisconsin ..... (d) In New Jersey and Alabama . (e) In Tennessee courts intervene the federal Page. 650 650 551 552 653 653 555 655 657 5.'-)8 558 Page. 561 561 561 562 6(i3 665 565 566 568 569 569 570 571 571 672 572 573 573 674 676 577 578 678 579 580 580 581 584 584 585 586 587 587 TABLE OF CONTENTS - -VOLUME II. XXI parties 586. Stipulations relating to causes, when enforced 587. The same subject continued .... 588. Scope of stipulations limited 589. Who are bound by stipulations . 590. The same subject continued — Effect upon infant 591. Construction of stipulations — Parol evidence 592. Discharging a party from stipulations . 593. Orders — Who may grant orders . 594. Service of orders ..... 595. Proceedings touching irregularities 596. Terms of orders — Nuno pro tunc orders 597. Modifying and vacating orders . 598. Nature and use of affidavits 599. Title of an affidavit .... 600. Form of an affidavit .... 601. Scandal and impertinence in affidavits . 602. Substance of affidavits .... 603. Paying money into court 604. The same subject continued . 605. Conduct of the cause .... 606. Staying suits to avyait payment of costs in former suits 690 590 591 691 592 593 593 593 695 596 697 698 598 699 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 VOLUME II. CHAPTER XVin. NE EXEAT. S 607. Nature and office of the writ 608. Use and disuse of the writ . 609. Ne exeat in New York 610. When a ne e.veat will issue . 611. The same subject continued 612. Ne exeat on bill for specific performance 613. Ne exeat to enforce alimony 614. Against whom the writ may issue 615. Application for ne exeat 616. Ne exeat before bill filed .... 617. The same subject continued — The United States 618. Ne exeat on final decree ... 619. Affidavit of indebtedness .... 620. Affidavit of intention to depart . 621. Allowance and indorsement of the writ 622. Service of the writ .... 623. Obligation of sureties .... 624. Discharging a ne exeat G2^. The same subject continued 626. Terms of discharge — Enforcement of bond statute Page. 609 610 611 611 613 613 614 614 615 616 616 617 617 618 619 619 620 620 621 632 xxu TABLE OF CONTENTS - ■VOLUME IL CHAPTER XIX HEARING. at law 027, Bringing on a hearing .... 628. The same subject continued 629. Application for continuance 630. Condition of the case as to defendants 631. How a cause is heard .... 632. Right to open and close .... 633. Hearing without pleadings .... 634. Hearing on bill and unsworn answer . 635. Status of interlocutory orders 636. Rules controlling the decision — Law of the case 637. Hearing on bills of interpleader . 638. Proceedings on bills of interpleader 639. Objections at the hearing .... 640. The same subject continued — Adequate remedy 641. Dismissal upon the answer .... 642. Dismissal of bills alleging joint cause of action 643. Dismissals without prejudice 644 Effect of dismissal without prejudice . 645. Effect of absolute dismissal 646. Dismissal for want of prosecution 647. Retaining a cause for further relief 643. Retaining a cause to await action at law CHAPTER XX FEIGNED ISSUES. 649. Nature of feigned issues 650. Constitutional right to a jury trial .... 651. The same subject continued — In Indiana . 652. The same subject continued — In Illinois 653. The same subject continued — In Pennsylvania, South Car^ olina, Georgia and Tennessee ..... 654. Jurisdiction of federal courts in equity as affected by right to jury trial ....... 655. Right of a defendant in Massachusetts 656. Waiver of right to a jury trial ..... 657. Constitutional right to trial by court .... 658. Issue upon question of mental capacity 659. Awarding an issue discretionary .... 660. When issues are properly awarded .... 661. The same subject continued ..... 662. Proper time for applying for issues .... 663. Framing issues and directions for trial ... 664. Trial of an issue 665. Certifying the verdict 666. Effect of the verdict . . .... Page. 624 625 626 627 627 628 628 629 629 630 630 631 633 633 634 634 635 636 636 637 638 639 641 642 643 643 644 644 647 647 648 648 649 650 651 652 653 655 655 656 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLQME II. XXIU 667. Exceptions 668. Application for new trial 669. The same subject continued 670. Proceedings after trial 671. Distinction between an issue and an action Paget. 657 658 660 662 663 CHAPTER XXL EEFERENCE TO A MASTEB. 673. 67a 674 675. 676. 677. 678. 679. 680. 681. 682. 683. 684. 685. 686. 687. 688. 689. 690. 691. 694 695. 696. 697. 698. 609. 700. 701. 702. 703. 704 705. 706. 707. 708. 709. 710. 711. Reference to a master generally . Reference of the whole case Propriety of a preliminary decree Reference of a plea Appointment of a master . The same subject continued Compensation of masters . Payment of master's fees . Reference to state an account The same subject continued — Infringement Reference on creditors' bills Withdrawal of reference Order of reference Master's authority — Scope of reference Bringing on a reference Parties entitled to attend a reference A state of facts .... Evidence before a master Examination of witnessfs . Proceedings before a master The same subject continued Accounting before the master Master's report .... Draft report and objections thereto Master's report on accounts Report of testimony Amendment of report . Confirmation of report. Province of exceptions The same subject continued Objections for irregularities Waiver of irregularities Objections preliminary to exceptions Form of exceptions The same subject continued Time for filing exceptions Extension of time The same subject continued Argument of exceptions Weight of the master's findings suits Page. 664 666 667 668 669 669 670 670 671 673 673 673 674 675 676 676 677 678 680 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 687 688 688 689 690 690 691 692 693 693 694 695 696 XXIV TABLE OF CONTENTS - ■VOLUME IL 713. Correction of report by the court. 713. Re-reference 714. Reference discretionary 715. Scope of re-reference — Auttiority of master 716. Costs of exceptions Page. G97 698 699 699 700 CHAPTER XZIL KECEIVERS. i 717. Definition of receiver 718. Ancillary receivers 719. Property over whicii a receiver may be appointed 720. Appointment of receivers discretionary — Appeals 721. Jurisdiction to appoint a receiver — Necessity of suit ing ... 722. Conflicting jurisdictions — Comity ... 723. Mode of appointment — Reference to a master 724. At what time a receiver may be appointed 725. Eligibility of receivers ... . . 726. Security of receivers . . ... 727. The same subject continued — Liability of sureties 728. Who may apply for a receiver .... 729. Requisites of the application — Motion and affidavits 730. Notice of application for appointment. 731. Receivers' certificates, when authorized 732. Orders authorizing receivers' certificates 733. Negotiability of receivers' certificates . 734. Priorities in railroad mortgage foreclosures . 735. The same subject continued — " Six months' rule " 736. Advice to receivers 737. Protection to receivers. 738. Compensation of receivers 739. Compensation of railway receivers 740. Extra compensation 741. Appeals from allowances for services 743. Suits by receivers — Leave of court 743. The same subject continued — Parties and pleading 744. Suits against receivers — I^eave of court 745. Application for leave to sue receivers . 746. Leave of court to make a receiver a party . 747. Suits by receivers in foreign jurisdictions — Comity 748. Receivers' accounts 749. Removal of receivers 750. Discharge of receivers 751. Effect of discharge 752. Costs of receivership pend- Page. 701 702 703 703 705 706 707 708 709 711 712 713 714 715 718 720 723 733 725 736 728 728 731 733 733 734 736 739 741 742 744 747 749 752 754 756 TABLE OF CONTENTS - ■VOLUME II. XXV CHAPTER XXm. ESJXJNCTIONa , 75a 754. 755. 756. 757. 758. 759. 700. 761. 762. 763. 764. 765. 766. 767. 768. 769. 770. 771. 773. 773. 774. 775. 776. 777. 778. 779. 780. 781. 783. 783. 784. 785. 786. 787. 788. 789. 790. 791. 793. 793. Injunctions mandatory or preventive . The mandatory injunction as a remedial process The granting of injunctions discretionary . Discretion controlled ..... Certain limitations of discretion . Injunctive jurisdiction — Special equities as ground of Jurisdiction over executive officers — Limits of Jurisdiction to enjoin patent infringement No injunction of criminal proceedings The same subject continued — Except! Jurisdiction beyond the State The same subject continued Concurrent jurisdiction Bill and special prayer for injunction Motion, notice and affidavits Injunction bond.s — Generally Formal sufficiency of injunction bonds Assessment of damages on injunction bonds Measure of damages Form of injunction orders . Writ of injunction Dissolution upon motion Grounds of motion to dissolve The same subject continued — "Want of equity Dissolution for laches ... The same subject continued Notice of motion to dissolve Affidavits upon application to dissolve Dissolutions upon ansvifer The same subject continued — Requisites of answer The same subject continued — Where there are several de- fendants . . . . . . The same subject continued — Exceptions to answer The same subject continued — Discretion of the court Considerations influencing discretion to dissolve . Perpetual injunctions . . ... CHAPTER XXIV. DECREES AND PROCEEDINGS THEEEUNDEB. Definition of decrees .... Decrees interlocutory or final Decree founded on pleadings and evidence Time of entering decree Consent decrees Consent decrees in case of infants Page. 757 758 759 760 761 763 763 764 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 773 774 775 776 778 779 780 780 781 783 783 783 783 784 786 787 788 789 790 791 793 794 795 796 797 797 X \ 1 I TABLK OF CONTENTS - VOLUME II. 794. Effect of consent decrees 795. The same subject continued 796. Nunc pro tunc decrees 797. Nunc pro tunc decrees after the death of a party 798. The same subject continued 799. Decrees against infants 800. Deoi'ee between co-defendants 801. Decree ordering payment of money to persons not parties 802. Decree establishing a will of real estate 803. Decrees requiring conveyance of land .... 804. Decrees reforming instruments 805. Frame of decrees 806. Recitals and findings of facts 807. The same subject continued — Federal court rules 808. The same subject continued — Connecticut, Indiana and Illi- nois 809. The same subject continued — Utah .... 810. Construction of decrees 811. Foreclosure decrees .... . . 813. Interlocutory decree for a sale .... 813. Deficiency decree in foreclosure suits .... 814. Sale must be authorized by decree .... 815. Rules regulating decrees for sale . . . . 816. Proceedings under decrees for sale generally 817. The same subject continued — Subsequent adjustment of priorities ... ..... 818. Foreclosure sales, by whom conducted 819. Conduct of sale . . 820. Authority to set aside sale 821. The same subject continued — Grounds for setting Etside 882. The same subject continued — Application and parties 823. Form of remedy to set aside sales . ' . . 824. Resale . . 825. The same subject continued ..... 826. Enforcing sale against purchaser .... 827. The same subject continued ..... 828. Enforcing liability of purchaser for deficiency on resale 829. Title of the purchaser 830. The same subject continued CHAPTER XXV. CORRECTION OF DECREES BEFORE ENROLMENT. 881. Enrolment of decrees — Correction of clerical errors . 882. Correction of decrees by rehearing — Generally . 833. Rehearings discretionary . .... 834. The same subject continued — Considerations governing dis' cretion . . 885. Rules regulating discretion continued .... Page. 798 798 799 800 800 801 802 803 803 804 805 806 807 808 808 809 810 811 812 812 813 813 814 815 816 817 818 818 820 820 821 822 823 824 825 825 826 Page. 827 829 830 830 831 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME IL XXVU 836. Rehearing for new evidence .... 837. The same subject continued .... 888. The same subject continued — Requisites of petition 889. At what time a decree may be reheard 840. The same subject continued — Federal Equity Rule 88 841. Rehearing after appeal 843. The same subject continued .... 843. Rehearing of decree for costs .... 844 Rehearing of consent decrees .... 845. Petition for rehearing, to whom made 846. Application for rehearing by a stranger 847. Formal requisites of petition — Order — Notice . 848. Proceedings upon rehearing .... 849. Supplemental bills in the nature of bills of review Page. 833 833 833 838 834 835 835 835 835 885 836 886 837 838 CHAPTER XXVL CORRECTION OF DECREES AFTER ENROLMENT. i 850. Mode of correcting enrolled decrees generally 851. Correction of errors by petition . ... 853. Bills of review — (a) Definition and classification 858. (b) Consent decrees . . .... 854. (c) Errors of fact ....... 855. (d) After judgment on appeal ..... 856. (e) The same subject continued — The New Jersey rule 857. (f) Error apparent . 858. (g) Errors apparent illustrated 859. (h) The same subject continued 860. (i) Matter of fact — What constitutes available new matter 861. (j) The same subject continued — Illustrations 863. (k) The same subject continued — Complainant's laches 863. (1) Jurisdiction . . ..... 864 (m) Limitation of time for filing ..... 865. (n) The same subject continued — Computation of time 866. (o) Leave to file — When necessary .... 867. (p) The same subject continued — Leave discretionary — Re- view of discretion ....... 868. (q) Application for leave 869. (r) Performance of decree as a condition precedent 870. (s) The same subject continued 871. (t) Security for costs 873. (u) Who may file 873. (v) Parties 874 (w) Frame of bill 875. (x) The same subject continued 876. (y) Defenses to bills for errors apparent 877. (z) Defenses to bills for new matter .... Page. 839 841 843 844 844 844 845 846 846 847 847 848 849 850 850 851 853 853 853 855 855 856 857 858 858 859 860 861 XXVIU TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME II. § 878. (aa) Restitution of costs upon sustaining bill 879. Vacating decrees for surprise or irregularity 880. The same subject continued 881. Bills in the nature of bills of review 883. Supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review 883. Impeachment of decrees by infants 884 Original bills to impeach decrees for fraud . Page. 862 863 864 865 865 866 867 CHAPTER XXVIL ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES. j 885. Power to enforce decrees 886. Execution on decrees in the federal courts 887. Decisions on regularity and service of executions "888. Contempts — Power to punish 889. Power of the federal courts herein 890. Contempt proceedmgs in the federal courts 891. The same subject continued 893. Proceedings, how entitled . 893. Order of commitment . 894. Violation of injunctions 895. The same subject continued 896. Sequestration 897. Writ of assistance — Definition and use 898. Writ of assistance in the federal courts 8?4. Issuance of writ of assistance discretionary . 900. Who may have a writ of assistance 901. Against whom a writ of a.ssistance will issue 903. Proceeding to obtain writ of assistance 903. Bills to enforce decrees .... 904. The same subject continued 905. Power of court to control execution of decree Page. 869 870 871 873 873 874 874 875 875 876 877 878 879 880 880 881 883 883 884 885 886 CHAPTER ZXVIIL APPEALS AND APPELLATE PROCEDTJRE. Page. § 906. Review of decrees by appeal . .... 888 907. The Evarts Act — Its purpose and scope .... 889 908. Appeals on the " question of jurisdiction " under the Evarts Act 890 909. Jurisdiction of constitutional questions under the Evarts Act 891 910. Final jurisdiction of circuit court of appeals — Certification and certiorari ... 891 911. Certification to the Supreme Court 893 912. Certiorari from the Supreme Court 894 913. "Final decisions" reviewable by the circuit court of appeals 895 914. Appeals from interlocutory injunctions .... 896 TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLUME II. XXIX 915. The same subject continued — Relief on appeal 916. The same subject continued — The conflicting decisions 917. The same subject continued — Supersedeas 918. Who may appeal — Appealable interest 919. The same subject continued 920. Jurisdictional amount .... 921. Appeals from joint decrees — Parties . 922. Appeals by and against receivers 923. Appeals by purchasers at foreclosure sales 924 Appeals by interveners and petitioners to intervene 925. The same subject continued .... 926. Appeal by party accepting benefit of decree 927. Appeal by defendant after default at the hearing 928. Appeals from consent decrees .... 929. Appeals from orders granting or refusing an issue 930. Appeal upon question of costs .... 931. The same subject continued .... 932. Appeals in matters of discretion .... 933. The same subject continued — Illustrations 934. Matters of discretion further illustrated 93.5. Cross-appeals ....... 936. Limitation of time for appeals — In the federal courts 937. Power to extend time for appeals 938. Appealable interlocutory decrees — In New Jersey 939. The same subject continued 940. What constitutes final appealable decrees — Generally 941. The same subject continued 942. The same subject continued — In Massachusetts . 943. The same subject contmued — New York court of chancery decisions ....... 944. The same subject continued — In Virginia . 945. Final decrees illustrated .... 946. The same subject continued .... 947. The same subject continued — Foreclosure sales 948. Final decree on a collateral matter 949. Interlocutory decrees — Generally 950. Interlocutory decrees illustrated . 951. The same subject continued 952. The same subject continued 953. The same subject continued — Injunction and account 954. Taking appeals in the federal courts . 955. The same subject continued — Citation 956. Citation on appeals continued — Service and waiver 957. Amendment of petition of appeal 958. Security on appeal — In the federal courts . 959. The same subject continued .... 960. The same subject continued — Approval of bond 961. The same subject continued — Appeals in forma pauperis Page. 897 898 899 900 901 901 902 903 903 905 905 906 907 907 908 908 909 910 910 913 913 918 914 915 916 916 917 918 918 919 920 931 933 933 934 934 925 926 928 938 930 931 933 933 933 934 935 XXX TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLUME II. g 962. Return to writ of error or appeal in the federal courts - Transcript 963. Certiorari for diminution . 964. Assignment of errors . The same subject continued Supersedeas — Federal statute Sufficiency of bond — Additional security Damages on supersedeas bonds . The same subject continued — In foreclosure suits Dismissal of appeals in the federal courts The same subject continued , Burden of proving error 965. 966. 967. 968. 969. 970. 971. 973. 973. 974 975. 976. 977. 978. 979. 980. 981. 982. 983. 984. 985. 986. 967. 988. 989. 990. Review of findings of fact Objections on appeal The same subject continued Objection of adequate remedy at law . Scope of appeal — Decisions on appeal . Decisions on appeal continued Decision on appeal in specific performance Erroneous rulings on evidence Further evidence on appeals Amendment of pleadings in appellate court Rehearing of appeals — Federal decisions The same subject continued . The same subject continued — Massachusetts decisions The same subject continued — New Jersey decisions The same subject continued — Indiana decisions The same subject continued — Rule in Tennessee Second appeals ..... The same subject continued .... Page. 935 937 938 939 939 941 943 943 948 944 946 947 947 949 950 951 953 954 954 955 955 956 957 957 958 958 959 959 959 CHAPTER XXTT. MANDATE. g 991. Issuance and recall 993. Mandate on reversal in patent cases 993. Restitution upon reversal 994. Execution of mandate 995. The same subject continued 996. Remedy for formal error in mandate 997. Proceedings in the court below — Supplemental bill 998. Construction of mandate — Resort to opinion 999. Construction of mandate continued 1000. Allowance of interest 1001. Damages for delay Page. 962 963 968 963 964 965 965 966 966 968 968 TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLUME II. XXXI CHAPTER yyy. COSTS. lOOS. Jurisdiction to award costs .... 1003. Power of Territorial legislature to regulate costs 1004. Costs discretionary 1005. Costs to the government , . 1006. Review of discretion on appeal 1007. When no costs are awarded 1008. The same subject continued 1009. Apportioning costs 1010. The same subject continued 1011. Costs against a successful defendant 1013. Costs against a successful complainant 1013. Costs out of the fund 1014 Costs on bills of interpleader 1015. Costs as between solicitor and client 1016. Costs in recovering a trust fund 1017. Costs in partition 1018. Costs in foreclosure . 1019. The same subject continued 1020. Provisions for attorneys' fees — Federal and State practice 1031. Costs on bills to redeem 1023. Costs on bills for account 1033. Costs on bills for specific performance 1034 Costs on bills of discovery . 1035. Costs on feigned issues 1036. Costs of papers unnecessarily voluminous 1037. Costs on exceptions to answer 1038. Solicitors' costs — Remedy 1039. Modifif^ation of decree for costs . 1080. Enforcement of bond of interveners . 1031. When security for costs may be required 1032. Security from non-resident co-plaintiff 1033. Security from non-resident of the district 1034 Security for costs on bill of interpleader 1035. Who may be a surety 1036. Amount of security required 1037. Order for security — Application and affidavit 1038. Service of order staying suit — Notice of security given 1039. Waiver of security .... 1040. The same subject continued 1041. What constitutes a waiver — Illustrations 1043. Suits in forma pauperis — Application for leave 1043. Taxation and relaxation of costs 1044 Costs on appeals Page. 969 970 970 972 973 972 974 975 977 978 978 979 983 983 984 987 988 990 991 992 992 993 994 995 995 996 996 997 997 998 1000 1001 1001 1002 1002 1003 1004 1004 1005 1006 1007 1010 1011 ZXXU TA3LB OF CONTENTS VOLUME II. APPENDIXES. APPENDIX I. Paget Act Creating United States Circuit Courts of Appeals . . , 1015 APPENDIX u. Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States .... 1033 APPENDIX ni. Rules of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals . . . 1045 APPENDIX IV. Rules of Practice in Equity 1073 APPENDIX V. Forms and Precedents 1103 TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1013.] A. Abadom v. Abadom (34 Beav. 243), 5.')1. Abbott V. Baltimore &c. Packet Co. (4 Md. Ch. 310), 730. Abbott V. Johnson (32 N. H. 9), 142, 157. Abels V. Mobile Real Estate Co. (Ala., 9 So. Rep. 433), 460. Abergravpnny v. Abergavenny (2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 178\ 234. Abraham v. North German Fire Ins. Co. (37 Fed. Rep. 731). 213. Abraham r. Stewart (83 Mich. 7), 994. Abrams v. Camp (3 Scam. (111.) 290), 634. Acker v. Leland (109 N. Y. 5), 642, 649, 6.57. Ackerman v. Halsey (37 N. J. Eq. 3.")6; 38 N. J. Eq. 501), 135, 155, 743. Ackerson v. Long Branch &c. Co. (28 N. J. Eq. 543), 93. Adair County v. Ownby (75 Mo. 282), 749. Adam v. Owen (2 Baxt. 446), 456. Adams V. Adams (31 Wall. 185), 405. Adams v. Claxton (6 Ves. 336), 688. Adams v. Colthurst (3 Anst. 553), 999. Adams v. Critteaden (106 U. S. 576), 23. Adams v. Dixon (19 Ga. 513), 174 Adams v. Dowding (3 Mod. 61), 531. Adams v. Fisher (3 Myl. & Cr. 536), 363. Adams v. Gardiner (13 B. Mon. 197), 485. Adams v. Haskell (6 Cal. 475), 733. Adams v. Howard (9 Fed. Rep. 347), 278. Adams v. Hudson Co. Bank (10 N. J. Ec|. 535), :i34, 788. Adams v. Johnson (107 U. S. 251), 943. Adams v. Kehlor Mining Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 312), 122. Adams v. Kehlor Mining Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 381), 983. Adams v. Lamar (8 Ga. 83), 766. Adams V. Law (16 How. 144), 945. Adams v. McPhillips (82 Ala. 103), 184, 185. Adams v. Munter (74 Ala. 238), 649. Adams v. Paynter (1 Coll. 532), 95. Adams v. Porter (1 Cush. 170), 361. Adams v. Robinson (1 Pick. 461), 226. Adams v. Sharon (5 Pickle, 335), 959, Adams v. Stevens (Clarke's Ch. 536), 995. Adams v. Whitcomb (46 Vt 708), 609, 610. Adams v. "Woods (8 Cal. 306), 733,747. Adams v. Woods (15 Cal. 206), 749. Adams Express Co. v. Denver &c. Ry. Co. (16 Fed. Rep. 712), 33, 519. Adee v. Mott Iron Works (46 Fed. Rep. 39), 955. Adger v. Pringle (11 a C. 527), 470, 477. Adickes v. T ^wry (12 S. C. 108), 644 Adkins v. Edwards (83 Va. 300), 330. Adkins v. Hutchins (79 Ga. 260 ; 4 S. E. Rep. 887), 400. African M. E. Church v. Conover (27 N. J. Eq. 157), 770. Agawam Co. v. Jordan (7 Wall. 583), 409. Agee V. Dement (1 Humph. (Tenn.) 333), 361. Aholtz V. Durfee (123 111. 286), 848, 858. Aiken v. Smith (54 Fed. Rep. 894), 900, 903. Aikin v. Martin (11 Paige, 499), 537. Ainslie v. Medlicot (13 Ves. 266), 376. Akers v. Veal (66 Ga. 303), 747. Akin V. Cassiday (105 111. 23), 462. Akrill V. Selden (1 Barb. 316), 762. Alabama v. Georgia (23 How. 505), 25. Alabama v. Wolfe (18 Fed. Rep. 836), 37. Alaniz v. Casenave (91 CaL 41; 37 Pac. Rep. 521), 135. Albany &c. R Co. v. Brownell (24 N. Y. 348), 762. Albany Steam Trap Co. v. Felthousen (26 Fed. Rep. 318), 828, 832. Albrechtu. Lumber Co. (136 Ind. 318), 643. XXXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. J ■contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1M2.] Albright v. Teas (106 U. & 613), 33. Alden v. Trubee (44 Conn. 455), 446. Alderman r. Potter (6 Paige, 658), 440. Alderson v. Nagle (14 West Va. 213), 693. Aldinger w Pugh (57 Hun, 181; 132 N. Y. 403), 876. Aldrich v. Reynolds (1 Barb. Ch. 613), 777. Aldrich v. Thompson (3 Bro. Ch. 149), 175. Aldridge v. Thompson (2 Bro. C. C. 150), 982. Alexander v. Easten (1 Caines, 153), 567. 570. Alexander v. Ghiselin (5 Gill, 138), 333 Alexander v. Gish (88 Ky. 13), 775. Alexander v. Horner (1 McCrary, 634), 71. Alexander v. Markham (35 Ga. 148), 785. Alexander v. Mortgage Co. (47 Fed. Eep. 131), 138. Alexander v. Moye (38 Miss. 640), 307. Alexander v. Relfe (9 Mo. App. 133), 734, 736. Alijandro, The (56 Fed. Rep. 621), 889. AUard v. Jones (15 Ve?. 605), 255. Allen V. Allen (14 Ala. 666), 462. Allen V. Allen (80 Ala. 154). 850. Allen V. Allen (11 Heisk. 387), 449. Allen V. Allen (Hempst 58), 458. Allen V. Allen (3 Tenn. Ch. 145), 508. Allen V. Bangus (1 Swan, 404), 450. Allen V. Barksdale (1 Head (Tenn.), 238), 837. Allen V. Blunt (3 Story, 742), 657, 662. Allen V. Bone (4 Beav. 493), 468. Allen V. Buchanan (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 777), 768. Allen V. Car Co. (139 U. S. 658), 951. Allen V. Central R. Co. (42 Iowa, 685), 740. Allen V. Crabcroft (Barnardiston, Ch. 373), 323. Allen V. Dallas &c. R Co. (3 Woods, 316), 715, 751 Allen V. Demarest (41 N. J. Eq. 163), 20. Allen V. Fairbanks (36 Fed. Rep. 403), 68. Allen V. Fairbanks (45 Fed. Rep. 445), 150. Allen V. Gilliland (6 Lea, 583), 340. Allen V. Lewis (74 Ala, 379), 977. Allen V. Mayor (18 Blatchf. 339), 389, 633. Allen V. Mayor (7 Fed. Rep. 483), 388, 638. Allen V. McPherson (5 Beav, 469), 1009. Allen V. Mower (17 Vt 61), 394, 397. Allen V. O'Donald (28 Fed. Rep. 17), 394, 404. Allen V. Pullman's Palace Car Co. (139 U. S. 653), 15, 18, 118. Allen V. Randolph (4 Johns. Ch. 693), 316, 334, 343. Allen V. Roll (35 N. J. Eq. 163), 93, 358, 360. 447, 449. Allen V. Taylor (3 N. J. Eq. 485), 512, 514, 515, 517, 519, 533. Allen V. Tritch (5 Colo. 322), 456. Allen V. Turner (11 Gray, 436), 74, 187. Allen V. Watt (69 111. 655), 326. Allen V. Wilson (31 Fed. Eep. 881), 344. Allen V. Wood (81 N. J. Eq. 103), 814 Allen V. Woodruff (96 III. 11), 287. Alley V. Nott (111 U. S. 473), 303. Allfrey v. Allfrey (14 Beav. 33.5), 136. Allfrey v. Allfrey (1 Macn. & G. 87), 837. Alliance Trust Co. v. Stewart (Mo., 31 S. W. Rep. 793), 776. AUis V. Northwestern Mut L. Ins. Co. (97 U. S. 144), 9, 10, 950. AUis V. Stowell (10 Biss. 57; 5 Fed. Rep. 308), 493. Allison's Appeal (77 Pa. St. 221), 761. Allison V. Drake (III., 83 N. E. Rep. 537), 798, 851, 859, 916. Allison V. Sharply (Hard. 98), 325. Allyn V. Davis (10 Vt 547), 306. Almond v. Wilson (75 Va. 613), 154 Alpaugh V. Wood (45 N. J. Eq. 153), 866, 886. Alpha V. Payman (Dick. 33). 433. Alspaugh n Adams (80 Ga. 345), 771 Alston V. Alston (34 Ala. 15), 449. Alston V. Jones (3 Barb. Ch. 397), 110. Alvanley v. Kinnaird (8 Jur. 114), 606. Alvey V. Wilson (9 Kan. 4011, 28a Ambarger v. Watts (25 Gratt 167), 903. Ambler v. Choteau (107 U. S. 586), 134 867. Ambler v. Whipple (33 Wall. 278), 956, 957. Ambury v. Jones (Younge, 199), 544 American Bell Tel. Co. v. Pan Elec- tric Tel. Co. (28 Fed. Rep. 625), 337. American Bell Tel. Co. v. Southern Tel. Co. (34 Fed. Rep. 808), 134, 135. American Bible Society v. Hague (4 Edw. Ch. 117), 337. American Bible Society v. Hague (10 Paige, 549), 350. American Biscuit Mfg. Co. v. Klotz (44 Fed. Rep. 72!), 704 American Box Match Co. v. Cross- man (57 Fed. Rep. 1029), 976, 1010. TABLE OF CASES. XXXV [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1018.] American Carpet Lining Co. v. Chip- man (146 Mass. 385), 113, 634 American Clay Bird Co. v. Washing- ton (10 Wall. 299), 447. American Const Co. v. Jacksonville &c. Ry. Co. (53 Fed. Rep. 937), 874, 875, 877. American Const Co. v. Pennsylvania Co. (148 U. S. 373), 890. American Dock Co. v. Trustees &c. (37 N. J. Eq. 206), 641, 647, 663, 908. American Dock &c. Co. v. Trustees (39 N. J. Eq. 410), 653, 655. American D. R B. Co. v. Sheldon (17 Blatchf. 208), 333. American Emigrant Co. v. Fuller (Iowa. 50 N. W. Rep. 48), 797. American E. Const. Co. v. Consum- ers' Gas Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 43), 528. American F. Hose Co. v. Callahan Co. (41 Fed. Rep.- 50), 764. American F. L. Mortg. Co. v. Walker (31 Fed Rep. 103), 276. American Fertilizer Co. v. Board &c. (43 Fed. Rep. 609), 23. American File Co. v. Garrett (110 U. S. 388), 409. American Freehold Land Mortg. Co. V. Sewell (Ala., 9 So. Rep. 143), 140. American Ins. Co. v. Bayard (3 Barb. Ch. 610), 390, 493. American Ins. Co. v. Oakley (9 Paige, 496), 107, 108. American L. & F. Ins. Co. v. Ryerson (6 N. J. Eq. 9), 814. American Loan & Trust Co. v. East & West Ry. Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 384), 435, 439. American Loan & Trust Co. v. East & West R. Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 101), 724. American P. M. Soc. v. Brooklyn El. R. Co. (46 Hun, 530), 657. American Paper Pail Co. v. National Folding Box Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 339), 898. American R. & C. Co. v. Linn (Ala., 7 So. Rep. 191), 146. American Roll Paper Co. v. Knapp (44 Fed. Rep. 609), 148. American Wood Paper Co. v. Heft (8 Wall. 339), 944. 945. American Zylonite Co. v. Celluloid Mfg. Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 809), 473, 477. Ames V. Holderbaum (42 Fed. Rep. 841), 47, 316. Ames V. Kansas (111 U. S. 449), 82. Ames V. King (9 Allen, 258), 115. Ames V. New Jewey Franklinite Co. as N. J. Eq. 66), 357, 358, 449. Amey v. Long (9 East, 473), 536. Am hurst v. King (1 Cond. Ch, Rep, 407), 405. Amiss V. McGinniss (13 West Va. 371), 853, 857. Amory v. Brodrick (Jacob, 530), 487. Amsden v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Co. (44 Fed Rep. 515), 47. Amsinck v. Barklay (8 Ves. 597), 618. Amy V. Manning (149 Mass. 487), 115, 123. Amy V. Supervisors (11 WalL 136), 769. Ancker v. Levy (3 Strob. (8. C.) Eq. 310), 470. Anderson, In re (17 N. J. Eq. 566), 910. Anderson v. Bank (5 Sneed, 661), 850. Anderson v. Bowers (40 Fed. Rep. 708), 38. Anderson v. Caraway (37 West Va. 385), 687. Anderson v. Carr (19 N. Y. Supl. 993), 804. Anderson v. Henderson (134 IlL 164), 447, 695, 696. Anderson v. Jacksonville &c. R. Co. (3 Woods, 638), 581. Anderson v. Kissam (38 Fed. Rep. 900), 361. Anderson v. Lewis (3 Bro. C. C. 429), 465. Anderson v. McNeal (4 Lea, 303). 524 Anderson v. Moore (III, 33 N. E. Rep. 848), 626. Anderson v. Mullenix (5 Lea, 287), 483. Anderson v. Northrop (Fla, 13 So. Rep. 318), 136. Anderson v. Railroad Co. (3 Woods, 628), 578. Anderson v. Reed (11 Iowa, 177), 785. Anderson v. Stather (9 Jur. 1085), 386. Anderson v. Ward (8 B. Mon. 47), 464 Anderson v. Watt (138 U. S. 694), 38, 95, 253. Anderson v. White (10 Paige, 575), 501. Anderson v. Wilkinson (10 Sm. & M. 601), 175. Anderson v. Wilson (100 Ind. 403), -130. Andress v. Lee (1 Dev. & Bat Eq. 318), 236. Andrew v. P'arnham (10 N. J. Eq. 91X 136. Andrew v. Raeburn (L. R 9 Ch. App. 533), 637. Andrews v. Cone (124 U. S. 720), 953. Andrews v. Crenshaw (4 Heisk. 151), 959. Andrews v. Oilman (133 Mass. 471)l 447. XXX vl TABLE OF CASES. [The references axe to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. H, pp. 609-1012.] Andrews v. Glenville Woolen Co. (60 N. Y. 283), 777. Andrews v. Kibbie (12 Mich. 96), 453. Andrews v. Pasohen (67 Wis. 43), 735 Andrews v. Smith (5 Fed. Rep. 833), 326. Andrews v. Stelle (22 N. J. Eq. 478), 94, 900. Andrews v. Torrey (14 N. J. Eq. 855), 375 Anpel v. Penn. R Co. (37 N. J. Eq. 92), 436. Angel V. Penn. R Co. (88 N. J. Eq. 58), 429. Angel V. Smith (9 Ves. 335), 739, 770. Angell V. Davis (4 Myl. & C. 360), 909. Angell V. Draper (1 Vern. 398), 645. Angell I. Hadden (15 Ves. Jr. 244), 175. Angell V. Hadden (16 Ves. 303), 632. Angell V. Haddon (1 Mad. 529), 78, 83. Angell V. Smith (Prec. Ch. 220), 1009. Angerstein v. Clarke (1 Ves. Jr. 250), 185, 205. Angier v. Angier (Prec. Ch. 497), 614. Annin v. Annin (24 N. J. Eq. 184), 100, 117, 157. Anon. (1 Atk. 570), 1008. Anon. (1 Atk. 578), 705. Anon. (3 Atk. 521), 598. Anon. (2 Cr. & Jer. 88). 1000. Anon. (2 Dick. 776), 998. Anon. (Freeman Rep. 375), 534 Anon. (4 Hen. & M. 476), 235. Anon. (Hopk. Ch. 37), 430, 490. Anon. (Hopk. Ch. 101), 572. Anon. (1 Johns. 143), 568. Anon. (1 Jur. (N. S. I 973), 843. Anon. (3 L. J. Ch. 94), 308. Anon. (2 Madd. 395). 487. Anon. (4 51 add. 373), 993. Anon. (4 Madd. 461), 58. Anon. (6 Madd. 376), 616. Anon. (Mosely, 268), 337. Anon. (Mosely, 304), 345. Anon. (10 Paige, 30), 507. Anon. (3 P. Wms. 68). 995. Anon. (3 P. Wms. 383), 852, 856. Anon. (7 Taunt 307), 1000. Anon. (1 Vern. 104), 486. Anon. (1 Vern. 131), 863. Anon. (1 Vern. 351), 631. Anon. (1 Ves. Jr. 140), 478. Anon. (2 Ves. Sr. 489), 618. Anon. (3 Ves. 516), 710. Anon. (6 Ves. 287 , 734. Anon. (9 Ves. 341), 674 Anon. (10 Ves. 287), 1004 Anon. (11 Vea Jr. 461), 470. Anon. (15 Ves. Jr. 174), 391, 56a Anon. V. Brown (Hardres, 315), 551. Anon. V. Gwillim (6 Vea 171), 381. Anon. V. JoUand (8 Ves. 72), 710. Anon. V. Lake (6 Ves. 171), 381. Anon. V. Lord Gort (1 Hogan, 77), 391, 563. Anson v. Blue Kidge R Co. (23 How. 1), 933. Ansonia Bank's Appeal (58 Conn. 257), 95. Anstice v. Brown (6 Paige, 448), 973. Anthony v. Peay (18 Ark. 24), 635. Apel V. O'Connor (39 Hun, 483), 652. Appeal of Ahl (Pa., 18 AtL Rep. 477), 529 Appeal' of Allison (77 Pa. St. 221), 761. Appeal of Ansonia Bank (58 Conn. 257), 95. Appeal of Bishop (36 Pa. St 470), 852. Appeal of Borough of Sharpsburg (Pa., 10 Atl. Rep. 39), 696. Appeal of Bridgham (82 Me. 323), 542. Appeal of Bugbee (110 Pa. St 331), 696. Appeal of Coxe (120 Pa. St 98), 696. Appeal of Dickey (Pa., 7 Atl. Rep. 577), 692. Appeal of Eaton (66 Pa. St 483), 321. 395, 398. Appeal of Gibbons (104 Pa. St 587), 674). Appeal of Haines (73 Pa, St 169), 644 Appeal of Hartman (36 Pa. St 70), 852. Appeal of Hays (123 Pa. St 110 ; 16 Atl. Rep. 600), 147, 153. Appeal of Holleuback (Pa,, 15 Atl. Rep. 616), 167. Appeal of Kenney (Pa., 12 Atl. Rep. 589), 401. Appeal of Littleton (93 Pa, St 177), 851. Appeal of Logue (104 Pa. St 141), 947. Appeal of Luburg (Pa. 17 AtL Rep. 345), 787. Appeal of Norris (64 Pa. St 275), 644. Appeal of Milligan (82 Pa. St 389), 852. Appeal of Perry (Pa., 8 AtL Rep. 450), 696. Appeal of Phillips (68 Pa. St 137), 669. Appeal of Phillips (68 Pa. St 130), 698. Appeal of Pittsburg &a Drove- Yard Co. (123 Pa. St 250; 23 W. N. C. 8&), la Appeal of Priestley (127 Pa. St 420), 853. TABLE OF OASES. XXXVll [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Appeal of Reed (Pa,, 7 Atl. Rep. 174), 393. Appeal of Ricketfs (Pa., 13 Atl. Rep. 60), 189. Appeal of Rowley (115 Pa. St 150), 393 399 Appeal'of Russell (34 Pa. St 258), 853. Appeal of Scheetz (85 Pa. St 88), 657, 908. Appeal of Scott (113 Pa. St 427), 852. Appeal of Shea (131 Pa. St 303), 555. Appeal of Souder (57 Pa. St 498), 761. Appeal of Stevenson (33 Pa. St 818), 853. Appeal of Thomas (131 Pa. St 298), 804. Appeal of Tolles (Pa., 14 Atl. Rep. 394), 675. Appeal of Wilhelm (79 Pa. St 120), 194, 290. Applegate v. Lexington &c. Min. Co. (117 U. S. 255), 224. Applewhite v. Baldwin (80 Ga. 915), 785. Appold V. Building Ass'n (37 Md. 457), 498. Apthorp V. Corastock (3 Paige, 483), 652, 654, 660. Apthorpe v. Comstock (1 Hopk. Ch. 144), 534, 786. Arapahoe County v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. (4 Dill. 377), 72. Arden v. Walden (1 Edw. Ch. 631), 346. Arding v. Flower (8 T. R. 534), 338. Argus V. Carver (17 How. 591), 452. Armengaud v. Coudert (27 Fed. Rep. 247), 316, 347. Armistead v. Bozman (1 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 117), 493, Armory v. Lawrence (3 Cliff. 523), 882. Armstead v. Bailey (88 Va. 242), 833, 836, 857. Armstrong v. Armstrong (3 Myl. & K 45), 633. 657, 658, 663. Armstrong v. Brown (1 Wash. 43), 546. Armstrong v. Chemical Nat Bank (37 Fed. Rep. 466), 356, 438. Armstrong v. Cooper (11 111. 540), 798. Armstrong v. Craig (18 Barb. 387), 257. Armstrong v. Crocker (10 Gray, 269), 863. Armstrong v. Pierson (5 Iowa, 817), 447. Armstrong v. Potts (23 N. J. Eq. 92), 787. Armstrong v. Pratt (2 Wis. 299), 448. Armstrong v. Ross (20 N. J. Eq. 110), 126. Armstrong v. Sanford (7 Hinn. 49) 785. Armstrong v. Scott (3 G. Greene, 438). 383. Armstrong v. Wilson (19 West Va. 108), 840. Arnaud v. Grigg (29 N. J. Eq. 1), 417. 419. Arnett v. Welch (46 N. J. Eq. 543; 20 Atl. Rep. 48), 423. Arnold v. Arnold (9 R. I. 397), 145. Arnold v. Bright (41 Mich. 210), 71ft Arnold v. Chesebrough (38 Fed. Rep. 571), 481. Arnold v. Kyle (8 Baxt 819), 978. Arnold v. Middletown (39 Conn. 401), 17, 355. Arnold v. Slaughter (West Va,, 15 S. E. Rep. 250), 426, 687. Arrowsmith v. Gleason (129 V. S. 991 867. Arthur v. Master in Equity (1 Harp. Eq. (S. C.) 47), 738. Arundel v. Arundel (1 Rep. Ch. 901 551. Ashbee v. Cowell (Busb. Eq. (N. C.) 158), 821. Ashby V. Bell (80 Va. 811), 285. Ashby V. Kiger (3 Rand. 165), 909. Ashe V. Hale (5 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 55), 788. Ashe V. Moore (2 Mer. 388), 598. Ashford v. Patton (70 Ala. 479), 592. Ashhurst v. Lehman (86 Ala. 371), 717. Ashmead v. Colby (26 Conn. 289), 681, 683, 690, 691, 697. Ashmead v. Reynolds (Ind., 33 N. R Rep. 763), 939. Ashmore v. Evans (11 N. J. Eq. 151), 373, 874 Asliton V. Atlantic Bank (8 Allen, 317), 88. Ashuelot R. Co. v. Cheshire R. Co. (59 N. H. 409), 515, 516, 517. Ashworth v. Wrigley (1 Paige, 301), 611. Askew V. Townsend (3 Dick. 471), 499, 793. Aspen Min. & Smelting Co. v. Bil- lings (U. S.. 14 S. Ct Rep. 4), 890, 914, 930, 959, 964. Aspinwall v. Aspinwall (49 N. J. Eq. 803), 356, 447. Assessors v. Osbornes (9 WalL 567), 945. Assignees v. Dorsey (3 Wash. C. C. 433), 840. Associate Eef. Church v. Trustees &c. (4 N. J. Eq. 77), 81. Association v. Sowers (134 Pa. St 354 ; 19 Atl. Rep. 686), 399. Aston V. Aston (3 Atk. 303), 534. XXXTUl TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Atchison v. Morris (11 Fed. Rep. 582), 228, 257. Atkin V. Wabash Ry. Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 193), 740. Atkins V. Cook (3 Drew. 694), 998. Atkins V. Cooke (3 Jur. (N. S.) 283), 1004. Atkins V. Faulkner (11 Iowa, 326), 235. Atkins V. Railroad Co. (3 Hughes, 307), 726. Atkins V. Wabash &c. Ry. Co. (29 Fed. Rep. 161), 710, 750, 751, 752. Atkinson v. Abbot (3 Drew. 251), 468. Atkinson v. Beckett (West Va., 15 S. E. Rep. 179), 338, 781. Atkinson v. Chicago Tire & Spring Works (111., 27 N. E. Rep. 919), 809. Atkinson v. Hanway (1 Cox, 360), 295. Atkinson v. Henshaw (2 Ves. & B. 85). 7a Atkinson v. Leonard (3 Bro. C. C. 218), 613, 619. Atkinson v. Mauks (1 Cowen, 691), 172, 174, 175, 631, 798. Atkinson v. Smith (89 N. C. 72), 712, 713. Atkinson v. State Bank (5 Blackf. 84), 485. Atkyns v. Drake (1 McClel. & Y. 229), 661. Atkyns v. Wright (14 Vea 311), 532, 583. Atlanta Mills v. Mason (120 Mass. 244), 456, 647. Atlantic &c. R. Co. v. Carolina Nat. Bank (19 Wall. 548), 337. Atlantic &;c. R. Co. v. Western Ry. Co. (C. C. A., 50 Fed. Rep. 790), 645. Atlantic F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Wilson (5 R I. 479), 404. Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Lunar (1 Sandf. Ch. 91), 283, 545. Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Storrow (5 Paige, 285), 1013. Atlantic Tel. Co. v. Baltimore &c. R Co. (46 N. Y. Super. Ct 377), 778. Atlantic Trust Co. v. Consolidated Electric Storage Co. (49 N. J. Eq. 402), 130. Atterson v. Mair (2 Ves. Jr. 95 ; 4 Bro. C. C. 270), 364. Attleborough Nat Bank v. North- western Mfr. Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 113), 36. Attorney-General v. Bank of Colum- bia (1 Paige, 511), 710. Attorney-General v. Barbour (121 Mass. 568), 915. A.ttorney-General v. Birmingham (15 Ch. D. 425), 193. Attorney-General v. Brooke (18 Ves. 335), 830. Attorney-General v. Burch (4 Mad. 178), 545. Attorney-General v. Butcher (4 Rusa 180), 909, 910. Attorney-General v. City of London (1 Ves. Jr. 246), 979. Attorney-General v. Chapman (4 De G., M. & G. 607), 807. Attorney-General v. Clarendon (17 Ves. 491), 763. Attorney-General v. Cleaver (18 Ves. 211), 765. Attorney-General v. Continental L. Ina Co. (32 Hun, 323), 730. Attorney-General v. Corporation of Poole (4 M & Cr. 17), 151. 288. Attorney-General v. Davison (1 McC. & Y. 160), 551. Attorney-General v. Day (1 Vea 318), 885. Attorney-General v. Delaware &c. R Co. (37 N. J. Eq. 1, 631), 105. Attorney-General v. Earl of Ash- burnham (1 Sim. & Stu. 394), 973. Attorney-General v. Ellison (4 Sim. 338), 534. Attorney-General v. Fishmongers' Co. (4 My. & Cr. 1), 518. Attorney-General v. Guardian Mut. L. Ins. Co. (77 N. Y. 372), 735. Attorney-General v. Haberdashers' Society (3 Jur. 915), 751. Attorney-General v. Hare (50 Mich. 547), 106. Attorney-General v. Ithica Ina Co. (2 Johna Ch. 371), 764 Attorney-General v. Jackson (11 Vea 369), 288. Attorney-General v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Co. (18 How. 518), 106. Attorney-General v. Kerr (4 Beav. 397). 985. Attorney-General v. Lane (3 AnsL 589), 652. Attorney-General v. Manchester &c. Ry. Co. (1 Eng. Ry. Cas. 436), 773. Attorney-General v. Marsh (16 Sim. 573), 781. Attorney-General v. Mayor &c. (1 Molloy. 95), 715. Attorney-General v. Montgomery (3 Atk. 378), 659. Attorney-General v. Oakland (Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 90), 336, 785. Attorney-General v. Pearson (7 Sim. 390), 353. Attorney-General v. Rumford Chem- ical Works (83 Fed. Rep. 608), 133. Attorney-General v, Sevex'ne (1 Colly. 317), 556. TABLE OF OASES. XXXIX [The references are to pages: Vol I contains pp. 1-608; VoL n, pp. 60*-1012.] Attorney-General v. South Society (13 Allen, 479), 985. Attorney-General v. Steward (31 N. J. Eq. 340), 410. Attorney-General v. The Brewers' Company (1 P. Wms. 376), 981, 985. Attorney-General v. Tyler (2 Eden, 230), 63. Attorney-General v. Wall (4 Bro. P. C. 665), 898. Attorney-General v. Wright (3 Beav. 447), 56a Attorney-General v. Young (8 Ves. 209), 334 Attrill V. Rockaway Beach Imp. Co. (25 Hun, 509), 751. Attwood V. Coe (4 Sandf. Ch. 412), 302. Atwater v. Equitable Co. (86 Ga. 581), 759 Atwater v. Walker (16 N. J. Eq. 42), 375. Atvvell V. Ferrett (2 Blatchf. 32), 273, 378. Atwood V. Shenandoah (85 Va. 966), 508), 679. Austin V. Bainter (50 III. 308), 657. Austin V. Riley (55 Fed. Rep. 833), 863. Aveiy V. Cleary (133 V. S. 604), 290. Avery v. Kellogg (11 Conn. 562), 148, 156. Avery v. N. Y. Central R Co. (106 N. Y. 142), 759. Avery v. Ryau (74 Wis. 599 ; 43 N. W. Rep. 317), 16. Ayer v. Messer (59 N. H. 279), 383. Ayers v. Valentine (3 Edw. Ch. 451), 184 Aylet V. Easy (2 Ves. Sr. 336), 461. Ayliffe v. Murray (3 Atk. 60), 603. Aylwin v. Bray (2 Y. & Jer. 518, n.), 102. Aymer v. Gault (3 Paige, 284), 983. Ayres v. Carver (17 How. 591), 80, 455, 465, 928. Ayres v. Wiswall (113 U. B. 187), 94. Babb V. Mackey (10 Wis. 314), 473. Babcock v. Wolf (70 Iowa, 676), 796. Bacon v. Abbott (137 Mass. 397), 947. Bacon v. Griffith (3 Dick. 473), 334 Bacon v. Griffith (4 Ves. 619, n.), 338. Bacon v. Jones (4 Myl. & Cr. 433), 792. Bacon v. Leslie (Kan., 31 Pac. Rep. 1066)v 169. Bacon v. Magee (7 Cowen, 515), 599. Bacon v. Rives (106 U. S. 99), 72, 290. Bacon v. Spottiswoode (1 Beav. 883), 793. Badaracco v. Cerf (53 Fed. Rep. 169), 33, 889. Badeau v. Rogers (3 Paige, 303), 173, 173, 175, 983, 983. Badger v. Badger (1 Cliff. 237), 333, 473. Badger v. Badger (2 Wall. 95), 133. Badger v. Wagstafl (11 How. Pr. 563), 770. Baggot V. Henry (1 Edw. Ch. 7), 428, 432. Bagley v. Atlantic &c. R. Ca (86 Pa St 391), 745. Bagley v. Yates (1 McLean, 165), 873. Bagnal v. Bagnal (3 Eq. Ab. 173 ; 6 Bro. P. C. 86), 531. Bagshaw v. Batson (1 Dick. 113), 409. Bagwell V. McTighe (1 Pickle, 618), 529. Bailey v. Cadwell (51 Mich. 217), 614. Bailey v. Fanning Orphan School (iCy., 14 S. W. Rep. 908), 826. Bailey v. Ford (13 Sim. 495), 569. Bailey v. Glover (31 Wall. 343), 390. Bailey v. Gundry (1 Keen, 53), 999, 1003. Bailey v. Lambert (5 Hare, 178), 311. Bailey v. Le Roy (3 Edw. Ch. 514), 319. Bailey v. My rick (53 Me. 133), 686. Bailey v. Sewell (1 Russ. 239 1, 641. Bailey v. Stiles (2 N. J. Eq. 220), 804 Bailey v. Stiles (3 N. J. Eq. 245), 770. Bailey Washing Machine Co. v. Young (12 Blatchf. 199), 382, 390, 423. Bailie v. Bailie (1 Ir. Eq. 413), 711. Baily v. Taylor (1 Russ. & Myl. 73), 792 Bainbrigge v. Baddeley (3 Phil. 705), 854 Bainbrigge v. Blair (3 Beav. 431), 753, 754 Baird v. Mayor &c. (74 N. Y. 383), 643. Baird v. Powers (131 111. 66), 809. Baird v. Underwood (74 111. 176), 722. Baker v. Backus (33 111. 79), 702, 705, 710. Baker v. Bank of Australia (1 C. B. (N. S.) 511), 174 Baker v. Bramah (7 Sim. 17), 544 Baker v. Cooper (57 Me. 388), 737. Baker v. Dumaresque (2 Atk. 66), 613. Baker v. Jamison (73 Iowa, 698), 542, 555 Baker v. Jefferies (2 Cox's Caa 226), 622. Baker v. Kingsland (3 Edw. Ch. 138), 441. Baker v. Mayo (129 Mass. 517), 693. Baker v. Mellish (11 Ves. 68). 276. Baker v. Oil Tract Co. (7 West Va. 454), 449. TABLE OF CASES. [Th« references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Baker v. Riddle (Baldwin, 894), 634 Baker v. Wales (AbU Pr. (N. S.) 331), 229 Baker v. Whiting (1 Story, 218), 508, 831, 832, 837. Balbi V. Duvet (8 Edw. Oh. 418), 973. Balch V. Symes (1 Turn. & Russ. 87), 534 Balch V. Wastall (1 P. Wms. 445), 645. Balchen v. Crawford (1 Sandf. Ch. 880), 407. Balcom v. New York Ins. & Trust Co. (11 Paige. 454), 378. 428, 443. Baldwin v. Eazler (34 N. Y. Super. Ct 275), 738. Baldwin v. Mackown (8 Atk. 817^), 518, 530. Baldwin v. Miles (58 Conn. 496), 778, 779. Baldwin v. Williamson (Hopk. Ch. 117). 999. Balen v. Jaequelin (23 N. Y. Supl. 193), 164, 165. Balguy V. Broadhurst (1 Sim. (N. S.) Ill), 535. Ball V. Montgomery (2 Ves. Jr. 191), 981. Ball V. Tunnard (6 Madd. 875), 344 Ball V. Tompkins {41 Fed. Rep. 486), 37. Ballance v. Loomis (88 111. 84), 634 Ballance v. Underbill (3 Scam. (111.) 453), 447, 463, 464, 465. Ballard v. Catling (8 Keen, 606), 1009. Ballard v. Eckman (20 Fla. 661). 771. Ballard v. Fuller (32 Barb. 68), 325. Ballard u McCluskey (53 Fed. Eep. 677), 543. Ballard v. Searls (180 XJ. S. 50), 26, 806. Balle V. Mosley (U. S, 13 S. Ct. Rep. 439), 375. Ballou V. Ballou (36 Vt. 673), 485. Balmanno v. Lumley (1 Ves. & B. 284), 561. Baltimore &c. R Co., Ex parte (106 U. S. 5), 83. Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Andrews (50 Fed. Rep. 738; 1 C. C. A. 686), 31. Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Arthur (90 N. Y. 835), 180. Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Fitzpatrick (36 Md. 619), 57. Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Wheeling (13 Gratt. 40), 335, 787, 788. Baltimore Tel. Co. v. Interstate Tel. Co. (54 Fed. Rep. 50), 909. Baltzell V. Hall (1 Litt 98), 649. Bampton v. Birchall (5 Beav. 330 ; 1 Phil. 568), 536. Bancroft v. Sawin (143 Mass. 144), 205, 480. Bancroft v. Wardour (3 Bro. C. C. 66 ; 2 Dick. 673), 395. Bancroft v. Wentworth (10 Ve& 285 n.). 443. Bangs V. Mcintosh (23 Barb. 591), 73a Bangs V. Strong (10 Paige, 11), 320. Bank v. Anderson (3 Sneed, 672), 344 Bank v. Carpenter (101 U, S. 568), 391. Bank v. Dugan (3 Bland, 354), 475. Bank v. Duncan (52 Miss. 740), 713. Bank v. Farque (Ambler, 145), 558. Bank v. Forest (44 Fed. Rep. 846), 553. Bank v. Jones (1 Swan, 391). 344. Bank v. McLeod (38 Ohio St. 174), 745. Bank v. Moss (6 How. 31), 840. Bank v. Nelson (1 Gratt 108), 306. Bank v. Rose (1 Rich. Eq. 294), 469. Bank v. St John (25 Ala. 566), 23.S. Bank v. Stewart (93 N. C. 403). 47a Bank v. Trustees (63 Ga. 553), 707. Bank Comm'rs v. Bank of Buffalo (6 Paige, 497), 108. Bank of Kinderhook v. Giflford (40 Barb. 659), 431. Bank of Mobile w. P. & M. Bank &c, (8 Ala 772), 410. Bank of Monroe, Ex parte (7 Hill, 178), 222. Bank of Monroe v. Schermerhom (Clarke's Ch. 303), 789. Bank of Monroe v. Schermerhom (Clarke's Ch. 366), 751, 753. Bank of Moni-oe v. Widner(ll Paige, 529), 477, 797, 915, 1013. Bank of Montreal v. Chicago &c. R Co. (48 Iowa, 518), 719, 720, 723, 723. Bank of Montreal v. Thayer (7 Fed. Rep. 623), 719. Bank of Niagara, Matter of (6 Paige, 213), 780, 732. Bank of Ontario v. Strong (2 Paige, 301), 312. Bank of Orleans v. Skinner (9 Paige, 305), 112, 123. Bank of Plattsburgh v. Piatt (1 Paige, 464), 990. Bank of Rochester v. Emerson (10 Paige, 859), 841. Bank of Statesville v. Foote (77 N. C. 131), 911. Bank of Troy v. Bassett (3 Abb. (N. S.) 359), 421. Bank of United States v. Beverly (1 How. 134), 871. Bank of United States v. Merchants' Bank (7 Gill, 415), 487. Bank of United States v. Moss (6 How. 31), 131. Bank of United States v. Ritchie (8 Pet 128), 59, 844 Bank of United States v. Washing- ton Bank (6 Pet 8), 862, 96.S. Bank of United States v. Weisiger (2 Pet 881), 801. TABLE OF OASES. xli prho references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-808; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Bank of United States v. White (8 Pet 262), 249, 857, 858. Bank of Utica v. Finch (1 Barb. Ch. 75), 238. Bank of Utica v. Messereau (7 Paige, 517), 359, 361, 974. Bank of Washington v. Creditors (86 N. C. 823), 712, 713. Bank of Westfield v. Inman (Ind., 34 N. E. Rep. 670), 958. Banking Co. v. Marshall (12 How. 165), 29. Banknlght v. Davis (33 S. C. 410), 345. Banks v. American Trust Co. (4 Sandf. Ch. 438), 348, 349, 590, 598. Banks v. Anderson (2 Hen. & M. 20), 829. Banks v. Banks (2 Cold. 546), 582. Banks v. Long (79 Ala. 319), 844. Banks v. Manchester (128 U. S. 244), 266, 394, 395. Banks v. Potter (21 How. Pr. 469), 711. Banks v. Walker (3 Barb. Ch. 438), 274. Banks v. Walker (2 Sandf. Ch. 344), 97. Bannatyne v. Leader (10 Sim. 230), 367, 533. Bannon v. Comegys (69 Md. 411 ; 16 Atl. Rep. 129), 186, 513, 515. Banque Franco-Egyptienne v. Brown (24 Fed. Rep. 106), 445. Banta v. Marcellus (2 Barb. 373), 567. Banta v. Moore (15 N. J. Eq. 98), 283. Baptist Ass'n v. Hart (4 Wheat 1), 271. Barber v. Barber (5 Jur. (N. S.) 1197; 29 L. J. Ch. 49), 296. Barbey's Appeal (119 Pa. St 413; 13 Atl. Rep. 451), 277. Barclay v. Brown (7 Paige. 245), 800, 806, 915. Bard v. Fort (8 Barb. Ch. 632), 244. Barfieid v. Kelley (4 Russ. 355), 557. Baring v. Moore (5 Paige, 46), 820. Barker v. Barker (15 How. Pr. 568), 392. Barker v. Belknap (39 Vt 168), 450. Barker v. Dawsou (1 Coop. Oh. 207), 562. Barker v. Dixie (Rep. t Hardw. 252), 542, 591. Barker v. Dumaresque (2 Atk. 119), 486. Barker v. Jenkins (84 Va 895), 919. Barker v. Mellish (11 Ves. Jr. 68), 304. Barker v. Ray (2 Russ. 63), 660, 661. Barker v. Richardson (41 N. J. Eq. 656), 819. Barker v. Sniark (3 Beav. 64), 485. Barker ),'. Todd (15 Fed. Rep. 265), 571. Barker v. Town of Oswegatchie, W N. y. Supp. 727), 327. Barker v. Walters (8 Beav. 92), 82. Barker v. Wardle (2 Myl. & K. 818), 985. Barker v. Wilson (1 Heisk. 271), 979. Barkley v. Lord Reay (2 Hare, 309), 254. Barling v. Bank (50 Fed. Rep. 260), 890, 893. Barlow V. Gains (8 Beav. 329), 714, 770. Barnabee v. Beckley (43 Mich. 613), 671. Barnard v. Darling (1 Barb. Ch. 318), 112, 885. Barnard v. Gibson (7 How. 650), 897, 928. Barnegat City Beach Ass'n v. Busby (N. J., 20 Atl. Rep. 214), 421. Barner v. Bayless (Ind., 33 N. E. Rep. 907), 575. Barnes v. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. (122 U. S. 1). 810. Barnes v. Grove (Mich., 56 N. W. Rep. 599), 830, 912. Barnes v. Racster (1 Y. & C. (C. C.) 401), 989. Barnes v. Saxby (3 Swanst 232, n.), 140. Barnes v. Smart (1 Y. & Col. 139), 558. Barnet v. Noble (1 Jac. & W. 227), 533. Barnett v. Moore (1 Jac. & W. 227), 367. Barney v. Baltimore (1 Hughes, 118), 37. Barney v. Baltimore (6 Wall. 280), 39, 635. Barney v. Latham (103 U. S. 203), 38, 143. Barney v. Winona &c. R. Co. (117 U. S. 228), 960. Barnley v. Cook (18 Tex. 586), 331. Baron v. Korn (51 Hun, 401 ; 21 N. E. Rep. 804; 4 N. Y. Supl. 334), 16, 17. Barr v. Clayton (29 West Va. 256), 294. Barr v. Collier (34 Ala. 39), 785. Barrague v. Siter (9 Ark. 545), 402, 404, 407, 528, 954. Barre National Bank v. Hingham Mfg. Co. (127 Mass. 563), 152. Barrel v. Transportation Co. (3 Wall. 424), 914. 928. Barrel! v. Tilton (119 U. S. 637), 795, 812. Barrett v. Doughty (25 N. J. Eq. 380), 67, 296. Barrett v. McAllister (33 West Va. 788; 11 S. E. Rep. 220), 233. xlii TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages; Vol. I contains pp. l-«08; VoL n, pp. 609-1012.1 Barriclo v. Trenton Mut &c. Ina Co. (13 N. J. Eq. 155), 518. Barringer v. Burke (21 Ala. 7fi5), 512. Barrington, In re (37 Beav. 272), 59, 573. Barrington v. O'Brien (2 Ball & B. 140), 508. Barrow v. Hunton (99 U. S. 80), 43, 850, 867. Barrow v. Rhinelander (3 Johns. Ch. 614), 691. Barry v. Abbott (100 Mass. 396), 266. Barry v. Barry (64 Miss. 709; 3 So. Rep. 533), 154. Barry v. Briggs (23 Mich. 201), 705. Barrv v. Edmunds (116 U. S. 550), 484 Barry v. Mercein (5 How. 108), 22. Barrv v. Mut. L. Ins. Co. (58 N. Y. 536), 173, 590, 593. Barstow v. Smith (Walk. Ch. 394), 283. Barteau v. Barteau (Minn., 47 N. W. Rep. 345), 126. Barth v. Deuel (Colo., 19 Pac. Rep. 471), 100. Barth v. Makeever (4 Biss. 212), 43. Bartlett v. The Sultan (19 Fed. Rep. 34()), 213. Bartlett v. The Sultan (23 Fed. Rep. 257), 173. Bartlett v. Wilbur (53 Md. 485), 744, 746. Barton v. Barbour (104 U. S. 126), 649, 718, 719, 734, 739, 740, 741, 743. Barton v. Barton (75 Ala. 400). 394. Barton v. Beatty (28 N. J. Eq. 412), 880, 881. Barton v. Keyes (1 Flippin, 61), 707. Barton v. Long (45 N. J. Eq. 160), 929. Bartree v. Tompkins (4 Sneed, 623). 143. Basey v. Gallagher (20 Wall 670), 6, 657. Basket v. Hassell (107 U. S. 602), 900. Bass V. Woolf (Ga., 14 S. E. Rep. 589), 715. Bassard v. Lester (3 McCord (S. C), Ch. 419), 471. Bassett v. Company (43 N. H. 351), 344, 345, 348. Bassett v. Johnson (2 N. J. Eq. 155), 656, 661. Bassett v. Johnson (3 N. J. Eq. 417), 650. Bast V. First Nat Bank (101 U. S. 93), 538. Bate V. Hooper (5 De G., & M. G. 345), 450. Batf Refrigating Co. v. Gillette (28 Fed. Rep. 673), 680, 681. Bates. Ex parte (Gresley's Eq. Ev. 494), 558. Bates V. Coe (98 U. S. 31), 370, 939. Bates V. Conrow (11 N. J. Eq. 137), 16. Bates V. Gage (4 Cal. 137), 637. Bates V. Great Western R Co. (85 IlL App. 254), 843. Bates V. Great Western Tel. Co. (184 IlL 536), 843. Bates V. Sabin (Vt, 34 Atl. Rep. 1013), 697. Bates V. Voorhees (7 How. Pr. 234), 421. Bath South Carolina Paper Co. v. Langley (33 S. C. 120), 836. Batt V. Proctor (45 Fed. Rep. 515), 818. Battaile v. Fisher (36 Miss. 321), 732. Battell V. Matot (58 Vt 271). 328, 873. Battelle v. Youngstown Rolling Mill Co. (16 Lea (Tenn.), 35), 352. Battle V. Davis (66 N. C. 253), 703. 734, 736, 738. Battle V. Street (85 Tenn. 282; 2 S. W. Rep. 384), 303, 306. Bax V. Whitbread (16 Yes. 15), 807. Baxter v. Blodgett (Vt, 33 Atl. Rep. 625), 693. Baxter v. Lansing (7 Paige, 350), 244 Baxter v Seattle (3 Wash. St 353 ; 27 Pac. Rep. 537), 356. Baxter v. Washburn (8 Lea, 21). 876. Bay V. Shrader (50 Miss. 326), 449. Bayerque v. Cohen (McAllister, 113), 268. Bayley v. Adams (6 Vea Jr. 586), 343. Bayley v. De Walkiers (10 Yes. 441), 881, 382. Baylis v. Scudder (6 Hun, 300), 777. Bayliss v. Lafayette &c Ry. Co. (8 Biss. 193), 578. Bayly v. Bayly (3 Md. Ch. 326), 614 Bayzor v. Adams (80 Ala. 239), 151. Beach v. Bradley (8 Paige, 1-46), 64. Beach v. Fulton Bank (3 Wend. 574), 421. Beach v. Norton (8 Day, 71), 485. Beach v. Woodyard (5 WestYa. 231), 585. Beacham v. Eckford's Ex'rs (3 Sandf. Ch. 148). 973. Beachamp v. Davis (8 Bihb, 113), 627. Beadel v. Perry (L. R 3 Eq. 465), 759. Beale v. Bcale (116 111. 292), 671. Beals r. Cobb (51 Me. 848 1, 98, 99. Beals V. Illinois &c. R. Co. (183 U. & 290), 399, 491. Bean v. Clark (30 Fed. i-p. 225), 350. Bean v. Patterson (110 U. S. 401), 946. Bean v. Simmons (9 Gratt 389), 626. Bear v. Telegraph Co. (86 Hun, 400). 950. Bearblock v. Tyler (Jac. 571), 661. TABLE OF OASES. xliii [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1018.] Bearblock v. Tyler (1 Jac. & W. 235), 654. Beard v. Arbuckle (19 West Va. 145), 709. Beard v. Bowles (3 Bond, 13), 346. Beard i'. Burts ,95 U. S. 434). 844, 846. Beard v. Powis (2 Ves. Sr. 399). 499. Beattie v. Abercrombie (18 Ala. 9), 548. Beatty v. Benton (135 U. S. 344), 29. Beatty v. Brenner (34 N. J. Eq. 313), 374. Beatty v. Brown (85 Ala. 209 ; 4 So. Rep. 909). 193. Beatty i'. Davis (9 Gill. 318), 405. Beatty v. De Forest (27 N. J. Eq. 482), 880. Beatty v. Kurtz (2 Pet. 566), 81. Beaubien v. Beaubien (23 How. 190), 133. Beaucharap v. Gibbs (1 Bibb (Ky.), 481), 376, 307. Beauchamp v. Marquis of Huntley (Jacobs, 546), 336. Beauchamp v. Putnam (34 Bl. 878), 458, 461. 465. Beauchamp v. Supervisors (45 111. 374), 774. Beaumont v. Bramley (1 Turn. & Bus. 41), 893. Beohtel v. Sheafer (117 Pa. St. 555), 174. Beck V. Beck (43 N. J. Eq. 89), 358, 444, 447, 453, 795. Beck V. Henderson (76 Ga. 360), 810. Becker v. Becker (11 111. App. 347), 784. Becker v. Hager (8 How. Pr. 68), 781. Becker v. Sauter (89 111. 596), 840. Beckford v. Wildman (16 Ves. 438). 367. 534 Beckraann v. Hoboken Bank (37 N. J. Eq. 95), 557. Beckwith v. Carroll (5 Cal. 13), 756. Beddin^er v. Smith (Ark., 13 S. W. Rep. 784), 61. Bedell v. Bedell (3 Barb. Ch. 99), 399. Bedell v. Hofifman (3 Paige, 199), 172, 178, 175, 180, 983. Beebe v. Bank (1 Johns. 539 1, 898. Beebe v. Ginnault (39 La. Ann. 795), 762. Beebe v. Louisville &c. R. Co. (39 Fed. Rep. 481), 38. Beebe v. Morris (56 Ala. 525), 93. Beebe K. Russell (19 How. 388), 794, 935 Beecher's Estate, Tn re (19 N. Y. Supl. 971), 738. Beecher v. Beecher (43 Conn. 557), 184 Beecher v. Bininger (7 Blatchf. 170), 703. 708. Beecher v. Ireland (46 Kan. 97 ; 26 Pac. Rep. 448), 338. Beecher w M. & P. R. M. Co. (4 Mich. 307), 705. Beekman v. Cutter (3 Code Rep. (N. Y.) 51), 207. Beekman v. Hudson River &c. Ry. Co. (85 Fed. Rep. 3), 391. Beekman v. Peck (3 Johns. Ch. 415), 241, 863. Beeler v. Bullitt (4 Bibb, 11), 802. Beeler v. Dunn (3 Head (Tenn.), 88), 69. Beers v. Botsford (13 Conn. 146), 808. Beers v. Chelsea Bank (4 Edw. Ch. 277), 751, 758. Beeson v. Beeson (59 Ind. 97), 778. Beethoven Piano Organ Co. v. C. C. McEwen Co. (13 N. Y. Supl. 553), 135. Behrens u McKenzie (38 Iowa, 333), 777. Bein v. Heath (fi How. 338), 65, 66. Bein v. Heath (12 How. 168), 10, 775. Bein V. Heath (143 U. S. 704), 937, 938. Beirne v. Wadsworth (36 Fed. Rep. 614), 688, Belcher v. Belcher (13 W. B. 918), 605. Belcher v. Pearson (Mitford, 234), 518. Belchier v. Butler (1 Eden, 523), 989. Belden v. Devoe (13 Wend. 338), 600. Belford v. Crane (16 N. J. Eq. 365), 405. Belk V. Meagher (104 U. S. 279), 548. Belknap v. Trimble (3 Paige, 601), 908. Bell V. Chapman (10 Johns. 191), 53, 53. Bell V. Dunmore (7 Beav. 288), 418. Bell V. Farmers' Deposit Nat Bank (131 Pa. St 818 ; 35 W. N. 0. 166 ; 18 At!. Rep. 1079), 331, 399. Bell V. Hall (5 N. J. Eq. 49), 417, 435. Bell V. Hudson (78 Cal. 385 ; 2 Am. St Rep. 791), 291. Bell V. Hunt (3 Barb. Ch. 391), 173. Bell V. Johnson (111 111. 874), 390, 851. Bell V. Johnson (1 J. & H. 682), 533, 539 Bell'u. Morrison (1 Pet 355), 546, 550. Bell V. New Albany &c. R. Co. (2 Biss. 390), 36. Bell V. Ohio L. & T. Co. (1 Biss. 360), Bell ii.Romaine (30 N. J. Eq. 34), 408. Bell V. Vincent (7 D. & R. (N. Y.) 333), 208. Bell V. Vreeland (35 N. J. Eq. 33), 819. Bell V. Woodward (43 N. H. 181), 156, 317, 331, 335. Bellchamber v. Giani (3 Mad. 550), 569. xliv TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-lOlS.] Belleville Mut Ina Co. v. Van Winkle (12 N. J. Eq. 333), 116. Belline:liam Bay Land Co. v. Dibble (Wash., 81 Pac. Rep. 30), 167. Belloatu Morse (2 Hayw. (N. C.) 157), 186. Bellows V. Stone (48 N. H. 435), 321, 395. Belmont Nail Co. v. Columbia Iron & Steel Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 336), 475 579 Belt V. Bowie (65 Md. 350), 145, 245. Bendev v. Townsend (109 U. 8. 665), 992 Benedict v. Bake (6 How. Pr. 352), 139. Benedict it. Oilman (4 Paige, 64), 992. Benedict v. Thompson (Walk. Ch. 447), 247. Bentield v. Solomons (9 Ves. 77), 28.5. Benjamin v. Dubois (118 U. S. 46), 924. Benneson v. Bill (63 111. 408), 710. Bennet v. Sanders (4 Johns. Ch. 503), 328. Bennett v. Baxter (10 Sim. 417), 606. Bennett v. Butterworth (11 How. 669), 7. Bennett v. Button (1 Dick. 135), 843. Bennett v. Chapiu (3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 673), 729. 730, 733. Bennett v. Hosfner (18 Blatchf. 341), 239 Bennett v. Waller (23 IlL 97). 110. Bennett v. Williams (57 Pa. St 404), 553 Bennett v. Winter (2 Johns. Ch, 205), 840. Bennington Iron Co. v. Campbell (2 Paige, 161), 437. Bensinger &c. Register Co. v. Na- tional Cash Register Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 81), 48. Benson v. Hadfield (4 Hare Ch. 32), 156. Benson v. Jones (1 Tenn. Ch. 498), 318, 319, 333. Benson v. Wolverton (16 N. J. Eq. 110), 501, 800. 975. Benson v. Woolverton (15 N. J. Eq. 158), 404. Bent V. Smith (23 N. J. Eq. 560), 398, 409. Bent V. Young (9 Sim. 180), 544. Bentley v. Cowman (6 Gill & J. (Md.) 152), 308, 309. Benton v. Woolsey (12 Pet 37), 106. Bergan v. Porpoise Fishing Co. (42 N. J. Eq. 397), 133. Bergen v. Jones (4 Met 371), 570. Bergholz v. Ruckman (41 N. J. Eq. 134), 851. Bergman v. Manhattan Ry. Co. (14 N. Y. Supl. 384), 642. Bernes v. Frick (38 N. J. Eq. 89, n.), 151. Bernheim v. Birnbaum (30 Fed. Rep. 885), 24. Bernie v. Vandever (16 Ark. 616), 676. Bernier v. Bernier (72 Mich. 43; 40 N. W. Rep. 50), 389. 463. Berry v. Green (111 U. S. 172), 936. Berry v. Jones (11 Heisk. 206), 730. Berryhill v. McKee (3 Yerg. 157). 912. Berryman v. Graham (21 N. J. Eq. 370). 101, 460. Bertrand v. Taylor (87 111. 235), 64S. Best V. Gompertz (2 Y. & Col. (Exch.) 582), 563. Betchel v. Carslake (11 N. J. Eq. 244), 791. Bethea v. Call (3 Ala 449), 56. Bethel v. Robinson (Wash., 30 Paa Rep. 734), 162. Bethel Church v. Carmack (2 Md. Ch. 143). 469. Bethell v. Wilson (1 Dev. & Bat (Eq.) 610), 645. Bethia v McKay (Cheves' (& C.) Eq. 90), 470. Bethlehem Iron Co. v. Phila. &c Ry. Co. (49 N. J. Eq. 356), 817, 822. Bettes V. Dana (2 Sumner, 383), 505. Bettison v. Farrington (3 P. Wma. 68), 534 Betts V. Barton (8 Jur. (N. S.) 154), 477. Betts V. Lewis (19 How. 73), 482, 483. Bevans v. Sullivan (4 Gill, 388), 406, 407. Beverly v. Brooke (4 Gratt 220), 75a Beverly v. Waldron (30 Gratt 149), 650. Bibb V. Hawley (50 Ala. 403), 92. Bidder v. M'Lean (L. R. 20 Ch. Div. 512), 280. Bidlack v. Mason (26 N. J. Eq. 230), 703, 745. Bierne v. Ray (West Va., 16 S. E. Rep. 804), 394. Biaeld V. Taylor (1 Beat 91), 88. Bigelow V. Bush (6 Paige, 343), 94. Bigelow V. Stringfellow (35 Fla. 366), 584. Bigelow V. Winsor (1 Gray. 299), 636. Biggs V. Kowns (7 Dana, 410), 177. Bigler v. Waller (13 Wall. 143), 933, 933. Bignall v. Atkins (6 Mad. 369), 519. Bignold V. Audland (11 Sim. 23), 177. Bill V. Cureton (3 Myl. & K. 503), 101. Billing V. Flight (1 Madd. 230). 369. Billings V. Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. (51 Fed Rep. 338), 575. Billings V. Vanderbrek (15 How. Pr. 295), 674. TABLE OF OASES. xlv (The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 809-1012.] BillinKslpa v. Gilbert (1 Bland, 566), 381, 383.. BInford v. Dement (73 Ala. 491), 548, 549. Birgham v. Oamden (29 N. J. Eq. 469), 74. Binghnm v. Supervisors (6 Minn. 136), 593. Binks V. Binks (2 Bligli, 593), 885. Binney's Case (3 Bland, Ch. 104), 382, 769. Binns v. Mount (28 N. J. Eq. 24), 603, 998. Binstead v. Coleman (Bnub. 65), 528. Birch V. Corbin (1 Cox, Eq. 144), 173. Bird V. Davis (14 N. J. Eq. 469), 376. Bird V. Heath (6 Hare, 236), 842. Bird V. Inslee (23 N. J. Eq. 263), 290, 504. Bird V. Stj'les (18 N. J. Eq. 297), 393, Birdi^all v. Curran (31 Fed. Rep. 918), Bii-dsall V. Patterson i51 N. Y. 43), 657. Birdanll v. Pixley (4 Wend. 196', 393. BirdsHll V. Waldron (2 Edw. Ch. 315), 604. Birds.'ve v. Heilnes (27 Fed. Rep. 289), 3.jd. Birdsong v. Birdsong (3 Head, 389), 581. Birmingham u. Gallagher (113 Mass. 190), 81. Biron v. Edwards (77 Wis. 477). 58fi. Bisclioffsheim v. Baltzer (10 Fed. Rep. 1), 546. Bischoffsheira v. Brown (39 Fed. Rep. 341), 367, 533, 53.5, 538. Biscoe V. Brett (3 Ves. & B. 377), 470. Bishop's Appeal (3H Pa. St. 470), 852. Bishop V. Clay &c. Ins. Co. (49 Conn. 167), 167. Bisliop V. Church (3 Ves. 100), 558. Bishop V. Jones (28 Tex. 294), 52, 53. Bishop V. Williams (Walk. Ch. 423, 674. Bishop of Derrv v. Tyler (2 Y. & Coll. (E.xcli.)71), 563. Bishop of Winchester v. Paine (11 Ves. 194), 95. Bissell V. Beckvvith (33 Conn. 357), 157. Bissell V. Saxton (66 N. Y. 60), 713. Black V. Black (15 Ga. 445), 316, 330. Black V. Calnaghi (9 Sim. 411), 47.S. Black V. Henry G. Allen Co. (10 Fed. Rep. 334). 186. Black V. Henry G. Allen Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 618), 68, 69. Ill, 123. Black V. Keiley (23 N. J. Eq. 358), 356. Black V. Lamb (12 N. J. Eq. 108), 654, 661. Black V. Shreve (13 N. J. Eq. 456), 265, 649, 651, 654, 657 Black V. Thome (10 Blatchf. 66), 47. Blackburn v. Selma R. Co. (3 Fed. Rep. 689), 822. Blackburn v. Selma &c. R. Co. (2 Flippin, 535). 261, 324. Blackburn v. Watson (85 Pa. St 241), 486. Blaokett v. Laimbeer (1 Sandf. Ch. 306), 90, 150. Blacklock v. Small (127 U. S. 97), 26. Blackman v. Railroad Co. (58 Ga. ]H9), 578. Black well Tobacco Co. v. McEIwee (94 N. C. 425), 336, 786. Blair v. Green (45 N. J. Eq. 671), 449. Blair v. Nelson (8 Baxt. 1), 877. Blair v. Railroad Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 471), 725, 726. Blair v. Railroad Co. (89 Mo. 383), 18, 950. Blair v. Reading (99 111. 600), 467), 473, 474, 594. Blair v. Turtle (5 Fed. Rep. 394), 239. Blaisdell v. Bowers (40 Vt. 126), 394. Blaisdell v. Stephens (14 Nev. 17), 1.54. Blake v. Garwood (43 N. J. Eq. 276), 173. Blake v. Loev (6 How. Pr. 108), 567. Blake v. McKim (103 U. S. 336), 38. Blakeney v. Dufaur (15 Beav. 40), 709. Blakeney v. Dufaur (16 Beav. 292), 999. Blakeney v. Ferguson (14 Ark. 640), 407. Blakey v. Johnson (13 Bush. 197), 049. Blanchard v. Cook (144 Mass. 207), 238, 242. Blanchard r. Cook (147 Mass. 315), 647, 9.15. Blanchard v. Sprague (1 Cliff. 288), 33 Bland u Bland (2 J. & W. 402), 1008. Bland v. Fleeman (29 Fed. Rep. 669), 38, 43. 43. Blank v. Jessup (19 Wend. 10), 1000. Blank v. Klein (49 Fed. Rep. 1), 936, 987 Blanks v. Klein (53 Fed. Rep. 436), 531. Blauvelt v. Aokerman (23 N. J. Eq. 495), 696, 698. Blauvelt v. Smith (23 N. J. Eq. 31), 880, 883, 884. Blauvelt v. Woodworth (31 N. Y. 285), 696. Blaydps v. Calvert (3 Jac. & W. 218), 612. Blease v. Garlington (92 U. S. 1), 548, 937, 955. Bleidorn v. Pilot Mountain &c. Co, (5 Pickle, 204), 959. Blessing v. Copper Works (34 Fed. Rep. 753), 530. xlvi TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Blest V. Brown (4 De G., F. & J. 367), 976. Bliley v. Taylor (86 Ga. 163; 13 S. E. Rep. 28b), 710, 759. Bliss V. City of Brooklyn (10 Blatohf. 317), 1006. Bliss V. Nichols (13 Allen, 443), 531. Blitz V. Brown (7 Wall. 693), 936. Blodgett V. Hobart (18 Vt 414), 457. Blois V. Betts (Dick. 336), 712. Blomfield v. Eyre (8 Beav. 250), 770. Blondheim v. Moore (11 Md. 365), 708, 715, 716. Bloodgood V. Clark (4 Paige, 574), 955. Bloomfield v. Snowden (2 Paige, 355), 771. Blossom V. Milwaukee &o. R. Co. (1 Wall. 655), 820, 904, 905, 927. Blossom V. Milwaukee &c. R. Co. (3 Wall. 196), 816, 817, 818, 927. Blount V. Burrow (4 Bro. C. C. 75), 395 Blount u Garen (3 Hayw. 188), 283. Blount V. Societe Anonvme Du Filtre &c. (53 Fed. Rep. 98), 898, 899. Bloxton V. Drewitt (Prec. Cli. 64), 557. Blue V. Watson (59 Miss. 619), 176. Blum V. Loggins (53 Tex. 121). 785. Blunt V. Hay (4 Sandf. Ch. 362), 519. Blunt V. Hibbard (3 N. Y. Supl. 121), 651. Board &c. v. Center Tp. (105 Ind. 422), 958. Board &o. v. Hall (70 Ind. 449), 958. Board &o. v. Louisville &c. Co. (109 U. S. 221), 901. Board of Education v. Scoville (13 Kan. 17), 173. Board man v. Jackson (3 Ball & B. 386), 323. Bobb V. Bobb (8 Mo. App. 257), 153. Bock V. Bock (24 West Va. 586), 500. Bockover v. Life Ass'n (77 Va. 85), 747. Boddington v. Woodley (5 Beav. 555), 1009. Bodine v. Gray (24 N. J. Eq. 335), 163. Bodwell V. Wilcox (2 Caines, 104), 568. Boehm v. Wood (Turn. & Russ. 332), 613, 614, 619, 620. Boesch V. Graff (133 U. S. 697), 693, 696, 830, 912. Boeve v. Skipwith (3 Atk. 124), 508. Bogacki v. Welch (94 Ala. 429), 338, 776, 781. Bogardus v. Trinity Church (4 Paige, 178), 318, 340, 347, 348, 350, 373. Bogardus v. Trinity Church (4 Sandf. Ch. 369), 517, 555. Bogart V. Hinds (25 Fed. Rep. 484), 135, 268. Bogart V. McClung (11 Heisk. 113), 393. Bogert V. Bogert (3 Edw. Ch. 399), 536, 604. Bogert V. Furman (10 Paige, 498), 697. Bogert V. Haight (9 Paige, 297), 111. Bohan v. Casey (5 Mo. App. 101), 778. Bohome v. Porter (Barn. Ch. 352), 335 Bogle V. Bogle (3 Allen, 158), 444 Bohnan v. Lohman (74 Ala. 507), 196. Boileau v. Rutlin (2 Exch. 665), 531. Boils V. Boils (1 Cold. (Tenn.) 284), 876. Boland v. Whitman (33 Ind. 64), 738. Bol bridge v. Cook (27 Tex. 565), 331. Bolles V. Bolles (44 N. J. Eq. 385 ; 14 Atl. Rep. 593), 144, 150. Boiling V. Tate (65 Ala. 417), 777. Bolton V. Gardner (3 Paige, 273), 320, 334, 340, 350, 1008. Bolton V. Liverpool (3 Sim. 467), 583, 534. Bolton V. Taylor (18 Abb. Pr. 385), 1001. Bomar v. Means (S. C, 16 a E. Rep. 5:^7), 90, 91. Bond V. Davenport (123 U. a 619), 953. Bond V. Hendricks (1 A. K. Marsh. 594), 202. Bond V. Howell (11 Paige, 233), 237. Bondu Newcastle (3 Bro. C. C. 387, n.), 465. Bond V. State (Miss., 9 So. Rep. 353), 755. Bondereau v. Montgomery (4 Wash. 186), 546. Bonesteel v. Bonesteel (28 Wis. 245), 613. Bonner v. Worthington (Beames' Ne Exeat, 97), 620. Bonner v. Young (68 Ala. 35), 553. Bonnptt V. Brown (13 N. Y. SupL 395), 833. Bontiey v. Stoughton (18 III App. 562), 290. Boon V. Pierpont (28 N. J. Eq. 7), 304. Boon V. Rahl (1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 12), 260. Boone v. Chiles (10 Pet 177), 127, 372. 373 Boone v. Pierpont (32 N. J. Eq. 217). 533. Boone v. Ridgway (29 N. J. Eq. 543) 549. Boon's Heirs v. Chiles (8 Pet. 533. 72. Booraem v. Wells (19 N. J. Eq. 87), 88, 103, 395. Boorman v. Sunnuchs (43 Wis, 233), 17. Booth V. Albertson (3 Barb. Ch. 313), 68. Booth V. Booth (2 Atk. 843), 485. TABLE OF OASES. xlvii [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Booth V. Clark (17 How. 333), 703, 734, 736, 743, 744, 745, 767. Booth V. Leycester (1 Keen, 247), 469, 473. Booth V. McJilton (82 Va. 837), 848, 849. Booth V. Penser (1 Irish Eq. 34), 691. Bootle V. Blundell (19 Ves. 500), 658, 660, 662. Borders v. Murphy (78 III. 81), 373. Boring v. Rollins (20 Ga. 633), 785. Borland v. Haven (37 Fed. Rep. 394), 9. Born V. Schrenkeisen (110 N. Y. 55; 17 N. E. Rep. 339), 167, 948. Borough of Sharpsburg's Appeal (Pa., 10 Atl. Rep. 39), 696. Borrowsoale v. Tuttle (5 Allen, 377), 479, 686. Bors V. Preston (HI U. S. 253), 130. Borst V. Boyd (3 Sandf. Ch. 502), 519. Bosanquet v. Marshara (4 Sim. 578), 395, 304, 430. Bosher v. Richmond & H. L. Co. (Va., 16 S. E. Rep. 360), 83. Boston V. Richardson (13 Allen, 146), 531. Boston &c. R Co. v. Coffin (50 Conn. 151), 456. Boston &c. R. Co. v. Pullman's Pal- ace Car Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 305), 897. Boston Music Hall v. Cory (129 Mass. 485), 947. Boston Safe-deposit & Trust Co. v. Adrian Water-works (47 Fed. Rep. 8), 987. Boston Water-power Co. v. Boston &c. R. Co. (16 Pick. 516), 283. Bostwick V. BrinkerhofE (106 U. S. 3), 916. Bostwick V. Isbell (41 Conn. 305) 716. Bottle Seal Co. v. I)e La Vergne &c. Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 59), 530. Botts V. Cozine (3 Edw. Ch. 583), 485, 486. Bouchier v. Taylor (4 Bro. P. C. 708), 898. Boucicault v. Boucicault (59 How. Pr. 134), 611. Bouderiot v. Symmes (Wall. C. C. 139), 368. Boughton V. Philips (6 Paige, 384), 994. Bouldin v. Mayor (15 Md. 21), 877. Bound V. South Carolina Ry. Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 315), 569, 814, 818, 940. Bound V. South Carolina Ry. Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 30). 723. Bound V. South Carolina Ry. Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 186), 886. Bourband v. Bourband (31 W. R. 1034), 563. Bourke v. Amison (33 Fed. Rep. 710), 208. Bourne v. Bourne (Ky., 17 S. W. Rep. 448), 17. Boussmaker. Ex parte (13 Ves. 71), 53. Bowden v. Johnson (107 U. S. 251), 402, 933. Bowden v. Roe (1 Hodges, 315), 1000. Bowen v. Christian (16 Fed. Rep. 730), 43, 214, 315, 583. Bowen v. Cross (4 Johns. Ch. 375), 415, 417, 422, 434. Bowen v. Idley (1 Edw. Ch. 148), 101. Bowen v. Idley (6 Paige, 46), 190, 420. Bower Barff Iron Co. v. Wells Iron Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 391), 426, 441. Bowers v. Fernie (3 My. & Cr. 633), 535. Bowers' Adm'r v. Bowers (39 Gratt 697), 670. Bowery Bank Case (5 Abb. Pr. 415), 753 Bowhee v. Grills (1 Dick. 38), 254, 355 Bowie V. Minter (3 Ala. 406), 503, 515, 518, 533. Bowker v. Nixon (6 Taunt. 444), 659. Bowman v. Bell (14 Sim. 893), 714. Bowman v. Chicago &c. R Co. (115 U. S. 611), 33. Bowman v. Long (27 Ga. 178), 446. Bowman v. Long (89 111. 19), 501, 858. Bowman v. Marshall (9 Paige, 78), 390. Bowman v. Sheldon (5 Sandf. 660), 139, 567. Bowne v. Joy (9 Johns. 331), 336. Bowne V. Ritter (36 N. J. Eq. 456), 823, 824. Bowyer v. Bright (13 Price, 316), 839. Boxy V. McKay (4 Sneed, 386), 79. Boyce v. Grundy (9 Pet. 375), 968. Boyd, Ex parte (105 U. S. 647). 160. Boyd V. Dodge (10 Paige, 42), 989, 991. Boyd V. Gill (19 Fed. Rep. 145), 78. Boyd V. Gunnison (14 West Va. 1), 696. Boyd V. Hawkins (3 Dev. (N. C.) Eq. 195), 490. Boyd V. Higginson(Flan.&Kel. 603), 305. Boyd V. Hoyt (5 Paige, 65), 150, 158. Boyd n Hudson City &c. Soc. (34 N. J. Eq. 349), 819. Boyd V. Jones (44 Ark. 314), 93. 635. Boyd V. Reed (6 Heisk. 631), 408. Boyd V. Royal Ins. Co. (N. C, 16 S. E. Rep. 389), 736. Boyd V. Sims (3 Pickle (Tenn.), 771 ; 11 S. W. Rep. 948), 304. Boyd V. United States (116 U. S. 616), 361, 541. Boyd V. Vanderkemp (1 Barb. Ch. 273), 90, 237, 851, 865, 871, 946. xlviii TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; VoL II, pp. 609-1012.] Boyden v. Eeed (55 111. 458), 851. Boykin v. Kernoohaa (24 Ala. 697), 836. Bovle V. Edwards (114 Mass. 373), 947. Boynton v. Foster (7 Met. 415), 850. Boynton v. Jackway (10 Paige, 307), 883. Boynton v. Sandford's Ex'r (28 N. J. Eq. 184), 865. Boyse v. Colclough (1 K. & J. 124), 995. Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough (3 P. Wms. 491), 372. Brace v. Taylor (2 Atk. 253), 20. Bracken v. Kennedy (3 Scam. 564), 346. Bracken v. Martin (3 Yerg. 55), 487, 979. Bradford v. Allen (Hardin, 1), 971. Bradford v. Peckham (9 R L 250), 321, 785, 786, 789. Bradford v. Union Bank (13 How. 57), 449. Bradford v. Williams (3 How. 576), 41. Bradford v. Williams (2 Md. Ch. 1), 485, 486. Bradish v. Gee (Arab. 229), 799. Bradish v. Grant (119 111. 606), 637. Bradlee v. Appleton (2 Allen, 93), 835. Bradley v. Aid rich (40 N. Y. 505), 642. Bradley v. Rhines (8 Wall. 393). 131. Bradley v. Webb (53 Me. 462), 394. Bradshaw v. Outrara (13 Yes. 234), 95. Bradt v. Kirkpatrick (7 Paige, 62), 20. Bradwell v. Weeks (1 Johns. Ch. 335), 256. Bradwln v. Harpur (Ambler, 374), 85. Brady, In re (1 Moll. 254), 563. Brainerd v. Arnold (27 Conn. 617), 126, 675, 683. Braley v. Byrnes (20 Minn. 435), 169. Braman v. Wilkinson (3 Barb. 151), 444. Bramblett v. Pickett (9 A. K. Marsh. 11), 841. Brameid v. Heydriok (33 How. 97; 49 Barb. 62), 221. Bramston v. Carter (3 Sim. 458), 205. Brande v. Gilchrist (18 Fed. Rep. 465), 380, 448. Brande v. Grace (154 Mass. 210), 761. Brandies v. Cochrane (105 U. S. 262), 939. Brandon Mfg. Co. v. Prime (14 Blatchf. 371), 456, 457. Brantley v. Gunn (39 Ala. 387). 691. Brashea« v. Mason ( 6 Ho w. 92), 76,3. Brasher v. Van Cortlandt (2 Johns. Ch. 242), 64, 596. Brassby v. New York &c. R Co. (19 Fed. Rep. 663), 753. Brattle v. Waterman (4 Sim. 125), 188. Brauns v. Glesige (130 Ind. 167j, 759. Bray v. Black (54 Ind. 417), 286. Bray v. Doheny (39 Minn. 355). 593. Bray v. Hartough (4 N. J. Eq. 46), 401. Brayton v. Smith (6 Paige, 489;, 620, 631. Breck v. Smith (54 Barb. 213), 611, 633. Breckenridge, In re (31 Neb. 489), 993. Breeding v. Finley (1 Dana, 477), 999. Breeze v. Haley (11 Cola 351), 371, 591. Bregaw v. Claw (4 Johns. Ch. 116), 87. Brereton v. Gamul (2 Atk. 241), 160. Bressler v. McCune (56 III. 475), 071. Brevard v. Summar (3 Heiak. 105), 589. Brewer v. Bowman (3 J. J. Marsh. 492), 838, 845. Brewer v. Browne (68 Ala. 310), 547. Brewer v. Day (23 N. J. Eq. 418), 784. Brewer v. Norcross (17 N. J. Eq. 219), 150, 358. Brewing Co. v. Gottfried (128 U. a 158), 897, 963. Brewster v. City of Newark (11 N. J. Eq. 114), 787. Brewster v. Colgrove (46 Conn. 105), 17. Brewster v. Michigan Cent R Co. (5 How. Pr. 183). 209. Brewster u Wakefield (33 How. 118X 96, 903. Brian v. Thomas (63 Md. 476). 153. Briant v. Reed (14 N. J. Eq. 273), 179. Brice v. Brice (5 Barb. 533), 121. Brickill v. Mayor (7 Fed. Rep. 479), 668. Brickill v. Mayor &c. (55 Fed. Rep. 565), 670, 671. Bridger v. Thrasher (22 Fla. 389), 140, 149. Bridges v. Canfield (2 Edw. Ch. 317), 999, 1000. Bridgham's Appeal (83 Me. 323), 542. Brien v. Buttorff (2 Tenn. Cli. 523), 263. Brien v. Harriman (1 Tenn. Ch. 487), 730. Briesch v. MoCaulev (7 Gill, 189), 409. Briges v. Sperry (95 U. S. 401X 130, 147, 164. Brigham v. Gott (3 N. Y. Supl. 518), 649. Brigham v. Luddington (12 Blatchf. 237), 744. Brighton v. White (128 Ind. 320), 643. Brill V. Stiles (35 111. 305). 297. Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick (88 N. Y. 52), 743. Brinckerhoff v. Lansing (4 Johns. Ch. 66), 134. Brine v. Insurance Ca (96 U. S. 637)u 8, 10. TABLE OF OASES. xliz (The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Brinkerhoff v. Brown (6 Johns. Ch. 139). 90. Brinkerhoff v. Franklin (21 N. J. Eq. 834), 357, 863. Brinkley v. Brinkley (47 N. Y. 40), 391. 393, 563. Brinkman v. Ritzinger (83 Ind. 358), 709. Brisbane v. Brisbane (34 Hun, 339), 392. Briscoe v. Ashby (34 Giatt. 454), 456. Briscoe v. Lloyd (64 III. 23), 9(i0. Bristowe v. Needham (2 Ph. 190), 730, 733. Britain v. Cowen (5 Humph. (Tenn.) 315), 60, 212. Brittin v. Orahtree (20 Ark. 30), 409. Brobst V. Brohst (2 Wall. 96), 933. Brocker v. Hamilton (1 Dick. 154), 613. Brockett v. Brockett (3 How. 238), 911, 914, 930. 933. Brockptt V. Brockett (3 How. 692), 948, 949. Br^ckwav v. Copp (3 Paige, 539), 409. Brockway v. Wells (1 Paige, 617), 993. Brocleri'ck's Will f31 Wall. 503), 9. Brodie v. St. Paul (1 Ves. 326), 331. Brokaw i\ Brokaw (41 N. J. Eq. 216), 87. 121. Brombprg v. Heyer (69 Ala. 23). 310. Bronson v. Keokuk (2 Dill. 498), 218. Bronson v. La Crnsse &c. Ry. Co. (2 Black, 528), 459, 923, 944. Bronson v. La C'rosse &c. Ry. Co. (2 Wall. 283), 451, 458, 577, 578, 581, 584, 91 1. Bronson v. Schulten (104 U. S. 410), 838, 956. Brook V. Hewitt (3 Ves. 225), 264. Brooklyn v. Insurance Co. (99 U. S. 362), 224. Brooks V. Bror)k8 (Pr. Ch. 24), 376. Brooks r. Burlington &c. Ry. Co. (103 U. S. 107), 834, 956. Brooks V. Byam ( 1 Story, 396), 409, 441. Brooks V. Byam (3 Storv, 553), 971. Brooks V. Gibbons (4 Paige, 374), 265, 673. Brooks V. Greathed (3 J. & W. 176), 739. Brooks V. Norris (11 How. 207), 914 Brooks V. Jobling (2 Hare, 155), 211. Brooks V. Martin (63 Miss. 217 ,451. Brooks V. Mead (Walk. Ch. 38), 491. Brooks V. Mills County (4 Dill. 524), 336. Brooks V. O'Hara Bros. (8 Fed. Rep. 539), 771. Brooks V. Purton (1 Y. & C. Ch. 378), 390. D Brooks V. Silver (5 Del. Ch. 7), 393. Brooks V. Smith (Thomp. Caa. 233), 381. Brooks V. Spann (63 Miss. 198), 194. Brooks V. Tarbell (103 Mass. 498), 649, 908. Brooks V. Woods (40 Ala. 538), 465. Broome v. Beers (6 Conn. 198), 4, 96. Broomhead v. Grant (83 Ga. 451), 763. Broughton v. Lashmar (5 M. & C. 136), 478. Browder v. McArthur (7 Wheat 58), 956. Brower v. Brower (3 Edw. Ch. 631), 749. Brower v. Cothran (75 Ga. 9', 843. Brown, Ex parte (58 Ala. 536), 587. Brown V. Aspden (14 How. 26), 834, 956, 957. Brown v. Bank (31 Miss. 454), 645. Brown v. Bell (4 Hay w. 287), 444, 458, 459, 461. Brown v. Brown (Ind., 32 N. E. Rep, 1128), 164. Brown V. Brown (3 Pickle (Tenn.), 304), 242, 245. Brown v. Brown (10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 84), 403. Brown v. Buckley (14 N. J. Eq. (1 McCarter), 394), 383. 401, 402, 406. Brown v. Buckner (86 Va. 612 ; 10 S. E. Rep. 883), 148. Brown v. Pyrne (Walk. Ch. 403), 670. Brown V. Cheese Assoc. (59 N. Y. 342), 759. Brown v. County of Buena Vista (95 U. S. 159), 291. Brown v. Cranberry Iron & Coal Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 849), 639. Brown V. Deere (6 Fed. Rep. 487), 792. Brown v. Desmond (100 Mass. 267), 804. Brown V. Easton (30 N. J. Eq. 735), 775. Brown v. Edsall (9 N. J. Eq. 256), 337, 790. Brown v. Frost (Hoff. Ch. 41). 816. Brown v. Frost (10 Paige, 243X 818, 831. Brown V. Fuller (13 N. J. Eq. 371), 786. Brown v. Gay (76 Tex. 444), 755. Brown v. Grandin (N. J., 13 Atl. Rep. 266), 145. Brown v. Guarantee Safe &c. Co. (138 U. S. 403), 145, 148, 151, 155. Brown V. Hoff (5 Paige, 335), 611, 612, 614. Brown v. Hogle (30 111. 119), 283. Brown v. Iron Co. (134 U. a 530), 951. Brown v. Kahnweiler (38 N. J. Eq. 311), 163, 394 TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: VoL ItMntaina pp. 1-608; Vol. H pp. 609-1018.] Brown v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge (75 Mich. 274), 648. Brown v. Keating (3 Beav. 581), 441. Brown v. Lake (6 Coll. 620), 605. Brown v. Lake Superior Iron Co. (134 U. S. 530), 15, 17, 238, 750. 754 Brown v. Lee (2 Dick. 545). 504. Brown V. Luches (79 111. 575), 793. Brown v. Martin (3 Atk. 217), 519. Brown v. McConnell (124 U. S. 489), 939 933 Brown 'v. Miner (128 111. 148), 642, 644, 809. Brown v. Mitchell (13 How. Pr. 408), 421. Brown v. Mortgage Co. (110 111. 238), 435. Brown ii. Murra.y, Nelson & Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 708), 38. Brown V. Pierce (7 Wall. 205), 405, 409. Brown v. Ricketts (2 Johns. Ch. 425), 492. Brown v. Ricketts (3 Johns. Ch. 553), 79. Brown v. Ricketts (4 Johns. Ch. 303), 974 Brown v. Robertson (2 Phillips' Ch. 173), 567, 570. Brown v. Russell (105 Ind. 46), 643. Brown v. Scottish-American Mort- gage Co. (110 111. 335), 266. 435. Brown i'. Selwin (Cas. Terap. Talbot, 242), 398. Brown v. Southworth (9 Paige, 351), 646, 550. Brown v. South Boston Sav. Bank (148 Mass. 300), 992. Brown v. Spofford (95 U. S. 474), 528. Brown v. Stewart (1 Md. Ch. 87), 786. Brown v. Story (1 Paige, 588), 1008, 1009. Brown v. Story (2 Paige, 594), 444. Brown v. Swann (10 Pet. 497), 160, 544, 545. Brown V. Trousdale (138 U. S. 889), 33. Brown v. Tyler (34 Tex. 168), 777. Brown v. Vandermeulen (41 Mich. 418), 705. Brown v. Watkins (16 Q. B. D. 125), 367. Brown v. Winans (11 N. J. Eq. 367), 343, 784 Brown v. Wood (6 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 11), 223. Browne v. Strode (5 Cranch, 303). 73. Brownell v. Curtis (10 Paige, 210), 274, 346, 434 Brownlee v. Lookwood (20 N. J. Eq. 239), 158. Brownlee v. Martin (31 S. G 393), 653. Browning v. Louisa (3 Dick. 508), 553. Brownsword v. Edwards (3 Ves. 343), 265, 353. Bruce v. Allen (1 Mad. 556), 297. Bruce v. Delaware &c. Canal Co. (8 How. Pr. 440), 343. Bruce v. Gale (13 N. J. Eq. 211), 973. Bruce v. Manchester &c. R. Co. (117 U. S. 5141, 31, 33. Brugger v. State Investment Ins, Co. (5 Saw. 304), 148. Bruggerman v. Hoerr (7 Minn. 387), 169. Brumagim v. Chew (19 N. J. Eq. 837), 830. Brumdred v. Paterson Machine Co. (4 N. J. Eq, 294), 130. Brumly v. Westchester Mfg. Soc. (1 Johns. Ch. 366), 377. Bruncher v. Nichols (1 Howard's Eq. Side, 398), 465. Bruncker, Ex parte (3 P. Wms. 312X 615. Bnin.lage v. Deschler (131 Ind. 174), A 657. Bruudage v. Goodfellow (8 N. J. Eq. 513), 239, 250, 095. Bruns v. Stewart Mfg. Co. (31 Hun, 195), 751. Brusohke v. Des Nord Chicago Schuetzen Verein (111., 32 N. E. Rep. 417), 851, 855, 858, 861. Brush V. Vandenbergh (1 Edw. Ch. 21), 337. Brush Electric Co. v. Brush-Swan Electric L. Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 701), 458. Brush Electric Co. v. California Elec- tric Co. (7 U. S. App. 208i, 918. Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 557), 794, 895, 923. Bryan v. Kales (134 U. S. 136), 391. Bryan v. Kennett (113 U. S. 1791,801. Bryan v. Morgan (35 Ark. 113), 671. Bryan v. Parker (1 Y. & C. 170), 641. Bryant v. Bryant (Ky., 30 S. W. Rep. 370), 139. Bryant v. Bryant (3 Rob. 613), 139. Bryant v. McCoUum (4 Heisk. 511), 693. Bryant v. People (71 111. 32), 763. Bryant v. Russell (23 Pick. 508), 971. Bryant v. Thompson (37 Fed. Rep. 881), 6, 753. Bryson v. Petty (1 Bland, 183), 615, 870. Buchanan v. Berkshire L. Ins. Co. (96 Ind. 510), 704 Buchanan v. Buchanan (73 Ala. 55), 394 Buchanan v. Greenway(ll Beav. 58), 313. Buchanan v. Griggs (30 Neb. 165), 638. Buchanan v. Hodgson (11 Beav. 368), 345. TABLE OF CASES. li [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Buchauaii v. McManus (3 Humph. (Tenn.) 449), 241, 245. Buck V. Buck (11 Paige, 170), 89, 186. Buck V. Colbath (3 Wall. 334), 37. Buck V. Bowley (16 Gray, 555), 168. Buck V. Evans (4 Ch. Div. 432), 457. Buck V. Farralt (3 P. Wms. 242), 591. Buck V. Piedmont &c. Ins. Co. (4 Fed. Rep. 849), 708, 710. Buckerido;e i\ Glasse (Cr. & Phill. 126). 149. Buckeye Engine Co. i\ Donan Brew- ing Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 6). 704. Buckingham v. Corning (39 N. J. Eq. 338), 515, 853, 853, 854,860. Buckingham v. McLean (13 How. 150), 933, 951. Buckingham v. Peddicord (2 Bland, 447), 367. Buckles V. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 429), 606. Buckley v. Boutellier (69 111. 393), 493. Buckman v. Decker (33 N. J. Eq. 283), 390. Buckmaster v. Beames (8 111. 11, lOOO Buckmasteru. Kelly (15P"la. 180), 453. Budge V. Budge (12 Beav. 385). 607. Buel V. Street (9 Johns. 443), 911. Buck V. Imhaeuser (8 Fed. Rep. 457), 205, 361. Buffalo V. Town of Pocahontas (85 Va. 223 : 7 S. E. Rep. 338), 18, 152. Buffington v. Harvey (95 U. S. 99), 91, 382, 830, 844, 846, 859, 861. Bufford V. Keokuk &c. Co. (3 Mo. App. 159), 778. Buford V. Holley (38 Fed. Rep. 680), 8. Bugbee's Appeal (110 Pa. St 331), 696. Bulkeley v. Dunbar (1 Anst. 37), 310, 314. Bulkley v. Van Wyck (5 Paige, 536), 413, 436. Bull V. Bull (2 Root, 479), 134. Bull V. Loveland (10 Pick. 9), 536. Bull V. Meloney (37 Conn. 560), 163, 453. BuUinger v. Mackey (14 Blatchf. 335), 493. Bullion Beck Min. Co. v. Eureka Hill Min. Co. (Utah, 13 Pac. Rep. 660), 329 Bullock V. Boyd (3 Edw. Ch. 293), 335. Bullock V. Brown (20 Ga. 472), 444. Bullock V. Ferguson (30 Ala. 227), 778. Bullock V. Zilley (5 N. J. Eq. 77), 473. Buloid V. Miller (4 Paige, 473), 909. Bulow V. Buckner (Rich. Eq. 401), 59. Bulow V. Witte (3 S. C. 318), 59. Bunce v. Reed (16 Barb. 347), 331. Bunker, Ex parte (3 P. Wms. 313), 613. Bunker v. Anderson (33 N. .1. Eq. 35), 894. Bunker v. Stevens (36 Fed. Rep. 245), 971. Bunnell v. Read (21 Conn. 586), 100. Buntain v. Wood (39 111. 504), 394. Burch V. Scott (1 Bland, 130), 841. Burch V. Scott (1 Gill & J. 398), 827. Burch V. West (33 IlL App. 359), 447. Burckle v. Eckhardt (3 Comst 132), 260. Burdett v. Hay (4 De G., J. & S. (33 L. J. Ch.) 41), 350, 779. Burford, Ex parte (1 Cranch, C. C. 456), 876. Burford v. Steele (80 Ala. 147), 135. Burgen v. Sharer (14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 497), 776. Burgess v. Kirby (94 N. C. 475), 863. Burgess v. O'Donohue (90 Mo. 299), 850. Burgess v. Seligman (107 U. S. 20), 627. Burgess v. Smith (2 Barb. Ch. 276), 544, 767. Burgess v. Wheat (1 Eden, 190), 446. Burgin v. Giberson (23 N. J. Eq. 403), 417, 434, 435. Burhaus v. Burhaus (2 Barb. Ch. 398), 640. Burke v. Smith (15 111. 158), 508, 512. Burker v. Hutchinson (7 Ir. Eq. 508), 1000. Burkett v. Spray (1 R. & M. 113), 909. Burlew v. Hillman (16 N. J. Eq. 23), 988. Burlew v. Quarrier (16 West Va. 109), 426, 802. Burley v. Flint (105 U. S. 247), 856. Burlington &c. R. Co. v. Dey (82 Iowa, 98). 333. Burlington &c. Ry. Co. v. Simmons (123 U. S. 52), 924. Burlington Bank v. Catlin (11 Vt 106), 206. Burnett v. Anderson (1 Mer. 405), 177. Burnett v. Sanders (4 Johns. Ch. 503), 994, 995. Burnett v. State (87 Ga. 622), 694 Burnett u Whitesides (13 Cal. 156), 785. Burnham v. Bo wen (111 U. S. 783), 724, 725, 726. Burnham v. Dalling (16 N. J. Eq. 310), 5. /, 589. 800, 993. Burnham v. Rangely (1 Wood. & M 7), 37. Burnlev v. Jeffersonville (3 McLean, 336), 356. Burnley v. Stevenson (24 Ohio St 474), 804. Burns v. Lynde (6 Allen, 305), 66, 107, 111. Burns v. Rosenstein (135 U. a 449), 667, 908, 949. lii TABLE OF OASES. [The referenoea are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. l-fi08; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Burrall v. Eaineteaux (2 Paige, 831), 299. Burras v. Looker (4 Paige, 827), 38a. Burrell v. Hackley (35 Fed Rep. 833), 347, 490. Burrell v. Nicholson (6 Sim. 212), 348, 488. Burrell v. Smith (L. R 7 Eq. 399), 308. Burroughs w Bunnell (70 Md. 18), 748. Burrows v. Wene (N. J. Ch., 26 Atl. Rep. 890), 833. Burson v. Dosser (1 Heisk. 754), 832. Burt V. Evory (183 U. S. 349), 963. Burtis, Ex parte (108 U. S. 338), 900. Burton, Matter of (1 Russ. 380), 602. Burton v. Driggs (20 Wall. 125), 949. Burton v. Fort (18 Ark. 202), 971. Burton v. Neville (3 Cox's C!as. 242), 533 Burton v. Platter (58 Fed. Rep. (C. C. App.) 901), 169, 170. Bush's Case (29 Ala. 50), 1000. Bush V. Livingston (2 Caines' Gas. 66), 898. Bushnell v. Avery (121 Mass, 148), 114. Bushnell v. Bushnell (7 How. Pr. 389), 611. Bushnell v. Bushnell (15 Barb. 399), 614. Bushnell v. Kennedy (9 Wall. 387), 130. Busick V. Van Ness (44 N. J. Eq. 83). 374. Bustamente v. Stewart (55 Cal. 115), 777. Butcher v. Camden (39 N. J. Eq. 478), 74. Butchers' & Drovers' Bank v. Willis (1 Edw. Ch. 645), 513. Butler V. Catling (1 Root (Conn.), 310), 406. Butler V. Cooper (6 J. J. Mai-sh. (Ky.) 29), 223. Butler V. Cunningham (1 Barb. 85), 523. Butler V. Farnsworth (4 Wash. (C. C.) 101), 87, 40. Butler V. Gardener (12 Beav. 525), 567, 1010. Butler V. Grand Rapids &c. R. Co. (Mich., 48 N. W. Rep. 669), 166. Butler V. Kinzie (Tenn., 15 S. W. Rep. 1068), 335, 236, 339. Butler V. Society &c. (12 N. J. Eq. 269), 787. Butler V. Spann (37 Miss. (Cusb.) 384), 143. Butterfield v. Third Avenue Savings Bank (35 N. J. Eq. 583), 952. Butterfield v. Usher (91 U. S. 346), 937. Buttermere v. Hays (5 M. & W. 456), 374. Butterworth v. Hill (114 U. S. 138), 49, 307, 338. Butterworth v. Hoe (113 U. S. 50), 763. Buttler V. Mathews (19 Beav. 549), 388 Byara v. Cashman (78 Cal. 525), 778, 774. Byars v. Thompson (80 Tex. 463; 15 S. W. Rep. 1087), 168. Byers v. Franklin Coal Co. (106 Mass. 131), 193. Byington v. Wood (Hopk. Ch. 98), 438. Byington v. Wood (1 Paige, 145), 488, 685, 690. Bylandt v. Bylandt (6 N. J. Eq. 28), 616. Bynum v. Ewart (Tenn., 18 S. W. Rep. 394), 140. Bynum v. Powe (97 N. C. 374), 473, 477. Byrne v. Frere (8 MoUoy, 157), 471. Cable V. Alvord (27 Ohio St 654), 610, 613. Cable V. Ellis (120 111. 136), 464 Cabrera, Ex parte (1 Wash. C. C. 333), 615. Caillard v. Caillard (35 Beav. 513), 716. Cain V. Cain (30 N. Y. Supl. 45), 759. Caines v. Fisher (1 Johns. Ch. 8), 231. Cairo &c. R Co. v. Titus (35 N. J. Eq. 385), 650. Calaveras Co. v. Brockway (30 Cal. 325), 485. Caldwell v. Leiber (7 Paige, 483), 993. Caldwell v. Mayor &c. (9 Paige, 572), 914, 91.5. Caldwell v. McFarland (11 Lea (Tenn.), 467), 235. Caldwell v. Montgomery (8 Ga 106), 390. Caldwell v. Taggart(4 Pet 190), 69, 70. Caldwell v. Walters (4 Cranch, C. C. 577), 780, 783. Calhoun v. Cozens (3 Ala. 498), 787. California Electrical Works v. Finck (47 Fed. Rep. 583), 103. Calkins v. Landis (31 N. J. Eq. 133), 898. Callaghan v. Myers (138 U. S. 619), 536, 696, 947. Callahan v. Rochfort (8 Atk. 643), 549. Callan v. Bransford (189 U. S. 197), 944. TABLE OF CASES. liii [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp 609-1012.] Callan v. May (2 Black, 541). 925. Callender v. Colegrove (17 Conn. 1), 395, 683, 698. Calloway v. Dobson (1 Brock. C. C. 119), 423. Calverlev v. Williama (1 Ves. Jr. 311), 446." Calvert v. Niokles (26 S. C. 304), 696. Calvert v. State (34 Neb. 616), 876. Calwell V. Boyer (4 H. & J. 530), 407. Cambridge Water-works v. Somer- ville Dyeing & Bleaching Co. (14 Gray, 193), 152, 155. Cambuston v. United States (95 U. S. 285), 834. 911. Camden v. Bloch (65 Ala. 236), 626. Camden v. Doremus (3 How. 529), 548. Camden v. Mayhew (129 IT. S. 73), 833, 835. Camden v. Stuart (144 U. S. 104), 696, 947. Camden &c. R Co. v. Atlantic City &C. Co. (36 N. J. Eq. 69), 789. Camden &c, R. Co. v. Elkins (37 N. J. Eq. 373), 916. Camden &c. R Co. v. Stewart (18 N. J. Eq. 489), 789. Camden &c. R. Co. v. Stewart (19 N. J. Eq. 69), 476. Camden &c. R Co. v. Stewart (19 N. J. Eq. 343), 136, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 437. Camden &c. R Co. v. Stewart (21 N. J. Eq. 484), 137, 910, 915, 916. Camden Horse R Co. v. Citizens' Coach Co. (31 N. J. Eq. 525), 119. Cameron v. Abbott (30 Ala. 416), 122. Cameron v. McRoberts(8 Wheat.591), 73, 840, 863. Camp V. Ingersoll (86 N. Y. 433), 666. Camp V. Waring (25 Conn. 520), 189, 194. Campbell's Case (2 Bland's Ch. 209), 587. Campbell v. Benjamin (69 111. 244), 447. Campbell v. Bowne (5 Paige, 34), 59, 68, 186, 498. Campbell v. Brown (129 Mass. 23), 293. Campbell v. Campbell (22 III. 674), 763. Campbell v. Campbell (63 111. 462), 212, 218, 320, 333. Campbell v. Campbell (8 N. J. Eq. 738), 100, 355, 449, 667, 671. Campbell v. Carroll (35 Mo. App. 640), 773. Campbell v. City of New York (85 Fed. Rep. 14), 533. Campbell v. Disney (Ky., 18 S. W. Rep. 1037), 166. Campbell v. French (3 Cox's Gas. 286). 535. Campbell v. Gardner (11 N. J. Eq. (3 Stock.) 423), 571, 818, 819, 821, 828. Campbell v. Jones (31 Fed. Rep. 535), 840, 964, 967. Campbell v. Joyce (L. R 2 Eq. 377), 317. Campbell v. Mackay (1 Myl. & Cr. 603), 143. Campbell v. Macomb (4 Johna Ch. 534), 818. Campbell v. Mayor (83 Fed. Rep. 795), 346. Campbell v. Mayor (45 Fed. Rep. 243), 369. Campbell v. Mayor &c. (36 Fed. Rep. 795), 301. Campbell v. Meaier (4 Johns. Ch. 334), 499, 800, 801. Campbell v. Paris R Co. (71 111. 611), 122. Campbell v. Powers (139 111. 128 ; 28 N. E. Rep. 1062), 198, 307. Campbell v. Pratt (2 Pet. 354), 964. Campbell v. Railroad Co. (1 Woods, 368), 88, 579. Campbell v. Routt (42 Ind. 410), 463. Campbell v. Spratt (5 N. Y. W. Dig. 35), 750, 751. Campbell v. Taul (3 Yerg. 563), 186, 427. Campbell v. Watson (8 Ohio, 500), 88. Campbell &c. Mfg. Co. v. Manhattan Rj. Co. (49 Fed. Rep. 930), 668. Campion v. Kille (14 N. J. Eq. 229), 425. Campion v. Kille (15 N. J. Eq. 476), S75, 389. Campion v. McLeay (2 Ves. & B. 356), 415. Candle V. Rice (63 Ga. 315; 3 S. E. Rep. 7), 75. Candler v. Pettit (1 Paige, 168), 185, 513. 515. Candler v. Pettit (1 Paige, 437), 438. Candler v. Partington (6 Mad. 133X 441. Canfield v. Morgan (Hopk. Ch. 324), 982. Canham v. Vincent (8 Sim. 377), 499. Cannon v. McNabb (48 Ala. 99), 161. Cannon v. Norton (14 Vt. 178), 394, 408. Cannon v. Wright (49 N. J. Eq. 17), 865. Canter v. Insurance Co. (3 Pet. 554), 945, 946. Canter v. Insurance Co. (3 Pet 307), 908. Canton v. McGraw (67 Md. 583; 11 Atl. Rep. 287), 543. Canton v. Prior (Conn., 26 Atl. Rep. 1057), 973. liv TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Cape May &o. R Co. v. Johnson (35 N. J. Eq. 423), 877. Capell V. Moses (S. C, 15 S. E. Rep. 711), 644. Caperton v. Boyer (14 Wall. 216), 29. Car Works Co. v. Ellis (113 Ind. 215), 734. Card V. Bird (10 Paige, 426), 901. Carew v. Johnston (2 Sch. & Lef. 280). 528. Carey, Re (10 Fed. Rep. 622), 595. Carey v. Brown (93 U. S. 171), 87, 88, 99, 101. Carey v. Hatch (2 Edw. Ch. 190), 109. Carey v. Houston &r,. Ry. Co. (52 Fed. Rep. 671), 45. Carey v. Houston &c. Ry Co. (U. S., 14 S. Ct Eep. 63), 943. Carey v. Hoxie (11 Ga. 648), 69, 78. Cargle v. Railroad Co. (7 Lea, 717), 1008. Carleton v. L'Estrange (1 Turn. & Eus. 23), 188. Carleton v. Rugg (149 Mass. 550), 765, 766. Carlin v. Jones (55 Ala. 630), 581. Carlisle v. Cooper (18 N. J. Eq. 341), 483, 485, 651. Carlisle v. Cowan (85 Tenn. 170), 344, 345. Carlsbad v. Tibbetts (51 Fed. Rep. 852), 131. Carlton v. Rugg (149 Mass. 550), 110. Carmichael v. Adams (91 Ind. 526), 643. Carnao v. Grant (1 Sim. 348), 999. Carneal v. Banks (10 Wheat. 181), 39, 137. Carneal v. Sthreshley (1 A. K. Mai'sb. 471), 337. Carnegie, Phipps & Co. v. Hulbert (53 Fed. Rep. 10), 38. Carnochan v. Christie (11 Wheat. 446), 455. Caron v. Mowatt (1 Edw. Ch. 9), 581. Carondelet Canal &c. Co. v. Teuohi (38 La. Ann. 388), 776. Carpenter v. Aldrich (3 Met 58), 1005. Cai-penter v. Benson (4 Sandf. Ch. 493), 367. 435. Carpenter v, Cincinnati &c. R Co. (35 Ohio St. 307), 93. Carpenter v. Eastern & Amboy R Co. (38 N. J. Eq. 390), 995. Carpenter v.- Easton &c. R Co. (36 N. J. Eq. 168), 657. Carpenter v. Edwards (64 Miss. 595), 404. Carpenter v. Gray (37 N. J. Eq. 389), 453. Carpenter v. Gray (38 N. J. Eq. 135). 39a Carpenter v. Ingalla (So. Dak., 51 N. W. Rep. 948), 96, 386, 389. Carpenter v. Muchmore (15 N. J. Eq. 133), 241, 840, 863, 865. Carpenter v. Providence Washington Ins. Co. (4 How. 185), 377, 393. Carpenter v. Schermerhorn (2 Barb. Ch. 315), 698. Carpenter v. Strange (141 U. S. 106), 804. Carpenter V. West (4 How. Pr. 43), 139, 140. Carpenter v. Westinghouse Air-brake Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 434), 311. Carper v. Hawkins (8 West Va. 304), 711. Carr v. Fife (44 Fed. Rep. 713), 138. Carr v. Henderson (11 Beav. 415), 989. Carr v. Hill (5 N. J. Eq. 639 . 900. Carr v. Hill (6 N. J. Eq. 457), 428. Carr v. Inglehart (3 Ohio St. 457), 21. Carr v. Weld (18 N. J. Eq. 41), 359, 789. Carr v. Weld (19 N. J. Eq. 319), 405. Carrick v. Prater (10 Humph. (Tenn.) 370), 404. Carrigan v. Evans (31 S. C. 393), 644. Carrington v. Brents (1 McLean, 167), 60, 804. Carrington v. Florida R Co. (9 Blatchf. 468). 340. Carrington v. Holly (1 Dick. 380), 333, 473, 475, 663. Carroll v. Bridewell (37 La. Ann. 239), 583. Carroll v. Parran (1 Bland, 135), 853, 854. Carroll v. Richardson (87 Ala. 605; 6 So. Rep. 343), 465, 466. Carroll v. Roosevelt (4 Edw. Ch. 311), 145. Carroll v. Waring (3 Gill & J. 491), 329, 330, 344. Carroll Co. v. Iowa &c. Land Co. (53 Iowa, 685), 777. Carrothers v. Newton &c. Ca (61 Iowa, 681), 780. Carskadon v. Minke (36 West Va. 739), 693. Carson v. Coleman (11 N. J. Eq. 106), 787. Carson v. Hyatt (118 U. S. 379), 38. Cart V. Hodgkin (3 Swanst 161), 654 Cartee v. Spenoe (34 S. C. 550), 383, 301, 679. Carter v. Allan (21 Gratt 241), 372, 833. Carter v. Carter (82 Va, 624), 133, 398, 649, 650. Carter v. City of New Orleans (19 Fed. Rep. 659), 578. Carter v. Harvey (Miss., 7 So. Rep. 286), 264. TABLE OF CASES. Iv IThe references are to pages: Vol I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-)012.] Carter v. Ingraham (43 Ala. 78), 119. Carter v. Jennings (34 Ohio St 183), 500. Carter v. Sleeper (5 Dana, 363 1, 394. Carter v. Torrance (U Ga. 654), 238, 241. Carter v. Vaulx (2 Swan, 641), 344. Carter v. Wabash &c. R. Co. (137 Mass. 136), 479. Carter v. Washington (1 Hen. & M. 203), 347. Cartique v. Raymond (4 Leigh, 579), 2S5 Cartwright v. Clark (4 Met. 104), 416, 455, 459. 461. Carwick v. Young (2 Swanst. 343), 4H5, 487. Gary, Jii re (10 Fed. Rep. 622). 874. Gary v. Gary (39 N. J. Eq. 3). 621. Gary v. Henin (62 Mo. 18), 696. Casamajor v. Strode (1 Sim. & Stu. 381), 770. Gasborne v. Barsham (5 Myl. & C. 113 , 654. Case ot Biuney (2 Bland's Ch. 104). 769. Case of Dwight (15 Abb. Pr. 259), 344. Case of Rindskopf (24 Fed. Rep. 542), 553 Case of Ruffin (13 N. H. 14), 879. Case of Shephard (3 Fed. Rep. 13), 537. Case V. Abeel (1 Paige, 630), 553. Case V. Beauregard (101 U. S. 688), 636. Case V. Clarke (5 Mason, 70), 40. Case V. Green (4 lud. 536), 785. Case Mfg. Co. v. Smith (40 Fed. Rep. 389), 95. Cash V. Belcher (3 Edw. Ch. 358), 313. Cass V. Cass (16 N. Y. Supl. 229), 16, 17. Cassedy r. Bigelow (37 N. J. Eq. 505), 958, 960. Cassell V. Ross (33 111. 344), 394. Cast V. Payser (36 L. J. Ch. 353), 567. Castle, In re (41 Hun, 637), 735. Gastleman v. Veitch (3 Rand. 598), 283 Caswell V. Bunch (Ga., 7 S. E. Rep. 370), 556. Gates V. Allen (149 U. S. 451 ; 13 S. Ct. Rep. 883). 645, 646, 953, 970. Cathcart v. Hevvson (1 Hayes, 173), 998. Catherall v. Davies (1 Giff. 326), 631. Catlin V. Gunter (11 N. Y. 368), 421. Oatlin V. Harned (3 Johns. Ch. 61), 971 990. Gat»n V. Lewis (22 L. J. Ch. 946), 585. Oattell V. Simons (6 Beav. 304), 563. C:atterall v. Purchase (1 Atk. 290), 862. Catton V. Earl of Carlisle (5 Mad. 427), 523. Cauley v. Shackwell (1 Bligh (N. S.), 121), 863. Caulfield v. County of Charleston (19 S. C. 600), 699. Caulfield v. Curry (68 Mich. 594), 785. Cavender v. Cavender (114 U. S. 464), 124, 395, 410. 490. Gawlev V. Leonard (28 N. J. Eq. 467), 863. Gawthorn v. Chalie (2 Sim. & Stu. 127), 265. Gazenove v. Vaughan (1 M. & Selw. 4), 551. Cecil V. Cecil (19 Md. 78), 394. Cedar Valley L. & C. Co. v. Coburn (39 Fed. 'Rep. 586), 509, 512. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Arlington Mfg. Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 4), 551. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Cellonite Mfg. Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 476), 683, 684, 688, 690, 691. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Chandler (27 Fed. Rep. 9), 996. Center v. Hoag (52 Vt 401), 776. Central Bank v. Conn. Mut L. Ins. Co. (104 U. S. 54), 491. Central Bridge Co. v. Lowell (15 Gray, 106), 581. Central Nat Bank v. Hazard (49 Fed. Rep. 393), 769. Central R. Bank v. Hazard (30 Fed. Rep. 484), 721, 722. Central R. Co. v. Bunn (11 N. J. Eq. 337), 789. Central R Co. v. Central Trust Co. (133 U. S. 88), 235, 239, 811. Central R. Co. v. Hetfleld (18 N. Y. 323), 393. Central R Co. v. New Jersey R Co. (32 N. J. Eq. 67), 485, 486, 487. Central R &c. Co. v. Pettus (113 U. S. 116). 988. Central Trust Co. v. Central Iowa Ry. Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 889), 971. Central Trust Co. v. Grant Locomo- tive Works (135 U. S. 208), 851, 923. Central Trust Co. v. Marietta &c. Ry. Co. (48 Fed. Rep. 850), 578, 895, 923 Central Trust Co. v. St. Louis &c. Ry. Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 42o), 214. Central Trust Co. v. St Louis &c. Ry. Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 551), 723, 725, 726, 740. Central Trust Co. v. Seasongood (130 U. S. 482), 951. Central Trust Co. v. Texas &c. Ry. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 846), 387. Central Trust Co. v. Texas &c. Ry. Co. (24 Fed. Rep. 153), 577, 583. Ivi TABLK OF OASES. (The references are to pages: VoL I contalne pp. 1-608; VoL n, pp. CO3-1012.1 Central Trust Co. v. Texas &c. Ry. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 448), 696. Central Trust Co. v. Virginia Steel & Iron Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 769), 585. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash &c. Ry. Co. (23 Fed. Rep. 863), 736. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash &c. Ry. Co. (26 Fed. Rep. 1), 728. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash &c. Ry. Co. (29 Fed. Rep. 618), 703, 750. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash &c. Ry. Co. (30 Fed. Rep. 333), 726. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash &c. Ry. Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 346), 696. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash &c. Ry. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 187), 739, 730, 731. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash &c. Ry. Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 36), 723. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash &c. Ry. Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 156), 264, 272, 288, 331. Cere^hino v. Third Dist. Court (Utah, 33 Pac. Rep. 335), 970. Certain Stockholders, In re (53 Fed. Rep. 38), 737. Chadbourne v. Stockton Savings & Loan Soc. (88 Cal. 636; 36 Pac. Rep. 529), 168. Chadbourne's Ex'rs v. Coe (10 U. S. App. 83), 71. Chadwell v. McCall (1 Tenn. Ch. 640), 240. Chadwick v. Broadwood (3 Beav. 316), 349. Chadwick v. Island Beach Co. (42 N. J. Eq. 603), 881. Chaffin V. Hull (39 Fed. Rep. 887). 145, 148. Chaffin V. Kimball (33 111. 36), 337. Chaires v. United States (3 How. 611), 968, 964. Chalf ants v. Martin (35 West Va 394), 444. Chamberlain, Ex parte (55 Fed. Rep. 704), 726, 728, 758. Chamberlain v. Cleveland (1 Black, 419), 901. Chamberlain v. Hoffman (38 N. J. Eq. 41), 96. Chamberlain v. Lancey (60 Me. 230), 97. Chamberlain v. Larned (32 N. J. Eq. 395), 561. Chamberlin v. Jones (114 Ind. 458; 16 N. E. Rep. 178), 148. Chambers v. Chalmeis (4 Gill & J. 430), 375. Chambers v. Goldwin (9 Ves. 268), 99. Chambers v. Jones (72 III 375), 330, 337. Chambers v. Robbins (28 Conn. 552), 100. Chambers v. Rowe (36 III 171), 491. Chambers V. Wright (52 Ala. 444), 381, 388. Chamleyu Lord Dun8any(2 Sch. & Lef. 712), 450, 907. Champion v. Kille (1 McCart 232), 415. Champlin v. Champlin (2 Edw. Ch. 358), 359. Champlin v. Parish (11 Paige, 405), 373, 374, 393. Chance v. Teeple (4 N. J. Eq. 173), 393, 699. Chancellor v. Gummere (40 N. J. Eq. 379), 833. Chandler v. Herrick (11 N. J. Eq. 497), 448. Chandler v. Jobe (5 Lea, 593), 241. Chapin v. Sears (18 Fed. Rep. 814), 146. Chapin v. Walker (6 Fed. Rep, 794; 3 McCrary. 175), 356, 447, 453. Chapman v. Banker & Tradesman Pub. Co. (138 Mass. 478), 31, 109. Chapman v. Barney (139 U. S. 677), 38, 912. Chapman v. Chalfant (14 West Va. 531), 692. Chapman v. Hamilton (19 Ala. 121), 288. Chapman v. Hammersley (4 Wend. 173), 911. Chapman v. McMillan (27 West Va. 220), 686. Chapman v. School Dist (Deady, 108), 136. 139, 324, 371. Chapman v. Smith (2 Ves. 516), 654. Chappell V. Funk (57 Md. 465), 359. Chappell V. Gregory (2 De G., J. & S. Ill), 909. Charkieh, The (L. R. 4 Ad. & Ea 59), 55. Charles v. Waterman (3 How. Pr. 123), 1000. Charles River Bridge Co. v. Warren Bridge (6 Pick. 395), 870. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (7 Pick. 369), 653. Charleston Ins. Co. v. Porter (3 De- sauss. 6), 18. Chase v. Bank (56 Pa St 355), 486. Chase v. Dunham (1 Paige, 572), 183. Chatham v. Niles (36 Conn. 403). 67-i. Chatterton v. Kreitter (3 Abb. N. C. 453), 770. Chautauqua County Bank v. White (6 Barb. 584), 703. Chazournes v. Mills (2 Barb. Ch. 466), 383, 395, 436. Cheatham v. Pearce (Tenn., 15 S. W. Rep. 1080), 331, 344, 345, 653, 939. Cheek v. Tillev (31 Ind. 131), 785. Cheely v. Clayton (110 U. S. 701), 324. TABLE OF OASES. Ivii prhe references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; VoL n, pp. 609-1018.] Cheesman v. Hart (42 Fed. Rep. 98), 594 Chegary v. Scofield (5 N. J. Eq. 525), 916. Chemical Works v. Hecker (2 Ban. & A. 351), 928. Cheney v. Bacon (49 Fed. Rep. 305), 939. Cheney v. Stone (29 Fed. Rep. 885). 481. Cheraw v. Chester R Co. (14 S. C. 51), 286. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (5 Peters, 29), 25. Cherry v. Clements (10 Humph. (Tenn.) 552), 285. Cherry v. Monro (2 Barb. Ch. 618), 102, 103, 288. Chesapeake &c Canal Co. v. Baltimore &C. R Co. (4 Gill & J. 7), 785. Chesapeake &o. R Co. v. Huse (5 West Va. 579), 112. Chester v. Broderick (131 N. Y. 549), 934. Chester v. Halliard (36 N. J. Eq. 313), 75, 83, 84 Chester v. King (2 N. J. Eq. 405), 94 Chester v. Lite Ass'n &c. (4 Fed. Rep. 487), 498. Chester v. Miller (13 Cal. 558), 253. Chester Iron Co. v. Beach (40 N. J. Eq. 63), 443. Chestnut v. Frazier (6 Bax. 219), 356. Chetwood v. Brittan (1 Green's Ch. 438). 325, Chetwynd v. Lvndon (2 Ves. 450), 879. Chicago V. Bigelow (7 Wall. 109), 930. Chicago V. Cameron (22 111. App. 91), 17. Chicago &c. Co. v. United States &c. Co. (57 Pa. St. 83), 703. Chicago &c. Land Co. v. Peck (113 111. 408), 93. Chicago &c. R Co. v. Blair (100 U. S. 661), 930, 932. Chicago &c. R Co. v. Burlington &c. R Co. (34 Fed. Rep. 481), 771. Chicago &c. R Co. v. Chicago (111., 32 N. E. Rep. 178), 828. Chicago &c. R Co. v. Chicago & E. R Co. (112 III. 589), 329. Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Fosdick (106 U. S. 83), 811, 923, 957. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. v. Hartshorn (30 Fed. Rep. 541), 283. Chicago &c. R Co. ^'. Keokuk North- ern Line Packet Co. (108 III. 317), 745, 746. Chicago &c. R Co. v. Macomb (2 Fed. Rep. 18), 265, 278. Chicago &c. R Co. v. MoGrew (104 Mo. 382), 776. Chicago &c. R Co. v. Roberts (141 U. S. 690), 888. Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Rolling-Mill Co. (109 U. S. 702), 301, 347, 466, 470, 471, 473, 637. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. v. Third Nat Bank (134 U. S. 276; 10 S. Ct Rep. 550), 197, 444 453, 455. Chicago &c. St Ry. Co. v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 24), 674 Chicago Artesian Well Co. v. Conn. Mut L. Ins. Co. (57 111. 424), 459, 467. Chicago Building Soc. v. Haas (111 111. 176), 851. Chicago City R Co. v. Howison (86 111. 215), 776. Chichester v. Marquis of Donegal (4 Ch. App. 416), 541. Chickering, In re (56 Vt. 83), 93. Child V. Mann (L. R 3 Eq. 806), 983. Childress v. Emory (8 Wheat 642), 824 Childress v. Harrison (1 Baxt 410), 691. Childs V. Alexander (33 S. C. 169), 816. Childs V. Tuttle (7 N. Y. Supp. 59), 764 Chiles, In re (22 Wall. 157), 873, 877, 878. Chipmau v. Hartford (21 Conn. 489), 100. Chipman v. Palmer (77 N. Y. 56), 154 Chisholm v. Adams (71 Tex. 678), 764 Chisholm v. State of Georgia (3 Pet 51 ; 2 Dall. 419), 24 209. ChittPnden v. Brewster (3 Wall. 191), 913, 946. Cholmondeley v. Clinton (2 J. & W. 1; 3 Mer. 171; 4 Bligh, 1), 98, 373. Choteau v. Rice (1 Minn. 106), 514 Chowick V. Dimes (3 Beav. 390), 498. Christian v. Atlantic &c. R Co. (113 U. S. 333), 40. Christian v. Crocker (35 Ark. 337), 103, 288. Christian v. Taylor (11 Sim. 401), 359. Christian v. Wrenn (Bunb. 381), 460. Christian Jensen Co., In re (128 N. Y. 550), 789. Christie v. Bishop (1 Barb. Ch. 105), 339, 407. Christie v. Cameron (3 Jur. (N. S.) 635), 61. Christie v. Christie (L. R 8 Ch. App. 499), 136, 486. Christie v. Herrick (1 Barb. Ch. 254), 89. Christmas v. Campbell (1 Hayw. 123), 785. Iviii TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 6<»-1012.] Christmas v. Russell (14 Wall. 81), 43. Chuck V. Cremer (1 Coop. Ch. 205), 563. Church V. Barkman (16 N. Y. Supp. 624), 339. Church V. Marsh (3 Hare, 655), 1009. Church V. Shelton (3 Curt. C. C. 271), 531. Church V. Stivers (16 N. J. Eq. 453), 388. Churton v. Frewen (L. R. 1 Eq. 238), 418. Cincinnati &c. R. Co. v. McKeen (149 U. S. 259), 893. Citizens' Bank v. Farwell (56 Fed. Rep. 570), 593. City Bank v. Bangs (3 Paige, 570), 178, 631, 633. City National Bank v. Hunter (139 TJ. S. 557), 903. City of Carlsbad v. Tibbetts (51 Fed. Rep. 853), 131. City of (Chicago v. Cameron (32 111. App. 91), 17. City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 569), 380, 448, 469, 637, 630. City of Ft. Dodge v. Minneapolis &c. Ry. Co. (Iowa, 54 N. W. Rep. 2iS), 740. City of Fort Smith v. Brogan (49 Ark. 306 ; 5 S. W. Rep. 337), 146. City of New Orleans v. Peake (53 Fed. Rep. 74), 896. City of Rock Island v. Cuinely (136 III. 408), 539. City of San Jose v. Foster (45 Cal. 3161, 883. City of Shreveport v. Holmes (1>35 U. S. 694). 956. Claasen, In re (140 U. S. 309), 31. Claflin V. Bennett (51 Fed. Rep. 693), 848. Claflin V. South Carolina R. Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 17), 576. Claiborne v. Waddell (50 Fed. Rep. 368), 88. Clair V. Terhune (35 N. J. Eq. 336), 951. Clapp V. Citv of Spokane (53 Fed. Rep. 505); 34. Clapp V. Sherman (R. L, 17 Atl. Rep. 130), 686, 694. Clapp V. Thaxter (7 Gray, 386), 837. Claridge v. Hoare (14 Ves. Jr. 59), 878, 361. Clark V. Carlton (4 Lea, 453), 461. Clark V. Carnall (18 Ark. 209), 626. Clark V. Clark (N. J. Ch,, 26 Atl. Rep. 1013), 616. Clark V. Clark (7 Rob. 157), 674. Clark V. Cleghorn (6 Ga. 320), 785. Clark V. Codit (31 N. J. Eq. 322), 696. Clark V. Dew (1 Rus& & MvL 103)^ 391 563 Clark V. E^ing (93 IlL 572), 484. Clark V. Flint (22 Pick. 331), 16, 355. Clark V. Hall (7 Paige, 884), 186, 498, 833, 824, 838, 839, 842. Clark V. Hershey (53 Ark. 473), 665. Clark V. Jacques (11 Beav. 633), 567. Clark V. Jones (41 Ala. 349), 409, 410. Clark V. Keith (106 U. S. 464), 890. Clark V. Killian (103 TJ. S. 766), 170, 847, 850, 913. Clark V. Marfisld (77 111. 358), 234 Clark V. Periam (3 Atk. 837), 538. Clark V. Phelps (6 Johns. Ch. 314), 377. Clark V. Piatt (30 Conn. 383). 55, 59. Clark V. Reed (11 Pick. 446), 971. Clark V. Reyburn (8 Wall 318), 811. Clark V. Ridgely (1 Md. Ch. 70), 708. Clark V. Smith (13 Pet 195), 8, 9, 646. Clark V. Van Riemsdyk (9 Cranch, 153), 402, 403, 407. Clark V. Willoughby (1 Barb. Ch. 68), 688, 692, 699. Clark V. Wood (6 N. J. Eq. 458), 877. Clark V. Wooster (119 U. S. 333), 639. Clark, In re (9 Blatchf. 373), 558. Clarke v. Mathewson (13 Pet. 164), 43, 525, 583. Clarke v. Morey (10 Johns. 69). 53. Clarke v. Sawyer (3 Barb. Ch. 411), 484, 635. Clarke v. Turton (11 Ves. 340), 53a Clarke v. White (13 Pet 178), 894 darker v. Tipping (4 Beav. 588), 449. Clarkson v. De Peyster (Hopk. Ch. 374), 603, 604 Clarkson v. De Peyster (8 Paige, 336), 101, 375, 294 Clason V. Church (1 Johns. Caa 39), 589. Clason V. Lawrence (3 Edw. Ch. 48), 101, 195. Clason V. Morris (10 Johns. 534), 235, 408. Clauser v. Stone (39 111. 114), 549. Clay V. Clay (86 Ga. 359), 759. Clay V. Towle (78 Me. 86), 410. Clayton v. Lyle (3 Jones' (N. C.) Eq. 188). 787. Clayton v. Milton (1 Del. Ch. 33), 618. Cleaver v. Smith (114 111. 114), 481. Cleeve v. Gascoigne (1 Amb. 333), 661. Cleft V. Cleft (3 Pickle, 31), 533. Clegg V. Darragh (63 Tex. 357), 331. Clegg V. Edmonson (22 Beav. 125), 368. Clegg V. Varnell (18 Tex. 394), 143. Cleland v. Casgrain (Mich., 53 N. W. Rep. 460), 146, 166. Clements v. Moore (6 Wall. 399), 383, 491. TABLE OF OASES. lix IThe references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Cleve V. Gasevique (Ambler, 333), 659. Cleveland v. Chamberlain (1 Black, 419), 873. Cleveland v. Chamblisa (64 Ga. 352), 444. Cleveland v. O'Neil (29 N. J. Eq. 457), 374. Cleveland Forge &c. Co. v. U. S. Eoll- ing-Stock Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 476), 78. Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Reed (1 Biss. 180), 290. Clews V. Woodstock Iron Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 31), 211. Clinan v. Cooke (1 Sch. & Lef. 22), 97.'5. Cline V. Prall (27 N. J. Eq. 415), 819. Clinton v. Eddy (37 How. Pr. 23), 421. Close V. Close (28 N. J. Eq. 473), 871. Close V. Glenwood Cemetery (107 U. a 466), 905. Cloud V. Hamilton (8 Yerg. 81), 447. Clough V. Thomas (53 Ind. 24), 575. Clum V. Brewer (3 Curt. 506), 784. Clyburn v. Reynolds (31 S. C. 91), 797. Clyde V. Richmond &c. R Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 445), 578. 582. Coal Co. f. Blatchford (11 Wall. 172), 41, 73. Coal Creek M. & M. Co. v. Moses (15 Lea, 311), 979. Coale V. Chase (1 Bland, Ch. 136), 787. Coates V. Cunningham (80 111. 467), 705. Coates V. Merrick Thread Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 73), 546. Coates V. Morris (1 N. Y. Law Bull. 29), 1002. Coates V. Pearson (4 Madd. 262), 461. Cobb V. Rice (130 Mass. 231), 176, 177. Cobb V. Baxter (1 Tenn. Ch. 405), 456, 458. Cobb V. Rice (130 Mass. 331), 982. Coburn i;. Ames (57 Cal. 201). 703. Coburn v. Cedar Valley Land & Cat- tle Co. (35 Fed. Rep. 791), 339. Coburn v. Cedar Valley Coal & Land Co. (138 U. S. 196), 445, 571. Coburn v. Smart (53 Cal. 743), 923. Cochran v. Cochran (137 Pa. St. 490), 501, 858. Cochran v. McDowell (15 111. 10), 237. Cochran v. O'Keefe (34 Cal. 554), 547. Cochran v. Rison (20 Ala. 463), 275. Cochrane v. Adams (50 Mich. 17), 283. Cochrane v. Deener (95 U. S. 355), 954. Cochrane v. Foaron (18 Jur. 568), 998. Cochrane v. MoClsary (22 Iowa, 75), 763. Cochrane v. O'Brien (2 J. & Lat 380), 174. Cock V. Ravie (6 Vea 383), 612. Cockburn v. Raphael (2 Sim. & Sta 453), 712. Cockburn v. Thompson (16 Ves, 325), 386, 316. Cocke V. Evans (9 Yerg. 387), 415, 421. Cocke V. Gilpin (1 Rob. (Va.) 33), 498, 919. Cocke V. Trotter (10 Yerg. 313), 465. Cockes V. Sherman (Freem. 14 ; 3 Ch. Rep. 83), 96. Cockle V. Underwood (3 Duer, 676), 470. Cockrell v. Warren (14 Ark. 346), 446, 465. Cockroft, Ex parte (104 U. S. 578), 900. Cocks V. Varuey (42 N. J. Eq. 514), 145, 1.53. Coddington v. Idell (30 N. J. Eq. 540), 973 Codington v. Mott (14 N. J. Eq. 430), 188, 190, 191,193, 635. Codner v. Hersey (18 Ves. 468), 381. Codrington v. Houlditch (5 Sim. 286), 505. Codwise v. Gelston (10 Johns. 521), 570, 821. Coe, In re (49 Fed. Rep. 481), 895. Coe V. New Jersey &c. R. Co. (37 N. J. Eq. 37), 720. Coe V. New Jersey Midland Ry. Co. (28 N. J. Eq. 31), 750. Coe V. Turner (5 Conn. 37), 152, 902. Cofer V. Echerson (6 Iowa, 502), 715. Coffey V. Coffey (16 111. 241), 821. Coffey V. Norwood (81 Ala. 512), 91. Coffin V. Chattanooga Water & Power Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 543), 577. Coffin V. Cooper (6 Ves. 514). 140. Coffin V. Heath (6 Met. 76), 802. Coglar V. Coglar il Ves. Jr. 94), 614. Cogswell V. New York &c. R. Co. (105 N. Y. 319), 643. Cohen v. Goldsboro (77 N. C. 2), 764. Cohen v. Shyer (1 Tenn. Ch. 192), 1008. Cohen v. Woollard (2 Tenn. Ch. 686), 446, 453. Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheat 406), 24, 32. Coirou V. Millaudon (19 How. 113), 71, 74. Coit V. North Carolina G. A. Co. (9 Fed. Rep. 577), 539. Coithe V. Crane (1 Barb. Ch. 21), 919, 934. Colburn v. Cooper (8 Ir. Eq. 510), 747. Colby V. Meservey (Iowa, 53 N. W. Rep. 499), 777. Cololough V. Bolger (2 MoUoy, 455), 314. Colclough V. Evans (4 Sim. 76), 516, 520. Cole V. Allen (51 Ind. 123), 958. Cole V. Bean (1 Ariz. 377), 649. Ix TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Cole V. Butler (43 Me. 401), 485. Cole V. Cunningham (133 U. S. 107), 767. Cole V. Flitcraft (47 Md. 313), 326. Cole V. Hawkins (Andr. 375 ; 2 Str. 1094). 228. Cole V. Savage (Clarke's Ch. 361), 124. Cole Silver Min. Co. v. Virginia &a Water Co. (1 Sawy. 685), 71, 595, 630, 791. Coleman v. Aldrich (Vt, 17 Atl. Rep. 848), 24. Coleman v. Floyd (Ind., 31 N. E. Rep. 75), 643. Coleman v. Gage (Clarke's Ch. 295), 333, 787, 788. Coleman v. Lyne (4 Rand. 454), 335, 410. Coleman v. Martin (6 Blatchf. 119), 575, 583. Coleman v. Martin (6 Blatohf. 291), 493. Coleman v. Moore (8 Litt (Ky.1 355), 4'il. Coles V. Bowne (10 Paige, 536), 374. Coles V. Coles (13 N. J. Eq. 365), 988. Colgate V. Colgate (23 N. J. Eq. 373), 63. Colgate V. Conipagnie Franoaise &c. (23 Fed. Rep. 83), 161, 377, 539. Colgin V. Cummings (1 Porter (Ala.), 148), 690. Colie V. Tifft (47 N. Y. 119), 657. Collard v. Smith (13 N. J. Eq. 43), 375, 376, 389. Collier v. Newbern Bank (1 Dev. & Bat Eq. 338), 346. Collins V. Brook (4 H. & N. 370), 57. Collins V. Collins (80 N. Y. 34), 610, 611. Collins V. Ex'rs of Taylor (4 N. J. Eq. 163), 598. Collins V. Greaves (5 Hare, 596), 470. Collins V. Jackson (43 Mich. 558). 683. Collins V. Lavenberg (19 Ala. 683), 512 Collins u Stix (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 380), 93, 197. Collins V. Taylor (4 N. J. Eq. (3 Gr. Ch.) 163), 470, 863. Collinson v. - — (18 Ves. 353), 565, 616, 617, 618. Colman v. Northcote(2 Hare, 147), 60. Col more v. North (27 L. T. (N. S.) 405), 711. Colonial Mortgage Co. v. Hutchinson Mortgage Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 219), 77. Colson V. Lewis (2 Wheat. 377), 34. Colt V. Colt (111 U. S. 566), 9, 60. Colton V. Price (50 Ala. 424), 335. Colton V. Ross (3 Paige, 396), 15, 116, 141, 143. Columbus V. Western R Co. (83 Ala. 190), 333. Columbus &c. R. Co. v. Witherow (83 Ala. 190), 333, 335, 787. Columbus Ins. Co. v. Humphries (64 Miss. 358), 150. Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins (52 Fed. Rep. 337), 898, 899. Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins (148 U. S. 266), 893, 893, 894. Colville V. Colville (9 Humph. 534), 482, 843. Colvin, In re (3 Md. Ch. 278), 702, 749, 752, 754. Combe v. Corporation of London (15 L. J. Ch. 80), 533. Combs u Boswell (3 Dana, 474), 403. Combs V. Dodge (31 How. 397), 531. Commercial Bank v. Bank (4 Hill, 616), 445. Commercial Bank v. Reckless (5 N. J. Eq. 650), 393, 401, 403. Commercial Bank v. Waters (10 Sm. & M. 553), 877. Commercial & Sav. Bank v. Corbett (5 Sawy. 173), 714. Commercial Ins. Co. v. McLoon (14 Allen, 351), 181. Commercial Mut M. Ins. Co. v. Union Mut Ins. Co. (19 How. 318). 405. Commissioners v. Commissioners (Md., 36 Atl. Rep. 115), 759. Commissioner of Patents v. Whitely (4 Wall. 533), 763. Commonwealth v. Drake (81 Va. 305), 153. Commonwealth t). Gillespie (7 Serg. & R 470), 336. Commonwealth v. Gould (118 Mass. 300), 713. Commonwealth L. Ins. Co., In re (33 Hini, 78), 731. Comstock V. Apthorpe (8 Cowen, 386), 534. Comstock V. Frederickson (Minn., 53 N. W. Rej). 713), 745. Comstock V. Herron (45 Fed. Rep. 660), 113, 429, 430. Conant v. Delafield (4 Edw. Ch. 358), 361. Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. (1 Peters, 450), 334. Concklin v. Coddington (13 N. J. Eq. 350), 988. Concklin v. Hall (3 Barb. Ch. 136), 61. Condictu King (13 N. J. Eq. 375), 631, 633. Conger v. Douglass (8 Barb. Ch. 81), 915. Conley v. Alabama G. L. Ins. Co. (67 Ala. 473), 180. Conley v. Deere (11 Lea (Tenn.), 275). 735. TABLE OF OASES. Ixi prho references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Conley v. Nailor (118 U. S. 127), 383, 383, 895. Conlnn v. Prior (Conn., 26 Atl. Rep. 1056), 971. Connall v. Walton (4 Ired. Eq. 155), 833. Conn. Milt. L. Ins. Co. v. Cushnian (108 U. a 51), 8, 9, 10. Conn. Mut L. T«s. Co. v. Union Trust Co. (113 U. S. 2.50), 538. Connelly v. Kretz (78 N. Y. 620), 705, 749. Conner v. Belden (8 Daly, 2.57). "19. Conner v. Drake (1 Ohio St. 16'.), 473, 477. Conner v. Smith (88 Ala. 300; 7 So. Rep. 150), 197. Connor v. Armstrong (91 Ala, 265), 977. Conolly V. Taylor (3 Peters, 5^56), 38. Conolly V. Wells (33 Fed. Rep. 205). 74. Conover r\ Conover (1 N. J. Eq. 403), 486, 587. Conover v. Mers (3 Fish. Pat Cas. 386), 32.5. Conover v. Ruckman (33 N, J. Eq. 6H5), 483. Conover v. Ruckman (33 N. J. Eq. 303), 344. Conover v. Ruckman (34 N. J. Eq. 393). 781. 791. Conover v. Sealey (45 N. J. Eq. 589 ; 19 Atl. Rep. 616), 143. 148, 154. Conover v. Van Mater (18 N. J. Eq. 481), 389. Conover v. Walling (38 N. J. Eq 333), 993. Conover v. Wright (6 N. J. Eq 613), 390, 339. Conrad v. Hammer (9 Beav. 3), 730. Consequa r. Fanning (3 Johns. Cli. 587), 557, 639, 674, 837. Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. People's Electric Light & Gas Co. (94 Ala. 373), 334. Consolidated Electric Storage Co. v. Atlantic Trust Co. (N. J. Ch., 34 Atl. Rep. 339, 133, 335, 240. Consolidated Piedmont Cable Co. v. Pacific Cable Ry. Co. (53 Fed. Rep. 385). 899. Consolidated Piedmont Cable Co. v. Pacific Cable Co. (58 Fed. Rep. 326), 899. Consolidated Presbyterian Soc. v. Staples (33 Conn. 544), 4, 180. Consolidated Roller-mill Co. i'. Coombs (39 Fed. Rep. 35), 16, 17. Consolidated Store-service Co. v. Lamson Consolidated Store-serv- ice Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 838), 47, 49. (.Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads (119 U. a 287), 130. Continental Ins. Co. v. Webb (54 Ala. 688), 466. Continental Stove Service Co. v. Clark (100 N. Y. 365), 83. Converse v. Michig;m Dairy Co. (45 Fed. Rep. 18), 154. Con way v. Wilson (44 N. J. 457; 11 Ati. Rep. 734), 390, 441. Conwell V. Lawrence (46 Kan. 83), 743. Conwell t;. McCowan (53 111. 363), 447. Conwell V. Valley Canal Co. (4 Biss. 300), 43, 44. Conwell V. Watkins (71 111. 488), 287. Cook V. Bamfield (3 Swanst 607), 861. Cook V. Hee (3 Tenn. Ch. 343), 415, 416, 418, 431. Cook V. Bolton (5 Russ. 383), 605. Cook V. Chapman (41 N. J. Eq. 153), 777, 778. Cook V. Corning (63 Ga. 33 ), 694. Cook V. Da vies (1 Turn. & R. 809), 30.5. Cook V. De La Garza (13 Tex. 431), 331. Cook V. Dews (3 Tenn. Ch. 496), 345, 381. Cook V. Farren (34 Barb. 95), 221. Cook V. French (Mich., 56 N. W. Rep. 101), 63.1 Cook V. Johnson (13 N. J. Eq. 51), 406. Cook V. JIanoius (3 Johns. Ch. 437), 319. H39. Cook V. Mancius (5 Johns. Ch. 89). 9.5. Cook V. Richards (11 Helsk. 714), 356. Cook V. Stiats 1 18 Barb. 407), 600. Cook V. Walker (34 Ga 331). 474. Cook V. Westall (1 Mad.l. Ch. 365), 383. Cook V. Wilcook (5 Mad. 338), 33,5. Cook Co. V. Calumet &c. Co. (138 U. S. 635), 39. Cook County v. Great Western R Co. (119 III. 318i, 394 Cooke V. Barker (Hopk. Ch. 117), 604. Cooke V. Orange (48 Conn. 401), 736, 746. Cookerly v. Duncan (87 Ind. 333), 463. Cookes V. Cookes (3 De G., J. & S. 526), 709. Coon V. Abbot (37 Fed. Rep. 98), 532. Coope V. Bowles (43 Barb. 87). 738. Coope V. Bowles (38 How. Pr. 10), 738. Cooper V. Alden (Harr. Ch. 73), 781. Cooper V. Cooper (5 N. J. Eq. 498), 93. Cooper V. Galbraith (3 Wash. (C. C.) 546), 37, 40. Cooper V. Lewis (3 Phil. Ch. 178), 473. Cooper V. Purton (8 W. R. 702), 1005. Cooper V. Reynolds (10 Wall. 308), 331. Cooper V. Stockard (16 Lea, 144), 653, 657. Cooper V. Tappan (9 Wis. 861), 897. Ixii TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-60S; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Cooper Manuf. Co. v. Ferguson (113 U. a 727), 211. Coosaw Mining Co. v. Farmers' Min- ing Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 107), 775. Cope V. Parry (1 MadA Ch. 83), 382. Copeland v. Crane (9 Pick. 73), 394, 405. Copeland v. Cunningham (63 Ala. 3'^9), 774. Coi)elau(l V. Granger (3 Tenn. Ch. 487). 376. Copeland v. Wheeler (4 Bro. C. C. 256), 436. Copen V. Flesher (1 Bond, 440), 153, 186. Copper Hill Min. Co, v, Spencer (25 Cal. 11), 750. Coppin V. Gray (1 Y. & C. (Ch.) 305), 205. Corbett v. Corbett (16 Ves. 410), 607. Corbett v. Nutt (10 Wall, 464), 768. Corbin v. County of Black Hawk (105 U. S. 659), 50, 131. Corbus V. Teed (69 111. 206), 895, 491. Corcoi-an v. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. (94 U. S. 7411, 88, 450, 803. Corcoran v. Judson (34 N. Y. 106), 777. Core V. Strickler (24 West Va. 693), 919. Corey v. Long (12 Abb. Pr. 427), 747. Corey v. Long (43 How. Pr. 506), 733. Corey v. Moore (86 Va 731), 833. Corey v. Voorhies (2 N. J. Eq. 5), 783. Corles V. Lashley (15 N. J. Eq. 116), 818. Corlies v. Corlies (23 N. J. Eq. 197), 330, 346. Cornelius v. Halsey (11 N. J. Eq. 37), 120, 162. Cornell v. Andrus (36 N. J. Eq, 331), 168. Cornell v. Green (43 Fed. Rep. 105), 203, 267. Cornell v. Radway (22 Wis. 260), 645. Cornell v. Watson (1 Edw. Ch. 82, 356. Cornely v. Mackwald (131 U. S. 159), 897. Corning v. Cooper (7 Paige, 587), 437. Corning v. Ludluni (38 N. J. Eq. 398), 389. Corning v. Smith (6 N. Y. 83), 97. Corning v. Troy Iron Factory (15 How. 451), 959, 960. Corning v. Troy &c. Factory (40 N. Y. 691), 759. Cornish v. Keesee (34 Ark. 538), 844. Cornwall v. Sachs (69 Hun, 283), 761. Cornwell Manuf'g Co. v. Swift, (Mich., 50 N. W. Rep. 1001), 84. Corpoiation of London v. Corpora- tion of Liverpool (3 Anst 738), 3ia Corporation of Rochester v. Lee (2 De G., M. & G. 427), 995. Correll v. Freeman (39 111. 39), 446. Corry v. Trist (Ld. Red. 167), 80. Corsen v. Dubois (1 Holt, N. P. 389), 536. Corsicana v. White (57 Tex. 382), 831. Cortee v. Lyons (19 D. C. (8 Mackey), 307), 859. Coryell v. Holcombe (9 N. J. Eq. 650), 916. Cosby V. Buchanan (23 Wall 430), 17, 917. Cosserat v. Tollett (3 Swanst 683), 299. Coster V. Bank of Georgia (34 Ala. 37), 453, 457, Coster V. Clark (3 Edw. Ch. 438), 834 Coster V. Clarke (3 Edw. Ch. 405), 831. Coster V. Griswold (4 Edw. Ch. 364), 198, 767. Coster V. Murray (7 Johns. Ch. 167), 350. Coston V. Coston (66 Ga. 382), 483. Cotes V. Turner fBunb. 133), 434 Cotham v. We.st |2 Atk. 182), 438. Cotheal v. Blydenburgh (5 N. J. Eq. 17), 375. Cottam V. Currie (42 La. Ann. 875), 327. Cottingham v. Earl of Shrewsbury (3 Hare, 638), 450. Cottington v. Fletcher (2 Atk. 155), 33 i Cottle V. Krementz (25 Fed. Rep. 494), 350, 490, 491. Cotton V. Earl of Carlisle (5 Madd. 437), 505. Cotton V. Harmon (1 Scam. 581), 1000. Cotton V. Parker (1 Sm. & M. Ch. 125), 830. CouUiette ti. Thomason (50 Fed. Rep. 787 V 914 938. Coultas V. Green (43 IlL 377), 476. Coulthurst V. Coulthurst (58 Cal. 239), 463. Countess of Carlisle v. Berkley (Amb. 599), 711. Countess of Plymouth v. Bladon (2 Vern. 33), 487. County of Yuba v. Adams (7 Cal. 35), 738. County of Yuba v. Pioneer Gold Min. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 183), 46, 48. Coupe V. Weatherland (37 Fed. Rep. 16), 630. Courand v. Hanmer (9 Beav. 3), 733. Course v. Stead (4 Dall. 32), 33. Court V. JefEery (1 Sim. & Stu. 105), 387. Courtenay v. Hoskins (3 Russ. 253), 551. TABLE OF CASES. Ixiii [The references are to pages: Voi. I contains pp. 1-606; Vol. 11, pp. 609-1012.] Courtney v. Insurance Co. (4 U. S. App. 140; 1 C. C. A. 249), 23. Cousens v. Rose (L. R 12 En. 366), 153 157 Covell V. Heyman (111 U. S. 176), 707, 769. Covington &c. Co. v. Keith (121 U. S. 248), 941. Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shep- herd (30 How. 227), 41. Cowan V. Anderson (7 Cold. 2841,312. Cowan V. Price (1 Bibb, 173), 410. Cowan V. Wells (5 Lea (Teun.), 683), 239. Coward v. Chastain (N. C, 6 S. E. Rep. 703), 346. Cowart V. Perrine (21 N. J. Eq. 101), 489. Cowdin V. Cram (3 Edw. Ch. 233), 612, 621. Cowdrev v. Galveston &c. R. Co. (93 U. a 352), 727. Cowdrev v. RRilroad Co. (1 Woods, 331)" 708, 730, 729, 731, 733, 748, 752, 947. Cowen V. AIsop (51 Miss. 158), 410. Cowles V. Andrews (39 Ala. 125), 581. Cowles V. Mercer County (7 Wall. 118), 41. Cowles V. Whitman (10 Conn. 121), 909. Cowman v. Lovett (10 Paige, 559), 399. Cowper V. Earl Cowper (3 P. Wms. 720), 748. Cowper V. Scott (1 Eden, 17). 909. Cox V. Curwen (118 Mass. 198), 501, 858. Cox V. Hess (5 Paige, 85), 334. Cox V. James (45 N. Y. 557), 16. Cox V. Lynn (111., 29 N. E. Rep. 847), 859. Cox V. Pierce (22 111. App. 302), 555. Cox V. Roome (36 N. J. Eq. 317), 75. Cox V. Scott (5 Har. & J. 398). 609. Cox V. Taylor (10 B. Hon. 17). 777. Cox V. Westooat (29 N. J. Eq. 551), 431. Cox V. Wright (9 Jur. (N. S.) 981), 568. Cox's Heirs v. Strode (11 Bibb, 373), 627. f 'oxe's Appeal (120 Pa. St. 98), 696. Coxe V. Halstead (3 N. J. Eq. 311), 574, 817, 818, 819, 820. C~oxe V. Smith (4 Johns. Ch. 271), 639, 640. Cczine v. Graham (2 Paige, 177), 169, 298 341 373 Cozzens v. Sisson (5 R L 489), 473. Crabtree v. Byrne (54 Fed. Rep. 432), 891. Crabtree v. Madden (54 Fed. Rep. 426), 891. Craddock v. American Freehold L. & M. Co. (88 Ala. 281), 288, 389. Craig V. Bolton (2 Bro. C. C. 609), 1004, 1005. Craig V. Kittridge (38 N. H. 231), 805. Craig V. Leitensdorfer (127 U. S. 764), 998. Craig V. McKinuey (72 111. 314), 686. Craig V. Smith (100 U. S. 336), 853, 861. Craig V. Tappin (2 Sandf. Ch. 78), 977. Craighead v. Wilson (18 How. 199), 926. Cramer v. Bode (24 111. App. 219), 239. Crammer v. Atlantic City &c. R Co. (39 N. J. Eq. 77), 429. Crandall v. Hoysradt (1 Sandf. Ch. 40), 975, 988. Crane v. Brigham (11 N. J. Eq. 39), 571, 573. 574. Crane v. Decamp (22 N. J. Eq. 614), 951, 953. Crane v. Deming (7 Conn. 387), 130, 374, 382, 308. 375. Crane v. Fairchild (14 N. J. Eq. 76), 144. Crane v. Homeopathic L. Ins. Co. (37 N. J. Eq. 484). 337. Crane v. Hutchinson (3 111. App. 30), 376. Crate v. Kohlsaat (44 111. App. 460), 777. Craven v. Wright (3 P. Wms. 181). 488. Crawford v. Bartholf (1 N. J. Eq. 458), 553. Crawford v. Moore (28 Fed. Rep. 824), 127. Crawford v. Neal (144 U. S. 585), 39, 947. Crawford v. Ross (39 Ga. 48), 749, 751. Crawford v. Schmitz (111., 29 N. E. Rep. 40), 17. Crawford v. The William Penn (3 Wash. 484), 356. Crawford v. Tuller (35 Mich. 57), 821. Crawshay v. Thornton (2 M. & C. 23), 178. Credit Co. v. Arkansas Cent R. Co. (128 U. S. 354), 915, 939. Credit Co. v. Arkansas Cent. R Co. (15 Fed. Rep. 46), 703, 719, 720 Creed v. Railway Co. (22 Wis. 260), 91. Creeley v. Bay State Brick Co. (103 Mass. 514), 16. Creigh, Matter of (1 Ball & B. 108), 770. Crenshaw, Exparte (15 Pet 119), 956, 963. Ixiv TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; VoL II, pp. 609-1012.] Cresap v. Kemble (26 West Va. 603), 123. Crescent Live Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union Live Stock Co. (13 Fed. Rep. 335), 378, 321. Cressvpell v. Haines (8 Jur. (N. S.) 208), 994. Creswick v. Creswick (1 Atk. 291), 461. Creveling v. Moore (39 Mich. 563), 237. Crews V. Burcham (1 Black, 352), 150. Crighto V. Dohmer (Miss., 13 So. Rep. 287), 765. Crim V. Handley (94 U. S. 653), 337. Crippen v. Hudson (3 Kernan, 161), 645. Crippin v. Heermance (9 Paige, 211), 972. Crislip V. Cain (19 West Va. 438), 498. Crisman v. Herderer (5 Colo. 589), 446. Crispe v. Nevil (1 Ch. Cas. 60), 438. Crittenden v. Field (8 Gray, 626), 908. Crocker v. Craig (46 Me. 337), 79. Crocker v. Dillon (133 Mass. 92), 16, 950. Crocker v. Higgens (7 Conn. 342), 69. Croghan v. Minor (53 Cal. 15), 96. Cromer v. Pinckney (8 Barb. Ch. 466), 100. Crompton v. Wombwell (4 Sim. 628), 516. Cromwell v. Cunningham (4 Sandf. Ch. 384), 198. Cronkright v. Haulenbeck (35 N. J. Eq. 279), 909. Cropper v. Burton (5 Leigh, 425), 409, 410. Cropper v. Knapman (2 Y. & Coll. 338), 508. Crosby v. Berger (4 Edw. Ch. 310), 102. Crosier v. Acer (7 Paige, 138), 635. Crosley v. Marriot (3 Dick. 609), 613. Cross V. Allen (141 U. S. 528; 12 S. Ct Rep. 67), 39. Cross V. Bean (81 Me. 525; 17 Atl. Rep. 710), 198. Cross V. De Valle (1 Wall. 1), 45, 446, 452, 455, 465, 466. Cross V. Morgan (6 Fed. Rep. 241), 414. Crosse v. Redingfield (13 Sim. 85), 370. Crossley v. Crowther (9 Hare, 384), 468. Grossman v. Card (143 Mass. 153), 697. Grouch V. Kerr (88 Fed. Rep. 549), 366. Crounse v. Syracuse &c. R Co. (82 Hun, 497), 777. Crouter v. Crouter (17 N. Y. Supl. 758), 824) Crowder v. Moores (57 Ala. 231). 705. Crowder v. Searcy (108 Mo. 97), 871. Crowell V. Botsford (16 N. J. Eq. 458), 203, 696. Crucher v. Hind (4 Bush, 868), 53. Crumlish v. Shenandoah Valley R. Co. (28 West Va. 623), 148, 185. Crump V. Crump (69 Ala. 156), 692. Crump V. Perkins (18 Fla. 353), 513, 514. Cubberly v. Cubberly (33 N. J. Eq. 82), 77. Cufif V. Platell (4 Russ. 243), 101, 374, 294 Gullen V. Dawson (34 Minn. 66), 172. Culler V. Piatt (Tex., 16 S. W. Rep. 1003), 590. CuUum V. Brwin (4 Ala. 452), 356, 447, 450, 453. Culver V. Colehour (115 III. 558), 626. Gumming v. Mayor &c. (11 Paige, 596), 17. Gumming v. Slater (1 Y. & C. (Ch.) 484), 588. Cummings v. Barrett (10 Gush. 186), 21. Cummings v. Burleson (78 111. 281), 777. Cummings v. National Bank (101 U. S. 153), 9. Cummins v. Bennett (8 Paige, 79), 478, 474, 478. Cummins v. Cummins (8 N. J. Eq. 173), 347. Cummins v. Gill (6 Ala. 562), 356, 447, 450, 464. Cunningham v. Cunningham (Amb. 89 ; Dick. 145), 242, 830, 907. Cunningham v. Goelet (4 Denio, 71), 222. Cunningham v. Macon &c. R. Co. (109 U. S. 4461. 39. Cunningham v. Otis(l Gall. 166), 558. Cunningham v. Pell (5 Paige, 607), 73, 75. Cunningham v. Pell (6 Paige, 655), 185, 187, 199. Cunningham v. State (Tex., 11 S. W. Rep. 871), 591. Cunningham v. Steele (1 Litt (Ky.) 52), 235. Cunningham v. Williams (43 Ark. 170), 170. Curd V. Lewis (1 Dana, 351), 457. Curling v. Marquis of Townsend (19 Ves. 628), 416, 417, 418, 433. Curling v. Townshend (19 Ves. 628), 381. Gurran v. St Charles Car Go. (83 Fed. Rep. 835), 451. Curry v. Glass (35 N. J. Eq. 108), 482. Curry v. Peebles (88 Ala. 225), 857. Curteis v. Gaudier (Mad. & Geld. 123), 980. TABLE OF CASES. 1X7 [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1013.] Curtis V. Leavitt(4Edw. Ch. 246), 194. Curtis V. Lloyd (4 Myl. & C. 194), 473. Curts V. Bardstown (6 J. J. Marsh. 536), 686. Curyea v. Berry (84 111. 600). 276. Curzon v. De La Zouclie (1 Swanst 18.'5i. 300. Cushman v. Bonfleld (111., 28 N. E. Rep. 937), 117. Cushman v. Brown (6 Paige, 539), 430. Cust V. Boode (1 Sim. & Stu. 21), 300. Cutfield V. Richards (26 Beav. 241), 989. Cutting;, Ex parte (94 U. S. 14), 584. 900, 90.1, 911. CuttioK V. Dana (25 N. J. Eq. 265', 16. Cutting V. Florida Ry. Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 743), 691, 696. Cutting V. Gilbert (5 Blatchf. 2.59), MO. Cutter V. Tuttle (19 N. J. Eq. 549), 100, 200. Cuyler v. Bogert (3 Paige, 186), 274, 359, 362, 365. Cuyler v. Moreland (6 Paige, 373), 645, 901. Da Costa v. Da Costa (3 P. Wms. 140), 56. Dagly V. Crump (1 Diok. 35). 417. Dainese v. Kendall (119 U. S. 53). 917. Dakin v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (5 Fed. Rep. 665), 277, 321. Dakota County v. Glidden (113 U. S. 222). 901. Dale V. Kent (58 Ind. 584), 704, 912. Dale V. Roosevelt (6 Johns. Ch. 256), 557. 651, 837. Dale V. Rosevelt (1 Paige, 35), 782. Dale I'. Thomas (67 Ind. 570), 286. Dale Tile Mfg. Co. v. Hyatt (125 U. S. 46), 33. Dalglish V. Jarvie (2 Macn. & 0.231), 562, 773. Dalton V. Erb (53 III. 289), 851. Daly V. Tool (1 Iiish Eq. 344), 390. Danbury v. Robinson (14 N. J. Eq. 324), 988, 989. 991. Daniel v. Fain (5 Lea, 258), 176. Daniel v. Ferguson (3 Ch. I). 37), 759. Daniel v. Hannagan (5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 49), 61. Daniell v. Mitchell (1 Story, 198), 830. Daniels v. Benedict (50 Fed. Rep. 353), 867. Daniels v. Brodie (3 Edw. Ch. 375), 500. Daniels v. Davison (16 Ves. 249), 539. Daniels v. Fielding (16 M. & W. 200), 773. E Danielson v. Northwestern Fuel Ca (55 Fed. Rep. 49), 595. D'Aranda v. Whittingham (Moseley, 84). 78. ' Darden v. Burns (6 Ala. 362). 180. Dare v. Allen (2 N. J. Eq. 288). 108. Darley v. Nicholson (2 Dr. & War. 861. 617, 623. Darnell v. Reyney (1 Vern. 344), 434. Darrah v. Boyce (62 Mich. 480). 283. Dart V. Palmer (1 Barb. Ch. 92), 70, 287. Dascomb V. Marston (80 Me. 233; 18 Atl. Rep. 888). 411,491. Datz V. Phillips (24 W. N. O. 382), 454. Daugherty v. Deardorf (107 Ind. 527), 94. Davenport v. Auditor-General (70 Mich. 193), 637. Davenport v. Dams (18 Wall. 626), 742. Davenport i\ Davenport (5 Allen, 464), 68. Davenport v. Fletcher (16 How. 143), 934. Davenport v. Sniffen (1 Barb. Ch. 233), 297. Davenport w Stofford (8 Beav. 503), 799. Daven port v. Whitmore (8 Sim. 251), 438. David V. Fron d (1 Myl. & K. 200), 8a Davidsburg v. Knickerbocker Ins. Co. (90 N. Y. 526), 591. Davidson v. Lanier (4 Wall. 447), 933. Davies v Corbin (113 U. S. 36), 23. Davies v. Davies (2 Keen, 534), 342. Davies v. Davies (9 Ves. 461), 499. Davifs V. Lathrop (13 Fed. Rep. 353), 41. Davies v. Otty (35 Beav. 208), 551. Davies v. Quarterman (4 Y. & ColL 257), 157. Davies v. Whitehead (1 W. N. 163), 65. Davies v. Williams (1 Sim. 5), 265. Davis V. American Foreign Chris- tian Union (100 111. 313), 455, 458, 459. Davis V. American Society &c. (75 N. Y. 362), 764. Davis V. Barrett (7 Beav. 171), 568. Davis V. Bilsland (18 Wall. 659 1, 6. Davis V. Cook (65 Ala 617), 446, 453. Davis V. Creamery Co. (128 Ind. 222), 734. Davis V. Cripps (3 Y. & Coll. 443), 137, 439. Davis V. Davidson (4 McLean, 186), 379. Davis V. Davis (3 Atk. 24), 338, 433. Davis V. Davis (62 Miss. 818), 185. Davis V. Davis (19 N. J. Eq. 180), 110. Davis V. Davis (3 N. Y. St Rep. 163)^ 971. Ixvi TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; VoLU, pp. 60S-10£2Lf Davis V. Davis (2 Sim. 515), 781. Davis V. Duke of Marlborough (2 Swanst 113), 753, 754. Davis V. Duncan (19 Fed. Rep. 477), 754. Davis V. Flagg (35 N. J. Eq. 491), 916. Davis V. Flagg (44 N. J. Eq. 109 ; 13 Atl. Rep. 257), 481. Davis V. Gray (6 Wall. 203), 736, 739, 740. Davis V. Hall, (92 111. 85), 467. Davis V. Hart (66 Miss. 642 ; 6 So. Rep. 318), 336, 776. Davis V. Hunt (2 Bail. 412), 485. Davis V. James (2 Fed. Rep. 618), 9. Davis V. Jones (3 Head, 603), 799. Davis V. Mapes(2 Paige, 105), 359, 360, 363, 360, 434. Davis V. Michelbachpr (Wis., 31 N. W. Rep. 160), 741, 750. Davis V. Morris (13 Price, 766), 842. Davis V. Reed (14 Md. 152), 769. Davis V. Rosedale St. R. Co. (75 Tex. 381), 777. Davis V. Sherron (1 Cranch, C. C;. 287), 876. Davis V. Smith (2 Atk. 21), 248. Davis V. Suead (33 Gract. 705), 734, 738. Davis V. Speiden (104 U. S. 83), 852, 855, 856, 859. Davis V. State (139 U. S. 651), 29. Davis V. Sullivan (33 N. J. Eq. 569), 507, 582. Davis V. Sullivan (141 Mass. 76), 952. Davis V. Talbut (Ind., 27 N. E. Rep. 496), 738. Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. Dunbar (32 West Va. 335), 845, 846, 848, 849, 952. Davison v. Attorney-General (5 Price, 398, n.), 436. Davison v. Baker (24 How. 39), 208. Davison v. Davison (13 N. J. Eq. 246), 193 Davison v. Ferry Co. (71 N. Y. 333), 642. Davison v. Johnson (16 N. J. Eq. 113), 272, 328, 347, 348, 485. Davison v. Perrine (32 N. J. Eq. 87), 283. Davoue v. Fanning (4 Johns. Ch. 199), 85, 146, 157, 273, 867. Davy V. Greenow (14 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 134), 754. Dawes v. Cadmus (32 N. J. Eq. 456), 375 Dawes v. Taylor (35 N. J. Eq. 40), 974. Dawkins v. Penrhyn (4 App. Cas. 61 ; 6Ch..D. 318), 290. Dawson v. Amey (40 N. J. Eq. 494), 466, 473. Dawson v. Clark (3 Sneed, 438), 497. Dawson v. Dawson (7 Ves. 173), 612, 614, 616. Dawson v. Drake (29 N. J. Eq. 383), 819. Dawson v. Parrot (8 Bro. C. C. 236), 981. Dawson v. Parsons (N. Y., 83 N. E. Rep. 482), 705. Dawson v. Paver (5 Hare, 424), 878. Dawson v. Scriven (1 Hill's Ch. 177), 799. Dawson v. Vaughn (42 Ind. 395), 485 Day V. Allaire (31 N. J. Eq. (4 Stew Eq.) 303), 831. 863. Day V. Boston Belting Co. (6 Law Rep. (N. S.) 329), 599. Day V. Croft (2 Beav. 491), 730. Day V. Croft (6 Eng. L & Eq. 62), 747 Day V. Kerr (7 Mo. 426). 60. Day V. Lvoii (11 N. J. Eq. 331), 820. Day V. Perkins (3 Sandf. Ch. 360), 162 Day V. Potter (9 Paige, 645), 506. Day V. Washburn (23 How. 309), 943. Dayton v. Borst (7 Bosw. 115), 735. Dayton v. Connah (18 How. Pr. 326), 738. Dayton v. Lash (94 U. S. 113), 932. Dayton v. Melick (27 N. J. Eq. 363), 357. Deacon v. Deacon (7 Sim. 378), 313. Deaderick v. Smith (6 Humph. 138). 563. Dean v. Abel (1 Dick. 287), 907. Dean v. Emerson (102 Mass. 480), 669, 696. Dean v. Mason (20 How. 198), 911. Dean v. Nelson (7 Wall. 34->), 9ia Dean v. Nelson (10 Wall. 158), 54. Dean v. Smith (23 Wis. 488), 610, 613. Dean &c., Ex parte (18 W. R. 724), 799. Dean &c. of Ely v. Warren (2 Atk. 199), 529. Deans v. Wilcoxeu (25 Fla. 980 ; 7 So. Rep. 163), 154. Dear v. Sworder (4 Ch. Div. 476), 457. Dearborn v. Phillips (31 Tex. 449), 331. De Armand v. Adams (35 Ind. 455), 226. Dearth v. Hide & Leather Nat Bank (100 Mass. 540), 17, 425. Deas V. Harvie (2 Barb. Ch. 448), 545. 994, 995. Deatlv's Heirs v. Murphy (3 A. K. Marsh. 472), 121. Debazin v. Debazin (1 Dick. 95), 630. Debolt V. Carter (31 Ind. 355), 286. De Butts V. Bacon (1 Cranch, 569), 557. De Carriers v. De Calonne (4 Ves. 577), 613, 615, 619. Decarters v. La Farge (1 Paige, 574), 830. TABLE OF OASES. Ixvii [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Decatur v. Paulding (14 Pet. 497), 763. Decker v. Caskey (3 N. J. Eq. 446), 988, 995. Decker v. Miller (8 Paige, 149), 979. Decker v. Ruckman (38 N. J. Eq. 614), 951 De Cou'rcey v. Collins (31 N. J. Eq. 357), 632. Deerfield v. Nims (110 Mass. 115), 75. De Florez v. Raynolds (16 Blatchf. 397). 555. Deford v. State (30 Md. 179), 57. Degiverville v. De Jarnette (13 Law Reg. 318), 53. Deglow's Ex'r v. Meyer (Ky., 15 S. W. Rep. 875), 168. De Greiff v. Wilson (30 N. J. Eq. 435), 95 De Groot v. Jay (30 Barb. 483), 739, 740. De Hart v. Baird (19 N. J. Eq. 433), 893. Dehart v. Dehart (3 Green (3 N. J. Eq.), 471), 69. 85. Deimel v. Brown (111., 37 N. E Rep. 44), 171, 402, 403, 409, 413. De Lacv v. Hurst (83 Ga. 333 ; 9 S. E. Rep. 1053), 194, 196. De Lacy v. Walcott (21 N. Y. Supl. 619), 124. Delafield v. Golden (1 Paige, 139), 981. Delafield v. Commercial Tel. Co. (23 Abb. N. C. 450), 759. Delahuntv v. Warner (75 111. 185), 763. Delany v. Noble (3 N. J. Eq. 441), 553. De La Rue v. Dickenson (3 Kay & J. 388), 363. De La Torre v. Bernales (4 Mad. 396), 436, 441. De Laveaga v. Williams (5 Sawy. 573), 39. Delaware &c. R Co. v. Raritan &c. R. Co. (15 N. J. Eq. 14), 784. Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Scranton (34 N. J. Eq. 429), 823. Delaware Bay &c. Co. v. Markley (45 N. J. Eq. 139), 948. Delaware Count}' v. Diebold Safe Co. (133 U. S. 473), 531. Delger v. Johnson (44 Cal. 183), 344. Dellett V. Kemble (33 N. J. Eq. 58), 780. Del Pont V. Tastet (1 Turn. & R. 486), 433. De Luze v. Loder (3 Edw. Ch. 419), 480, 567. Demaree v. Driskill (3 Blatchf. 115), 491. Demarest v. Berry (16 N. J. Eq. 481), 991. Heinarest v. Hardham (34 N. J. Eq. 469), 85. Demarest v. Wynkoop (2 Johns. Ch. 461), 606. Demarest v. Wynkoop (3 Johns. Ch. 139), 975. De Minokwitz v. Udney (16 Ves. 355), 346. Deming v. United States (10 Wall. 251). 946. De Mott V. Benson (4 Edw. Ch. 397), 679, 689. Den V. Fenn (1 Gaines' Rep. 487), 659. Denis V. Roohussen (4 Jur. (N. S.) 398), 436. Denistou v. Hoagland (67 111. 265), 287. Denislon v. Little (2 Sch. & Lef. 11), 529. Denmau v. Nelson (31 N. J. Eq. 452), 404. Denner v. Railway Co. (57 Wis. 318; 15 N. W. Rep. 158), 16. Dennett v. Dennett (44 N. H. 531), 833. Dennie v. Williams (135 Mass. 3S), 531. Denning v. Smith, (3 Johns. Ch. 345), 373. Dennison v. Bassford (7 Paige, 370), 834, 380, 381, 382, 390. Denny v. Dodson (32 Fed. Rep. 899), 630. Denstons v. Morris (8 Edw. Ch. 58), 293. Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherbee (2 Cliff. 555), 324. Denton v. Denton (1 Johns. Ch. 264), 614. Denton v. Denton (1 Johns. Ch. 441), 619. Denton v. International Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 1), 48, 211. Denver &c. R. Co. v. Ailing (99 U. S. 463), 944. Depevster v. Graves (2 Johns. Ch. 148), 333, 334, 787, 788. Depue V. Sergent (21 West Va. 336), 428. Depntron v. Young (134 U. S. 341), 484. Derby v. Gage (38 111. 37), 455. De Ri vafinoli v. Corsetti (4 Paige, 264), 609, 618. Derrick v. Lamar Ins. Co. (74 111. 404), 579, 906. Derry Bank v. Heath (45 N. H. 534), 777. De Ruyter v. Trustees &c. (3 Barb. Ch. 556), 825. Dcsborough v. Harris (5 De G., M. & G. 439), 173, 174. De Sobry v. Nicliolson (3 Wall 480), 48. Despau v. Swindles (3 Martin (N. 8.\ 705), 539. Desplaces u. Goris (1 Edw. Ch. 350), 137, 361, 438, 431, 443. Ixviii TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1OT2.) De Tastet v. Bordenave (Jac. 516), 653. Detillin v. Gale (7 Ves. 583), 993. Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 569), 380. 637, 630. Detweiler v. Holderbaura (43 Fed. Rpp. 387), 635. Devall V. Devall (4 Des. 79), 614. De Valle v. Harrison (93 U. 8. 233), 913 DeVandel v. Malone (35 Ala. 272), 373. Devauoene v. Devaucene (1 Edw. Ch. 273), 879. De Vauu;lin v. Hustead (37 West Va. 773), 649, 6ol. Devaynes v. Morris (1 Myl. & Cr. 213), 501. Devendorf v. Dickinson (31 How. Pr. 275), 702, 735. Devil V. Brownlow (3 Dick. 611), 338. Devonshire v. Newenliam (3 Sch. & Lef. 199), 279. Devore v. Adams (68 Iowa. 385), 947. Dewall V. Covenhoven (5 Paige, 581), 65, 66. De Walt V. Kinard (19 S. C. 290), 644. Dewees v. Devveos (55 Miss. 315), 466. De Winton v. Mayor of Brecon (28 B^av. 300), 747. De Witt V. Ackerman (17 N. J. Eq. 215), 639. De Witt V. Elmira Manuf. Co. (66 N. Y. 459), 764. De Wolf V. Long (3 Gilm. (111.) 679), 410. De Wolf V. Mallett (3 Dana (Ky. 1, 214), 209. DeWolf V. Sprague Mfg. Co. (40 Conu. 283), 142, 147. Dexter v. Arnold (2 Sumner, 108), 98, 691. Dexter v. Arnold (5 Mason, 308), 827, 854, 857, 861. Dexter v. Codman (148 Mass. 431), 660, 947. Dexter v. Ohlander (Ala., 10 So. Rep. 537), 336, 338. Dexter, Horton & Co. v. Long (Wash., 27 Pac. Rep. 271), 163. Dey V. Dey (23 N. J. Eq. 88), 786. Dey V. Dunham (2 Johns. Ch. 182), 557, 804, 807. Dey V. Hathaway Printing &c. Co. (41 N. J. Eq. 419), 256, 257, 480. Deybol's Case (4 B. & Aid. 243), 529. De Zouche v. Garrison (140 Pa. St. 430; 31 AtL Rep. 450), 173, 174, 175. Dial V. Reynolds (96 U. S, 340), 96, 97, 157, 452. 454. Dias V. Bouchand (10 Paige, 445), 99, 100, 294. Dias V. Merle (2 Paige, 594), 512, 535. Dias V. Merle (4 Paige, 359), 99, 510. Dicas V. Lord Brougham (6 C. & P. 349), 343. Dick V. Oil Well Supply Co. (25 Fed. Rep. 105), 296, 736. Dick V. Struthers (25 Red, Rep. 103), 736. Dick V. Swinton (1 Ves. & B. 371), 613. Dickerson v. Hodges (43 N. J. Eq. 45 ; 10 Atl. Rep. Ill), 309, 380. Dickerson v. Matheson (50 Fed. Rep. 73), 530, 543. Dickerson v. Wenman (35 N. J. Eq. 368), 394. Dickerson v. Winslow (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 918), 141, 148. Dickey's Appeal (Pa., 7 Atl. Rep. 577), 692. Dickey v. Allen (3 N. J. Eq. 40), 394 Dickenson v. Cod wise (11 Paige, 189), 918. Dickinson v. City of Trenton (33 N. J. Eq. 63), 826. Dickinson v. Codwlse (4 Edw. Ch. 3411,688. Dickinson v. Gray (Ky., 9 S. W. Rep. 281), 365. Didier v. Davison (10 Paige, 515), 318, 319, 330. Diedrich v. People (37 111. App. 604 ; 141 111. 665), 878. Diggle V. Boulden (48 Wis. 477), 879. Dignan v. Dignan (N. J., 17 Atl. Rep. 546), 556. Dilby V. Barnard (8 Gill & J. 170), 409. Dill V. Shahan (35 Ala. 694), 463. Dillard v. Krise (86 Va. 410), 670. Dilling V. Foster (31 S. C. 335), 711. Dillon V. Barnard (31 Wall. 430), 266, 267, 268. Dillon V. Francis (1 Dick. 68), 109. Dii worth V. Curts (111,39 N. E. Rep. 861), 593. Dlmmock v. Bixby (30 Pick. 3681 283, 383. Dinsmore v. Neresheimer (33 Hun, 204), 768. Dinsmore v. Westcott (35 N. J. Eq. 302), 205, 219. Diplock V. Hammond (2 S. & G. 141), 175. Disbrow v. Johnson (18 N. J. Eq. 36), 247. District of Columbia v. McBlair (124 U. S. 320). 823. Dixon V. Higgins (83 Ala. 284 ; 3 So. Rep. 289), 554, 555, 556, 558. Dixon V. Parks (1 Ves. Jr. 402X 478. Dixon V. Ramsay (3 Cranch, 319X 68. Dixon V. Rutherford (26 Ga. 153), 480, 481. TABLE OF CASES. Ixix [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 60&-1012.] Doble V. Potman (Hardres, 160), 446. Dobson V. Graham (49 Fed. Rep. 17), 541. Dobson V. Hartford Carpet Co. (114 U. a 439), 1012. Dobson V. Pearoe (12 N. Y. 156), 768, 867. Dockray v. Mason (48 Me. 178), 91. Dodd V. Astor (3 Barb. Ch. 395), 194, 569. Dodd V. Bellows (29 N. J. Eq. 137), 178. Dodd V. Flavell (17 N. J. Eq. 355), 773, 783. Dodd V. Ghiselin (27 Fed. Rep. 405), 42. Dodd V. Home Mut Ins. Co. (Oreg., 38 Pac. Rep. 881), 639. Dodd V. Levy (10 Mo. App. 133), 579. Dodd V. Wilkinson (43 N. J. Eq. 647), 137. Dodge V. Briggs (27 Fed. Eep. 160), 153. Dodge V. Dodge (29 N. H. 177), 509. Dodge V. Freeman's Savings &c. Co. (106 U. S. 445), 813. Dodge V. Knowles (114 U. S. 436), 930, 931, 932, 933. Dodge V. Northrop (Mich., 48 N. W. Rep. 505), 843, 850. Dodge V. Perkins (4 Mason, 435), 324. Dodge V. Tulleys (144 U. S. 451 ; 13 a Ct Rep. 738), 41, 42, 987, 993. Dodge V. Twell (135 U. a 235), 934. Doe V. Doe (3 Co wen, 316), 659. Doe V. Doe (1 Johns. Cas. 402), 659. Doe V. McFarland (9 Cranch, 151), 68. Doe V. Newland (3 Blatchf. 232), 476. Doe V. Roe (Hopk. Ch. 276), 323, 789. Doe V. Sybourn (7 Term R 2), 531. Doerfler v. Schmidt (64 Cal. 265), 169. Doggect V. Emerson (Woodb. & M. 196), 334. Doggett V. Railroad Co. (99 U. S. 73), 149. Doggett V. Simms (79 Ga. 353 ; 4 S. E. Rep. 909), 127. Doherty v. Holiday (Ind, 33 N. E. Rep. 315), 796. Dolder v. Bank of England (10 Ves. 284), 433, 434, 443. Dole V. Wooldredge (142 Mass. 161), 647, 652. Dolflus V. Frosch (5 Hill, 493), 348. Dollard v. Taylor (33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 496), 705. Dolman v. Cook (14 N. J. Eq. 56), 375. Domestic Tel. Co. v. Metropolitan Tel. Co. (39 N. J. Eq. 160), 330. Donalds v. Plumb (8 Conn. 447), 807. Donaldson v. Johnson (R I., 16 Atl. Rep. 140), 693. Done's Cage (1 P. Wms. 363), 613. Done V. Read (2 Ves. & B. 310), 382, Donnell v. Columbian Ins, Co. (2 Sumn. 866), 696. Donnell v. King (7 Leigh, 393), 373. Donovan v. Dwyer (63 Mich. 249), 848, 849. . Donovan v. MoCarty (155 Mass. 543), 947. Doody V. Pierce (9 Allen, 141), 494. Dooley v. Stipp (21 III. 86), 410. Doolittle, In re (33 Fed. Rep. 544), 728. Doolittle V. Lewis (7 Johns. Ch. 45), 68, 69. Doremus v. Cameron (49 N. J. Eq. 1), 395. Dormer v. Fortescue (2 Atk. 284), 317, 356. Dormer v. Fortescue (3 Atk. 134), 508. Dorr V. Gibboney (3 Hughes, 383), 259, 260. Dorr V. Tremont Nat Bank (128 Mass. 349), 653, 655, 658. Dorris v. Carter (67 Mo. 544), 776. Dorsey v. Hammond (1 Bland, 463), 665. Dorsey v. Hagerstown Bank (17 Md. 408), 78.5. Dorsey v. Kyle (30 Md. 513), 53. Dorsey v. Sibert (Ala., 9 So. Rep. 288), 903. Dorsey v. Thompson (37 Md. 25), 53, 54. Dorsheimer v. Rorback (18 N. J. Eq. 430;, 62, 63. Dorsheimer v. Rorback (23 N. J. Eq. 46), 99. Dorsheimer v. Rorback (34 N. J. Eq. 33 1, 828, 842. Doss V. Tyack (14 How. 298), 598, 663, 799, 828. Dossee v. Mookerjee (7 Moore's Ind. App. 4), 291. Doty V. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (8 Abb. 47), 209. Doub V. Barnes (1 Md. Ch. 137), 404. Dougherty v. Jones (37 Ga. 348), 750. Doughrey v. Topping (4 Paige, 94), 336. Doughty V. Doughty (7 N. J. Eq. 337), 433. Doughty V. Doughty (37 N. J. Eq. 318). 867. Douglass V. Cline (12 Bush (Ky.), 608), 719, 72a Douglass V. County of Baker (23 Fla. 419), 333, 383, 788. Douglass 11. Evans (1 Tenn. (Overton), 82), 235. Douglass V. Merceles (24 N. J. Eq. 35), 688, 689. Douglass V. Rathbone (5 Hill, 148), 268. Douglass V. Sherman (3 Paige, 358), 500, 503, 534. Ixx TABLE OF CASES. [The referenoeg are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] DouRlasa v. Stephens (18 Mo. 366), 776. DouRlaas v. Thompson (39 Ga. 134), 785. Dow V. Chamberlin (5 McLean, 381), 10. Dow V. Updike (11 Neb. 95), 993. Dowche V. Beriot (Gary, 63 1. 349. Dowden v. Wilson (71 111. 485), 649. Dowell V. Applegate (8 Fed. Eep. 698), 306. Bowling V. Hudson (14 Beav. 434), 717. Down V. McMichael (6 Paige, 139), 333, 353. Downing v. McGartney (9 Wall. 463), 903. Downing v. Risley {15 N. J. Eq. 93), 89. Downing v. United States (Appendix to 138 U. S. 98), 903. Down man v. Rust (6 Rand. (Va.) 587), 373. Downshire v. Tyrrell (Hayes, 354), 711. Dnws V. Ghicago (11 Wall. 108), 466. Dows V. McMichael (3 Paige, 344), 350, 353. Dowse V. Coxe (3 Bing. 20), 667. Dowson V. Hardcastle (3 Cox, 379), 983. Doyle, In re (14 R. I. 55), 584, 836, 854, ■ 857. Doyle V. Devane (1 Freem. (Miss.) Gh. 345), 480. Doyle V. Met. El. Rv. Go. {N. Y., 33 N. E. Rep. 1008 ; 30 N. Y. Supl. 865), 666. Doyle V. San Diego Land & Town Go. (43 Fed. Rep. 349), 74. Dozier v. Owen (63 Ga. 157), 759. Drake v. Delliker (34 Fed. Rep. 537), 76. Drake v. Goodridge 16 Blatchf. 151). 583. Drake v. Phillips (40 111. 388), 774. Draper v. Glarendon (3 Vern. 518), 96. Draper v. Davis (103 U. S. 131), 940. Draper v. Gordon (4 Sandf. Ch. 310). 444, 453. Draper v. Holland (3 Edw. Ch. 373), 108. Dravo v. Fabel (35 Fed. Rep. 116), 7. Dravou Fabel (133 U. S. 4S7), 383. 947. Drayton v. Logan (Harp. Eq. 57), 908. Drever v. Mandesley (5 Russ. 11), 998. Drew V. Beard (107 Mass. 64), 131, 189, 696. Drew V. Harman (5 Price, 319), 99, 576. 581. Drexel v. Pease (139 N. Y. 96), 666. Driggs V. Daniels (3 MacArth. 254), 911. Driggs V. Garretson (35 N. J. Eq. 178), 335 Dringer v. Jewett (43 N. J. Eq. 710 ; 13 AtL Rep. 664), 891. Dringer v. Receiver &c. (43 N. J. Eq. 573). 867. Driver v. Evans (47 Ark. 297), 801. Drix V. Briggs (9 Paige, 595), 340. Drumraond v. Enderson (3 Grant's Ch. (Up. Can.) 153), 799. Drummond v. Tillinghurst (15 Jur. 384). 999. Drummond v. Westervelt (34 N. J. Eq. 30), 269. Drury v. Conner (6 Har. & J. 288), 405, 411. Drury v. Molins (6 Ves. 338), 780. Dubois V. Roosa (3 Johns. 145), 590. Duchessed'Auxy v. Cameron (23 111. App. 91), 386. Duchesse d'Auxv v. Porter (41 Fed. Rep. 68), 39, 68. Duckett V. Dalrymple (1 Rich. Law, 143), 341. Duckworth v. Duckworth (35 Ala. 70), 136. Duckworth v. TrafiEord (18 Ves. 383), 708. Dudgeon v. Watson (23 Fed. Rep. 161), 63, 63. Dudley v. Facer (Utah, 33 Pac. Rep. 668), 909, 970. Dudley v. Mayhew (3 N. J. 9), 764. Dudley E. Jones Co. v. Munger &c. Co. (50 I'ed. Rep. 785), 896, 897, 898, 899. Dud man v. Earle (49 Iowa, 37), 906. Duff V. Carrier (55 Fed. Rep. 433), 889, 895, 917. Duffield V. Brainerd (45 Conn. 425), 515 Duffield V. Graves (Gary, 87), 369. Dufour V. Lang (54 Fed. Rep. 913), 895, 924, 938. Dugan V. Gittmgs (3 Gill & J. 315), 409. Dugan V. Gittings (3 Gill, 138), 411. Duke of Beaufort v. Morris (3 Phil. 683), 654. Duke of Bolton v. Williams (3 Ves. Jr. 1531, 173. Duke of Brunswick v. Duke of Cam- bridge ;13 Beav. 379), 441. Duke of Brunswick v. King of Han- over (6 Beav. 1), 54. Duke of Cleveland &c., Ee (1 Dr. & Sm. 46), 573. Duniond ?>. Magee (2 Johns. Ch. 240), 381. Dunbar v. Myers (94 U. S. 187), 369. Duncan v. Campau (15 Mich. 415), 705. Duncan v. Chesapeake &c. R. Co. (Va., 15 Law Reg. (N. S.) 428), 733. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxi [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-C08; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Duncan v. Lvon (3 Johns. Ch. 351), 544. Duncan v. Todd {2 Paige, 99), 832. Duncan v. Varty (3 Phil. 696), 995. Dunch V. Kent (1 Vera. 860), 83. Duncombe, Ex parte (1 Johns. Ch. 1), 613. Dungey v. Angove (3 Ves. 310), 173, 983. Dunham v. Gates (3 Barb. Ch. 196), 407. Dunham v. Gates (1 Hoflf. Ch. 185), 321, 395, 401, 403. Dunham v. Jackson (1 Paige, 629). 609, 615, 617. Dunham v. Jackson (6 Wend. 22), 831, 397. Dunham v. Minard (4 Paige, 441), 688, 824. Dunham v. Eamsey (37 N. J. Eq. 388), 93. Dunham v. Winans (3 Paige, 34), 832. Dunkley v. Van Buren (3 Johns. Ch. 330), 485. Dunlap V. Clements (7 Ala. 539), 335, 788. Dunlap u Haynes (4 Heisk. 479), 411. Dunlap V. Newman (52 Ala. 178), 48.5, 486. Dunlap V. Stetson (4 Mason, 360), 43. Dunlevy v. Dunlevy (38 Fed. Rep. 462), 465, 850, 867. Dunlevy v. Talmadge (32 N. Y. 459), 579 Dunlop u. Hubbard (19 Ves. 205), 983. Dunn, Ex parte (8 S. C. 207), 702. Dunn V. Calcraft (2 Sim. & Stu. 66), 169. Dunn V. Clarke (8 Peters, 1), 43, 213, 504. Dunn V. Coates (1 Atk. 288), 160. Dunn V. Dunn (4 Paige, 425), 208, 854. Dunn V. Keezin (3 Scam. 897), 344 Dunn V. Seymour (11 N. J. Eq. 380), 87, 108. Dunn V. Wolf (Iowa, 47 N. W. Rep. 887). 90. Dunnell v. Henderson (S3 N. J. Eq. 175), 691. Dunphy v. Traveller Newspaper Ass'n (146 Mass. 495), 154, 155. Dunscomb v. Dunscomb (1 Johns. Ch. 508), 980. Dupont V. Jo'unson (1 Bailey's Eq. 279), 976. Durand v. Gray (130 111. 9; 81 N. E. Rep. 610), 171. Durant v. Davis (10 Heisk. 524), 979. Durant v. Essex Co. (7 Wall. 107), 479, 794. Durant v. Essex Co. (8 Allen, 103), 638. Durant v. Essex County (101 U. S. 555), 963, 964. Durant v. Pierson (13 N. Y. Supp. 145), 767. Durham v. Jackson (1 Paige, 639), 118. Durham u. Taylor (29 Ga. 166), 409. Durkee v. Chambers (57 Mo. 575), 657. Durlin'g v. Hammar (20 N. J. Eq. 220), 143, 148, 156, 383. Duryee v. Linsheimer (37 N. J. Eq. 366), 358. Dushane v. Benedict (120 U. S. 630), 23. Dutch Church v. Smock (1 N. J. Eq. 148), 698. Dwight's Case (15 Abb. Pr. 259), 344. D wight n Central Vt. R. Co. (9 Fed. Rep. 7851, 37,326, 339. Dwight V. Humphreys (3 McLean, i04), 109, 373. Dwindle v. Howland (1 Abb. Pr. 1), 546. Dwyer v. Kalteyer (68 Tex. 554), 691. Dyche v. Patton (8 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 295), 335, 785. Dvckman v. Kernochan (2 Paige, 26), ,571. Dyer v. Cranston Print Works Co. (R. I., 24 Atl. Rep. 837), 148. Dyer v. Power (14 N. Y. Supl. 878), 745, 746. Dyer v. Vinton (10 R. I. 517), 165. Dyke v. Stephens (L. R 30 Ch. D. 189), 57. Dykers v. Wilder (3 Edw. Ch. 496), 157, 544. Dyott V. Dyott (1 Mad. 187), 998, 1005, 1007. Dyson v. Benson (Cooper, 110), 299. Dyson v. Morris (1 Hare, 413), 519. E. Eade v. Lingood (1 Atk. 203), 557. Eager v. Price (2 Paige, 334), 485, 510, 515. 516, 520. Eager v. Wiswall (3 Paige, 369), 366, 437, 438, 533. Eagle V. Beard (33 Ark. 497), 388. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Lent (6 Paige, 635), 89, 96. Eagle Iron Works, In re (8 Paige, 3851, 707, 708. Eagle Iron Works, In re (8 Paige, 511), 710, 711. Earl V. Grove (Mich., 58 N. W. Rep. 615), 196. Earl V. McVeigh (91 U. S. 503), 334. Earl of Fingal v. Blake (3 Molloy, 50), 595. Ixxii TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Earl of Glengall v. Fraser (3 Hare, 99). 160. Earl of Leicester v. Perry (1 Bro. C. C. 305X 356. Earl of Portarlington v. Damer (2 PhiL 264), 562. Earl of Portsmouth v. Fellows (5 Mad. 450), 138. Earl of Shrewsbury v. Cecil (1 Cox's Cas. 277), 533. Earl of Thanet v. Paterson (Barnard. 247 ; 2 Ves. Jr. 108), 177. Earles v. Earles {3 Head, 367), 482. Early v. Blood (30 N. H. 354), 176. Earp V. Llovd (3 K & J. 549), 535. Easley v. Kellom (14 Wall. 279), 849. East V. East (80 Ala. 199), 146. East & West E. Co. v. East Tennessee &c. R. Co. (75 Ala. 375), 329, 781. East India Co. v. Bazftt (Jac. 81), 662. East India Co. v. Boddam (13 Ves. 423), 830. East India Co. v. Campbell (1 Ves. 247), 442. East India Co. v. Edwards (18 Ves. 377), 173. East India Co. v. Hinchman (3 Bro. C. 372), 397. East Rome Town Co. v. Cothran (81 Ga. 359), 760. East Tennessee &c. R Co. v. Atlanta &c. R. Co. (49 Fed. Rep. 608), 47, 707. Eastburn v. Kirk (1 Johns. Ch. 444), 336. Eastburn v. Kirk (3 Johns. Ch. 317), 629. 835, 909, 971. Eastern v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 189), 729, 731, 733. Eastman v. Batchelder (36 N. H. 154), 513. Easton r. Houston &c. Ry. Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 7), 583, 834. Eastwood V. Kenyou (11 Ad. & El. 438), 374. Eaton's Appeal (66 Pa. St 483), 331, 395, 398. Eaton V. Jenkins (19 N. J. Eq. 362), 784. Eaton V. Reservoir Co. (Colo. App., 33 Pac. Rep. 278), 776. Eaton &c. R Co. v. Varnum (10 Ohio St. 62-^), 705. Eberliart w Gilchrist (11 N. J. Eq. 167), 133 Eberly v. Groflf (9 Harris, 351), 321, 397. Eccles V. Daniels (16 Tex. 137), 331. Eckerson v. Volmer (11 How. Pr. 42), 211. Eclipse Co. V. Adkins (36 Fed. Rep. 554), 580. Eddins v. Buck (33 Ark. 507), 635. Eddleston v. Collins (1 De G., M. &G. 1), 461. Edee v. Strunk (Neb., 53 N. W. Rep. 70), 738. Edgar v. Clevenger (8 N. J. Eq. 259), 510, 513, 514, 618. Edgell V. Haywood (3 Atk. 353), 645. Edgerton v. Young ( 43 111. 464), 449. Edgett V. Douglass (Pa., 23 Atl. Eep. 868). 17. Edison Electric L. Co. v. Equitable Life Assurance Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 478), 330. Edison Electric L. Co. v. United States Electric L. Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 294; 55 Fed. Rep. 55), 588, 539. Edison Electric L. B. Co. v. United Slates Electric L. Co. (35 Fed. Rep. 134), 12.5. Edison E. L. B. Co. v. Westinghouse (34 Fed. Rep. 232), 497. Edmiston v. Lvde (1 Paige, 639), 580. Edmonds v. Robinson (39 Ch. D. 170), 515. Edmonson v. Blocm ■ ire (7 WalL 306), 929, 933, 930, y,)9. Edmonson v. Jones (19 Ga. 19), 785. Edmunds v. Acland (5 Madd. Ch. 81), 605. Edriuf- ton v. AUsbrooks (31 Tex. 186), 111. 331. Edwards v. Bodine ( 11 Paige, 334), 777. Edwards v. Brightly (Pa., 12 AtL Rep. 91), 75. Edwards v. Burke (9 L. T. (N. S.) 406), 998. Edwards v. Cunliffe(l Madd. 387), 886. Edwards v. Drake (15 Fla. 666), 366. Edwards v. Edwards (3 Ch. D. 391), 711. Edwards v. Helm (4 Scam. 143), 447. Edwards v. Massey (1 Hawks (N. C), 359), 613. Edwards v. McLeay (8 Ves. & B. 356), 416, 433. Egremont ?;. Hamilton (1 Ball & B. 531). 505. Eichberg v. Wiokham (31 N. Y. Supl. 648), 710. Eidam v. Finnegan (Minn., 50 N. W. Rep. 933), 592. Eiffert V. Craps (44 Fed. Rep. 792), 547. 550, 554. Eigenman v. Rockport &c. Ass'n (79 Ind. 41), 297. Ekin V. United States (142 U. a 651), 27. Ekings V. Murray (29 N. J. Eq. 388), 883. Elastic Fabric Co. v. Smith (100 U. S. 113), 908. TABLE OF OASES. Izxiii [The references «re to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Elderkin v. Fitch (2 Ind. 90), 466. Eldridge v. Wightman (30 Fla. 687), 864 Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 602), 445, 469, 470, 473, 477. Electrolibration Co. v. Jackson (53 Fed. Rep. 773), 1S5, 301, 347, 634. Eley V. Broughton (3 Sim. & Stu. 188), 203. Elgin V. Marshall (106 U. S. 578), 31, 23. Elgle V. Lowell (1 Woolw. 103), 53. Elizabeth v. American &c. Co. (97 U. a 79), 838, 841, 953. Elizabethtown &c. R. Co. v. Ashland R. Co. (Ky., 23 S. W. Rep. 855), 349. Elkins V. Camden & Atlantic R. Co. (36 N. J. Eq. 341), 75. Ellard v. Cooper (17 Ir. Ch. (N. S.) 15), 751. EUice V. Walmsley (1 Coop. Ch. 307), 563. EUicott V. Warford (4 Md. 80), 753. Ellingwood v. Stevenson (4 Sandf. Ch. 366), 343, 391. 563, 613. Elliot V. Trahern (West Va., 14 8. E. Rep. 238), 734. Elliott V. Balcom (11 Gray, 286), 650, 854. Elliott V. Hayden (104 Mass. 180), 531. Elliott V. Ince (7 De G., M. & G-. 975), 1008. Elliott V. Lawhead (48 Ohio St. 171), 261. Elliott V. Pell (1 Paige, 363), 450, 795. Elliott V. Sackett (108 U. S. 182), 931. Elliott V. Sinclair (Jac. 545), 616. Ellis V. Boston &c. R Co. (107 Mass. 1), 702. Ellis V. Deane (3 Moll. 63), 557. Ellis V. Ellis (1 Russ. 868), 981. Ellis V. Reynolds (35 Fed. Rep. 394), 217. Ellis V. Segrave (7 Bro. P. C. 331), 898. Ellison V. Burgess (2 P. Wms. 312, n.), 140. Ellison's Trust, In re (2 Jur. (N. S.) 62), 310. EUiston V. Hughes (1 Head (Tenn.), 225), 101. Ellsworth V. Curtis (10 Paige, 105), 311, 814, 377. EUaworth v. Moore (5 Iowa, 486), 529. Ellwand v. McDonnell (8 Beav. 14), 367. Elmendorf v. Delancey (Hopk. Ch. 555), 119, 120, 203. Elmendorf v. Taylor (1 Wheat. 53), 39 Elmendorf v. Taylor (10 Wheat 168), 373. Elmer v. Creasy (L. R 9 Ch. 69), 434 Elmer v. Loper (25 N. J. Eq. 475), 101, 192 El Mod'elo Cigar Mfg. Co. v. Gate (Fla., 7 So. Rep. 28), 283. Elsey V. Adams (10 Jur. (N. S.) 459), 478. Elston V. Blanchard (3 Scam. (111.) 420), 634 ElweJl V. Fosdick (134 U. S. 500), 735, 900, 901. Ely V. New Mexico &c. R Co. (139 U. S. 891 ; 9 S. Ct Rep. 293), 6, 129, 165. Ely V. Railroad Co. (139 U. S. 291), 970. Etnans v. Wortman (13 N. J. Eq. 305), 150, 157, 158. Embry v. Palmer (107 U. S. 8), 906. Embury v. Bergamini (34 N. J. Eq. 228), 241. Emerie v. Alvarado (64 Cal. 539), 705. EmersoQ v. Davies (1 Wood. & M. 21), 830. Emerson v. Railroad Co. (75 111. 176), 482. Emerson v. Walker T'p (63 Mich. 483 ; 30 N. W. Rep. 92), 1S2. Emerson v. Western Union R Co. (75 111. 176), 484 Emery v. Downing (13 N. J. Eq. 59), 234, 244 245, 388. Emery v. Mason (75 Cal. 322), 671. Emma Silver Min. Co. v. Emma Sil- ver Min. Co. (17 Blatchf. 389), 66S, 669. Emma Silver Min. Co. v. Emma Sil- ver Min. Co. (1 Fed. Rep. 39), 338. Emmott V. Mitchell (14 Sim. 432), 316. Emory v. Keighan (88 111. 516), 508. Emory v. Parrott (107 Mass. 95), 800, 801. Empire v. Darlington (101 U. S. 87), 224 Empire City Bank, In re (10 How. Pr. 498), 709. Endter v. Lennon (46 Wis. 299), 768. Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford &c. R. Co. (17 Conn. 42), 116. England v. Downs (1 Beav. 96), 66. English V. Foxall (2 Pet 595), 116. Ennis v. Smith (14 How. 400), 40,530. Enoch V. Petroleum Co. (23 West Va. 314), 444 Enos V. Hunter (9 111. 211), 614 Enraght v. Fitzgerald (1 Dr. & War. 72), 868. Ensminger v. Powers (108 U. S. 202), 846, 850, 851. Ensworth v. Lambert (4 Johns. Ch. 605), 96, 519. Eppmg V. Aiken (71 Ga. 682), 444. Epps V. Thurman (4 Rand. (Va.) 384), 341. Ixxiv TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. H, pp. 609-1013.] Epps V. Van Deusen (4 Paige, 64), 63.5. Equitable Life Ass. Soc. v. Laird (24 N. J. Eq. 319), 18.5, 219, 231, 814. Equitable Life Ass. Soc. v. Patterson (1 Fed. Rep. 126), 148. Erie Ry. Co. v. Heath (10 Blatchf. 214;, 670. Erie Ry. Co. v. Ramsey (45 N. Y. 637), 326, 876. Erwin v. Lowry (7 How. 173), 707. Esdaile v. Molyneaux (1 De G. & S. 218), 441. Erskine v. Bize (2 Cox's Cas. 226), 533. Erwin v. Vint (6 Munf. 267), 241. Eslava v. Mazange (1 Woods, 633), 598. Essex V. Day (52 Conn. 484), 465, 807. Essex Paper Co. v. Greacen (45 N. J. Eq. 504), 281. Estate of Riddle (19 Pa. St. 431), 852. Estep V. Walkins (1 Bland, 486), 394. Esterbrook Co. v. Ahern (31 N. J. Eq. 4), 576, 577. Esterbrook &c. Mfg. Co. v. Ahern (30 N. J. Eq. 341), 507. Estes V. Gunter (121 U. S. 183), 23. Estes V. Trabue (138 U. S. 325), 902, 931. Estes V. Worthington (30 Fed. Rep. 465), 77. 327. Estii V. Decherd (4 Baxt 515), 589. Etches V. Lance (7 Ves. 417), 613, 618. Etheridge v. Sperry (139 U. S. 267), 9. Ettenborough v. Bishop (26 N. J. Eq. 263), 787. Ettlinger v. Persian Rug & Carpet Co. (30 N. Y. Supl. 772), 717. Eureka Co. v. Edwards (80 Ala. 250), 555. Eureka L. & Y. C. C. Co. v. Superior Court &c. (116 U. S. 410;. 874. Euston V. Houston &c. Ry. Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 7). 917. Evans, Ex parte (13 Ch. D. 252), 711. Evans V. Bacon (99 Mass. 313), 867. Evans v. Bagshavr (L. R Eq. 469), 513. Evans v. Cassidy (11 Irish Eq. 348). 52. Evans v. Coventry (31 Eng. Eq. 436), 71.5. Evans v. Dillingham (48 Fed. Rep. 177), 34. Evans v. Evans (2 Cold. (Tenn.) 151), 686. Evans v. Evans (23 N. J. Eq. 180), 120, 587. Evans v. Evans (1 Ves. Jr. 86), 622. Evans v. Goodwin (132 Pa. St 136), 17. Evans V. Harris (3 Ves. & B. 361), 819. Evans v. Holmes (4 J. J. Marsh. 5), 627. Evans v. Nealia (87 Ind. 262), 643. Evans v. Sheldon (69 Ga. 100), 471. Evans v. Staples (42 N. J. Eq. 584), 445. Evans v. State Bank (134 U. S. 330), 930, 931, 933, 938, 946. 959. Evans v. State Nat Bank (19 Fed. Rep. 676), 590. Evans v. Van Hale (Clarke's Ch. 17), 391 563 621 Evanston v. Gunn (99 U. S. 665), 548. Eveland v. Stephenson (45 Mich. 394), 110. Evelyn v. Lewis (3 Hare, 472), 740. Everest v. Buffalo L. Oil Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 742), 700. Everett v. Edwards (149 Mass. 588), 76, 575. Everett v. Prytherych (12 Sim. 363X 563. Everett v. State (38 Md. 190). 734. Everhart v. Huutsville Female Col- lege (130 U. S. 223), 1011. Everitt v. Watts (3 Edw. Ch. 486), 320. Everts v. Agnes (4 Wis. 348), 490. Evertson v. Ogden (8 Paige, 275), 370, 316. Evertson v. Thomas (5 How. Pr. 46), 221. Ewell V. Greenvpood (36 Iowa, 377), 765. Ewing V. Blight (8 Wall. Jr. 184), 298, 300, 344, 345, 346. Ewing V. Duncan (Tex., 16 a W. Rep. 1000), 132. Ewing V. Highbee (7 Humph. 198), 59. Ewing V. Maury (3 Lea, 381), 562. Ewing V. Patterson (85 lud. 326), 462, 465. Ex parte Alabama G. L. Ins. Co. (59 Ala. 193), 485. Ex parte Bank of Monroe (7 Hill, 178), 333. Ex parte Baltimore &c. R. Co. (106 U. S. 5), 23. Ex parte Bates (Gresley's Eq. Ev. 494), 558. Ex parte Boussmaker (13 Ves. 71), 53. Ex parte Boyd (105 U. S. 647), 160. Ex parte Brown (58 Ala. 536), 587. Ex parte Bruncker (8 P. Wms. 313), 613, 615. Ex parte Burford (1 Cranch, C. C. 456), 876. Ex parte Burtis (103 U. S. 338), 900. Ex parte Cabrera (1 Wash. C. C. 233), 615. Ex parte Chamberlain (55 Fed. Rep. 704), 726, 728, 758. Ex parte Cockroft (104 U. S. 578), 900. TABLE OF OASES. Lxxv [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Ex parte Crenshaw (15 Pet. 119), 956, 962. £;a! parte Cutting (94 U. S. 14), 584, 900, 905, 911. Ex parte Dea.n &c. (18 W. R 724), 799. Ex parte Buncombe (1 Johns. Ch. 1), 613. Ex parte Dunn (8 S. C. 207), 702. Ex parte Evans (13 Ch. D. 2521, 711. Ex parte Farmers' L. &c. Co. (129 U. a 206), 910, 917, 920. Ex parte Fisk (113 U. S. 713), 537, 876. Ex parte Fletcher (6 Ves. 427), 710. Ex parte Hall (K R 23 Ch. D. 644), 775. Ex parte Halsam (2 Atk. 50). 876. Ex parte Barker (49 Cal. 465), 610. Ex parte Huidekoper (55 Fed. Rep. 709), 728. Ex parte Jaffray (1 Lowell, 321), 983. Ex parte Jones (66 Ala. 202), 626. Ex parte Jordan (94 U. S. 248), 79, 578, 583, 584, 693. 905. Ex parte Judson (3 Blatchf. 89). 537. Ex parte King (7 Ves. Jr. 312 1, 228. Ex parte KoeMer {23 Fed. Rep. 529), 726. Ex parte Lange (18 Wall 163), 838, 839. Ex parte Langley (L. R 13 Ch. D. 110), 877. Ex parte List (2 Ves. & B. 373), 228. Ex parte Lord (2 Ves. 26), 558. Ex parte Mensing (55 Fed. Rep. 17), 576, 577. Ex parte Milwaukee, &c. R. Co. (8 Wall. 440), 923. Ex parte Milwaukee &c. R. Co. (5 Wall. 188). 712. Ex parte Mitchell (12 S. C. 83), 720. Ex parte Morgan (114 U. S. 174), 900. Ex parte Morris (9 Wall. 60 )), 963. Ex parte Norton (108 U. S. 237), 917, 922. Ex parte Parker (120 U. S. 737), 930. Ex parte Peterson ''id Ala, 74). 529. Ex parte Plitfc (2 Wall. Jr. 453), 983, 985. Ex parte Printup (87 Ala. 148), 578, 581. Ex parte Radcliffe (1 J. & W. 639), 705. Ex parte Railroad Co. (95 U. S. 221), 452, 462, 465, 475, 507, 577, 928, 930. Ex parte Robinson (72 Ala. 389), 997. Ex parte Robinson (19 Wall. 506), 873. Ex parte Saltei (3 Bro. C. C. 500), 571. Ex parte Sayre (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 378), 769, 781. Ex parte Schollenberger (96 U. 8. 369), 49, 210. Ex parte Schulenburg (25 Fed. Rep. 211). 229. Ex parte Schwab (98 U. S. 240), 900. Ex parte Seidler (12 Sim. 106), 998. Ex parte Shaw (12 S. Ct. Rep. 935), 48. Ex parte Simpson (15 Ves. 476), 136, 140, 426. Ex parte Smith (1 Atk. 139), 601. Ex parte Smith (94 U. S. 455), 130. Ex parte Story (12 Pet 339), 964). Ex parte Strangeways (3 Atk. 478), 376. Ex parte Sweeney (126 Ind. 583), 643. Ex parte Terry (128 U. S. 468), 872, 876. Ex parte Tyler (U. S., 13 S. Ct. Rep. 691), 758. .Er parfe Virginia Comm'rs (112 U. S. 177), 930. Ex parte Walker (25 Ala. 81), 715. Ex parte Walter f89 Ala. 237), 963. Ex parte Warren (10 Ves. 622), 705. Ex parte Whitfield (2 Atk. 315), 705. Ex'rs of Braslier v. Cortlandt (2 Johns. Ch. 505), 823. Ex'rs of Brasher v. Van Cortlandt (2 Johns. Ch. 242), 596. Ex'rs of Conover v. Conover (1 N. J. Eq. 404), r,87. Ex'rs of Reed v. Reed (16 N. J. Eq. 248), 88. Exton V. Turner (2 Ch. Cas. 748), 661. Eyler v. Crabbs (3 Md. 137), 409. Eyles V. Ward (1 Dick. 58), 842. Eyre v. Dolphin (8 Ball & B. 303), 528. Eyre v. Marsden (4 Myl. & C. 231), 909. Eyre v. Potter (15 How. 42), 126, 133. Eyster v. Gaff (91 U. S. 581), 507, 577. F. Fackler v. Worth (13 N. J. Eq. 395), 883, 884. Fagan v. Fagan (15 Ala. 335), 468. Fahie v. Lindsay (8 Oregon, 474), 177. Fahs V. Roberts '(54 111. 192), 513. Fairbanks v. Belknap (135 Mass. 179), 174 Fairbanks v. Farwell (111., 30 N. E. Eep. 1056), 576. Fairchild v. Fairchild (N. J., 11 Atl. Rep. 426), 439. Fairchild v. Hunt (14 N. J. Eq. 367), 282, 973. Falconberg r. Pierce (Ambler, 210), 661. Fales V. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 673), 46, 48. Ixxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Falk V. Gast L. & E. Co. (54 Fed Rep. 890), 548, 955. Falk 11. James (N. J. Eq., 33 Atl. Rep. 813), 745. Falkinburg v. Lucy (35 Cal. 52), 344. Fallowes v. Williamson (11 Ves. 306), 505. Falls of Neuse Mfg. Co. v. Georgia Home Ins. Co. (26 Fed. Rep. 1), 6. Fanning v. Dunham (4 Johns. Ch. 35), 598. Fanning ?•. Russell (94 IlL 386), 657, 658, 659. Fant V. Miller (17 Gratt. 187', 406. Farley v. Blood (30 N. H. 354), 172, 177. Far lev v. Farley (7 Paige, 40), 595. Farley v. Kittson (120 U. S. 303), 269, 316, 317, 350, 351. Farlow v. Kelly (103 U. S. 335), 903. Farmer v. Calvert Pub. Co. (1 Flipp. 228), 325. Farmer v. Curtis (3 Sim. 466), 95. Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Bron- son (14 Mich. 361), 452. Farmers' & Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Needles (53 Mo. 17), 744. Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank V. Armstrong (49 Fed. Eep. 600), 893. Farmers' L. & T. Co., Ex parte (139 U. S. 306 1, 723, 910, 917, 921. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Bankers' &c. Tel. Co. (109 N. Y. 342), 517. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R. Co. (2 Fed. Rep. 656), 675. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R Co. (2 Fed. Rep. 751 ; 1 McCrary, 352), 749. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R. Co. (3 McCrary, 181 ; 7 Fed, Rep. 530, 754, 755. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R Co. (8 Fed. Rep. 60 ; 2 McCrary, 318), 728, 739, 731, 732. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R Co. (8 Fed. Rep. 318), 732. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R R (1 McCrary, 382), 665. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. (27 Fed. Rep. 146), 703, 813. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. (44 Fed. Rep 653), 880. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Grape Creek Coal Co. (50 Fed. Rep 481), 718. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Green Bay &c. R Co. (10 Biss. 203), 815. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Green Bay &c. R Co. (16 Fed. Rep. 100), 851. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Houston &c. Ry. Co. (44 Fed. Rep 115), 316. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Kansas City &c. R. Co. (53 Fed. Rep. 183), 578, 703, 704, 724, 735, 726. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Millard (9 Paige, 630), 989. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Reid (3 Edw. Ch. 414), 198, 372. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. San I)iego St. Car Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 105), 97, 453. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Seymour (9 Paige, 538), 519. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Toledo &c. R Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 223), 575. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Waterman (106 U. S. 365), 22, 900. Farraington v. Pillsbury (114 U. S. 138), 483. Farnam v. Brooks (9 Pick. 212), 404 Favnend v. Harris (11 Sm. & M. 366), 645. Farnham v. Farnham (9 How. Pr. 231). 392. Farnsworth v. Fowler (1 Swan (Tenn.), 1), 876. Farquharson v. Balfour (Turn. & Russ. 190), 533. Farquharson v. Seton (5 Russ. 46), 450. Farrall v. Davenport (5 L. T. (N. 8.) 43;6), 558. Farrar v. Churchill (135 U. S. 613), 913, 929, 938. Farrar v. United States (5 Pet 389;, 713. Farrell v. Smith (3 Ball & B. 337), 82, 83. Farrelly v. Woolfock (19 How. 288), 925. Farrington v. Harrison (44 N. J. Eq. 332), 336. Farris v. Houston (78 Ala. 250), 787. Farris v. Kilpatrick (1 Hump.i. (Tenn.) 379), 799. Farson v. Gorham (III., 4 West Rep. Ill), 749. Farwell v. Harding (96 111. 32), 446. Farwell v. Huling (132 111. 112), 686. Farwell v. Kerr (28 Fed. Rep. 345), 975, 976. Fauber v. Gentry (Va,, 15 S. E. Rep. 899), 773. . Faulkland v. Staniou (12 Mod. 400), 53. Fay V. Erie &c. Bank (Harring. (Mich.) 194), 753. Fay V. Jewett (2 Edw. Ch. 333), 434. FayoUe v. Texas &c. Ry. Co. (124 U. S. 519), 936. Fearey v. Hayes (44 N. J. Eq. 435 ; 15 Atl. Rep 592), 196. Feary v. Steplienson (1 Beav. 42), 519. Fechheiraer v. Baum (37 Fed. Rep. 167), 8. Fecliheimer v. Baum (43 Fed. Ren. 719), 679, 971, 983. TABLB OF OASES. Ixxvii [He references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; VoL U, pp. 609-1012.] Feeny. In re (1 Hask. 304; N. B. R [70] 233), 874. Feibelman v. Packard (108 U. S. 14), 903. Feldman v. Grand Lodge (19 N. Y. Supl. 73). 604, 633. Felix V. Schumweber (135 U. S. 54), 33 Fell V. Brown (2 Bro. Ch. 276), 95. Fell V. Christ's College (3 Bro. C. 0. 279). 140, 354 Fellows V. Fellows (4 Cowen, 682 ; 15 Am. Dec. 413), 90. Fellows V. Hall (3 McLean, 487), 507. Fellows V. Heermans (13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 8), 714. Fellows V. Hyman (33 Fed. Rep. 313), 391. Felts V. Mayor of Memphis (2 Head, 650), 497. Fencott v. Clarke (6 Sim. 8). 534. Fenn v. Edmonds (5 Hare, 314), 173. Fenton v. Hughes (7 Ves. 290), 549. f^enton v. Lumberman's Bank (Clarke's Ch. 360), 569, 715. Fenwick v. Sears (1 Cranch, 259), 68. Ferguson v. Baber (24 Ala. 402), 777. Ferguson v. Dent (15 Fed. Rep. 771), 63, 1008. Ferguson v. Dent (39 Fed Rep. 1). 756, 851. Ferguson v. Dent (46 Fed. Rep. 88), 983, 1010. Ferguson v. Fisk (28 Conn. 501), 100. Ferguson v. Kimball (3 Barb. Ch. 616). 837. Ferguson v. Smith (3 Johns Ch. 139), 311. 312. Fernie v. Young (L. R. 1 H. of L. 63), 650. Ferran v. White (Dick. 782), 242. Ferrand v. Homer (4 Myl. & C. 143), 338, 781. Ferris v. Crawford (2 Denio, 595). 591. Ferris v. Fort (3 Tenu. Ch. 147), 361. Ferris v. McClure (3() 111. 77), 445. Ferry v. Bank &c. (15 How. Pr. 446), 749, 753, 754. Ferry v. Laible (27 N. J. Eq. 146), 144. Feuchtwanger v. McCool (29 N. J. Eq. 151), 885, 387, 390. Fey V. Fey (27 N. J. Eq. 313), 358. Fichtenkamm v. Gambs (68 Mo. 289), 734. Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Shenandoah Iron Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 372), 684, 690, 693, 693, 721, 723. Fidelity T. & S. V. Co. v. Mobile St. Ry. Co. (53 Fed. Rep. 850), 211, 214, 454, 578, 583, 728. Fidelle v. Evans (1 Bro. C. C. 267), 47a Field V. Holland (6 Cranch, 8), 407, 408, 653, 662, 667. Field V. Holzman (93 Ind. 305), 153, 643. Field V. Jones (11 Ga. 413), 753. Field V. Ripley (20 How. Pr. 26), 716. Field V. Schieffelin (7 Johns. Ch. 250), 453, 459, 465, 830. 831. Field V. Wilbur (49 Vt. 157), 409. Field V. Williamson (4Sandf. Ch. 613), 803, 843, 850. 856. Fierry v. Emmert (36 Md. 464), 149. Fife V. Clayton (13 Ves. 546), 449. Filkins v. Nunuemacher (81 Wis. 91), 744, 746. Fille V. Delaware &c. R Co. (37 Fed. Rep. 65), 48. Finance Co. v. Charleston &c. R Ca (45 Fed. Rep. 436), 709, 710. Finance Co. v. Charleston &c. R Co. (48 Fed. Rep. 188), 724. Finch V. Finch (3 Ves. Sr. 491), 160. Finch V. Lord Winchelsea (1 Eq. Ab. 2), 499. Findlay v. Hinde (1 Peters, 341), 373, 384, 95.3. Findlay v. Sheflfy (1 Rand. (Va.) 73), 235. Fine v. Kins; (33 N. J. Eq. 108), 447. Finger v. City of Kingston (9 N. Y. Supl. 175), 187. Finley v. Bank of U. S. (11 Wheat. 304), 798. Finley v. Lvnn (6 Cranch, 238). 116. Finnegan v. Lee (18 How. Pr. 186), 78.5. Fire Ins. Assoc, v. Wickham (128 U. S. 426), 894. Firmstone v. De Camp (17 N. J. Eq. (3C. E. Or.) 317), 789. First Nat Bank v. Forest (44 Fed. Rep. 346), 547. First Nat Bank v. Holt (87 Cal. 158 ; 35 Pac. Rep. ^72). 163. First Nat Bank v. Moore (48 Fed. Rep. 799), 154. First Nat Bank r. Omaha (96 U. S. 737), 930. First Nat Bank v. Salem Capital F. M. Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 580), 45. 95. First Nat Bank &c. v. Shedd (131 U. S. 74), 813. First Nat Bank v. Wire Works (58 Mich. 315), 741. Fisburne v. Ferguson (84 Va. 87), 649, 657. Fischer v. Blank (33 N. Y. Supl. 1040), 779. Fischer v. Hayes (6 Fed Rep. 63), 873, 874, 875. Fischer v. Hayes (6 Fed. Rep. 76 ; 19 Blatchf. 36), 491, 493, 532. Fischer v. Hayes (16 Fed. Rep. 469), 690, 691. Ixxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Fischer v. Hayes (22 Fed. Rep. 93). 669. Fischer v. Neil (6 Fed. Rep. 90), 547, 548. Fischer v. O'Shaughnessey (6 Fed. Rep. 92), 270. Fish V. Howland (1 Paige, 30), 79, 87. Fish V. Miller (5 Paige, 36), 334, 351. Fish V. Union Pac. R Co. (8 Blatchf. 299), 485. Fishell V. Bell (Clarke's Ch. 37), 411. Fisher v. Boody (1 Curt. 206), 133. Fisher v. Mee (3 Mer. 45), 345, 486. Fisher v. Moog (39 Fed. Rep. 665), 141, 184. Fisher v. Owen (L. R 8 Ch. D. 645), 137, 427, 910. Fisher v. Owen (47 L. J. Ch. 681), 361. Fisher v. Quick (9 N. J. Eq. 312), 478. Fisher v. Shropshire (13 S. Ct. Rep. 201), 40. Fisher v. Stovall (85 Tenn. 316), 471. Fisk, Ex parte (113 U. S. 713), 537 876. Fiske V. Anderson (33 Barb. 71), 221. Fiske V. Wetmore (15 R. I. 354), 466. Fisler v. Porch (10 N. J. Eq. 343), 394, 650. Fitch V. Brower (42 N. J. Eq. .800), 172. Fitch V. Creighton (24 How. 159), 9, 148. Fitch V. Smith (10 Paige, 9), 203. Fitton V. Earl of Macclesfield (1 "Vern. 264), 855, 856. Fitzgerald v. Bult (9 Hare, App. 65), 545. Fitzgerald v. Evans (49 Fed. Rep. 426), 530, 816, 901. Fitzgerald v. Gray (59 Ind. 254), 619. Fitzgerald v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (45 Fed. Rep. 813), 35. Fitzgerald Const. Co. v. Fitzgerald (137 U. S. 98), 210, 329. Fitzliugh V. Barnard (12 Mich. 113), 466. Fitzhugh V. Fitzhugh (11 Gratt. 310), 657. Fitzhugh V. McPherson (9 Gill & J. 51), 333, 407. Fitzhugh V. Smith (63 111. 486), 447. Fitzpatrick v. Flannagan (106 U. S. 648), 951. Flack V. Holm (1 J. & W. 405), 615, 631. Flagg V. Bonnell (10 N. J. Eq. 82), 347, 349. Flagg V. Walker (113 U. S. 659), 940. Flaherty v. McCormick (113 111. 538), 649. Flaherty v. McCormick (123 111. 535), 471. Flaherty v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (56 Fed. Rep. 908), 939. Flanders v. Insnrance Co. (3 Mason, 158), 384. Flash V. Wilkerson (23 Fed. Rep. 689), 8, 579. Fleischman v. Toung (9 N. J. Eq. 630), 790. Fleischmann v. Bennett (79 N. Y. 579), 516, 517. Fleming v. Grafton (54 Miss. 79), 645. Fleming v. La Crosse &c. R Co. (3 Wall. 759), 830. Fleming v. Prior (6 Madd. Ch. 423), 605. Fleming v. Shields (21 La. Ann. 118), 582. Fletcher, Ex parte (6 Ves. 427), 710. Fletcher v. Holmes (25 Ind. 458), 450. Fletcher v. Holmes (40 Me. 364), 79. Fletcher v. Martin (126 Ind. 55), 809. Fletcher v. Peck (6 Cranch, 87), 933. Fletcher v. Reed (131 Mass. 312), 693. Fletcher v. Wilson (1 Sm. & M. 376), 453. Flint V. Johnson (59 Vt. 190), 593. Flint V. Russell (5 Dill, iril), 150. Flint V. Sparr (17 B. Mon. 513), 485. Florence v. Paschal (48 Ala. 458), 343, 783. Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. Grover & Baker S. M. Co. (110 Mass. 3), 782. Florida v. Anderson (91 U. S. 667), 26. Florida v. Georgia (17 How. 478), 11, 25, 574, 575. Florida Central R. Co. v. Schutte (100 U. S. 644), 936, 941. Flower V. Lloyd (L. R 6 Ch. D. 297), 846. Flowerday v. Collet (1 Dick. 288), 551. Floyd V. Ritter (65 Ala. 501), 500. Floyd V. Turner (23 Tex. 394), 331. Flynn v. Hudson River R Co. (6 How. Pr. 308), 209.- F. N. & T. Co. V. Pine Bluff &c. Ry. Co. (Tenn., 31 S. W. Rep. 658!, 725. Fobes V. Meeker (3 Edw. Ch. 453), 680. Fogg V. Blair (139 U. S. 118), 267. Fogg V. Price (145 Mass. 513), 277, 291. Fogg V. St. Louis &c. R Co. (17 Fed. Rep. 871), 230. Foley V. Hill (3 Myl. & C. 475), 335, 342, 434. FoUand v. Laraotte (10 Sim. 486), 567. FoUansbee v. Ballard Paving Co. (101 U. S. 410), 927. FoUansbee v. Scottish-Am. Mortg. Co. (7 111. Ajip. 486), 447, 452, 455. Foot V. Bronson (4 Lans. 47). 759. Foote V. Gibbs (1 Gray, 413), 636. Foote V. Lathrop (53 Barb. 183), 212. Foote V. Percy (40 Conn. 86), 939. Foote V. Sewall (Tex., 17 a W. Rep. 373), 260. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxix [The references are to pages: Vol I contains pp l-i Vol. n, pp. 609-1013.] Foote V. Pilsby (1 Blatohf. 645), 650. Foote V. Silsbv (3 Blatchf. 507), 679. Foote V. Van Ranst (1 Hill, Ch. 185), 438. Footner v. Figes (2 Sim. 319), 658. Forbes v. Memphis &c. R. Co. (2 Woods, 333), 451, 578, 579. Forbes v. Tuokerman (115 Mass. 115), 66, 302, 306, 794, 918. Forbes v. Whitlock (3 Edw. Ch. 446), 296. Force v. Dutcher (17 N. J. Eq. 175), 266. Force v. Dutcher (18 N. J. Eq. 401), 116 373 393 Ford u'De Pontes (5 Jur. (N. S.) 993), 535 Ford n Douglas (5 How. 143), 356. Ford V. Ford (41 How. Pr. 169), 393. Ford V. Loomis (62 Iowa, 586), 777. Ford V. Lord Chesterfield (16 Beav. 520), 312, 313. Fordvce v. Beecher (Tex. Civ. App., 21 S. W. Rep. 179), 755. Fordyoe v. Chancy (Tex. Civ. App., 21 S. W. Rep. 181), 756. Fordyce v. Shriver (115 111. 530), 394. Fordyce v. Withers (Tex. Civ. App., 20 S. W. Rep. 766), 740. Foreman v. Blake (7 Price, 654), 588. Foreman v. Southward (8 Price, 575), 588. Forgay v. Conrad (6 How. 201), 888, 917, 921, 924. Forman v. Bulson (30 N. J. Eq. 493), 988. Forney v. Calhoun County (84 Ala. 315), 822, 781. Forrest v. Forrest (3 Bosw. 650), 674. Forrest v. Forrest (10 Barb. 96), 614, 618. Forrest v. Forrest (5 How. Pr. 125), 611, 614, 615. Forrest v. Frazier (2 Md. Ch. 147), 402. Forrester v. Flores (64 Cal. 24; 28 Pac. Rep. 107), 374. Forrester v. Helme (McCI. 458). 539. Forster v. Thompson (4 Dru. & War. 303), 205. Forsyth v. Clark (3 Wend. 637-, 406. Forsyth v. Pierson (9 Fed. Rep. 801), 317. Fort Smith v. Brogan (49 Ark. 306 ; 5 S. W. Rep. 337), 146. Fortier v. New Orleans Nat Bank (113 U. S. 438), 102. Fescue V. Lyon (55 Ala. 441), 571. Fosdick V. Schall (99 U. S. 251), 723, 724, 735, 726. Fosdick V. Schall (99 U. S. 235), 704, 718. Foss V. First Nat. Bank (1 McCrary, 474), 444. Foss V. Wagner (3 Dowl. P. C. 499), 999. Foster v. Burem (1 Heisk. 783), 500. Foster v. Cantley (10 Hare, App. 24 ; 17 Jur. 370), 59. Foster v. Dawber (1 Dru. & Sm. 172), 310. Foster v. Dickerson (Vt., 24 Atl. Rep. 253), 543, 593. Foster v. Goddard (1 Black, 506), 127, 692. Foster v. Gressett (39 Ala. 393), 691. Foster v. Knowles (43 N. J. Eq. 326), 191. Foster v. Mansfield &c. R Co. (30 Fed. Rep. 637), 44. Foster v. Shephard (33 Tex. 687), 774. Foster v. Stafford Nat. Bank (58 Vt 658), 776. Foster v. Swasey (2 W. & M. 217), 1004. Foster v. Van Ranst (1 Hill's Eq. 185), 694. Foster v. Vassall (3 Atk. 587), 326. Foster v. Woodfin (65 N. C. 29), 799. Fongeres v. Murbarger (44 Fed. Rep. 293), 146. Fountain v. West (68 Iowa, 380), 777. Fourniquet v. Perkins (16 How. 83), 639, 763, 928. Foutty V. Poar (West Va., 12 S. E. Rep. 1096), 414. Fowler V. Davies (16 Sim. 183), 1007. Fowler v. Lee (10 Gill & J. 358), 177. Fowler v. Lewis' Adm'r (West Va., 14 S. E. Rep. 447). 829, 919. Fowler v. Poor (93 N. C. 466), 863, 867. Fowler V. Reynal (3 Macn. & G. 500 ; 15 Jur. 1019), 102. Fowler v. Roe (11 N. J. Eq. 367), 791. Fowler D. Sunderland (68 Cal. 414), 169. Fowler V. Trust Co. (141 U. S. 384), 987. Fowler V. Williams (20 Ark. 641), 788. Fowlkes V. Webber (8 Humph. (Tenn.) 530). 253. Fox V. Abbott (12 Neb 228), 500. Fox V. Blew (5 Mad. 147), 998. Fux V. Coon (64 Miss. 465; 1 So. Rep. 629), 372. Fox V. Suwerkrop (1 Beav. 583), 56, 58. Foxworth V. Magee (48 Miss. 532), 785. Fraker v. Brazleton (12 Lea, 281), 978. Francis v. Bertrand (36 N. J. Eq. 213), 136. Francis v. Church (Clarke's Ch. 475), 603, 818, 822, 823. Francis v. Daley (150 Mass. 381), 947. Franco v. Franco (3 Tes. 75J, 73. Ixxx TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I Francome v. Francome (11 Jur. (N. S.) 123), 616. Francome v. Francome (13 W. R. 355), 176. Frank v. Denver &c. Ry. Co. (23 Fed Rep. 757), 708, 786. Frank v. Morrison (58 Md. 433), 736. Frankle v. Jackson (30 Fed. Rep. 398), 786. Franklin v. Greene (3 Allen, 519), 116, 647, 657. Franklin v. Hersch (3 Tenn. Ch. 467), 485, 486, 487. Franklin v. Hunt (4 Paige, 383), 438. Franklin v. Keeler (4 Paige, 383), 139, 431. Franklin v. Meyer (36 Ark. 96), 667, 679. 706. Franklin v. Osgood (14 Johns. 527), 907. Franklin v. Van Cott (11 Paige, 129), 684. Franklin v. "Wilkinson (3 Munf. 113), 831. Franklin Sav. Bank v. Taylor (53 Fed. Rep. 854), 593, 845, 866, 867. Fraser v. Whalley (3 Hen. & M. 10), 784. Frazier v. Hendrem (80 Va. 265), 823. Frazier v. Rankey (1 Swan (Tenn.), 75), 256. Frazier v. Swain (36 N. J. Eq. 156), 685. Frazier v. Tubb (3 Heisk. 663), 836, 951. Freehold Mut. L. Ass'n v. Brown (38 N. J. Eq. 42), 380. Freeland v. Johnson (3 Anst 411), 341. Freeland v. Mannahan (Hopk. Ch. 276), 975. Freeland v. Wright (154 Mass. 492), 647. Freelands v. Royall (2 Hen. & Munf. 575), 383. Frelinghuysen v. Colden (4 Paige, 204), 881, 883. Freeholders &c. v. State Bank (28 N. J. Eq. 166), 710. Freeland v. Wright (154 Mass. 493), 686. Freeman v. Brown (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 249), 197. Freeman v. Clay (48 Fed. Rep. 849), 933, 934. Freeman v. Clay (3 U. S. App. 254), 846. Freeman v. Deming (3 Sandf. Ch. 450), 164. Freeman v. Howe (34 How. 450), 43. Freeman v. iScofield (16 N. J. Eq. 28), 93, 370, 633. Freeman v. Staats (8 N. J. Eq. 814), 486. contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Freeman v. Staata (9 N. J. Eq. 816), 657, 663. Freeman v. Warren (3 Barb. Ch. 635), 243. Freeman v. Winchester (18 Miss. (10 Sm. & M.) 577), 735, 736. Freese v. Swayze (26 N. J. Eq. 437), 562, 563. Freichnecht v. Meyer (39 N. J. Eq. 551), 113, 647. Frelinghuysen v. Nugent (36 Fed. Rep. 229), 638. French v. Dauchy (57 Hun, 100), 712. French v. Dickey (3 Tenn. Ch. 303), 290. French v. Gapen (105 U. S. 509), 575, 582, 583. B'rench v. Gibbs (105 HI. 523), 671. French v. GifEord (31 Iowa, 148), 730, 756. French v. Griffin (18 N. J. Eq. 379), 358. French v. Rainey (3 Tenn. Ch. 640), 363. French v. Roe (13 Ves. 593), 314. French v. Shoemaker (12 Wall 86), 922, 940. French v. Shotwell(5 Johns. Ch. 55o), 317, 798. French v. Shotwell (20 Johns. 668), 317. French v. Snell (29 N. J. Eq. 95), 789. French v. Stewart (23 Wall. 238), 520. French Bank Case (53 Cal. 495), 705. Frese v. Biedenfeld (14 Blatchf. 403), 552, 670. Fretz V. Stover (22 WalL 198), 491, 505, 950. Frey v. Frosser (Dick. 298), 248. Frioker v. Peters &c. Co. (81 Fla- 254), 716, 717. Friedlanderu Pollock (5 Cold. (Tenn.) 490), 257, 260. Friedman v. Adler (36 La. Ann. 384), 337. Friedman v. Fennell (Ala., 10 So. Rep. 649), 141. Friedman v. Harrington (56 Fed. Rep. 860), 627. Frierson v. Alexander (74 Ga, 666), 351. Friley v. Hendricks (37 Miss. 413), 857, 858. Frink v. Adams (36 N. J. Eq. 485), 39a Fripp V. Chard R. Co. (23 L. J. Ch. 1084), 751. Frisbie v. Balance (4 Scam. 387), 971. Fritz V. Simpson (34 N. J. Eq. 436), 510. Frost V. Beekman (1 Johns. Ch. 288), 372. Frost V. Inhabitants of Belmont (6 Allen, 153), 984 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxi [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Frow V. De La Vega (15 Wall. 652), 235, 238. Fry V. Charter Oak L. Ins. Co. (82 Fed. Rep. 314), 747. Fry V. Feanister (West Va., 15 S. E. Rep. 258), 696. Fry w Man tell (4 Beav. 485), 378. Frye v. Calhoun County (14 111. 132), 468. Fryer v. Da vies (L. R 1 Ch. App. 390). 863. Fryrear v. Lawrence (5 Gilm. (III.) 325), 403, 404. FulKhara v. Chevallier (10 Tex. 519), 331, 78.5. Fullagas v. Clark (18 Ves. 481), 652. Fuller V. Emenc (2 Sandf. 636), Oil. Fuller V. Fuller ^Fla., 3 So. Rep. 426), 557 Fuller V. Knapp (24 Fed. Rep. 100), 864, 483. Fuller V. McFarland (6 Heisk. 79), 857. Fuller V. Metropolitan lus. Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 696), 483, 484 Fuller V. Met. L. Ins. Co. (37 Fed. Rep. 108), 21. Fuller V. Montague (58 Fed. Rep. 206), 933, 935. Fuller V. Mut L. Ins. Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 696), 482. Fullerton v. Jackson (5 Johns. Ch. 276), 20. Fulton V. Gilmore (8 Beav. 154; 1 Phil. 522), 417, 418. Fulton V. Golden (10 C. E. Gr.), 485. Fulton V. Gracen {44 N. J. Eq. 443), 388, 849, 507, 523, 781. Fulton V. Rosevelt (1 Paige, 178), 65, 1003, 1008. Fulton Bank v. Beach (2 Paige, 807 ; 6 Wend. 86), 881. 882, 890, 419, 421. Fulton Bank v. New York &c. Canal Co. {1 Paige, 311), 377, 787. Fulton Bank v. New York &c. Canal Co. a Paige, 137), 530, 995, 1011. Fulton Bank v. Sharon Canal Co. (1 Paige, 219), 77, 78. Fulton County v. Miss. &o. R Co. (31 111. 388), 389, 390, 435, 441. Funday v. Smith (6 Munf. 142), 894. Funk V. Reutchler (Ind., 83 N. B. Rep. 898), 958. Furlong v. Edwards (3 Md. 99), 754 Furlong v. Riley (103 111. 628), 293. Furman v. Clark (11 N. J. Eq. 135), 784 Furrnan v. Edwards (3 Tenn. Ch. 365), 419. Furman v. North (4 Baxt 298), 418. Furnace Co. v. Withrow (149 U. S. 574)y 864 Furrier v. Ferris (145 U. S. 132), 947. Furtado v. Furtado (6 Jur. 227), 568. F G. Gabriel v. Sturgis (5 Hare, 97), 313. Gacoygne's Case (14 Ves. 188), 55a Gafney v. Reeves (6 Ind. 71), 557. Gage V. Bailey (115 111. 646), 366. Gage V. Bailey (119 111. 539; 9 N. R Rep. 199'. 474 Gage V. Carah r (125 111. 447), 643. Gage V. Goudy (141 III 215), 811. Gage V. Kauffman (133 U. S. 471), 165. Gage V. Kellogg (36 Fed. Rep. 242), 828. Gage V. Lady Stafford (3 Ves. 556), 1002. Gage V. Mayer (117 111. 682), 446, 455. Gage V. Parker (108 111. 528), 513. Gage V. Pumpelly (115 U. S. 454), 913. Gaines v. BrockerhofiE (Pa,, 19 Atl. Rep. 958), 698. Gaines v. Chew (2 How. 619), 142, 143, 153. Gaines v. City of New Orleans (27 Fed. Rep.' 411), 8. Gaines v. Fuentes (92 U. S. 10), 867. Gaines v. Mausseaux (1 Woods, 118), 153. Gaines v. Relf (15 Pet. 9), 7. Gaines v. Ragg (148 U. S. 228), 964 Gaines v. Russ (20 Fla. 157), 406. Gaines v. Thompson (7 Wall. 347), 763. Gainsford v. Gammer (2 Camp. (N. P.), 9), 543. Gainty v. Russell (40 Conn. 450), 911. Galatian v. Erwin (Hopk. Ch. 48), 336, 453, 458, 454 Galbreath v. Rogers (45 Mo. App. 334) 593. Gale V. Nickerson (151 Mass. 438), 31. Gale V. Vernon (1 Sandf. 679), 507. Gallagher v. Hebrew Congregation (34 La. Ann. 526), 658. Gallagher v. Roberts (1 Wash. (C. C.) 820), 848. Galloway v. Dunnington (10 Lea, 216), 830, 836, 913. Galloway v. Hamilton (1 Dana, 576), 371 373 Galpin 'v. Page (18 Wall. 350), 224. Gait V. Hoagland (25 111. 266), 239. Galveston &c. R Co. v. Cowdrey (11 Wall. 459), 94 582. Galveston &c. R Co. v. Wave (74 Tex. 47), 777. Gambee v. Atlee (2 De G. & S. 745), 65. Gamble v. Campbell (6 Fla. 847), 774 Gamewell Fire Alarm TeL Co. v. Mayor &c. (31 Fed. Rep. 312), 7, 19, 877. Gardiner v. Rowe (4 Mad. 236), 652, 654 Ixxxii TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. EC, pp. 609-1018.] Gardiner v. Schermerhorn (Clarke's Ch. 101), 823. Gardiner v. Tyler (3 Keves, 505), 728, 729. Gardner's Case (15 Ves. 445), 613. Gardner v. Bering (2 Edw. Ch. 131), 561, 828, 829. 836, 842. Gardner v. Gardner (6 Paige, 455), 1012. Gardner v. Gardner (23 Wend. 526), 908. Gardner v. Kelly (2 Sandf. 832). 1001. Gardner v. Kelso (80 Ala. 497), 75, 89. Gardner v. Mooie (3 Edw. Ch. 313), 270. Gardner v. Ogden (82 N. Y. 332), 804. Gardner v. Eaisbeck (28 N. J. Eq. 71), 332. Gaiey v. Whittingham (1 Sim. 163), 376. Garey v. Whittingham (Turn. & Russ. 405), 573. Gariss v. Gariss (13 N. J. Eq. 320), 784. Garitee v. Popplein (Md., 20 Atl. Rep. 1070), 819. Garland v. Garland (2 Ves. Jr. 137). 710. Garland v. Scott (3 Sim. 396), 534. Gai-lick V. Garlick (3 Paige, 440), 187, 296. Garlington v. Copeland (S. C, 10 S. E. Rep. 616), 840, 848. Garman v. Dozier (100 U. S. 7), 936. Garner v. Emerson (40 III. 279), 858. Garner v. Lyles (35 Miss. 176), 288. Garr v. Bright (1 Barb. Ch. 157), 971. Garr v. Drake (2 Johns. Ch. 543), 56. Garr v. Gomez (9 Wend. 649), 507. Garr v. Ogden (4 Edw. Ch. 635), 299. jrarrard v. Garrard (Ind., 34 N. E. Rep. 442), 643. Garretson v. Cole (1 Har. & J. 887), 759, 879. Garrett v. Logan (19 Ala. 344), 777. Garrett v. N. Y. Transit &c. Co. (29 Fed. Rep. 129 \ 316, 332. Garrison v. Cass County (5 Wall. 823), 930. Garrow v. Carpenter (5 Porter (Ala.), 359), 403. Garrow v. Carpenter (4 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 336), 341. Garsed v. Beall (92 U. S. 684), 641, 656, 657. Garth v. Ward (3 Atk. 174), 95, 522. Gartland v. Dunn (11 Ark. 720), 103, 287. Garver v. Kent (70 Ind. 428), 734, 736, 738. Garvey v. Hilbert(l J. & W. 180), 599. Garwood v. Adm'r of Eldridge (2 N. J. Eq. 290), 652. Gaskell v. Chambers (26 Beav. 252), 309. Gaskill V. Sine (13 N. J. Eq. 130), 395, 863. Gaskins v. Peebles (44 Tex. 390), 331. Gasquet v. Crescent City Brewing Co. (49 Fed. Rep. 493), 693, 694 Gass V. Mason (4 Sneed, 508), 657. Gass V. Stinson (3 Sumn. 98), 549, 551. Gassert v. Black (Mont, 27 Pac. Rep. 791), 449. Gates V. Boston &c. R. Co. (53 Conn. 333), 79, 93. Gates V. Bucki (53 Fed. Rep. 961), 890. Gates V. Goodloe (101 U. S. 612), 933. Gates V. Smith (4 Edw. Ch. 702), 826. Gates V. Steele (58 Conn. 316), 133. Gates V. Woodrufif (4 Edw. Ch. 700), 817. Gatewood u Leak (99 N. C. 363 ; 6 S. E. Rep. 706), 475, 477. Gaunt V. Froelich (34 111. App. 303), 876. Gavin v. Vance (33 Fed. Rep. 84), 46. Gavock V. Puryear (6 Cold. (Tenn.) 34), 799. Gay V. Parpart (101 U. S. 391), 941. Gay V. Parpart ( 106 U. S. 679), 804, 885. Gaylords v. Kelshaw (1 Wall. 81), 91, 484, 635. Geary v. Sheridan (8 Ves. 192), 349. Gee V. Pritchard (8 Swanst. 402), 764. Gelpcke v. Milwaukee &c. R Co. (11 Wis. 454), 883. 884. Gentry v. Gentry (1 Sneed, 87), 978. Gentry v. Gentry (Va., 13 S. E. Rep. 960), 90. Gentry v. Rogers (40 Ala. 443), 339. George v. St. Louis &c. Ry. Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 117), 579. George v. Wood (9 Allen, 80), 99. Georgia v. Atlantic &c. R. Co. (3 Woods, 437), 728. Georgia v. Grant (6 Wall. 241). 205. Georgia v. Jesup (106 U. S. 458), 905. Georgia v. Stanton '6 Wall. 50). 2.5. Georgia Lumber Co. v. Bissell (9 Paige, 335), 254, 615, 631. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. Brooks (66 Miss. 583 ; 6 So. Rep. 467), 154. Gerard v. Penswick (1 Wils. 333), 533, 535. Gerber v. Metropolitan EL R. Co. (23 N. Y. Supl. 166), 778. Gerdtzen v. Cockrell (Minn., 65 N. W. Rep. 58), 591. Gere v. New York Central &c. R. Co. (38 Hun, 231), 343. Germain v. Beach (9 Paige, 233X 480. German v. Machin (6 Paige, 288), 431. German Reformed Church v. Von Penchelstein (27 N. J. Eq. 80), 2d6, 305. TABLE OF OASES. Ixxxiii [The references are to pages: Vol, I rontains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] German Savings Bank v. Hobel (80 N. Y. 373), 877. Gernon v. Boecaline (2 Wash. C. C. 130), 617, 618. Gernon v. Boecaline (3 Wash. 0. C. 199), 851. Gerrish v. Black (109 Mass. 474), 598, 794, 918. Gethin v. Gale (Ambler, 353), 363. Oetman v. Beardsley (2 Johns. Ch. 374), 971. Gettings v. Burch (9 Cranch, 373), 395. Giant Powder Co. v. Cal. Vigorit Powder Co. (5 Fed. Rep. 197), 831, 834, 836, 887. Giant Powder Co. v. Safety Nitro- Powder Co. (19 Fed. Rep. 509), 818, 341. Gibbon's Appeal (104 Pa. St. 587), 674. Gibbons v. Mainwaring (9 Sim. 77), 717. Gibbons v. Ogden (6 Wheat. 448; Halst. Dig. 174), 533, 928. Gibbs V. Clagett (3 Gill & J. (Md.) 14, 158. Gibbs V. Diekma (103 U. S. 316), 101. Gibbs V. Diekma (131 U. S. 186), 968. Gibbs V. Mermand (3 Edw. Ch. 483), 613. Gibbs V. Morgan (39 N. J. Eq. 78), 988. Gibby v. Hall (37 N. J. Eq. 283), 822. Gibert v. Washington City &c. R. Co. (33 Gratt. 586), 719, 720. Gibson, Matter of (10 Ark. 573), 307. Gibson v. American L. & T. Co. (18 N. Y. Supl. 444). 81. Gibson v. Burgess (82 Va. 650), 797. Gibson v. Goldthwaite (7 Ala. 281), 173, 176. Gibson v. Green (45 Miss. 209), 507. Gibson v. Green (Va., 16 S. E. Rep. 661), 857. Gibson v. Ingo (5 Hare, 156), 287. Gibson v. Marshall (64 Miss. 72), 883. Gibson v. Martin (8 Paige, 373), 716. Gibson v. McCormick (10 Gill & J. G5), 394. Gibson v. Moore (22 Tex. 611), 331. Gibson v. Rees (50 111. 883), 629. Gibson v. Shufeldt (123 U. S. 87), 33. Gibson v. Tilton (1 Bland, 352), 883, 384, 785. Gibson v. Trowbridge Furniture Co. (Aln., 9 So. Rep. 870), 135, 170, 588. Gibson V. Whitehead (4 Madd. 341), 319. Giddings v. Eastman (Clarke's Ch. 19), 483. Giffard v. Hart (1 Sch. & Lef. 386), 95 Gihon'u Albert (7 Paige, 278), 680. Gilbert v. Colt(Hopk. Ch. 496; 14 Am. Deo. 561), 118, 609, 612, 615, 616, 617, 619, 631. Gilbert v. Galpin (11 N. J. Eq. 445) 860. Gilbert v. Gilbert (3 Paige, 603), 999, 1003. Gilchrist u Cannon (1 Cold. 581), 340, 497. Gilchrist v. Gilchrist (44 How. Pi. 317), 389, 431. Giles V. Giles (1 Keen, 685), 522. Giles V. Hodge (74 Wis. 360), 954. Gill V. Balis (72 Mo. 434), 736). Gillespie v. Alexander (3 Russ. 130), 83. Gillespie v. Moon (2 Johns. Ch. 585), 148, 805. Gillet V. Fairchild (4 Denio, 80), 736, 738. Gillett V. Hall (18 Conn. 436), 513. Gillett V. Robbins (13 Wis. 819), 406. Gilman v. Railroad Co. (73 Ala. 566), 466. Gilmer v. Felhour (45 Miss. 637), 446. Gilpatrick v. Gilden (83 Me. 301 ; 19 Atl. Rep. 166), 190. Girard Life Ins. Co. v. Cooper (51 Fed. Rep. 533), 695. Girault v. Adams (61 Md. 1), 553. Glading v. Cubberly (39 N. J. Eq. 104), 375. Glaenzer v. Wienderer (88 Fed. Rep. 583), 764. Glascot V. Copper Miners' Co. (11 Sim. 305), 888. Glascott V. Lang (3 Phil. Ch. 310 ; 3 Myl. & C. 455), 126, 325. Glassington v. Thwaites(2 Russ. 458), 310, 311, 314, 391, 436. Glazbrook v. Gillatt(9 Beav. 492), 572. Gleasnn v. Bisby (Clarke's Ch. 551 609, 810, 612, 619, 621. Cleaves v. Morrow (3 Tenn. Ch. 592 137, 437, 431, 433. Glegg V. Legh (4 Mad. 193), 276, 445. Gleghorne v. Gleghorne (118 Pa. St 388 ; 11 Atl. Rep. 797), 399. Glendale &c. Co. v. Smith (100 U. S. llO), 909. Glenn v. Baker (1 Md. Ch. 73), 407. Glenn v. Busey (5 Mackey (D. C), 233 ; 8 Cent. Rep. 283). 734, 738. Glenn v. Clark (53 Md. 580), 444. Glenn v. Dimmock (48 Fed. Rep. 550), Glenn v. Garth (13 S. Ct. Rep. 350), 29. Glenn v. Grover (3 Md. 213), 393, 403, 405, 407. Glenn v. Hebb (12 Gill & J. 371), 490, 491. Glenn v. Noonan (43 Fed. Rep. 493), 834 Ixxxiv TABLB OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Glenny v. Langdon (98 U. S. 20), 90. Glenny v. Langdon (94 U. S. 605), 946. Glenton v. Clover (10 Abb. 423), 611, 622. Glidden v. Norvell (44 Mich. 202), 770. Glines v. Supreme Sitting Order of Iron Hall (20 N. Y. Supl. 275), 717. Glos V. Randolph (133 111. 197), 409. Glossup V. Harrison (3 Ves. & B. 134), 713. Glover v. Hall (2 Ph. 484), 534. Glover v. Hedges (1 N. J. Eq. 133), 837. Glover v. Hembree (82 Ala. 324), 483. Glover v. McGaflfey (56 Vt 294), 777. Glover v. Ralney (3 Ala, 727), 638. Glover v. Rogers (11 Jur. 1000), 313. Gloversville v. Johnstown &c. R Co. (49 N. Y. St. Rep. 315), 759. Glynu Duesbury (11 Sim. 139', 178. GlyQS V. Bank of England (2 Ves. 41), 537. Glynn v. Houston (1 Keen, 329), 362. Goble V. Andruss (2 N. J. Eq. 66), 266. Goddard v. Cox (1 Lea, 113), 691. Goddard v. Ordway (94 U. S. 672), 941. Goddard v. Ordway (101 U. S. 745), 930. Goddard v. Prentice (17 Conn. 555), 87. Goddard v. State (3 Yerg. 99), 644. Godden v. Kimmell (99 U. S. 201), 133 291 Godfrey v. Chadwell (2 Vern. 601), 96. Godfrey v. Maw (1 Y. & C. Ch. 485), 588. Godfrey v. Tucker (33 Beav. 285), 513. Godkin v. Redgate (1 Comp. & Jer. 401), 231. Goherty v. Bennett (37 N. J. Eq. 87), 131. Gold Hunter Min. & Smelt Co. v. Holleman (Idaho, 27 Pao. Rep. 413), 706. Gold Washing & Water Co. v. Keves (96 U. S. 199), 33. Goldmark v. Kreling (25 Fed. Rep. 349), 773. Goldsmith v. E' is (53 Ga. 186), 759. Goldsmith v. Gilliland (33 Fed. Rep. 865). 372. Goldsmith v. Gilliland (34 Fed. Rep. 154), 329. Goldsmith v. Goldsmith (5 Hare, 125), 1009, 1010. Goldthwait v. Day (149 Mass. 185), 336. Golightly V. Jellicoe (4 Term R. 146), 721. Gompertz v. Best (1 Y. & 0. Ex. 114), 136, 561. Gooch V. Green (103 III. 507), 383, 866. Good V. Blewitt (13 Ves. 397), 83. Good V. Blewitt (19 Ves. 336), 78, 8a Good Hope Co. v. Railway Barb Fencing Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 635), 211. Goodheart v. Raritan Min. Co. (8 N. J. Eq. 73). 130. Goodhue V. Churchman (1 Barb. Ch. 596), 245, 795. Goodman i). Jones (28 Conn. 267), 683, 697. Goodman v. Kine (8 Beav. 379), 770. Goodman v. Sayers (5 Mad. Ch. 471), 609. Goodman v. Whitcomb (1 J. & W. 569), 715. Goodrich v. Pendleton (3 Johns. Ch. 384), 315, 339. Goodiich i>. Pendleton (3 Johns. Ch. 530), 998, 1007. Goodrich v. Rooney (1 Minn. 195), 137. Goodrich v. Stanley (23 Conn. 79), 811. Goodrich v. Thompson (88 III. 207), 858. Goodwin v. Bishop (III., 34 N. E. Rep. 47), 338, 435, 697. Goodwin v. Fox (130 U. S. 775), 931. Goodwin v. Fox (129 U. S. 601), 528. 691, 913. Goodwin v. Keney (49 Conn. 564), 68. Goodwin v. McGehee (15 Ala. 333), 356, 357, 415. Goodwin v. Clarke (3 Dick. 497), 613, 614. Goodyear v. Brown (3 Blatchf. 366), 196. Goodyear v. Chaffee (3 Blatchf. 268X 261. Goodyear v. India-Rubber Co. (4 Blatchf. 63), 33. Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co. (2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499), 653. Goodyear v. Toby (6 Blatchf. 130), 345, 346. Gookin v. Upham (22 N. H. 38). 1000. Gordon v. Bell (50 Ala. 213', 394. Gordon v. Calvert (2 Sim. 253), 713. Gordon v. Gilfoil (99 U. S. 168), 326. Gordon v. Gordon (25 IlL App. 310), 481. Gordon v. Gordon (3 Swanst 400), 538, 807. Gordon v. Haramell (19 N. J. Eq. 216), 359. Gordon v. Hobart (2 Story, 243), 675. Gordon v. Hobart (3 Sumner, 401), 10. Gordon v. Reynolds (.114 IlL 118), 303, 954. Gordon v. Sims (2 McCord, Ch. 156), 394. Gordon v. Third Nat Bank (144 U. Si 97 ; 13 a Ct Rep. 657)y 18L TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxv [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Gordon v. Tweedy (74 Ala. 233), 564, 556, 557. Gorgerat v. McCarty (1 Yeates, 94), 831. Gorham v. Farson (119 111. 425), 126. Gorham v. Gorham (3 Barb. Ch. 24), 285. Gorraley v. Bunyan (188 U. S. 623), 530, 913. Gormley v. Clark (134 U. S. 338), 117, 650. Goudy V. Hall (36 111. 313), 224 Gould V. Castel (47 Mich. 604; 11 N. W. Rep. 403). 237, 346. Gould V. Jacobsohn (18 How. Pr. 158), 785. Gould V. Mortimer (16 Abb. Pr. 448), 344. Gould V. Stanton (16 Conn. 12), 447. Gould V. Tancred (2 Atk. 533), 508. Gould V. Wheeler (28 N. J. Eq. 541), 96. Gould V. Williamson (21 Me. 273), 409. Gouverneur v. Elmendorf (4 Johns. Ch. 357). 424, 459, 461. Gove V. Lyford (44 N. H. 535), 512, 515. Gove V. Pettis (4 Sandf. Ch. 403), 109, 272, 396. Governors &c. r. Swan (5 Bro. P. C. 429, 898. Grabenheiiner v. Blum (63 Tex. 369), 513. Grace v. American Central Ins. Co. (109 U. S. 378), 130. Grady v. Robinson (28 Ala. 289), 363, 409. Graff V. Boesch (50 Fed. Rep. 660), 967. Graffam v. Burgess (117 U. S. 180), 191, 192, 197. Graff en reid v. Brunswick &c. R. Co. (57 Ga. 22), 739. Grafton v. Brady (7 N. J. Eq. 79), 328. Grafton Bank v. Doe (19 Vt 463), 394. Graham v. Berryman (19 N. J. Eq. 39), 116. Graham v. Campbell (L. R. 7 Ch. D. 490), 775. Graham v. Coape (3 Myl. & Cr. 638 ; 9 Sim. 96), 314. Graham v. Elmore (Harring. Ch. 365), 373, 398, 627. Graham v. Graham (21 West Va. 698), 696. Graham v. Pinckney (7 Rob. 147), 567. Graham v. Railroad Co. (103 U. S. 148), 170. Graliam v. Skinner (4 Jones' Eq. 94), 417, Graham v. Stucken (4 Blatchf. 60> 612, 613. Graham v. Tankersley (15 Ala. 634), 463. Graham v. Tate (77 N. C. 120), 473. Grahame v. Cooke (1 Cratich, 116), 268. Grand Junction Canal Co. v. Dimes (18 L. J. Ch. 419), 878. Grandin v. La Bar (N. D., 50 N. W. Rep. 151), 716. Grandin v. Le Roy (3 Paige, 509), 15, 17. Grange Warehouse Ass'n v. Owen (3 Pickle (Tenn.), 355), 200. Grant v. Benonio (Cal., 32 Pac. Rep. 556), 803. Grant v. Bryant (101 Mass. 567), 730. Grant v. Davis (Ind., 31 N. R Rep. 587), 552, 586, 587. Grant v. East & West R. Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 795), 895, 920. Grant v. Grant (3 Russ. 598), 609, 619, 621. Grant v. McCaughin (4 How. Pr. 216), 421. Grant v. McKee (1 Pet 348), 22. Grant v. Phoenix Mut L. Ins. Co. (106 U. S. 429j, 917, 933, 925. Grant v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co. (121 U. S. 105), 148, 154, 820, 321, 727, 926. Grant v. Van Schoonhoven (9 Paige, 255), 59. Grant v. Webb (21 Minn. 39), 705. Grant County u. Colonial &c. Mortg. Co. (S. Dak., 53 N. W. Rep. 746), 784 Grantland v. Memphis (13 Fed. Rep. 287), 497. Grantland v. Wight (2 Munf. (Va.) 179), 339. Gravais v. Falgaust (34 La. Ann. 99), 341, 345, 783. Graveley v. Graveley (84 Va. 145 ; 4 S. E. Rep. 218), 18. Gravely v. Southerland (29 Ga. 335), 785. Graves v. Budget (1 Atk. 444), 557. Graves v. Coutant (31 N. J. Eq. 763), 373 Graves «. Dale (1 Mon. 190), 486. Graves v. Downey (3 Mon. (Ky.) S56), 283. Graves v. Miles (Harring. Ch. 332), 517. Graves v. Wood (40 N. J. Eq. 65), 973, Gray v. Adamson (35 Beav. 383), 313. Gray v. Blanchard (97 U. S. 564), 22. Gray v. Brignardello (1 Wall. 627), 598, 799, 813. Gray i\ Chicago &c. R Co. (1 Woolw. 63), 874 Ixxxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Gray v. Haig (13 Beav. 65), 460, 461. Gray v. Havemeyer (53 Fed. Rep. 174), 908, 9:!8, 993. Gray v. Murray (4 Johns. Ch. 415), 554, 837. Gray v. Rothschild (16 N. Y. St Rep. 231 ; 113 N. Y. 668). 85. Graydon v. Church (7 Mich. 36), 736, 744, 746. Grayson v. Virginia (3 Dall. 320), 209. Grearaes v. Stritho (2 Dick. 469), 613. Great Luxembourg Ry. Co. v. Mag- nay (33 Beav. 646), 363. Great Western Compound Co. v. ^tna Ins. Co. (40 "Wis. 373), 288. Great Western R. Co. v. Birmingham R. Co. (3 Phillips' Ch. 597), 325. Greaves, Re (W. R. 353), 573. Greeley v. Provident Sav. Bank (Mo., 15 S. W. Rep. 429), 730, 733, 748. Greeley v. Smith (3 Story, 658), 497. Green v. Blackvpell (32 N. J. Eq. 768), 900, 913. Green v. Bradlev (7 Beav. 371), 60. Green v. Chicago &c. R Co. (49 Fed. Rep. 907), 963, 968. Green v. Creighton (23 How. 105), 19. Green v. Eibert (137 U. S. 615). 931. Green v. Green (2 Sim. 394), 563. Green v. Fisk (103 U. S. 518, 520), 925. Green v. Griffin (95 N. C. 50), 876. Green v. Harrison (3 Sneed, 130), 1008. Green v. Jenkins (1 De G., F. & J. 470), 861. Green v. Lanier (5 Heisk. 662), 684, 691, 693. Green v. Massie (31 Gratt. 356), 18, 544. Green v. McKinney (6 J. J. Marsh. 193), 220. Green v. Milbank (3 Abb. N. C. 138), 16. Green v. Pallas (12 N. J. Eq. 267), 787. Green v. Richards (23 N. J. Eq. 32), 101. Green v. Storm (3 Sandf. Ch. 305), 990. Green v. Winter (1 Johns. Uh. 60), 734, 738. Greene v. Bishop (1 Cliff. 186), 691. Greene v. Harris (11 R I. 5), 316, 321, 334, 335, 343. Greene v. Mumford (4 R I. 313), 173, 173 Greene v. Wheeler (9 Paige, 608), 1011. Greenin v. Hoey (9 N. J. Eq. 137i, 785. Greenlaw v. Kernehan (4 Soeed, 371), 60. Greenleaf v. Eagan, (30 Minn. 316), 648. Greenleaf v. Queen (1 Peters, 138), 506, 638. Greenlee v. McDowell (4 Ired. Eq. (S. C.) 481), 854. Greenough v. Gaskell (1 Myl. & K. 98), 363. Greenough v. Taylor (17 HI. 603), 237. Greensward v. Union Dime Sav. Inst (59 How. Pr. 401), 361. Greenwich Bank v. Loomis (3 Sandf. Ch. 70), 843. Greenwood v. Atkinson (4 Sim. 61), 415. Greenwoods v. Churchill (1 M. & K. 559), 157. Greer v. Powell (1 Bush, 489), 649. Greer v. Turner (47 Ark. 17), 849, 854. Gregg V. Brower (67 111. 525), 625. Gregory v. Dodge (4 Paige, 557), 549, Gregory v. Marychurch (13 Beav. 275), 556. Gregory v. Pike (39 Fed. Rep. 588), 213, 443. Gregory v. Spencer (11 Beav. 143), 470. Gregorv v. Stetson (133 U. S. 579), 69, 74.' Gregory v. Stillwell (6 N. J. Eq. 51), 334, 335. 788. Gregory v. Swift (39 Fed. Rep. 708), 74. Gregory v. Tingley (18 Met 318), 823. Gregory v. Valentine (4 Edw. Ch. 282), 171. Gregory v. West (2 Beav. 541), 688. Gregory Consolidated Mining Co. v. Starr (141 U. S. 222), 9fi8. Greig v. Russell (115 111. 484). 267, 368. Grenfell v. Dean of Windsor (3 Beav. 544), 754 Gresham v. Peterson (35 Ark. 377), 613, 618. Greswold v. Marsham (3 Ch. Cas. 170), 96. Gretham v. Bell (5 Russ. 161), 655. Grew v. Breed (13 Met 363 >, 870. Grey v. Bowman (N. J., 13 Atl. Rep. 336), 360, 431. Grider v. Apperson (33 Ark. 333), 326. Grier v. Turner (36 Ark. 17), 966. Griesel v. Schmal (55 Ind. 475), 738. Griffin v. Fries (23 Fla. 173), 446. Griffin v. Pate (63 Ind. 273). 648. Griffin v. Spence (69 Ala. 393), 501. Griffin v. Wallace (06 Ind. 410), 774. Griffith V. Bronaugh (1 Bland, 547), 347, 501. Griffith V. Griffith (2 Ves. 400), 713. Griffith V. Merritt (19 N. Y. 529), 452. Griffith V. Ricketts (3 Hare, 476), 502. Griffith V. Segar (29 Fed. Rep. 707), 146. Griffiths V. Wood (2 Ves. 452), 36, 389. Griffiths V. Wood (11 Ves. 61), 378, 382. Griggs V. Gear (8 Gilm. (IlL) 3), 855, 856. TABLE OF OASES. Ixxxvii (The references are to pages: Vol. I contalos pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1013.] Grigsby v. Purcell (99 U. S. 505), 936. Grim v. Wheeler (3 Edw. Ch. 448), 184. Grimes v. Grimes (111., 32 N. E. Rep. 847), 483, 866, 867. Grimm v. Wheeler (3 Edw. Ch. 334), 364. Grimston v. Turner (18 W. R. 735), 706. Griswold v. Brook (29 111. App. 433), 232. Griswold V. Hazard (141 IT. S. 360), 633. Griswold v. Hill (1 Paine, 483), 498, 796, 799. Griswold v. Inman (Hopk. Ch. 86), 481. Griswold v. Mather (5 Conn. 435), 138. Griswold v. Railroad Co. (9 Fed. Rep. 797). 707. Griswold v. Sheldon (4 N. Y. 581), 591. Grob V. Cushman (45 111. 119), 734. Grocer's Bank v. Neet (39 N. J, Eq. 450), 358. Groch V. Stenger (65 111. 481), 673, 799. Groenendyke v. CofEeen (109 111. 839), 391. Groome v. Chambers (3 Mont. & Ayrt. 743). 654. Gi-osholz V. Newman (31 Wall. 481), 126. Gross V. Davis (81 Tenn. 326), 447. Gross V. Wieand (151 Pa. St 639), 758. Gross & Phillips Mfg. Co. v. Gerhard (8 Reporter, 186), 1003. Grote V. Bury (1 W. R 93), 714. Grove n Fresh (9 Gill & J. 38] ), 156. Guadalupe County v. Johnston (Tex., 30 S. W. Rep. 833), 168. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Green Cove R. Co. (139 U. S. 137). 318, 319, 334. Guebelle v. Epley (Colo. App., 38 Pac. Rep. 89), 876. Guest V. Barton (33 N. J. Eq. 130), 820. Guest V. Hewitt (27 N. J. Eq. 479), 582. Guilbert v. Hawles (1 Ch. Cas. 40), 470, 475. Guion V. Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. (109 U. S. 168), 900, 905. Gumbel v. Pitkin (113 U. S. 545), 584. Gunnell v. Bird (10 Wall. 304), 394, 395 505 Guppy 'v. Brown (4 Dall. 410), 546. Gurney v. Jackson (1 Sm. & G. 97), 313 Guthrie v. Quinn (43 Ala. 56), 381. Guy V. Doak (47 Kan. 236), 706. Guy V. Guy (2 Beav. 460), 58, 586. Guyotu Hilton (32 Fed. Rep. 743), 539. Gwyn V. Lethbridge (14 Ves. 585), 449, 954. G Wynne v. Edwards (9 Beav. 23), 836. H. Haberman Mfg. Co., In re (147 U. S. 535), 899, 900. Hack V. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. (23 Fed. Rep. 356), 584, 834. Haokensack Water Co. ■;;. De Kay (36 N. J. Eq. 548), 93, 673, 818. Hackley v. Mack (60 Mich. 591 ; 37 N. W. Rep. 871), 450, 452. 463. Haddy v. Cleveland & M. R Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 689), 751. Hadley v. Ulrich (Okla., 33 Pac. Rep. 705), 937. Haffey v. Haffey (14 Ves. 361), 614. Hagan v. Ryan (27 N. J. Eq. 336), 162. Hagan v. Walker (14 How. 37), 95. Hagar v. Whitmore (82 Me. 248 ; 19 Atl. Rep. 244), 136, 638. Haggerty v. Duane (1 Paige. 331), 604. Haggett V. Welsh (1 Sim. 134), 667. Haggin v. Raymond (67 Cal. 803), 657. Hagner v. Heyberger (7 Watts & S. 104), 763. Hahn v. Ruber (83 111. 343), 626, 643. Hahn v. Kelly (34 Cal. 391), 223. Haight V. Case (4 Paige, 535), 330. 327. Haight V. Holly (3 Wend. 358), 487. Haight V. Schuck (6 Kan. 192), 388. Haines' Appeal (73 Pa. St. 169), 644. Haines v. Beach (3 Johns. Ch. 459), 96. Haines v. Carpenter (1 Woods, 363), 153. Haines v. Hewitt (134 111. 376), 866. Hake v. Brown (44 Fed. Rep. 383), 977. Haldernnan v. Halderman (Hemp. 407), 563. Hale V. Akers (132 U. S. 554), 29. Hale V. Continental Ins. Co. (13 Fed. Rep. 359), 257. Hale V. Continental Life Ins. Co. (20 Fed. Rep. 844), 283. Hale V. Frost (99 U. S. 389), 736. Hale V. McComas (59 Tex. 484), 331. Hale V. Nashua &c. R Co. (60 N. H. 583), 154. Haley v. Breeze (144 U. S. 180 ; 13 S. W. Rep. 836), 39. Hall, Ex parte (L. R 33 Ch. D. 644), 775. Hall V. Baldwin (45 N. J. Eq. 858), 631, 633. Hall V. Clagett (48 Md. 333), 491, 493. Hall V. Darnev (1 Dick. 389), 563. Hall V. Edrington (8 B. Mon. 47), 465. Ixxxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1013.] Hall V. Fisher (3 Barb. Ch. 637), 188. HaU V. Fowlkes (9 Heiak. 745), 447, 456. Hall V. FuUerton (69 IlL 448), 292. HaU V. Hall (1 Bland, 131), 501. Hall V. Harrington (41 Mich. 146), 450. Hall V. Huff (76 Ga. 337), 845. Hall V. Joiner (1 S. O. 186), 160. Hall V. Linn (8 Col. 264), 657, 660. Hall V. Lowther (22 West Va. 570), 857. Hall V. Maltbv (6 Price, 240). 528. Hall V. Noyes (8 Bro. C. C. 483, n.), 3Q3. Hall V. Southard (3 Chitty, 267), 831. Hall V. Urquhart (11 N. J. Eq; 318), 820. Hall V. Westcott (R L, 23 Atl. Rep. 25), 688. Hall V. Wood (1 Paige, 404), 366, 437. Hallagan v. Golden (1 Wend. 304), 421. Hallett V. Hallett (2 Paige, 15), 79, 83, 606. Hallett V. Hallett (2 Paige, 432), 584. Halliday Case, The (27 Fed. Rep. 880), 404. Halloways v. Myers (11 West Va. 276), 774 Halsam, Ex parte (2 Atk. 50), 376. Halsey v. Ball (36 N. J. Eq. 161), 359. Halsey v. Carter (6 Rob. 535). 568. Halsey v. Stewart (4 N. J. Law, 866), 228. Halstead v. Manning (34 Fed. Rep. 565), 259. Halstead v. Meeker's Ex'rs (18 N. J. Eq. 136), 194. Halsted v. Tyng (39 N. J. Eq. 86), 682. Hamburgh Mfg. Co. v. Edsall (8 N. J. Eq. 141), 703. Hamersley v. Brown (2 Johns. Ch. 428), 555. Hamilton v. Brewster (3 Molloy, 407), 713. Hamilton v. Brown (53 Fed. Rep. 753), 891, 914. Hamilton v. Gilman (12 III. 260), 801. Hamilton v. Marks (5 De G. & S. 638), 176. Hamilton v. Southern Nev. Gold &c. Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 563), 193, 418, 419, 547, 548, 693. Hamilton Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Citv ot Hamilton (18 S. Ct Rep. 90)," 84. Hamlin v. Stephenson (4 Dana, 597), 55. Hammersley v. Barker (3 Paige, 872), 970. Hammersley v. Parker (1 Barb. Ch. 35), 597, 680. Hammersley v. Wyckoff (8 Paige, 72), HI. Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. v. Judd (36 Fed. Rep. 293), 599. Hammock v. Farmers' L. & T. Co. (105 U. 8. 77), 9. Hammond v. Johnson (142 IT. S. 78), 29. Hampton v. Coddington (26 N. J. Eq. 557), 110, 380. Hampton v. Nicholson (23 N. J. Eq. 438), 193. Harason v. Hamson (39 Ala. 489X 486. Hancock v. Holbrook (112 U. S. 329), 130. Hancock v. Winans (20 Tex. 330), 591. Hand v. Jacobus (19 N. J. Eq. 79), 497. Hand v. Savannah &c. R. Co. (10 S. C. 406), 720. Hand v. Weidner (Pa., 25 Atl. Rep. 38), 898. Handeside v. Brown (1 Dick. 236), 531. Handford v. Storie (2 Sim. & Stu. 196), 478, 474, 475. Handley v. Heflin (84 Ala. 600 ; 4 So. Rep. 725), 148. Handley v. Stutz (137 U. S. 366), 33. Handy v. Insurance Co. (37 Ohio St. 866), 361. Handy v. Scott (36 West Va. 710). 696. Hanley v. Wetmore (15 R. L 386 ; 6 Atl. Rep. 777), 137. Hanna v. Curtis (1 Barb. Ch. 363), 342, 567, 783. Hanna v. Hanna (89 N. C. 68), 703, 715. Hanna v. Ratekin (48 111. 463), 447. Hannah v. Hodgson (80 Beav. 19), 460. Hannas v. Hawk (34 N- J. Eq. 124), 374. Hannay v. M'Entire (11 Ves. 55), 613. Hanover Nat Bank v. Klein (64 Miss. 141), 407, 411. Hansborough v. Towns (1 Tex. 58), 785. Hansford v. Coal Co. (23 West Va. 70), 803. Hansom v. Trustees &c. (11 N. J. Eq. 441), 553. Hanson v. Jeremiah (3 Bibb, 349), 335. Hanson v. Lake (3 Y. & C. (C. C.) 328), 994. Harbach v. Hill (112 U. S. 144), 170. Hardee v. Gibbs (50 Miss. 803), 497. Hardee v. Wilson (146 U. S. 179), 902. Hardeman v. Burge (10 Yerg. 303), 409. Harder v. Harder (26 Barb. 409), 567. Harder v. Harder (3 Sandf. Ch. 17), 101. Hardesty v. Jones (10 Gill & J. 404), 407. TABLE OF OASES. Ixxxix [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1013.] Hardie v. Bulger (66 Miss. 577 ; 6 So. Rep. 186). 153, 197. Hardin v. Boyd (113 U. S. 756), 141, 191, 196, 197. Harding v. Egin (3 Tenn. Ch. 39), 278. Hardinsr v. Fuller (IlL, 30 N. R Rep. 1053), 643. Harding v. Handy (11 Wheat. 103), 130, 691. Harding v. Hawkins (111., 31 N. E. Rep. 307). 329. 336, 337, 401. Harding v. Tingey (12 W. R. 685), 878. Hard man v. EUames (3 Myl. & K. 745), 534 Hardman «. Ellames (5 Sim. 640; 3 Myl. & K 733), 319, 367. Hardwick v. Bassett (25 Mich. 149), 4i0. Hardwick v. Hook (8 Ga. 354), 736, 737. Hardy v. McClellan (53 Miss. 507), 706. Hardy v. Miller (11 Neb. 395), 993. Hargrave v. Hargrave (8 Beav. 289), 654. Hargrave v. Hargrave (3 Mac. & G. 348), 863. Hargraves v. Jones (27 Ga. 233), 483. Hargrove v. Martin (6 Smed. & M. 61), 408. Barker, Ex parte (49 Cal. 465), 610. Harkness v. Hyde (98 U. 8. 476), 224, 228, 259. Harlan v. Person (Ala., 9 So. Rep. 379), 146. Harlan v. Wingate (3 J. J. Marsh. 138), 405. Harland v. Bankers' & Merchants' Tel. Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 305), 370. Harland v. Bankers' & Merchants' Tel. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 199), 736. Harnian v. City of Lynchburgh (33 Gratt 37), 902. Harman v. Howe (37 Gratt. 676), 774. Harmon v. Campbell (30 III. 25), 225, 235. Harmon v. Kentucky Coal &c. De- velopment (Ky., 21 S. W. Rep. 1054), 714. Harmon v. Struthers (48 Fed. Rep. 300), 928. Harpending v. Reformed Dutch Church (16 Pet 455), 390, 330. Harper v. McVeigh (82 Va. 751), 687. Harper v. Norfolk &c. R. Co. (67 Fed. Rep. 102 1, 41. Harral v. Leverty (50 Conn. 46), 453. Harrell v. Beall (17 Wall. 590), 947. Harrell v. Kent (71 Ind. 601), 736, 738. Harrell v. Mitchell (61 Ala. 270), 554, 556. Harrigan v. Bacon (57 Vt. 644), 192. Harris v. Carter (3 Stew. (Ala.) 233), 447. Harris v. Cornell (80 111. 54), 851. Harris v. Deitrich (39 Mich. 366), 23a Harris v. Fly (7 Paige, 431), 336, 373. Harris v. Galbraith (43 111. 309), 484 Harris v. Granthorn (1 N. J. Law, 142), 228. Harris v. Hardy (3 Hill, 393), 631. Harris v. Hines (59 Ga. 437), 471. Harris v. Ingledew (3 P. Wms. 94), 350 557 Harris 'v. James (3 Bro. C. C. 399), 383. Harris v. Mackintosh (133 Mass. 338), 647, 649, 908. Harris v. Pollard (3 P. Wms. 848), 504, 505, 506. Harris v. Trustees &c. (110 Mass. 209), 100. Harris v. Williams (10 Paige, 108), 995. Harrison v. Boydell (6 Sim. 311), 731. Harrison v. Farrington (38 N. J. Eq. 358), 316, 330, 335, 340, 344, 345. Harrison v. Gibson (23 Gratt. 212), 391. Harrison v. Hogg (3 Ves. Jr. 323), 149. Harrison v. M'Mennomy (2 Edw. Ch. 251), 838. Harrison v. Maxwell (44 N. J. Law, 319), 737. Harrison v. Nixon (9 Pet 491), 584 Harrison v. Righter (11 N. J. Eq. 389), 158, 973. Harrison v. Rowan (4 Wash. C. C. 202), 63, 211. Harrison v. Stewardson (3 Hare, 530), 80. Harsburg v. Baker (1 Pet 282), 635. Hart u. Bloomfield (66 Miss. 100; 5 So. Kep. 620), 625. Hart V. Buckner (54 Fed. Rep. 925), Hart V. Hart V. Hart V. Hart V. 126. Hart V. Hart V. Hart V. 394, Hart V. 534 Hart V. 763. Hart V. Hartell 635, Harter 38. Carpenter (36 Mich. 402), 394 Lindsay (Walk. Ch. 74), 347. Mallet (3 Hayw. 136), 18. Schenck (33 N. J. Eq. 148), Small (4 Paige, 551), 338, 625. Stubling (31 Fla. 136), 126. Ten Eyck (3 Johns. Ch. 63), ,400. Ten Eyck (2 Johns. Ch. 513). The Mayor (3 Paige, 214), Time (3 Edw. Ch, 326), 716. V. Tilghman (99 U. S. 547), 33, V. Kernochan (103 U. S. 563), xc TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Bonner Mer- cantile Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 151), 7, 19, 149, 154. Hartman's Appeal (36 Pa. St 70), 853. Hartog V. Memory (116 U. S. 588), 40, 483, 484. Hartshorn v. Fames (31 Me. 97), 278. Hartson v. Davenport (2 Barb. Ch. 77), 597. Harvey v. Branson (1 Leigh, 108), 883. Harvey v. Harvey (4 Beav. 215 ; 5 Beav. 134), 79, 85, 86. Harvey v. Tebbutt (1 J. & W. 197), 993. Harwell v. Lehman (72 Ala. 344), 384. Hartwell v. White (9 Paige, 368), 246. Harwoodu. DickerhofC (117 U. S. 300), 943. Harwood v. Railroad Co. (17 Wall. 80), 391. 858, 867. Haskell v. Raoul (1 McCord's Ch. 33), 846. Haskins v. St. Louis &c. Ry. Co. (109 U. S. 106), 930, 934. Haslar v. Hollis (3 Beav. 336), 418. Hassell v. Van Houten (39 N. J. Eq. 113), 77. Hastings v. Cropper (3 Del. Ch. 165), 173. Hastings v. Palmer (1 Clarke's Ch. 53). 531, 789. Hatch V. Chicago R Co. (6 Blatchf. 105), 340. Hatch V. Daniels (5 N. J. Eq. 14), 784. Hatch V. Eustaphieve (Clarke's Ch. 63), 109, 111, 411. Hatch V. Indianapolis &c. R. Co. (9 Fed. Rep. 856), 684, 690. Hatch V. Spofford (23 Conn. 485), 326. Hatcher v. Royster (14 Lea, 323), 589. Hatfield v. Hun (Ind., 31 N. E. Rep 533), 135. Hathaway ■;;. Hagan (Vt, 24 A\X. Rep 131), 668, 697. Hathaway v. Scott (11 Paige, 173), 386, 507, 573, 601. Hat-Sweat Manuf. Co. v. Reinoehl (103 N. Y. 167), 33, 764. Hat-Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Waring (46 Fed. Rep. 87), 469, 470. Haugan v. Netland (Minn., 53 N. W. Rep. 873), 716, 718. Haulenbeck v. Cronkright (33 N. J. Eq. 408), 696. Hauser v. Roth (37 Ind. 89), 648. Hautton v. Hager (Prec. Ch. 220), 1009. Haverhill Iron Works v. Hale (N. H., 14 Atl. Rep. 78), 301. Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon &c. Co. (101 Mass. 385), 948. Hasves V. Bamford (9 Sim. 653), 599. Hawes v. Oakland (104 U. S. 450), 583, 646, 743. Hawke v. Kemp (2 Beav. 288), 567. Hawker v. Buncombe (3 Mad. 391X 843. Hawkes v. Kennebeck (7 Mass. 461), 529 Hawkins, In re (147 U. S. 487). 900. Hawkins v. Blake (108 U. S. 433), 964. Hawkins i;. Chapman (36 Md. 83), 501. Hawkins v. Crook (3 P. Wms. 556), 347, 248. Hawkins v. Gardner (17 Jur. 780), 478. Hawkins v. Gresham (85 Va. 34), 903. Hawkins v. Hall (1 Beav. 73), 563. Hawkins v. Hawkins (1 Hare, 543), 85. Hawkins v. Pearson (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 304), 196. Hawkins v. Willbank (4 Wash. C. C 385), 1007. Hawks V. Champion (Cary, 51). 349. Hawlev, Matter of Acct. of (100 N. Y. 206), 866. Hawley v. Bennett (4 Paige, 163), 846, 347, 498, 878. Hawley v. Donnelly (8 Paige, 416), 984. Hawley v. Wolverton (5 Paige, 522), 137. 138. Haws V. Tiernau (53 Pa. St 192), 333. Hay V. Estell (18 N. J. Eq. 251), 640. Hay V. Power (2 Edw. Ch. 494). 1007. Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills (1 Fed. Rep. 93), 211. Harden v. Bucklin (9 Paige, 512), 203, "309. Havdeu v. Keith (83 Minn. 277), 773, '776. Hayden v. Redua (43 Miss. 636), 888. Hayden v. Thrasher (30 Fla. 715), 340. Hays V. Billings (69 Iowa, 387), 787. Hayes v. Brotzman (46 Md. 519), 736. Hayes v. Dayton (8 Fed. Rep. 702), 146, 378. Hayes v. Heyer (4 Sandf. 485), 153, 715. Hayes v. Johnson (4 Ala. 267). 173. Hayes v. Lequin (1 Hogan, 374), 390. Hayes v. Shields (2 Yeates, 332], 228. Hayes v. Stiger (39 N. J. Eq. 196), 819. Haylen v. Missouri Pac. R, Co. (28 Neb. 660 ; 44 N. W. Rep. 873), 590. Hayne v. Hayne (3 Ch. Rep. 19), 317, 445, 464. Haynes v. Short (88 Ala. 562), 483. Hays' Appeal (133 Pa. St 110; 16 Atl. Rep. 600), 147, 153. Hays V. Currie (3 Sandf. Ch. 585), 17. TABLE OF CASES. ZCl IThe references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. 11, pp. 609-1012.] Hays V. Doane (11 N. J. Eq. 84), 158. Hays V. Hays (3 Tenn. Ch. 88), 683. Havs V. Heatlierly (West Va., 15 S. ■ E. Rep. 323), 283, 363, 303, 306. Hays V. Humphreys (37 Fed. Rep. 283), 73. Hayward v. Carroll (4 H. & J. 521), 398, 407. Hayzlett v. McMillan (11 "West Va. 464), 785, 788. Hazard v. Credit Mobilier (38 Fed. Rep. 195), 754 Hazard v. Dillon (34 Fed. Rep. 485), 293. Hazard v. Durant (19 Fed. Rep. 471), 73, 744. Hazard v. Durant (25 Fed. Rep. 26), 316, 318. Hazard v. Durant (14 R. I. 25), 800. Hazard v. Hidden (14 R. I. 356), 194. Hazard v. Hodges (17 N. J. Eq. 134), 823. Hazelhiirstu. Railroad Co. (48 Ga. 13), 283, 766. Hazelhurst v. Sea Isle City Hotel Co. (N. J., 35 At). Rep. 201), 787. Hazen v. Durliug (3 N. J. Eq. 184), 673. Hazen v. Thurber (4 Johns. Ch. 604), 974. Heacock v. Dureaux (42 III. 230), 410. Heacock v. Hosmer (109 111. 244), 643, 809. Heacock v. Lubuke (107 111. 396), 643. Head v. Hargrave (105 U. S. 45), 947. Head v. Head (3 Mon. 120), 649. Head v. Head (1 Sim. & Stu. 150), 660. Healey, In re (53 Vt 694), 828. Hearn v. Tenant (14 Ves. 136), 874. Hearne v. OKih-ie (11 Ves. Jr. 76), 241. Heartt v. Corning (3 Paige, 566), 344, 345, 846. Heath v. Blake (38 S. C. 406), 802. Heath v. Erie Ry. Co. (8 Blatchf. 845), 73. Heath v. Erie Ry. Co. (9 Blatchf. 316), 160, 465. Heath V. Missoui-i &c. R. Co. (83 Mo. 817), 739. Heatherly v. Farmers' Bank (31 West Va. 70), 337. Heavilon v. Farmers' Bank (31 Ind. 249), 715. HebertiJ. Mutual L. Ins. Co. (12 Fed. Rep. 807), 148. Hechmer v. Gilligan (28 West Va. 750), 173. Heoht V. Wassell (27 Ark. 412), 507. Heck V. VoUmer (39 Md. 507), 834, 783. Heckraan v. Maokey (33 Fed. Ren. 574), 1005. Hedges v. Seibert Cylinder Oil Cup Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 643), 902. Heeman v. Midland (4 Mad. 891), 538. Heeser v. Miller (77 CaL 193), 165. Hefflon i\ Bowers (Cal., 13 Pac. Rep. 690), 843. Heffner v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. (123 U. S. 747), 97, 157. Heffron v. Gore (40 111. App. 244), 748. Heffron v. Rice (40 111. App. 244), 734. Hegewisch v. Silver (21 N. Y. Supl. 294), 712. Heggie v. Hill (95 N. C. 303), 151. Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-Cloth Co. (Ill U. S. 294), 37, 707, 743. Heighington v. Grant (1 Beav, 280), 976. Heinlen v. Cross (63 Cal. 44), 841. Hellebush v. Blake (119 Ind. 349), 706. Heller v. Heller (6 How. Pr. 194), 211. Helme v. Littlejohu (13 La. Ann. 298), 737. Helmick v. Davidson (18 Greg. 456), 639. Hembree v. Dawson (18 Oreg. 474), 733. Hemingway v. Stansell (106 U. S. 399), 497. Hemiup, In re (3 Paige, 316), 770. Hemiup, In re (3 Paige, 305), 684, 686. Hemphill v. Ruckersville Bank (3 Ga. 435), 783. Henck v. Todhunter (7 H. & J. 275), 469. Hendee v. Howe (33 N. J. Eq. 93), 993. Henderson v. Carbondale Coal & Coke Co. (140 U. S. 36). 261. 836, 838, 839, 840. Henderson v. Cook (4 Drew. 306), 365, 854. Henderson v. Goode (49 Fed. Rep. 8S7), 45. Henderson v. Herrod (23 Miss. 434), 821. Henderson v. Mathews (1 Lea, 34), 482. Henderson v. Walker (55 Ga. 481), 739. Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City (141 U. S. 679), 29. Hendricks v. Robinson (2 Johns. Ch. 484). 829. Hendrickson v. Decon (1 N. J. Eq. 593), 631. Henrlricksonu Wallace (31 N. J. Eq. 604), 100, 102. Hendrix v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 213), 717. Hendy v. Golden State &c. Works (137 U. S. 370), 369. xcu TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609^-1012.] Heneage v. Aikin (1 J. & W. 377), 573. Henley v. Stone (8 Beav, 355), 97. Henly v. Philips (3 Atk. 48), 980. Hennessee v. Ford (8 Humph. (Tenn.) 500), 335. Hennessey v. White (2 Allen, 48), 66. Henning v. Western Union Tel. Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 97), 47. Henry j'. Goldney (15 M. & W. 494), 485. Henry v. Gregory (29 Mich. 68), 880. Henrj' v. Insurance Co. (9 Colo. 188), 923. Henry v. Insurance Co. (16 Colo. 179 ; 26 Pao. Rep. 319), 923. Henry v. Suttle (42 Fed. Rep. 91), 126. Henry v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (35 Fed. Rep. 15), 537. Henry v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (45 Fed. Rep. 299), 187, 509, 513, 518, 520. Henry County v. Winnebago Drain- age Co. (58 111. 454), 290. Henshaw v. Ward (9 Humph. 568), 450. Henshaw v. Wells (9 Humph. (Tenn.) 568), 708, 714 Hentig v. Page (103 U S. 319), 935. Hen wood v. Jar vis (27 N. J. Eq. 347), 328. Hepburn v. Durand (1 Bro. Ch. 503), 363. Hepburn v. Ellzey (3 Cranch, 445), 87. Hepvvorth v. Heslop (3 Hare, 483), 989. Herbert v. Herbert (47 N. J. Eq. 12), 149. Herbert v. Rowles (30 Md. 271), 53. Herbert v. Scofield (9 N. J. Eq. 492), 111. Herbert v. Tarball (1 Sid. 142; Raym. 84), 55. Herbst, In re (17 N. Y. Supl. 760), 741. Hergel v. Laitenberger (2 Tenn. Ch. 251), 456, 465. Herman v. Dunbar (33 Beav. 312), 750 751. Herndo'n u Hurler (19 Fla. 406), 733. Herndon v. Ridgway (17 How. 424), 74, 214. Heriick v. Belknap (27 Vt 673), 685. Herrick v. Cutcheon (55 Fed. Rep. 6), 896. Herring v. Cloberry (13 Sim. 410), 563. Herrington v. Robertson (71 N. Y. 380), 971, 973. Herron v. Vance (17 Ind. 795), 784, 788. Hershberger v. Blewett (46 Fed. Rep. 704), 166, 469. Hershee v. Hershey (15 Iowa, 185), 797. Hershfield v. Griffith (18 Wall. 659), 6. Hershy v. Baer (45 Ark. 240), 843. Hertell v. Van Buren (3 Edw. Ch. 20), 337. Hervey v. 111. Mid. Ry. Co. (28 Fed. Rep. 169), 706, 731. Hess V. Calender (Pa., 13 AtL Rep. 720), 650. Hess V. Voss (53 111. 478), 866. Heugh V. Garrett (44 L. J. Ch. 305), 434. Hewes v. Hewes (1 Sim. 1), 556. Hewitt V. Campbell (109 U. S. 103), 947. Hewitt V. Filbert (116 U. S. 143), 930, 981 Hewitt V. McCartney (13 Yes. 560), 563. Hewitt V. Moutclaire Ey. Co. (35 N. J. Eq. 393), 819. Hewitt V. Railroad Co. (12 Blatchf. 452), 72S. Hewlett V. Davis (3 Edw. Ch. 338), 831. Heyer v. Burger (Hoff. Ch. 1), 18. Heyman v. Landers (12 Cal. 107), 769. Heyman v. Uhlman (84 Fed. Rep. 686), 356, 492. Heyn v. Heyu (Jacob, 49), 850, 891. Heywood v. Buffalo (14 N. Y. 534), 763. Heywood v. Miner ^103 Mass. 466), 687. Hibbert v. Hibbert (8 Mer. 681), 711. Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Jones (89 Cal. 507 : 26 Pac. Rep. 1089), 419. Hickey v. Stone (60 111. 458), 482. Hicklin v. Marco (56 Fed. Rep. 549), 595, 913. Hickok V. Scribner (8 Johns. Cas. 311), 69. Hicks V. Chadwell (1 Tenn. Ch. 251). 685. Hicks V. Hogan (36 Ark. 298), 667, 668. Hicks V. Otto (17 Fed. Rep. 539). 418. Hicks u Raincock (1 Cox, 40 1, 279. Hicks r. Wrench (Mad. & Geld. 93), 980. Hickson v. Bryan (80 Ga. 314 ; 5 S. E. Rep. 495), 126. Hide V. Haywood (2 Atk. 126), 981. Hide V. Holmes (2 Moll. 372), 534. Higbie v. Brown (1 Barb. Ch. 320), 438, 691. Higbie v. Edgarton (3 Paige, 258), 596, 598. Higbie v. Westlake (14 N. Y. 288), 906. Higdon V. Heard (14 Ga. 2i;5), 361. Higdon V. Higdon (6 J. J. Marsh. 48). 628. Higgins, In re (27 Fed. Rep. 443), 738. Higgins V. Mills (6 Johns. Ch. 356), 837. TABLE OF CASES. XCIU (The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1019.] Higgins V. Mills (5 Russ. 287), 557. Higgins V. Woodward (Hopk. 343), 334. Higgins V. York Co. (2 Atk. 441, 485. Higlislone v. Franks (Mich., 52 N. W. Rep. 1015), 373. Higinbotliara v. Burnet (5 Johns. Ch. 187), 274, 283. Higginson v, Wilson (11 Jur. 1061), 376. Hildebrand v. Beasley (7 Heisk. 121), 456. Hildreth v. Sohilliuger (10 N. J. Eq. 196), 651. Hilrlvard v. Cressy (3 Atk. 303), 348. Hilfs V. Moore (15 Beav. 175), 714. Hill V. Beach (12 N. J. Eq. 31), 116. Hill u Bissel (Mosely, 258), 563. Hill V. Bowers (4 Heisk. 273), 582, 799. Hill V. Bowyer (18 Gratt 363), 853. Hill V. Chicatjo &c. R Co. (139 U. S. 170). 934, 936, 945. Hill V. Chicago &c. R. Co. (140 U. S. 53). 951. Hill V. Colie (25 N. J. Eq. 469), 389. Hill V. Earl of Bute (2 Fowl. Ex. Pr. 11), 436. Hill V. Glasgow R Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 610), 33. Hill V. Gordon (45 Fed. Rep. 270), 335. Hill V. HilKlO Ala. 527), 513. Hill V. Hoare (3 Cox, Ch. 50), 347. Hill V. Meeker (23 Conn. 593), 453. Hill V. Phillips (87 Ky. 169), 656, 657. Hill V. Poitman (Carv, 140), 349. Hill V. Railroad Co. (140 U. S. 53), 895, 930. Hill V. Reanion (6 Madd. 46), 1001. Hill V. Riniell (2 Myl. & Cr. 641), 255. Hill V. Rimell (8 Sim. 633), 568. Hill V. Thomas (19 S. C. 230), 776. Hill V. Townley (Minn., 47 N. W. Rep. 653), 94, 95. Hill V. Walker (6 Cold. (Tenn.) 429), 409. Hill V. Whitcomb (1 Holmes, 317), 33. Hiller v. Collins (63 Cal. 285), 344. Hills V. Parker (111 Mass. 508., 740. Hilton V. Dickinson (108 U. S. 165), 946. Hilton V. Guyott (43 Fed. Rep. 249), 320, 333. 347. Himeley v. Rose (5 Cranch, 313), 693. Hinchman v. Kelley (54 Fed. Rep. 63), 391. Hinchman v. Paterson H. R Co. (17 N. J. Eq. 76), 85, 103. Hinckley v. Gilman &c. R Co. (94 U. a 467), 749, 903, 906. Hinckley v. Morton (103 U. S. 764), 960. Hinckley v. Railroad Co. (100 U. a 153), 729, 731, 733, 747. Hind V. Whitmore (2 K & J. 458), 1008. Hindes v. Streeten (10 Hare, 18X 994 Hine v New Haven (40 Conn. 478), 17, 18, Hiorus V. Holtom (16 Jur. 1077), 813. Hiram, The (1 Wheat. 440), 591. Hirsch v. Whitehead (65 N. C. 516), 773. Hirschfield v. Franklin (17 Cal. 606), 253. Hirschi v. J. Kare Threshing Ma- chine Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 803), 47. Hitch V. Wells (8 Beav. 576), 61. Hitchcock t;. Carbondale Coal & Coke Co. (140 U. S. 25), 826. Hitchcock V. Rhodes (43 N. J. Eq. 495), 11. Hitchcock V. Skinner (Hofif. Ch. 21), 549. Hitchcock V. Tremaine (9 Blatchf. 550), 555. Hitner v. Suckley (2 Wash. (C. C.) 465), 213, 314. Hitt V. Orrasbee (12 III. 169), 237. Hoadley v. Smith (36 Conn. 371), 377. Hoagland v. Titus (14 N. J. Eq. 81), 336, 783, 790. Hoare v. Johnstone (4 Myl. & C. 127), 691. Hobart v. Frisbie (5 Conn. 592), 131. Hoboken Bank v. Beckman (33 N. J. Eq. 53), 406. Hoboken Building Ass'n v. Martin (13 N. J. Eq. 437), 193. Hobson V. MoArthur (16 Pet 182), 118. Hoby V. Hitchcock (5 Ves. 699), 999. Hodgdon v. Herdinan (66 Iowa, 645), 95 Hodge V. North Mo. R Co. (1 Dill. 104), 274, 394. Hodges V. Davis (4 Hen. & M. 400), 833. Hodges V. Milliken (1 Bland, 511), 854. Hodges V. Salomons (1 Cox, 249), 691. Hodges V. Screw Co. (3 R I. 9), 830. Hodgson V. Butterfield (2 Sim. & Stu. 236), 441. Hodson V. Warrington (3 P. Wms. S5 1 539 Hoe u kah'ler (27 Fed. Rep. 145), 937. Hoe V. Wilson (9 Wall. 501), 80. Hoff V. Burd (17 N. J. Eq. 201), 356, 394, 395, 410. Hoffman v. Knox (50 Fed. Rep. 484), 834, 846, 847, 855, 917, 920. Hoffman v. Livingston (1 Johns. Ch. 211), 569. Hoffman v. McMorran (52 Mich. 318), 136. XCIV TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages; VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1013.J Hoflfman v. Postill (L. R. 4 Ch. App. 673), 442. Hoffman v. Treadwell (5 Paige, 83), 597. Hogan V. Branch Bank (10 Ala. 485), 383. Hogeucamp v. Acberman (10 N. J. Eq. 267), 361, 871. Hoggai-t V. Cutts (Craig & P. 197), 172. Hoghton, In re (L. R. 18 Eq. 573), 849, 853. Hohorst V. Hamburg-American P. Co. (88 Fed. Rep. 273), 48, 252, 253 Hoitt V. Burleigh (18 N. H. 389), 647. Holabird v. Burr (17 Conn. 556), 266, 692. Holbrook v. Craorof t (5 Ves. 706), 606. Holcombe v. Holcombe (10 N. J. Eq. 284), 460. Holcombe v. Holcombe (18 N. J. Eq. 415), 729. Holden v. Holden (24 111. App. 106), 276. Holden's Adm'r v. McMakin (Par. Eq. Cas. 270). 705. Holderstaffe v. Saunders (Cas. temp. Holt, 136 ; 6 Mod. 16), 765, Holdredge v. G-wynne (18 N. J. Eq. 26), 111, 334, 786. Holkirk v. Holkirk (4 Mad. 50), 475. Holland v. Challen (110 U. S. 15 ; 3 S. Ct Rep. 495), 9, 15, 646. Holland v. Hyde (41 Fed. Rep. 897), 34. Hollenback's Appeal (Pa., 15 Atl. Rep. 616), 167. Holliday v. Hiodan (25 Ga. 639), 617. Holliugshead's Case (1 P. Wms. 743), 499, 505. HoUingsworth v. Duane (Wall. C. C. 141), 874. HoUingsworth v. McDonald (3 Harr. & J. 230), 854. HoUingsworth v. Virginia (3 Dall. 378), 24. HoUister v. Barkley (9 N. H. 230), 785. Holiister v. Lefevre (35 Conn. 456), 179. Holloway v. HoUoway (108 Mo. 274), 778. Holman v. Holman (3 Desaus. (S. C.) 210), 483. Holmes v. Dale (Clarke's Ch. 71), 15, 355 Holmes v. George (34 Ga. 636), 787. Holmes v. Holmes (18 N. J. Eq. 141), 696. Holmes v. Remsen (7 Johns. Ch. 386), 636. Holmes v. Sherwood (16 Fed. Rep. 725), 744. Holmes v. Trout (7 Pet 171), 955. Holt V. Daniels (61 Vt 89), 277, 279, 301. 355, 62.5. Holt V. Holt (West Va., 16 S. E. Rep. 673), 684, 687. Holt V. Weld (140 Mass. 578), 491. Holt V. Winters (30 Fed. Rep. 29), 1003. Home Ins. Co. v. Howell (34 N. J. Eq. 239), 480, 769. Homeopathic L. Ins. Co. v. Crane (25 N. J, Eq, 418), 374. Hone V. Dillon (29 Fed. Rep. 465), 45, 525. Hone V. Van Schaick (7 Paige, 231), 901. Honey wood v. Peacock (3 Camp. 196), 549. Hoobler v. Hoobler (128 111. 645), 654. Hood V. Chapham (19 Beav. 90), 450. Hood V. First Nat. Bank (29 Fed. Rep. 55), 709. Hood V. In man (4 Johns. Ch. 437), 131, 126, 136, 437. Hood V. Phillips (6 Beav. 176), 468. Hood V. Pimm (4 Sim. 101), 556. Hook V. Richeson (115 Bl. 431), 444, 960. Hooker v. Austin (41 Miss. 717), 322, 333, 787. Hooper v. Hooper's Ex'rs (29 West Va. 276), 693. Hooper v. Winston (34 111. 853), 702, 747. Hoover v. Montclair . Hudson V. Christie (7 Cranch. 1), 834. Hudson V. Grenfell (3 Giff. 388). 36.5. Hudson V. Guestier(7 Cranch, 1), 956. Hudson V. Hud.son i20 Ala. 364), 799. Hudson V. Hudson (3 Rand. (Va.) 1 17), 463. Hudson V. Kline (9 Gratt 379), 18. Hudson V. Maddison (12 Sim. 416), 84, 150. Hudson V. Trenton Mfg. Co. (16 N. J. Eq. 475), 363, 667. Huflf V. State (39 Ga. 424), 590. Huffman v. Hummer (17 N. J. Eq. 269), 414, 416, 417, 422, 787, 790, 791. Huggins V. York Building Co. (2 Atk. 44), 332. Hughes V. Biddulph (4 Kuss. 190), 534. Hughes V. Blake (6 Wheat. 453), 350, 393, 490. Hughes V. Bloomer (9 Paige, 270), 417. Hughes V. Clerk (6 Hare, 195), 545. Hughes V. Eades (1 Hare, 1H6), 556. Hughes V. Edwards (4 Wheat 494), 485. Hughes V. Evans (1 Sim. & Stu. 185), 66. Hughes V. Hughes (73 Ga. 173). 99. Hughes V. Jones (26 Beav. 29, 842. Hughes V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (18 Fed. Rep. 106), 111. Hughes V. Ryan (1 Beat 327). 615. 616. Hughes V. Tmsley (80 Ga."25y), 323. 786. Hughes V. United States (4 Wall. 232), 333, 479, 636. Hughes V. Washington (65 111. 245), 749. Hughey v. Bratton (48 Ark. 167), 443. Huguenin v. Baseley (15 Ves. Jr. 180;, 879. Uugunin v. Thatcher (18 Fed. Rep. 105), 1005. Hulbert v. Hope Mut Ins. Co. (4 How. Pr. 275), 207. Hulett V. Stock well (34 Mo. App. 599), 657. Hullet V. King of Spain (2 Bligh (N. S.), 00), 53. Hulsizer's Adiu'ra v. Opdyke (N. J. Ch., 14 Atl. Rep. 644), 831. Hume V. Commercial Bank (1 Lea, 220), 62.5. Humes v. Scruggs (94 U. S. 22), 490. Humiston v. Staiuthorp (2 Wall. 106), 897, 928. Humplireyr. Baker (103 U. S. 736), 959. Humphreys v. Alien (101 111. 490), 719, 721. Humphreys v. Atlantic Milling Co. (98 Mo. 542; 10 S. W. Rep. 140), 18. Humphreys v. Blevins (1 Tenn. 178), 657. Humphreys v. HoUis (Jac. 73). 499. Humphreys v. Hopkins (81 Cal. 551), 746. Humphreys v. Humphreys (3 P. Wms. 348), 186. Humphreys v. Incledon (1 P. Wms. 752), 503. Huneke v. Dold (N. Mex., 33 Pac. Rep. 45), 91. Hungate v. Reynolds (73 III. 435), 464. Hunn V. Norton (Hopk. Ch. 344), 700, 971. Huniiings v. Williamson (L. R. 10 Q. B. Div. 459), 361. Hunt i\ Columbian Ins. Co. (55 Ma 290), 746. Hnnt V. Uookin (6 Vt 462), 361. Hunt V. Lewiu (4 Stew. & Port 138), 910. Hunt V. Oliver (lOU U. S. 177), 941. Hum V. Rooney (77 Wis. 258), 98, 99. Hunt V. Rousmaniere (2 Mason, 315), 306. Hunt t>. Van Derveer (43 N. J. Eq. 414), 91. Hunt V. Weiner (39 Ark. 70), 88. Hunt V. Wolfe (2 Daly (N. Y.), 313), 703. Hunter v. (6 Sim. 429), 595. Hunter v. Carmichael (12 Sm. & M. 726), 629. Hunter V. Hallett (1 Edw. Ch. 388), 515. Hunter v. Nelson (5 Blackf. (Ind.) 263), 612. Hunter v. United States (5 Pet 173), 197. Huntington v. Moore (1 N. Mex. 503), 696. Hurd V. Asherman (117 111. 501), 63a Hurd V. Case (32 111. 45), 447, 453, 456. Hurd i\ Elizabeth (41 N. J. Law, 1), 745, 746. Hurd V. Everett (1 Paige, 124), 184, Hurd V. Haynes (9 Paige, 604), 388. TABLE OF CASES. XCVU [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1013.] Hurd V. Moiles (28 Fed. Rep. 897), 336, 327. Hurlhnrd v. Freelove (3 Wis. 537). 829. Hurlhut V. Hutton (43 N. J. Eq. 15), 624. HurlliMt V. Schillinger (130 U. S. 456), 897. Hurley v. Dobman (3 Head, 266), 453. Huron Water- works v. Huron City (S. Dak., 54 N. W. Rep. 652), 784. Hurst V. Jones (10 Lea, 8), 423. Hurt V. Hollingswortli (100 U. S. 100), 7. Hurt V. Lona; (Tenn., 16 S. W. Rep. 908), 845, 850, 860, 866. Hnsley v. Robinson (16 Ala. 793), 827. Huston V. Cassidv (14 N. J. Eq. 330), 697. Hutc'lieon v. Mannington (6 Ves. 823), 599. Hutchinson v. Brock (11 Mass. 119), 53. Hutchinson v. Creen (6 Fed. Rep. 833), 37. Hutchinson v. Horner (9 Jur. 615), 508. Hutchnison v. Tindall (3 N. J. Eq. 357). 394. Hutchinson's Trusts, Re (1 Pr. & Sm. 30). 605, 606. Hutson V. Sadler (31 West Va. 358), 814. Hutton i\ Lockridgo (27 West Va. 428), 709. Hutton V. Williams (35 Ala. 503), 831. Hyalt V. Wagenright (18 How. Pr. 248), 221. Hvde V. Tiacey (2 Dav, 492), 100. Hytle V. Warren (19 Ves. 322), 177. Hyde v. Whitfield (19 Ves. 343), 618, 621. Hyer v. Caro (17 Fla. 3.32), 518. Hyer v. Little (20 N. J. Eq. 443), 411. Hyland v. Hyland (19 Oregon, 51 ; 23 Pac. Rep. 811). 167. Hynian v. Smith (10 West Va. 298), 692, 829. Hynian v. Wheeler (33 Fed. Rep. 629), 153. Hynes i;. McDernaott (14 Daly, 104), 749. Hynes v. McDerraott (3 N. Y. St Rep. 583), 732, 753. Hyslop V. Hoppock (5 Blatchf. 447), 208. lasigi V. Chicaeo &c. R Co. (129 Mass. 46). 952. Idaho & Oregon Land &c. Co. v. Bradbury (132 U. S. 509), 657. Ide V. Ball Engine Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 904), 451. Iglehart v. Bieroe (36 111. 133), 738, 746. Iglehart w Miller (41 111. App. 439\ 303. Ilett V. Collins (103 111. 74), 290. lUingworth v. Altha (42 Fed. Rep. 141), 761. Illinois Cent. R Co. v. Chicago, B. & N. R Go. (122 111. 473; 38 N. E. Rep. 740), 339. Imperial Gas Light Co. v. Clarke (Younge, 580)! 335. Importers' & Traders' Bank v. Littell (41 N. J. Eq. 39), 153. In re Anderson (17 N. J. Eq. 566), 910. In re Bank of Niagara (6 Paige, 216), fJ-QO Tn re Ban ington (27 Beav. 872), 59. Ill re Beecher's Estate (19 N. Y. Supl. 970,738. In re Brady (1 Moll. 254), 563. In re Breckinridge (31 Neb. 489), 992. In re Broderick's Will (21 Wall. 503),9. In re ( ant's Estate (1 De G., F. & J. 153), 909. In re Gary (10 Fed. Rep. 633), 595, 874. In re Castle (41 Hun, 637;, 735. In re Certain Stockholders (53 Fed. Rep. 38). 727. In re Chickering (56 Vt. 83), 93. In re Chiles (22 Wall. 157), 872, 877, 878. In re (Christian Jensen Co. (128 N. Y. 550). 739. In re Claasen (140 U. S. 209), 31. In re Clarke (9 Blatchf. 372), 558. In re Coe (49 Fed. Rep. 481), 895. In re Colvin (3 Md. Ch. 300), 702, 749, 752. 754. Inre Commonwealth L. Ins. Co. (32 Hun, 78), 731. In re Creigh (1 Ball & B. 108), 770. In re Doolittle (23 Fed. Rep. 544). 728. In re Doyle (14 R L 55), 584, 836, 854, 857. In re Dwight (15 Abb. Pr. 259), 344. In re Eagle Iron Works (8 Paige, 385), 707. In re Eagle Iron Works (8 Paige, 511), 710, 711. In re Ellison's Trust (2 Jur. (N. &) 62), 310. In re Empire City Bank (10 How. Pr. 498), 709. In re Feeny (1 Hask. 304; N. B. R [70] 333), 874 In re Fifty-fo\ir First Mortgage Bonds (15 S. C. 304), 710. In re Gascoyne (20 Law J. Ch. 551), 705. xcviii TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] In re Gibson (10 Ark. 572), 207. In re Haberman Mfg. Co. (147 U. S. 525), 899, 900. In re Hawkins (147 U. S. 487), 900. In re Healey (53 Vt 694), 228. In re Hemiup (3 Paige, 305), 684, 686, 770. In re Herbst (17 N. Y. Supl. 760), 741. In re Higgins (27 Fed. Rep. 443), 728. In re Hoghton (L. E. 18 Eq. 573), 849, 852. In re Howard (9 Wall. 175), 579. /n re Howe (3 Edw. Ch. 484), 673, 981. In re Keeler's Will (7 N. Y. Supl. 199), 590, 591. In re Kellogg (7 Paige, 265), 729. In re Leeming (20 Law J. Ch. 551), 705. In re Lloyd (10 Beav. 451), 874 In re Long Branch &c. R. Co. (34 N. J. Eq. 398), 754 In re Lord Portsmouth (G. Coop. 106), 637. In re Louisiana Sav. Bank &c. Co. (40 La. Ann. 514), 730. In re Lyle (2 Paige, 351), 751. In re Lyons (1 Dr. & Wal. 337), 343. In re Macaulay (27 Hun, 576), 706. In re Marrow (Craig & Ph. 142), 598. In re Merritt (5 Paige, 135), 738. In re Metcalfe (3 De G., J. & S. 122), 52. In re Montgomery (1 Moll. 419), 730. In re Morrison (147 U. S. 14), 900. In re Mullee (7 Blatohf. 23), 876. In re Neagle (39 Fed. Rep. 833), 19, 594 In re Norman (11 Beav. 401), 998. In re Orient Mut. Ins. Co. (21 N. Y. Supl. 237), 731. In re Ormsby (1 Ball & B. 189), 730, 733. In re Orrell Collier & Fire Brick Co. (13 Ch. Div. 681), 469. In re Paschal (10 Wall. 488), 872, 873, 985. In re Riddle's Estate (19 Pa. St 431), 853. In re Sawyer (184 U. S. 200), 763, 764 In re Schwarz (14 Fed. Rep. 787), 877. In re South wick (1 Johns. Ch. 32), 997. In re Sowles (41 Fed. Rep. 752), 872. In re Strauss v. Meyer (23 Fed. Rep. 467), 1010. In re Terry (36 Fed. Rep. 419), 872. In re Thomas (35 Fed. Rep. 337), 543, 547, 550, 6i)6. In re Tilden (98 N. Y. 434), 866. In re Tyler (149 U. S. 164), 743. In re Union Bank (37 N. J. Eq. 420), 733. In re United States Rolling-Stock Co. (53 How. Pr. 286), 720. In re Washington &c. R. Co. (140 U. S. 91), 963, 964 968. /n re Westbrook's Trusts (L. R 11 Eq. 353), 574 In re Williams (2 Bank. Reg. 28), 985. In re Wills (9 Jur. (N. 8.) 1325), 1008. In re Wilson (3 Paige, 412), 61. In re Woods (143 U. S. 303), 30, 889, 894 In re Young (7 Fed. Rep. 855), 824 India River Steamboat Co. v. East Coast Trust Co. (28 Fla. 387), 821, 330, 786, 789. India Rubber Comb Co. v. Phelps (8 Blatchf. 85), 414 555. Indiana v. Tolleston Club (53 Fed. Rep. 18), 37, 49. Indiana &c. R. Co. v. Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. (109 U. S. 168), 458. Indurated Fibre Industries Co. v. Grace (52 Fed. Rep. 134), 367, 368. Ing V. Brown (3 Md. Ch. 531), 403, Ingersoll v. Cooper (5 Blatchf. 436), 736. Ingersoll v. Ingersoll (42 Miss. 155), 319 337 Ingersoll v. Kirby (Walk. Ch. 65), 84 Ingersoll v. Stiger (N. J., 19 Atl. Rep. 842), 401. Ingilby v. Shafto (33 Beav. 31), 53a Ingle V. Jones (9 Wall. 486), 911. Ingles V. Hume (3 B. Mon. 33), 1000. Ingram v. Smith (1 Head, 428), 450. Inhabitants &c. v. Hudson (21 N. J. Eq. 173), 784 Inman v. Hodgson (1 Young & Jer. 28), 533, Innes v. Eveans (3 Edw. Ch. 454), 320. Innes v. Lansing (7 Paige, 583), 474 Insurance Co. v. Brune (96 U. S. 588), 326. Insurance Co. v. Heiss (111., 31 N. K Rep. 138), 725, 726. Insurance Co. v. Maury (75 Va 508), 579. Insurance Co. v. Rand (8 How. Pr. 35), 882. Insurance Co. v. Ritchie (5 Wall. 541), 41. International &c. Co. v. Maurer (44 Fed. Rep. 618), 268, 283. International Tooth Crown Co. v. Carmichael (44 Fed. Rep. 350), 458. Inteistate Land Co. v. Maxwell Land Co. (139 U. S. 569), 266, 367. Inverarity v. Stowell (10 Oregon, 361), 906. Investment Co. v. Ohio &c. R. Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 48), 719. TABLE OF CASES. XCIX [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] InvestTOPnt Co. v. Ohio &c. R Co. (46 Fed Rep. 696), 987. Iowa Barb Wire Co. v. Southern B. W. Co. (39 Fed. Rep. 615), 878. Iowa Homestead Co. v. Des Moines &c. R Co. (8 Fed. Rep. 97). 581 Ireland v. Nichols (40 How. Pr. 85), 753 Irick V. Black (17 N. J. Eq. 190), 334, 786, 789. Irnham v. Child (1 Bro. 92), 538. Iron Co. V. Martin (133 U. S. 91), 895, 930. Iron Co. V. Stone (131 U. S. 631), 970. Iron Co. V. Trotter (43 N. J. Eq. 185), 950. Irons V. Crist (3 A. K. Marsh. 148), 59, 856. Irvine v. Lowry (14 Peters, 296), 284. Irvine v. McBee (5 Humph. (Tenn.) 554), 880. Irvine v. Viana (McClel. & Y. 563), 437. Irvins V. DeKay (10 Paige, 319), 453, 458, 461. Irwin V. Dyke (109 111. 528), 447. Irwin V. Keen (3 Whart 344). 88. Irwin V. Vint (6 Munf. 267), 841. Isaacs V. Boyd (5 Porter (Ala.), 388), 56. Isenburg; v. East India House Estate (33 L. J. Eq. 392), 759. Isham V. Miller (44 N. J. Eq 61), 311, 812, 314. Isnard v. Cazeaux (1 Paige, 39), 1008, 1009. Ives V. Ashelby (26 111. App. 344), 476. Ives V. Hazard (4 R L 14), 394 Izard V. Bodine (9 N. J. Eq. 309), 675, 696. Jackling v. Edmonds (3 E. D. Smith, 539), 583. Jackman v. Eastman (63 N. H. 273), 776. Jackson v. (2 Ves. Jr. 417), 595. Jackson v. Ash ton (10 Pet. 480), 840, 956. Jackson v. Ashton (11 Pet. 229), 127. Jackson v. Blanchard (3 Conn. 579), 56. Jackson v. Cole (Mich., 45 N. W. Rep. 826), 590. Jackson v. Davenport (29 Beav. 812), 1005. Jackson v. Edwards (2 Edw. Ch. 588), 338. Jackson v. Forrest (3 Barb. Ch. 576), 636. Jackson v. Grant (18 N. J. Eq. 145), 453, 46a Jackson v. Jackson (111., 33 N. E. Rep, 51), 847, 851, 852. Jackson v. Jackson (8 N. J. Eq. 96), 679, 683, 686. Jackson v. Jackson (3 Tenn. Leg. Rep. 275), 60. Jackson v. Johnson (34 Ga. 511), 69. Jackson v. Jones (25 Ga. 93), 786. Jackson v. Murray (1 Cowen, 156), 431. Jackson v. Nimrao (3 Lea, 013), 644 Jackson v. Parish (1 Sim. 505), 418. Jackaon v. Petrie (10 Ves. 164), 617, 618. Jackson v. Rowell (87 Ala. 685 ; 6 So. Rep. 95), 134 Jackson v. Smith (16 Abb. 201), 567. Jackson v. Stiles (1 Cowen, 134), 567, 570. Jackson v. Varick (2 Wend. 294), 421. Jackson v. Wilkins (6 Beav. 607), 568. Jackson & Sharp Co. i'. Burlington &c. R Co. (89 Fed. Rep. 474), 8. Jacobs V. George (U. S., 14 S. Ct Rep. 159). 930. Jacobs V. Goodman (8 Cox, 383; 8 Bro. C. C. 488), 363. Jacobson v. Allen (12 Fed. Rep. 454), 785. Jacobson v. Blackhurst (2 J. & H. 486), 174 Jacobson v. Ohio &c. R Co. (15 Ind. 192), 236. Jacoby v. Kiesling (87 Ga. 28), 709. Jafifray, Exparte{l Lowell, 321), 983. Jaffrey v. Brown (29 Fed. Rep. 476), 691, 696. James v. Brooks (6 Heisk. 150), 653. James v. Delavan (7 Wend. 511), 478. James v. Herriott (6 Sim. 428), 544 James v. James (4 Paige, 114), 413. James v. Jefferson (4 Hen. & M. 483), 780. James v. McCormack (105 U. S. 265), 946. James v. McKenzie (6 Jones' Eq. 203), 335. James v. Milwaukee &c. R. Co. (6 Wall. 753), 819. Jameson v. Conway (10 111. 327), 491, 493. Jameson v. Major (West Va., 9 S. E. Rep. 480), 919. Jamestown v. Chicago &c. R Co. (69 Wis. 648), 759. Jarnian v. Saunders (64 N. C. 367), 386. Jarman v. Wiswall (34 N. J. Eq. 63), 828, 843. Jarmon v. Wiswall (84 N. J. Eq. 68), 863. Jarvis V. Palmer (1 Barb. Ch. 379), 907. TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1013.] Jarvis V. Palmer (11 Paige, 650), 378. 321, 339. Jaynes v. Goepper (147 Mass. 309; 17 N. E. Rep. 831), 154 Jefifers v. Forbes (88 Kan. 174), 149. Jefferson v. Hamilton (69 Ga. 401), 769. Jefferson v. New York El. E. Co. (58 Hun, 603), 642. Jeffersonville &c. Co. v. Oyler (60 lud. 383), 165. Jeffery v. Callis (4 Dana (Ky.), 466), 223 Jeffery 1). Smith (1 Jac. & W. 297), 710. Jeffrey v. Fitch (46 Conn. 603), 123. Jeffrey v. Yarborough (2 Hawks, 307), 685. Jeffries v. Laurie (27 Fed. Rep. 195), 872, 873. Jenkins v. Eldredge (3 Story, 181). 529, 880, 843. Jenkins v. Eldredge (8 Story, 299), 508. Jenkins v. Eldredge (1 Wood. & M. 61), 840. Jenkins v. Freyer (4 Paige, 47), 511. Jenkins v. International Bank (111 III. 462), 445. Jenkins v. International Bank (127 U. S. 484), 511, 513, 513. Jenkins v. Van Schaack (8 Paige, 243), 164. Jennings v. Dolan (29 Fed. Rep. 861), 684, 690, 698. Jennings v. Durham (101 Ind. 891). 657. Jennings v. Phila. &c. R.Co. (23 Fed. Rep. 569), 702. Jennison's Case (81 Ala. 892), 1000. Jenour v. Jenour (10 Ves. 562), 909, 910. Jerdein v. Bright (10 W. R 380), 468. Jerome v. Jerome (5 Conn. 357), 111, 181, 922. Jerome v. McCarter (21 Wall. 17), 942. Jerome v. McCarter (94 U. S. 784), 95, 334, 730. Jerome v. Seymour (Walk. Ch. 359), 478. Jerrard v. Saunders (3 Ves. Jr. 458), 373, 363. 872. Jervis v. Berridge (L. R. 8 Ch. 357), 449. Jesson V. Brewer (1 Dick. 370), 799. Jessup V. Hill (7 Paige, 95). 621, 623. Jessup V. 111. Cent. R. Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 735), 286. 688. Jesup V. III. Cent. R. Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 483), 45, 486. Jesus College v. Gibbs (1 Y. & C. Ex. 145), 371. Jeudivine v. Agate (5 Russ. 283), 605. Jewell V. Knight (128 U. S. 426), 894. Jewett V. Albany City Bank (Clarke's Ch. 57), 532. Jewett V. Albany City Bank (Clarke'a Ch. 241), 590. Jewett V. Belden (11 Paige, 618), 328, 480. Jewett V. Bowman (27 N. J. Eq. 171), 832, 787. Jewett V. Bowman (37 N. J. Eq. 375), 620, 631. Jewett V. Bradford Sav. Bank & Trust Co. (45 Fed. Rep. 801), 49, 50. Jewett V. Dringer (4 Stew. Eq. 586), 845. Jewett V. Dringer (27 N. J. Eq. 371), 133 Jewett v. Tucker (139 Mass. 563), 100, 101. Jeyes v. Foreman (6 Sim. 384), 562. Jinks V. Banner Lodge (189 Pel St 414), 17. John V. Ducie (18 Price, 632), 863. Johnnsson v. Bonhote (L. R 3 Ch. D. 298), 304. Johns V. Johns (33 Ga. 31), 708, 709. Johns V. Norris (33 N. J. Eq. 102), ■ 374. Johns V. Norris (38 N. J. Eq. 147), 967. Johnson v. Ableman (35 111. 365), 5fil. Johnson v. Butler (31 N. J. Eq. 35), 449. Johnson v. Candage (31 Me. 28), 80. Johnson v. Casey (48 How. Pr. 492). 781. Johnson v. Christian (125 TJ. S. 642), 43, 130, 181, 956. Johnson v. Clendennin (5 Gill & J. 463), 609, 620. Johnson v. Crippen (62 Miss. 597). 393. Johnson v. Day (17 Pick. 106), 236. Johnson v. Devens (60 Miss. 200), 776. Johnson v. Dodgson (3 M. & W. 653), 374. Johnson v. Durner (88 Ala. 580 ; 7 So. Rep. 245), 197. Johnson v. El wood (83 N. Y. 863), 847. Johnson v. Everett (9 Paige, 686), 918, 919. Johnson v. Fitzhugh (3 Barb. Ch. 360), 94, 317, 507. Johnson v. Freer (8 Cox's Cas. 371), 461. JohnsoQ V. Garrett (16 N. J. Eq. 31), 973. Johnson v. Hammersley (24 Beav. 498), 605. Johnson v. Hanner (2 Lea, 8), 703, 843. TABLE OF CASES. Gl [The references are to pages: Vol I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1018.] Johnson v. Harmon (94 U. S. 371), 658. Johnson v. Harrison (6 Litt. 326), 53, 488. Johnson v. Heimstaedter (30 N. J. Eq. 124), 122. Johnson v. Johnson (33 Fla. 413 ; 3 So. Rep. 834), 232. Johnson v. Johnson (Walk. Ch. 309), 212. Johnson v. Martin (1 T. & C. (N. Y.) 504), 711. Johnson v. Meyer (Ark., 16 S. W. Rep. 121). 463, 691. Johnson v. Meyers (54 Fed. Rep. 417), 914 Johnson v. Morrison (5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 106), 444. Johnson v. Northey (2 Vern. 407). 885. Johnson v. Pinney (1 Paige, 646), 391, 562. Johnson v. Powers (13 Fed. Rep. 315), 291. Johnson v. Powers (139 U. S. 156), 68. Johnson v. Risk (137 U. S. 300), 29. Johnson v. Sant'ord (13 Conn. 461), C83. Johnson v. Snyder (7 How. Pr. 395), 518. Johnson v. Swart (11 Paige, 385), 690. Johnson v. Thomas (8 Paige. 377), 629. Johnson v. Thompson (129 Mass. 398), 507. Johnson v. Tomlinson (13 Lea (Tenn.), 610), 881. Johnson v. Toulmin (18 Ala. 50), 372. Johnson v. Trotter (Ark., 15 S. W. Rep. 102.1), 801. Johnson v. Tucker (2 Tenn. Ch. 244), 139, 437, 440, 830. Johnson v. Vaill (14 N. J. Eq. 424), 66, 791. Johnson v. Van Epps (110 111. 559), 501, 858. Johnson v. Warden (Tenn. Leg. Rep. 26), 653. Johnson v. Waters (108 U. S. 4), 942. Johnson v. Waters (111 U. S. 640), 23, 203, 579, 673, 867. Johnson R Co. v. Union S. & S. Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 331), 465. Johnson R. R. Signal Co. v. Union S. & S. Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 331), 452, 454. Johnson Steel Street -Rail Co. v. North Branch Steel Co. (48 Fed. Rep. 191), 536, 537, 549, 550. Johnston v. Alexander (6 Ark. 302), 331 Johnston v. Bloomer (3 Edw. Ch. 328), 596 597 Johnston v. Corey (25 N. J. Eq. 311), 787. Johnston v. Glasscock (3 Ala. 218), 556. Johnston v. Johnston (1 Rob. 642), 611. Johnston v. Markle Paper Co. (Vt, 25 Atl. Rep. 885), 580. Johnston v. Strauss (26 Fed. Rep. 57), 83 Johnston v. Todd (5 Beav. 394), 570. Johnston v. Young (L. R. 10 Eq. 403), 768. Joice V. Taylor (6 Gill & J. 54i, 409. Jolly V. Carter (3 Edw. Ch. 209), 427, 429, 438. Jones, Ex parte (66 Ala. 203), 626. Jones V. Alephsin (16 Ves. 470), 613. Jones V. Andrews (10 Wall. 327), 43, 257, 261. Jones V. Bank of Leadville (10 Colo. 473), 705. Jones V. Belt (2 Gill (Md.), 106), 403. Jones V. Binns (33 Beav. 362), 317. Jones V. Boston Mill Corp. (4 Pick. 509), 870. Jones V. Brittan (1 Woods, 667), 491, 493. Jones V. Carper (2 Tenn. Ch. 627), 381. Jones V. Craig (187 U. S. 214), 305, 938. Jones V. Davenport (45 N. J. Eq. 77 ; 17 Atl. Rep. 570), 11, 193, 199, 580, 795, 828, 842. Jones V. Davenport (46 N. J. Eq. 237), 843. Jones V. Dougherty (10 Ga. 873), 708. Jones V. Drake (3 Hayw. (N. C.) 430), 60. Jones V. Earl of Stafford (3 P. Wms. 79), 346. 487. Jones V. Ewing (56 Ala. 363), 781. Jones V. Farrell (1 De G. & J. 708), 173. Jones V. Fawcett (3 Phil. 378), 1008. Jones V. Fayerweather (46 N. J. Eq. 887), 843. Jones V. Florida R Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 70), 772. Jones V. Frost (3 Mad. 1), 78. Jones V. Fulghum (3 Tenn. Ch. 193), 854. Jones V. Garcia del Rio (1 Turn. & Russ. 297), 84. Jones V. Gilham (1 Coop. 49), 983. Jones V. Grant (10 Paige, 348), 803, 803. Jones V. Great Western Ry. Co. (1 Eng. Ry. Cas. 684), 773. " Jones V. Green (1 Wall. 330), 645. Jones V. Hardesty (10 Gill & J. 464), 407. Jones V. Hervey (69 Miss. 99 ; 5 Sa Rep. 517), 832. Jones V. Hooper (50 Miss. 610), 883. cu TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; VoL II, pp. 609-1012.] Jones V. Howells (2 Hare, 342), 519. Jones V. Joiner (8 Ga. 562), 783. Jones V. Jones (3 Atk. 217), 519. Jones V. Jones (3 Atk. 110), 508, 516. Jones V. Jones (L. R. 22 Q. B. Div. 425), 361. Jones V. Keen (115 Mass. 171), 16, 675, 691, 696, 730. Jones V. Kennioott (83 111. 484), 619. Jones V. Knauss (31 N. J. Eq. 609), 409. Jones V. Knauss (33 N. J. Eq. 188), 1000, 1001. Jones V. Lake (La., 10 So. Rep. 204), 825. Jones V. Lamar (39 Fed. Rep. 585), 691, 694. Jones V. League (18 How. 76), 40. Jones V. Lewis (1 Cox, 199), 994. Jones V. Lloyd (43 Law J. (Ch.) 826), 63. Jones V. Magill (I Bland, Ch. 177), 324, 382, 334, 787. Jones V. Morehead (3 B. Mon. 377), 976. Jones V. Morehead (1 Wall. 155), 911. Jones V. Neely (72 111. 449), 491. Jones V. Oregon Cent. R Co. (3 Sawy. 523), 546. Jones V. Piloher (6 Munf. 435), 831. Jones V. Powell (2 Mer. 141), 56. Jones V. Pugh (12 Sim. 470), 362. Jones V. Quinnipiac Bank (29 Conn. 26), 294, 634. Jones V. Roberts (4 Edw. Ch. 611), 429. Jones V. Roberts (12 Sim. 189), 562, 571. Jones V. Robinson (77 Ala. 499), 466. Jones V. Rosedale St R, Co. (75 Tex. 382), 777. Jones V. Sampson (8 Ves, 593), 613. Jones V. Sohall (45 Mich. 379), 706, 716. Jones V. Sherwood (6 N. J. Eq. 210), 328 785 Jones V. Simes (L. R 43 Ch. D. 607), 346. Jones V. Slausson (33 Fed. Rep. 632), 153, 291, 292. Jones V. Slubey (5 H. & J. 381), 398. Jones V. Smith (Ala., 9 So. Rep. 179), 170. Jones V. Smith (14 111. 229), 447, 453, 456, 458. Jones V. Thacker (61 Ga. 329), 466, 471. Jones V. Turner (81 Va. 709), 482. Jones V. Van Doren (laOU. S. 684; 9 S. Ct. Rep. 685). 117, 148, 197. Jones V. Weed (4 Sandf. Ch. 208), 632. Jones u. Winans (20 N. J. Eq, 96), 577. Joplin V. Cordrey (Ky., 5 S. W. Rep. 397), 626. Jopling V. Stewart (4 Ves. Jr. 619X 234, 238. Jopp V. Wood (3 De G., J. & S. 323), 837. Jopp V. Wood (33 Beav. 372). 836. Jordan, Ex parte (94 U. S. 248), 79, 578, 583, 584, 693, 905. Jordan v. Clark (16 N. J. Eq. 243), 118, 119. Jordan v. Sawkins (1 Ves. 402), 331. Jordan v. Wilkins (3 Wash. C. C. 482), 538. Joseph V. Burk (46 Ind. 59), 765. Joseph V. Doubleday (1 Ves. & B. 497), 335. Josey V. Rogers (13 Ga. 478), 452, 459, 465. Joslvn V. Dickenson (71 111. 35), 777. Jougema v. Pfiel (9 Ves. 3.57), :!83. Journeay v. Brown (26 N. J. Law, 111), 705. Jourolmou v. Massengill (86 Tenn. 81), 306, 334. Judd V. Hatch (31 Iowa, 491), 787. Judd V. Seaver (8 Paige, 548), 124, 407. Judson, Ex parte (3 Blatchf. 89), 537. Judson V. Courier Co. (25 Fed. Rep. 705), 185. Judson V. Stephens (75 111. 255), 856, 858. Judson V. Toulmin (9 Ala. 662), 145. June V. Myers (12 Fla. 310 1, 685. Juneau Bank v. McSpedan (5 Biss. 64), 228. Justice V. Kirlin (17 Ind. 588), 736. Justice V. McBroom (1 Lea, 555), 792. Kader v. Geargin (85 Tenn. 486), 692. Kahn v. Central Smelting Co. (102 U. S. C41), 809, 810. Kaighn v. Fuller (14 N. J. Eq. 419), 784. Kain v. Ross (3 Lea, 76). 481. Kalbfleisch v. Kalbfleisch (13 N. Y. Supl. 397), 727. Kanawha Lodge v. S%vann (West Va., 16 S. E. Rep. 4()2), 456. Kana'vha Valley Bank v. Wilson (35 West Va. 36 ; 13 S. E. Rep. 58), 133 Kane v. Paul (14 Peters, 41), 339. Kane v. Vanderburgh (1 Johns. Ch. 11), 7(i9. Kane v. Whittick (8 Wend. 219), 907. Kankakee v. Kankakee &c. R Co, (115 111. 88), 468. Kankakee &c. R Co. v. Horan (131 111. 288), 268. TABLE OF OASES. cm [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n. pp. 609-1012.] Kansas v. Bradlev (26 Fed. Rep. 389), 35. Kansas v. Ziebold (123 U. S. 633), 766. Kansas Pac. R Co. v. Atchison R Co. (113 U. S. 414), 33. Kansas Rolling Mill Co. v. Atchison &c. R Co. (31 Kan. 90), 705. Kaolatype Engraving Co. v. Hoke (30 Fed. Rep. 444), 267. Earn v. Roser Iron Co. (Va., 11 S. E. Rep. 431), 733. Karr v. Karr (19 N. J. Eq. 427), 330. Kaufifman v. Walker (9 Md. 339), 817. Kay V. Marshall (1 Keen, 190), 319, 346. Kean v. Colt (5 N. J. Eq. 365), 708. Kean v. Johnson (9 N. J. Eq. 402), 100. Kean v. Lathrop (58 Ga. 355), 471. Kearney v. Harrell (5 Jones' Eq. 199), 651. Kearsley v. Philips (10 Q. B. D. 36), 367. Keats V. Rector (1 Ark. 391), 636. Kebel v. Philpot (9 Sim. 614), 654. Keck V. AUender (West Va., 16 S. E. Rep. 530), 844, 846, 847. Keeler v. Keeler (11 N. J. Eq. 458), 69. Keeler's Will, In re (7 N. Y. Supl. 199), 590, 591. Keen v. Breckenridge (96 Ind. 69), 734, 738, 739, 740. Keen v. Jordan (13 Fla. 327), 275,864. Kehoe v. Carville (Iowa, 51 N. W. Rep. 166), 387 Keightly v. Brown (16 Ves. 344), 588. Keil V. West (21 Fla. 508), 239, 244, 245, 346, 884. Keith V. Keith (143 Mass. 262), 150. Keithley v. Keithley (85 Mo. 317), 663. Kelk V. Pearson (L. R. 6 Ch. 809), 759. Keller v. Ashford (133 U. S. 610), 100. Keller v. Stolzenbaoh (20 Fed. Rep. 47), 333. Kelley v. Kelley (Wis., 50 N. W. Rep. 334), 16. Kelley v. McKinney (5 Lea, 164), 830, 832 912 Kelley v. Thuey (Mo., 15 S. W. Rep. 62), 90. Kellner v. Mut. L. Ins. Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 623), 347, 348. Kellogg, In re (7 Paige, 265), 729, 730. Kellogg V. Shafer (14 Abb. 149), 567. Kelly V. Eckford (5 Paige, 458), 367, 445, 533, 536. Kelly V. Gartner (Mich., 51 N. W. Rep. 378). 531. Kelly V. Kellv (136 111. 550), 657. Kelly V. Kelly Manuf. Co. (15 111. App. 547), 764 Kelly V. Kershaw (5 Utah, 395 ; 14 Pac. Rep. 804), 195. Kelsey v. Hobby (16 Pet 369), 445, 571. Kelsey v. Ponn. R Co. (14 Blatchf. 89), 284. Kelsey v. Snyder (118 111. 544), 549. Kemnau Brockhaus (5 Fed. Rep. 763), 37. Kemp V. Coxe (14 Ala. 614), 485. Kemp V. Mackrell (3 Atk. 812), 446, 465. Kempu Mackrell (3 Ves. Sr. 579), 653, 661. Kemp V. Squire (Dick. 131), 243. Kemp V. Squire (1 Ves. Sr. 204), 241, 863. Kempe's Lessee ». Kennedy (5 Cranch, 185), 133. Kemper w Campbell (45 Kan. 539). 345. Kempton v. Burgess (136 Mass. 193), 477, 479, 481, 636. Kenady v. Edwards (134 U. S. 124), 922 Kendall v. Stokes (3 How. 87), 763. Kendall ville Refrigerator Co. v. Da- vis (40 111. App. 616), 161. Kendig v. Dean (97 U. S. 423), 71, 484, 635. Kendrick v. Spotts (Va., 17 S. E. Rep. 853). 902. Kenebel v. Scrafton (13 Ves. 370), 989. Kennaway v. Tripp (11 Beav. 588), 999. Kennebec &c. R Co. v. Portland &a R Co. (52 Me. 173), 143. Kennedy v. Bank of (jeorgia (8 How. 586), 798, 850, 933, 955. Kennedy v. Bell (Litt. Sel. Cas. 125), 857. Kennedy v. Cresswell (101 U. S. 641), 351. Kennedy v. Edwards (11 Jur. (N. S.) 153), 1000. Kennedy v. Green (6 Sim. 6), 534. Kennedy v. Indianapolis &c. R. Co. (3 Flip. 704; 3 Fed. Rep. 97), 739, 740, 741. Kennedy v. Kennedy (66 111. 190), 456. Kennedy v. Meredith (3 Bibb, 465), 410. Kennedy v. St Paul &c. R Co. (3 Dill. 448), 730. Kenner v. Smith (8 Yerg. 306), 863. Kenney's Appeal (Pa., 13 Atl. Rep. 589), 401. Kent V. Adm'rs of De Baun (13 N. J. Eq. 320), 784. Kent V. Burgess (11 Sim. 361), 653. Kent V. Iron Co. (144 U. S. 75), 735. Kent's Adm'r v. Kent's Adm'r (83 Va. 305), 795. CIV TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Kentucky S. M. Co. v. Day (3 Sawy. 468), 253, 261. Kenyou v. Worthington (3 Dick. 668), 83. Keokuk &c. Ry. Co. v. Donnell (77 Iowa, 221 ; 43 N. W. Rep. 176). 18. Keppell V. Bailey (3 Myl. & K 517), 103. Ker V. Duchess of Munster (Bunb. 35), 1001. Kerchner v. McEachern (93 N. C. 447), 798. Kerliu v. Ewen (Pa., 24 Atl. Rep. 137), 730. Kern v. Huidekoper (103 U. S. 494), 44. Kern v. Wyatt (Va., 17 S. E. Rep. 549), 848, 854. KernsoiJJ v. Gusdorf (5 Mackey (D. C), 161), 776. Keron v. Hirt (26 N. J. Eq. 36), 784,790. Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. v. Fislier (1 Fed. Rep. 91), 676, 633. Kerr v. Davis (7 Paige, 53 1, 606. Kerr v. Gillespie (7 Beav. 269), 998. Kerr v. Kerr (3 Lea, 227), 482. Kerr v. Moon (9 Wheat 565), 68. Kerr v. Preston (6 Ch. D. 463), 765. Kerr v. South Park Comm'is (117 U. S. 379), 656. Kerr v. Watts (6 Wheat. 550), 77. Kerrison v. Stewart (93 U. S. 155), 88, 578. Kershaw v. Kelsey (100 Mass. 561), 53. Kershaw v. Mathews (1 Russ. 361), 715. Kershaw v. Thompson (4 Johns. Ch. 609). 871, 879, 883. 884. Kessinger v. Whittaker (83 III. 33), 880. Ketchum v. Breed (66 Wis. 85), 849. Ketchum v. Cargill (6 McLean, 13), 301. Ketchum u Duncan (96 U. 8. 659), 814. Ketchum v. Farmers' L. & T. Co. (4 McLean, 1), 847. Key V. Knott (9 Gill & Johns. 343), 650. Keys V. Astley (9 L. T. (N. S.) 356). 331 Keys v' Mathis f38 Kan. 218 ; 16 Pac. Rep. 436), 148, 149. Keyser v. Fan- (105 U. S. 365), 930. Keyser v. Renner's Adm'r (87 Va. 349 ; 13 S. E. Rep. 406), 186. Keystone Iron Co. v. Martin (183 U. S. 91), 938. Kibbe v. Benson (17 Wall. 635), 308. Kiel V. Carll (51 Conn. 440), 138, 163. Kilbee v. Sneyd (3 Moll. 239), 438. Kilbourn v. Sunderland (130 U. S. 505 ; 9 S. Ct Rep. 594), 15, 17, 76, 912, 951. Kilbreth v. Root (33 West Va. 600; 11 S. E. Rep. 21), 444, 447. Kilcease's Heirs v. Blythe (6 Humph. 389), 340. Kilgore v. Hair (19 S. C. 486), 710. Kilgour V. New Orleans Gas Light Co. (3 Woods, 144), 317, 265. Killian v. Clark (111 U. S. 784). 929. Killian v. Ebbinghaus (111 U. S. 798), 956, 963. Killian v. Ebinghaus (110 U. S. 568), 18, 174, 17.5, 180. Killinger v. Hartman (31 Neb. 297), 186. Killmer v. Hobart (58 How. Pr. 452), 745. Kilpatrick v. Commonwealth (31 Pa. St. 198), 529. Kilpatrick v. Henson (81 Ala. 464), 692. Kilroy v. Mitchell (3 Wash. 407), 808. Kimball v. Ward (Walk. Ch. 439), 380, 389. Kimherlin v. Tow (Ind., 33 N. R Rep. 7701, 593. Kimberling v. Hartley (1 MoCrary, 136), 579. Kimberly v. Arms (40 Fed. Rep. 548), 843, 844, 845, 848, 850, 853, 853, 856, 859, 867, 963. Kimberly v. Arms (129 U. S. 525X 665, 666, 667, 696, 947. Kimberly v. Arms (136 U. a 629), 867. Kimberly v. Fox (27 Conn. 308), 445. Kimberly v. Sells (3 Johns. Ch. 467), 283. Kimble v. Seal (93 Ind. 276), 515, 643. Kimbrough v. Ragsdale (Miss., 13 So. Rep. 830), 948. Kimm v. Steketee (44 Mich. 527), 774 King, Ex parte (7 Ves. Jr. 313), 328. King V. Bill (38 Conn. 593), 805. King V. Bryant (3 Myl. & Cr. 191), 393, 676. King V. Clark (3 Paige. 76), 338, 994, 995 King u Cutts (24 Wis. 627), 736. King V. Donnelly (5 Paige, <16), 509. King V. Dundee Mortg. & Tr. L Co. (38 Bed. Rep. 33), 847, 858. King V. Goodwin (130 111. 103), 287. King V. King (9 N. J. Eq. 44), 359, 360. King 7). Ohio &c. Ry. Co. (7 Biss. 539), 728. King V. Ray (11 Paige, 336), 363, 366. King V. Ruckman (23 N. J. Eq. 551), 956, 958. King V. Shakespeare (10 East, 83), 335. King V. Smith (1 Dick. 83), 613. King V. Stafieord (5 How. Pr. 30), 357. TABLE OF CASES. CV (The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012] Kinp; v. Thorp (31 Iowa, 67), 466. King V. Wooten (54 Fed. Rep. 612), 788. King V. Worthington (104 U. S. 44), 934. King of Prussia v. Kuepper (23 Mo. 550), 52. King of Spain v. Machado (4 Russ. 325), 52, 101, 274, 294. King of Spain v. Mendizabel (5 Sim. 596), 53. King of Spain v. Oliver (1 Pet. C. C. 276), 53. Kingsbury v. Buckner (70 III. 514), 960. Klngshurv v. Buckner (134 IT. S. 650 ; 10 S."Ct. Rep. 638), 55, 57, 380, 456, 465, 845, 866, 964. Kingsbury v. Flowers (65 Ala, 479), 158. Kinnarnan v. Henry (6 N. J. Eq. 90), 365. Kinney v. Crocker (18 Wis. 74), 740. Kinney v. Stewart (37 N. J. Eq. 839), 206. Kinsman v. Parkhurst (18 How. 289), 949. Kip V. Kip (33 N. J. Eq. 213), 120. Kirbv V. Kirby (1 Paige, 261), 119, 61'. Kirby v. Lake Shore &c. R Co. (120 tJ. S. 130), 290. Kirby v. Taylor (6 Johns. Ch. 242), 822 Kirklatid v. Cureton (4 S. C. 123), 644. Kirkley v. Burton (5 Madd. 378), 109. Kirkman v. Vanlier (7 Ala. 317), 410, 462. Kirkpatrick v. Corning (39 N. J, Eq. 22), 283, 303. Kirkpatrick v. Corning (39 N. J. Eq. 136), 453. Kirkpiitrick v. Corning (40 N. J. Eq. 341), 137, 139. Kirkpatrick v. Love (Ambler, 589), 395. Kirkpatrick v. White (4 Wash. (C. C.) 595), 817. Kirschner v. State (8 Wis. 140), 361. Kirtland v. M. & T. R. Co. (4 Lea (Tenii.), 414), 459. Kirtland v. Moore (40 N. J. Eq. 106), 631. 632. Kirtley v. Marshall Silver Min. Co. (8 Colo. 279), 657. Kirwan v. Kirwan (1 Hogan, 264), 212. Kissam )'. Forrest (35 Wend. 651), 551. Kissick V. Martin (12 Heisk. 313), 404. Kitchell V. Burgwin (31 111. 40), 394. Kitchen v. Randolph (93 U. S. 86), 940. Kitchen v. Strowbridge (4 Wash. (C. C.) 84), 284. Kittle V. De Graaf (30 Fed. Rep. 689), 292. Kittrpdge v. Claremont Bank (3 Story, 590), 324, 377, 435. Kittredge v. Race (92 U. S. 116), 487. Klauber v, San Diego Street Car Co. (Cal., 33 Pac. Rep. 876). 961. Klaus V. State (54 Miss. 644), 56. Kleiman v. Geiselman (Mo., 21 S. W. Rep 796), 954. Klein v. Fleetwood (35 Fed. Rep. 98), 345, 791. Klepper v. Powell (6 Heisk. 508), 344, 846. Knapp V. Gass (63 III. 492), 394 Knapp V. New York El. R Co. (24 N. Y. Supl. 334), 971. Knapp V. White (38 Conn. 541), 697. Knappen v. Freeman (Minn., 50 N. W. Rep. 533), 133. Knatchbull v. Fearnheaid (3 Myl. & C. 133), 979. Kneeland v. American Loan Co. (186 U. S. 97), 719, 738, 904, 967. Kneeland v. Luce (141 U. S. 437), 591, 735. Knickerbocker v. De Freest (2 Paige, 804;, 61. Knickerbocker v. Harris (1 Paige, 210), 404, 994. Knight V. Atkisson (3 Tenn. Ch. 884), 372, 482, 686, 854. Knight V. Bampfield (1 Vern. 179), 335. Knight V. DeBlaquiere (Sau. & S. 648), 998. Knight V. Knight (4 Mad. 1), 518. Knight V. Martin (1 Russ. & My. 70), 980. Knight V. Nash (33 Minn. 452), 705. Knight V. Ogden (8 Tenn. Ch. 396), 587, 589. Knott V. Burleson (3 G. Greene (Iowa), 600), 368. Knowlton v. Hanbury (117 111. 471), 460. Knox V. Brown (3 Bro. C. C. 186), 478. Knox V. Columbia Liberty Iron Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 378), 830, 834, 847, 850. Knox V. Picket (4 Desaus. 199), 979. Knox V. Smith (4 How. 398), 137. Knox County v. Harshman (132 U. S. 14), 341. Knox County v. Harshman (133 U. S. 156), 133. Kobbi V. Underbill (3 Sandf. Ch. 377), 16, 17. Koehler, Ex parte (23 Fed. Repl 529), 726, Koehler v. Farmers' Nat. Bank (6 N. Y. Supl. 470; 117 N. Y. 661), 876. OVl TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Kohlsaat v. Crate (111., 32 N. E. Rep. 481), 776. Kohn V. McNulta (147 U. S. 338), 641, 643, 657. Koons V. Blanton (Ind., 37 N. E. Rep. 334), 649, 65.5. KooDtz V. Northern Bank &c. (16 Wall 196), 818. Kopper V. Dyer (59 Vt 477; 9 Atl. Rep. 41, 235. Korn V. Weibusch (33 Fed. Rep. 50), 316, 347. Korne v. Korne (30 "West Va. 1 ; 3 S. E. Rep 17), 141. Kortiohn v. Seimers (29 Mo. App. 271), 642. Kratz V. Buck (HI 111. 40), 92. Kretz V. Texas &c. Ry. Co. (Tex., 14 S. W. Rep. 1067), 756. Krippendorf v. Hyde (110 U. S. 276), 43, 574, 583. Krueger v. Ferry (41 N. J. Eq. 433), 444, 449, 453. Kuchenbeiser v. Beckert (41 III. 173), 866. Kuhl V. Martin (26 N. J. Eq. 60), 786. Kuhl V. Martin (28 N. J. Eq. 370), 674, 675. Kulp V. Bowen (123 Pa. St 78), 776. Kunia v. Smith (3 N. J. Eq. 14), 393. Kunz V. White Go. (8 N. Y. Supl. 505), 785. Kuttner v. Haines (135 111. 382), 855, 858. Kuypers v. Reformed Dutch Church (6 Paige, 570), 265, 274. 277, 283. Kyle V. Phillips (6 Bax 45), 240. Labadie v. Hewitt (85 111. 341), 157, 294. Lacassaque v. Chapins (144 U. S. 119), 635, em, 867. Lace V. Fixen (39 Minn. 46). 648. Lacroix v. Lyons (27 Fed. Rep. 403), 6. Ladbroke v. Bleaden (16 Jur. 639), 809. Ladd V. Marine Ins. Co. (3 Wheat, 880), 407. Ladies' &c. Society v. Society (2 Tenn. Ch. 77), 325, 786. Ladner v. Ogden (31 Miss. 332), 456, 466. Lady Shaftesbury t\ Arrowsmith (4 Ves. 66', 534. Lafone v. Falkland Islands Co. (27 L. J. Ch. 25), 535. La Grange &c. R. Co. v. Memphis &c. R. Co. (7 Cold. (Tenn.) 420), 450. La Grange &c. R Co. v. Rainey (7 Cold (Tenn.) 420), 827, 861. Laidlev v. Kline (25 West Va. 208), 857. Laight V. Pell (1 Edw. Ch. 577). 819. Laimbeer v. Allen (3 Sandf. 648', 601. Lain v. Lain (10 Paige, 191), 909. Laing v. Raine (2 Bos. & P. 85), 543. Laing v. Zeden (L. R. 9 Ch. App. 736), 174. Laird v. Briggs (19 Ch. D. 32), 483. Laird V. Indemnity &c. Ins. Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 713), 50. Lake v. Austwick (4 Jur. 314), 536. Lake v. Philips (1 Ch. Rep. 59), 538. Lake v. Skinner 1 1 Jac. & W. 9). 557. Lake Shore &c. R Co. v. Chicago & W. I. R Co. (96 111. 135), 339. Lake Shore &c. R Co. v. Taylor (134 111. 603), 348. Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Brown (44 Fed. Rep. 539), 19. Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Brown, Bonnell & Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 529), 7, 497. Lakens v. Fielden (11 Paige, 644), 297. Lakin v. Sierra &c. Min. CJo. (25 Fed. Rep. 337), 291. Lalance &c. Mfg. Co. v. Habermann Mfg. Co. (54 Fed. Rep. 375), 900. Lalance &c, Mfg. Co. v. Mosheim (48 Fed. Rep 453), 530. Lamb v. Starr (Deady. 350), 349. Lambert v. Haskell (80 Cal. 611), 774, 778. Lambert v. Hill (1 Dr. & War. 74), 567. Lambert v. Lambert (52 Me. 544), 303, 445. 446. Lambeth v. Sentell (38 La. Ann. 691), 776. La Mothe v. National Co. (15 Blatchf. 432), 6. Lampley v. Weed (27 Ala. 621), 634. Lampton v. Lampton (6 Monr. 620), 394. Larason v. Drake (105 Mass. 564), 690. Lancashire v. Lancashire (9 Beav. 130; 567. Lancashire v. Lancashire (9 Beav. 259), 653. Lancaster v. Evors (1 Ph. 349), 363. Lancaster v. Ward (1 Tenn. (Overton), 430), 653. Lanchester v. Thompson (5 Madd. 4), 79 Land v. Wickham (1 Paige, 256\ 830, 831. Land Co. v. Elkins (20 Fed. Rep. 345), 196. Landers v. Fisher (24 Hun. 648), 344. Lane v. Ellzey i4Hen. & M. 504), 563. Lane v. Hobbs (13 Ves. 458), 842. Lane v. Marshall (15 Vt 85), 394 Lane v. Morse (6 How. Pr. 394), 598. TABLE OF OASES. evil [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Lane v. Newdigate (10 Ves. 192), 779. Lane v. Stebbins (3 Ed w. Ch. 480), 361. Lane v. Stebbins (9 Paige. 633), 545. Lane v. Townsend (2 Ir. Ch. 120), 713. Langdale v. Langdale (13 Ves. 167), 475. Langdon v. Branch (37 Fed. Rep. 449), 40. 149. Langdon v. Sherwood (134 U. S. 74), 805. Langdon v. Vermont &c. R. Co. (58 Vt. 338), 719. 754. Lange, Ex parte (18 Wall. 163), 828, 839. Lange v. Jones (5 Leigh, 193), 97. Langley, Ex parte (L. R 18 Ch. D. 110), 877. Langley v. Jones (48 N. J. Eq. 404), 164. Langley v. Overton (11 Sim. 305), 505. Langley v. Voll (54 Cal. 435), 883. Langston v. Boylston (2 Ves. Jr. 101), 175, 176. Langton ;'. Langton (7 De Q., M. & Q. 30), 989. Lanier v. Alison (81 Fed. Rep. 100), 8. Lansdale v. Smith (106 U. S. 391X 391. Lansing v. Albany Ins. Co. (Hopk. Ch. 102), 853. Lansing v. Pine (4 Paige, 639), 273. Lansing v. Russell (3 Barb. Ch. 325), 661. Lantour v. Holcombe (1 Phil. 263), 998. Lanum v. Steele (10 Humph. 279), 231, 232. Laraussin v. Carquette (24 Miss. 151), 486. Larabrie v. Brown (1 De G. & J. 204 ; 23 Beav. 607), 176. Largan v. Bowen (1 8. & L. 296), 758. Large v. Ditmars (27 N. J. Eq. 383), 333, 786. Large v. Ditmars (27 N. J. Eq. 406), 819. Large v. Van Doren (14 N. J. Eq. 208), 92 991. Larkin v. Mann (2 Paige, 37), 235. Larkins v. Biddle (21 Ala. 353), 154, 395. Larkins v. Paxton (3 Myl. & K. 330), 985. Larned v. Griffin (13 Fed. Rep. 590), 238, 323, 334. La Roque v. Davis (2 Edw. Ch. 599), 494. Lashley v. Hogg (11 Ves. Jr. 603), 470. Latham v. Chaffee (7 Fed. Eep. 525), 336, 708. Lathrop v. Knapp (87 Wis. 307), 735. Latimer v. Neate (4 CI. & Fin. 570), 634. La Touche v. Lord Dunsany (1 Sch. &Lef. 1371,459. Latting v. Latting (4 Sandf. Ch. 31), 144, 146. Lau Ow Bew. Petitioner (141 U. S. 583), 889, 893, 898, 894, 895. Lau Ow Bow v. United States (144 U. S. 55), 80, 31. Laudon v. Laudon (1 Humph. 4), 653. Laughton v. Harden (68 Me. 308), 91, 289. Laurie n Laurie (9 Paige, 234), 778. Lautz V. Gordon (38 Fed. Rep. 264), 444, 446, 452. La Vega v. Lapsley (1 Woods, 438), 483, 484. Lavender v. Lavender (Ir. Rep. 9 Eq. 493), 754. Lavetfe v. Sage (39 Conn. 577), 695, 809. Law V. Hunter (1 Russ. 100), 363. Law u Rigby (4 Bro. C. C. 63), 486. Lawrence v. Berney (3 Ch. Rep. 137), 885. Lawrence v. Bolton (3 Paige, 294), 185, 516, 519. Lawrence v. Cornell (4 Johns. Ch. 545), 828. Lawrence v. Finch (17 N. J. Eq. 335), 546, 550. Lawrence v. Gayetty (78 Cal. 136 ; 20 Pac. Rep. 383), i35. Lawrence v. Lawrence (3 Barb. Ch. 71), 68. Lawrence v. Lawrence (4 Bibb, 385), 403. Lawrence v. Lawrence (4 Edw. Ch. 357), 428, 440. Lawrence v. Lawrence (21 N. J. Eq. 817), 403, 411. Lawrence v. Richmond (1 J. & W. 241), 799. Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Janesville Mills (138 U. S. 552), 885, 886. Lawson v. Warren (89 Ala. 584), 111. Lawton v. Green (64 N. Y. 336), 776. Lea V. Deakin (13 Fed. Rep. 514), 775. Lea V. Kelly (15 Pet. 313). 937. Lea V. Robeson (13 Gray, 380), 267. Lea V. Vanbibber (6 HuQiph. 18), 334. Leach v. Fobes (11 Gray, 506), 394. Leacraft v. Dempsey (4 Paige, 134), 377, 378, 331, 333, 339, 343. Leaf V. Tuton (10 M. & W. 393), 374. Leake v. Bergen (27 N. J. Eq. 360), 374. Learned v. Foster (117 Mass. 365), 293. Learned v. Tillotsou (97 N. Y. 6), 657. Leary v. Long (103 U. S. 397), 637. Leather Mt'rs Nat. Bank v. Cooper (120 U. S. 778 ; 7 S. Ct. Rep. 777), 34. Leavenworth v. Pepper (33 Fed. Rep. 718), 114, 361. cvm TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Leavitt v. Cruder (1 Paige, 421), 211, 258, 317, 390. Leavitt v. Dabney (40 How. Pr. 277), 773, 776. Leavitt v. De Launay (4 Sandf. Ch. 480), 603. Leavitt v. Yates (4 Edw. Ch. 162), 703. Led better v. Ledbetter (80 Mo. 60), 371. Ledbetter v. McWilliaras (Ga., 15 S. E. Rep. 634), 199. Ledbetter v. Walker (31 Ala. 175), 372. Leddell v. Starr (19 N. J. Eq. 160), 452, 705, 714. Ledos V. Kupfrian (38 N. J. Eq. 162), 193. Ledsinger v. CeDtral Line (79 Ga. 716; 5 S. E. Rep. 197), 484, 635. Lee V. Beatty (8 Dana, 212), 642, 657. Lee V. Biokley (6 Litt. 290 >, 994. Lee V. Bradice (8 Martin (La.), 55), 588. Lee V. CarKill (10 N. J. Eq. 331), 783. Lee V. Cole (44 N. J. Eq. 818), 90, 451. Lee V. Lee (1 Hare, 621), 523. Lee V. Lee (8 Pet 44). 23. Lee V. Pindle (12 Gill & J. 388), 971. Lee V. Simpson (43 Fed. Rep. 434), 590, 591, 1010. Lee V. Stiger (80 N. J. Eq. 610), 409. Lee V. Warner (3 Dick. 546), 504. Lre V. Wickliffe (1 Monr. 110), 627. Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co. (2 Wheat 380 i, 395. Leeniing, In re (20 Law J. Ch. 551), 705. Lefforge v. West (3 Ind. 514), 769. Legard v. Daly (1 Ves. 192), 659, 661. Le Geiidre v. Byrnes (44 N. J. Eq. 372). 293. Legg V. Overbagh (4 Wend. 188), 846. Leggett V. Boorum (2 Edw. Ch. 630), 479. Leggett V. Dubois (3 Paige, 211). 498. Leggett V. Dubois (3 Paige, 477), 440. Leggett V. Postley (2 Paige, 599), 361, 544, 545. Leggett V. Sellon (3 Paige, 84), 59, 436. Legh V. Haverfield (5 Ves. 453), 529. Le Guen v. Gouverneur (1 Johns. Cas. 4361, 897, 898. Lehigh Coal &c. Co. v. Central R Co. (38 N. J. Eq. 175), 741. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. MoFarlan (30 N. J. Eq.'lfJO), 136. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Mellon (104 U. S. 113), 393. Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co v. N. J. Zinc 6 Iron Co. (48 Fed. Rep. 545), 16, 143, 156. Lehman v. Dozier (78 Ala. 335), 466. Lehman v. Ford (47 Ala. 738;, 465. Leliman v. McQuown (31 Fed. Rep. 138), 754, 775, 777. Leicester v. Leicester (10 Sim. 87), 485, 486. Leicester Piano Co. v. Front Roval &c. Imp. Co. 155 Fed. Rep. 190), 358, 910, 947, 954. Leich V. Bailey (6 Price, 504), 371. Leigh V. Clark (11 N. J. Eq. 110), 784. Leigh V. Thomas (2 Ves. 313), 79. Leigh V. Ward (2 Ventris, 72). 407. Leighton v. Young (10 U. S. App. 398', 8. Leitch V. Cumpston (4 Paige, 476), 798, 799. Le Jpiine v. Sheridan (For. Ex. 31), 588. Lemon v. Rogge (Miss., 11 So. Rep. 470), 699. L'Engle v. Florida Cent Ry. Ca (14 Fla. 366), 751. Lenihan i\ Haniann (14 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 274), 507. Lente v. Clark (Fla., 1 So. Rep. 149), 333 Leo V. Lambert (3 Russ. 417), 622. Leonard v. Cook (N. J., 20 Atl. Rep. 1085), 141. Leonard v. Cook (N. J. Ch., 21 Atl. Rep. 47), 514. Leonard v. Leonard (2 Ball & R. 323), 363. Leonard v. Morris (9 Paige, 90), 9.5. Leonard v. Ozark Land Co. (115 U. S. 465), 341. Leonard v. Smith (34 West Va. 443; 12 S. E. Rep. 479). 447. Leonard v. Storrs (31 Ala. 488), 736. Le Neve v. Le Neve (1 Ves. 66), 404. Lennon v. Porter (2 Gray, 473), 99. Lenox v. Prout (3 Wheat 520), 398. Lenz V. Prescott (144 Mass. 505), 145. Le Rov V. Piatt (4 Paige, 77), 17. Leslie'!). Leslie (N. J. Ch., 24 Atl. Rep. 1039), 428. Lessee of Butler v. Farnsworth (4 Wash. (C. C.) 101), 37. Leveridge v. Marsh (30 N. J. Eq. 59), 508. Levi V. Columbia Life Ins. Co. (1 Fed. Rep. 307). 36. 37, 707. Levine v. Taylor (13 Mass. 8), 53. Lewarne v. Mexican International Imp. Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 639), 144, 146. Levvellen v. Mack worth (2 Atk. 40), 520. Levvellin v. Macworth (2 Atk. 803), 861. Lewis V. Baird (3 McLean, 56), 322. Lewis V. Bridgman (2 Sim. 465), .505. Lewis V. Campau (14 Mich. 4.J8), 705, Lewis V. Cocks (23 Wall. 466), 18, 951. TABLE OF OASES. CIX (ThB references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. H, pp. 609-1013.] Lewis V. Cranmer (36 N. J. Eq. 134), 3W. Lewis V. Darling; (Ifi How. l)t 101. Lewis V. Elizabeth (25 N. J. Eq. 298), 582. Lewis V. Gale (14 Fla. 441), 971. Lewis V. Glass (Tenn., 20 S. W. Rep. 571), 447. Lewis V. Lewis (25 Ala. 31.5). 1000. Lewis V. Lewis (Minor (Ala.), 35), 690. Lewis V. Lonfi; (3 Mimf. 136), 903. Lewis V. Loper (47 Fed. Rep. 259), 146. Lewis V. M.ison (84 Va. 731 ; 10 S. E. Rep. 539), 400, 401. Lewis V. Nobbs (L R. 8 Ch. D. 591), 56. Lewis V. Pleasants (111., 30 N. E. Rep. 323 ; 32 N. E. Rep. 384), 8r)9. Lewis V. St. Albans Iron Works (50 Vt 477 1, 155. Lewis V. Sbainwald (48 Fed. Rep. 492), 4, 35, 617. Lewisu. Sliainwald(7Sawv.403),119. Lewis V. Smith (7 Ceav. 470), 335. Lewis V. Smith (1 Macn. & G. 417), 910. Lewis V. Wilson (1 McCord, Ch. 210), 909. Lewishure; Bank v. Sheffy (140 U. S. 445), 79.5, 834, 917. 930. Lewiston &c. Co. v. Franklin Co. (54 Me. 403). 769. Lexins2;toir &f. R Co. v. Applegate (8 D.ina (Kv.). 289), 773. Libhy V. Norris (143 Mass. 346). 579. Libliv V. Rennie (31 N. J. Eq. 43), 81.3. Lich'tenstein v. Dial (68 Miss. 54), 730. Liebstein v. Mayor &c. (24 N. J. Eq. 200), 784. Liggett V. Glenn (51 Fed. Rep. 381), 37. Liggett V. Ladd (17 Oregon, 89). 81. Liggon V. Smith (4 Hen. & Mun. 407), 417. Like V. Berresford (3 Bro. C. G. 366). 509. Lillie V. Lillie (2 M. & K. 401), 998. Limerick R Co. v. Fraser (4 Bing. 394), 1000. Lincoln v. E.iton (133 Mass. 63). 957. Lincoln v. New Orleans Exp. Co. (La., 13 So. Rpp. 637), 583. Lincoln v. Piice (1 Hill, Ch. 431), 6.50. Lincoln v. Rutland &c. R Co. (24 VL 639), 175. Lincoln v. Wright(5 Jur. (N. S.) 1142), 331. Lind V. Isle of Wight Ferry Co. (8 W. R 540), 535. Lindley v. Russell (16 Mo. App. 217), 154. Lindley v. Sullivan (Ind., 32 N. E. Rep. 738), 648. Lindsay v. Hatch (Iowa, 53 N. W. Rep. 226), 877. Lindsay v. Lynch (3 Sch. & Lef. 1), 539. Lindsey v. Etlieridge (1 Dev. & B. (N; C.) Eq. 36), 785. Lindsey v. Stevens (5 Dana, 104), 387, 388. Lindsley v. James (3 Cold. (Tenn.) 487), 376, 411. Lindsley V. Thompson (1 Tenn. Ch. 273). 959. Lines v. Spear (8 N. J. Eq. 154), 833, 787. Lingan v. Henderson (1 Bland, 352), 141, 408. Lingen v. Simpson (6 Mad. 290), 533, 534. 541. Linly v. Briatow (12 Tex. 60). 785. Linn i\ Wlieeler (21 N. J. Eq. 231), 344, 562, 576. Lippincott v. Mitchell (94 U. S. 767), 9. Lippincott u Ridgway (11 N. J. Eq. 528), 410. Lippincott v. Shaw Carriage Co. (34 Fed. Rep 570), 983. List, Rv parte (3 Ves. & B. 373), 228. Lister v. Leather (1 De G. & J. 361), 478. litchfi -Id V. Bond (6 Beav. 88), 361. Litchfield V. Burwell (5 How. Pr. 342), 207. Litchtield Bank v. Peck (29 Conn. 387). 735. Lithaiierri. Royle (17 N. J. Eq. 40), 814,989. Lithoi^raphing Co. v. Crane (13 N. Y. Siipl. 835). 933. Little V. Bowers (134 U. S. 547), 901. Little V. Cooper (10 N. J. Eq. 274), 638. Little V. Dusenburrj' (46 N. J. Law, 614), 739. Little V. Giles (118 U. S. 596), 591, 593. Little V. Merrill (62 Me. 32>i: 449. Little Rock &c. Co. v. Barrett (103 U. S. 516). 163, 949. Littleiohn v. Munn (3 Paige, 280), 386. Littleton's Appeal (93 Pa. St. 177), 851. Littleton V. Fritz (65 Iowa, 488). 766. Lively v. Bristow (13 Tex. 60), 331. Livesay v. Teamster (21 West Va. 83), 788. Livesey v. Wilson (1 Ves. & B. 149), 414, 415. Livingston's Petition (32 How. 20 ; 34 N. Y. 5.55). 571. Livingston?'. Exum (19S. C. 223, 778. Livingston v. Freeland (3 Barb. Ch. 510). 509. Livingston v. Gibbons (4 Johns. Ch. 94), 353, 354, 566. ex TABLE OF OASES. ptie references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. H, pp. 609-1012.] Livi Li Liv: Liv Liv Liv: Liv: Liv Liv: Liv: Liv Liv Liv Liv Livingston v. Harris (3 Paige, 538), 274, 361. ngston V. Hubbs (3 Johns. Ch. 124), 555, 833. 848, 855. nQ;ston v. Kane (4 Johns. Ch. 234), 4M7. ngston V. Livingston (3 Johns. Ch. 51), 640. ngston V. Livingston (4 Johns. Ch. 287), 17, 110, 374. ngston V. Livingston (6 Johns. Ch. 497), 763. ngston V. Livingston (4 Paige, 111), 785. ngston V. Marshall (82 Ga. 381 ; 11 S. E. Rep. 543', 184, 264. ngston V. Noe (1 Lea, 63), 861. ngston V. Story (9 Pet. 633), 283. ngston V. Story (11 Pet. 352), 316. ngston V. Tompkins (4 Johns. Ch. 415), 361. ngston V. Van Ingen {9 Johns. 583), 764. ngston V. Woodworth (15 How. 546), 101, 798. ngston V. Woolsey (4 Jolms. Ch. 865), 243. Lloyd, In re (10 Beav. 451), 874. Lloyd V. Brewster (4 Paige, 537), 141. Lloyd V. Brewster (5 Paige, 87), 1011. Lloyd V. Johnes (9 Ves. 37), 518. Lloyd V. Kirkwood (113 III. 339), 455, 866, 867. Lloyd V. Pennie (50 Fed. Rep. 4), 548. Lloyd V. Spillet (3 P. Wms. 346), 981. Lookett V. Lookett (L. R 4 Ch. 336), 434. Lockhart v. Gee (3 Tenn. Ch. 333), 756. Lockhart v. Horn (3 Woods, 542), 249. Locknian v. Meehan (31 N, Y. Supl. 389), 689. Lockwood V. Mills (39 III. 606), 549. Lockwood Co. v. Lawrence (77 Me. 297), 154. Lodge V. Twell (135 U. S. 332), 927. Loewenstein v. Biernbaum (8 W. N. C. 163), 609, 613, 617. Lofland v. Coward (12 Heisk. 546), 589. Logan V. McMillin (5 Dana, 489 >, 465. Logan V. Patrick (5 Cranch, 2S8), 43. Logsden v. Willis (14 Bush, 183), 775. Logue's Appeal (104 Pa. St. 141), 947. Lomax v. Hide (2 Vern. 185). 96. London &c. Ry. Co. v. Winters (Craig & Phil. 62). 449. Long V. Brown (4 Ala. 623), 335. Long i: Burton (2 Atk. 218), 461. Long V. Gran berry (2 Tenn. Ch. 85), 854. Long V. Kinkel (36 N. J. Eq. 359), 402. Long V. Long (107 111. 311 1, 643. Long V. Long (59 Mich. 296), 219, 245, 247. Long V. Tardy (1 Johns. Ch. 202), 1003, 1003, 1005, 1006. Long V. Tottenham (1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 137), 1005. Long V. Valloau (Iowa, 55 N. W. Rep. 31), 950. Longmire v. Fain (89 Tenn. 393), 670. Lougworth u. Taylor (1 McLean, 514), 185, 305. Lonsdale Co. v. Moies (2 Cliff. 538), 675. Lookout Bank v. Susong (Tenn., 18 S. W. Rep. 389), 188. Lookout Mountain Co. v. Houston (44 Fed. Rep. 449), 302. Loomer v. Wheelwright (3 Sandf. Ch. 135), 866, 867. Loomis V. Fay (34 Vt. 240), 403, 404. Loomis V. Freer (4 III. App. 547), 466. Loomis v. New York &c. Gas Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 353), 46, 48. Loomis V. Rutland R. Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 380), 971, 977. Loomis V. Stuyvesant (10 Paige, 490), 577. Lord, Ex parte (3 Ves. 26), 558. Lordu. Colvin (2 Drew. 205; 5 De G., M. & G. 47), 539. Lord V. Sill (23 Conn. 324), 689. Lord V. Veazie (8 How. 251), 872, 901. Lord Byron v. Johnston (2 Meriv. 29), 771. Lord Carteret v. Paschal (3 P. Wms. 197), 885. Lord Cranston v. Goldsbede (3 Y. & Col. (Exch.) 70), 563. Lord Faulconberg v. Pierce (Ambler, 210), 659. Lord Grey De Wilton v. Saxon (6 Ves. 106 1, 779. Lord Huntingtower v. Sherborn (5 Beav. 380), 478. Lord Kinnaird v. Lady Saltoun (1 Mad. 227). 599. Lord Manners v. Johnson (L. R. 1 Ch. D. 673), 759. Lord Pelhara v. Duchess of New- castle (3 Swanst. 289), 879. Lord Portsmouth, In re (G. Coop. 106), 627. Lord Shipbrooke v. Lord Hinching- brook (13 Ves. 398), 570. Lord Stowell v. Cole (2 Vern. 319), 501. Lord Tamworth v. Lord Ferrers (6 Ves. 419), 780. Lord Teynham v. Tyler (6 Bing. 5611 660. Lord Wen man v. Osbaldeston (3 Bro. P. C. 276), 563. TABLE OF OASES. CXI [The refefences are to pages; Vol. I contains pp. 1-008; Vol. n, pp. 009-1013.] Lorentz v. Lorentz (33 West Va. 556), 844, 848. Lorillard v. Robinson (2 Paige, 276), 997. J^orillai-d v. Standard Oil Co. (3 Fed. Rep. 903), 498. Lorton v. Seaman (9 Paige, 609), .'595. Loud V. Sergeant (1 Edw. Cli. 164), 315. Loudon V. Taxing District (104 U. S. 771), 946. Louis V. Brown Township (109 U. S. 163), 450. Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Whitney (131 U. S. 384), 937. Louisiana Sa v. Bank &c. Co., In re (40 La. Ann. 514). 730. Louisiana State Bank v. Duplessis (2 La. Ann. 651). 658. Louisiana State Lottery Co. v. Clark ( 16 Fed. Rep. 30), 172. Louisville &c. R Co. v. Letson (3 How. 497), 41. Louisville &c. R Co. v. Philyaw (94 Ala. 463 ; 10 So. Rep. 83), 332, 339. Louisville &c. R Co. v. Wilson (138 U. S. 501), 904. Louisville & Nashville R Co. v. Palmes (109 U. S. 344), 267. Louisville Pub. Warehouse Co. v. Col- lector (49 Fed. Rep. 561), 889, 893. Love V. Allison (3 Tenn. Ch. 11 1), 335. Love V. Braxton (5 Call, 537), 408, 657. Love V. Comm'rs of Chatham (64 N. C. 506), 381. Love V. Powell (67 Tex. 15), 331. Lovejoy v. Chapman (Oregon, 33 Pac. Rep. 687), 909, 971. Loveland v. Burnham (1 Barb. Ch. 65), 773, 776. Lovell V. Chilton (3 West Va. 310), 340. Lovell V. Cragin (136 U. S. 130), 33. Lovell V. Galloway (17 Beav. 1), 780. Lovett V. Cowman (6 Hill, 233), 431. Lovett V. Demarest (5 N. J. Eq. 113|, 490. Lovett V. Steam Saw-mill Ass'n (6 Paige, 54), 411. Loving V. Fairchild (1 McLean, 333), 349. Low 71. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge (61 Mich. 35), 837. Low V. Mills (61 Mich. 35), 206, 333. Low V. Mussey (41 Vt 393), 636. Lowber v. New York (36 Barb. 363), 344. Lowe V. Burke (76 Ga. 166 ; 3 S. E. Rep. 449), 376. Lowe V. Lowe (1 Tenn. Ch. 515), 747. Lowe V. Morris (4 Sneed, 70), 356. Lowe V. The Benjamin (1 Wall. Jr. 187 , 970. Lowe V. Traynor (6 Cold. 633), 653 657. Lowenstein v. Glidewell (5 Dill. 335), 314. 466, 583. Lowesby v. Warder (3 Cox's Cas. 268), 297. Lowry v. Armstrong (2 Stew. & P. 397), 394. Lowry v. Chautauqua Bank (Clarke's Ch. 67), 348, 780. Lawry v. Tew (3 Barb. Ch. 408), 336. Lowten v. Corporation of Colchester (3 Mer. 395). 843. Lovd V. Cardy (Preo. in Ch. 171), 613. Loyd V. Malone (33 III. 43), 866. Lozear v. Shields (23 N. J. Eq. 5091 909, 992. Lozier v. Van Saun (3 N. J. Eq. 325), 173, 179. Lubiere v. Genow (2 Ves. Sr. 579), 460. Luburg, Appeal of (Pa., 17 Atl. Rep. 345). 787. Lucas V. Harris (L. R. 18 Q. B. D. 137), 716. Lucas V. Hickman (3 Stew. (Ala.) 11), 613. Lucas V. King (10 N. J. Eq. 377), 360, 639, 640. Lucas V. Lucas (13 Ves. 374), 436. Lucas V. Ndble (31 Fed. Rep. 855). 765. Lucas V. Oliver (34 Ala. 630), 133. Luce V. Hinds (Clarke's Ch. 453), 337. Luce V. Graham (4 Johns. Ch. 170), 184, 198. Ludgater v. Channell (3 M. & G. 175), 712. Ludington v. Elizabeth (32 N. J. Eq. 159), 165, 205. Ludlow V. Lansing (1 Hopk. 331), 870. Ludlow V. Ramsey (11 Wall. 581), .54. Ludlow V. Simond (3 Cai. Cas. in Err. 1, 40), 35.i. Lufkin V. Galveston (73 Tex. 340), 30. Luft V. Manhattan R Co. (14 N. Y. Supl. 876), 513. Lull V. Clark (20 Fed. Rep. 454), 681. Lumber Co. v. Gustin (54 Mich. 624), 531. Lurasford v. Bastion (1 Dev. (N. C.) Eq. 487), 665. Lund V. Skanes Enskilda Bank (90 III. 181), 454. Lunn V. Johnson (3 Ired. Eq. 70), 409, 410. Lupin V. Marie (2 Paige, 170), 974. Lupton V. Johnson (3 Johns. Ch. 429), 536. Lupton V. Stephenson (11 Ir. Eq. 484), 709. Lushington v. Sowell (6 Madd. 28), 61. Lutheran Evang. Church v. Grist- gau (34 Wis. 328), 759. Lutterel's Case (Prec. Ch. 50), 55. cxu TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. H, pp. 609-1012.] Lyall V. Weldhen (L. E. 9 Ch. App. 287), 587. Lyie, In re (2 Paige, 351), 751. Lyle V. Bradford (7 Mon. (Ky.) 113), 303. Lyles V. Lyles (1 Hill, Cli. 76), 909. Lyman v. Bonney (101 Mass. 563). 75. Lyman v. Central Vermont R. Co. (59 Vt 167), 740. Lyman v. Place (36 N. J. Eq. 30), 101. Lyman V. & F. Oo. v. Southard (13 Blatchf. 405), 1001. Lynch v. Union Savings Institute (Mass., 33 N. E. Rep. 603), 761. Lynch v. Hartford F. Ins. Co. (17 Fed. Rep. 637), 326. Lvnch V. Lecesne (1 Hare, 636), 390. Lynch v. Williams (6 Johns. Ch. 343), 15. Lyne v. Pennell (1 Sim. (N. S.) 113), 1003. Lyon V. Brooks (2 Edw. Ch. 110), 856. Lyon V. Hunt (11 Ala. 395), 405. Lyon V. Lyon (21 Conn. 185), 614. Lyon V. Merritt (6 Paige. 473), 835. Lyon V. Perin &c. Co. (125 U. S. 698), 479, 637. Lyon V. Sanford (5 Conn. 544), 69, 96. Lyon V. Talln-iadge(lJohns. Ch. 184), 187. 193. Lyons, In re (1 Dr. & Wal. 327), 343. Lyons v. Botchford (27 Hun, 57), 778. Lyons v. Robbins (46 111. 378), 851. Lyons v. Van Riper (36 N. J. Eq. 337), 534. Lyster v. Stickney (13 Fed. Rep. 609), 186, 475. Lytton V. Lytton (4 Bro. Ch. 441), 851. Lytton V. Steward (2 Coop. Ch. 586), 326, 785. M. Maber v. Fobbs (1 Y. & C. 585), 557. Mabry v. Harrison (44 Tex. 286), 747. Macaulay, In re ^37 Hun, 5T6), 706. MaoPouontih v. Gaynor (18 N. J. Eq. 349), 613, 613, 615, 618, 633. Macey v. Childress (3 Tenn. Ch. 442), 393, 456. Machette ti. Hodges (1 Brewst. (Pa.) 313), 785. Machine Co. v. Giflford (66 Barb. 599), 173. Machine Co. v. Lumber Co. (109 N. C. 570), 760. Machinery Co. V- Brown Folding Ma- chine Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 73), 138. Mack V. De Bardelaben 0. & L Co. (90 Ala. 396), 349. Mackall v. Casilear (137 U. S. 556), 118, 133. Mackall v. Mackall (135 U. S. 167), 913 Mackali v. Richards (112 U. S. 369), 960. Mackall v. Richards (116 U. S. 45), 866, 959, 966, 967. MacKellar v. Rogers (109 N. Y. 468), 648. Mackenzie v. Flannery (Ga., 16 S. K Rep. 710,675. Mackie v. Cairns (Hopk. Ch. 9), 438. Mackintosh v. Flint &c. R Co. (34 Fed. Rep. 582). 518. Mackreth v. Nicholson (19 Ves. 367), 208. MacNaughton v. Osgood (114 N. Y. 574), 657, 663. Macon &c. R. Co. v. Stamps (Ga., 11 S. E. Rep. 443), 773. Macy V. Childress (2 Tenn. Ch. 23), 485. Madison University u. White (25 Hun, 490), 657. Magarity v. Shipman (82 Va. 784), 696. Magee v. Cowperthwaite (10 Ala. 966), 728, 729, 733. Magee v. Magee 1 51 111. 500). 18. Magnet &c. Oo. v. Page &c. Co. (9 Nev. 646), 785. Magniao v. Thompson (15 How. 281), 133. Magowan v. James (13 Sm. & M. 448), 341. Magowan v. Packing Co. (141 U. Si 332), 897. Maguire v. Allen (1 B. & B. 75), 717. Maguire r. Tvler (8 Wall. 651), 39. Mahan v. Ca vender (77 Ga. 118), 644 Mahauy v. Kephart (15 West Va. 609 1, 333. Maher v. Ball (39 111. 531), 415. Mahler v. Schmidt (43 Hun, 512), 1.54. Mahn v. Harwond (113 O. S. 354), 369. Maholm f. Marshall (39 Ohio Sl 611), 261. Mahoney Mining Co. v. Bennett (4 Sawy. 387', 750, 753. Mahr v. Society (127 N. Y. 461). 575. Main v. Mfin (N. J. Ch., 35 Atl. Rep. 373), 83d. Main v. Mel bourn (4 Ves. 730), 331. Major V. Ficklin (85 Va 733 ; 8 S. E, Rep. 715), 393. Majors v. McNeilly (7 Heisk. 299), 562. Makepeace v. Haythorne (4 Rusa. 344), 375. 294. Malcolm v. Andrews (68 111. 101), 613. Malcolm v. O'Callaghan (3 Myl. & C. 53), 730, 733. TABLE OF CASES. CXlll [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp 609-1012.] Malin v. Kinney (1 Caines, 117). 590. Malin v. Malin (2 Johns. Ch. 238), 87, 103. Mallett V. Weybosset Bank (1 Barb. 217), 333, 334, 788. Mallory Mf^. Co. v. Fox (30 Fed. Rep. 409), 611,670, 873. Mallow V. Hinde (12 Wheat 198), 101, 639. Manchester u Uey (6 Paige, 39,5), 326. Manchester Fire Ass. C'o. v. Stockton ARric. Works (38 Fed. Rep. 378), 77. 161. Manchester R. Co. i\ Worksop Board (23 Beav. 209 1, 759. Mande.ille v. Holey (1 Pet 138), 907. Mandeville v. Riggs (3 Pet 482), 634, 933. Mangels v. Donan Brewing Co. (.13 Fed. Rep. 513\ 37. 38. Manhattan &c. Manuf. Co. v. Van Keuren (23 N. J. Eq. 251), 780. Manhattan Co. v. Evertson (6 Paige, 457), 336. Manliattan Ins. Co. v. Broughton (109 U. S. 121), 40. Manisalt v. Deas (1 Bailey's Eq. 284), 843. Maniou v. Fahy (11 West Va 482), 840. Manistique Lumber Co. v, Lovejov (55 Mii-h. 189), 771. Jlankel v. Belscaraper^Wis., 54 N. W. Rep. 500), 947. Manley v. R^ssiga (13 Hun, 288), 738. Man ley v. Robinson (L. R. 4 Ch. 347), 176. Manlove v. Burger (38 Ind. 211), 733. Manly v. Leggett (17 N. Y. Supl. 68), 773. Mann v. Carlev (4 Cowen, 148), 236. Mann v. Higgins (83 Cal. 66; 33 Pac. Rep. 206), 148. Manu V. King (18 Ves. 297), 567, 568. Manners v. Furze (11 Beav. 30), 711. Manners V. Manners (2 N. J. Eq. 384), 639. Manners v. Rowley (16 Sim. 470), 154. Manning v. Lechmere (1 Atk. 453), 037. Manning v. Manning fl Johns. Ch. 527), 391. Manning v. Merrit (Clarke's Ch. 98), 355, 632. Mansell v. Feeney (2 J. & Hem. 330), 533, 535. Mansfield &c. Ry. Co. v. Swan (111 U. S. 379), 130. Mansur v. Churchman (84 Ind. 573), 958. Mansiir v. Pratt (101 U. S. 60), 60. Manufacturers' &c. Bank v. Folk (50 N. Y. St Rep. 802), 777. Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley (105 U. S. 175), 39, 154. Manufacturing Co. v. Huiske (69 Iowa. 557), 906. Many '•. Be^kmnn Iron Co. (9 Paige, 188), 1.55, 434. Many v. Jacrger (1 Blatchf. 376). 309. Ma pes V. Coffin (5 Paige, 290), 913. Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch, 137), 24. March v. Davison (9 N. J. Eq. 140), 545. March v. Davison (9 Paige, 580), 374. March v. Eastern R Co. (40 N. H. 566 1, 79. March v. England (65 Ala. 275), 548. March v. Mayei-R (85 111. 177). 306. Marchand v. Sahral (34 Fed. Rep. 316). 10. Margareson v. Saxton (1 Y. & CoL 532), 558. Margrave v. Le Hooke (3 Vern. 307), 371. Marin v. Lalley (17 Wall. 14), 923. Marin v. Thierry (29 La. Ann. 363), 343. 783. Marine Ina. Co. v. Hodgson (6 Cranch, 306), 966. Mai-kell v. Kasson (31 Fed. Rep. 104), 466. Market Co. v. Hoffman (101 U. S. 112), '23. Marks r. Fox (18 Fed. Rep. 713), 693. Mark.s AdjustiibleChairCo. v. Wilson (43 Fed. Rep. 303), 974. Marlatt v. Warwick (19 N. J. Eq. 439), 519. Marlbrough v. Marlbrough (1 Dick. 74), 38!. Marquis of Donegal v. Stewart (3 Ves. 446', 3.;3. Marquis of Downahire v. Lady San- dys (6 Ves. Jr. 107), 773. Marrow, In re (Craig & Ph. 142), 598. Marrow v. Brinkley (129 U. S. 178), 29. Marsden v. Brackett (9 N. H. 336). 657. Marselis v. Morris &c. Co. (1 N. J. Eq. 31). 120, 144, 150. Marsh, Matter of (MacA. & M. (D. C.) 33 1, 876. Marsh v. Crawford (1 Swan, 116), 356. Marsh v. Davidson (9 Paige, 580), 160, 361. Marsh v. Hunter (3 Mad. 437), 390. Marsli V. Keith (1 Dr. & Sm. 842), 864. Marsh v. Keith (6 Jur. (N. S.) 1183), 535 Marsh 'v. Lasher (13 N. J. Eq. 253), 865. CXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. It, pp. 609-IM2.] Marsh v. Marsh (16 N. J. Eq. 392), 273, 305. Marsh v. Mitchell (26 N. J. Eq. 497), 860, 415, 428. Marsh v. Nichols & Co. (120 U. S. 598), 908, 943. Marsh v. Seymour (97 U. S. 348), 370. Marsh v. Sibbald (2 Ves. & B. 375), 654. Marsh v. Whitmore (21 Wall. 178), 133. Marshall v. Baltimore &c. R Co. (16 How. 814), 41. Marshall v. Clifie (4 Camp. (N. P.) 183), 542. Marshall v. Holmes (141 tj. S. 597), 867. Marshall v. Marshall (86 Ala. 383 ; 5 So. Rep. 475), 147. Marshall v. Means (12 Ga. 61), 142. Marshall v. Olds (86 Ala. 296 ; 5 So. Rep. 506), 194. Marshall v. TurnbuU (34 Fed. Rep. 827), 125. Marsham v. Conklin (17 N. J. Eq. 282), 784. Marshman v. Conklin (21 N. J. Eq. 546), 126. Martin v. Atchison (Idaho, 33 Pac. Rep. 47), 734. Martin v. Atkinson (5 Ga. 390), 418. Martin v. Hunter (1 Wheat. 304), 933. Martin v. Maberry (1 Dev. (N. C.) Eq. 169), 481. Martin v. Martin (74 Ind. 207), 958. Martin v. Martin (118 Ind. 227), 648. Martin v. Martin (14 Oreg. 165), 733. Martin v. Michael (28 Mo. 50), 579. Martin v. Pbnd (80 Fed. Rep. 15), 221. Martin v. Porter (4 Heisk. 415). 240. Martin v. Rainwater (56 Fed. Rep. 7), 579 Martinius v. Helmuth (2 V. & B. 412), 983. Maryland v. Baldwin (113 U. S. 490), 39. Maryland &c. Coal & Iron Co. v. "Wright (8 Gill, 170), 377. Maryland &c. I. Co. v. Wingert (8 Gill, 178), 491. Mason v. Bair (88 111. 194), 303. Mason v. Codwise (6 Johns. Ch. 188), 983. Mason v. Craft (Fowl. Ex. Pr. 314), 588. Mason v. Crosby (3 Woodb. & M. 358), 696. Mason v. Cumberland &c. R Co. (53 Me. 82), 686. Mason v. Daly (117 Mass. 403), 186, 807, 952, 955. Mason v. Gardiner (4 Bro. C C. 478), 465. Mason v. Gardner (3 Bro. C. C. 609), 1004 Mason v. Hartford &c. R. Co. (10 Fed. Rep. 884), 186, 489. Mason v. Hartford &c. R Co. (19 Fed. Rep. 53), 50.5. Mason V. MoGirr (28 111. 322), 894, 447. Mason v. MuiTay (3 Dick. 586), 338, 781. Mason v. Northwestern Mu^ L. Ins. Co. (106 U. S. 163), 8, 918. Mason v. Railroad Co. (53 Me. 82), 474. Mason v. United States (136 U. S. 581), 903. Massa v. Cutting (80 Fed. Rep. 1), 23. Massachusetts v. Rhode Island (12 Peters, 755), 35, 261. Massachusetts Mufc L. Ins. Co. v. Chicago &c. R Go. (18 Fed. Rep. 857), 326. Massaker v. Mackerlv (9 N. J. Eq. 440), 988. Massey v. Gillelan (1 Paige, 644), 999, 1008. Massey v. Massey (1 Cheves (S. C). 159), 730. Massie v. Donaldson (8 Ohio. 377), 213, 337. Massie v. Graham (3 McLean, 41), 8r)3, 855. Massie v. Watts (6 Cranch, 148). 768. Masson v. Anderson (3 Baxt 390), 456, 589. Masson v. Swan (6 Heisk. 450), 212. Masters v. Beckett (88 Ind. 593), 462. Masterson v. Herndon (10 Wall. 416), 902. Masterson v. Howard (18 Wall 99), 53, 238. Masterson v. Pullen (62 Ala. 145), 547. Masterson v. Wiswould (18 111. 49), 237. Masterton v. Barney (11 N. J. Eq. 26), 784. Matli"r V. Schelmerdine (7 Beav. 267), lUlO. Mathews v. Chichester (30 Beav. 135), 1000. Mathis V. Pritham (Tex, 20 S. W. Rep. 1015), 737. Mattair v. Payne (15 Fla. 682), 453. Matter of Acct of Hawley (100 N. Y. 206), 866. Matter of Bank of Niagara (6 Paige, 213), 780, 732. Matter of Burton (1 Russ. 380), 602. Matter of Christie (8 Paige, 243), 599. Matter of Creigh (1 Ball & B. 108), 770. Matter of Eagle Iron Works (8 Paige, 511), 710, 711. Matter of Gibson (10 Ark. 572), 207. TABLE OF CASES. cxv [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-101*] Matter of Hemiup [d Paige, 305), 686. Matter of Kellogg (7 Paige, 265). 730. Matter of Marsh (MacA. & M. (D. C.) 32), 876. Matter of Neilley (75 N. Y. 390). 291. Matter of O'Hara (8 Law Reg. (N. S.) 1-13), 985. Matter of Piatt (53 How. Pr. 468), 743. Matter of Roberts (3 Johna Ch. 43), 730. Matter of Seaman (3 Paige, 409), 747. Matter of Van Home (7 Paige, 346), 754. Matter of Woven Tape Skirt Co. (85 N. Y. 506), 730. ^rutthew V. Hanbury (3 Vern. 187), 529. Matthews v. Cooper (31 N. Y. Supl. 71), 7.56. ?!iitthews V. Dunbar (8 West Va. 138), 414 ?ilatthew8 V. Lalanoe & G. Mfg. Co. (2 Fed. Rep. 233 1, 491. :\Iatthews i'. Lindsay (20 Fla, 962), 453. Matthews v. Roberts (2 N. J. Eq. 338), 331 332 339 Matthews v. Tufts (87 N. Y. 508), 238. Matthews v. Warner (6 Fed. Rep. 461), 10. ilatthewson v. Johnson (HofE. Ch. 560), 157, 355. Mattison v. Demarest (1 Rob. (N. Y.) 717), 474. Mattocks V. Tremain (3 Johns. Ch. 75), 612, 615, 616, 618. Maunsell v. Egan (3 Jones & Lat. (Ir.) 252), 713. Maury v. Lewis (10 Yerg. 115), 683. Maury v. Mason (8 Porter (Ala.), 218), 356. Maury v. Van Arnum (1 Hill, 370), 600. Maxwell v. Atchison &c. R Co. (37 Fed Rep. 386), 311. Maxwell v. Kennedy (8 How. 210), 291. Maxwell v. Smith (3 Pickle (Tenn.), 539), 796. Maxwell v. Wightwick (L. R. 3 Eq. 310), 318. May V. Armstrong (8 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 363), 453. May V. Coleman (84 Ala. 325 ; 4 So. Rep. 144). 424. May V. Gates (137 Mass. 389), 913. May V. Goodwin (37 Ga. 353), 483, 950. May V. Hardin's Ex'rs (13 B. Mon. 844), 934. May V. May (19 Fla, 373), 671. Mav V. Parker (18 Pick. 35), 288. -day V. Rice (101 U. S. 231), 874. May V. Williams (17 Ala. 33), 880, 890. Mayer v. Denver &a R. Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 197), 144 Mayer v. Salisbury (1 Barb. Ch. 546), 989, 991. Mayer v. Tyson (1 Bland, 564), 1000. Maynard v. Green (30 Fed. Rep. 648), 513, 513, 514 Maynard v. Moseley (3 Swanst. 653), 807. Maynard v. Percault (30 Mich. 160), 241, 844 Maynard v. Tilden (28 Fed. Rep. 688). 141, 198. Mayor v. Cooper (6 Wall. 347), 33. Mayor v. Denver &c. R. Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 738), 75. Mayor v. Lord (9 Wall. 409), 769. Mayor &c. v. Charley Water-works Co. (3 De G, M. & G. 853), 469. Mayor &c. v. Conover (5 Abb. 344), 309. Mayor &c. v. Levy (8 Ves. 398), 383, 304, 544. Mayor &c. v. Staten Island Ferry Co. (64 N. Y. 622), 779. Mayor &c. of York v. Pilkington (2 Atk. 303), 765. Mayor of Jersey City v. Morris Canal &c. Co. (13 N. J. Eq. 545), 790. Mayse v. Biggs (8 Head, 86), 482. Mazarredo v. Maitland (3 Mad. 66), 363, 437. Mazet V. Pittsburgh (137 Pa. St. 548), 405. McAllister v. Clopton (51 Miss. 357), 409. McArthur v. Montclair R Co. (37 N. J. Eq. 77), 731. McArthur v. Scott (113 U. S. 340), 79, 85, 88. McBee v. Marietta &c. Ry. Co. (48 Fed. Rep. 343), 44. McBee v. McBee (1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 558), 361. McBride v. Clark (1 Mol. 233), 747. McBride v. Grand de Tour Plow Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 162), 49. McBride v. Settles (Tex., 16 S. W. Rep. 422), 593. McBroom v. Wiley (3 Heisk. 58), 486. McCabe v. Cellows (1 Allen, 369), 76, 98, 156. McCabe v. Cooney (3 Sandf. Ch. 314), 356. McCabe v. Mathews (40 Fed. Rep. 338), 391. McCaflfrey v. Benson (40 La. Ann. 10; 3 So. "Rep. 393), 511. McCagg V. Heacock (43 111. 143), 447. McCahills v. Equitable L. Ass. Soa (26 N. J. Eq. 531), 233. McCall V. Graham (1 Hen. & M. 13)k 846. ox VI TABLB OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; VoL It, pp. 600-1012.] McCall V. Yard (11 N. J. Eq. 58), 96. McCallum w Beale (10 Price, 130), 563. McCan v. Ferrall (8 Olark & F. 30), 898. McCann v. Breese (1 HoRan, 139). 533. McCarthy v. Peake (18 How. Pr. UO), 716. McCaiiley v. McKeig (8 Mont 389), 663. McCauley v. Six (84 Ark. 379). 63.1. McClain v. French (3 Monr. 14M), 637. McClanahan v. Ware (43 Ala. 381), 78.'). McClane v. Shepherd (31 N. J. Eq. 76), 334, 488, 489. McClaskey v. Barr (38 Fed. Rep. 16.i>, 31.5, 316, 318, 3-,'3, 330, 339, 340, 347. McClaskey v. Ban- (40 Fed. Rep. 559), 115, 3,0, 434. McClaskey v. Barr (45 Fed. Rep. 151), 235. McClaskey u Barr (48 Fed. Rep. 130), 10, 444, 448. 450, 633, 80:i, 808. McClave v. Newark (31 N. J. Eq. 473), 166. McClay v. Norris (4 Gilrn. (111.) 370), 337 McClosky V. McCormick (44 111. 336), 270. McCliire v. Sheek's Heirs (68 Tex. 426), 591. McColluin V. Eager (8 How. 6), 7, 937. McCoinbu Spangler i71 Cal. 433; 13 Pac. Rep. 347), 90, 453. McCouihay v. Wright (131 U. S. 201), 15. McConnel v. Gibson (13 111. 138), 851. McConnell v. Hodsou (3 Giloi. fll..; 640), 447. McConnell r. Johnston (1 East, 431), 1000. McConnell v. McConnell (11 Vt. 390), 971, 976. McConnell v. Smith (83 III. 611), 447. McConnell D. Stettinius (7 111. 707), 48(). McCouoinv V. Reed (Pa.. 25 All. Rep. 176), 697. McCormack v. James (36 Fed. Rep. 14). 67.5, 6.S6. McCormick v. Chamberlain (11 Paii^e, 543), 333, 435. McCormick v. Graham's Adm'r (129 U. S. 1), 897, 903. McCormick v. Gray (13. How. 26), 23. McCoiinick V. Jerome (3 Blatclif. 486), 779. McCormick v. Sullivant (10 Wheat. 193), 131. McCormick v. Walthers (134 U. S, 41), 46. McCosker v. Brady (1 Barb. Oh. 346), 753. McCov V. BoJey (21 Fla. 803), 372, 275, 950. McCov V. Broderick (8 Sneed, 301), 1008. McCoy V. Rliodes (11 How. 131), 394. McCrady v. Jones (S. C, 15 S. E. Rep. 4H0), 6(i3, 910. McCrary v. Penn. Coal Co. (5 Fed, Kep. 367), 792. McCreary v. Canal Co. (141 U. S. 459), 897. McCredie v. Senior (4 Paige, 378), 910. McCreery v. Bav Circuit Judge (Micii., 53 N. W. Rep. 613), 159. McCullou.,'h V. Merchants' L. & T. Co. (29 N. J. Eq. 317), 710, 749, 751. McDaniell v. Goodall (3 Cold. (Tenn.) 3951 235 McDaniels v. Harbour (43 Vt. 460), 697. McDermaid v. Russell (41 111. 489), 220, 337. McDermott v. French (15 N. J. Eq. 79), (17. McDermott v. McGown (4 Edw. Ch. 593), 501. McDerniutt v. Stiong (4 Johns. Ch. 687), 580. McDonalil v. Asay (III., 37 N. E. Rep. 929), 533. McDonald v. Hovey (UO U. S. 619), 913. McDonald v. McDonald (16 Vt 630), ■ 394. McDonald r. Mobile Life Ins. Co. (56 Ala. 468). 339. McDonald v. Salera Capital Flour Mills Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 577), 41, 33.5, 339. McDonald v. Smalley (1 Pet 630), 39. McDonald v. Thompson (16 Colo. 13), 657. McDonald v. Whitney (39 Fed. Rep. 466), 850. McDormell v. Eaton (18 Fed. Rep. 71U, 146. McDonough V. O'Neil (113 Mass. 93), 696. McDongald v. Dougherty ( 11 Ga. 570), 474, 696. McDougald v. Dougherty (14 Ga. 674), 387. 463. McDonvall v. Miln (2 Paige, 325), 994. McDou^„ll V. Purrier (4 Russ. 486), 418. McDowell V. Cochrane (11 111. 81), 307. McDowell V. Logsdon (8 Bibb (Ky.)^ 229), 480. McDowell V. Morrell (5 Lea, 286), 64. McDowell V. Perrine (86 N. J. Eq. 632), 831, 833, 83a TABLE OF CASES. cxvu [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1U12.] McDuff u Beauchamp (50 Miss. 531), 497. McElroy v. Ludlum (33 N. J. Eq. 828), 408, 634. McElioy V. Swope (47 Fed. Rep. 380), 698. McElwain v. Willis (3 Paige, 505), 187, 520, 632. McElwaiQ V. Willis (9 Wend. 548), 645. McEneroe v. Decker (58 How. Pr. 250), 78R. McEvers v. Lawrence (HofE. Ch. 172), 735 McEvoy V. Trustees (38 N. J. Bq. 420), 206. McEwan v. Broadhead (11 N. J. Eq. 129), 120, 328, 329, 348, 485. McFadden v. May's Landing &c. R. Co. (49 Fed. Rep. 176), 813. McFadden v. McFadden (44 Oal. 306), 884. McFadden v. Murphy (149 Mass. 341), 81. McGarel v. Moon (L. R. 10 Eq. 22), 364. McGarnah v. Prather (1 Black, 299), 177. McGavock v. Elliott (3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 373), 240. McGee v. McGee (8 Ga. 395), 614, 616. McGee v. Smith (16 N. J. Eq. 463), 789, 813, 825. McGee v. Sweeny (84 Cal. 100), 804 McGehee v. Polk (24 Ga. 408), 619. McGinnis v. State 9 Humph. 53), 644. McGough V. Insurance Bank (3 Ga. 151), 160. McGowan v. Hall (Hayes, 17), 390. McGowin v. Remington (12 Pa. St 56), 761. McGown V. Wilkins (1 Paige, 120), 834 McGown V. Yerks (6 Johns. Ch. 450), 519 McGregor v. Shaw (3 De G. & S. 360), 999. McGuckin v. Kline (31 N. J. Eq. 454), 355, 356, 357, 439. McGuffie V. Planters' Bank (Freem. (Miss.) 383), 404 McGuire v. Circuit Judge (69 Mich. 593), 446, 463, 466. McGuire v. Wright (18 West Va. 507), 696. McHenry v. Jewett (90 N. Y. 58), 763. McIIenry v. Lewis (31 Ch. D. 202; 23 Ch. D. 397), 326. McHenry v. New York &c. R. Co. (25 Fed. Rep. 114), 718. McHu-ih V. Astrophe (20 N. Y. Supl. 877), 1002. Mcllhenny v. Binz (80 Tex. 1), 733. Mcintosh V. Alexander (16 Ala. 87), 158. Mcintosh V, Great Western Ry. Co. (1 Macn. & Gord. 73), 534 Mclntyre v. Trustees &c. (6 Paige, 239), 78. 130, 428. 431, 434. 544 McKaw V. Ordway (76 Ala. 247), 134 McKay v. McKay (38 West Va 514), 198. McKav V. McKay (33 West Va. 736 ; 11 S. E. Rep. 213), 414 425, 802, 803. MoKenster v. Van Sandt (1 Wend. 13), 478. McKenzie v. Bacon (40 La. Ann. 157), 829. McKenzie v. Ballard (14 Colo. 426), 779. McKevin v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (45 Fed. Rep. 464), 530. McKewan v. Sanderson (L. R. 16 Eq. 316), 349. McKibben v. Salinas (S. C, 15 S. E. Rep. 543). 271,275, 283. McKilibin v. Brown (14 N. J. Eq. 14), 789. McKim V. Odom (3 Bland (Md.), 407), 219. McKim V. Thompson (1 Bland, 150), 407,417, 911. McKim V. White Hall Co. (3 Md. Ch. 510), 374, 490. McKim V. Woodward (3 Sandf. Ch. 143), 374 McKinney v. Pierce (5 Ind. 423\ 696. McKinnon v. McKinnon (46 Fed. Rep. 713), 639. MoKisson v. Hunt (64 N. C. 300), 473. McKomb V. Kankey (1 Bland, 363), 879. McLane v. Johnson (59 Vt 337; 9 Atl. Rep. 857). 269, 413. McLard v. Linnyiile (10 Humph. 164), 376. McLaren v. Charrier (5 Paige, 530), 108, 508, 929. MoLauf^hlin v. Bank of Potomac (7 How. 320], 649, 658. McLaughlin v. Van Keuren (31 N. J. Eq. 379), 101. McLaury v. Hart (121 N. Y. 636), 762. McLean v. Lafayette Bank (3 Mc- Lean, 415), 153,566. McLeod V. Duncan (5 McLean, 343), 340. McLish V. Roff (141 U. S. 661), 30, 31, 32, 888, 889, 890, 893, 895. ^rcLui-e V. Colclough (17 Ala. 89), 389. McMahon v. O'Donnell (30 N. J. Eq. 3061,785. McMahon v. Rauhr (47 N. Y. 67), 591. CXVIU TABLE or CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pj). 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] McMahon v. Rooner (Mich., 53 N. W. Rep. 539), 134. McMeekin v. Richards (81 Ga. 193), 760. McMichael v. Brennan (31 N, J. Eq. 496), 416. McMicken v. Perin (18 How. 507), 827, 840, 863, 911, 925, 949. McMillan v. Eldridge (Harp. Eq. 360), 909. McMinn v. Phipps (3 Sneed (Tenn. ), 196), 831. McNamara v. Dwyer (7 Paige, 339 ; 32 Am. Dec. 631), 68, 69, 615, 617, 619, 621. McNeill V. Cahill (3 Bligh, 338). 635. McNeill V. Lawton (97 N. C. 16), 473. McNichol i\ Reporting Agency (74 Mo. 457). 210. McNiel V. Holbrook (13 Pet. 84), 528. MoNulta V. Lockndge (137 111. 270), 754. McNulta V. Lockridge (141 U. S. 327), 754. McNulta V. Lockridge (148 U. S. 1), 740. McNutt V. Bland (3 How. 9), 72. McPiierson v. Cox (96 U. S. 404), 448. McPherson v. Housel (13 N. J. Eq. 299), 990. McPherson v. Rockwell (37 Wis. 159), 951. McRae v. Boast (3 Rand. (Va.) 481), 585. McRae v. Singleton (35 Ala. 397), 485. McSween v. McCown (21 S. C. 371), 665. McTighe v. Wadleigh (32 N. J. Eq. 81), 604. McVey v. Ely (5 Lea, 438), 418. McVey v. Manatt (80 Iowa, 132 ; 45 N. W. Rep. 548), 17. McVeigh v. United States (11 Wall. 259), 53. McVickar v. Filer (24 Mich. 241), 638. McVicker v. Wolcott (4 Johns. 533), 337 McWhi'rter v. Halsted (24 Fed. Rep. 828), 173. Meach v. Chappell (8 Paige, 135), 603. Mead v. Arms (3 Vt 148), 840. Mead v. Coombs (26 N. J. Eq. 173), 410. Mead v. Day (54 Miss. 58), 409. Mead v. Lord Orrery (3 Atk. 2351, 711. Mead v. Merritt (2 Paige, 403), 767. Mead v. New York &c. R Co. (45 Conn. 199), 163. Mead v. Norris (21 Wis. 310), 877. Meadow Valley Mining Co. v. Dodds (8 Nev. 261), 705. Mealey v. Finnegan (Minn., 49 N. W. Rep. 207), 17. Meaux v. Pittman (35 La, Ann. 360), 778. Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of New Brunswick (3 N. J. Eq. 437). 690, 749. Mechanics' Bank v. Burnet Mfg. Co. (33 N. J. Eq. 336), 377, 414. Mechanics' Bank v. Goodwin (14 N. J. Law, 439), 1000. Mechanics' Bank v. Seton (1 Pet 299), 73, 77, 101, 949. Mechanics' Bank v. Levy (1 Bdw. Ch. 316), 371. Mechanics' Bank v. Levy (3 Paige, 606), 359, 364. M. E. Church v. Jaques (1 Johns. Ch. 65), 359, 361, 996. Mechart v. Halsey (3 Wils. 150), 606. Medler v. Albuquerque Hotel &c. Co. (N. Mex., 28 Pac. Rep. 551), 696. Meek v. Spracher (Va., 12 S. E. Rep. 397), 651, 661. Meeker v. Marsh (1 N J. Eq. 198) 342. Meeker v. Meeker (75 111. 260), 643. Meeker v. Sprague (Wash., 31 Pac. Rep. 628!, 789,742. Meetze v. Railroad Co. (23 S. C. 14), 644. Meier v. Kansas Pac. R. Co. (5 Dill. 476), 751. Meinhard v. Youngblood (37 S. C. 223 ; 15 S. E. Rep. 947), 345, 774 Meissner v. Buck (28 Fed. Rep. 161), 447. Melendy v. Barbour (78 Va. 544), 650, 789", 741. Melick V. Creamer (25 N. J. Eq. 429), 992. Melick V. Dayton (34 N. J. Eq. 245), 357 Melick 'v. Melick (17 N. J. Eq. 156), 62, 577. Meliorucchy v. Meliorucchy (3 Ves. Sr. 242 ; 1 Dick. 147), 1004, 1005, 1006. Melleu V. Mellen (27 Abb. N. C. 99), 643. Mellen v. Moline Malleable Iron Works (181 U. S. 358), 467. Melius V. Thompson (1 Cliff. 135), 498. Melville v. Matthewson (49 N. Y. Super. Ct 388), 348. Memphis v. Brown (30 Wall 289), 666. Memphis v. Brown (94 U. S. 715), 914. Menard v. Goggan (121 U. S. 253), 1011. Menasha v. Milwaukee &c. R. Co. (53 Wis. 414), 785. Mendenhall v. Hall (134 U. S. 559), 153. Mensing, Ex parte (55 Fed. Rep. 17X 576, 577. TABLE OF OASES. CXIX [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Mentz V. Cook (108 N. Y. 504; 15 N. E. Rep. 541), 16. Mei-cantile Bank v. Carpenter (101 U. a 567), 183, 391, 306, 911. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kanawha &c. R. Co. (.S9 Fed. Rep. 337), 703. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kanawha &c. Ry. Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 874), 730, 721. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Lamoille Valley R. Co. (16 Blatchf. 334), 326. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Missouri &c. Ry. Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 221), 708. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Missouri &c. Ry. Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 8), 458, 585, 990. Mercantile Trust &c. Co. v. R. I. Hospital Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 863), 383. Merced Mining Co. v. Fremont (7 Cal. 130), 341. Merchant v. Preston (1 Lea, 383), 356. Merchants' & Mechanics' Bank v. Griffith (10 Paige, 519), 7.50. Merchants' &c. Nat. Bank v. Circuit Judge (43 Mich. 392), 706. Merchants' &c. Nat Bank v. Kent (43 Mich. 292), 710. Merchants' Bank v. Stevenson (7 Al- len, 489), 187, 191. Merchants' Nat Bank v. Chattanooga Construction Co. (53 Fed. Rep. 314), 47. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Hogle (35 111. App. 543), 116. Merchants' Nat Bank v. Moulton (143 Mass. 543). 647, 908. Merchants' Nat Bank v. State Nat Bank (3 Cliff. 301), 538. Mercier ).'. Lewis (39 Cal. 532), 463. Meredith Village Sav. Bank v. Simp- son (32 Kan. 414), 739, 742. Meres v. Ansell (3 Wils. 275', 538. Merrewether v. Mellish (13 Ves. 439), 341. Merriam v. Barton (14 Vt 501), 910. Merriam v. Goss (139 Mass. 77). 675. Merriam v. Holloway Pub. Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 450), 383. Merrifield v. Ingersoll (61 Mich. 4), 883, 394. Merrill v. Elam (2 Coop. Ch. 513), 709. Merrill v. George (33 How. Pr. 331), 338. Merrill v. Houghton (51 N. H. 61), 361. Merrill v. Railroad Co. (54 Vt 300), 697. Merrill v. Washburn (88 Me. 189 ; 33 Atl. Rep. 118), 134 Merriman v. Norman (9 Heisk. 269), 482. Merritfc, In re (5 Paige, 135), 738. Merritt v. Brown (19 N. J. Eq. 286), 398. Merritt v. Lyon (16 Wend. 405), 603, 734. Merritt v. Merritt (16 Wend. 405). 788. Merry v. Freemon (44 Mo. 518), 91. Merry field v. Jones (3 Curt. 306), 775. Merry weather u. Mellish (13 Ves. 161), 536. Merserole v. Union Paper Collar Co. (6 Blatchf. 656), 33. Merwin v. Richardson (53 Conn. 334), 103, 132, 451. 984, 987. Merwin v. Smith (2 N. J. Eq. 183), 784, 817. Messer v. Storer (79 Ma 513; 11 Atl. Rep. 375), 132. Metcalf V. Cady (8 Allen, 587), 144, 152. Metcalf V. Hart (Wyo., 37 Pac. Rep. 900), 459. Metcalf V. Hervey (1 Ves. 348), 175, 170. Metcalf V. Landers (3 Bax. (Tenn.) 85), 24.5. Metcalf V. Metcalf (19 Ala. 319), 799. Metcalf V. Watertown (138 U. S. 586), 38 Metcalfe, In re (3 De G.. J. & S. 133), 58. Methodist Churches v. Barker (18 N. Y. 463), 776. Methodist Episcopal Church v. Jaques (8 Johns. Ch. 77), 682, 690, 700. Metier v. Metier (18 N. J. Eq. 370), 374, 383, 304. Metier v. Metier (19 N. J. Eq. 457), 543, 544, 545. Metropolitan Nat Bank v. Connecti- cut Mutual L. Ins. Co. (97 U. S. 73), 8. Metropolitan Nat Bank v. Rogers (53 Fed. Rep. 776), 947. Metropolitan Nat Bank v. St Louis Dispatch Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 57), 195. Metropolitan Nat Bank v. St Louis Dispatch Co. (U. S., 13 S. Ct Rep. 944 ; 36 Fed. Rep. 7231, 291. Metsker v. Bonebrake (108 U. S. 66), 695, 696. Metzner v. Bauer (98 Ind. 425), 744. Meux V. Bell (6 Sim. 175), 177. Meyer v. Bishop (37 N. J. Eq. 141), 816, 817, 830. Meyer v. Johnson (53 Ala. 337), 719, 720 733 Meyer v. Patterson (28 N. J. Eq. 239), 816. Meyer v. Pritchard (98 U. S. 875), 901. Meyers v. Block (130 U. S. 306), 773, 774, 778. Meyers v. Busby (83 Fed. Rep. 670X 370, 409. cxx TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contai Meyers v. Dulnth &c. R Co. (Minn., 5^ N. W. Rep. 140), 761. Miami Exporting Co. v. Gano (13 Ohio, 369>, 736. Michael v. Michael (111., 27 N. E. Rep. 694), 222, 224. Miclcles V. Thayer (14 Allen, 131', 636. Miclilethwaite v. Rhodes (4 Sandf. (.'h. 434', 1002. 1004, 1006. Micon V. Moses (72 Ala. 439), 708. Middleton v. Bankers' & M. Tel. Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 524), 670. Middleton Savings Bank v. Bach- arach (46 Conu. 513). 1.51. Middletowu v. Sherburne (4 Y. & C. 35H), 6.52. Midland Rv. Co. v. Island Coal Co. (1^6 Ind. 384\ 586, 591. Midmer v. Midmer (36 N. J. Eq. 299), 12'i, 127, 191. Milbank v. Jones (17 N. Y. Supl. 464), ,591. Miles r. Bacon (4 J. J. Marsh. 457), 464. Miles V. McCullough (1 Binn. 77), 228. Milear Miles (32 N. H. 147). 394, 408. Miles V. Strong (60 Conn. 393; 22 Atl. Rep. 9.59), 195. Milk V. Moore (89 111. 584), 649, 651. Mill V. Mill (13 Ves. 406), 549. Mill River &c. Ass'n v. Claflin (9 Allen, 101), 299. Millaudon v. Brugiere (11 Paige, 163). 991. Miller v. Avery (2 Barb. Ch. 582), 410, 411. Miller v. Bates (35 Ala. 580), 785. Miller v. Buchanan (5 Fed. Rep. 366), 427. Miller v. Clark (47 Fed. Rep. 850), 855, 856. Miller v. Clark (49 Fed. Rep. 695), 515, 517, 8.5.5. Miller v. Clark (53 Fed. Rep. 900), 847, 863, 970, 971. Miller v. Clark (138 U. S. 223), 23, 970. Miller v. Cobb (19 N. Y. Supl. 443), 653. Miller v. Cook '135 111. 190; 35 N. E. Rep. 756), 513. Miller v. Davidson (8 111. 518), 303. Miller V. Dungan (37 N. J. Law, 183), 328. Miller v. Faris (13 Heisk. 451), 653. Miller v. Fenton (11 Paige, 18), 317. Miller V. Gregory (16 N. J. Mq. 274), 356, 358. Miller v. Harris (7 Baxt (Tenu.) 101), 154. Miller V. Hild (14 N. J. Eq. (3 Stockt.) 35), 863, 864. Miller v. Houston City St. Ry. Co. (56 Fed. Rep. 366), 954. ns pp. 1-608; Vol. H, pp. 609-1012.] er V. Howland (26 N. J. Eq. 166), 689. er V. Hughes (S. C, 13 S. E. Rep. 419), 170. er V. Jamison (34 N. J. Eq. 41), 91, 103, 116, 275, 387. er V. Liggett & M. Tobacco Co. (7 Fetl. Rep. 91), 475. er V. Loeb (64 Barb. 454), 739, 755. er V. Louisville &c. R. Co. (83 Ala. 374 : 4 So. Rep. 842), 167. er V. Maddox (21 Ga. 337), 785. er V. McCan (7 Paige, 451), 101, 638. er V. McDougal (44 Miss. 683), 786. er V. Miller (1 N. J. Eq. 386), 528, 63i. er V. Miller (36 N. J. Eq. 423), 687, 693. er V. Parker (73 N. C. 58), 773. erv. Rogers (39 Fed. Rep. 401), 45. 519. er V. Rose (21 West Va. 291), 857. er V. Rushforth (4 N. J. Eq. 174), 8C4. er V. Sherry (2 Wall. 237). 767. er V. ToUeson (Harper's Eq. 145), 406. er V. Traphagen (6 N. J. Eq. 200), 343, 782, 783. er r. Wack (1 N. J. Eq. 205), 111, 394. er V. Washburn (3 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 161), 785. er V. Wheatley (1 Sim. 396), 436. er V. Whittier (36 Me. 585), 691. er V. Wilkins (79 Ga. 675 ; 4 S. E. Rep. 361), 232. er V. Wright (25 N. J. Eq. 340), 242. er Wagon Co. v. Carpenter (34 Fed. Rep. 433), 284. igan's Appeal (82 Pa. St 389), 853. igan V. Milledge (3 Cranch, 330), 100, 339. s V. Cobbv (1 Mer. 3), 877. s V. Dennis (3 Johns. Ch. 367), 237, 801. s V. Fry (3 Ves. & B. 9), 487. s V. Gore (30 Pick. 38), 408. s V. Hoag (7 Paige, 18), 507, 901, 918 919. s nHurd (33 Fed. Rep. 127), 142, 148. s V. Knapp (39 Fed. Rep. 592), 17, 68, 69. 8 V. McLeod (Mich., 49 N. W. Rep. 134', 244, 245. s V. Mason (120 Mass. 344), 446. s r\ Pittman (1 Paige, 490), 489, 557, 604. s V. Scott (43 Fed. Rep. 453), 357. s V. State (10 Jud. 114), 26a TABLE or CASES. CXXl [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. 11, pp. 609-1012.] Mills V. Webb (Ga., 15 S. E. Rep. 635), 704. Millsaps V. Pfeiffer (44 Misa 805), 161. MillspauKh v. MoBride (7 Paige, 509), 241, 863. Milner v. Harewood (17 Ves. 143), 520. Milner v. Meek (95 U. S. 352), 903, 930. Milner v. Milner (2 Edw. Ch. 114), 508, 513. Miltenberger v. Railway Co. (106 U. S. 286), 708. 716, 717, 718, 719, 731, 735, 726, 939. Milter v. Eastern Oregon Gold Min. Co. (45 Fed. Rep. 345), 47. Milwaukee &c. R. Co., Ex parte (2 Wall. 440), 923. Milwaukee &c. R. Co., Ex parte (5 Wall. 188), 713. Milwaukee &c. R Co. v. Howard (3 Wall. 356), 913. Milwaukee &c. R. Co. v. Milwaukee & St. Paul R Co. (6 Wall. 742), 513. Milwaukee &c. R Co. v. Soutter (1 Wall. 279), 913. Milwaukee &c. R Co. v. Soutter (2 Wall. 510), 753, 754, 813. Mimms v. McLean (6 Jones' Eq. 200), 335. Miner v. Markham (28 Fed. Rep. 387), 238. 257. Miner v. Smith (53 Vt 551), 94. Minerva v. Rodgers (1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 239), 281. Minke v. Hopeman (87 111. 450), 765. Minnesota Co. v. St Paul Co. (2 Wall. 609), 43. 44, 525, 906. Minor v. Stewart (3 How. 912), 408. Minor v. Woodbndge (3 Root, 377), 194. Minturn v. Seymour (4 Johns. Ch. 497), 323, 780, 781, 785, 787. Minuse v. Cox (5 Johns. Ch. 441), 549. Mississippi v, Johnson (4 Wall. 475), 205. Mississippi &c. R, Co. v. Ward (3 Black, 485), 23. Missouri v. Iowa (7 How. 660). 25. Missouri v. Iowa (10 How. 1), 35. Missouri v. Kentucky (11 Wall. 395), 25. Missouri &c. Rv. Co. v. Dinsmore (108 U. S. 30), 921, 936, 937, 938. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas &c. Ry. Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 151), 341. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 862\ 736. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 701), 727. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas Pac. Ry. Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 310), 740. Mitchell, Ex parte (12 S. C. 83), 720. Mitchell V. Bailey (3 Mad. 61), 287. Mitchell V. Bunch (3 Paige, 606>, 326, 609, 613, 615. 617, 631, 767. Mitchell V. Dowell (105 U. S. 430), 635. Mitchell V. Hayne (2 Sim. & Stu. 63), 175. Mitchell V. Hardie (84 Ala. 349), 854. Mitchell V. Hawley (79 Cal. 301), 778, Mitchell V. Lenox (2 Paige, 280), 99, 100, 287. Mitchell V. McKinney (6 Heisk. 87), 340. Mitchell V. Maupin i3 Monr. 185), 410. Mitchell V. Mitchell (20 N. J. Eq. 234), 331, 789. Mitchell V. Moore (95 U. S. 587), 116, 117. Mitchell V. Overman (108 U. S. 63), 800. Mitchell V. Smith (1 Paige, 287), 52, 544. Mitchell V. United States (9 Pet 714), 850, 955. Mix V. Hotchkiss (14 Conn. 32), 143, 148. Mix V. Mackie (2 Edw. Ch. 426), 625. Mix V. People (116 III. 267), 43.1, 441. Mobile Sav. Bank v. Burke (Ala., 10 So. Rep. 338), 146. Mocatta v. Murgatroyd (1 P. Wms. 393), 992. Moelle V. Sherwood (148 U. S. 21), 834. Moet V. CoQston (33 Beav. 578), 567. Mohawk Bank v. Atwater (3 Paige, 60), 549. Mohawk &c. R Co. v. Clute (4 Paige, 384), 177, 179. Mohler v. Wiltberger (74 111. 163), 473. Moies V. O'Neill (23 N. J. Eq 207), 784. Mole V. Smith (1 Jac. & W. 648). 66. Mollan V. Torrance (9 Wheat 537), 131. Monkhouse v. Corporation (17 Ves. 380), 886. Monroe v. Harkness (1 Cranch, C. C. 157). 877. Montague v. Dudman (2 Ves. Sr. 396), 160, 76.5. Montesquieu v. Sandys (18 Ves. 302), 137. 538. Montgomery, In re (1 Moll. 419), 730. Montromery v. dwell (1 Tenn. Ch. 169), 345, 444, 459, 857. Montgomery v. Pickering (116 Mass. 327), 947. Moody V. Gay (15 Gray, 457), 208. Moody V. Hebberd (11 Jur. 941), .568. Mooney v. Walter (69 Ala. 75). 692. Moor V. Welsh Copper Co. (1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 39), 333. Moore v. Armstrong (9 Porter (Ala.), 697), 295, 304. cxxu TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Moore v. Aylett (Dick. 643), 558. Moore v. Biuce (85 Va. 139), 676. Moore v. Clay (7 Ala. 742), 373. Moore v. Cooke (4 Hayw. (Tenn.) 84), 339. Moore v. Crawford (130 U. S. 122), 127, 168. Moore v. Diameut (41 N. J. Eq. 612), 597 Moore v. Edgefield (33 Fed. Rep. 498), 23 Moore'u. Ferrell (1 Ga. 7), 785. Moore v. Floyd (4 Oregon, 260), 906. Moore v. Gleaton (23 Ga. 142), 618. Moore v. Green (19 How. 69), 133. Moore v. Harper (1 W. N. 56 ; 14 W. R. 306 ; 3 Fowler's Ex. Pr. 166), 460. Moore v. Hawkins (19 How. 69), 133, 134. Moore v. Hudson (Madd. & Geld. 218), 615. Moore v. Huntington (17 Wall. 417), 465, 685, 843. Moore v. Hylton (1 Dev. Eq. 439), 787. Moore v. Lockett (3 Bibb, 67), 410. Moore v. Lyttle (4 Johns. Ch. 183), 30. Moore v. Martin (t B. Mon. 97), 651. Moore v. Meynell (1 Dick. 130), 615. Moore v. Moore (17 Ala. 631), 394. Moore v. Moore (3 Ves. Jr. 596), 838, 861. Moore v. Payne (7 Dana, 380), 657. Moore v. Reed (1 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 418), 785. Moore v. Simonds (100 U. S. 145), 981. Moore v. Simpson (5 Litt. 49), 655. Moore v. Stinson (144 Mass. 594), 806, Moore v. Usher (7 Sim. 383), 175. Moore v. Valda (151 Mass. 36-3), 610, 613. Moore v. Welsh Copper Co. (1 Eq. Abr. 39, pi. 14), 328. Moore v Wright (8 Ala. 84), 221. Moorer v. Moorer (87 Ala, 545 ; 6 So. Rep. 289), 170. Moorhouse v. De Passow (19 Ves. 435). 549. Moreau v. SafEarans (3 Sneed (Tenn.), 595), 156. Moredock v. Williams (1 Overton (Tenn.), 335), 339. Morgan, Ex parte (114 U. S. 174), 900. Morgan v. Blatchley (33 West Va. 155), 101. Morgan v. Carson (7 Leigh, 238), 18. Morgan v. Cur'enius (19 How. 8), 938. Morgan v. Fillmore (18 Abb. Pr. 217), 172. Morgan v. Hale (13 West Va. 713), 1000. Morgan v. Hardee (71 Ga. 741), 733. Morgan v. Jones (4 W. R 381), 311. Morgan v. Morgan (1 Atk. 53), 668. Morgan v. Morgan (10 Ga. 297), 511. Morgan v. Negley (53 Pa. St. 158), 776. Morgan v. Potter (17 Hun, 403), 713. Morgan v. Railroad Co. (1 Woods, 18), 317. Morgan v. Rose (23 N. J. Eq. 584), 916. Morgan v. Seward (1 Webst PaU Cas. 169), 161. Morgan v. Thorne (7 M. & W. 400), 55 57 Morgan v. Tipton (8 McLean, 339), 356, 463. Morgan County v. Allen (103 U. S. 515), 957. Morgan's &c. Co. v. Texas Cent Ry. Co. (137 U. S. 171), 45, 443. 459, 719. Morgan's Heirs v. Morgan (2 Wheat 290), 90. Moriarity v. Kent (71 Ind. 601), 734, 736;. 738. Monartv v. Mason (47 Conn. 436), 471. Moritz V. Miller (87 Ala. 332), 716. Morley v. Green (11 Paige, 340), 569. Morley v. White (L. R. 8 Ch. 731), 18. Morrell v. Dickey (1 Johns. Ch. 153), 980. Morrell v. Kelly (Mass., 31 N. E. Rep. 755), 683. Morret v. Westerne (3 Vern. 663), 96. Morris, Ex parte i9 Wall 605), 963. Morris v. Edwards (15 App. Cas. 309; 23 Q. B. D. 287), 273. Morris v. Gilmer (139 U. S. 315X 40, 484. Morris v. Hinchman (33 N. J. Eq. 301), 864. Morris v. M'Neil (2 Russ. 604), 613, 614. Morris v. Mowatt i3 Paige, 586), 834 Morris v. Mowatt (4 Paige, 142), 675. Morris v. Nixon (7 Humph. 584), 581. Morris v. Parker (3 Johns. Ch. 297), 366. Morris v. Peckham (51 Conn. 128), 685, 971, 993. Morris v. Peyton (29 West Va. 201), 798, 841. Morris v. Swaney (7 Heisk. 593), 65a Morris v. Taylor (33 N. J. Eq. 131), 11, 665, 675, 695, 698. Morris v. White (96 N. C. 91), 805, 863, 867. Morris n White (36 N. J. Eq. 324), 401, 403. Morris v. Woodward (35 N. J. Eq. 32), 819. Morris & Essex R Co. v. Haskins (26 N. J. Eq. 395), 791. Morris &c. R Co. v. Blair (9 N. J. Eq. 635), 393. Morris Canal Co. v. Bartlett (8 N. J. Eq. 9), 342, 782, 78a TABLTC OF CASES. cxxin (.The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. 11, pp. 609-1012.] Morris Canal Co. v. Dennis (12 N. J. Eq. 249), 329. Morris Canal &c. Co. v. Fagan (18 N. J. Eq. 215), 784 Morris Canal &c. Co. v. Jersey City (12 N. J. Eq. 227), 787. Morris Canal &c. Co. v. Matthiesson (17 N. J. Eq. 385), 791. Morris' Cotton (8 Wall. 507), 963. Morrison, In re (147 U. S. 14), 900. Morrison v. Buokner (Hemp. 443), 703. Morrison v. Durr (122 U. S. 518), 393, 400, 409. Morrison v. Kraemer (63 Mich. 238), 191. Morrison v. Mayer (63 Mich. 238', 422. Morrison v. Morrison (4 Hare, 590), 562, 563. Morrison v. Tumour (18 Ves. 183), 331. Morriss v. Garland (78 Va. 215), 906. Morrow v. Morrow (3 Tenn. Ch. 549), 453. Morse i;. Hill ( 136 Mass. 60), 404, 696. Morse v. Stearns (131 Mass. 389), 173, 983. Morss V. Dc iiestin Sewing Machine Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 483), 878. Mortimer v. Orchard (8 Ves. Jr. 343), 539 Mortimer v. Scares (1 El. & El. 399), 486. Morton v. Academies (8 Smedes & M. 773), 283. Morton v. Webb (7 Vt. 123), 487. Mortone v. Grenada Academies (2 Sm. & M 473), 283. Morville v. Fowle (144 Mass. 109). 952. Mosby V. Hunt (9 Heisk. 675), 676. Mosby V. Withers (80 Va. 83), 833. Moseley u. Garrett (1 J. J. Marsh. 213), 410. Moseley v. Partee (5 tieisk. 38), 843. Mo,ses V. Mayor (52 Ala. 198), 765. Moses V. McCall (75 III. 190), 671. Moses V. Mobile (15 Wall. 387), 927. Moses V. Murgatroyd (1 Johns. Ch. 473;, 980. Mosgrove v. Kountze (14 Fed. Rep. 315), 509. Mosher v. Heydrick (45 Barb. 549), 600. Mosher v. Joyce (51 Fed. Rep. 441 ; 2 C. C. A. 322), 629, 699. Mosley v. Lewis (4 Bibb, 160), 627. Moss V. Adams (82 Ark. 562), 950. Moss '). Anglo-Egj'ptian Nav. Co. (L. R 1 Ch. App. 108), 446. Moss V. Baldock (1 Phill. 118), 838. Moss V. Matthews (3 Ves. 379), 561. Mosser v. Bequest Mining Co. (36 N. J. Eq. 200), 790. Mossman v. Higginson (4 Ball. 12), 37. Mott V. Harrington (12 Vt. 199), 894. Mott V. Harrington (15 Vt. 185), 686. Mottu Mott (49 N. J. Eq. 192; 23 Atl. Rep. 997), 121, 126, 135. Mott V. Oppenheimer (135 N. Y. 316), 6. Mott V. Shreve (25 N. J. Eq. 438), 819. Mott V. Walkley (3 Edw. Ch. 590), 818. Mott Iron Works v. Standard Mfg. Co. (48 Fed. Rep. 345), 551, 552. Moulton V. Cornish (N. Y., 33 N. E. Rep. 843), 950. Moulton V. Reid (54 Ala. 320), 763. Mount V. Manhattan (41 N. J. Eq. 211), 316, 319. Mount V. Manhattan Co. (43 N. J. Eq. 26), 507. Mount V. Potts (23 N. J. Eq. 188), 450, 808. Mount Holly &c. Co. v. Ferree (17 N. J. Eq. 117). 176. Mount Olivet Cemetery Co. v. Budeke (2 Tenn. Ch. 480), 781. Mouselev v. Basnett (1 Ves. & B. 382), 487." Mower V. Fletcher (114 U. S. 128), 917. Mowry V. Davenport (6 Lea, 80), 589. Mowry V. Hawkins (57 Conn. 453), 17. Mowry v. Sanborn (65 N. Y. 584), 335. Moyers v. Coiner (33 Fla. 432), 716, 717. Mrzena v. Brucker (8 Tenn. Ch. 161), 136. Muehlberger v. Schilling (8 N. Y. Supl. 705), 119. Muir V. Trustees &c. (3 Barb. Ch. 477), 290, 294. Muldoon V. Muldoon (133 Mass. Ill), 179. Muldrow V. De Bose (2 Hill's (N. C.) Ch. 375), 475. Mulford V. Bowen (9 N. J. Eq. 797), 790. Mulford V. Reilly (83 N. J. Eq. 419), 864. Mulford V. Williams (8 N. J. Eq. 536), 676. Mullan V. United States (118 U. S. 271), 106. T'ullee, Re (7 Blatchf. 23), 876. Muller V. Dows (94 U. S. 446), 41. Mullett V. Christmas (3 Ball & B. 433), 1001, Mulligan v. Mitchell (1 Myl. &C. 438), 355 MuUir V. Pondir (6 Lans. (N. Y.)481), 729 Mulock'tt Mulock (1 Edw. Ch. 14), 659. CXXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages; Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Mulock V. Mulook (26 N. J. Eq. 462), 784, 789. Mulock V. Mulock (28 N. J. Eq. 15), 554, 55(). Mulvey v. Gibbons (87 111. 367), 64.S. Mumford v. Mumford (1 Gall. 366), 53. Muniford v. Murray (Hopk. Ch. 869), 108. Mumma v. Potomac Co. (8 Pet. 281), 497. MuDson V. Reed (Clarke's Ch. 580), 651. Murdock's Case (2 Bland, 261), 415. Murfree v. Leeper (1 Overton, 1). 998. Murphy v. American L. Ins. & T. Co. (25 Wend. 349), 907. Murphy v. Clark (1 Sra. & M. 236), 141. Murphy v. East Portland (42 Fed. Rep. 308), 23. Murphy v. Jackson (5 Jones' Eq. (N. C.) 11), 80. Murphy V. Savannah (73 Ga. 263), 849. Murphy v. Stults (1 N. J. Eq. 560), 638. Murray v. Ballou (1 Johns. Ch. 566), 336, 975. Murray v. Bluebird Min. Co. (45 Fed. Rep. 385), 34, 35. Murray v. Blunt (1 Barb. Ch. 59), 101. Murray v. Dehon (103 Mass. 11), 509, 576. Murray v. East India Co. (5 Barn. & Aid. 204), 505. Murray v. Elstou (23 N. J. Eq. 313), 537, 538, 789. Murray v. Finster (2 Johns. Ch. 155), 373. Murray v. Graham (6 Paige, 622), 270. Murray v. Johnson (1 Head, 354), 406, Murray v. King (5 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 238), 509. Murray v. Murray (5 Johns. Ch. 60), 507. Murray v. Shadwell (17 Ves. 353), 327. Murray v. Wheeler (Cr. & Ph. 114), 533. Murrell v. Watson (1 Tenn. Ch. 343), 674. Murrough v. French (3 Moll. 497), 753. Murrow v. Wilson (12 Beav. 497), 1005. Musgrove v. Lusk(5 Baxt. 689), 1008. Musgrove v. Lusk (3 Tenn. Ch. 576), 693, 798. Musgrove v. Nash (3 Edw. Ch. 173), 747. Muasey v. Curtis (60 Vt. 371), 593. Mussina v. Barllett (8 Porter (Ala.), 377), 391. Mussina v. Cavazos (6 Wall 355), 903, 936. Mussina v. Cavazos (30 Hovy. 280), 929 Mussina v. Clark (17 Abb. 188), 139. Mutual Benefit L. Ins. Co. v. Gould (34 N. J. Eq. 417), 822. Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Cokefair (41 N. J. Eq. 142), 441. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Goddard (33 N. J. Eq. 483), 571, 819. Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Pinner (43 N. J. Eq. 53), 257. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Sturges (33 N. J. Eq. 338), 120, 121, 818, 900. Mutual Safety Ins. Co. v. Roberts (4 Sandf. Ch. 593), 561, 636. Myatt V. Walker (44 111. 485), 643. Myer v. Myer (35 N. J. Eq. 28), 622. Myers v. Block (120 U. S. 206), 10. Myers v. Bradford (4 Johns. Ch. 434), 438. Myers v. Dorr (13 Blatchf. 33), 491. Myers v. Dunbar (13 Blatchf. 380), 670. Myers v. Fenn (5 Wall. 205), 579, 583, 584. Myers c. James (4 Lea, 370), 689, 691. Myers v. Morris (N. J., 11 Atl. Rep. 859), 185. Myers v. Murray (43 Fed. Rep. 695), 47. Myers v. Pickett (Tex., 16 S. W. Rep. 643), 851. Myers v. United States (1 McLean, 493), 713. Mynn v. Hart (9 Jur. 860), 999. N. Naddo V. Baroon (51 Fed. Rep. 493), 391, 393. N. & C. Bridge Co. v. Douglass (12 Bush, 676), 629. Nagle-Gilman v. Christopher (4 Ch. Div. 173), 637. Nail V. Punter (4 Sim. 474), 417. Nail Factory v. Corning (6 Blatchf. 338), 684, 690. Nanney v. Totty (11 Price, 117), 504, 505. Napier v. Napier (1 Irish Eq. 414), 390. Napier v. Staples (3 Moll. 270), 535. Nash V. New England &c. Ins. Co. (137 Mass. 91), 293. Nash V. Smith (6 Conn. 431), 100, 111. 177, 388. Nash V. Williams (30 Wall. 336), 528. Nashua &c. Corp. v. Boston &c. Corp. (49 Fed. Rep. 774), 676. Nashua &c. Corp. v. Boston &c. Corp. (51 Fed. Rep. 939), 689, 890, 891, 943, 945. TABLE OF OASES. oxxv [The reference* are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Nashua Railroad v. Lowell Railroad (136 V. S. 356), 43. Nashville &c. R Co. v. Orr (18 Wall. 471). 80. Nashville &c. Ry. Co. v. United States (113 U. S. 261), 798, 907. Nathan v. Whitlook (9 Paige, 152), 736. National Bank v. Colby (21 Wall. 609), 497. National Bank v. Insurance Co. (104 U. a 54), 269, 340, 345, 864, 950. National Bank v. Omaha (96 U. S. 7371, 934. National Bank v. Sprague (31 N. J. Eq. 458), 571, 818, 901, 910, 913. National Bank v. Sprague (21 N. J. Eq. .530), 511. National B;ink v. Sprague (33 N. J. Eq. 81), 689. National Bank v. Texas Investment Co. (74 Tex. 421 ; 13 S. W. Rep. 101), 148. National Bank of Commerce v. Smith (R. I., 24 Atl. Rep. 469), 195. National Fire Ins. Co. v. Sackett (11 Paige, 660), 243. National Furnace Co. v. Moline Mal- leable Iron Works (18 Fed. Rep. 863), 05W. 259. National Gas Light Co. v. O'Brien (38 How. 271), 343. National Life Ins. Co. v. Pingrey (141 Mass. 411), 172, 174. National Mechanics' Banking Ass'n V. Mariposa Co. (60 Barb. 423), 753. National Park Bank v. Halle (30 111. A pp. 17), 268. National Typographic Co. v. New York TypoDjraphic Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 71 f). 47. Nations v. Johnson (24 How. 195), 324 Naumburg v. Hyatt (24 Fed. Rep. 898), 740. Nauvoo V. Ritter (97 U. S. 389), 950. Navlor V. MiJdIeton (3 Mad. 131), 335. Neil fie V. Neafie (7 Johns. Ch. 1). 636, 637. Neagle, In re (39 Fed. Rep. 833), 19. 594. Neal V. Foster (34 Fed. -Rep. 496), 445, 446, 45S, 459, 463, 464. 465. Neal V. Rathell (70 Md. 543 ; 17 Atl. Rep. 566), 149. Neale v. Hagthrop (3 Bland, 551), 398, 405, 409. Neale v. Neale (9 Wall. 1). 183. Neate v. Duke of Marlborough (3 Myl. & C. 407), 645. Nebraska City Nat. Bank v. Nebraska Hydraulic &c. Co. (14 Fed. Rep. 763), 284. Needham v. Needham (1 Coop. Ch. 208), 563. Needham v. Smith (3 Vern. 463), 549, 837. Needles v. Deeble (1 Ch. Cas. 399), 96. Neilley, Matter of (95 N. Y. 390i, 291. Nellis V. Pen nock Mfg. Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 379), 193, 197. Nelson v. Barker (3 McLean, 379), 598. Nelson v. Dunn (15 Ala. 501), 446, 453. Nelson v. Hill (5 How. 127), 154, 156, 157. Nelson v. Pinegar (30 111. 473), 410. Nelson v. Robinson (Hemp. 464), 325, 787. Nelson v. United States (1 Pet C. C. 336), 558. Nephi Irrigation Co. v. Jenkins (Utah, 31 Pac. Rep. 986), 810. Nesbitt V. Dallam (7 Gill & J. 494), 382, 384. 390. Nesmith v. Calvert (1 W. & M. 34), 529. Nesmith v. Sheldon (6 How. 41), 894. Netherland v. Johnson (5 Lea (Tenn.), 343), 340. Nevada Co. v. Hicks (48 Ark. 515), 850. Neville v. Denieritt (3 N. J. Eq. 321), 393, 394, 549. Neville v. Neville (22 How. 500), 611. Nevins v. Baird (19 Hun, 30li), 593. Nevinsu. Egbert (31 N. J. Eq. 400), .^19. New V. Bane (10 Paige, 502) 325, 786. New Chester Water Co. v. Holly Mfr. Co. (53 Fed. Rep. 19). 39. New England Mortg. Sec. Co. v. Pow- ell (Ala., 12 So. Rep. 55), 269. New England Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Odell (50 Hun, 279), ISO. New England Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Wooaworth (111 U. S. 138), 210. New England Screw Co. v, Bliven (3 Blatchf. 240), 486. New Hampshire v. Louisiana (108 U. S. 76), 25. New Jersey v. New York (3 Peters, 461), 35. New Jei'sey i\ New York (5 Peters, 384), 25, 261. New Jersey v. New York (6 Peters, 323), 2i, 254, 299. New Jersey &c. R Co. v. Mayor &c. (23 N. J. Eq. 515), 908. New Jersey Franklinite Co. v. Ames (13 N. J. Eq. 507). 101. New Jersey Patent Fanning Co, v. Turner (14 N. J. Eq. 326), 337, 375. New Jersey S. F. Comm'rs v. Peters (33 N. j. Eq. 113), 819. CXXVl TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-' ; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Franklin Ins. Co. (29 N. J. Eq. 423). 769. New Jersey Zinc Co. v. New Jersey Frankiinite Co. (14 N. J. Eq. 308), 830, 831. New London Bank v. Lee (11 Conn. 112), 100. New Nat^ Turnpike Co. v. Dulaney (86 Ky. 516), 339. New Orlears v. Gaines' Adm'r (138 U. S. 612), 800, 964. New Orleans v. New Orleans &a R. Co. (108 U. a 15), 944 New Orleans v. New Orleans Water- works Co. (142 U. S. 79), 30. New Orleans v. Paine (147 U. S. 261), 763. New Orleans v. Peake (8 U. S. App. 403 ; 52 Fed. Rep. 74), 896, 920. New Orleans v. Telephone Co. (37 La. Arm. 593), 763. New Orleans v. Winter (1 Wheat 91), 37. New Orleans &c. Co. v. Dudley (8 Paigp, 453), 337, 652. New Orleans Canal & Banking Co. V. Stafiford (12 How. 327), 72. New Orleans C. & B. Co. v. Stafleord (12 How. 343), 72, 96. New York v. Louisiana (108 U. S. 76), 25 New York &c. R. Co. v. Schuyler (17 N. Y. 592), 287. New York &c. R. Co. v. Schuyler (34 N. Y. 30), 642. New York Attrition Co. v. Van Tuyl (2 Hun, 373), 773. New York B. & P. Co. v. New Jersey &c. Co. (137 U. S. 445), 530. New York Chem. Co. v. Flowers (6 Paige, 654), 390 New York Citv v. Boston &c. R Co. (86 N. Y. 107), 763. New York City v. Mapes (6 Johns. Ch. 46). 763. New York Dry Dock Co. v. Ameri- can Ins. & Trust Co. (11 Paige, 384), 807. New York Fire Ins. Co. v. Lawrence (6 Paige, 511), 438. New York Fire Ins. Co. v. Tooker (35 N. J. Eq. 409), 193. New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buf- falo Grape Sugar Co. (39 Fed. Rep. 505), 197. New York L. Ins. Co. v. Bangs (103 U. S. 435), 9, 10, 00. New York L. Ins, Co. v. Supervisors (4 Duer, 193), 762. New York Printing Estab. v. Fitch (1 Paige, 97). 762. New V. New (6 Paige, 237), 63, 64. Newark &c. R Co. v. Mayor &c. (23 N. J. Eq. 515), 649, 898, 908. Newark Aqueduct Co. v. Passaic (45 N. J. Eq. 394). 105. Newberrv v. Blatcliford (106 111. 584), 960. " Newbold ii. Peoria &c. R. Co. (5 111. App. 367), 722. Newby v. Harrison (3 De G., F. & J. 287), 775. Newby v. Oregon Cent. B. Co. (1 Sawy. 63), 345. Newcomb v. White (New Mex., 23 Pac. Rep. 671), 477, 478, 691, 696. Newcorab v. Wood (97 U. S. 581), 666. Newell V. Fisher (24 Miss. 392). 736. Newell V. Newton (10 Pick. 470), 529. Newell V. Partee (10 Humph. (Tenn.) 325), 774. Newell V. West (149 Mass. 520), 696. Newfound land Railroad Construction Co. V. Schack (40 N. J. Eq. 222X 130. Newhall v. Kastans (70 III 156), 173. Newland v. Gaines (1 Heisk. 720), 799. Newland v. Glenn (3 Md. Ch. Dec. 368), 827. Newland v. Honeman (2 Ch. Cas. 74), 554. Newland v. Rogers (3 Barb. Ch. 433), 148, 144. Newman v. Landrine (14 N. J. Eq. 291), 998. 1003, 1005, 1006. Newman v. Moody (19 Fed. Rep. 858), 574. Newman v. Newman (7 N. J. Eq. 26), 113. Newman v. Smith (77 CaL 33 ; 18 Pac. Rep. 791), 395. Newman v. Wallis (2 Bro. Ch. 143), 341. Newman v. White (16 Beav. 4), 346. Newport &c. Bridge Co. v. Douglass (13 Bush (Ky.), 673), 719. Newton v. Berresford (Younge, 377), 533. Newton v. Newton (46 Minn. 33 ; 48 N. W. Rep. 450), 17. Newton v. Russell (87 N. Y. 537), 777. Newton Mfg. Co. v. White (47 Ga. 400), 341, 343, 783. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Scammon (35 111. 582), 593. Niblett V. Daniel (Bunb. 310), 557. Nichol V. Nichol (4 Baxt 145), 447. Nicholas v. Murray (5 Sawy. 320), 324 NichoU V. Mason (21 Wend. 339), 487. Nicholl V. Nicholl (8 Paige, 349), 816. Nichols V. Ela (124 Mass. 333), 647, 681, 686, 687, 696. Nichols V. Horton (14 Fed. Rep. 327), 229. Nichols V. Padaeld (77 111. 253), 373. Nichols V. Rogers (139 Mass. 146), 133, 186. TABLE OF OASES. CXXVU [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n. pp. 609-1012.] Nichols u Williams (23 N. J. Eq. 63), 87. Nicholson v. Get -hell (96 Cal. 394), 759. Nicholson v. Patterson (2 Humph. 448), 959. Nickerson v. Atchison &c. R. Co. (30 Fed. Rep. 85), C28. Niokle V. Stewart (111 U. S. 776\ 853. Nicol V. Vaughan (3 Dow. & C. 420), 908. NicoU V. Roosevelt (3 Johns. Ch. 60i, 501. NicoU V. Trustees (1 Johns. Ch. 166), 971, 975. Niles V. Parks (Ohio, 34 N. E. Rep 735), 834. Niles V. Vanderzee (14 How. Pr. 547), 208. Niles V. Williams (24 Conn. 279), 17, 18. Nimocks V. Shingle Co. (110 N. C. 230), 760. Nimocks v. Welles (42 Kan. 39), 778. Niras V. Nims (20 Fla. 204), 685. Nix 7'. Draughan (Ark., 15 S. W. Rep. 893), 164. Nix V. Winter (35 Ala. 309), 126. Nixon V. Richardson (4 Desaus. 108), 613. Nobkissen v. Hastings (2 Ves. Jr. 87), 341. Noble V. Arnold (33 Ohio St 264), 777. Noble V. Stow (39 Beav. 409), 857. Noble V. Union Railroad (147 U. S. 165), 763. Noble V. Wilson (1 Paige, 164), 331, 438, 787, 788, 789. Nobles V. Hogg (S. C, 15 S. E. Rep. 359), 677. Noble's Adm'r v. Moses (81 Ala. 530 ; 1 So. Rep. 217), 123. Noe V. Noe (32 N. J. Eq. 469), 325. Noe's Adm'r v. Miller's Ex'r (31 N. J. Eq. 334), 984. Noel V. King (2 Madd. 393), 461. Noel's Adm'r v. Noel's Adm'r (West Va., 9 S. E. Rep. 585), 919. Nokes V. Gibbon (3 Jur. (N. S.) 382), 567. Nolan V. Shannon (1 Moll. 157), 551. Nones v. Hope Mut L. Ins. Co. (5 How. Pr. 96), 285. Non-magnetic Watch Co. v. Arsocia- tion Horlogere Suisse &c. (44 Fed. Rep. 6), 216. Non-magnetic Watch Co. v. Ass'n HorlO!;;ere Suisse &c. (45 Fed. Rep. 210), 232. Noonan v. Bradley (9 Wall. 394), 68. Noonan v. Bradley (12 Wall. 131), 840. Noonan v. Braley (3 Black, 499), 813. Noonan v. Caledonia &c. Co. (122 U. S. 317), 949. Noonan v. Lee (2 Black, 508), 133. Noonan v. Orton (34 Wis. 359), 507. Norcom v. Rogers (16 N. J. Eq. 484), 63, 63. Norden v. Williamson (1 Taunt. 878), 549. Norman, In re (11 Beav. 401), 998. Norman v. Hudleston (64 111. 11), 447. Norris' Appeal (64 P/t. St. 275), 644. Norris v. Atlas Steamship Co. (37 Fed. Rep. 424), 77. Norris v. Campbell (27 Md. 688), 409. Norris v. Haggin (136 TJ. S. 386), 291. Norris v. Lemen (28 West Va. 336), 132 Norris v. Le Neve (3 Atk. 26), 854. North V. Earl of Slraflford (3 P. Wms. 148), 378. North V. Kizer (78 111. 173), 267, 368. North V. Peters (138 U. S. 372), 809. North American Coal Co. v. Dyett (8 Edw. Ch. 115), 508, 509, 567. North Carolina R. Co. v. Swasey (33 Wall. 405), 936. North Penn. Coal Co. v. Snowden (43 Pa. St 488), 644. Northam Bridge Co. v. Southampton Ry. Co. (li Sim. 42), 662. Northampton Nat. Bank v. Crafts (145 Mass. 444), 100. Northcote v. Northcote (1 Dick. 28), 442. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Amacker (C. C. App., 49 Fed. Rep. 529), 294. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Amato (144 U. S. 465), 37. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Amato (49 Fed. Rep. 881; 1 U. S. App. 113; 1 C. C. A. 4fi8), 31, 33. Northern Pac. R Co. v. Glaspell (49 Fed. Rep. 483), 627, 891. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Paine (119 U. S. 561), 6. Northern Pac. R Co. v. Roberts (42 Fed. Rep. 734), 383. Northern Pac. R. Co v. St Paul &c. Ry. Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 536), 636, 917. Northern Pac. R Co. v. Sanders (47 Fed. Rep. 604), 630. Northeiu Pac. R. Co. v. Walker (47 Fed. Rep. 681\ 154. Northern Railroad v. Ogdensburg R. Co. ( 18 Fed. Rep. 815 ; 20 Fed. Rep. 347), 449. Northrop v. Hatch (6 Conn. 361), 545. Northwest Fuel Co. v. Brock (139 U. S. 216), 862, 963. Norton, Ex parte (108 U. S. 337), 917, 933. Norton v. European &c. Rv. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 865), 45. CXXVIll TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages; Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Norton v. Hepworth (1 Hall & Twell. 158), .504 Norton v. Kosboth (Hopk. Ch. 101), 480. Norton v. Ladd (33 Conn. 304). 909. Norton v. Walsh (49 Fed. Rep. 769), 831, 833. Norton V. Warner (8 Edw. Ch. 106), 93, 365. Norton v. Whiting (1 Paige, 578), 700. Norton V. Woods (5 Paige, 349 1, 157. Norton v. Woods f5 Paige, 360), 137, 157, 438, 431, 438. Norwicli &c. R. Co. v. Storey (17 Conn. 3J4 . 545. Norwood V. Riddle (18 Ala. 425), 307. Nott ('. Hill (6 Paine, 9), 233. Novvell V. Boston Academy &c. (130 Mass. 309). 949. Noves V. Canada (80 Fed. Rep. 665), 360. Noves V. Crawley (10 Ch. D. 31), 390. Noyes V. WiUarU (1 Woods, 187), 315, 318, 319. Nudd I'. Powers (136 Mass. 373), 117. Niii^^nt n Sinvth (Mosely, 354), 334. Nunn V. Lonier (13 Jur. 236). 48.5. Nunu V. Nunn (60 Ala. 85), 556. Nussenr V. Arnold (13 Serg. & R. 333), 553. Nyhurg V. Pearce (85 III. 393), 449). Nye V. Slaughter (37 Miss. 638), 506. o. Oatey v. Bend (3 Edw. Ch. 4S3i, 108. Oak lev V. Paterson Bank (3 N. J. Eq. 173), 130. Oatsu Chapman (1 Ves. Jr. .543; 3 Ves. Jr. 100). 863. Oher V. Galla-her (93 U. S. 199), 41. Obert V. Obert (10 N. J. Ecj. 98), 147 . 6:i9. O'Brien v. Fry (83 III. 374), 394. O'Bi-ien V. Heeney (2 Edw. Ch. 843), 1110. O'Brirn V. Hulfish (22 N. J. Eq. 471), 3.-).S. O'Brien v. Stephens (11 Gratt. 610), 3.)3. O'Bri'-n County v. Brown (1 Dill. 5W). 43. 0'Call^if>lian v. Cooper (5 Ves. 129), !I8I. O'CalhiK-han v. Miiphy (3 Sch. & Lef. l.")8), 551. O'Cotuiell V. MiNamara (3 Dru. & War. 411), 885. O'Coiinell V. Rea (51 111. 306), 1000. O'Oinuer V. Blake (39 Cal. 812), 485. O'Couner v. Cook (8 Ves. 536), 661. O'Connor v. Debraine (3 Edw. Ch. 330), 633. O'Connor v. Sierra Nevada Ca (34 Beav. 435), 1000. O'Connor v. Starke (59 Miss. 481), 343. Oddeen v. Oakley (3 De G., F. & J. 158), 780, 7 '1. O'Dell V. Hart (1 M)ll. 493), 562. O'Donnell v. A.cMarn (3 Abb. Pr. 391), 778. O'Dowd V. Russell (14 Wall. 402), 903. Oelrichs v. Spain (15 Wall. 311), 18, 777, 951. O'Fallon v. Clopton (89 Mo. 284), 101. Offeley v. Morgan (Cary, 107), 369. Oy;burn v. Dunlap (9 Lea, 163), 589. Ogden V. Kipp (6 Johns. Ch. 161), 716. Ogden V. Knight (3 Tenn. Ch. 396), 587, 589. Ogden V. Larrahee (70 111. 510), 960. Ogden V. Thornton (39 N. J. Eq. 569), 191. Ogilvie V. Heme (13 Ves. 563), 248. Ogilvie V. Knox Ins. Co. (2 Black, 539), 79, 584, 936. Ogle V. Brandling (2 R & M. 688), 637. Ogle V. Koerner (111., 29 N. E. Rep. 563), 474. Ogle V. Morgan (1 De G., M. & G. 859), 837. Ogleshv V. Attrill (13 Fed. Rep. 227), 850. Oglesby v. Attrill (14 Fed. Rep. 214), 196, 595. Ogsbury v. La Forge (2 N. Y. 114), 471. O'Hara, Matter of (8 Law Reg. (N. S.) 113), 985. O'Hara v. McConnell (93 U. S. 150), 60, 88, 213, 337, 338, 350, 356, 358, 906. O'Hara v. Shepherd (3 Md. Ch. 306), 508. O'Hare v. Downing (130 Mass. 16), 131, 303, 490, 953. Ohio V. Ellis (10 Ohio, 456), 157. Ohio &o. R Co. V. Central Trust Co. (183 U. S. 83), 338. Ohio &c. R. Co. V. Wheeler (1 Black, 386), 41. Ohrly V. Jenkins (1 De G. & S. 548), 818. Oil Run Petroleum Co. v. Gale (6 West Va. 545), 717. Ok-ott V. Hendrick (141 U. S. 543), 836. Olden V. Hubbard (34 N. J. Eq. 85), 133, 390, 391, 393. Oldfield V. Cobbett (1 Pliil. 613), 1007. Oldham v. Eboral (1 Coop. Sel. Cas. 37), 515, 535, 885. Oldham r. Oldham (7 Ves. 410), 618. Olds V. Tucker (35 Ohio St 581), 741. Oleson V. Northern Pac. R. Ca (44 Fed. Rep. 1), 33. TABLE OF OASES. CXXIX [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp 1-008; Vol. II, pp. C09-1018.] Oliphint V. Mansfield (36 Ark. 191), 777. Oliva V. Bunaforza (31 N. J. Eq. 895), 67, 99, 153. Oliver u Palmer (11 Gill & J. 137), 841. Oliver v. Piatt (8 How. 334), 143, 157, 69.-.. Olney v. Eaton (06 Mo. 563'. 804. OIneV V. Tanner (10 Ted. Rep. 101 ; 21 Blatohf. 540), 744. Olson V. City of Topeka(43 Kan. 709), 327. Omalia Horse Rv. Co. v. Cable Tram- way Co. (32Fed. Rep. 727), 117. Omaha Horse Rv. Co. v. Cable Tram- way Co. i33 Fed. Rep. 689), 38. 519. Omaha Hotel Co. v. Wade (97 U. S. 13), 93. O'Mahoney v. Belmont (63 N. Y. 133), 714, 747, 751. O'Mahoney v. Belmont (37 N. Y. Super.' Ct 223), 733. Oriiychiind v. Barker (1 Atk. 21), 384. O'Neil V. Breese (N. Y. L. Jour., May 10. 189:i), 759. Onse V. Truelock (3 Moll. 41), 606. Only V. Walker (3 Atk. 407), 409. Ontario Bank v. Root (3 Paige, 478), 374. Opdyke v. Marble (18 Abb. 266, 875), 139. Oppenheim v. Leo Wolf (3 Sandf. Ch. 571), 174. Oram v. Dennison (18 N. J. Eq. 438), 246. Orchard v. Hughes (1 Wall. 73), 812. Orciitt V. Orms (3 Paige, 459). 321, 332. Oregon & Trans. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 428), 517. O'Reilly V. Brady (28 Ala. 530), 692. O'Reilly V. Campbell (116 U. S. 418i, 947. O'Reilly V. Edrington (96 U. S. 724), 934. Orendorf u Budiong (12 Fed. Rep. 24), 303. Oren'lorff v. Tallman (90 Ala. 441; 7 So. Rep. 831), 77, 124. Organ v. Gardiner (1 Ch. Cas. 831), 88.-). Orient Mut. Ins. Co., In re (21 N. Y. Supl. 237), 731. Orme v. McPiierson (86 Ga. 571), 613, 618. Ormsl)y, hi re (1 Ball & B. 189). 730, 733. Ormsby v. Palmer (1 Hogan, 191), 888. Orndoff V. Turner (2 Leigh, 209'. 833. Ori)han Asylum v. McCarter (Hopk. Ch. 873,479. Orr V. Littlefield (1 Wood & M. 18), 784, 785. I Orr V. Merrill (1 W. & M. 376), 784 Orr W. D. Co. v. Larcombe (14 Nev, 53), 17-.'. Orrell v. Biisc.h (L. R. 5 Ch. App. Cas. 467 . 587. Orrell Collier & Fire Brick Co., Inre (13 Ch. Div. 681), 469. Ortley v. Messere (7 Johns. Ch. 189), 62. 211. Orvis V. Cole (14 III. App. 2S3), 264. Orvis V. Powell (98 U. S. 176i, 8, 9. Ociborn v. Bnnk of United States (9 Wheat. 739 , 32, 33, 39. Oshorn v. Cloud (23 Iowa, 104), 486. Oshorn V. Jullion ^3 Drew. 5.53 , 300. Osborn v. Railroad Co. (3 Flippin, 506), 43. Osborne v. Harvey (1 Y. & Coll. fCh.) 116, 71.5. Osborne v. O'Reilly |34 N. J. Eq. 60), 553. Osborne v. Wisconsin Cent. R Co. 143 Fed. Rep. 834). 150. Osborne &c. ?'. Barge (30 Fed. Rep. 805, 45, 303, 45 i. Osgood V. Franklin (3 Johns. Ch. 1), 68. Osgood V. Joslin (3 Paige, 195 , 56.5. Osgood V. Whittlesey (30 How. Pr. 73), 421. Ostrander v. Weber (114 N. Y. 95; 31 N. E. Rep. 112). 16, 17. Oteri V. Scalzo 1 145 U. S. 578), 666. Otis V. Forman (1 Barb. Ch. 30), 871, 974. O^oe V. Brown (16 Neb. 395), 992. Ottey V. Pensam (1 Hare, C:6), 688. Outcalt V. Disborough (3 N. J. Eq. 214), 131. Outcalt V. George W. Helme Ca (42 N. J. Eq. 665), 640. Outtrin v. Graves (1 Barb. Ch. 49), 973. Cutwater ?i. Berry (0 N. J. Eq. 63), 2H3, 50S. Overman Wheel Co. v. Pope Manuf. Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 577), 47. Overton v. Biglow (10 Yerg. 50), 850. Oveiton V. Railroad Co. (10 Fed. Rep. 866), 703. Overton v. Woolfolk (6 Dana, 874), 360. Overv V. Leighton (3 Sim. & Stu. 234), 436. Owden v. Campbell (8 Sim. 551), 67. Owen V. Apel (68 111. 391), 180. Owen V. Bankhead (83 Ala. 399 ; 3 So. Rep. 97), 300, 842. Owen V. Brien (3 Cooper, Ch. (Tenn.) 395), 335, 326. Owen V. Frink (24 Cal. 177), 547. Owen V. Griffith 1 1 Ves. Sr. 250), 909. Owen V. Homan (3 Macn. & G. 378), 703. cxxx TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1018.] Owen V. Thomas (3 M. & K 353), 543, 591. Owen V. Wynn (9 Ch. D. 29), 367. Owens V. Ohio Cent R. Co. (20 Fed. Rep. 1013), 36. Owing's Case (1 Bland, Ch. (Md.) 370), 63. O wings V. Hull (9 Peters, 607), 530. Owings V. Kincannon(7 Pet 399), 903. Owings V. Rhodes (65 Md. 408), 884. Owings V. Worthington (10 Gill & J. 283). 910. Oxenham v. Esdaile (McL. & Y. 540), 310. Oyster v. Oyster (38 Fed. Rep. 909), 636. Ozark Land Co. v. Leonard (34 Fed. Rep. 658), 371. P. P. & M. Bank v. Walker (7 Ala. 926), 485. P. & M. Bank v. Willis (5 Ala. 770), 485. Pace V. Battles (45 N. J. Eq. 371), 363. Pacific Postal Tel. Co. ix Irvine (49 Fed. Rep. 113), 130. Pacific R. Co. V. Atlantic &c. R Co. (30 Fed. Rep. 377), 148. Pacific R. Co: V. Ketchum (101 U. S. 389), 38, 73, 797, 907, 908. Pacific R. Co. V. Missonii Pac. Ry. Co. (1 McCrary, 647), 208, 314 Pacific R. Co. V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (95 U. S. 1), 955. Pacific R. Co. V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Ill U. S. 505), 44, 126, 138, 283, 868. Pacific Railroad Removal Cases (115 Tj o 1^ oo oo Packet Co. 'v. (jatlettsburg (105 TJ. S. 559), 267. Packwood V. Gridley (39 111. 388), 634. Paddock v. Commercial Ins. Co. (104 Mass. 521), 696. Padgett V. Baker (1 Tenn. Ch. 222), 178. Page V. Fall River &c. R Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 357), 41. Page V. Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel. Co. (3 Fed. Rep. 330), 836. 854. Page V. Young (106 Mass. 313), 16. Paine v. Frazier (4 Scam. (111.) 5.5). 394. Paine v. Trask (56 Fed. Rep. 335), 95,"). Paine v. Warren (33 Fed. Rep. 357). 161, 533, 539. Palmer v. Carlisle (1 Sim. & Stu. 433), 93, 97. Palmer v. Elliott (4 Edw. Ch. 643), 983. Palmer v. Foley (71 N. Y. 106), 773. Palmer v. Hicks (17 Ark. 505), 1000. Palmer v. Mead (7 Conn. 149), 453. Palmer v. Murray (10 How. Pr. 545), 736. Palmer v. Stevens (100 Mass. 461), 100, 329. Palmer v. Van Doren (3 Edw. Ch. 384), 477. Palmer v. Van Doren (3 Edw. Ch. 425), 612, 613. Palmer v. Walesby (L. R 3 Ch. App. 732), 468. Palo Alto Banking &a Co. v. Mahar (65 Iowa, 74), 786. Palys V. Jewett (33 N. J. Eq. 302), 647. Pam V. Vilrner (54 How. Pr. 235), 16. Pankey v. Raum (51 111. 88), 734. Pannell v. Taylor (Turn. & Russ. 96), 615, 619. Panton v. Labertouche (1 Phill. 265), 1002. Paper Bag Machine Cases (105 U. S. 766), 909. Paradice v. Shepherd (1 Dick. 136), 1007. Pariente v. Bensusan (13 Sim. 522), 877. Parish v. Reeve (63 Wis. 315), 776. Park V. Johnson (7 Allen, 378), 633, 828. Park V. Peck (1 Paige, 477), 990. Parke v. Brown (12 IlL App. 391), 463, 464. P.irker, Ex parte (120 U. S. 737), 930. Parker v. Appletou (3 Bro. C. C. 437), 613. Parker v. Baker (8 Paige, 438), 598. Parker v. Barker (42 N. H. 78), 177, 179. Parker v. Browning (8 Paige, 388), 739. Parker v. Dacres (130 U. S. 43), 8. Parker v. Dee (3 Ch. Cas. 300), 86a Parker v. Dillard (5 Va. Law J. 389), 846. Parker r. Flagg (137 Mass. 38), 952. Parker v. Grant (1 Johns. Ch. 630), 341, 343. Parker v. Hartt (32 N. J. Eq. 235), 358. Parker v. Hotchkiss (1 Wall Jr. 369), 238. Parker v. Jameson (33 N. J. Eq. 233), 358. Parker v. Kingman (136 Mass. 141), 741. Parker v. Leigh (6 Mad. 115), 445. Parker v. Lincoln (12 Mass. 16), 60. Parker v. Logan (83 Va. 376 ; 4 S. R Rep. 613), 833, 919. Parker v. Morrill (106 U. S. 1), 33. Parker v. Nickerson (137 Mass. 487), 17, 647, 675, 686, 687. TABLE OF CASES. CXXXl [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1013.] Parker v. Nightingale (6 Allen. 341), 150. Parker v. Parker (61 111. 369), 485. Parker v. Parker (12 N. J. Eq. 105), 614, 615, 622. Parker v. Porter (4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 81), 485. Parker v. Root (7 Johns. 820), 590. Parker v. State (Ind., 33 N. E. Rep. 119). 568. Parker v. Stevens (3 N. J. Eq. 56), 70. Parker v. Town of Concord (39 Fed. Rep. 718), 684. Parker v. Whitby (T. & R 371), 554, Parker v. Williams (4 Paige, 439), 596, 781. Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake &c. Co. (2 Black, 545), 18. Parkhurst v. Kinsman (2 Blatchf. 72), 516. Parkhui'st v. Van Cortlandt(l Johns. Ch. 273), 331. Parkinson v. Trousdale (3 Scam. 370), 785. Parks V. Booth (102 U. S. 96). 370, 698. Parley's Park &c. Co. v. Kerr (130 TJ. S. 3.^6), 6. Parmiter v. Parmiter (3 De G., F. & J. 4B1), 836. Parr v. Pell (9 Ir. Eq. 54), 740. I'arrott v. Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. (5 Fed. Rep. 391), 257. Parry v. Perryman (1 Coop. Ch. 208), 563. Parson v. Charter Oak L. Ins. Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 805), 747. Parsons v. Greenville Co. (1 Hughes, 279), 486. Parsons v. Hardy (31 L. J. Ch. 400), 418. Parsons v. Heston (11 N. J. Eq. 155), 136. Parsons v. Howard (2 Woods, 1), 78. Parsons u Johnson (84 Ala. 254; 4 So. Rep. 885), 188, 195. Parsons v. Monroe Mfg. Co. (4 N. J. Eq. 187), 130. Parsons v. Robinson (122 U. S. 112), 917 922 925 Partee v. Kartrecht (54 Miss. 66), 367. Partee v. Mathews (53 Miss. 140), 645. Parteriche v. Powlet (3 Atk. 383), 528. Partington v. Reynolds (6 W. R 307), 998. Partington v. Reynolds (6 W. R 615), 854. Partridge v. Haycraft (11 Ves. 570), 437, 443. Partridge v. Jackson (2 Edw. Ch. 530), 109. Partridge v. Perkins (33 N. J. Eq. 399), 85,'). Partridge v. Usborne (5 Russ. 195), 855. Partridge v. Wells (30 N. J. Eq. 176), 291 292 Paschal, iJeVlO Wall. 483), 873, 873, 985. Pasman v. Montague (30 N. J. Eq. 885), 186. Pasteur v. Blount (51 Fed. Rep. 610), 899. Pasteur Chamberlain Filter Co. v. Funk (52 Fed. Rep. 146), 773. Paterson v. Bangs (9 Paige, 627), 76, 544. Paterson v. Scott (Seton on Decrees, 1154). 836. Paterson &c. R Co. v. Jersey City (9 N. J. Eq. 434), 131, 122. Paton V. Majors (46 Fed. Rep. 310), 160. Patrick v. Eels (80 Kan. 680), 734. Patrick v. Isenhart (20 Fed. Rep. 339), 271. Patriotic Bank v. Bank of Washing- ton (5 Cranch, C. C. 602), 435. Patten Paper Co. v. Kaukauna Power Co. (70 Wis. 659 ; 35 N. W. Rep. 737), 84, 156. Patterson v. Ackerson (1 Edw. Ch. 96), 660. Pattei-son v. Gaines (6 How. 550), 410, 649. Patterson v. Kellogg (53 Conn. 38), 153, 685. Patterson v. Pagan (18 S. O. 589), 286. Patterson v. Read (43 N. J. Eq. 18), 881. Patterson v. Scott (111.. 31 N. E. Rep. 433), 893. Pattison v. Skillman (43 N. J. Eq. 392), 867. Pattou V. J. M. Brunswick & Balke Co. (Fla., 2 So. Rep. 366), 684. Patton V. Taylor (7 How. 182). 133. Paul V. Hurlbert (5 Rep. 738), 486. Paul i: Nixon (1 Bland, Ch. 200), 332. Paul V. Paul (2 Hen. & M. .125), 657. Paul V. Vhginia (8 Wall. 16P!, 41. Paulding v. Watson (21 Ala. 279), 405. Paulk V. Paulk (28 S. C. 481), 813. Pawlet V. Clark (9 Cranch, 292), 34. Pawlet V. Delavel (3 Ves. Sr. 666), 66. Pawley v. M'Gimpsey (7 Yerg. 502), 356. Paxton V. Douglas (8 Ves. 520), 770. Payne v. Baxter (2 Tenn. Ch. 517), 739, 879. Payne v. Beech (2 Tenn. Ch. 708), 316, 317, 862, 978. Payne v. Berry (8 Tenn. Ch. 154), 103, 387. Payne v. Cowan (1 Sm. & M. 26), 451. cxxxu TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1018,] Payne v. Farmers' & Citizens' Bank (29 Conn. 416), 261. Payne v. Hook (7 Wall. 425), 19, 37, 148, Iftl. Payne v. Hook (14 Wall. 252), 37. Payns v. Treadwell (16 Cal. 250), 165. Payne i>. Young (8 N. Y. 158). 222. Pparhie v. Twycrosse (Cary, 113), 269. Peaks V. McAvey (Me.. 7 All. Rep. 270), 394 Peale v. Bloomer (8 Paige, 78), 437. Pnale V. Phipiis (14 How. 368). 37, 743. Pearce v. Cole (16 Jiir. 214), 568. PeHvre V. Grove i3 Atk. 522), 415. Pearce v. Olney (20 Conn. 544), 867. Pearce V. Pearce (9 Ves. 547), 58. Pearce v. Rice (Q. S., 12 S. Ct Rep. 136), 351. Pearce v. Suggs (85 Tenn. 728), 653. Peariie v. Lisle (Ambler, 75). 613. Pearse v. Dobinson (L. R. 1 Eq. 241), 321. Pearson v. Cardon (2 R. & M. 606), 178. Pearson v. Carr (97 N. C. 194), 665. Pearson v. Darrington (32 Ala. 227), 45?. Pearson v. Meaux (3 A. IL Marsh. 4X 410. Peasson v. Tower (55 N. H. 36), 267. Peatross v. McLaughlin (6 Gratt 64), 332, 337. Peck V. Ashley (12 Met. 481), 130. Peck V. Co .k (41 Barb. 549), 221. Peek V. Sanderson (18 How. 43). 956. Peck V. School Dist (21 Wis. 517), 17. Peck V. Vinson (124 Ind. 121; 24 N. E. Rep. 726), 135. Peck's Lx'r v. Price (Ky., 4 S. W. Rep. 306), 143. Pedrick n White (1 Met. 7fi), 515. Peek V. Yorks (41 Barb. 547), 343. Peer v. Cookerow ( 14 N. J. Eq. 361), 501, 504, 903. Pegg V. ("app (2 Blackf. 257), 225. Pegg V. Davis (2 Blackf. (Ind.) 181), 233, -i-in. Peile V. Stoddart (Mac. & Gord. 192), 367. Peirce v. Durbin (1 Idaho (N. S.), 550), 774. Peirce r. Graham (85 Va, 227), 851, 852. Pell V. Elliott (Hopk. Cli. 86), 502. Pell V. Lander (8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 554), 773. Pells V. Coon (Hopk. Ch. 450), 975. Pembert v. Brown (17 Ala. 667), 394. Peinherton v. Topham (1 Beav. 316), 474 Pence v. Garrison (93 Ind. 345), 655. Penderj^ast v. Greenfield (127 N. Y. 23), 642. Pendergast v. Heekin (Ky., 32 S. W. Rep. 605), 349. Pendleburg v. Walker (4 Y. & Col. 424). 265. Pendleton v. Eaton (3 Johns. Ch. 69), 974 Pendleton v. Evans (4 Wash. (C. C.) 337), 231, 250. Pendleton v. Fay (3 Paige, 204), 503, 505, 516, 536, 856. Pendleton v. Woodhouse (24 N. J. Eq. 347), 67. Penfold V. Nunn (5 Sim. 409), 536. Penfold V. Rainsbottom (1 Swanst 552), 300. Peninsula Iron Co. v. Stone (121 XJ. S. 631), 1011. Penn Diamond Drill Co. v. Simpson (29 Fed. Rep. 288), 977. Penniman v. Norton (1 Barb. Ch. 246), 507. Pennington v. Gittings (2 Gill & J. 208), 404 409. Pennington v. Manning (3 Dr. &War. 154), 1008. Pennington Iron Co. v. Campbell (2 Paige, 160), 440. Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U. S. 714), 221. 224 768. Pennsylvania r. Lord Baltimore (1 Ves. Sr. 444), 768, 879. Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co. (10 Wall. 553), 24 130. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co. (13 How. 518), 759. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling &c. Bridge Co. (18 How. 460), 15. Pennsylvania Co. v. Jacksonville &c. Ry. Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 131), 704, 768. 897, 936. Pennsylvania &c. R Co. v. Rverson (36 N. J. Eq. 112), 90. Pennsylvania Mut. L. Ins. Co. r. Semple (38 N. J. Eq. 314), 709. Pennsylvania R Co. v. Allegheny Valley R Co. (25 Fed. Rep. 115), 7. Pennsylvania R. ('o. v. Allegheny Valley R Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 82). 813. Pennsylvania R Co. v. National Docks &c. Ry. Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 858), 35. Penny v. Jackson (85 Ala. 67; 4 So. Rep. 7i?0), 134 Penny v. Waits 2 Phil. 149), 286. Pentlarge v. Kirby (20 Fed. Rep. 898), 970. Pentz V. Hawley (2 Barb. Ch. 552), 1010, 1011. People V. Ames (35 N. Y. 483), 336. People V. Bank of Dansville (39 Hun, 187), 741. People V. Barnes (7 N. Y. Sunl. 802X 876. TABLE OF CASES. CXXXlll plTie references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] People V. Board &c. (15 N. Y. Supl. 580), 591. People V. Brower (4 Paige, 405), 595, 874 People V. Cobannes (30 Cal. 535), 774. People V. Craft (7 Paige, 325), 209, 875. People V. Globe Mut. L. Ids. Co. (57 How. Pr. 481), 753. People V. Green (45 Cal. 97), 882. People V. Havird (Idaho Ter., 25 Pac. Uep. 294), Hid. People V. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co. (31 Hud, 623), 747. People V. Mayor (11 Abb. Pr. 74), 591. People V. Morrill (26 Cal. 386), 142. People V. Mutual Benefit Ass'n (39 Hun, 49), 730. People V. Norton (1 Paige, 17), 716, 717, 718. People V. Pfeiflfer (59 Cal. 90), 933. People V. Railroad Co. (57 N. Y. 161), 643. People V. San Francisco Ass'n (38 Cal. 564), 106. People V. Spalding (2 Paige, 836), 603, 877. People V. Sturtevant (9 N. Y. 263), 209, 779. 876. 877. People V. Van Buren (186 N. Y. 252), 876. People V. Wyckoflf (2 Edw. Ch. 516), 387. People's Bank v. Calhoun (103 U. S. 356), 743. People's Bank v. Fancher (31 N. Y. Supl. 545), 711. People's Sav. Bank v. Look (54 N. W. Rep. 639), 806. Peoria P. & J. R. Co. v. Peoria & S. R. Co. (6H 111. 174), 339. Peoria Ry. Co. v. Mitchell (74 111. 394), 911. Peper v. Fordyce (119 XJ. S. 469), 1011. Perdue v. Brooks (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 383), 674. Perea v. Gallagos (4 N. Mex. 333 ; 30 Pac. Rep. 105), 197. Perham i\ Haverhill Fiber Co. (64 N. H. 3), ; iO. Perigal v. Nicholson (Wightw. 63), 549. Perin v. Megibben (58 Fed. Rep. 86), 38. Perine v. Dunn (4 Johns. Ch. 140), 636, 813. Perine v. Swaine (1 Johns. Ch. 34), 376, 890. Perkins v. Collins (3 N. J. Eq. 483), 111. Perkins v. Fourniquet (6 How. 206), 925. Perkins v. Fourniquet (14 How. 818), 897, 959. Perkins v. Hallo well (5 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 24), 785. Perkins v. Hart (11 Wheat 237), 894. Perkins v. Hendrvx (23 Fed. Rep. 418), 6. Perkins v. Hendryx (81 Fed. Rep. 533), 388, 430. Perkins v. McGavock (3 Hay. 257), 971, 979. Perkins v. Nichols (11 Allen, 543), 394. Perkins v. Partridge (30 N. J. Eq. 559), 849. Perkins v. Perkins (27 Ala. 479), 799. Perkins v. Saunders (3 Hen. & M. 430), 693. Perks V. Stothert (11 W. R 1016), 9C9. Perrin v. Lepper (73 Mich. 454), 674 Perrine v. White (36 N. J. Eq. 3), 831. Perry's Appeal (Pa., 8 Atl. Rep. 450), 696. Perry v. Attorney-General (3 Mac. & G. 16), 836. Perry v. Barker (13 Ves. 205), 485. Perry v. Jenkins (1 Myl. & Cr. 118), 505. Perry v. Michaux (79 N. C 94), 835. Perry v. Oriental Hotel Co. (L. R 5 Ch. App. 420), 709. Perrv v. Pheiips (17 Ves. 176), 516, 837, 838, 853, 860. Perry v. Walker (1 Coll. 339), 1009, 1010. Perry v. Weller (3 Russ. 519), 255. Perry County u S. & M. R Co. (65 Ala 391) 547 Person v. Gri'er (66 N. Y. 135), 228; Person v. Nevitt (32 Miss. 180), 480. Peru V. Reeves (40 N. Y. Super. Ct 316), 501. Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bockwoldt (38 Ch. D. 235), 326. Pescud V. Hawkins (71 N. C. 300), 473. Pestel V. Primm (109 111. 353), 450, 851. Peter v. Kahn (Ala., 9 So. Rep. 729), 483. 716. Peters v. Foster (10 N. Y. Supl. 389), 745. Peters v. Goodrich (3 Conn. 146), 325. Peters v. Prevost (1 Paine, 64), 546. Peters v. Robinson (1 Dick. 117), 499. Peterson, Ex parte (3 Ala. 74), 539. Peterson v. Ruhnke (46 Minn. 115X 647. Peterson v. Smith (10 N. J. Law, 192), 1000. Petition of Lau Ow Bew (141 U. S. 583), 893, 894, 895. Petition of Savin (181 U. S. 267), 874, 876. CXXXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. 1 contains pp. 1-608; Vol. 11, pp. 609-1012.] Petri V. Commercial Nat, Baok (143 U. S. 644), 34, 41. Petrick v. Ashcroft (30 N. J. Eq. 198), 374. Petty V. Hannum (3 Humph. (Term.) 103), 235, 336. Petty V. Lonsdale (3 Myl. & Cr. 545), 563. Petty V. Taylor (5 Dana, 598), 406. Peugh V. Davis (101 U. S. 337). 940. Peyroux v. Howard (7 Peters, 343), 530. Peyton v. Lambert (6 Ir. Eq. 9), 533. Pfanschmidt v. Kelly Mercantile Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 667), 832. Pfeltz V. Pfeltz (1 Md. Ch. Dec. 455), 827. Pfister V. Gillespie (3 Johns. Ch. 109), 1000. Pfister V. Wade (56 Cal. 43), 173. Pfohl V. Sampson (59 N. Y. 176), 759. Phelips v.Cavej (4 Ves. 107), 363. Phelps V. Elliott (26 Fed. Eep. 881), 7, 199, 333. Phelps V. Elliott (35 Fed. Rep. 455), 131, 137, 373, 826. Phelps V. Ellsworth (3 Day, 397), 903. Phelps u Garrow (3 Edw. Ch. 139), 269, 341. Phelps V. Green (3 Johns. Ch. 303), 666. Phelps V. McDonald (99 U. S. 298), 767, 804. Phelps V. Oaks (117 U. S. 236), 41. Phelps V. O'Brien County (3 Dill. 518), 10. Phelps V. Phelps (7 Paige, 150), 313. Phelps V. Sproule (1 Myl. & K 331), 342. Phelps V. Sproule (4 Sim. 318), 503, 524 525 Phelps 'u. Wood (46 How. Pr. 1), 971. Phfeififer v. Riehm (13 Cal. 643), 657. Phil. & Reading R Co. v. Little (41 N. J. Eq. 520), 387, 916. Philhower v. Todd (11 N. J. Eq. 55), 120. Philips V. Hulsizer (20 N. J. Eq. 309), 992 Phillips' Appeal (68 Pa, St. 130), 669, 698. Phillips V. Blatchford (26 111. App. 606), 579. Phillips V. Davis (61 Ga. 159), 759. Phillips V. Edsall (127 111. 535 ; 20 N. E. Rep. 801), 185, 626, 649. Phillips V. Gibbons (1 Ves. & B. 184), 246. Phillips V. Hassell (10 Humph. (Tenn.) 198), 65. Phillips V. Herndon (78 Tex. 378; 14 S. W. Rep. 857), 168. Phillips V. Hollister (2 Cold. (Tenn.) 271), 235. Phillips V. Langhorn (1 Dick. 148), 338, 781. Phillips V. Mayor &c. (61 Ga. 386), 764 Phillips V. Ordway (101 U. S. 745), 828, 834, 839, 950. Phillips V. Overton (4 Hay w. 393), 390. Phillips V. Page (34 How. 164), 369. Phillips V. Prevost (4 Johns. Ch. 305), 361, 362. Phillips V. PuUen (45 N. J. Eq. 157), 773, 939. Phillips V. Richardson (4 J. J. Marsh. 312), 405. Phillips V. Schooley (27 N. J. Eq. 410), 120. Phipps V. Sedgwick (95 U. S. 193), 963. Phoenix Foundry v. North River Const. Co. (6 N. Y. Qv. Pro. 106), 778. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Wulf (1 Fed. Rep. 775), 308, 226. Pickens v. Kniseley (29 West Va. 1 ; 15 S. E. Rep. 997), 118, 188, 194 Pickens v. McCoy (24 West Va. 344), 651. Pickering v. Day (3 Houston, 474), 409. Pickering v. Rigby (18 Ves. 484), 538, 536. Pickering v. Walcott (1 lud. 262), 506. Pickett V. Loggan (5 Ves. 703), 606. Pickett V. Pipkin (64 Ala. 530), 135. Pickford v. Hunter (5 Sim. 123), 480. Picquet v. Swan (5 Mason, 35), 208. Pidduck V. Boultbee (3 Sim. (N. &) 333), 568. Piedmont &c. Ins. Co. v. Maury (75 Va. 508), 584 Piedmont Land & Imp. Co. v. Pied- mont Foundry & Machine Co. (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 332). 125. Pierce v. Brady (23 Beav. 64), 857. Pierce v. Brown (7 Wall. 305), 433, 950. Pierce v. Cox (9 Wall. 786), 928, 933. Pierce v. Faunce (53 Me. 214), 696. Pierce v. Feagans (39 Fed. Rep. 587), 326, 327. Pierce v. Indseth (106 U. S. 546), 530. Pierce v. McClellan (93 111. 345), 373. Fiercer. West (Peters (C. C), 351), 493. Pierce v. West (3 Wash. (C. C.) 354), 184 Pierson v. Clayes (15 Vt 93), 394 Pierson v. David (1 Iowa, 33), 290. Pierson v. Ryerson (5 N. J. Eq. 196), 360, 365, 404 786. Pieters v. Thompson (G. Coop. 349), 378, 382. TABLE OF CASES. cxxxv [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Pigot V. Stace (3 Dick. 496), 346. Pigue V. Young (85 Tenn. 363), 331, 978. Pike V. Bates (84 La. Ann. 391), 341, 783. Pike V. Bingham (11 Reporter, 750), 431. Pilkinstton v. Wignall (3 Madd. 240), 515. Pincers v. Robertson (34 N. J. Eq. 348), 383, 386. Pinch V. Anthony (10 Allen, 470), 513, 518, 514, 530. Pinchback v. Graves (42 Ark. 232). 801. Pindall v. Trevor (30 Ark. 249), 453. Pindar v. Smith (Mad. & Geld. 48), 655. Pine Lake Iron Co. v. La Fayette Car Works (53 Fed. Rep. 853), 740, 741. Pingree v. Coffin (13 Gray, 388), 514, 576, Pinkerton v. The Barnsley Canal Co. (3 Y. & J. 277, n.), 599. Pinkston v. Taliaferro (9 Ala. 547), 415. Pinnell v. Boyd (33 N. J. Eq. 190), -109. Pinneo v. Goodspeed (130 111. 524), C98, 700. Pinne 853. Provident Savings &c. Society v. Ford (114 U. S. 635, 039), 32, 33, 49, 284. Prudden v. Lindsley (29 N. J. Eq. 615), 662. Prudden v. Lindsley (31 N. J. Eq. 436), 661. Pruden v. Williams (26 N. J. Eq. 210), 95. Pruen v. Lunn (5 Russ. 3), 506. Pryor v. EmersoQ (22 Tex. 162), 831. Public Schools v. Walker (9 Wall. 603), 834, 956, 957. Puetz V. Bransford (31 Fed. Rep. 458), 275. Pugh V. Fairmount &o. Mining Co. (112 U". S. 238), 410. Pugh V. Holt (37 Miss. 461), 636. Pugsley V. Freedman's S. & T. Co. (2 Tenn. Ch. 130), 253, 254. PuUan V. Railroad Co. (4 Biss. 35), 703, 704. Pullen V. Baker (41 Tex. 420), 113, 331. PuUiara v. Christian (6 How. 309). 936. Pulliam V. Osborne (17 How. 471), 743. PuUiam v. Pulliam (10 Fed. Rep. 53), 290. Pulliam V. Winston (5 Leigh (Va.)i 324), 330. Pullman v. Stebbins(51 Fed. Rep. 10), 93, 646. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. (49 Fed. Rep. 261), 459, 470. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ey. Co. (115 U. S. 587), 266, 267. Purnpelly v. Owego (45 How. Pr. 359), 763. Purcell V. British Land & Mortgage Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 465), 47. Purcell V. Coleman (4 Wall. 519), 848, 849. Purcell V. McNamara (11 Ves. 863), 681. Purcell V. Macnamara (Wig. on Dis. 240), 535, 549. Purcell V. Miner (4 Wall. 519), 853. Purcell V. Purcell (4 Hen. & M. 511), 894. Purdy V. Henslee (97 111. 389), 463, 468, 464, 473. Purefoy v. Purefoy (1 Vern. 29), 371. Purnell v. Vaughan (80 N. C. 46), 473. Purser v: Darby (4 K & J. 44), 994. Pusey V. Desbourie (8 P. Wms. 815), 335 Pusev V. Wright (7 Casey (Pa.), 387), 3"31, 398. Puterbaugh v. Elliott (22 III. 157), 275. Puterbaugh v. Puterbaugh (Ind., 30 N. E. Rep. .519), 648. Putnam v. Clark (85 N. J. Eq. 145), 845. Putnam v. Clark (36 N. J. Eq. 33), 850, 853 Putnam v. Day (23 Wall. 60), 808, 844, 846, 847. Putnam v. Lyon (Colo., 33 Pac. Rep. 493), 973. Putnam v. New Albany (4 Biss. 365, 389, 451, 456. Putnam v. Pitney (45 Minn. 246), 745. Putnam v. Ritchie (6 Paige, 390), 438. Pyke V. Brook (Fowl. Ex. Pr. 214), 588. Pyle V. Price (6 Ves. 781), 288. Q. Quackenbusch v. Van Riper (3 N. J. Eq. 350), 877. Quackenbush v. Leonard (10 Paige, i;31), 498, 499, 502, 606, 919, 963. Quackenbush v. Van Riper (1 N. J. Eq. (Saxt.) 476), 337, 784. Quarl V. Abbett (102 Ind. 238), 643. Quarles v. Heirne (Miss., 12 So. Eep. 145), 936. CXXXVIU TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1018.] Quarrier v. Carter (4 Hen. & M. 243), 853. Queen v. Helston (10 Mod. 202), 831. Quick V. Lemon (105 III. 578), 458. Quick V. Lilly (3 N. J. Eq. 255), 848, 854, 856. Quigley v. Roberts (44 111. 503), 593. Quilter v. Heatly (23 Ch. D. 42), 367. Quimby v. Conland (104 U. S. 420), 657. Quin V. Brlttain (Hoffi Ch. 353), 164. Quincy v. Foot (1 Barb. Ch. 496), 243, 386, 596, 602. Quincy v. Steel (120 U. S. 241), 131. Quinn v. Leake (1 Tenn. Ch. 67), 483. Quinn v. Lloyd (7 Rob. (N. Y.) 542), 691. R. Rabaud v. D'Wolf (1 Paine, 580), 41. Rackham v. Siddall (1 Maon. & G. 607), 312. RadcliflP V. Alpress (3 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 203), 785. Radcliff V. Carrothers (33 "West Va. 682), 803. Radcliff V. Rowley (2 Barb. Ch. 23), 291. Radcliflfe, Ex parte (1 J. & W. 689), 705. Rader v. Adamson (West Va., 16 S. E. Rep. 808), 244. Radford v. Folsom (14 Fed. Rep. 97), 326. Radford v. Folsom (55 Iowa, 276), 756. Radford v. Folsom (133 U. S. 725), 939. Radford v. Folsom (131 U. S. 392), 913. Radford v. Fowlkes (85 Va. 820; 8 S. E. Rep. 17), 388. Radley v. Shaves (1 Johns. Ch. 200), 863. Rafferty v. Central Traction Co. (Pa., 23 Atl. Rep. 884), 150. Ragland v. Broadnax (29 Gratt 401), 466. Raht V. Attrill (43 Hun, 414), 719. 725. Raht V. Mining Co. (5 Lea, 79), 971. Rai, .ad V. Bradleys (7 Wall. 575), 584. Railroad Co., Ex parte (95 IT. S. 221), 452, 462, 465, 475, 507, 577, 928, 930. Railroad Co. v. Anderson (149 U. S. 237), 959. Railroad Co. v. Arthur (90 N. Y. 334), 172. Railroad Co. v. Bennett (49 Fed. Rep. 598; 1 C. C. A. 392), 31. Railroad Co. v. Bradleys (10 Wall. 299), 214. Railroad Co. v. Chamberlain (6 Wall. 748), 43. Railroad Co. v. Dix (109 111. 237), 329 Railroad Co. v. Drew (3 Woods, 692), 557 Railroad Co. v. Grant (111 U. S. 387), 862. Railroad Co. v. Harris (13 Wall. 65), 41. Railroad Co. v. Hopkins (130 U. S. 310), 39. Railroad Co. v. Howard (7 Wall. 392), 578. Railroad Co. v. Howard (131 U. a, Append. LXXI), 704. Railroad Co. v. Louther (3 Wall 510), 703. Railroad Co. v. Mississippi (103 U. S. 135), 33. Railroad Co. v. Murphy (111 U. S. 488), 914. Railroad Co. i'. Osmond (63 Tex 374), 755. Railroad Co. v. Quigley (21 How. 203), 484. Railroad Co. v. Van Riper (19 Kan. 317), 238. Railroad Co. v. Ward (18 Barb. 595), 470. Railroad Co. v. White (101 U. S. 98), 894. Railroad Co. v. Wiltse (116 111. 449), 329. Railroad Companies v. Chamberlain (6 Wall. 748). 885. Railroad &c. Co. v. Bryan (8 &Sm. M. 234), 501, 838. Railway Co. v. Jewett (37 Ohio St. 659), 716. Railway Co. v. Johnson (76 Tex. 421), 756. RailwHv Co. V. Ramsey (22 Wall. 323), 130. Railway Co. v. Roberts (141 U. S. 690), 895. Railway Co. v. Swan (111 U. S. 379), 945. Railway Co. v. Van Houten (48 Ind. 90), 958. Railway Register Co. v. North Hud- son &c. Co. (26 Fed. Ren. 411), 830, 831. Raincock v. Young (16 Sim. 128), 418. Rainey v. Herbert (55 Fed. Rep. 443), 779. Ralston v. Sharon (51 Fed. Rep. 702), 43, 501, 515, 858, 867. Ramsay v. Joyce (1 McMull. Ch. (S. C.) 236), 613. Ramuz v. Southern Local Board (67 L. T. (Ch. D.) 169), 758. Randal v. Head (Hardres, 188), 363. TABLE OF CASKS. CXXXIX [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. IT, pp. 609-1013.] Randall v. Carpenter (88 N. Y. 293), 777. Randall v. Morrell (17 N. J. Eq. 343), 782, 787. Randall v. Pavne (1 Tenn. Ch. 137), 482, 843. Randall v. Venable (17 Fed. Rep. 162), 546. Randfield v. Eaudfield (3 De G., F. & J. 766), 739. Randolph's Appeal (66 Pa. St. 178), 462. Randolph v. Barrett (16 Pet. 138), 197. Randolph v. Daly (16 N. J. Eq. 314), 92, 121, 147, 153. Randolph v. Dickerson (5 Paige, 517), 65, 526. Randolph v. Quidnick Co. (131 U. S. 444), 945. Randolph v. Randolph (1 Hen. & M. 180), 848. Randolph v. Rosser (7 Porter (Ala.), 249), 910. Randolph v. Wilson (38 N. J. Eq. 28), 357. Ranger r. Champion Cotton Press Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 61), 542. Ranger v. Champion Cotton Press Co. (52 Fed. Rep. 609), 708. Rankin v. Este (13 Bush, 428), 775. Rankin v. Fitchburg Mut. F. Ins. Co. 1 150 Mass. 55), 952. Rankin v. Warner (2 Lea, 305), 62, 64. Ransom v. Davis' Adm'rs (18 How. 295), 582, 685. Ransom v. Geer (30 N. J. Eq. 249), 120. Ransom v. Stonington Savings Bank (13 N. J. Eq. 212), 377. Rantin v. Robertson (2 Strobh. Lav? (8. C), 366), 268. Raphael v. Birdwood (1 Swans. 232), 439. Rashley v. Master (1 Ves. Jr. 205), 979 981. Ratcliff'p V. bakan (16 Colo. 100), 973. Rateau v. Bernard (3 Blatch. 244), 37. Rattenburv v. Fenton (Coop. temp. Broug'h. 60), 485. Rattray v. Darley (3 Atk. 724), 461. Rattray v. George (16 Ves. 232!, 1009. Ratzer v. Ratzer (3 Abb. N. C. (461), 487. Ratzer v. Ratzer (39 N. J. Eq. 162), 11. Ran V. Von Zedlitz (132 Mass. 164), 356, 952. Ravee v. Farmer (4 Term R. 146), 721. Rawlings v. Rawlings (75 Va. 76), 844 919. Rawlins v. Dalton (3 Y. & Coll. (Ex.) 447), 329. Rawlins v. Powel (1 P. Wms. 300), 415. Rawusley v. Trenton Life Ins. Co. (9 N. J. Eq. 25), 130. Ray V. Connor (3 Edw. Ch. 478), 569, 829. Ray V. Law (3 Cranch, 179), 922. Ray V. Oliver (6 Paige, 489), 817. Raymond v. Johnson (11 Johns. 488), 507. Raymond v. Simonson (7 Blackf. (Ind.) 79), 266. Raynes v. Wyse (3 Mer. 473), 612), 615. Ee Barrington (37 Beav. 373), 573. Re Cants' Estate (1 De G., F. & J. 153), 909. Re Carey (10 Fed. Rep. 622), 595. Re Ohickering (56 Vt 83), 93. Re Duke of Cleveland &c. (1 Dr. & Sm. 46), 573. Re Feeny (1 Hask. 304; N. B. R. [70] 333), 874. Re Greaves (W. R. 353), 573. Re Hemiup (3 Paige, 316), 770. Re Hutchinson (1 Dr. & Sm. 37), 605, 606. Re Mullee (7 Blatch f. 33), 876. Re Norman (11 Beav. 401), 998. Ee Paschal (10 Wall. 488). 873, 873, 985. Re Pitman (1 Curtis, 186), 873. Re Ward (2 Giff. 122). 573. Re Wills (9 Jur. (N. S.) 1225). 1008. Rea's Ex'r v. Wheeler (37 N. J. Eq. 392), 819. Read v. Burton (3 K & J. 166 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 263), 390. Read v. Consequa (4 Wash. (C. C.) 174), 185, 780. Read v. Consequa (4 Wash. (C. C.) 335), 438, 781. Read v. Dewes (R M. Charlt. 360), 780. Read v. Huff (40 N. J. Eq. 229), 640, 911. Read v. Long (4 Yerg. 71). 582. Read v. Patterson (44 N. J. Eq. 211), 76, 829, 830. 833, 837, 911, 912. Read v. Woodrooffe (24 Beav. 421), 363, 428, 434. Reading v. Ford (1 Bibb, 339), 655. Reading v. Stover (32 N. J. Eq. 326), 283. Real Del Moote &c. Co. v. Pond &c. Co. (23 Cal. 82), 785. Reams v. Spann (38 S. C. 533), 644 Reaves v. Fielden (18 III. 77). 237. Reay v. Raynor (19 Fed. Rep. 808), 197. Receiver &c. v. First Nat. Bank (34 N. J. Eq. 450), 570, 573, 735. Receiver &c. v. Wortendyke (27 N. J. Eq. 658), 576. Receivers &c. v. Biddle (4 N. J. Eq. 222), 781. 0X1 TABLE OF OASES. IThe references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1013.] Rec'kefus v, Lyon (69 Md. 589; 16 Atl. Rep. 530), 148. Reddick v. Sinnott (1 Hud. & Bro. 31)4), 1000. R^'decker v. Brown (15 R. I. 52), 988. Redfiel 1 v. PHrks (130 U. S. 623). 936. Redhead v. Baker (Iowa, 53 N. W. Rep. 114), 811. Redman v. Hetherton (5 Ves. Jr. 91), 618. Redmond v. Dickerson (9 N. J. Eq. 507), 266, 267. Reere v. Darby (5 111. 159), 626. Reed's Appeal (Pa., 7 Atl. Rep. 174), 393. Reed v. Axtell (84 Va. 231). 657. Reed v. Campbell (43 N. J. Eq. 406), 330. Reed v. Cramer (3 N. J. Eq. 277), 137. Reed v. Cumberland Ins. Co. (36 N.J. Eq. 146), 35.5, 359, 363, 36.'). Reed v. (Ximberland Ins. Co. (36 N. J. Eq 393), 377.411.428,43.5. Reed v. Jones (15 Wis. 40), 6S5. Reed v. Kemp (16 111. 445), 464. Reed v. Reed (1 Ch. Cas. 11.5), 614 Reed v. Reed (16 N. J. Eq. 248), 88, 145, 395. Reed v. Warner (5 Paigre, 650', 385. Reeder i'. Seely (4 Cowen, 548), 735. Reedv v. Scott (23 Wall. 352), 948. Rees V. Van Patten (13 How. Pr. 358), 470. Reese v. Barker (85 Ala. 474). 629. Reese v. Mahoney (31 Cal. 305), 590. Reese v. Reese (Ga., 15 S. E. Rep. 846), 275, 283. Reese v, Reese (41 Md. 5."i4). 407. Reeside v. Walker (11 How. 372), 763. Reeve v. Dalley (2 Sim. & Stu. 464), 66. Reeves v. Cooper (12 N. J. Eq. 223), 322. 791. Reeves v. Vinacke (1 McCrary, 313), 290. Reger V. O'Neal (33 West Va. 159), 696. Reid V. Gifford (1 Hopk. Ch. 416), 785. Reid V. McCallister (49 Fed. Rep. 16), 400. Reid V. Stuart (20 West Va. 382), 500, 501. Reifsnider v. American Imp. Pub. Co. (45 Fed. Rep. 433). 210. Reilly v. Reilly (III., 28 N. E. Rep. 960 ; 26 N. E. Rep. 604), 473. Reily v. Lamar (2 Cranch, 344). 930. Reinstadler v. Reeves (33 Fed. Rep. 308), 284. Reissner v. Anness (3 Bann. & A. 148), 315, 318, 319. Relfe V. Rundle (103 U. S. 233), 747). Reiner v. McKay (38 Fed. Rep. 164), 456. Remer v. Shaw (8 N. J. Eq. 355), 389. Removal Cases (100 U. S. 457), 38. Remsen v. Remsen (3 Johns. Ch. 49.5), 553. Rend v. Venture Oil Co. (48 Fed. Rep. 248), 760. Renfro v. Goetler (78 Ala. 311), 451, 570, 580. Reniok v. Bank (13 Ohio, 298X 736. Rennell v. Kimball (5 Allen, 364), 686. Renner v. Marshall (1 Wheat 215), 487. Rennie v. Crombie (13 N. J. Eq. 457), 69, 118. Republic of Costa Rica v. Erianger (3 Ch. Div. 62), 999, 1000. Republic of Honduras v. Soto (ll2 N. Y. 313), 1002. Republic of Mexico v. Arrangois (11 How. Pr. 1), 53. Republic of Peru v. Reeves (40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 316), 501. Requa v. Rea (2 Paige, 339), 833. Rettig t;. Newman (99 Ind. 437), 419. Reubens v. Joel (13 N. Y. 488), 6. Rex V. Doolin (1 Jebb (Cr. Cas.), 128, 551 Rex V. Lidwell (1 D. & W. 26), 731. Reynell v. Sprye (1 De G., M. & G. 660). 910. Reynes v. Dumont (130 XJ. S. 354), 15, 17, 906, 951. Reynolds v. Adden (136 U. S. 348), 37. Reynolds v. Crawfordsville First Nat. Bank (112 U. 8. 405), 491, 637. Reynolds v. Harshaw (2 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 29), 338. Reynolds v. Iron Silver Min. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 354), 791. Reynolds v. Mitchell (1 111. 177), 787. Reynolds v. National Bank (112 U S. 405 ; 5 S. Ct. Rep. 213), 15. Reynolds v. Pettijohn (79 Ga. .'.27). 734. Reynolds v. Reynolds' Ex'r tSH Va. 149 ; 13 S. E. Rep. 598), 848. Reynolds v. Stockton (43 N. J. Eq. 311), 79.5. Reynolds v. Stockton (140 U. S. 354), 755. Revni.ldsj;. Sumner (136 111. 58; 9 Am. St. Rep. 533), 290. Rhea v. Allison (3 Head, 179), 404. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts (13 Peters, 23), 11, 25, 253. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts (14 Pet. 211 1, 11, 369,318, 321, 342. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts (15 Pet. 233), 290. TABLE OF CASES. cxli (The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012] Rhodes v. Barrett (L. R 13 Eq. Oas. 479), 587. Rhodes v. Cousins (6 Rand. 188), 612, 613, 618, 619. Ribon V. Raih-oad Companies (16 Wall. 446). 71. Rice V. Bush (Colo., 27 Pao. Rep. 720), 169. Rice V. Edwards (101 U. S. 187), 950. Rice V. Ehle (55 N. Y. 518), 393. Rice V. Goldberg (26 111. App. 603), 803. Rice V. Goodwin (Colo., 30 Pac. Rep. 330). 649. Rice V. Gordon (13 Sim. 580), 53,5. Rice V. Hale (5 Cusli. 238), 610, 612, 618. Rice V. Houston (13 Wall. 66), 41, 42. Rice V. Rice (47 N. J. Eq. 559 ; 21 Atl. Rep. 286), 680. Rice V. Totiias (83 Ala. 348), 653. Rich V. Austin (10 Vt 416), 394. Rich V. Bray (37 Fed. Rep. 273), 23, 131. Richards i\ Allis (Wis., 53 N. W. Rep. 593). 484, 635. Richards v. Barlow (1 Paige, 138), 996. Richards v. Barlow (1 Paige, 323), 438, 700. Richards v. Dower (64 Gal. 63), 760. Richards v. Green (Ariz., 32 Pac. Rep. 26«), 777. Richards v. Lake Shore i&c. Ry. Co. (124 111. 516 ; 16 N. E. Rep. 909), 15, 16. Richards v. Mackall (113 U. S. 539), OOQ QQI QQO Rioha'rds u'Mackall (124 U. S. 183), 133, 291. Richards i\ Morris Canal &c. Co. (4 N. J. Eq. 438), 749, 981. Richards v. Pierce (53 Me. 563\ 156. Richards v. Railroad Co. (1 Hughes, 38), 578. Richards v. Salter (6 Johns. Ch. 445), 173, 177, 633. 982. Richards v. Symes (3 Atk. 319), 656, 661. IN'liards v. Todd (137 Mass. 167), 443, C96. Richards v. West (3 N. J. Eq. (3 Gr. Ch.) 456), 779, 877. Richardson v. Green (130 U. S. 104), 930, 931, 933, 936. Richardson v. Hardwick (106 U. S. 253), 528. Richardson v. Lightfoot (53 Miss. 508). 787. Richardson v. Linney (7 B. Mon. 575), 635. Richardson v. Peacock (26 N. J. Eq. 40), 786, Richardson v. Richardson (5 Paige, 58), 199, 49i?, 1009. Richardson v. Ward (6 Madd. Ch. 366), 751. Richie v. Levy (09 Tex. 133), 684, 691. Richmond v. Atwood(53Fed. Rep. 10), 794, 896, 897, 898. 899. Richmond v. Irons (121 U. S. 27; 7 S. Ct. Rep. 788), 80, 187. Richmond v. Tayleur (1 P. Wma. 737), 803. Richter v. Jerome (115 U. S. 55), 547. Richter v. Jerome (123 U. S. 333), 88, 93, 578. 826. Ricker v. Powell (100 U. S. 104), 852, 853. 855, 856. Ricketson v. Merrill (148 Mass. 76), 984. Ricketts' Appeal (Pa., 13 Atl. Rep. 60), 189. Ricketts v. Mornington (7 Sim. 200), 563. Rico V. Guatree (3 Atk. 500), 613, 618. Ridabock v. Levy (8 Paige, 197). 934 Riddle v. Cheadle (25 Ohio St. 278), 777. Riddle v. Mandeville (6 Cranch, 86), 965. Riddle V. New York &c. R. Co. (39 P'ed. Rep, 290), 47, 211. Riddle v. Whitehill (135 U. S. 621), 9.-)l. Riddle's Estate (19 Pa. St 431). 853. Rider v. Rieley (23 Md. 540), 393. 409. Ridgewav v. Darwin (7 Ves. 404). 395. Ridgeway v. Wharton (3 De G., M. & G. 677), 373, 3:4. Ridings v. Johnson (128 U. S. 318), 953. Ridley v. Obee (Wight Exch. Rep. Z->), 422. Ridley v. Ridley (1 Cold. 332), 691, 693. Ridout V. Earl of Plymouth (Dick. 68), 711. Rigby V. Great Western Ry. Co. (14 jur. 710), 99.5. Rigby V. Rigby (9 Beav. 311), 379. Rigg V. Hancock (36 N. J. Eq. 43), ■ 118. Riggs V. Huffman IZZ West Va. 436), 853. 857. Riggs V. Johnson County 16 Wall. 166), 36, 769. Riggs V. Shannon (16 N. Y. Supl. 930), 642. Righter v. Stall (3 Sandf. Ch. 608), 973. Rindskopf's Case (34 Fed. Rep. 543), 553 Rindskopf v. Platto (29 Fed. Rep. 130), 160. Rinehart v. Long (95 Ma 396), 153. cxlii TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; VoL n, pp. 609-1012.] Riner v. Touslee (63 111. 366), 672. Ring V. Ray (U Paige, 336), 363. Ringgold V. Ringgold (1 Har. & Gill, 11), 397. Ringo V. Woodruff (43 Ark. 469), 356, 450. Ringrose v. Todd (13 Price, 650), 661. Riopelle v. Doellner (86 Mich. 103), 159. Ripley v. Warren (2 Pick. 593), 529. Rippe V. Stogdill (61 Wis. 88), 156. Ritchie v. Cincinnati &o. Ry. Co. (Ky., 31 a W. Rep. 641), 576. Riverside Cemetery Co. v. Turner (24 N. J. Eq. 98), 639. Roach V. Chapiu (27 111. 194), 303. Roach V. Hulings(5 Cranch, 637), 110. Roach V. Summers (20 Wall. 165), 395. Roanoke Nat Bank v. Farmers' Nat. Bank (Va., 5 S. E. Rep. 683), 833. Roath V. Smith 15 Conn. 133), 93. Robbins v. Abrahams (5 N. J. Eq. 16), 375. Robbins v. Davis (1 Blatchf. 238), 533, 535 Robbins v. Magee (9 Ind. 174), 958. Roberdeau v. Rous (1 Atk. 544), 363, 879. Roberts, Matter of (3 Johns. Ch. 43), 730. Roberts v. Anderson (3 Johns. Ch. 203), 339, 340, 784. Roberts v. Arthur (Colo., 24 Pac. Rep. 922), 346. Roberts v. Birgess (20 N. J. Eq. 139), 400. Roberts v. Evans (L. R. 38 Ch. D. 830), 66. Roberts v. Hartley (1 Bro. C. C. 56), 346. Roberts v. Johns (24 S. C. 580), 669. Roberts v. Lloyd (2 Beav. 376), 1009. Roberts v. Oppenheim (26 Ch. D. 734), 367. Roberts v. Peavey (39 N. H. 393), 459. Roberts v. Salisbury (3 Gill & J. 425), 402. Roberts v. Stanton (2 Munf. 139), 59. Roberts v. Stigleman (78 111. 130), 430. Robertson v. Baker (11 Fla. 193), 575, 685. Robertson v. Bingley (1 McCord, Ch. 351), 910. Robertson v. Carson (19 Wall. 94), 40. Robertson v. Cease (97 U. S. 646), 130, 131. Robertson v. Lord Londonderry (5 Sim. 226), 304. Robertson v. Maclin (4 Hayw. 53), 833, 834. Robertson v. McPherson (Ind., 81 N. E. Rep. 478), 643. Robertson v. Miller (3 N. J. Eq. (3 Gr. Ch.) 451), 841, 244. Robertson v. Southgate (5 Hare, 283X 533. Robertson v. Winchester (85 Tenn. 171 ; 1 Pickle, 171), 819, 330, 240, 511. Robins v. Swain (68 111. 197), 453. Robinson, Ex parte (72 Ala. 389), 997. Robinson, Ex parte (49 Wall. 506), 873. Robinson v. Alabama & G. Manuf. Co. (48 Fed. Rep. 13), 94 Robinson v. Alabama & G. Manuf. Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 268), 987. Robinson v. Allen (85 Va, 721), 649, 653. Robinson v. Davis (11 N. J. Eq. 302), 328, 332, 788. Robinson v. Dix (18 West Va. 538), 288. Robinson v. Ferguson (78 111. 539), 643. Robinson v. Goulding (5 Allen, 82), 827. Robinson v. Hadley (11 Beav. 614), 714. Robinson v. Hardin (26 Ga. 344), 409. Robinson v. Jenkins (34 Q. B. D. 275), 172. Robinson v. Lord Byron (1 Bro. C. C. 588), 780. Robinson v. Maudell (3 Cliff. 169), 404, 528. Robinson v. Meigs (10 Paige, 41), 823. Robinson v. Mississippi R. Co. (59 Vt 426 ; 10 Atl. Rep. 522), 189. Robinson v. National Stockyard Co. (13 Fed. Rep. 361; 30 Blatchf. 513). 284. Robinson v. Railroad Co. (28 Fed. Rep. 340), 550. Robinson v. Rosher (1 Y. & Col. C. C. 7), 478. Robinson v. Rudkins (28 Fed. Rep. 8), 841. Robinson v. Satterloe (3 Savvy. 134), 492, 563, 569. Robinson v. Scotney (19 Ves. 583), 395. Robinson v. Smith (3 Paige, 232), 75, 100, 287, 396. Robinson v. Springfield Co. (21 Fla. 203), 145. Robinson v. Taylor (42 Fed. Rep. 803), 704, 709. Robinson v. Taylor (12 Wend. 191), 478. Robinson v. Townshend (3 Gill & J. 413). 239. Robinson v. Woodgate (3 Edw. Ch. 433), 360, 365. Robson V. Cranwell (1 Dick. 61), 242, 479, 863. TABLE OF CASES. cxlii i [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Rohv V. (Jolehour (13 & Ct Rep. 47), l9. Roby V. Ridehalgh (7 De G. & M. 104), 450. Rochester v. Randall (105 Mass. 395), 713. Rochester R. Co. v. New York R. Co. (48 Hun, 190), 876. Rockwell V. Lawrence (5 N. J. Eq. 20), 784. Rockwell V. Merwin (45 N. Y. 166j, 738. Rockwell V. Morgan (13 N. J. Eq. 384), 147, 157. Rodahan v. Driver (23 Ga. 352), 338. Roddara v. Hetherington (5 Vea. 91), 616. Ilnjgers V. Dibrell (6 Lea (Tenn.), 69), 53, 589. "ndgers V. Rodgers (1 Paige, 426), 604. ;odrjey v. Hare (Mosely, 296), 498. .:. R Co. V. Smith (19 Kan. 235), 740. St John r. Denison (& How. Pr. 843), 735. St John V. Ear] of Besborough (1 HoKan, 41), 1008. St Louis V. Knapp ('104 U. S. 658), 121. St Louis 11. St Louis Gas Light Co. (H3 Mo. 349), 773. St. Louis &c. Coal Co. v. Sandoval Coal &c. Co. (1 1 Ind. 33), 736. St Louis &c. Ry. Co. v. Dewees (23 Fed. Rep. 691), 566, 716. St Louis &c. Ry. Co. v. Graham (56 Fed. Eep. 2581, 937. St Louis &e. Ry. Co. v. Johuston (138 U. 8. 577), 131, 134. St Louis &c. Ry. Co. v. McBride (141 U. S. 127), 49. St Louis &c. Ry. Co. u Southern Ex- press Co. (108 U. S. 34), 917, 921. St Louis &o. Ry. Co. v. Stark (55 Fed. Rep. 758). 937. Si. Louis &c. R Co. V. Terre Haute &c. R. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 385), 46. St Louis &c. R. Co. V. Terre Haute &c. R. Co (33 Fed. Rep. 440), 145, 291. St Louis Life Ins. Co. v. Alliance &c. L. Ins. Co. (23 Minn. 7), 631. St. Louis Nat Bank v. United States Ins. Co. (100 U. S. 43). 948. St. Louis R. Co. V. Pacific Ry. Co. (53 Fed. Rep. 770), 48, 49. St Paul &e. Ry. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (49 Fed. Rep. 3U6), 898. St. Paul &1-. R, Co. V. Robinson (41 Winn. 394; 43 N. W. Rep. 75), 17. St Paul Plow Works «. Starling (127 U. S. 376). 33. St. Rome.s V. Levee Cotton Press Co. (127 U. S. 614), 635. St Victor V. Devereaux(6 Beav. 584), 1007. Salamone v. Keiley (80 Va. 86), 18. Sale V. McLean (29 Ark. 612), 16, 465. Sale V. Megsett (35 S. C. 72), 644. Sale V. Sale (1 Beav. 586 1, 56, 58. Salem National Bank v. Salem Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 580), 466. Saleski v. Boyd (33 Ark. 74), 911. Salinas v. Pearsall (34 S. C. 179), 509. .Salisbury v. Andrews (128 Mass. 386), 75!i Salkeld v. Science (3 Ves. Sr. 107), 534. Salmon v. Clagett (3 Bland. 125), 821, 328, 377, 394. 406, 769, 789. Salmon v. Smith (58 Miss. 899), 407, 408. Salov V. Bloch (136 U. S. 388; 10 S. Ct Rep. 996), 75. Salt Lake F. & M. Co. v. Mammoth Min. Co. (Utah, 23 Pac. Rep. 760), 954. Salter. Ex parte (3 Bro. C. C. 500). 571. Salters v. Tobias (3 Paige, 838), 840. Saltmarsh v. Bower (22 Ala. 221), 438, Saltmarsh v. Hockett (1 Lea (Tenn.), 315), 308. Saltus V. Tobias (7 Johns. Ch. 214), 318. Salvidge v. Hyde (5 Madd. 1.38), 151. Samis v. King (40 Conn. 300), 74, 809. Sampson v. Sweetenham (5 Mad. 16), 534. Samson v. Hunt (1 Root 207), 808. Samuel v. Wiley (50 N. H. 353), 612, 616. Sanborn v. Adair (37 N. J. Eq. 425), 157. Sanborn v. Adair (29 N. J. Eq. 388), 409. Sanborn v. Dwinnell (135 Mass. 236), 150. Sanborn v. Kittredge (30 Vt 633), 394. Sanderlin v. Thompson (2 Dev. Eq. (N. C.) 539). 514. Sanders v. Godley (23 Ala. 473), 313. Sanders v. King (6 Madd. 61), 349. Sandford v. Sinclair (8 Paige, 375), 717. Sands v. Beardsley (33 West Va. 594), 650. Sands v. Hildreth (12 Johns. 493), 907. Sauford v. Chase (3 Cowen, 381), 238. Sanford v. Clarke (38 N. J. Eq. 265), 700. Sanford v. Haines |71 Mich. 116), 850, 851, 857. Sanford v. McLean (3 Paige, 117), 639. Sanford v. Morrice (11 CI. & F. 667), 450. Sanford v. Sinclair (8 Paige, 481), 716. San Francisco v. Itsell (133 U. S. 65), 39 San Jose v. Foster (45 Cal. 316), 882. Santee Cypress Lumber Co. v. James (50 Fed. Rep. 860), 651. Sapphire, The (11 Wall. 164), 52. Sargant v. Read (L. R 1 Ch. D. 600), 714. Sartor v. Strassheim (8 Colo. 185), 776. Satterlee v. Bliss (88 Cal. 489), 547. Satterwaite v. Davenport (10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 305), 487. cxlvi TABLE OF CASES. rriie references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Saull V. Browne (L. R. 10 Ch. 64), 765. Saunders v. Allen (53 Fed. Rep. 109), 370. Saunders v. Cavett (38 Ala. 51), 785. Saunders v. Frost (5 Pick. 259), 971. Saunders v. Frost (5 Pick. 275), 512. Saunders v. Leslie (2 Ball & B. 515), 528. Savage v. Benham (17 Ala. 119), 363, 410. Savage v. Carroll (8 Ball & B. 283), 407, 554 Savage v. Carroll (3 Ball & B. 451), 539. Savage v. Carter (9 Dana, 414), 463. Savage v. Todd (9 Paige, 578), 544 Savannah v. Jesup (106 U. S. 563), 905. Savin. Petitioner (131 U. S. 267), 874, 876. Savings Bank v. Benton (1 Mete. (Ky.) 240), 655. Savory v. Dyer (Arab. 70). 769. Savryer, In re (134 U. S. 300), 763, 764 Sawyer v. Campbell (130 111. 186 ; 23 N. E. Rep. 458), 196, 312. 954 Saxon V. Barksdale (4 Desaus. 532), 365. Saxton V. Stowell (11 Paige, 536), 203, 477, 478. Sayer v. Devore (99 Mo. 437 ; 13 S. W. Rep. 201), 133. Sayers v. Corrie (L. R 9 Ch. App. Cas. 53), 587. Sayle v. Graham (5 Sim. 8), 521. Sayles v. Insurance Co. (3 Curt 212), 208. Sayles v. Northwestern Ins. Co. (2 Curt. 212), 49. Sayles v. Tibbitts (5 R I. 79), 636. Saylor's Appeal (39 Pa. St. 495), 473. Saylor v. Mookbie (1 Withrow (9 Iowa), 209), 391. Saylors v. Saylors (3 Heisk. 533), 581. Sayre, Ex parte (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 378), 769, 781. Sayre v. Elyton Land Co. (73 Ala. 85), 821. Sayre v. Fredericks (16 N. J. Eq. 205), 406. Scales V. Nichols (3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 140), 833. Scanlan v. Scanlan (134 III. 630), 371. Scarborough v. Pargoud (108 U. S. 567), 914 Scattergood v. Keeley (40 N. J. Eq. 491), 990 Schalk V. Schmidt (14 N. J. Eq. 368), 782. Scheetz's Appeal (35 Pa. St 88), 657, 908. Schell V. Dodge (107 U. S. 629), 962. Schenck v. Conover (13 N. J. Ekj. 330), 879, 880, 881. 883, 884 Schenck v. Peay (1 Woolw. 175), 45. Schermerhorn v. L'Espenasse (2 IDall. 360), 771. Schermerhorn v. Mahaffie (34 Kan. 108). 797. Sohindelholz v. Cullum (55 Fed. Rep. 885), 766, 804 Schmid v. Scoville Mfg. Co. (37 Fed Rep. 346), 977. Schmidt v. Miller (Ky., 16 S. W. Rep. 85), 670. Schmitz V. St. Louis Ry. Co. (46 Md. App. 380), 542. Schollenberger, Ex parte (96 U. S. 369), 49, 210. Schoolcraft v. Thompson (7 How. Pr. 446), 601. Schools V. Sail (1 Sch. & Lef. 176), 485. Schreider v. Carey (48 Wis. 208), 709. Schroeder v. Frey (14 N. Y. Supl. 71 ; 114 N. Y. 26), 593, 593. Schroeder v. Loeber (Md., 24 AtL Rep. 336), 128. Schroeppel v. Redfield (5 Paige, 245), 384, 544 Sohulz V. Schulz (138 111. 665), 673. Schunk V. Moline (147 U. S. 500X 21, 23 Schussler v. Dudlev (80 Ala. 547; 8 So. Rep. 536), 154 Schuyler v. Pelessier (3 Edw. Ch. 191), 767). Schwab, Ex parte (98 U. S. 240), 900. Schwab V. Mobley (47 Mich. 513), 687. Schwartz v. Keystone Oil Co. (Pa., 35 Atl. Rep. 10181, 731. Schwartz v. Wendell (Walk. Ch. 267), 397. Schwarz, In re (14 Fed. Rep. 787x 877. Schwarz v. Sears (Walk. Ch. 170), 447. Schwed V. Smith (106 U. S. 188), 22. Schwoerer v. Boylston Market Ass'n (99 Mass. 285), 100, 101, 759. Scofield V. Stoddard (58 Vt 290), 692. Scott's Appeal (112 Pa. St 427), 852. Scott V. Allgood (Fowl. Ex. Pr. 81), 463, 588. Scott 0. Ames (11 N. J. Eq. 361), 784 Scott V. Bennett (6 III. 646), 287. Scott V. Broadvvood (2 Coll. C. C. 447), 319 Scott v' Carter (1 Y. & J. 452), 418. Scott V. Clarkson (1 Bibb, 277), 491, 493. Scott V. Crawford (10 Gill & J. 379), 910. Scott V. Francis Vandergrift Shoe Co. (Miss., 10 So. Rei). 455), 646. Scott V. Hartman (26 N. J. Eq. 89), 786. TABLE OF OASES. cxlvii [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; VoL II, pp. 609-1018.] Scott V. Jailer (1 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 337), 870. Scott V. Lalor (18 N. J. Eq. 301), 449. Scott V. McCann (Md., 24 Atl. Rep. 536), 551. Scott V. Neely (140 U. S. 106), 7, 685, 644, 645, 646. Scott V. Pinkerton (3 Edw. Ch. 70), 667. Scott V. Porter (2 Lea, 324), 212. Scott V. Rowland (83 Va. 484 ; 4 S. E. Rep. 595), 444, 467. Scott V. Scott (11 W. R 766), 994. Scott V. Sells (88 Cal. 599; 36 Pac. Rep. 850), 139. Scott V. Texas Land & Cattle Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 335), 47. Scott V. Whitlow (20 111. 310). 634. Scouten v. Bender (1 Barb. Ch. 647), 507. Scratchmer v. Faulkard (1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 135), 1009. Screven v. Clark (48 Ga. 41), 734, 738. Screw Mower Co. v. Mettler (26 N. J. Eq. 264), 784. Scribblehill v. Brett (4 Bro. P. 0. 144), 898. Scruggs V. Memphis &c. R Co. (104 U. S. 364), 931, 938. Scudder v. Bogert (1 Edw. Ch. 373), 439. Scully V. Book (3 Wash. St. 183), 955. Scully V. Reeves (3 N. J. Eq. 85), 333, 370, 786. Sea Ins. Co. v. Day (9 Paige, 347), 476. Sea Ins. Co. v. Stebbins (8 Paige, 565), 603. Seals V. Pheiffer (77 Ala. 378), 145. Seals V. Robinson (75 Ala. 363), 483, 54a Seaman, Matter of (2 Paige, 409), 747. Seaman v. Hicks (8 Paige, 655), 834. Seaman v. Riggins (3 N. J. Eq. 214), 817, 818, 819, 833. Search v. Search (36 N. J. Eq. 110), 64. Search v. Search (37 N. J. Eq. 137), 120. Searight v. Payne (1 Tenn. Ch. 186), 325 Searle'u Choate (35 Ch. D. 723), 739. Searle v. Fairbanks (Iowa, 45 Fed. Rep. 571), 973. Searles v. Jacksonville &c. R Co. (3 Woods, 631), 594, 714. Sears v. Carter (4 Allen, 339), 337. Sears v. Hardy (130 Mass. 524), 100. Sears v. Hotchkiss (35 Conn. 171), 288. Sears v. Hyer (1 Paige, 483), 381. Sears v. Jackson (11 N. J. Eq. 45), 606, 607, 975. Seaton v. Grant (L. R 3 Ch. App. 459), 391. Seaver v. Robinson (3 Duer. 638), 328. Seborn v. Beck with (30 West Va. 774 ; 5 S. E. Rep. 450), 193. Sebring v. Conkling (82 N. J. Eq. 24), 452, 454. Sebring v. Sebring (43 N. J. Eq. 59), 480. Secombe v. Campbell (18 Blatchf. 108), 337. Secor V. Singleton (9 Fed. Rep. 809), 298. Secor V. Singleton (35 Fed. Rep. 376), 878. Secor V. Singleton (41 Fed. Rep. 725X 515, 518, 521. Secor V. Toledo &c. R Co. (7 Biss. 513), 728. Secretary v. McGarrahan (9 Wall. 298), 763. Sedgwick v. Cleveland (7 Paige, 387), 69, 507. Seebold v. Lockner (30 Md. 133), 490. Seebor v. Hess (5 Paige, 85), 254, 788, 996. Seeley v. Price (5 N. J. Eq. 231\ 303. Seevers v. Clement (28 MA 436), 836. Segee v. Thomas (3 Blatchf. 11), 261. Seguin v. Maverick (24 Tex 526), 843. Seibert C. O. Cup Co. v. Manning (32 Fed. Rep. 625), 33. Seidenbach v. Denkenspiel (11 Lea (Tenn.), 397), 713. Seidler, Ex parte (12 Sim. 106), 998. Seifreid v. Bank (3 Tenn. Ch. 18), 344, 345. Seigle V. Seigle (36 N. J. Eq. 397), 695. Seiiaz v. Hanson (5 Ves. 361), 999. Seitz V. Mitchell (94 U. S. 580), 393. Selby V. Hills (8 Bing. 166), 328. Selden v. Vermilya (4Sandf. Ch. 573X 185, 300, 781. Selior v. Pawson (L. R 3 Eq. 880), 759. Selma &c. R. Co. v. Louisiana Nat Bank (94 U. S. 353), 946. Semmes v. Mott (37 Ga. 93), 485, 486. Semmes v. Whitney (50 Fed. Rep. 666), 19, 41. Seneca Falls v. Matthews (9 Paige, 504i, 773. Senioi- v. Pritchard (16 Beav. 473), 780. Sensening v. Parry (113 Pa. St. 115X 776, 777. Senter v. Bowman (5 Heisk. 14), 959. Sergrove v. Mayhev; (2 Mac. & G.97), 816. Seton V. Slade (7 Ves. 365), 313. Settlemier v. Sullivan (97 U. S. 444), 334. Sewall V. Sewall (130 Mass. 301), 968, 993. cxiviii TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1018.] Seward v. Comeau (102 U. S. 161), 933. Seward v. Wilson (1 Scam. 193), 1000. Seymour v. Bailey (66 111. 288), 54. Seymour v. Freer (5 Wall. 833), 933. Seymour v. Hazard (1 Johns. Ch. 1), 612. Seymour v. Jerome (Walk. Ch. 356), 473. Seymour v. Long Dock Co. (17 N. J. Eq. 160), 187, 190, 191, 192, 194. Seymour v. Long Dock Co. (20 N. J. Eq. 396), 16, 18. Seymour v. Seymour (4 Johns. Oh. 409), 545. Shackelford's Adm'r v. Shackelford (33 Gratt. 481), 713, 749, 751. Shaeffer v. Weed (3 Gilm. (111.) 511), 489. Shafer v. O'Bi'ien (31 West Va. 601 ; 8 S. E. Rep. 298), 153. Shaffer v. Fettv (80 West Va. 248 ; 4 S. E. Rep. 278), 101, 146. Shaft V. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co. (67 N. Y. 544), 570, 573. Shaftoe v. Shaftoe (7 Ves. 171), 614. Shainwald i'. Lewis (6 Fed. Rep. 766), 770. Shaiuwald v. Lewis (8 Fed. Rep. 878), 710, 753. Shainwald v. Lewis (46 Fed. Rep. 839), 118. Shaniron v. Cavazos (20 How. 380), 903. Shannahan v. Stevens (111., 28 N. E. Rep. 804), 67. Shan non v. Dodge (Colo., 32 Pac. Rep. 62), 934. Shannon v. Fechheimer (76 Ga. 86), 188. Shannon v. Hanks (88 Va. 338), 709, 710, 715, 912. Shannon v. Marselis (1 N. J. Eq. 413), 803. Shapleigh v. Chester &c. Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 848), 551. Sharer v. Gill (6 Lea, 495), 1008. Sharon v. Hill (32 Fed. Rep. 38), 318, 319, 444. Sharon i'. Hill (24 Fed. Rep. 726), 873. Sharon v. Hill (26 Fed. Rep. 722), 43. Sharon v. Sharon (67 Cal. 195), 924. Sharon v. Terrv (36 Fed. Rep. 337), 24, 504, 5Uo. Sharp V. Carter (8 P. Wms. 375), 879. Sharp V. Cutler (25 N. J. Eq. 435), 988. Sharp V. Daugney (33 Cal. 505), 331. Sharp V. Pitie (5 B. Mon. 155), 457. Sharp V. Wyckoff (89 N. J. Eq. 95), 555, 556. Sharpe v. King (3 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 402), 785. Shattuck V. Caasidy (8 Edw. Ch. 152), 325. Shaver v. Lawrence County (44 Ark. 225), 77. Shaw, £!» parte (12 S. Ct Rep. 935), 48. Shaw V. Bank of England (23 Law J. Exch. 26). 161. Shaw V. Bill (95 U. S. 10), 519. 520. Shaw V. Burney (1 Ired. Eq. 150), 211. Shaw V. Chase (77 Mich. 436), 283. Khaw V. Chng (11 Ves. :;83). 363. Shaw V. Coster (8 Paige, 389), 173, 174^ 176, 177, 178, 179, 685, 983. Shaw V. Kent (11 Ind. 80), 648. Shaw V. Little Rock &c. R Co. (100 U. S. 612), 88, 719, 730, 857. Shaw V. Millsaps f50 Miss. 380), 456. Shaw V. Mining Co. (145 U. S. 444), 48. Shaw V. Norfolk County (11 Gray, 407), 647. Shaw V. Norfolk Countv R. Co. (5 Gray, 171), 88. Shaw V. Railroad Co. (5 Gray, 163), 578. Shaw V. Smith (18 Q. B. D. 193). 367. Shea's Appeal (131 Pa. St 302), 555. Sheets v. Bray (125 Ind. 33), 648, 655. Shefifey v. Bank of Le wisburg (33 Fed. Rep. 815), 834. Sheffield Canal Co. v. Sheffield & Rotheram Ry. Co. (1 Phil. 484), 535. Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Witherow (U. S., 18 S. Ct. Rep. 936), 29a Shelbv V. Smith (2 A. K. Marsh. 504), 450, 464. Shelby v. Tardy (84 Ala. 827; 4 So. Rep. 376), 116. Sheldon v. Adams (41 Barb. 54), 421, 786. Sheldon v. Keokuk N. L. Packet Co. (8 Fed. Rep. 769), 143, 291. Sheldon v. Preston (11 Bush (Ky.), 191), 54. Sheldon v. Rockwell (9 Wis. 181 ; 76 Am. Dec. 265), 391. Sheldon v. Walbridge (44 Mich. 251), 159 Sheltou V. TifBn (6 How. 168), 37. Shelton v. Van Kleeck (106 U. S. 532), 844, 846, 848, 860. Shenandoah Nat. Bank v. Read (Iowa, 53 N. W. Rep. 96), 796. Shepard v. Shepard (6 Conn. 37 1, 131. Shephard'8 Case (3 Fed. Rep. 12), 587. Shephard V. Merrill (3 Johns. Ch. 433), 190. Shepherd v. Lloyd (2 Y. & Jer. 490), 396. Shepherd v. McClain (18 N. J. Be. 128), 971, 981. TABLE OF OASES. cxliz ! The references are to pages: Vol. I contams pp. 1-60S; Vol. n, pp. 609-1018.] Shepherd v. Pepper (133 U. a 626), 93a Shepherd v. Roberts (3 Bro. C. C. 239), 368. Shepherd v. Taylor (R. I., 13 Atl. Eep. 105), 830. Sheppard v. Akers (1 Term. Ch. 336), 435. Sheppard v. Graves (14 How. 504), 43. Sheridan v. Colvin (78 III. 237), 763. Sheridan v. Medara (10 N. J. Eq. 469), 549. Sherman v. American Stove Co. (Mich., 48 N. W. Rep. 537), 84. Sherman v. Kreul (43 Wis. 33), 17. Sherman v. Leman (137 III. 94; 27 N. E. Rep. 57), 981. Sherman v. Nutt (35 Fed. Rep. 149), 764. Sherman v. Sherman (3 Bro. C. C 370), 609, 613, 617, 618. Sherry v. Divine (11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 723), 360. Sherry v. Smith (73 Wis. 389 ; 39 N. W. Rep. 556). 16. Sherwood v. Hammond (4 Blackf. 504), 487. Slierwood v. Sherwood (33 Conn. 3), 876. Shew V. Hews (Ind., 36 N. E. Rep. 488), 169. Shewell v. Jones (3 Sim. & Stu. 170), 748. Shickle v. South St Louis Foundry Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 105), 146. Shickle v. Watts (94 Mo. 419), 18. Shields v. Barrow (17 How. 130), 70, 71, 74, 143, 145, 150, 193, 456, 457, 583. Shields v. McClung (6 West Va. 79), 783. Shields v. Thomas (17 How. 3), 23. Shields v. Thomas (18 How. 358), 49, 149, 150, 884. Shine v. Gough (2 Ball & B. 33), 842. Shipman v. Fletcher (88 Va. 349), 693. Shipman v. Furniss (69 Ala. 568), 383. Shippen's Lessee v. Bush (1 Ball. 350), 590. Shirk V. City of La Fayette (53 Fed. Rep. 857). 41, 48. Shirley v. Shirley (93 Cal. 44), 657. Shirley v. Watts (3 Atk. 200), 645. Shonk V. Knight (12 West Va. 667), 888, 788. Short V. May (3 Sandf. Ch. 639), 387. Short V. Mercier (3 McN. & G. 217), 861. Shoecraft v. Bloxham (134 U. S. 730), 50. Shotwell V. Smith (30 N. J. Eq. 79), 161. Shotwell V. Struble (21 N. J. Eq. 31), 786. Shrewsbmy v. Miller (10 West Va. 115), 857. Shrewsbury v. Shrewsbury R. Co. (1 Sim. (N. S.) 410), 325. Shrewsbury R. Co. v. London R. Co. (4Dea, M. &G. 115), 951. Shricker v. Field (9 Iowa, 866), 834. Shultz V. Sanders (88 N. J. Eq. 154), 826, 828. Shutte V. Thompson (15 Wall 161), 550. Shuttleworth v. Dunlop (34 N. J. Eq. 488), 1004, 1006, 1007. Shuttleworth v. Laycock (1 Vern. 29), 271. Shuttleworth v. Lowther (7 Ves. 583), 992. Sibbald v. United States (13 Pet. 488), 840, 956, 963. Sibert v. MoAvoy (15 111. 106), 657. Sichel V. Raphael (4 L. T. (N. 8.) 114), 619. Sick V. Swinton (1 Ves. & B. 373), 609. Sickela v. Borden (4 Blatchf. 14), 780. Sidden v. Lediard (1 R. & M. 110), 313 Sides v' Schaiff (Ala., 9 So. Rep. 388), 91. Sidney v. Perry (3 Dick. 603), 346. Sidney v. Sidney (3 P. Wms. 269), 628. Siffkin V. Manning (9 Paige, 222), 434. Sigel V. Phelps (7 Sim. 239), 66, 67. Sigman v. Lundy (66 Miss. 532 ; 6 So. Rep. 845), 466. Silcock V. Roynon (2 Y. & ColL C. C. 376), 818. Sills V. Brown (1 Johns. Ch. 444), 888. Silver v. Campbell (35 N. J. Eq. 465), 823. Silver v. Ladd (6 Wall. 440), 934 Simmons v. Baynard (30 Fed. Rep. 538), 59, 254. Simmons v. Craig (N. Y., 33 N. E. Rep. 76), 778. Simmons v. Gutteridge (13 Ves. 262). 508. Simmons v. Jacobs (52 Me. 147), 686. Simms v. Guthrie (9 Cranch, 19), 72, 126. Simms v. Thompson (1 Dev. Ch. 197), 827. Simon v. Townsend (87 N. J. Eq. 303), 789. Simons v. Harwood fl Keen, 7), 66. Simpson, Ex parte (15 Ves. 476), 186, 140, 436. Simpson v. Alexander (6 Cold. (Tenn.) 619), 55, 56, 57, 60. Simpson v. Brewster (9 Paige. 245), 474. Simpson v. Moore (5 Lea (Tenn.), 376), 236. cr TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Simpson v. Wallace (83 N. C. 477), 153. Sims V. Adams (78 Ala 395), 151, 717. Sims V. Burk (109 Ind. 314), 458. Sims V. Hundley (6 How. 1), 528. Sims V. Lyle (4 Wash. (C. C.) 301), 320. Sims V. McEwen (27 Ala. 184), 449. Sims V. Redding (20 Tex. 387), 331. Sims V. Ridge (3 Mer. 458), 606. Simson v. Hart (14 Johns. 74), 334. Sinclair v. James (1 Dick. 277), 499. Sinclair v. Sinclair (13 M. & W. 640), 57. Siney v. New York Consolidated Stage Co. (38 How. Pr. 481), 749. Singer v. Steele (125 111. 426), 691, 692. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Springfield Foundry Co. (34 Fed. Rep. 393), 142. Singerly v. Fox (75 Pa. St 118), 737, 738. Singleton v. Gale (8 Porter (Ala.), 370), 235. Singleton v. Lewis (6 Munf. 397), 330. Sinniokson v. Bruere (9 N. J. Eq. 659), 696. Sinnickson v. Johnson (3 N. J. Eq. 874), 337. Sioux City &c. Ry. Co. v. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. (37 Fed. Rep. 770), 39. Sioux City &c. R Co. v. Chicago &c. R. Co. (117 U. S. 406), 1011. Skiddy v. Railroad Co. (3 Hughes, 320), 578. Skillern's Ex'r v. May's Ex'r (6 Cranoh, 267), 132, 964. Skinner v. Bailey (7 Conn. 497), 126. Skinner v. Dayton (5 Johns. 191), 596. Skmner v. Judson (8 Conn. 527), 361. Skinner v. Maxwell (66 N. C. 4S), 703. Skinner v. White (17 Johns. 367), 324. Skinneis' Co. v. Irish Society (1 M. & C. 168), 569. Skip V. Harwood (S Atk. 561), 702, 874 Skrymsher v. Northcote (1 Swanst 573), 848. Slack V. Black (109 Mass. 496), 293. Slack V. Evans (1 Price, 878, n.), 136. Slack V. Walcott (3 Mason, 508), 501, 534. Slason V. Wright (14 Vt. 208), 394, 466. Slater v. Barnwell (50 Fed. Rep. 150), 545. Slaughter-house Cases (10 Wall. 273), 341. Slawson v. Grand St R. Co. (107 U. S. 649), 369. Slee V. Bloom (7 Johns. Ch. 187', 695. Slee V. Manhattan Co. (1 Paige, 49), 993. Sloan V. Sloan (103 111. 581), 851. Slockbower v. Kanouse (N. J., 36 AtL Rep. 333), 639. Sloggett V. Viant (18 Sim. 187), 999. Sloman v. Kelly (3 Y. & C. 673), 361. Smack v. Duncan (4 Sandf. Ch. 631), 477, 989. Small V. Boudinot (9 N. J. Eq. 381), 133. Small V. Montgomery (17 Fed. Rep. 865 1, 257. Small V. Sanders (118 Ind. 105), 764. Smalley v. Corliss (37 Vt 486), 692. Smallwood v. Lewin (13 N. J. Eq. 133), 418, 485. Smallwood v. Lewin (15 N. J. Eq. 60), 405. Smart v. Biadstock (7 Beav. 500), 80. Sraedberg v. Mark's Ex'r (6 Johns. Ch. 138), 609, 613. Smedberg v. Whittlesey (3 Sandf. Ch. 330), 90. Smets V. Williams (4 Paige, 364), 20. Smilie v. Siler (35 Ala. 88), 409. Smith, Ex parte (1 Atk. 139), 603. Smith, Ex parte (94 U. S. 455), 130. Smith V. Alderton (2 Fowl. Ex. Pr. 60), 533. Smith V. Althus (11 Ves. 564), 679. Smith V. Alton (38 N. J. Eq. 573), 819. Smith V. Appleton (19 Wis. 468), 787. Smith V. Axtell (1 N. J. Eq. 494 , 126. Smith V. Babcock (3 Sumn. 586), 414, 416, 417, 418. Smith V. Bourbon County (137 U. S. 113), 958. Smith V. Brice (17 S. C. 538), 644 Smith V. Biittenham (98 III. 188), 482. Smith V. Brush (1 Johna Ch. 459), 893, 649. Smith V. Bryant (7 J. J. Marsh. 374), 506. Smith V. Bryon (3 Madd. 428), 295, 297. Smith V. Biirnham (6 Sumn. 612), 589. Smith V. Butcher (88 Gratt 144), 918. Smith V. City of Portland (30 Fed. Rep. 734), 88. Smith ?,'. Chapman (4 Conn. 344), 96. Smith V. Clark (11 Biss. 340), 580. Smith V. Clark (4 Paige, 368), 359, 893. Smith V. Clarke (13 Ves. 477), 528. Smith V. Clay (Amh. 645), 851, 862. Smith V. Cunningham (3 Tenn. Ch. 573', 235. Smith V. Day (L. R. 31 Ch. D. 431), 772. 775. 777. Smith V. Duke of Beaufort (1 Hall, 507), 588. Smith V. Duke of Northumberland (1 Cox's Cas. 868), 53a Smith V. Earl Brownlow (L. R, 9 Eq. 841), 150. TABLE or OASES. eli [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Smith V. Etches (1 H. & M. 711), 1001. Smith V. Fitoh (Clarke's Ch. 265), 171. Smith V. Frenche (28 N. J. Eq. 116), 689. Smith V. Gaines (39 N. J. Eq. 545), 87. Smith V. Gale (137 U. S. 577), 913. Smith V. Greeley (14 N. H. 378), 805. Smith V. Grim (26 Pa. St 95), 91. Smith V. Hadley (64 N. H. 97; 5 Atl. Rep. 717), 198. Smith V. Hammond (6 Sim. 10), 1002. Smith V. Harkins (3 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 613), 785. Smith V. Hartley (5 Beav. 433), 418. Smith V. Hurst (10 Hare, 30), 645. Smith V. Kav (7 H. L, Cas. 750), 272. Smith V. Kelley (56 Me. 64), 278. Smith V. Lasher (5 Johns. Ch. 247), 365. Smith V. Lathrop (44 Pa. St 326), 826. Smith V. Lawrence (26 Conn. 469), 17, 18. Smith V. Little Rock &c. Co. (100 U. S. 605), 820. Smith V. Loomis (5 N. J. Eq. 60), 331, 363, 870, 787. Smith V. Lyon (133 U. S. 315\ 46. Smitli v. Lyster (4 Beav. 227). 754 Smith V. McCuUough (104 U. S. 25), 719. Smith V. McDonald (42 Cal. 484), 60. Smith V. Marshall (2 Atk. 70), 212. Smith V. New York Consolidated Stage Co. (18 Abb. Pr. 418), 752. Smith V. Parke (2 Paigo, 298), 208. Smith V. People (Colo. App., 2 Rob. 99), 876. Smith V. Potter (3 Wis. 432), 393. Smith V. Railroad Co. (105 111. 511), 339. Smith V. Railroad Co. (12 Out App. 288), 703. Smith V. Railroad Co. (99 U. S. 398), 645. Smith V. Rock (59 Vt 332), 675. Smith V. Rosseter (11 111. 119), 1000. Smith n St Louis Mut L. Ins. Co. (3 Tenn. Ch. 599), 234, 377, 381, 409, 433, 435, 486. Smith V. Schwed (6 Fed. Rep. 455), 772. Smith V. Scribner (59 Vt 96), 151. Smith V. Searle (14 Ves. 415), 390, 440. Smith V. Sherman (52 Mich. 637), 191. Smith V. Smith (2 Blackf. 333), 474, 478. Smith t>. Smith (4 Johns. Ch. 445), 693 993 Smith v. Smith (L. R. 30 Eq. 500), 758. Smith V. Smith (1 Paige, 891), 914. Smith V. Smith (.4 Paige, 132), 420. Smith V. Summerfield (N. C, 13 S. E. Rep. 997), 90. Smith V. Swornstedt (16 How. 388), 79, 81. Smith V. Taylor (82 Cal. 533 ; 23 Pac. Rep. 217), 805. Smith V. Trenton, Del., Falls Co. (4 N. J. Eq. 508), 76, 750. Smith V. Vaughan (Cas. temp. Hardw. 351), 751, 753. Smith V. Webster (8 Myl. & Cr. 344), 343. Smith V. Weguelin (L. R. 8 Eq. 198), 55. Smith V. West (103 111. 333), 447. Smith V. West (3 Johns. Ch. 365), 493. Smith V. Williams (116 Mass. 510), 21, 79, 80. Smith V. Wood (42 K J. Eq. 563), 120, 134. Smith V. Woolfolk (115 U. S. 143), 196, 214, 224, 450, 464. Smith's Ex'x V. Profitt's Adm'x (83 Va. 832), 806. Smock V. Jones (39 N. J. Eq. 16), 416. Smytlie v. Fitzsimmons (Ala,, 12 So. Rep. 48), 843. Snead v. McCouU (13 How. 407), 194. Snediker v. Pearson (2 Barb. Ch. 107), 343. Snell V. De Land (186 111. 583), 686, 691, 693. Snell V. Dwight (121 Mass. 348), 841, 918. Snell V. Harrison (83 Mo. 651), 657. Snell V. Loucks (12 Barb. 385), 658. Snodgrass v. Butler (54 Miss. 45), 178. Snouffer v. Hansbrough (79 Va. 166), 661. Snow V. Boston Blank-Book Manuf'g Co. (153 Mass. 456 ; 26 N. E. Rep. 1116), 291, 373. Snow V. Counselman (136 HI. 197), 283, 335. Snowden v. Snowden (1 Bland, 550), 383. Snowden v. Tyler (21 Neb. 199), 16, 156. Snyder v. Botkin (West Va., 16 S. E. Rep. 591), 859, 861. Snyder v. Martin (17 West Va. 276), 394. Snyder v. Seeman (41 N. J. Eq. 405), 789. Sobenheimer v. Wheeler (45 N. J. Eq. 614), 715. Sobey v. Sobey (L. R 15 Eq. 200), 613. Society &o. v. Low (17 N. J. Eq. 20), .324, 786, 787. Societe Anonvme v. Blount (51 Fed. Rep. 610)," 899, Societe Anonymo v. Western Dis- tilling Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 96), 877. clit TABLE OF OASES. IThe references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; VoL n, pp. 6(»-1013.] Solomon v. Chesley (59 N. H. 34), 777. Solomon v. Solomon (81 Ala. 505), 293. Solomon v. Stalman (4 Beav. 343), 568. Somerbyn Buntin (118 Mass. 379), 298. Somerville v. Mackay (16 Vea 383), 533. Somers v. Torrey (5 Paige, 54), 430. Soper V. Manning (147 Mass. 126), 88, 953 Sender's Appeal (57 Pa. St. 498), 761. Soule V. Corning (11 Paige, 412). 486. Soulliard v. Dias (9 Paige, 393), 501. South Eastern Ry. Co. v. Submarine Tel. Co. (18 Beav. 439), 544. South Fork Canal Co. v. Gordon (6 Wall. 561), 949. South Park Comm'rs v. Phillips (37 111. App. 3S0), 649. South Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. Hall (16 Jur. 160). 478. Southall V. British Mut L. Asa. Co. (38 L. J. Ch. 711), 420. Southard u Russell (16 How. 547), 844, 845, 848. Southard v. Sutton (68 Me. 575), 97. Southern Development Co. v. Silva (135 U. S. 247), 393. Southern Express Co. v. St. Louis &c. Ry. Co. (10 Fed. Rep. 210, 869), 793. Southern Express Co. v. Western &c. R. Co. (99 U. S. 191), 739. Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Briscoe (144 U. S. 133), 37. Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Lauior (5 Fla. 110), 103. Southern Nat. Bank v. Darling (49 N. J. Eq. 389), 11, 387, 1004. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. California (118 U. S. 109), 32. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Denton (13 S. Ct Rep. 44), 48, 49, 383. South raayd v. Elizabeth (29 N. J. Eq. 303), 166. Southwick, In re (1 Johns. Ch. 33), 997. Souza V. Belcher (3 Edw. Ch. 117), 374. Souzer v. De Meyer (3 Paige, 574), 377, 330. 3-'l, 348. Sowles, In re (41 Fed. Rep. 753), 873. Sowles V. Witters (43 Fed. Rep. 700), 34. Sovpter V. Dunston (1 Mann. & Ry. 508), 485. Spafford v. Goodell (3 McLean, 97), 876. Spalding v. Keely (7 Sim. 377), 771. Spaunu Spann (3 Hill's Ch. Pr. 133), 886. Sparhawk v. Wills (5 Graj-, 433), 686. Sparke v. Montrion (1 Y. & CoL 103), 533. Sparks v. White (7 Humph. 91), 340. Sparrow v. Strong (3 Wall 97), 33. Spaulding v. Farwell (62 Me. 319), 136. Speak V. Metcalf (3 Tenn. Ch. 214), 311. Speak V. Ransom (3 Tenn. Ch. 210), 335, 563, 787. Speakman v. Tatem (45 N. J. Eq. 388), 70. Spearing v. Lynn (3 Vern. 376), 843. Special Bank Comm'rs v. Franklin Sav. Inst (11 R. L 557), 729, 730. Speidel v. Heurici (120 U. S. 387; 7 S. Ct Rep. 6101, 391. Spencer v. Jones (85 Va. 173), 350. Spencer v. Risley (U. S. C. Ct S. D. N. Y. 1893), 611. Spencer v. Spencer (11 Paige, 399), 974. Spencer v. Van Duzen (1 Paige, 555), 364, 427, 434. Sperb V. Metropolitan El. Ry. Ca (10 N. Y. Supl. 865), 591. Sperry v. Miller (2 Barb. Ch. 632), 270, 317, 341, Spier V. Robinson (9 How. Pr. 335), 524. Spires v. Sewell (5 Sim. 193), 606. Spofford V. Manning (6 Paige, 383), 277, 311, 312, 313. Sprague v. Hall (9 Paige, 395), 842. Spring i\ South Carolina Ins. Co. (6 Wheat 519), 941.' Spring V. South Carolina Ins. Co. (8 Wheat 308), 983. Springer v. Vanderpool (4 Edw. Ch. 362), 507. Spurlock V. Fulks (1 Swan, 289), 955. Spurr V. Scoville (3 Cush. 578), 308. Spurrier v. Fitzgerald(6 Ves. 548),416. Sprague v. Sprague (7 J. J. Marsh. 331), 223. Sprague v. Waldo (38 Vt 139), 446. Sprague v. West (137 (Mass. 471), 172. Spring V. South Carolina Ins. Co. (8 Wheat 368), 180. Springer v. Lawrence (N. J., 31 Atl. Rep. 41), 84 Squibb v. McFarland (11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 563), 254 Squire v. Pershall (3 Bro. P. C. 396), 910. Squire v. Shaw (34 N. J. Eq 74), 390, 430. Stacey v. Spratley (4 De G., G. & J. 199) 995. Stacy u.'piersnii (3 Rich. Eq. 152), 160. Stacy V. Thrasher (6 How. 44), 68. Stadler v. Hertz (13 Lea (Tenn.), 310), 380, 381. TABLE OF CASES. diii IThe references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Stafford V. Brown (4 Paige, 88), 437, 433, 434, 441. Stafford v. Brown (4 Paige, 360), 596, 600. 875. Stafford v. Bryan (1 Paige, 339), 393. Stafford V. Bryan (2 Paige, 45), 845. Stafford v. Hewlett (1 Paige, 200), 185, 509. 512, 530. Stafford v. Mott (3 Paige, 100), 981, 1011. Stafford v. Rogers (Hopk. Ch. 98), 43S, 695. Stafford v. Union Bank (16 How. 135), 940. Stahl V. Gotzenberger (45 Wis. 131), 657. Staiger v. Schultz (3 Keyes, 614), 971. Stamps V. BiTmingham &c. Ry. Co. (3 Phil. 673), 430. Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pac. Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 295), 267, 530. Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pac. R Co. (54 Fed. Rep. 531), 577. Standart v. Burtin (46 Hun, 82), 148. Standen v. Edwards (1 Ves. Jr. 133), 661, 995. Standish v. Radley (2 Atk. 177), 508. Stanley v. Holliday (Ind., 30 N. E. Rep. 634), 16.5. Stanley v. Mather (31 Fed. Rep. 860), 95. Stanley v. Stark (115 Mass. 359), 953. Stanley v. Sullivan (71 Wis. 585), 880, 881. Stanley v. Valentine (79 111. 544), 376. Stannard v. Sperry (56 Conn. 541), 697. Stanton v. Alabama &o. R. Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 585), 696. Stanton v. Alabama &c. R. Co. (3 Woods, 506 i, 719, 730, 722. Stanton v. Embrey (93 U. S. 548), 326. Staples V. Fairchild (3 N. Y. 44), 333. Staples?'. Hardeman (Ga., 16 S. E. Rep. 657), 840, 843. Staples' Ex'rs v. Staples (85 Va. 76), 836. Staplyton v. Scott (13 Ves. 435), 449. Slariii v. New York (115 U. S. 248), 33. Stark V. Hillibert (19 111. 344), 491. Starten v. Bartholomew (6 Pea v. 143), 55 State V. Allen (33 Ala. 423), 342. State V. Blakemore (7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 657), 713. State V. Butler (15 Lea, 113), 733. State V. Clark (3 Harring. 557), 55. State V. Columbia (13 S. C. 370), 408. State V. Crawford (38 Kan. 736), 766. State V. Dayton (33 N. J. Law, 49), 61& State V. Dixon (97 Ind. 135), 958. State V. Edgefield &c. R. Co. (5 Lea (Tenn.), 353), 731. State V. Eggleston (84 Kan. 714), 773. State V. Gibson (21 Ark. 140), 713, 713, 753. State V. Hemingway (Miss., 10 So. Rep. 575), 470. State V. Jacksonville &c. R. Co. (15 Fla. 201), 793. State V. Kearney County Comm'rs (42 Kan. 739), 773. State V. Kolsem (130 Ind. 434; 29 N. E. Rep. 595), 850. State V. Lupton (64 Mo. 415), 64-3. State V. Rush County Comm'rs (85 Kan. 150), 773, 779. State V. St. Louis Circuit Court (41 Mo. 574), 18. State V. Stout (61 Ind. 143), 286. State V. Terre Haute &c. R Co. (64 Ind. 397), 958. State V. Turner (49 Ark. 311 ; 5 S. W. Rep. 302), 85, 133. State V. Voorhies (37 La. Ann. 605), 876. State V. Wakeley (28 Neb. 431), 773. State V. Westmoreland (27 S. C. 625), 345. State V. Wheeling Bridge Co. (18 How. 518), 106. State V. Whitewater Valley Canal Co. (8 Ind. 320), 360. State V. Williams (39 Kan. 517; 18 Pac. Rep. 737), 133. State V. Wilmer (65 Md. 178), 736. State V. Pierce (Kan., 32 Pac. Rep. 934 s 778. State Bank v. Bell (7 N. J. Eq. 372), 574. State Bank v. Stanton (3 Gilm. 353), 484. State Bank v. Wilson (9 111. 57), 485. State Ins. Co. v. Gennett (2 Tenn. Ch. 83), 175. State of Florida v. Anderson (91 U. S. 667), 36. State of Georgia v. Grant 6 Wall. 241), 205. State of Georgia v. Jesup (106 V. S. 458), 905. State of Mississippi v. Johnson '4 Wall. 475). 205. State of Missouri v. Iowa (7 How. 660), 35. State of New Hampshire v. Louis- iana (108 U. S. 7G), 35. State (if New York v. Louisiana (108 U. S. 76), 25. State Savings Ass'n v. Howard (31 Fed. Rep. 433), 41. States V. White (17 Fed. Rep. 561), 373. cliv lABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1018.] Statham v. Dusy (Cal., 11 Pac. Rep. 606), 165. Statham v. Hall (1 Turn. & R 30), 176. Statling V. Goodloe (3 Murphy, 150), 855. Stead V. Course (4 Cranch, 403), 351. Steale v. White (3 Paige, 478), 900, 901. Steam-Gauge & Lautern Co. v. Mc- Roherts (26 Fed. Rep. 765), 124. Steamship Ca v. Tugman (106 U. S. 118), 41. Stearns v. Page (7 How. 819), 133. Stearns v. Stearns (23 N. J. Eq. 167), 39:^. Stebbins v. Grant (19 Johns. 196), 606. Stebbins v. St. Anne (116 U. S. 386), 149. Steele v. Maunder (1 Coll. 535). 95. Steere v. Hoagland (39 111. 264), 671. Steever v. Ruckman (109 U. S. 74), 946. Steff V. Andrews (2 Madd. 6), 269. Stegner v. Blake (36 Fed, Rep. 183), 528, 547. Steiger v. Boun (4 Fed. Rep. 17), 229. Steiger i'. Heidelberger (4 Fed. Rep. 455 ; 18 Blatohf. 436), 336. Stein V. Benedict iWis., 53 N. W. Rep. 891, 895), 16. Steinbach v. Hill (25 Mich. 78), 31. Steiues v. Franklin County (14 Wall. 15), 830, 913. Steinhardt v. Cunningham (N. Y., 29 N. E. Rep. 100), 94. Stephen v. Morgan (94 XT. S. 599), 946. Stephens V. Bernays (44 Fed. Rep. 643), 34. Stephens v. Frost (3 Y. & Coll. 297), 387. Stephens v. Gaule (2 Yern. 701), 373. Stephens v. Hall (10 N. Y. Supl. 753), 928. Stephens v. Stephens (3 SeL Cas. 51), 363. Stephens v. Van Buren (1 Paige, 479), 62. Stephens v. Whitehead (75 Ga. 294), 150. Stephen.son v. Davis (56 Me. 73), 288, 284. Stephenson v. Taverness (9 Gratt. 398). 474. Sterl V. Sterl (2 111. App. 228), 446. Stern's Case (14 Ala. 597), 485. Sterry v. Arden (1 Johns. Ch. 63), 459. Stevens v. Church (41 Conn. 369), 127, 193. Stevens v. Cooper (1 Johna Ch. 425), 528. Stevens v. Fuller (136 U. S. 468), 876. Stevens v. Kansas Pac. By. Co. (5 Dill. 486), 304 Stevens v. Post (12 N. J. Eq. 408), 393, 401. Stevens v. Railroad Co. (12 Blatchf. 104), 728. Stevens v. The Railroads (4 Fed. Rep. 97), 478. Stevens v. Warren (101 Mass. 564), 179. Stevens v. Williams (1 Sim. (N. S.) 445), 1008. Stevens' Ex'x v. Stevens' Ex'rs (34 N. J. Eq. 574), 912. Stevenson's Appeal (32 Pa. St 318), 852. Stevenson v. Austin (3 Met 474), 79, 80. Stevenson v. Gregory (1 Barb. Ch. 72). 689. Stevenson v. Magowan (31 Fed. Rep. 834), 369. Stevenson v. Stevenson (8 Edw. Ch. 390), 108, 109. Steward v. Roe i3 P. Wms. 435), 461. Stewart v. Beebe (28 Barb. 34), 738. Stewart v Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. (1 Fed. Rep. 361), 73. Stewart v. Crane (87 Ga. 328), 693, 694. Stewart v. Drasha (4 McLean, S63), 116, 273. Stewart v. Dunham (115 U. S. 61), 38, 41, 673. Stewart v. EUice (2 Paige, 604), 629, 975. Stewart v. Flint (57 Vt 316), 272, 275, 805. Stewart v. Forbes (1 Macn. & G. 137), 798. Stewart v. French (32 Wall. 238), 244. Stewart v. Graham (19 Yes. 312), 609, 613. 616, 619. Stewart v. Johnson (87 Ga. 97), 713. Stewart v. Masterson (124 U. S. 493), 929, 933. Stewart v. Masterson (131 U. & 151), 265, 283. 932. Stewart v. Salamon (97 U. S. 361), 959 Stewart v. State (30 Md. 97), 776. Stewart v. Stewart (30 Beav. 320), 1007. Stewart u Stewart (19 Yes. 314), 623. Stewart v. Stewart (27 West Ya. 167), 147. Stewart v. Stone (3 Gill & J. 514), 407. Stewart v. Tlie Sun (36 Fed. Rep. 307), 1003, 1005. Stewart v. Turner (3 Edw. Ch. 458), 680. Stich V. Goldner (38 Cal. 609), 923. Stiles V. Willis (66 Md. 552), 393. TABLE OF OASES. "clv frhe references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-60S; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Stillwell V. M'Neely (3 N. J. Eq. 305), 79, 87, 99. Stimson v. Bacon (9 N. J. Eq. 144), 769. Stinson v. Dousman (30 How. 461), 33. Stirrat v. Excelsior Mfg. Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 143), 135, 138, 364. Stitt V. Hilton (31 N. J. Eq. 385), 441, 789. Stitt V. Huidekoper (17 Wall. 384), 938. Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co. (103 Mass. 45), 908. Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co. (107 Mass. 290), 647, 649. Stookley v. Stockley (Mich., 53 N. W. Rep. 523), 853. Stockman v. Riverside L. &. L Co. (64 Cal. 57), 657. Stock meyer v. Tobin (139 U. S. 176), 814. Stockton V. Dundee Mfg. Co. (33 N. J. Eq. 56), 989. StogKS V. State (3 Humph. (Tenn.) 372), 799. Stone V. Anderson (5 Foster (N. H.), 231), 206. Stone V. Brookville Bank (39 Ind. 384), 507. Stone V. Byrne (5 Bro. P. C. 309), 563. Stone V. Duncan (1 Head (Tenn.), 103), 239. Stone V. Locke (46 Me. 445), 98. Stone V. Locke (48 Me. 425), 971. Stone V. Manning (3 Scam. (111.) 530), 645. Stone I'. Moore (36 111. 165), 266, 371. Stone V. Myers (9 Minn. 303), 169. Stone V. Smoot (39 111. 409), 447. Stone V. Thomas (L. R 5 Ch. 319), 18. Stone V. Welles 1 128 N. Y. 655), 643. Stone V. Wishart (2 Madd. 64), 710. Stonemetz P. M. Co. v. Brown F. M. Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 851), 454. Stonesifer v. Kilburn (94 111. 33), 591. Stonington Savings Bank v. Davis (15 N. .J. Eq. 31), 675. Storer v. Great Western R Co. (2 Y. & C. Ch. 48), 759. Storey v. Saunders (1 Hayes & J. 341), 799. Storm V. Davenport (1 Sandf. Ch. 185), 507. Storms V. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. (5 Dill. 486), 356. Storms V. Storms (1 Edw. Ch. 358), 489. Storrs i". Wallace (54 Mich. 113), 295. Story, Ex parte (18 Pet 339), 964. Story V. Brown (4 Paige. 112), 682. Story V. Livingston (13 Pet. 359), 7, 70, 73, 100, 101, 678, 679, 690, 691, 967. Story V. Osdeo (33 Ind. 326), 286. Stotesbury v. Vaill (13 N. J. Eq. 890), 789. Stout V. Cook (41 111. 447), 950. Stout V. Curry (110 Ind. 514), 806. Stout V. Lye (103 U. S. 66), 337. Stout V. Seabrook (30 N. J. Eq. 189), 291, 671. Stoutenburgh v. Peck (4 N. J. Eq. (8 Gr. Ch.) 446), 334, 787, 788. Stovall V. Banks (10 Wall. 583), 917. Stover V. Reading (39 N. J. Eq. 153), 133 Stover v. Wood (26 N. J. Eq. 56), 193, 533 Stow u.' Russell (36 111. 18), 266, 267. Straker v. Reynolds (22 Q. B. D. 263), 367. Strange v. Bell (11 Ga. 103), 172. Strangeways, Ex parte (3 Atk. 478), 876. Strangham v. Hall wood (30 West Va. 274), 513, 514, 746. Strasser v. Moondis (108 N. Y. 611), 759. Stratford v. Hogan (3 Ball & B. 164), 362. Stratton v. Hernon (154 Mass. 310), 647. Stratton v. Phisio-Medical College (149 Mass. 505), 981. Stratton v. Reisdorph (Neb., 53 N. W. Rep. 318), 811, 817. Straus V. Weil (5 Cold. (Tenn.) 120), 257. Streat v. Steinam (38 Fed. Rep. 548), 533. Street v. Street (1 Turn. & R 322), 614 Streeter v. Marshall Silver Min. Co. (4 Colo. 535), 776. Stretch v. Gowdey (3 Tenn. Ch. 565), 728, 747. Stretch v. Stretch (3 Tenn. Ch. 140), 581. Stribley v. Hawkie (8 Atk. 375), 879. Stribling v. Hart (20 Fla. 226), 844. Strike's Case (1 Bland, 57), 475, 580. Strike v. McDonald (8 Harr. & Gill, 191), 579. Strong V. Harrison (63 Miss. 61), 778. Stuart V. Ancell (1 Cnx, Ch. 411), 347. Stuart V. Boulware (1J3 U. S. 78), 738, 729, 733. 3i-uart V. Burrowes (Drury (Ir.), 365), 535 Stuart V. Gav (127 U. S. 518), 835, 904. Stuart V. Hendricks (80 Va. 601), 696. Stubbs V. Dunsanv (10 Ves. 30), 907. Stubbs V. Sargoa (3 Beav. 408), 570. Stucky V. Stucky (80 N. J. Eq. 546), 126. Studwell V Palmer (5 Paige, 57), 934, 955. Studwell V. Palmer (5 Paige, 166), 596. clvi TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. H, pp. 609-1012,] StuU V. Goode (10 Heisk. 58), 420. Sturch V. Young (5 Beav. 557), 567. Sturdevant v. Stanton (47 Conn. 579), 796, 808, 989. Sturgeon v. Burrall (1 111. App. 537), 155. Stui-gess V. Harrold (18 How. 40), 936. Sturgis V. Knapp (83 Vt 486), 773, 777. Sturgis V. Morse (26 Beav. 563), 553. Sturms V. Fleming (26 West Va 59), 414 Stuyvpsant v. Mayor &c. (11 Paige, 414), 282. Sufifen V. Butler (18 N. J. Eq. 220), 784. Suffern v. Johnson (1 Paige, 450), 814, 818. Sullinsjs V. Goodyear Co. (36 Mich. 313), 485. Sullivan v. Fnlton Steamboat Co. (6 Wheat. 450), 180. Sullivan v. Jennings (44 N. J. Eq. 11), 829. Sullivan v. Judah (9 Paige. 444), 778. Sullivan v. Poitland &o. R Co. (94 U. S. 811). 291. Sullivan v. Sullivan (2 Mer. 40), 338. Summerlin v. Fronterizac &o. Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 249), 150, 585. Summers v. Murray (2 Edw. Ch. 205), 377, 487. Sumter County v. Mitchell (85 Ala. 313; 4 So. Rep. 705), 151. Sun Vapor &c. Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids (39 Fed. Rep. 698), 428. Supervisors v. Durant (9 Wall. 736 1, 769, 799. Supervisors &o. v. Kennioott (94 U. S. 498), 960. Sutphen v. Fowler (9 Paige, 280), 63, 802. Sutton V. Doggett (3 Beav. 9), 985. Sutton V. Gatewood (0 Munf. 398), 306. Sutton V. Jones (15 Ves. 584), 710. Sutton Harbor Co. v. Kitchens (15 Beav. 161), 478. Suydtim v. Bartle (10 Paige, 94), 874. Suydam v. Beals (4 McLean, 13), 233, 288. Suydam v. Truesdale (6 McLean, 459), 414, 445. Swaby V. Dickson (5 Sim. 629), 734, 788. Swallow V. Day (3 Col. C. C. 138), 417. Swallow V. Swallow (27 N. J. Eq. 379), 100. Swan V. Clark (110 U. S. 602), 720. Swan V. Fabyan (110 U. S. 590), 904. Swan V. Hortoa (14 Gray. 179i, 59. Swan V. Timmons (81 Ind. 243), 778. Swanston v. Lishman (45 L. T. (N. S.) 360), 3K7. Swanzy v. Swanzy (4 K & J. 237), 1005. Swartz V. Chickering (58 Md. 290), 553. Swayue v. Boylston Ins. Co. (35 Fed. Rep. 1), 46. Swavze v. Swayze (9 N. J. Eq. 273), 157. Swedesborough Church v. Shivers (16 N. J. Eq. 453), 20, 483. Sweeney, Ex parte (126 Ind: 583), 643. Sweeny v. Coffin (1 Dill. 75), 253, 254. Sweet V. City of Syracuse (30 N. Y. Supl. 924). 971. Sweet V. Clay (Mich., 49 N. W. Rep. 899), 91. Sweet V. Converse (88 Mich. 1 ; 49 N. W. Rep. 899), 288. Sweet V. Parker (22 N. J. Eq. 453), 411. Sweet V. Young (Ambler, 353), 363. Sweetzer v. Buchanan (Ala., 10 So. Rep. 552). 111. Swett V. Thompson (149 Mass. 303), 952. Swi£t V. Collins (1 Denio, 659), 1000. Swift V. Dewey (20 Neb. 107), 688. Swift V. Eckford (6 Paige, 22), 150, 188. Swift V. Shepard (64 Cal. 428), 341. Swift V. Smith (102 U. S. 443), 8. Swift V. Stebliins (8 Ala. 447), 320. Swinborne v. Nelson (16 Beav. 416), 363. Sydolph V. Monkston (2 Dick. 609), 442. Syme v. Trice (96 N. C. 243), 863. Svmes V. Magnay (20 Beav. 47), 173. Symmes »'. Strong (28 N. J. Eq. 131), 411, 803. Symmes v. Symmes (18 S. C. 601), 699. Symonds v. Green (28 Fed. Rep. 834), 23. Synnott v. Shaughnessy (130 U. S. 572), 808. T. Tabbernor v. Tabbernor (2 Keen, 679). 468. Tainter v. Clark (5 Allen, 66), 394. Tainter v. Mayor &o. (19 N. J. Eq. 46), 784. Talbot V. McGee (4 Monr. 375), 450. 403. Talcolt V. Bronson (4 Paige, 501), 997. Talley v. Curtain (54 Fed. Rep. 43). 645, 646. TABLE OF OASES. clvii [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Talley v. Curtain (58 Fed. Rep. 4), 917, 920. Tallmadge v. Lovett (3 Edw. Ch. 563), 364, 861. Tallnian v. B. & O. R Co. (45 Fed. Rep. 156). 208, 226. Talmadxe v. Pell (9 Paia;e, 410), 101, 119,445,461,464, 586. Taner v. Ivie (2 Ves. Sr. 466), 58. Tankinson v. CartledRe (22 Alb. L. J. 123). 877. Tansey v. McDonnell (142 Mass. 230), 827, 446, 463. Tantum v. Coleman (36 N. J. Eq. 138), 66. Tanziede v. Jumel (N. Y., 34 N. E. Rep. 374), 591. Tappan v. Evans (12 N. H. 330), 515, 516. Tappan v. Gray (9 Pai?e, 507; 7 Hill, 359), 763. Tappan v. Norman (11 Ves. 563), 383. Tappan v. Smith (5 Biss. 73), 533. Tarbell v. Bowman (103 Mass. 341). l(i. Tarleton v. Barnes (2 Keen, 633), 333, 349, Ii68. Tarleton v. Vietes (1 Gilm. (111.) 470), 447. Tarr !'. Rosenstein (53 Fed. Rep. 113), 943. Tate V. Conner (1 Dev. Eq. 234). 410. Tate /'. Evans (54 Ala. 16). 453. Tate V. Pliillips (77 N. C. 13H), 473. Tatham v. Wright (3 R. & M. 31), 6fil. Tntten v. Nance (3 Teun. Ch. 264), 2ifi. TatuiTi V. Rosenthal (Cal., 30 Pac. Rep. 136), 171. Tatum V. Walker (77 Ala. 563), 635. TauMtiim V. Taylor (116 Mass. 355), 108, 394. Taylor v. Ansley (9 Jiir. 1055), 61. Taylor v. Baldwin (14 Abb. Pr. 166), 739, 740. Taylor v. Bosi;ert (5 Pais^e, 3S1, 385. Taylor v. Bouchier (2 Dick. 504), 1008. Taylor v. Boyd (6 Heisk. 611), 836. Taylor v. Brown (Fla., 13 So. Rep. 957), 864. Tavlor v. Bruce (2 Barb. CI). 302), 361. Taylor v. Carryl (20 How. 583), 36. Taylor v. Charter Oak Ins. Co. (17 Fed. Rep. 566). 851. Taylor v. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. (Iowa, 46 N. W. Rep. 64), 590. Taylor v. Cornelius (60 Pa. St. 187), 332. Taylor v. Dickinson (15 Iowa, 488), 564, 785. Taylor v. Dodd (5 Ind. 246). 416. Taylor v. Franklin Sav. Bank (50 Fed. Rep. 389), 853, 866, 867. Taylor v. Glanville (8 Mad. 176), 980. Taylor v. Hearn (Ind., 31 N. E. Rep. 301). 163. Taylor v. Holmes (14 Fed. Rep. 498), 73, 369, 373, 386, 389, 391, 296, 397, 398. Taylor v. Life Aes'n (3 Fed. Rep. 467), 712. Taylor v. Mills (3 Edw. Ch. 818), 100. Taylor v. Morris (22 N. J. Eq. 606), 337, 374. Taylor v. Oldham (1 Jac. 537), 710. Tnylor v. Pearson (2 Hawkes, 398), M55. Taylor v. Phila. &c. R Co. (7 Fed. Rep. 377), 708, 726. Taylor v. Philadelphia &c. R Co. (9 Fed. Rep. 1), 719. Taylor v. Popham (15 Ves. 72). 909. Taylor v. Read (4 Paige, 561), 919. Taylor v. Robertson (27 Fed. Rep. 537), fi88, 698. Tavlor V. Satterthwaite (33 N. Y. " Siipl. 187), 173. 179. Taylor v. Savage (1 How. 383), 903. Taylor v. Southgate (4 Myl. & C. 303), 909. Tavlor V. Taylor (12 Beav. 220), 855. Taj'lor V. Thomas (2 N. J. Eq. 106), 6IS8. Taylor v. Titus (3 Edw. Ch. 135), 445. Taylor v. Walker (1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 734), 2m. Taylor v. Webb (54 Miss. 86), 90. Taylor v. Wrench (9 Ves. 315), 436, 441. Teasey v. Baker (19 N. J. Eq. 61), 333, 7S6. Teed v. Carruthers (3 Y. & Coll. 31), 310, 813. Tele-raph Co. v. Jewett (115 N. Y. I(i6). 754. 755. Telford V. Ruskin (1 Drew. & Sm. 148). 535. Teller v. Van Deusen (3 Paige, 33), 787. Templeman v. Warrington (1 J. & W. :-i77), 573. Templeton v. Brown (3 Pick. 53), 539. Ten Bioeck v. Reynolds (13 How. Pr. 463), 1000. Tench v. Cheese (1 Beav. 571), 139, 443. Tennant v. Wilsmore (3 Anst 363). 418. Tennessee v. Davis (100 U. S. 257), 82. Tennev v. Pank (30 Wis. 153), 17. Terbell v. Lee (40 Fed. Rep. 40), 833, 813. Terhune v. Bell (N. J., 9 Atl. Rep. Ill), 735. Terhune v. Colton (12 N. J. Eq. 313), 865, 898, 951. clviu TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Terhune v. Taylor (37 N. J. Eq. 80), 191. Terrell v. Allison (31 Wall. 289), 95. 880, 881, 883. Terry, £;a; parte (128 U. S. 289), 872, 876. Terry, In re (26 Fed. Rep. 419), 873. Terrv v. Bamberger (44 Conn. 558), 736. Terry v. Fontaine (83 Va. 451 ; 3 S. E. Rep. 743), 235, 236. Terry v. Martin (N. Mex., 32 Pac. Rep. 157), 732. Terry v. Martin (N. Mex., 38 Pac. Rep. 139), 749. Terry v. McClure (103 U. S. 443). 198. Terry v. Merchants' & Planters' Bank (93 U. S. 38), 903, 948. Terry v. Rosell (33 Ark 493), 141. Terry v. Sharon (131 U. S. 40), 921, 933, 951. Texas v. Hardenberg (10 Wall. 68), 116, 187. Texas v. White (7 Wall. 700), 35, 108. Texas &c. Ry. Co. v. Cox (145 U. S. 593), 739, 743. Texas &c. Ry. Co. v. Murphy (111 U. S. 488), 914. Texas &c. Ry. Co. v. Rust (17 Fed. Rep. 875), 750, 752. Texas &c. Ry. Co. v. Watts (Tex., 18 S. W. Rep. 312), 756. Texas Land Co. v. Turman (53 Tex. 623), 330, 331. Thaln v. Rudisill (126 Ind. 272), 811. Thalman v. Barbour (5 Ind. 178), 1000. Thames &c. M. Ins. Co. v. Conti- nental Ins. Co. (37 Fed. Rep. 286), 434. Thayer v. Wales (5 Fisher's Pat Cas. 448). 259. The Alijandro (56 Fed. Rep. 621), 889. The Apollon (9 Wheat. 374), 530. The Charkieh (L. R 4 Ad. & Ec. 59), 55. The Cole Silver Min. Co. v. Virginia &c. Co. (1 Sawy. 085), 71. The Halladay Case (27 Fed. Rep. 830), 404. The Hiram (1 Wheat. 440), 591. The Rachel v. United States (6 Cranch, 339), 963. The Sabine (50 Fed. Rep. 315), 967. The Sapphire (11 Wall. 164), 52. The Secretary v. McGarrahan (9 Wall. 398), 763. The Tliomas Jefferson (10 Wheat 428), 530. Theberath v. Rubber &c. Co. (5 Bann. & A. 584), 491. Therasson v. Hickox (37 Vt 464), 88. Theurer v. Brogan (41 Ark. 88), 75. Thielraan v. Carr (75 111. 885), 463. Third Avenue Sav. Bank v. Dimock (34 N. J. Eq. 26), 416, 425. Third National Bank v. Gary (39 N. J. Eq. 25), 979. Third Nat. Bank v. Gordon (58 Fed. Rep. 471), 943. Third Nat Bank v. Skillings Lumber Co. (132 Mass. 410), 174, 178. Thomas' Appeal (131 Pa. St 898), 804. Thomas, In re (35 Fed. Rep. 337), 543, 547, 550, 696. Thomas v. Adams (30 111. 37), 482. Thomas v. Brigstocke (4 Russ. 64), 754. Thomas v. Brockenbrough (10 Wheat 146), 857. Thomas v. Davies (11 Beav. 29), 709. Thomas v. De Baum (14 N. J. Eq. 37), 881, 884 Thomas v. Doub (1 Md. 353), 417. Thomas v. Freelove (17 Vt 138), 486. Thomas v. Harvie's Heirs (10 Wheat 146), 850, 851, 853. Thomas v. Horn (34 Ga. 481), 786. Thomas v. Railway Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 817), 723, 734, 735, 786. Thomas v. Rawling (37 Beav. 375), 545. Tiiomas v. Sellman (Va., 13 S. K Rep. 146), 148. Thomas v. Thomas (8 Fowler, 10), 443. Thomas n White (13 Mass. 370), 970. Thomas v. Wooldridge (83 Wall 383), 928, 943, 944. Thomason v. Neeley (50 Miss. 810), 464, 466. Thomason v. Smithson(7Porter(Ala.), 144), 409. Thomel v. Roelants (3 C. B. 290), 1000. Thompson v. Allen (3 Hayw. 151), 785. Thompson v. Bank of Redemption (106 Mass. 1-28), 267. Thompson v. Brown (4 Johns. Ch. 619), 770. Thompson v. Catlett (24 West Va. 524), 693. Thompson v. Cooper (2 Col. C. C. 87), 985. Tliompson v. Erie Railway (45 N. Y. 171), 392. ThompsoQ V. Fisler (83 N. J. Eq. 480), 474. 47.-., 605. Thompson v. Goulding (5 Allen, 81), 796, 827, 829. Thompson v. Graham (1 Paige, 452), 486. Thompson v. Hanson (1 Vea. & B. 4-1). 660. Thompson v. Haywood (139 Mass. 401), 117. TABLE OF OASES. qlix [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. l-i ; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Thompson v. Hudson (34 Beav. 107), Q,1 Q Thompson v. Jones (8 Ves. 141), 212. Thompson v. Lambe (7 "Ves. 588), 395. Thompson v. Maxwell (16 Fla. 777), 275, 769. Thompson v. Maxwell Land-Grant & Rv. Go. (95 U. S. 391), 844, 846. 857, 860. Thomp.son v. McGregor (81 N. Y. 592), 713. Thompson v. McReynolds (29 Fed. Rep. 6)7), 43. Thompson v. Paul (8 Humph. 114), 482. Thompson v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (136 U. S. 287), 782, 743. Thompson v. Railroad Companies (6 Wall. 134), 484. Thompson v. Russell (Okl., 32 Pac. Rep. 56), 810. Thompson v. Scott (4 Dill. 508), 789, 740. Thompson v. Selby (12 Sim. 100), 708. Thompson v. Smith (1 Dill. 458). 883. Thompson v. Smith (11 Jur. (N. S.) 376), 618. Thompson v. Thompson (Ala., 8 So. Rep. 419), 542. Thompson v. Thompson (7 Beav. 350), 478. Thompson v. Took (1 Dick. 115), 499. Thompson v. White (76 Cal. 381), 810. Thompson v. Wild (5 Madd. 82), 341. Thompson Manuf. Co. v. Hatheway (41 Fed. Rep. 519), 764. Thompsonville Scale Mfg. Co. v. Os- good (26 Conn. 16), 167. Thomsen v. McCormick (136 111. 135), 389 781 Thomson u Ebbets (Hopk. Ch. 272 1, 982. Thomson v. Wooster (114 U. S. 104), 3, 239, 247, 248, 349, 251, 955. Thomson-Houston El. Co. v. Sparry El. Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 75), 576, 577. Thorington v. Carson (1 Porter (Ala.), 257), 410. Thorington v. City Council (13 S. Ct. Rep. 395), 29. Thorn v. Germand (4 Johns. Ch. 368), 188, 189, 190. Thorne v. Halsey (7 Johns. Ch. 189), 618, 623. Thornly v. Jones (2 Fowler, 10), 442. Thornton v. City Council (Ala., 10 So. Rep. 634i, 636. Thornton v. Ogden (33 N. J. Eq. 723), 138, Thornton v. Sheffield &c. R Co. (84 Ala. 109; 4 So. Rep. 197), 115. Thornton v. Stewart (7 Leigh, 128), IIL Thorp V. Pettit (16 N. J. Eq. 488), 784. Thorpe v. Macauley (5 Madd. 318), 376, 304. Thrall v. Chittenden (31 Vt 186), 697. Thrasher v. Partee (37 Ga. B93), 785. Threlkel v. Scott (89 Cal. 351 ; 26 Pac. Rep. 879), 134. Thruston v. Deveemon (30 Md. 310), 839, 840, 841. Thurber v. Cecil Nat Bank (52 Fed. Rep. 513), 553. Thurman v. Morgan (79 Va. 373), 713, Thurmond v. Durham (3 Yerg. 99), 544. Tibbals v. Sargeant (14 N. J. Eq. 449), 716. Tibbets v. Perkins (30 N. H. 375), 653. Tibbits V. Tibbits (7 Paige, 304), 988. Tilden, In re (98 N. Y. 434), 866. Tilghman v. Proctor (125 U. S. 136), 696, 947. Tilghman v. Werk (39 Fed. Rep. 680), 847, 849, 851, 854, 867. Tillinghast v. Champhn (4 R L 138), 418. Tillman v. Thomas (87 Ala. 321; 6 So. Rep. 151), 883. Tillmes v. Marsh (67 Pa. St. 507 1, 644. Tingle V. Parter (3 Edw. Ch. 338), 480. Tink V. Ruudle (10 Beav. 318), 740. Tintsman v. National Bank (100 U. S. 6), 33. Tipton V. Wortham (Ala., 9 So. Rep. 596), 148. Tison V. Tison (14 Ga. 167), 444. Titman v. Twelfth Ward Bank (58 Hun, 610), 643. Titsworth v. Stout (49 III. 78), 447. Titterton v. Osborne (1 Dick. 350), 103, 468. Titus V. Gortelyou (1 Barb. 444), 585. Titus «. Fairchild (49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 311), 713. Titus V. Velie (6 Johns. Ch. 435), 990. Tobey v. Foreman (79 111. 489), 446. Tobey v. Leonard (3 Wall. 438), 393. Tod V. Tod (1 Bligh (N. S.), 639), 909. Todd V. Daniel (16 Pet. 531), 903. Todd V. Dismor (2 S. & St. 477), 335. Todd V. Munson (53 Conn. 579), 851. Toledo &c. R Co. v. Pennsylvania Co. (54 Fed. Rep. 730), 758, 870. Toledo Tie & Lumber Co. v. Thomas (33 West Va. 566 ; 11 S. E. Rep. 37), 345. Tolles' Appeal (Pa., 14 Atl. Rep. 894), 675. Tolson V. Lord Fitzwilliam (4 Mad. 403), 300. Tome V. King (64 Md. 166), 729, 730. Tomkin v. Lethbridge ^9 Ves. 178), 890. Tomiins v. Palk (1 Russ. 475), 842. cli» TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Tomlinson v. Harrison (8 Ves. 32), 613, 618. Tomlinson v. McKaig (30 Md. 310), 841. Tomlinson v. Swinnestod (1 Keen, 9), 378. Tomlinson v. Ward (3 Conn. 396), 711, 714, 909, 971. Tomlinson &c. Co. v. Shatto (34 Fed. Rep. 380), 8. Tommey v. White (1 H. K Cas. 180), 846. Tompkins v. Anthon (4 Sandf. Ch. 97), 337, 490. Tompkins v. Hollister (60 Mich. 470; 27 N. W. Rep. 651), 346. Tompkins v. Mitchell (2 Rand. (Va.) 430), 373. Tompkins v. Tompkins (18 N. J. Eq. 803), 413. Tompkms v. Ward (4 Sandf. Ch. 594), 337. Tompson v. Huron Lumber Co. (Wash. St., 83 Pac. Rep. 536), 739, 731 733 Tonej' V. McGehee (38 Ark. 419), 170. Tong V. Oliver (1 Bland, Ch. 199), 786. Tonkin v. Lethbridge (Coop. 4d), 515, 535 Toole V. De Kay (4 Sandf. Ch. 385), 259, 375, 876. Tooley v. Kane (1 Sm. & M. (Ch.) 518,831. Tootal V. Spicer (4 Sim. 510), 985. Torrent v. Duluth Lumber Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 229). 831. Torrent v. Hamilton (Mich., 54 N. W. Rep. 634), 395. Toulme v. Clark (64 Miss. 471), 404. Toulmin v. Hamilton (7 Ala. 363), 103. 387. Toulmin v. Reid (14 Beav. 499), 176, 449. Toupin V. Gargines (13 111. 79), 476. Tourton v. Flower (3 P. Wms. 369), 286. Town V. Needham (3 Paige, 546), 404. Town of Essex v. Day (52 Conn. 484), 807. Town of Kankakee v. Kankakee &c. R. Co. (115 III. 88), 468. Town of Mentz v. Cook ( 108 N. Y. 504; 15 N. R Rep. 541), 16. Town ley v. Deare (3 Beav. 213), 653. Townsend v. Augur (3 Conn. 354\ 100. Townsend v. Graves (3 Paige, 453), 650, 908, 913. Townsend v. Griggs (3 111. 365), 325. Townsend v. Smith (13 N. J. Eq. 350), 907. Townsend v. Townsend (3 Paige, 413), 353, 915. Townshend v. Duncan (2 Bland, 45), 665. Trabue v. Higden (4 Cold. (Tenn.) 633), 344, 345. Ti-acewell v. Boggs (14 West Va. 354), 414 Trades Savings Bank v. Freese (26 N. J. Eq. 453), 93. Tradesman's Bank v. Hyatt (2 Edw. Ch. 195), 36.5. Tradesman's Bank v. Merritt (1 Paige, 303), 333, 563. Trammel v. Vane (63 Ala. 301), 626. Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg (107 U. S. 691), 387. Traphagen n. Voorhees (45 N. J. Eq. 41), 848, 854. Travers v. Bulkley (1 Ves. Sr. 383), 376. Travers v. Jennings (S. C, 17 S. E. Rep. 849), 550. Travers v. Ross (14 N. J. Eq. 354), 366, 390. Travis v. Waters (1 Johns. CIi. 48), 830, 831, 835, 951. Travis v. Waters (1 Johns. Ch. 85), 607, 919. 997. Travis v. Waters (12 Johns. 500), 951. Treadway v. Coe (21 Conn. 288), 918. Tread well v. Patterson (.31 Cal. 037), 20. Tremaine v. Hitchcock (23 Wall. 518), 191, 193, 197. Trenchard v. Warren (18 111. 143), 410. Trenton Banking Co. v. Rossell (3 N. J. Eq. 493), 656. Trenton Banking Co. v. Russell (2 N. J. Eq. 511 1, 661. Ti Dto 1 Bankim^; Co. v. Woodruff (3 N. J. Eq. 118), 6o2. Treveiyan's Adm'r i;. Loflft (83 Va. 1411, 829, 833. Tribbette v. Illinois Cent R. Co. (Miss., 13 to. liep. 3J). 336. Trigg V. Hitz (17 Abb. Pr. 43 ■). 173. Trigg V. Trigg (Tex., 18 a W. Hep. 313), 684. Triggs V. Jones (Minn., 48 N. W. Rep. 1113). 126. Trilbert v. Burgess (11 Md. 453), 717. Trimble v. Farriss (78 Ala. 260', 466. Tripp V. Cook (36 Wend. 150), 910. Tripp V. Vincent (3 Barb. Ch. 613), 445, 795. Tripp V. Vincent (8 Paige, 176), 341, 863. Trittipo V. Morgan (99 Ind. 369), 105. Trotter v. Bunce (1 Edw. Ch. 573). 364. Trotter v. Heckscher (41 N. J. Eq. 478), 572. Trow V. Berry (118 Mass. 139), 696. TABLE OF OASES. clxi Prhe references are to pages: Vol. I contaJna pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1013.] Trowbridge v. True (53 Conn. 190), 122, 270. Troy &o. R. Co. v. Boston &c. R Co. |86N. Y. 107), 762. True V. Haley (34 Me. 297), 98. Trump V. Baltzell (3 Md. 39.5), 403. Truscott I'. King (6 N. Y. 147). 16. Trust &c. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins (8 Paige, 589). 234, 238, 420, 493. Trust Co. V. Earle (110 U. S. 710), 580. Trust ( 'o. V. Grant Locomotive Works (135 U. S. 207), 850, 904, 911, 920. Trustees v. Cowen (4 Paige, 510), 100. Trustees v. Gilbert (13 N. J. Eq. (1 Beas.) 78), 340, 784. Trustees v. Greenough (105 U. S. 537), 906, 909, 921. 923, 947, 983, 984. Trustees v. Heise (44 Md. 458), 553, 554. 55.i, 66.5. Trustees v. Kilbourn (74 Wis. 453 ; 43 N. W. Rep. 168), 16. Tiusteea v. Nicoll (3 Johns. 566), 911. Trustees v. Williamson (36 N. J. Eq. 141), 100. Tryatt v. Lindo (3 Edw. Ch. 239), 384, 385. Tubb V. Fort (58 Ala. 277), 18. Tuck V. Manning (150 Mass. 211), 576. Tuck V. Olds (28 Fed. Rep. 883). 1010. Tucker v. Bean (65 Me. 352), 60, 593. Tucker v. Cheshire R. Co. (1 Foster (N. H.). 38), 137. Tucker v. Holly (20 Ala. 426), 294 Tucker v. Howard (138 Mass. 361), 759, 761. Tucker v. New Brunswick Trading Co. (44 Ch. D. 249), 778. Tucker v. State (11 Md. 322), 529. Tucker v. Zimmerman (61 Ga. 601), 88. Tufts V. Tufts (3 W. & M. 439), 838. TuUar v. Baxter (59 Vt 467 ; 8 Atl. Rep. 493), 158. TuUett V. Armstrong (1 Keen, 438), 569. Tunnard v. Little (33 N. J. Eq. 364), 66, 100. Turley n Turley (85 Tenn. 251 ; 1 S. W. Rep. 891), 333, 371, 697. Turner v. Adams (46 Mo. 95), 579. Turner v. Bank of North America (4 Ball. 8), 130, 131. Turner v. Berry (8 111. (3 Gilm.) 541), 517, 858. Turner v. Burleigh (17 Ves. 354). 558. Turner v. Conant (18 Abb. (N. Y.) N. O. 160), 145. Turner v. Dickerson (9 N. J. Eq. 140), 54.5. Turner v. Dorgan (18 Sim. 504), 563. Turner u Hart (71 Mich. 128; 88 N. W. Rep. 890), 101. Turner v. Indianapolis &c. R Co. (8 Biss. 3151, 726. Turner v. London &c. Ry. Co. (L R. 17 Eq. 561), 801. Turner v. Peoria &c. R Co. (95 111. 134), 719, 730, 733. Turner v. Pepper (46 L. J. Ch. 703), 838. Turner v. Pierce (31 Wis. 343), 512, 516. Turner v. Robinson (1 Sim. & Stu. 3), 816, 356. Turner v. Robinson (1 Sim. & Stu. 313), 151. Turner v. Scott (5 Rand. (Va.) 332), 341. Turner v. Turner (1 Dick. 316), 334 Turner v. Turner (15 Jur. 218), 765. Turner v. Turner (2 P. Wme. 390,58. Turnpike Co. v. Ferree (17 N. J. Eq. 117), 176. Turrell v. Byard (34 N. J. Eq. 135), 874 Turrell v. Spaeth (9 Off. Gaz. 1168), 522 Tuttle V. Garrett (16 111. 354), 337. Tuttle V. Gilmore (43 N. J. Eq. 369), 96.5. Twining v. Neil (38 N. J. Eq. 470), 824 Twycross v. Dreyfus (L. R 5 Ch. D. 605), 55. Tylee v. Tylee (17 Beav. 583), 711. Tyler, Ex parte (U. S., 13 S. Ct Rep. 691), 758. Tyler, In re (149 U. S. 164), 743. Tyler v. Bell (3 Myl. & Cr. 89), 306. Tyler v. Brigham (143 Mass. 410), 94 Tyler v. Drayton (3 Sim. & Stu. 309), 533, 534 Tyler v. Galloway (13 Fed. Rep. 477), 196. Tyler v. Hammersley (44 Conn. 419), 764 Tyler v. Magwire (17 Wall. 253), 964 Tyler v. Miller (6 Paige, 127), 689. Tyler v. Savage (143 U. S. 79 ; 12 S. Ct. Rep. 340), 135, 951. Tyler v. Simmons (6 Paige, 127), 595, 689, 690, 695. Tyne v. Dougherty (3 Tenn. Ch. 49), 482. Tynte v. Hodge (3 J. & H. 692), 999, 1003. Tyrrell v. Washburn (6 Allen, 467), 984 Tysen v. Railroad Co. (8 Bias. 247), 704 Tyson v. Applegate (40 N. J. Eq. 305), 87, 93. clxii TABLE OF CASES. [The references tire to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; VoL II, pp. 609-1012.] u. Uhlmann v. Arnholt &c. Brewing Co. (41 Pa. St 369), 116, 411. Uhrig I). St Louis (47 Mo. 527), 778. Umbarger v. Watts (25 Gratt 167), 584. Una V. Dodd (38 N. J. Eq. 460), 546. Underbill v. Atwater (22 N. J. Eq. 17), 511. Underbill v. Manbattan Ey. Co. (18 N. Y. Supl. 43), 648. Underbill v. Spencer (25 Kan. 71), 778. Underbill v. Van Cortlandt (3 Jobns. Oh. 339), 514, 555, 950. Union Bank, In re (37 N. J. Eq. 420), 733. Union Bank v. Barker (3 Barb. Cb. 358 1, 361. Union Bank v. Geary (5 Peters, 99), 393, 402, 411. Union Bank v. Kansas City Bank (136 U. S. 223), 703, 743. Union Bank v. Kerr (2 Md. Ch. 460), 769. 770. Union Ins. Co. v. Van Rensselear (4 Paige, 85), 984. Union Life Ins. Co. v. Slee (III, 13 N. E. Rep. 223), 337. Union Mut Life Ins. Co. v. University of Chicago (6 Fed. Eep. 443), 36. Union Mut L. Ins. Co. v. Union Mills Plaster Co. (37 Fed. Eep. 287), 708. Union Mut L. Ins. Co. v. Windett (36 Fed. Rep. 888), 815. Union Pac. Ey. Co. v. Harmon (54 Fed. Rep. 39), 635. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Meier (28 Fed. Rep. 9), 366. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. McSbane (3 Dill. 303), 154. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Stewart (95 U. S. 379), 936. Union Pac. Ey. Co. v. United States (lieu. S. 403), 936. Union St R Co. v. Hazleton &c. E. Co. (Pa., 26 Atl. Rep. 557), 340. Union Sugar Eefinery v. Mathiessou (3 Cliff. 146), 329, 635, 673, 675, 695, 838. Union Trust Co. v. Cbicago &c. R Co. (7 Fed. Rep. 513), 732. Union Trust Co. v. Illinois M. Ry. Co. (117 U. S. 434), 718, 719, 720, 721, 735, 736. Union Trust Co. v. Eockford &c. R Co. (6 Biss. 197), 36. Union Trust Co. v. St Louis &c. R Co. (4 Dill. 114), 704. Union Trust Co. v. Soulier (107 U. S. 591), 733. United N. J. R &c. Co. v. Hoppock (28 N. J. Eq. 261), 544 United E. Cos. v. Long Dock Co. (41 N. J. Eq. 407). 425. United States v. Adams (6 Wall 101), 930. United States v. Alexander (46 Fed. Eep. 738), 594, 595. United States v. American Bell Tel. Co. (29 Fed. Rep. 17), 211, 260, 348. United States v. American Bell Tel Co, (30 Fed. Eep. 52.3), 276, 377, 315. United States v. Armejo (3 Wall. 392), 933. United States v. Atherton (102 U. S. 373), 134, 187. United States v. Babbitt (104 U. S. 767), 907. United States v. Babcock (3 Dill. 566), 536. United States v. Baxter (8 C. C. A. 410), 914 United States v. Bell Telephone Co. (128 U. S. 315), 106, 135, 148. United States v. Bell Telephone Co. (128 U. S. 352), 148. United States v. Benner (Baldwin, 334), 615. United States v. Black (128 U. S. 40), 764 United States v. Booth (18 How. 476), 936. United States v. Boyd (15 Pet 187), 713. United States v. Brig Union (4 Cranch, 216), 22. United States v. Cameron (15 Fed. Eep. 794), 546. United States v. Carter (3 Crancb, C. C. 423), 873. United States v. Church of Jesus Christ (6 Utah, 9 ; 21 Paa Rep. 516 1, 730, 733. United States v. Curry (6 How. 106), 981. United States r. Curtner (86 Fed. Eep. 396), 142, 153, 154 United States v. Dallas Military Eoad Co. (140 U. S. 599). 348, 493. United States r. Dallas Military Road Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 629), 492. United States v. Dodge (3 GalL 313), 874 United States v. Emerson (4 Cranch, C. C. 188), 872. United States v. Gee Lee (50 Fed. Rep. 271), 893. United States v. Giles (9 Cranch, 212), 713. United States v. Gillespie (6 Fed. Eep. 803), 329. TABLE OF OASES. clxiii prhe references are to pages: Vol. I cODtains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012,] United States v. Gomez (1 Wall. 690), 79!). Uoited States v. Gomez (3 Wall. 750), 930, 936. United States v. Gomez (23 How. 336), 956, 962. United States v. Goodrich (54 Fed. Rep. 31), 939. United States v. Guthrie (17 How. 284), 763. United States v. Hair Pencils (1 Paine, 400). 549. United States v. Horn Hing (48 Fed. Rep. 635), 546. United States v. Hopewell (51 Fed. Rep. 798), 931, 933. United States v. Howland (4 Wheat 1081, 19, 76. United States v. Huggell (40 Fed. Rep. 636). 630. United States v. Jellico &c. Coal Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 898), 773. United States v. Kane (23 Fed. Rep. 748), 728. United States v. Knight (1 Black, 488), 834, 956. United States v. Lafontaine (4 Cranch, 173), 615. United States v. La Vengeance (2 Dall. 397), 530. United States v. Loughrey (43 Fed. Rep. 449), 207. United States v. Louisville &c. Canal Co. (4 Dill. 601), 594. United States v. Marshall &c. Co. (129 U. S. 579), 944. United States v. Masters (4 Wall. 680), 949. United States v. McLaughlin (34 Fed. Rep. 833), 160. 433, 434, 436, 441. United States v. McRae (L. R. 3 Ch. App. 79), 317. United States v. Norsch (43 Fed. Rep. 417), 134. United States v. Parrott (1 McAll. 371), 784, 787. United States v. Parrott (1 McAll. 447), 546, 563, 564. United States v. Patterson (36 Fed. Rep. 509), 873. United States v. Perot (98 U. S. 438), 530. United States v. Pratt Coal & Coke Co. (18 Fed. Rep. 708), 65, 148, 273. United States v. St Charles Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 443), 999. United States v. Salina Bank (1 Pet 100), 545. United States v. Samperyac (Hemp. 118), 657, 861. United States v. Samperyac (Hemp. 464), 335. United States v. Sanborn (135 U. S. 271). 978. United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. (135 U. S. 373), 106. United States v. Schurz (103 U. S. 378), 763. United States v. Scolfield (1 Cranch, C. C. 130), 876. United States v. Scroggins (3 Woods, 539), 876. United States v. Southern Pac. R Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 607), L'83. United States v. Southern Pac. R. Co. (56 Fed. Rep. 885), 995, 971, 973. United States v. Steffens (100 U. S. 82), 764. United States v. Sutton (47 Fed. Rep. 129), 891. United States v. Texas (143 U. S. 621), 35. United States v. The Commissioner (5 Wall. 563), 763. United States v. Vigil (10 Wall. 433), 930. 945. United States v. Wallace (46 Fed. Rep. 569). 840. United States v. Wayne (Wall. C. C. 134), 875. United States n. Wilder (14 Fed. Rep. 393), 546. United States v. Williams (6 Mont 379), 530. United States v. Workingmcn's &c. Council (54 Fed. Rep. 994), 326, 786. United States v. Yates (6 How. 606), 361. United States Rolling-stock Co., In re (53 Fed. Rep. 286), 720. United States Tel. Co. v. Stevens (Md., 8 Atl. Rep. 908), 841. University College v. Foxcroft(2 Ch. Rep. 344), 504. Unsworth v. Woodcock (3 Madd. 432), 532. Updegraff v. Crans (47 Pa. St 103), 763. Updike V. Barthes (13 N. J. Eq. 231), 606, 607. Upperton v. Harrison (7 Sim. 444), 989. Upton V. Pax ton (73 Iowa, 395), 539. Upton V. Sowten (12 Sim. 45i, 378. Urneri). Kay ton (17 Fed. Rep. 539), 670. Utah &c. Ry. Co. v. Fisher (116 U. S. 28), 593. Utica Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Supervisors &c. (1 Barb. Ch. 433), 909. Utica Ins. Co. v. Lynch (2 Barb. CK 573), 516, 687, 697, 733. Utica Ins. Co. v. Lynch (3 Paige, 310), 361, 366, 379. clxiv TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Utica Ins. Co. v. Scott (6 Cowen, 606), 421. Uxbridge v. Staveland (1 Ves. 56), 165. Vahle V. Brackensieok (111., 34 N. E. Rep. 325), 529. Yail V. Hammond (60 Conn. 374), 795. Vail V. Knapp (49 Barb. 299), 768. Vail's Ex'rs v. Central R. Co. (23 N. J. Eq. 466), 282. Vale V. Merideth (18 Jur. 992), 313. Valentine v. McGrath (52 Miss. 112), 778. Valentine v. Teller (Hopk. Ch. 422), 879, 884 Yalleu O'Reilly (1 Hogan, 199), 391, 563. Van Alst v. Hunter (5 Johns. Ch. 153), 659, 660, 661. Van Antwerp v. Hulburd (7 Blatchf. 428 1, 260. Vance v. Andrews (2 Barb. Ch. 370), 544, 545. Van Arsdalen v. Vail (33 N. J. Eq. 189), 819. Van Bergen v. Demarest (4 Johns. Ch. 35), 829. Van Bibber v. Hilton (84 Cal. 585 ; 24 Pac. Rep. 308). 447. Van Burenu. Chenango County Mut Ins. Co. (12 Barb. 671), 730. Van Buren v. Olmstead (5 Paige, 9), 992. Vance v. Edwards (11 West Va. 342), 450. Vance v. Roberts (Ga., 12 S. E. Rep. 653), 76. Van Cleef v. Sickela (3 Edw. Ch. 392), 296. Van Cortlandt v. Beekman (6 Paige, 489), 359, 364. Vandenburgh v. Van Rensselear (6 Paige, 147), 595, 597. Vanderbeck v. Perry (30 N. J. Eq. 78), 864. Vanderbilt v. Central R Co. (43 N. J. Eq. 669), 727, 739. Vandergrift v. Herbert (18 N. J. Eq. 466), 393. Vanderheyden v. Vanderheyden (2 Paige, 287), 732. Vanderhoof v. Clayton (6 N. J. Eq. 192), 394. Vanderson v. Stryker(8 N. J. Eq. 175), 283. Vanderveer v. Holcomb (17 N. J. Eq. 547), 395. Vanderveer v. Holcomb (31 N. J. Eq. 105), 448, 458. Vanderveer v. Holcomb (22 N. J. Eq. 555), 375, 388, 910, 912. Vandervere v. Reading (9 N. J. Eq. 446), 414, 415, 418. 422. Vandervoort v. Williams (Clarke's Ch. 377i, 787. Van Deventer v. Stiger (25 N. J. Eq. 334). 863. Van Doren v. Robinson (16 N. J. Eq. 356), 89, 100. Van Dyck v. McQuade (85 N. Y. 616), 735 Van Dyke v. Van Dyke (36 N. J. Eq. 180), 394 Van Dyke v. Van Dyke (31 N. J. Eq. 176), 576, 819. Van Dyne v. Vreeland (11 N. J. Eq. 370), 293. Van Dyne v. Vreeland (12 N. J. Eq. 143), 373, 374. Vaneman v. Fairbrother (7 Blackf. 541), 473, 479. Van Epps v. Van Deusen (4 Paige, 64), 101. Van Fleet v. Stout (44 Kan. 533), 773. Van Hook v. Throckmorton (8 Paige, 33), 88, 881, 882, 883. Van Hook v. Whitlock (3 Paige, 409), 378, 319, 330, 339. Van Hook v. Whitlock (7 Paige, 373), 390, 373. Van Horn v. Talmage(8 N. J. Eq. 108), 329, Van Home, Matter of (7 Paige, 346), 754 Van Houten v. Pine (36 N. J. Eq. 133), 81. Van Houten v. Van Winkle (N. J., 30 Atl, Rep. 34), 153. Van Keuren v. McLaughlin (31 N. J. Eq. 163), 77, 96. 100. Van Lieuw v. Johnson (66 N. Y. 136), 338, Van Mater v. Sickler (9 N. J. Eq. 483), 146. Vanmeter v. Borden (35 N. J. Eq. 414), 880. Vann v. Barnett (3 Bro. C. C. 158), 717. Vann v. Hargert (3 Dev. & B. (N. C.) Eq. 31), 78, 82. Vanneman v. Swedesboro L. & B. Ass'n (N. J. Ch., 7 Atl. Rep. 676), 531. Vannerson v. Leverett (31 Fed. Rep. 376), 45. Van Ness v. Can tine (4 Paige, 55), 199. Van Ness v. Van Vess (32 N. J. Eq. 729), 685, 696, 699. Van Norden v. Morton (99 U. S. 378), 7, 484. Vanpelt v. Hutchinson (114 111. 435), 224. Van Raust v. Parcells (2 Edw. Ch. 600), 994 TABLE OF CASES. clxv [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Van Rensselear v. Brice (4 Paige, 174), 428, 442. Van Riper v. Claxton (9 N. J. Eq. 302), 193. Vansant v. Electro- Magnetic &C. Co. (99 U. S. 213), 930, 931. Vansoiver v. Bryan (13 N. J. Eq. 434), 126. Van Syckel v. Emery (18 N. J. Eq. 387), 327, 333. Van Valkenburg v. Rouk (12 Johns. 368), 400. Van Vaitenburg v. Alberry (10 Iowa, 264), 461. Van Vechten v. Terry (2 Johns. Ch. 197), 87, 578. Van Weel v. Winston (115 U. S. 228), 134. Van Winkle v. Stearns (27 N. J. Eq. 238), 819. Van Wyck v. Hardy (20 How. Pr. 222), 321. Van Wyck v. Norvell (2 Humph. 193), 376. Van Zandt v. Augustine Mining Co. (2 McCrary, 643), 849. Variok v. Dodge (9 Paige, 149), 369. Varick v. Smith (5 Paige, 137), 151. 1.'36, 157. Varrian v. Berrien (42 N. J. Eq. 1), 179. Vattier v. Hinde (7 Pet 252), 39, 489. Vaughan v. Fitzgerald (1 Soli. & Lef. 316), 181. Vaughan v. Gooch (92 N. C. 524), 822. Vaughan v. Lloyd (1 Cox, 313), 553. Vaughan v. Vaughan (30 Ala. 330), 513. Vaughan v. Vaughan (Dick. 90), 712, 713. Vaughan v. Worrall (2 Swanst. 395), 549. Vaughn v. Lovejoy (34 Ala. 437), 294. Vaupell V. Woodward (2 Sandf. Ch. 143), 374. Vavasseur v. Krupp (L. R. 9 Ch. D. 351), 55. Veach v. Rice (131 U. S. 317), 450. Veazie v. Williams (3 Story, 54), 509. Veile V. Blodgett (49 Vt 270), 413. Venable v. United States (3 Pet 107), 91. Vennura v. Davis (35 111. 568), 337. Vent V. Pacey (4 Russ. 193), 534. Verden v. Coleman QS How. 86), 938. Vermilya v. Christie (4 Sandf. 376), 426, 433, 4b5, 781. Vermilya v. Odell fl Edw. Ch. 617), 199, 531. Vermilyea v. Fulton Bank (1 Paige, 37), 377. Vermilyea v. Fulton Bank (1 Paige, 219), 77. Vermilyea v. Odell (4 Paige, 121), 199, 480. Vermilyea v. Palmer (52 N. Y. 471), 657v Vermont &c. R. Co. v. Vermont Cent R Co. (50 Vt 500). 720. Vermont Farm Machine Co. v. Gib- son (50 Fed. Rep. 423 1, 49. Verner v. Davis (36 S. C. 609), 669. Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins. Co. (3 Paige, 438), 120, 303, 714, 716, 718. Verplauk v. Caines (1 Johns. Ch. 57), 363, 383, 703. Verplank v. I.Iercantile Ins. Co. (1 Edw. Ch. 46), 184, 193, 417. Ver Straelen v. Lewis (77 Iowa, 130), 778. Vetterlein v. Barker (45 Fed. Rep. 741), 849. Vetterlein v. Barnes (134 U. S. 169), 70, 87, 88, 91. Viadero v. Viadero (7 Hun, 31.3). 6il, 619. Victor Scale Co. v. ShurtleflE (81 111. 313), 613. Vidi V. Smith (3 El. & B. 969), 161. Vieley v. Thompson (44 111. 9), 482, 484. Vigel V. Hopp (104 U. S. 441), 893. Vigers v. Lord Audley (9 Sim. 73), 518. Vigers v. Lord Audley (9 Sim. 408), 531 Vilas u Page (106 N. Y. 439). 720. Village of Seneca Falls v. Matthews (9 Paige, 504), 772. Vincent v. County of Lincoln (80 Fed. Rep. 749), 7, 19. Vincent v. Hunter (5 Hare, 320), 999. Vincent v. Mathews (15 R. L 509), 844. Virginia v. West Virginia (11 Wall. 39), 25. Virginia &c. Min. Co. v. Hale (Ala., 9 So. Rep. 256), 77. Vivian v. Otis (24 Wis. 518), 713. Vliet V. Lowmason (1 Gr. Ch. 404), 334. Vliet V. Sherwood (37 Wis. 165), 769. Vliet V. Wyckoff (42 N. J. Eq. 643), 1013. Von Roy v. Blackraan (8 Woods, 98), 306. Voj Vrankeru Eastman (7 Met 168), 697. Voorhees v. Bonesteel (16 Wall. 16), 133 393 Voorhees u.Melick (35 N. J. Eq. 533), 101. Voorhees v. Polhemus (36 N. J. Eq. 456), 58. Voorhees v. Voorhees (18 N. J. Eq. 223), 394. clxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1019.1 Vose V. Reed (1 Woods, 697), 703. Vowles V. Young (9 Ves. Jr. 173), 391, 563, 907. Vredenberg v. Johnson (Hopk. Oh. 113), 20. Vreeland v. Lonbat (2 N. J. Eq. 104), 94. Vreeland v. New Jersey Stove Co. (25 N. J. Eq. 140), 370, 786, 787. Vreeland v. Vreeland (49 N. J. Eq. 322; 34 Atl. Rep. 551), 146, 639, 640, 804. Vrooni V. Ditmar (4 Paige, 526), 387, 993. w. Wabash & Erie Canal Co. v. Beers (1 Black, 54), 922. Wabash R. Co. v. Dykeman (led., 82 N. E. Rep. 833), 704, 705, 718. Wachter v. Blowney (104 111. 610), 466. Waddell v. Beach (9 N. J. Eq. 798), 450. Wade V. Pulsifer (54 Vt. 45), 158. Wade V. Stanley (1 J. & W. 674 1, 468. Wadhams v. Gay (73 111. 415), 885. Waffle V. Goble (53 Barb. 517), 221. Waffle V. Vanderheydeu (8 Paige, 45), 254, 341, 783. Wag V. Bragaw (16 N. J. Eq. 214), 486. Wager v. Stickle (3 Paige, 407), 625. Wagner v. Blauchet (37 N. J. Eq. 356), 389, 863. Wagon Co. v. Snavely (34 Fed. Rep. 823), 43. Wagoner v. Wagoner (Md., 10 Atl. Rep. 221), 556. Wagoner v. Wagoner (Md., 26 Atl. Rep. 384), 769. Wagstaff V. Bryan (1 Russ. & My. 38), 139 505 Wamek Crocker (10 W. R. 204; 3 De G., F. & J. 431), 272. Waite V. Wingate (Wash., 30 Pac. Rep. 81), 481. Wake V. Parker (2 Keen, 73), 66. Wakefield v. Marr (65 Me. 341), 60. Wakelee v. Davis (44 Fed. Rep 532), 302, 630. Wakeman v. Gillespy (5 Paige, 113), 333, 785. Wakeman v. Grover (4 Paige, 33), 88, 394. Walburn v. Ingilbv (1 Myl. & K. 61), 533. Walcott V. Watson (53 Fed. Rep. 429), 393. WrJdenu. Bodley (14 Pet. 156), 116, 193, 636. Walden v. Skinner (101 U. S. 577), 72. Walker, Ex parte (25 Ala. 81), 715. Walker v. Brungard (13 Sm. & M. 723), 457. Walker v. Byers (14 Ark. 246), 450, 465. Walker v. Cottril (6 Baxt. (Tenn.)261), 240. Walker v. Day (8 Baxt (Tena) 77), 54. Walker v. Day (36 N. J. Eq. 76), 974. Walker v. Devereaux (4 Paige, 239), 544, 769. Walker v. Doane (108 111. 236), 960. Walker v. Dreville (12 Wall. 440), 7. Walker v. Drew (20 Fla. 918). 714. Walker v. Easterly (6 Ves. 612), 1000, 1001. Wallier v. Flint (7 Fed. Rep. 437), 707. Walker v. Hallett (1 Ala. 379), 60, 61, 515, 516, .517, 518. Walker u Hill (21 N. J. Eq. 191), 126, 326, 373, 374, 411. Walker v. Hill (33 N. J. Eq. 513), 549. Walker v. Powers (104 U. S. 345), 142, 149, 158. Walker v. Pritchard (135 111. 103), 776, 777. Walker v. Ray (111 111. 315), 133. Walker v. Symonds (1 Mer. 37), 557. Walker V. Walker (83 N. Y. 360), 391, 392 Walker v. Wild (1 Madd. 528), 713. Walker v. Woodward (1 Russ. 107), 363. Wall V. Bushby (1 Bro. C. C. 484), 798. Wall V. Stubbs (2 Ves. & B. 354), 343, 345. Wall V. Thomas (41 Fed. Rep. 620), 73, 74. Wallace v. Hannum (9 Humph. (Tenn.) 139), 256. Wallace v. Loomis (97 U. S. 146), 719, 730, 949. Wallace v. Penfield (106 U. S. 260), 170. Wallace v. Sorter (52 Mich. 159), 172, 173. Wallace v. Wallace (Halst. (N. J.) Dig. 173). 436. Wallace v. York (45 Iowa, 81), 777. Wallar v. Stewart (4 Cranch, C. C. 533), 538. Waller v. Tavlor (43 Ala. 297), 144. Walling V. Beers (120 Mass. 548), 308, 337. Wallis V. Dilley (7 Md. 237), 777. Wallis V. Glynn (13 Ves. 380), 596. Wallis V. Hodson (3 Atk. 117), 55. Wiillis V. Thomas (7 Ves. 292), 842. Wallop V. Warburton (3 Cox, 409), 1009. TABLE OF OASES. clxvii [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1018.] Walsh u. King (74 Mich. 350; 41 N. W. Rep. 1080), 376. Walsh V. Raymond (58 Conn. 351), 733 Walsh V. Smyth (3 Bland, Ch. 9). 333, 333, 346. Walsh V. Walsh (116 Mass. 377), 593, 803. Walsworth v. Johnson (41 Cal. 61), 485. Walter, Ex parte (89 Ala. 337), 963. Walter v. Chichester (84 Va. 733), 579, 584. Walter v. Northeastern R. Co. (147 U. S. 370; 13 S. Ct. Rep. 348), 33, 646. Walters v. Anglo-American M. & T. Co. (50 Fed. Rep, 316), 708, 717. Walters v. McElroy (35 Atl. Rep. 135), 761. Walters v. Pyman (19 Ves. 351), 561. Walters v. Walters (133 111. 46; 33 N. E. Rep. 1130), 387. Walton V. Cody (1 Wis. 430), 893, 394, 411. Walton V. Fret well (3 Marsh. 530), 637. Walton V. Johnson (15 Sim. 353), 770. Walton V. Westwood (73 111. 135), 133, 366. Walton's E.^'r v. Herbert (18 N. J. Eq. 73), 303. Wangelin v. Goe (50 111. 459), 303, 349. Wannook v. Brownlee (84 Ga. 196), 760. Ward, Re (3 Giflf. 132), 573. Ward V. Clay (83 Cal. 503), 373, 275. Ward V. Davidson (2 J. J. Marsh. 443), 971. Ward ).'. Davidson (89 Mo. 4i5 ; 1 S. W. Rep. 846), 186. Ward V. Funsten (86 Va. 359 >, 924. Ward V. Hill i4 Gray, 593), 908. Ward V. Montclair Ry. Co. (26 N. J. Eq. 360), 577. Ward V. Patton (75 Ala. 207), 194. Ward V. Peck (114 Mass. 131), 544. Ward V. Railroad Co. (119 111. 387), 339. Ward V. Seabry (4 Wash. (C. C.) 436). 313. Ward V. Sittingbourne Ry. Co. (L. R. 9 Ch. 48s), 150. Ward V. Swift (6 Hare, 312), 734, 738. Ward V. Van Bokkelin (1 Paige, 100), 787. Ward V. Ward (31 West Va. 262), 693. Warden &c. v. Isherwood (2 Sim. 476), 688. Wardens &c. v. Sowles (51 Fed. Rep. 609), 34. Wardlaw v. Erskine (31 S. C. 359), 676. Warfield v. Fisk (136 Mass. 219), 265. Warfleld v. Gambrill (IGill & J. 503), 409. Warford v. Camron (3 Bibb, 435), 655. Waring »;. Crane (2 Paige, 79), 58. Waring v. Suydam (4 Edw. Ch. 436), 373, 428, 442. Warnecke v. Lembca (71 III. 91), 501, 858. Warner v. Campbell (39 Ind. 409), 958. Warner v. Dove (33 Md. 137), 409. Warner v. Graves (25 Ga. 369), 479. Warner v. Ogilvie (3 Paige, 406;, 241. Warner v. Paine (3 Barb. Ch. 630), 76. Warner v. Quinlon (50 Vt. 652), 668. Warner v. Texas &o. Ry. Co. (54 Fed. Rep. 920), 889, 914, 934. Warner v. Tomlinson (1 Root (Conn.), 301), 305. Warner v. Warner (31 N. J. Eq. 549), 831, 833. Warren, Ex parte (10 Ves. 622), 705. Warren v. Burn ham (32 Fed. Rep. 579), 971. Warren v. Shaw (43 Me. 39), 481. Warren v. Tiffany (17 How. Pr. l66), 331. Warren v. Twilley (10 Md. 39), 493. Warren v. Union Nat Bank (7 Phila. 156), 744. Warren v. Warren (105 111. 568), 549. Warren v. Warren (56 Me, 368), 143. Warring v. Freear (64 Cal. 54), 66.3. Warthen v. Brantley (5 Ga. 571), 103, 387. Wartnably v. Wartnably (1 Jac. 377), 63. Wasatch Min. Co. v. Crescent Min. Co. (148 Mass. 293), 955. Wash V. Lackland (8 Mo. App. 122), 778. Washburn v. Great West. Ins. Co. (114 Mass. 175), 487. Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Scutt (22 Fed. Rep. 710), 444. Washer v. Brown (5 N. J. Eq. 81), 784. Washington v. Timberlake (74 Ala. 259), 774. Washington &c. R Co., In re (140 U. S. 91), 963, 964. 968. Washington R. Co. v. Alexandria R. Co. (19 Gratt. 593i, 1000. Washington R. Co. v. Bradleys (10 Wall. 399), 462. Washington &c. R. Co. v. Washing- ton (10 Wall. 299), 464. Washington &c. R. Co. v. Washing- ton (7 Wall. 575), 923, 939. clxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart (3 How. 413), 956, 960, 963. Washington City Sav. Bank v. Thorn- ton (83 Va. 157 ; 3 S. E. Rep. 198). 158. Washington County v. Schulz (68 Tex. 32). 831. Washington Ins. Co. v. Slee (2 Paige, 368), 498, 499. Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia (137 U. S. 62), 909, 945. Washoe Mining Co. v. Ferguson (L. R 2 Eq. 371), 999. Waterhouse v. Comer (55 Fed. Rep. 149), 727. Waterman v. Alden (111., 32 N. E. Rep. 972), 972, 975. Waterman v. Buck (58 Vt 519), 697. Waterman v. Buck (63 Vt. 544), 698. Waterman v. Curtis (26 Conn. 241), 164, 675. Waters v. Brown (44 Mo. 303), 776. Waters v. Carroll (9 Yerg. 102), 702. Waters v. Earl of Shaftesbury (12 Jur. (N. S.) 3), 585. Waters v. Hubbard (44 Conn. 840), 148. Watkins v. Holman (16 Pet. 25), 767, 768. Watkins v. Milligan (37 N. J. Eq. 435), 126. Watkins v. National Bank (Kan., 32 Pac. Rep. 914), 704. Watkins v. Stone (2 Sim. & Stu. 560), 318, 342. Watson V. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. (Minn., 48 N. W. Rep. 1129), 76. Watson V. Conkling (24 N. J. Eq. 230), 875. Watson V. Jones (13 Wall. 679), 826, 827. Watson V. Murray (23 N. J. Eq. 257), 121. Watson V. Palmer (5 Ark. 501), 403, 404, 411. Watson V. Ren wick (4 Johns. Ch. 384), 533. Watson V. Stevens (C. C. A., 53 Fed. Rep. 31). 845, 963. Watson V. Ulbrich (18 Neb. 186), 836. Watt V. Crawford (11 Paige, 470), 473. 477, 510, 816. Watt V. Starke (101 U. S. 244), 657, 658. Watt V. Watt (2 Barb. Ch. 371), 243, 345. Wattfpu V. Billam (8 De G. & S. 516), 999, 1006. Watts' Case (Hardres, 332), 551. Watts V. Kelly (6 W. R 206), 998. Watts V. Lawrence (3 Paige, 159), 534. Watts V. Smith (44 Miss. 80), 363. Watts V. Waddle (.6 Pet. 389), 116, 948. Watts V. Wilcox (18 N. Y. SupL 492), 91. Wauters v. Van Vorst (28 N. J. Eq. 103), 623. Way V. Bragaw (16 N. J. Eq. 214), 837. Wayland v. Tysen (45 N. Y. 282), 893. Wayne Pike Co. v. State (Ind., 34 N. E. Rep. 440), 734. Weaver v. Alter (3 Woods' C. C. 154), 452, 456. Weaver v. Cooper (78 Ala, 318), 572, 573 Weaver v. Garner (28 Ga. 503), 785. Weaver v. Livingston (Hopk. Ch. 595), 283. Weaver v. Livingstone (Hopk. Ch. 493), 234. Webb V. Alton &c. Ins. Co. (10 111. 223). 491. Webb V. Barnwall (116 U. S. 193), 313. Webb V. Dill (18 Abb. Pr. 264), 568. Webb V. Fuller (83 Me. 405 ; 23 Atl. Rep. 384), 330. Webb V. Mott (6 How. Pr. 440), 358. Webb V. Pell (I Paige, 564j, 303, 852, 856, 857. Webb V. Pell (3 Paige, 368), 407, 844, 8r)7, 860, 861. Webb V. Powers (2 W. & M. 497), 409. Webb V. Robinson (14 Ga. 216), 400. Webbu Vermont Cent R Co. (9 Fed. Rep. 793), 37. Webb V. Webb (3 Swanst. 658), 798. Weber v. Weitling (18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.)39), 488, 687,688. Webster v. Clark (25 Me. 314), 579, 645. Webster v. Cooper (10 How. 54), 894 Webster v. Hall (60 N. H. 7), 178. Webster v. Threlfall (1 Sim. & Stu. 135), 355. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins (13 Blatchf. 85), 414. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins (13 Blatchf. 849), 555. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins (105 U. S. 580), 948. Webster Lf.om Co. v. Short (10 OflE. Gaz. 1019), 465. Weckett v. Raby (2 Bro. P. C. 886), 910. Wecott V. Wicks (72 111. 534), 276. Weed V. Smull (7 Paige, 573), 385, 336. Weed V. Smull (3 Sandf. Ch. 273), 444. Weehawken Feriy Co. v. Sisson (17 N. J. Eq. 476). 810. Weeks v. Cole (14 Ves. 517), 998. Weeks v. Milwaukee &c. Ry. Co. (Wis., 47 N. W. Rep. 737), 264. Weems i>. Latlirop (42 Tex. 207), 713. TABLE OF OASES. clxix [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. IT, pp. 609-1012.] WeiKhtman v. Powell (3 De G. & S. 570). 838. Weingartner ». Charter Oak L. Ins. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 814), 747. Weis V. Goetter (73 Ala. 259), 708. Weise v. Wardle (L. R 19 Eq. 171), 91. Weisman v. Smith (6 Jones' (N. C.) f'.ry. 124), 444. Welch V. Bayaud (31 N. J. Eq. 186), 118. Vv rn 11 V. Parran (3 Gill, 330). 338. Welch V. Stearns (69 Me. 193), 97. Welch V. Walker (13 Ala. 130), 307. Welchel v. Thompson (39 Ga. 559), 487. Weld V. Bonham (8 S. & S. 91), 80. Weldon v. Neal (19 Q. B. D. 394), 185. Wellborn t'. Tilter (10 Ala. 305), 281. Wellps V. Rhodes (59 Conn. 498; 33 Atl. Rep. 286), 166, 447. Wellimj V. La Ban (33 Fed. Rep. 393; 23 Bliitchf. 365). 683. Wellln^' V. Lau Ban (34 Fed. Rep. 40), 696. Wells V. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. (30 Conn. 316i, 132, 145, 147. Wells V. Cruger (5 Paige, 164), 341, 345. Wells V. Houston (37 Yt 345), 394 Wells V. Morrow (58 Ala. 135), 373. Wells V. Wood (10 Ves. 401), 414, 416, 417, 432. Welsh V. Mayer (111 U. S. 31), 945. Welsh V. Solenberger ( <5 Va. 441 ; 8 S. E. Rep. 91', 170. 636, 880, 919. Wendell v. Highstone (53 Mich. 553), 554 555. WenHeil i'. Wendell (8 Paige, 509), 588. Wen ham v. Switzer (48 Fed. Rep. 613), 533 Werborn v. Austin (83 Ala. 498), 184 Wert V. Skip (1 Ves. 818), 886, Wertheun v. Railway &c. Co. (15 Fed. Rep. 716), 537, 538. Wesling v. Schrass (33 N. J. Eq. 43), 840. Wei!sells V. Wessells (1 Tenn. Ch. 58), 667. West V. Brashear (14 Pet. 51), 966. West V. Howard (30 Conn. 581), 683, 697. West V. Irwin (54 Fed. Rep. 419), 915, 930. West V. Mayor &o. (10 Paige, 539), 764 West V. Paige (9 N. J. Eq. 203), 11, 488, 634 West V. Rae (83 Fed. Rep. 45), 268. West V. Randall (3 Mason, 181), 146, 153 West V. Rouse (14 Ga. 715), 785. West V. Shaw's Adm'r (33 West Va., 195), 843. West V. Smith (2 N. J. Eq. 309), 306, 703. West V. Strickland (3 Ves. & B. 150), 352 West v." Swan (3 Edw. Ch. 430), 708. West Jersey R Co. v. Thomas (31 N. J. Eq. 205), 787. West Portland Homestead Ass'n v. Lownsdale (17 Fed. Rep. 205), 378 West Va. &c. L. Co. v. Vinal (14 West Va. 637), 466. West Wisconsin R. Co. v. Foley (94 U. S. 100), 968. Westbrook's Trusts, In re (L. R 11 Eq. 353), 574 Westbury-on-Severn R S. Authority V. Meredith (30 Ch. D. 387), 30. Westcottu.Cadv (5 Johns. Ch. 834), 536. Westerfield v. Bried (26 N. J. Eq. 357), 385. Western Compound Co. v. JEXaa, Ins. Co. (40 Wis. 378), 103. Western Ins. Co. v. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. (1 Paige, 384), 142. Western L. & E, Co. v. Guinault (37 Fed. Rep. 523), 151. Western Reserve Bank v. Potter (Clarke's Ch. 432), 95. Western Reserve Bank v. Stryker (1 Clarke's Ch. 380), 415, 416, 433, 424 425. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Bell TeL Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 663), 466, 471. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown (32 Fed. Rep. 337), 46. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pacific &c. Tel. Co. (49 III. 90), 766. Weston V. Berkley (8 P. Wms. 344, n. f), 373. Weston V. Stoddard (16 N. Y. Supl. 605), 971. Wetherbee v. Baker (35 N. J. Eq. 501), 101. Wetherell v. Collins (3 Madd. 355), 99. Wetherly v. Strauss (93 Cal. 283 ; 28 Pac. Rep. 1045), 134 Wetmore v. Dyer (2 N. J. Eq. 886), 219. Wetmore v. Railroad Co. (1 McCrary, 466), 578. Wetter v. Schliepper (7 Abb. Pr. 92), 752. Wetzler v. Schauraann (24 N. J. Eq. 60), 819. Weymouth v. Boyer (1 Ves. Jr. 416), 338. Whaley v. Norton (1 Vern. 483), 538. Wharam v. Broughton (1 Ves. 185), 499. Whedbee v. Leggett (92 N. C. 469), 473. clxx TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages: VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Wheeler v. Alderman (S. C, 13 S. E. Rep. 673), 696. "Wheeler v. Dunn (13 Colo. 428; 33 Pac. Rep. 827), 67. Wheeler v. Harris (13 Wall. 51), 927, 959. Wheeler v. McCormick (8 Blatchf. 367), 47, 326, 349. Wheeler V. Trotter (3 Swanst 174), 6!8. Wlieelock V. L-e (74 N. Y. 405), 648. Wheelock v. Noonan (108 N. Y. 179), 759. Wheelwright v. St. Louis Canal & T. Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 709), 39. Whslan v. Cook |29 Md. 1), 854. Whelan v. Sullivan (102 Mass. 204), 194. Whelan v. Whelan (3 Cowen, 537), 131. \Vhelpley v. Van Epps (9 Paige, 333), ■dS5. Whistler v. Webb (Bunb. 53), 99. Whitaker v. Degraffenreid (6 Ala. 303), 374. Whitaker v. Marlar (1 Cox's Cas. 285), 58. Whitbeok v. Edgar (2 Barb. Ch. 106), 103, 276, 287', 451. Whitbread v. Brockhurst (1 Bro. C. C. 401: 3 Ves. & B. 154, n.), 318. Whitbread v. Gurney (1 Younge, 541), 534. Whitcomb v. Foley (Mad. & Geld. 3), 561. White V. Allatt (87 Cal. 345; 35 Pac. Rep. 430), 163, 796. White V. Baruther (1 Knapp, P. C. 179), 885. White V. Bowman (10 Lea (Tenn.), 55), 776. White V. Bullock (3 Edw. Ch. 453), 445. White V. Buloid (3 Paige, 164), 458, 459, 460. 461, 536, 625. White V. Butcher (97 N. C. 7), 665. Wliite V. Curtis (2 Gray, 467), 153. White V. Davis (48 N. J. Eq. 23 ; 31 Atl. Rep. 187), 130, 170, 203. White V. Dummer (3 N. J. Eq. 537), 303. White V. Fitzhugh (1 Hen. & M. 1), 347, 498. White V. Hall (Moor, 853), 57. White V. Hampton (10 Iowa, 238), 696. White V. Hampton (13 Iowa, 359), 870. White V. Hay« ard (2 Ves. 461), 346. White V. Hess (8 Paige, 544), 600. White V. Howard (3 De G. & S. 323), 390. White V. Joy (13 N. Y. 83), 738. White V. Keokuk &c. Ry. Co. (52 Iowa, 97), 754. White V. Lewis (3 A. K Marsh. 33), 339 White V. Lightburne (4 Bro. P. C. 181), 898. White V. Lord Westmeath (Beat. 174), 473. White V. Lord Westmeath (3 Hogan, 33), 753. White V. Low (7 Barb. 204), 738. White V. North West Stage Co. (5 Oregon, 99), 951. White V. Smith (4 Hill, 166), 478. White V. Smith (1 Lans. 469), 674. White V. Walker (5 Fla. 478). 971. White V. White (5 Gill, 359), 158. White V. White (103 111. 438), 447, 448. White V. Wiggins (33 Ala. 424), 363, 410. White V. Williams (8 Ves. 193), 359. White V. Wingate (Wash., 80 Pac. Rep. 81), 466. White V. Zust (88 N. J. Eq. 107), 817, 818, 871. Whitpcar v. Micheuor (37 N. J. Eq. 6), 758. Whitehead v. Entwhistle (37 Fed. Rep. 778), 7, 8. Whitehead v. Shattuck (138 U. S. 146 ; 11 S. Ct. Rep. 376), 15, 646. Whitehead v. Wooten (43 Miss. 583), 708. Whitehouse v. Partrage (3 Swanst. 377), 613. Whiteside v. Prendergast (3 Barb. Ch. 471), 713, 753, 903. Whiteside County v. Burchell (31 111. 68), 294. Whitewell v. Bennett (3 Bos. & P. 559), 335. Whitfield, Ex parte (3 Atk. 315), 705. Whiting V. Bank of U. S. (13 Pet. 6), 498, 807, 827, 843, 844, 846, 847, 857, 862. Whiting V. Rush (3 Y. & Coll. Ex. 546), 310. Whitlesey v. Delaney (73 N. Y. 571), 738. Whitlook V. Duffield (3 Edw. Ch. 366), 883. Whitlock V. DufiBeld (36 Wend. 55), 330. Whitlock u Fiske (3 Edw. Cli. 131), 340. Whitman v. Hubbell (30 Fed. Rep. 81), 23. Whitmarsh v. Campbell (1 Paige, 645), 139. Whitmore v. Whitmore (7 Paige, 38), 988. Whitney v. Belden (1 Edw. Ch. 386), 361. Whitney v. Belden (4 Paige, 140), 595. TABLE OF OASES. clxxl [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; VoL n, pp. 609-1012.] Whitney v. City of New Haven (58 Conn. 451), 133. Whitney v. City of New Orleans (54 Fed. Rep. 614), 947. Whitney v. Leominster Sav. Bank (141 Mass. 35), 696. Whitney v. M'Kinney (7 Johns. Ch. 144), 95, 98. Whitney v. Union By. Co. (11 Grav, 359), 158. Whittemore v. Bank (134 U. S. 527), 945. Whittemore v. Coster (4 N. J. Eq. 438). 867. Whittemore v. Cowell (7 Allen, 446), 91. Whittemore v. Fisher (133 111. 243), 673, 699. Whitteu V. Saunders (75 Va. 563). 833. 854. Whittingham v. Wooles (3 Swanst. 428). 793. Whyte V. Arthur (17 N. J. Eq. 521), 374, 4C5. 488. Whyte V. Gibbs (20 How. 541), 964. Wich V. Parker (33 Beav. 59 ; 3 Jur. CN. S.) 583), 436. Wickliffe v. Clay (1 Dana, 585), 457, 465. Wickliflfe v. Eve (17 How. 470), 858. Wickliflfe v. Owings (17 How. 47), 43. Wiggins V. Armstrong (3 Johns. 144), 645. Wiggins V. Bethune (29 Fed. Rep. 41), 43. Wilber V. Collier (3 Barb. Ch. 427), 635. Wilbur V. Collier (Clarke's Ch. 315), 171, 190. Wilcox V. Henry (1 Ball. 69), 53. Wilcox V. Pratt (N. Y., 35 N. E. Rep. 1091), 76. Wilcox V. Wilcox (1 Ired. Ch. 36), 830. Wilcox &c. Plate Co. v. Schimmel (59 Mich. 524), 877. Wild V. Gladstone (3 De G. & S. 740 ; 15 Jur. 713), 345. Wild V. Hobson (3 Ves. & B. 110), 333, 607, 668. Wild V. Murray (18 Jur. 892), 999. Wilde V. Jenkins (4 Paige, 481), 500. Wilde V. Lockhart (10 Beav. 330), 989. Wilder v. Keeler (3 Paige, 164), 510, 580, 673. Wilder v. McCormick (3 Blatchf. 31), 368, Wildridge v. McKane (2 Molloy, 545), 754 Wiles V. Trustees &c. (63 Ind. 206), 286. Wiley V. Morris (39 N. J. Eq. 98), 801. Wiley V. Platter (17 111. 538), 458. Wilford V. Beasely (3 Atk. 501), 460. Wilhains v. Llewellyn (2 Y. & J. 68), 528. Wilhelm's Appeal (79 Pa. St 120), 194, 390. Wilhite V. Pearce (47 111. 413), 734. Wilkes V. May (3 Head, 175), 404 Wilkes V. Rogers (6 Johns. 566), 438, 692. Wilkin V. Wilkin (1 Johns. Ch. Ill), 116, 639. Wilkins v. Aikin (17 Ves. Jr. 422), 773. Wilkins v. Jordan (3 Wash. C. C. 226), 342, 780, 783. Wilkins v. Kirkbride (37 N. J. Eq. 93), 96. Wilkins v. Williams (4 Porter (Ala.), 24.5), 235. Wilkinson v. Beal (4 Mod. 408), 276. Wilkinson v. Bauerle (41 N. J. Eq. 636), 394 Wilkinson v. Belsher (3 Bro. C. C. 272), 1009. Wilkinson v. Dodd (42 N. J. Eq. 234), 137. Wilkinson v. Fowkes (9 Hare, 198), 519 Wilkinson v. Parish (3 Paige, 653), 534 Wilkinson v. Parry (4 Russ. 273), 73. Wilkinson v. Roper (74 Ala. 140), 466. Wilkinson v. Rutherford (49 N. J. Law, 241), 737. Wilkinson v. Wilkinson (3 R L 414), 478. Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch (135 U. S. 1), 846. Willett V. Woodhams (1 Bradw. (111.) 411), 769. Williams, In re (2 Bank. Reg. 28), 985. Williams v. Bank (11 Wheat, 414), 902. Williams v. Bankhead (19 Wall. 563) 71, 73. Williams v. Benedict (8 How. 107), 743. Williams v. Brown (4 Johns. Ch. 682), 171. Williams v. Carle (10 N. J. Eq. 544), 458, 460, 461. Williams v. Chard (5 De G. & Sm. 9), 605. Williams v. Charleston (7 S. C. 77), 644 Williams v. Claflin (103 U. S. 753), 943. Williams v. Conger (131 U. S. 390), 956. Williams v. Cooke (10 Ves. 406), 501. Williams v. Cooper (Ky., 30 S.W. Rep. 339), 344 clxxu TABLE OF OASES. [The references are to pages; VoL I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Williams v. Corwin (Hopk. Ch. 471), 281 235 Williams v. Da vies (1 Sim, & Stu. 426), 437, 441. Williams v. Davis (1 Sim. & Stu. 262), 321. 789. Williams v. Douglas (5 Beav. 82; 6 Jur. 379), 140. Williams v. Empire Transp. Co. (1 N. J. L. J. 315), 3i3. Williams v. Gibbs (17 How. 289), 579. Williams v. Guest (L. R. 10 Oh. App. 467), 908. Williams v. Hall (1 Bland, Ch. 195), 323, 786. Williams v. Harden (1 Barb. Ch. 298), 545, 994. Williams v. Hart (116 Mass. 513), 291. Williams v. HIntermeister (36 Fed. Rep. 889), 703. Williams v. Jackson (107 U. S. 478), 146, 635. Williams v. Jones (79 Ala. 119), 635. Williams v. Jones (33 Mo. App. 132), 80. Williams v. Kingsley (5 N. J. Eq. 1 19), 786. Williams v. Longfellow (1 Atk. 582), 313. Williams v. Mellish(l Vern. 117), 855. Williams v. Michenor (11 N. J. Eq. ■531), 90. Williams v. Morgan (111 U. S. 684), 584, 905, 933. Williams v. Nottawa (104 U. S. 209), 39, 483, 484. Williams v. Robinson (16 Conn. 517), 453. Williams v. Thompson (3 Bro. Ch. 379), 341. Williams v. Thomson (111 U. S. 684), Q91 Williams v. United States (138 U. S. 514), 72, 77. Williams v. Vreeland (30 N. J. Eq 576), 548, 549. Williams v. Walker (2 Rich. Eq. 291), 177. Williams v. Warren (8 Blatchf. 477), 160. Williams v. Wheaton (86 Ga. 223 ; 12 S. E. Rep. 634), 148, 154. Williams v. Wilkins (3 Johns. Ch. 65), 1009. Williams v. Williams (1 Md. Ch. 199), 533. Williams v. Williams (9 Mod. 299), 70. Williams v. Williams (3 N. J. Eq. 130), 612, 613. Williams v. Wright (20 Tex. 499), 177. Williamson v. Berry (8 How. 546), 814, 815. Williamson v. Dale (3 Johns. Ch. 290), 822. Williamson v. Hartman (92 N. C. 236), 863, 867. Williamson v. Henshaw (1 Dick. 129), 598. Williamson v. Johnson (5 N. J. Eq. 537), 188. Williamson v. Kincaid (4 Dall. 30), 23. Williamson v. Lewis (3 Giff. 394), 999. Williamson v. McConnell (4 Dana, 454), 405. Williamson v. N. J. Southern R. Co. (25 N. J. Eq. 13). 576. Williamson v. Paxton (18 Gratt 475), 487. Williamson i\ Railroad Co. (1 Biss. 198), 703, 704. Williamson v. Sykes (13 N. J. Eq. 183), 241. Williamson ;•. Washington City &c. R. Co. (83 Gratt. 624 . 733. Williamson v. Wilson (1 Bland, 418), 475, 709, 710, 711, 7.52. Willingham v. King (23 Fla. 478), 123. Willis V. Farrar (3 Y. & J. 264), 661. Willis V. Garbutt (1 Y. & J. 511), 999. Willis V. Henderson (5 111. 13), 381. Willis V. Yates (8 Cond. Ch. 512), 347. Willison V. Salmon (45 N. J. Eq. 257), 631. Wills, In re (9 Jur. (N. S.) 1225), 1008. Wills V. Pauly (51 Fed. Rep. 257), 65. Wilmer v. Railroad Co. (2 "Woods, 426), 707. Wilson, In re (2 Paige, 412), 61 Wilson V. Barnum (1 Wall. J •. 342), 655. Wilson V. Barney (5 Hun, 257) ''51. Wilson V. Bates (3 Myl. & Ci 201), 563. Wilson V. Bellows (30 N. J. Eq 283), 99. Wilson V. Brown (12 N. J. Eq 246), 786. Wilson V. California Wine Co. (>ti'',h., 54 N. W. Rep. 643), 714. Wilson V. Cobb (28 N.J. Eq. 177), ir« 393. Wilson V. Daniel (3 Dall. 401), 936, Wilson V. Davis (1 Mont. 98). 705. Wilson V. Eifler (7 Cold. 33), 582. Wilson V. Foster (1 McClel. & Y. 374), 534. Wilson V. Gaines (103 U. S. 417), 267. Wilson V. Ginger (2 Dick. 521), 655. Wilson V. Greenwood (1 Swanst 483), 710. Wilson V. Hill (46 N. J. Eq 367; 19 Atl. Rep. 1097), 373, 275. Wilson V. Hoss (94 U. S. 463), 954. Wilson V. Joseph (107 Ind. 490), 707. Wilson V. Kinney (14 111. 37), 410. TABLE OF CASES. clxxiil tThe references are to pages; Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 609-1012.] Wilson V. KooDtz (7 Cranch, 203), 948. Wilson V. Martin-Wilson &c. Co. (151 Mhss. 515), 804. Wilson V. Metcalfe (1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 506), 563. Wilson V. Morrell (Wash. St, 33 Pac. Rpp. 733), 936. Wilson V. Poe (1 Hogan, 333), 710. Wilson V. Polk (13 Sm. & M. 181), 883. Wilson i\ Riddle (48 Ga. 609), 586. Wilson V. Riddle (123 U. S. 608 1, 649, 056. Wilson V. Rushins (13 Pliila. 48), 480. Wilson I'. Sandford (10 How. 99), 33. Wilson V. SpnnK{64 111. 14i, 628. Wilson V. Stotley (4 McLean. 275), 183. Wilson i: Weieh (Mass., 31 N. E. Rep. 713), 711, 736. Wilson V. Western Union Tel. Co. (34 BVd. Rep. 561), 46. Wilson )'. Wilson (IJ. & W. 459). 103. Wilson V. Wilson (2 Lea. 18), 381, 420. Wilson V. Wilson (10 Yerg. 201), 850. Wilson V. Wiulermute (27 N. J. Eq. 63). 419. Wilson V. Wood (17 N. J. Eq. 216), 6{)6. Wilt V. Walker (130 Mass. 422), 952. Wilton V. Hill (2 De G., M. & G. 807), 1008. Wilton V. The Railroads (1 Wall. Jr. 195). 369. Wiltshire v. Marfleet(l Edw. Ch. 654), 143. WiuHrisn Gibbs & S. Mfg. Co. (48 Kan. 777). 744, 745. Winnns v. Graves (43 N. J. Eq. 263), 92, 100. Winans v. Winans (19 N. J. Eq. 330), 401. Winchester v. Crandall (Clarke's Ch. 37 1 1, 91. Winchester v. Winchester (1 Head (Tenn.), 460). 843, 844, 857, 859. Winchester v. Winchester (121 Mass. 137), 907, 957, 958. Winebrenner v. Edgerton (30 Barb. 185), 567. Winfield v. Bacon (24 Barb. 154), 735. Wing V. Fairhaven (8 Cush. 363), 771, 781. Wing V. Goodman (75 111. 159), 264, 444. Wing V. Spaulding (Vt. 23 Atl. Rep. 615), 172, 174, 175, 176. Winn V. Albert (2 Md. Ch. 42), 513, 515. Winnipiseogee Lake Co. v. Young (40 N. H. 420), 273, 529. Winship v. Jewett (1 Barb. Ch. 173), 245. Winship w. Waterman (56 Vt 181X 683. Winslow V. Collins (3 Paige, 88), 909, 910. Winslow V. Minnesota R. Co. (4 Minn. 313), 88. Winslow V. Nayson (118 Mass. 411), 117, 875. Winslow V. Wilcox (105 0. S. 447), 913 929 Winsor'u Bailey (55 N. H. 218), 158, 382. Winston v. Mitchell (Ala., 9 So. Rep. 551), 185, 197. Winter v. City Council (88 Ala. 589), 639. Winter v. McMillan (87 Cal. 256 ; 35 Pac. Rep. 407), 447. Winter v. Swinburne (8 Fed. Rep. 49), 48. Winters v. Ethell (183 U. S. 207), 938. Winthrop v. Farrar (11 Allen, 398), 497. Winthrop v. Murry (7 Hare, 152). 475. Winthrop v. Royal Ass. Co. (1 Dick. 283), 1000. Winthrop Iron Co. v. Meeker (109 U. S. 180), 704, 917, 930. Wiscart v. Dauchy (8 Dall. 331), 24 Wise V. Ashe (1 Ir. Eq. 310), 711. Wise V. Browse (9 Price, 393), 485. Wise V. Columbian T. Co. (7 Cranch, 876), 38. Wise V. Grand Ave. R. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 277), 125. Wiser v. Blachly (1 Johns. Ch. 607), 491. Wiser v. Blachly (3 Johns. Ch. 488\ 836, 840, 843, 855. Wisham v. Lippincott (9 N. J. Eq. 353), 333, 788. Wiswall V. Hall (3 Paige, 313), 15, 17. Wiswall V. Wandell (3 Barb. Ch. 312), 361. Wiswall V. Sampson (14 How. 53), 740, 748. Witbv V. Norton (4 Y. & C. 366), 799. Withei-s V. Sims (80 Va. 651), 147. Witmark v. Herman (44 N. Y. Super. Ct 144), 348. Witt V. Ellis (3 Cold. (Tenn.) 40), 346. Witters v. Sowles (31 Fed. Rep. 5), 555, 556, 831, 833. Witters v. Sowles (32 Fed. Rep. 130), 828. Witters v. Sowles (33 Fed. Rep. 765), 555, 556, 828, 833. Witters v. Sowles (43 Fed. Rep, 405). 698. Wittich V. O'Neal (23 Fla. 592), 778. W. J. Johnston Co. v. Hunt (31 N. Y. Supl. 314), 639. Woddail v. HoUiday (44 Ga. 18), 507. Woelensak v. Reiher (115 U. & 96), 391. olxxiv TABLB OF OASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. H, pp. 609-1012.] Wolcott V. McFarlan (6 Hill, 227), 421. Volcott V. Sullivan (1 Edw. Ch. 399), 98. Wood V. Beadell (3 Sim. 273), 769, 770. Wood V. Brewer (9 Ind. 86), 705. Wood V. Chetwood (27 N. J. Eq. 311), 67, 548. Wood V. Davis (18 How. 467), 39. Wood V. Dummer (3 Mason, 308), 152 Wood V. Dwight (7 Johns. Ch. 295), 341. Wood V. Ex'rs of Riker (1 Paige, 616), 330. Wood V. Frazier (86 Tenn. 501), 939. Wood V. Goss (24 111. 626), 1000. Wood V. Griffith (1 Mer. 35), 836. Wood V. Hudson (Ala., 11 So. Rep. 530), 161. Wood V. Kimball (9 Abb. Pr. 419), 348. Wood V. Lyne (4 De G. & S. 16), 176. Wood V. Mann (1 Sumn. 178), 136. Wood V. Mann (2 Sumn. 316), 554. Wood V. Midgley (5 De G., M. & G. ■ 41), 265. Wood V. Oregon DevelopQient Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 901), 709, 751. Wood V. State (66 Md. 61), 776. 777. Wood V. Stover (28 N. J. Eq. 248), 100. Wood V. Swift (81 N. Y. 31), 173. Wood V. Tavlor (3 W. R 331), 311. Wood V. Trust Co. (128 U. S. 421), 719, 734. Wood V. Weimar (104 U. S. 795), 547, 749. Wood V. Westfall (Young;e, 305), 474 Wood V. Wood (3 Ala. 756), 31. Woodall V. Moore (55 Ark. 22), 849, 853, 866. Woodbury Planing Machine Co. v. Keith (101 U. S. 479), 369, 370. Woodcock V. King (1 Atk. 286), 545. Wooden v. Morris (3 N. J. Eq. 65), 283. Wooden v. Wooden (3 N. J. Eq. 429), 336, 785. Woodfork v. Bank (3 Cold. (Tenn.) 497), 376. Woodhull V. Neafie (3 N. J. Eq. 409), 781. Woodhull V. Osborne (2 Edw. Ch. 614), 818, 832. Woodman v. Freeman (25 Me. 531), 18. Woodrofe v. Daniel (10 Sim. 243), 441. Woodroff V. Brugh (6 N. J. Eq. 465), 517. Woodruff V. Cook (2 Edw. Ch. 259), 336. Woodruff V. Dubuque &c. R Co. (30 Fed. Rep. 91), 382. Woodruff V. Jewett (115 N. Y. 267), 755 Woodruff V. Ritter (26 N. J. Eq. 87), 322, 786. Woodruff V. Straw (4 Paige, 407), 670. Woods, In re (143 U. S. 302), 30, 889, 894. Woods V. Fitz (10 Martin. 196), 529. Woods V. Morrell (1 Johns. Ch. 103), 136, 363, 366, 426, 437, 428, 429. Woods u Strickland (2 Ves. & B. 156), 341. Woods V. Symmes (25 Ga. 69), 618. Woods V. Woods (10 Sim. 197), 432. Woodson V. Palmer (1 Bailey, Eq. 95), 971. Woodward v. Brace (Pa., 20 AtL Rep. 1001), 670. Woodward v. Brown (13 Pet 1), 938. Woodward v. Bullock (27 N. J. Eq. 507), 818, 819, 948. Woodward v. Phillips (14 Gray, 132), 992. Woodward v. Schatzele (3 Johna Ch. 413), 615, 616. Woodworth v. Blair (112 U. S. 8), 95. Wood worth v. Edwards (3 Woodb. & M. 120), HI. Woodworth v. Sherman (1 Story, 171), 998. Woodyard v. Woodyard (1 Dick. 33), 508. Woolbridge v. McKenna (8 Fed. Rep. 650), 43. Wooley V. Pemberton (N. J. Eq., 10 Atl. Rep. 159), 318. Wooley V. Pemberton (41 N. J. Eq. 394; 5 Atl. Rep. 139), 145. Woolf V. Pemberton (L. R 6 Ch. D. 19), 56. Woolfolk V. Graniteville Mfg. Co. (23 S. C. 382). 655. WooUam v. Hearn (7 Ves. 222), 529. Woolsey v. Cummings Car Works (33 N. J. Eq. 432), 749. Woolstein v. Welch (42 Fed. Rep. 566), 77, 85, 150. Wooster v. Blake (7 Fed. Rep. 816), 350. Wooster v. Gumbirnner (20 Fed. Rep. 167), 681. Wooster v. Woodhull (1 Johns. Ch. 539), 241, 243, 863. Wooten V. Smith (27 Ga. 316), 786. Woicester v. Truman (1 McLean, 483), 874. Wormley v. Wormley (8 Wheat 421), 39, 72. Worrall v. Harford (8 Ves. Jr. 4), 985. TA13LE OF CASES. clxxv [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1012.] Worrell v. Wade (17 Iowa, 96), 486. Worswick Mfg. Co. v. City of Phila- delphia (30 Fed. Rep. 6251, 630. Wortham v. Pemberton (1 De G. & S. 644; 9 Jur. 291), 65. Worthinston v. Hiss (70 Md. 172), 699. Worthington v. Lee (2 Bland, 678), 308, 311. Wortliington v. Soribner (109 Mass. 487), 273. Wortlev V. Birkhead (3 Ves. Sr. 571), 853. Woven Tape Skirt Co., Matter of (85 N. Y. 506). 730. Wray v. Hazlett (6 Phila. 155), 739. Wray v. Hutchinson (2 Myl. & K. 235), 3.')5. Wray v. Jamison (10 Humph. (Tenn.) 186), 737. Wrav V. Williams (2 Yerg. 302), 978. Wright V. Atkyns (1 Ves. & B. 314), 770. Wright V. Black (2 Wend. 258), 999. Wright V. Bond (11 Ves. 39), 561. Wright V. Castle (3 Mer. 12), 468. Wright V. Dunklin (83 Ala. 317 ; 3 So. Rep. 597), 190. Wright V. Frank (61 Miss. 32), 446, 456, 467. Wright V. Grist (1 Busb. (N. C.) Eq. 203), 785. Wright V. Herlong (16 S. C. 620), 676. Wright V. Miller (1 Sandf. Ch. 103), 413, 802. Wright V. Nostrand (99 N. Y. ^5), 738. Wright V. Nutt (2 Dick. 691), 334. Wright V. Taylor (1 Edw. Cli. 226, 462. Wright V. Vernon (3 Drew. 112). 709. Wright V. Wright (8 N. J. Eq. 143), 187. Wright V. Wright (1 Ves. Sr. 326), 863. Wrigley v. Jolley (36 N. J. Eq. 168), 244. Wrompelmeiri'. Moses(3 Baxt. (Tenn.) 470), 344, 345. Wrottesley v. Bendish (3 P. Wms. 235), 407. Wyatt V. Sadler (5 Sim. 450), 605. Wyatt V. Sweet (48 Mich. 539), 357. Wyatt V. Thompson (10 West Va. 645), 414, 692. Wybourn v. Blunt (Dick. 155), 376. Wyckoff V. Cochran (4 N. J. Eq. 420), 789. Wyckoff V. Sniffen (2 Edw. Ch. 581), 372 Wycoff u. Combs (28 N. J. Eq. 40), 675. Wylie V. Coxe (15 How. 415), 15, 951. Wyllie V. Ellice (U Beav. 99), 1003, 1007. Wynn v. Lord Newborough (3 Bro. C. C. 88), 734, 738. Wynn v. Rosette (66 Ala. 587), 394. Wynne u Humbertson (37 Beav. 431), 535. Wynne v. Jackson (3 Sim. & Stu. 251), 438. Y. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat Bank (135 U. 8. 342), 897. 963. Yard v. Ocean Beach Association (49 N. J. Eq. 306), 995. Yates V. Hambly (3 Atk. 360). 881. Yates V. Hardv (Jacob, 223), 441. Yates V. Law (86 Va. 117), 148. Yates V. Thompson (44 111. App. 145), 410. Yates V. Tisdale (3 Edw. Ch. 71), 176. Yeager v. Wallace (44 Pa. St. 294), 736, 738. Yeatman v. Bradford (44 Fed. Rep. 536), 43, 867. Yeaton v. Lenox (8 Pet. 123), 959. Yellow Pine Lumber Co. v. Carroll (76 Tex. 135 ; 13 S. W. Rep. 261), 148. Yharra v. Sylvany (Cal, 31 Pac. Rep. 1114), 810. Yonde v. Yonde (3 A. & E. 311). 1000. York r. Rockwood (Ind., 31 N. E Rep. 1110), 170. Yost V. Porter (80 Va. 855), 823. Young, In re (7 Fed. Rep. 855). 334. Young V. Bilderback (3 N. J. Eq. 206), 76, 187. Young V. Bush (36 How. Pr. 240), 470. Young V. Campbell (75 N. Y. 525), 759. Young V. City of Florence (56 Fed. Rep. 236), 969, 970. Young V. Clarksville Mfg. Co. (27 N. J. Eq. 67), 388. Young V. Colt (2 Blatchf. 373), 446, 450. Young V. Goodson (2 Russ. 255), 595. Young V. Grundy (6 Cranch, 51), 322, 409. Young V. Henderson (4 Hayw. 189), 832. Young V. Hopkins (6 T. B. Mon. (Kv.) 18), 405. 406. Young V. Kelghly (16 Ves. 348), 853. Young V. Montgomery &c. R. Co. (2 Woods, 606), 749, 750. Young V. Omohundro (69 Md. 424), 553 Young V. Pott (4 Wash. 521), 459, 461. Young V. Smith (15 Pet. 287), 926. Young V. Wright (1 Camp. (N. P.) 139), 543. Young V. Young (45 N. J. Eq. 38), 67, 144, 148. clxxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The references are to pages: Vol. I contains pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 609-1019.] Zambaco v. Cassaveth (L. K. 11 Eq. Caa. 4.S9), 5h7. Zambrino v. Galveston &c. Ry. Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 4491,47,211. Zane v. Cawley (31 N. J. Kq. 130), 393. Zane v. Flint (18 West Va. 69:1). m. Zauesville Gas Co. v. Zanesville (47 Ohio St. 351, 759. Zeio-ler v. Chapin (14 N. Y. Supl. 264), "6.S2. ZeiKler v. David (23 Ala. 127), 7,(1. Zievei-ink v. Kemper (Ohio, 34 N. K. Rep. 250), 736. Zimmerman v. Huber (29 Ala. 3.9), 685. Zimmerman v. Mendenhall (2 Miles, 402), 1000. Zinc Co. V. Franklinite Co. (13 N. J. 332), 523. Zouoh V. Woolston (3 Burr. 1142, n.), 323. Youngblood v. Scliamp (15 N. J. Eq. 42), 111, 771. Younglove v. Steinman (80 Cal. 375), 339 343. Yow uTownsend (1 Dick. 59), 842. Yuba County v. Adams (7 CaL 35), 728. Yuba County v. Cloke (79 Cal. 239), 785. Yuba County v. Pioneer Gold Min. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 183), 46, 48. Yuengling v. Johnson (1 Hughes, 607), 771. Yule V. Yule (10 N. J. Eq. 138), 614, 617, 618. z. Zabel V. Harshman (Mich,, 36 N. W. Rep. 71), 3.")5. Zabriskien Vreeland (13 N. J. Eq. (1 Beas.) 179), 332, 787. MODEM EQUITY PRACTICE. CHAPTEE I. INTRODUCTORY — GENERAL SURVEY. 1. Chancery practice in England. 2. Sources of federal practice in the United States. 3. Construction of Equity Rule 90. 4 Code practice in the United States. 5. Federal practice in respect of cases involving legal and equi- table claims. § 6. Enforcement of new rights cre- ated by local law. 7. Enforcement of State rules of property. 8. Effect of local laws further con- sidered. 9. Practice in proceedings between States. 10. Equity practice in New Jersey. § 1. Chancery practice in England. — The foundation of equity practice, as well as of equity jurisprudence, lies in the English High Court of Chancery. But the abuses and absurd i- ties prevailing in the administration of every branch of the law induced the adoption of several radical reforms, begin- ning in the early part of this century, so that the equity prac- tice in England is now essentially different in many respects from the ancient system. In 1833 the first important pro- cedure amendment act ^ was passed. It abolished some of the unnecessary offices, diminished the fees and emoluments, and provided that suits in equity were to be commenced by an open writ prepared by the plaintiff and issued under an office seal, instead of the old subpoena under the great seal. Sub- stantial changes were also made of applications for time to answer and for leave to amend bills. Then followed from time to time numerous improvements in chancery practice and procedure, until in 1873 the first judicature act was passed under the auspices of Lord Selborne and Lord Cairns.^ "It provided for the consolidation of all the existing superior ' 3 and 4 AVill. IV.. ch. 94. ^xhe act came into operation in 1875. 2 INTEODUCTOEY — GENERAL SUEVET. [§ 2. courts into one supreme court, consisting of two primary di- visions, a high court of justice and a court of appeal. The former was subdivided into several divisions of which one was to be the chancery division. To the high court of justice were transferred the jurisdictions of all the amalgamated courts, and all pending business. Law and equity, it was provided, were to be administered concurrently by every division of the court, in all civil matters, the same relief be- ing granted upon equitable claims or defenses, or equities inci- dentally occurring, as would have been previously granted in the court of chancery ; no proceeding in the court was to be stayed by injunction analogous to the old common injunction, but the power for any branch of the court to stay proceed- ings before itself was of course to be retained ; and the court was to determine the entire controversy in every matter that came before it. By the twenty-fifth section of the act rules upon certain of the points where differences between law and equity had existed, deciding m favor of the latter, were laid down, and it was enacted generally that in case of conflict the rules of equity should prevail. Actions upon matters of the nature previously within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of chancery were assigned to the chancery division, but power to transfer from one division to another was re- served. A general system of procedure for all the divisions was drawn up and has since been elaborated in detail by rules of court issued under a subsequent act." ' § 2. Sources of federal practice in the United States. — It is provided in section 917 of the Revised Statutes of the United States as follows: — "The Supreme Court shall have power to prescribe, from time to time, and in any manner not inconsistent with any law of the United States, the forms of writs and other process, the modes of framing and filing pi-o- ceedings and pleadings, of taking and obtaining evidence, of obtaining discovery, of proceeding to obtain relief, of draw- ing up, entering and enrolling decrees, and of proceeding be- fore trustees appointed by the court, and generall}'^ to regulate ' Kerly's " Historical Sketch of the also, the admirable and compendious Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court treatise of A. H. Marsh, Q. C, on the of Chancery,'' p. 275 et neq. See, " History of the Court of Chancery." § 3.] INTEODUCTOEY — GENEEAL 8UEVEY. 3 the whole practice to be used in suits in equity or admiralty by the circuit and district courts." Section 918 provides that " the several circuit and district courts may, from time to time, and in any manner not inconsistent with any law of the United States or with any rule prescribed by the Supreme Court under the preceding section, make rules and orders di- recting the returning of writs and processes, the filing of pleadings, the taking of rules, the entering and making up of judgments by default, and other matters in vacation, and otherwise regulate their own practice as may be necessary or convenient for the advancement of justice and the prevention of delays in proceedings." Under these provisions there have been promulgated thirty-eight "rules of the Supreme Court of the United States," not all of which, however, relate to equity procedure, and ninety-four " rules of practice in equity." The circuit and district courts have also adopted rules of their own, and to these must be added the rules of the circuit court of appeals in each of the nine circuits, the latter being sub- stantially but not precisely identical.' The ninetieth rule in equity provides that "in all cases where the rules prescribed by this court or by the circuit court do not apply, the prac- tice of the circuit court shall be regulated by the present practice of the High Court of Chancery in England, so far as the same may reasonably be applied consistently with the local circumstances and local conveniences of the district where the court is held, not as positive rules, but as furnishing just analogies to regulate the practice." Rule 8 of the circuit court of appeals provides that " the practice shall be the same as in the Supreme Court of the United States, as far as the same shall be applicable." The ninetieth rule, above men- tioned, is further considered in the following section. § 3. Construction of Equity Rule 90. — In a note to Thomp- son V. Wooster,^ determined in 1884, Justice Bradley, speaking for the United States Supreme Court, placed the following construction upon Rule 90: — "Reference is made to the first edition of Daniell (published 1837) as being, with the second edition of Smith's Practice (published in the same year), the 1 All of these rules are published 2 114 U. S. 104, 113. in the appendix to this work. 4 INTRODUCTOEV GENERAL SUEVET. [§ 4. most authoritative of English chancery practice in use in March, 1842, when our equity rules were adopted. Supple- mented by the general orders made by Lords Cottenham and Langdale in August, 1841 (manjr of which were closely copied ill our own rules), they exhibit that 'present practice of the High Court of Chancery in England,' which by our ninetieth rule was accepted as the standard of equity practice in cases where the rules prescribed by this court or the circuit court do not apply. The second edition of Mr. Daniell's work, pub- lished by Mr. Headlam in 1846, was much modified by the extensive changes introduced by the English orders of May Si 1845; and the third edition by the still more radical changes introduced by the order of April, 1850, the statute of 15 and 16 Vict. (ch. 86), and the general orders afterwards made under the authority of that statute. Of course, the subse- quent editions of Daniell are still further removed from the standard adopted by this court in 1842; but as they contain a view of the later decisions bearing upon so much of the old system as remains, they have on that account a value of their own provided one is not misled by the new portions." But the practice of the English Court of Chancery affects only matters of procedure, and does not apjily in determining questions of jurisdiction, which depend wholly on the consti- tution and laws of the United States.' § 4. Code practice in the United States. — Courts of chan- cery had existed in most of the American colonies prior to the Revolution,^ and after that event they were established by the constitutions of many of the States upon the model of the High Court of Chancery in England. Such was the case \a New York, JSTew Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina and Mich- 1 Lewis V. Shainwald, 48 Fed. Rep. of any kind. Broome v. Boers, 6 493. Conn. 198. The practice of tlie courts - Laussat's note to 1 Fonblanque's has always tended to simplicity in Equity, 13; article in 18 Am. Law matters of form. Consolidated Pres- Rev. 236 ; Story's Eq. Jurisprudence, by terian Soc. v. Staples, 23 Conn. 544, § 56; Bisphara, Principles of Equity 555. The Practice Act of 18T9. after (4th ed.), § 14, n. The Connecticut the manner of the New York code. General Assembly formerly took ex- abolishes the distinction between law elusive cognizance of all questions in and equity by providing for a single equity, and the proceedings before form of action called a complaint them were without plra or answer § 4.J INTEODUCTOEY GENEEAL 8UEVEY. 5 igan ; and distinct courts of chancery now exist in New Jersey, Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama.* Most of the other States have followed the ex- ample of New York, which State in 184:8 not only abolished its court of chancery, but also the distinction between legal and equitable forms of action, substituting a general form of civil action in their place. The language of the New York code was as follows : — " The distinction between actions at law and suits in equity, and the forms of all such actions and suits heretofore existing, are abolished, and- there shall be in this State but one form of action for the enforcement and protection of private rights and the redress of private wrongs, which shall be denominated a civil action." " In discussing the effect of these changes a well-known writer says: — "The distinctions abolished are simply those which formerly existed between the two classes of actions in the manner of stating the facts, in the style of the writ, and the mode of submitting evidence ; those which arise from the mode of trial and from the nature of the relief are as marked as before." ' Another learned author, speaking to the same point, says : — " The code has not changed the principles by which courts deter- mine the rights, duties and liabilities of the parties to an ac- tion. They remain as before its adoption ; therefore in stating a cause of action it must appear from the facts alleged that there is a liability of the defendant to the plaintiff, to enforce which he is entitled to invoke the aid of the court. To enforce or protect these rights, all remedies known either at law or in equity still remain to a party, and may be -speedily applied by the court through the single civil action of the code." * 1 Bispham's Principles of Equity through Common-law Forma," by Jurisprudence (4th ed.), § 15. Sydney J. Fisher, Esq., in 1 Law ^ For an enumeration of the States Quarterly Review, p. 455. See, also, which have adopted the radical pro- " Chancery in Massachusetts," by Ed- visions of the New York code, either win H. Woodruff, Esq., 5 Law Quar- literally or substantially, see Bliss on terly Review, p. 370. Code Pleading (2d ed.), § 5. For an 3 Bliss on Code Pleading (2d ed.), account of the anomalous condition g 10. in Pennsylvania, where the common- * Maxwell on Code Pleading, p. 8. law courts formerlj' exercised exten- The distinction between actions at sive equitable jurisdiction, see an ar- law and suits in equity under the tide on "Administration of Equity code is also discussed and pointed INTROD0OTOET GENERAL SUKVEV. [§ § 5. Federal practice in respect of cases involying legal and equitable claims. — When a suit which involves both legal and equitable remedies is removed from the State to the federal courts, the pleadings must be recast and the causes of action stated according to the course of procedure on the law and equity sides of the court, respectively, and the causes sep- arated and placed there ; ' and where several actions removed from a State court were based upon insurance policies upon the same property issued on the same application, at the same time, and by the same agent, containing a clause for contribu- tion, the court, on motion of the defendants, ordered one of the causes to be transferred to the equity docket, and the other defendants to be made parties, and the pleadings in that case to be reformed according to the equity practice.^ A pe- out by Selden, J., in Reubens v. Joel, 13 N. Y. 488. See, also, Mott v. Op- penheimer, 135 N. Y. 316. 118 U. S. St. at L., ch. 137, p. 470, and 24 U. S. St. at L., ch. 373 ; Lacroix V. Lyons, 27 Fed. Rep. 403 ; Perkins V. Hendryx, 33 Fed. Rep. 418 ; North- ern Pac. R. Co. V. Paine, 119 U. S. 561 ; La Mothe v. National Co., 15 Blatchf. 432. But if tlie complaint states substantially only one cause of action and that an equitable one the case need not be recast Phelps v. Elliott, 26 Fed. Rep. 881. But the rule enforced in the circuit and dis- trict courts of the United States that a bill in equity to quiet title or re- move clouds must show a legal and equitable title in the plaintiff, and set forth the facts and circumstances on which he relies for relief, does not apply to an action in the territorial court founded upon territorial stat- utes which unite legal and equitable remedies in one form of action. Ely V. New Mexico &c. R. Co., 129 U. S. 291 ; Parley's Park &o. Co. v. Kerr, 130 U. S. 256, holding that the Pro- cess Act of 1793 does not forbid the consolidation of legal and equitable jurisdictions by acts of territorial legislatures. See, also, Hornbuckle V. Toombs, 18 Wall. 648 ; Hershaeld V. Griffith, 18 Wall. 657; Davis v. Bilsland, 18 Wall. 659 ; Basey v. Gal- lagher, 20 Wall. 670. 2 Falls of Neuse Mfg. Co. v. Georgia Home Ins. Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 1. The United States circuit court does not sit as a court of errors in a cause re- moved from a State court, but it has the same power to set aside or modify any interlocutory orders or decisions made in the State court as the latter would have had if the case had re- mained there, or as the circuit court itself would have had if the cause had originated therein. Bryant v. Thompson, 37 Fed. Rep. 881. In re- versing a decree of the circuit court on the ground of adequate remedy at law in the State from which the case was removed, the Supreme Court said : ^" We think the rule is settled in this court that whenever a new right is granted by statute, or a new remedy for violation of an old right, or whenever such rights and rem- edies are dependent on State statutes or acts of congress, the jurisdiction of such cases, as between the law side and the equity side of the federal §6.J INTEODUCTOEr GENEEAL SUEVEY. tition praying for equitable relief was brought in a State where the union of legal and equitable causes of action in one suit was permitted, and an answer was filed seeking legal re- lief. The case was then removed to the United States circuit court. The plaintiff took a writ of error and an appeal from a judgment of that court for the defendant, and after hearing on the writ the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case with directions to allow the plaintiff to amend his petition, and to strike out the answer of the de- fendant, proper motions to that effect having been made prior to the judgment below.' § 6. Enforcement of new rights created by local law- — Although the equity jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is subject to neither limitation nor restraint by the State authorities and is uniform throughout the different States of the Union ;^ and their general practice in equity is not affected by the laws of a State in which they sit,' yet courts, must be determined by the essential character of the case, and unless it comes within some of the recognized heads of equitable juris- diction it must be held to apply to the other.'' Van Norden v. Morton, a9 U. a 378. iHurt V. Hollingsworth, 100 U. S. 100. Notwithstanding the peculiar- ities of the civil code of Louisiana, distinctions between Jaw and equity must be preserved in tlie federal courts, and equity cases from that circuit must go to the Supreme Court by appeal. If a petition for foreclos- ure of a mortgage is brought up by writ of error, it will be dismissed. Walker v. Dreville. 12 Wall (1871), 440. See, also, McCollum v. Eager, 3 How. 6; Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106 ; Story v. Livingston, 13 Pet. 859 ; Gaines v. Relf, 15 Pet. 9. ^Gamewell Fire Alarm Tel. Co. v. Mayor &c., 31 Fed. Rep. 312 ; Vincent V. County of Lincoln. 30 Fed. Rep. 749, 759; Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Brown, Bonuell & Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 535, 543 ; Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Bon- ner Mercantile Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 151, 156. And there can be no enforce- ment in the federal courts of any rights created by State law, which impair the separation required in those courts between actions for legal demands and suits for equitable re- lief. Scott V. Neely, 140 U. S. 106 : Bennett v. Butterworth, 11 How. 669. In the United States courts, if the remedy at law is speedy and ade- quate, a remedy in equity created by State statute cannot be resorted to because of the provisions of section 723 of the Revised Statutes, and of article 7 of the amendment to the constitution, guaranteeing the right of trial by jury. Whitehead v. Ent- whistle, 27 Fed. Rep. 778. 3 Phelps V. Elliott, 36 Fed. Rep. 881 ; Russell V. Farley, 105 U. S. 433 ; Penn. R Co. V. Allegheny Valley R Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 115; Dravo v. Fabel, 95 Fed. Rep. 116. In the two cases last 8 INTEODUOTOKT — GKNEEAL SUEVET. [§ 7. when a State statute creates a right ' and prescribes a mode of proceeding to enforce it in the State courts, the courts of the United States in that State will enforce the right, but not always in the mode prescribed by the State law. The State courts may be authorized to enforce an equitable right by an action at law or a legal demand by a suit in equity, or to con- found the two jurisdictions in the same suit ; whereas in the federal courts the distinction between legal and equitable modes of proceeding is strictly maintained. Nevertheless, " it is desirable, when a court of the United States is enforcing a right created by State statute, to follow as near as may be the practice prescribed by the State statute." ^ § 7. Enforcement of State rules of property. — Under the repeated decisions of the United States Supreme Court the right to redeem within a prescribed time after sale under a decree of foreclosure, given in many States by statute, is a substantial one, to be recognized in the courts of the United States, sitting in equity, because the statute constitutes a rule of property in the State that enacts it;^ but if substantial cited a statute provided for examina- Fed. Rep. 100. The remedy must not tion of the opposite party as if under be contrary to provisions of the fed- cross-examination. Gaines v. City of eral constitution or acts of congress. New Orleans, 27 Fed. Rep. 411; Bu- Whitehead v. Entwhistle, 37 Fed. ford V. Holley, 28 Fed. Rep. 680 ; Rep. 778. Howth V. Owens, 29 Fed. Rep. 722, 3 Parker v. Dacres, 130 U. S. 43 ; 724. Mason v. Northwestern Mut. L Ins. 1 Even if it has no existence in the Co.. 106 TJ. S. 163 ; Brine v. Hartford general jurisprudence of equity ; as, Fire Ins. Co., 96 U. S. 627 ; Metro- for instance, the right given to a gen- politan Nat Banlj v. Connecticut eral creditor to file a creditor's bill Mut L. Ins. Co., 97 U. S. 73 ; Orvis and have a receiver appointed. Fech- v. Powell, 98 U. S. 176 ; Swift v. heimer v. Baum, 37 Fed. Rep. 167. Smith, 102 U. S. 443; Connecticut See, also, Flash v. Wilkerson, 38 Fed. Mut K Ins. Co. v. Cushman, 108 Rep. 689 ; Tomlinson &c. Co. v. Shatto, U. S. 51 ; Jackson & Sharp Co. v. 34 Fed. Rep. 380. Burlington &c. R Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 2 Per Caldwell, J., in Leighton v. 474. The statutes of Illinois giving Young, 10 U. S. App. 298, 310, 312. the right to redeem mortgaged lands Propriety and convenience suggest sold under decree did not embrace that the State and federal practice the real estate of a railroad corpora- should not materially differ when tion mortgaged in connection with titles to land are the subjects of in- its franchises and personal property, vestigation. Clark v. Smith, 13 Pet Its real estate, pereonalty and fran- 195. See, also, Lanier v. Alison, 31 chises so mortgaged should be sold § 8.] INTRODUCTORY GENERAL SURVEY. 9 effect is given to tiie right of redemption, the federal courts are at liberty in so doing to adhere to their own modes of proceeding.' So the order in which real estate which has been mortgaged and subsequently sold at different times to different purchasers shall be subjected to satisfaction of the mortgage is, where the rule is established by State statute or the decisions of the State courts, a rule of property which will be followed by the federal courts.^ Under the same head is a State statute imposing an individual liability on stock- holders of a corporation,^ and the settled law of a State in respect of questions relating to chattel mortgages.* It has also been held that the proper method of proceeding against infant defendants, whether by general guardian or guardian ad litem,, is a question local to the law of the jurisdiction.* § 8. Effect of local laws further considered. — The follow- ing are some of the instances in which the United States have declined to follow the State practice: A personal decree against an infant after guardian ad litem had been appointed, in a suit not involving property, was declared to be void, even in collateral proceedings, if no actual service of process was made on the infant.* The condition of an injunction bond as an entirety and without the right Holland v. Challen, 101 U. S. 15; of redemption given by statute. Brodericls's Will, 21 Wall. 503. The Hammock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust statute of Michigan requiring the Co., 105 U. S. 77. A rule of property general guardian of an infant "to established by the decisions of a appear and represent his ward in all State court binds the federal courts legal suits and proceedings " does not sitting in that State as much as if it dispense with the necessity of actual were part of a statute. Lippincott v. service of process upon the infant in Mitchell, 94 U. S. (1877), 767. a case in a United States court where 1 Allis V. Northwestern Mut. L Ins. a personal decree alone is sought. Co., 97 U. S. 144 ; Conn. Mut L. Ina New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bangs, 103 Co. V. Cushman, 108 U. S. 51. U. S. 435. 2 Orvis V. Powell, 98 U. S. 176. « " The statute of Michigan requir- 3 Borland v. Haven, 37 Fed. Rep. ing the general guardian of an in- 394 fant to ' appear for and represent his n is so plain that the court would be justilied in dismissing the bill of its own motion. Edgett v. Douglass (Pa.), 23 Atl. Rep. 868. See, also, Evans v. Goodwin, 132 Pa. St 136, aud cf. Jinks v. Banner Lodge, lb9 Pa. St. 414. In an action for damages for breach of a contract to exchange lands, the answer prayed that, in case the court should ad- judge plaintiff's title to its lands to be good, so that defendnnt was bound to accept a conveyance of them, it decree a specific performance. It was held that the defendant could not complain that the court tried and decided the action as one for a specific performance. Mealey v. Finnegan (Minn.), 49 N. W. Rep. 207. 1 Mills V. Knapp, 39 Fed. Rep. 593, where the plaintiff declared in his bill that he was entitled to recover an exact sum, but asked no discov- ery and showed that no accounting was necessary under the direction of the court. See, also, Grandin v. Le Roy, 2 Paige, 509 ; Arnold v. Middle- town, 39 Conn. 401. 18 JUKISDICTION. [§15. that chancery has not under any circumstances jurisdiction of the subject of the bill,' the court will entertain the objection at any stage of the case, or, sua sponte, dismiss the bill.' §15. Federal jurisdiction exempt from State control. — The equity jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is » Niles V. Williams, 34 Conn. 279; Smith V. Lawrence, 26 Conn. 469, 479. 2 Magee v. Magee, 51 111. 500 ; Stout V. Cook, 41 111. 447 ; Charleston Ins. Co. V. Porter, 3 Desauss. 6; Wood- man V. Freeman, 25 Me. 531 ; Tubb v. Fort, 58 Ala. 377 ; Hart v. Mallet, 3 Hayw. 136 ; Stone v. Thomas, K R 5 Ch. 219. (Of. Morley v. White, L. R 8 Ch. 731.) An objection for want of jurisdiction, another court haviuj; exclusive jurisdiction by statute or otherwise, will be taken by the court itself at any stage of the case. Heyer V. Burger, Hoff. Ch. 1. Where the objection of adequate remedy at liiw was not made by demurrer, plea or answer, nor suggested by counsel, nevertheless if it clearly exists it is the duty of the court, aua sponte, to recognize it and dismiss the bill. Lewis V. Cocks, 28 Wall. 46G ; Parker ti. Winnipiseogee Lake &c. Co., 2 Black, 545; Oelrichs v. Williams, 15 Wall 211; Killian v. Ebbinghaus, 110 TJ. S. 568; Hine v. New Haven, 40 Conn. 478. See, also, Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 653 ; Keokuk &c. Ey. Co. v. Donnell, 77 Iowa, 221 ; s. C, 43 N. W. Rep. 176; Appeal of Pittsburg &a Drove- Yard Co., 128 Pa. St. 250; & C, 23 W. N. C. 89. " While the court in its dis- cretion, at the hearing, may dismiss a bill for want of such jurisdiction as is necessary, according to the rules usually adopted, yet, if the defend- ant submits to the jurisdiction, and does not raise the objection by de- murrer or in his answer, he cannot insist upon it as a matter of right unless the court is wholly incompe- tent to grant the relief sought by ihe bill. " Seymour v. Long Dock Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 396, 407. The rule in Vir- ginia is possibly more pronounced. The doctrine is there said to be well established that "if a bill does not state a case proper for relief in equity, the court will dismiss it at the hear- ing though no objection has been taken to the jurisdiction in the plead- ings, and that objection on that ground may be made at any time and in any court" Buffalo v. Town of Pocahontas, 85 Va. 223; s. a, 7 S. E. Rep. 338 ; Morgan i\ Carson, 7 Leigh, 238; Hudson v. Kline, 9 Gvatt. 379; Green v. Massie, 21 Gratt. 350; Graveley v. Graveley's Adm'r, 84 Va. 145 ; s. a, 4 S. E. Rep. 318 ; Poindex- ter V. Burwell, 82 Va. 507 ; Salamone V. Keiley, 80 Va. 86. And the Su- preme Court of Missouri said :^"Our conclusion is that under our practice act the plea of remedy at law in a suit in equity is unknown. It has no place under our system of plead- ing. What we said upon this subject in the case of Blair v. Railroad Co.. 89 Mo. 388. and in Shickle v. Watts. 94 Mo. 419. is overruled." Humph- reys V. Atlantic Milling Co., 98 Mo. 543. 55;); s. G, 10 S. W. Rep. 140, holding that "if the petition be one in equity, and at the hearing the plaintiff fails to show a case in which he is entitled to any equitable relief, the petition should be dismissed." Citing further State v. St Louis Cir- cuit Court 41 Mo. 574 ; Rutherford r. Williams, 43 Mo. 18. And see Story s Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 473, n § 16.] JURISDICTION. 19 subject to neither limitation nor restraint by State legislation and is uniform throughout the different States of the Onion.' Thus, a State law giving exclusive jurisdiction to the probate court of certain suits against an administrator cannot prevent the United States courts from exercising jurisdiction.'' § 16. Judges' chambers. — No such places as chambers for the judges of the United States circuit court or circuit jus- tices are mentioned in the statutes. They do not appear to have any local habitation. " All business done out of court by the judge is called ' chamber business.' But it is not neces- sary to be done in what is usually called 'chambers.' Cham- ber business may be, and often is done, on the street, in the judge's own home, at the hotel where he stops when absent from home, or it may be done in transitu, on the cars in going from one place to another, within the proper jurisdiction to hold court. . . . The chambers of a judge as a legal en- tity are something of a myth. For the purposes of jurisdic- tion the chambers of a judge are wherever he happens to be in his circuit or district when the exigencies of the case call for the transaction of chamber business." ' 'Gamewell Fire Alarm Tel. Co. v. room, or in the cars, as well as at his Mayor &c., 31 Fed. Rep. 313; Hart- chambers in tlie court-house, or in ford F. Ins. Co. v. Bonner Mercantile the court-room : that he could make Co.. 44 Fed. Rep. 151, 155; Vincent u a writ of habeas corpus returnable County of Lincoln, 30 Fed. Rep. 749, before himself on the car and law- 754 ; Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Brown, fully hear and decide the case while Bonnell & Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 539, 542 ; ou his passage to the place for open- United States V. Howland, 4 Wheat, ing court. " The chambers of a 108, 115 ; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 430 ; judge, where chambers are provided. Green v. Creighton, 23 How. 105. are not an element of jurisdiction. That new rights created by a State but are a convenience to the judge may be enforced by the federal courts and to suitors — places where the in equity, see g§ 8, 10, supra. judge at proper times can be readily 2Semmes v. Whitney, 50 Fed. Rep. found and the business conveniently 666. transacted." s. C, 856. The consti- 3 Sawyer, J., in In re Neagle, 39 tution of Ohio provides that "the Fed. Rep. 833, 855, 856, where he says several judges of the Supreme Court that a circuit justice might lawfully . . . shall respectively have and (within his district) issue a temporary exercise such power and jurisdiction injunction, grant a writ of habeas 't chambers or otherwise as may be corpus, an order to show cause, or do directed by law." It was held that any other chamber business for the under this provision the legislature ilistrict in a railroad station dining- could not confer on a judge of the 20 JUEISDICTION. [§17. § 17. Jurisdictional amount inherent in the court of chan- cery.^ Lord Bacon's ordinance declaring that all suits under the value of £10 shall be dismissed is in force in New Jersey, and where the amount in dispute is less than $50 the suit is dismissed regardless of its merits.' The same rule was en- forced in the New York court of chancery when it existed.^ That court did not refuse to take cognizance of a cause where the amount in controversy appeared to be more than £10 although less than $50.' The defendant can avail himself of the insignificance of the suit only by the pleadings on his part, unless the objection appears affirmatively on the face of the bill, in which case he may demur or move to dismiss on notice.* Supreme Court jurisdiction at cham- bers to grant or dissolve an injunc- tion in a cause pending in another court ■' Jurisdiction at chambers is incidental to and grows out of the jurisdiction of the court itself. It is the power to hear and determine, out of court, such questions arising be- tween the parties to a controversy, as might well be determined by the court itself, but which the legislature has seen fit to intrust to the judgment of a single judge, out of court, with- out requiring them to be brought be- fore the court in actual session. It follows that the jurisdiction of a judge at chambers cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of the court to which he belongs, or extend to matters with which his court has nothing to do." Pittsburg &c. Ry. Co. v. Hurd, 17 Ohio St 144, 146. 1 Allen V. Demarest (1886), 41 N. J. Eq. 162, "except in special cases," which in England are said to be " such as in cases of charity, in cases of fraud, and in cases of bills to es- tablish a right of a permanent nature ; such as in the case of six shillings claimed to be due as an Easter offer- ing, or of a perpetual rent charge of five shillings." Story's Equity Plead- ing, S 500. And as to similar possible exceptions in this country see Luf- kiu V. Galveston, 73 Tex. 340; Tread- well V. Patterson, 51 Cal. 687. The rule is still enforced in the Chancery Division in England. Westbury-on- Severn R. S. Authority v. Meredith, 30 Ch. D. 387. ^Fullerton v. Jackson (1821), 5 Johns. Ch. 276, where the requisite arauunt was referred to as $50; Moore v. Lyttle, 4 Johns. Ch. 183, where it was said to be " ten pounds.'' 3 Vredenberg v. Johnson, Hopk. Ch. 112. * Bradt v. Kirkpa trick, 7 Paige, 62 ; Allen V. Demarest, 41 N. J. Eq. 162, 167; Swedesborough Church v. Shiv- ers, 16 N. J. Eq. 453. Or, according to Smets V. "Williams, 4 Paige, 364, if the fact do not appear on the face of the bill it may be pleaded in bar. The earlier case of Moore v. Lyttle, 4 Johns Ch. 183, leaves it doubtful whether the court would notice the objection unless attention were called to it by the defendant; but in the New Jersey cases supra, the court declared itself at liberty to dismiss the bill sua sponte at the hearing ; and this seems to be the English rule. Brace v. Taylor, 2 Atk. 253 ; § 18.] JUEISDIOTION. 21 § 18. Jurisdictional amount by statute. — The statute pre- scribing the jurisdiction of the United States circuit courts, so far as it relates to the amount in controversy, confers jurisdic- tion " where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of inter- est and costs, the sura or value of $2,000." ^ The appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court was likewise limited in certain cases to appeals from decrees wherein the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeded $5,000.'' The amount actually due at the time the action is commenced is the matter in dispute, and the rule is well-nigh universal that if the court has jurisdiction when the suit is begun it has it for all time. Thus, the court will not disregard a sam claimed in fixing the jurisdictional amount because the defendant in his answer admits it to be due and offers to pay it.' Further- more, on appeals to the Supreme Court the matter in dispute is " the matter which is directly in dispute in the particular case in which the judgment or decree sought to be reviewed has been rendered," and the court is not permitted, "for the purpose of determining its sum or value, to estimate its col- lateral effect in a subsequent suit between the same or other parties." * But the fact of a valid defense to a cause of action Cooper's Equity Pleading, 166 ; Story's tion although the defendants make Equity Pleading, § 500, n. In Cum- no specific objection on this ground mings V. Barrett, 10 Cush. 186, 190, by demurrer or otherwise; Gale v. the court said: — "The powers of a Nickerson, 151 Mass. 428; Wood v. court of equity are not to be called Wood, 3 Ala. 756 ; Steinbach v. Hill, into exercise to consider matters of 25 Mich. 78 ; Carr v. Inglehart, 3 trifling amount or to recover nom- Ohio St 457. inal damages. The rule de minimis i Act of March 3, 1887, § 1 (34 U. S. is applied in equity with reasonable St. at L., ch. 373, p. 553). strictness. In New York the rule is 2 xj. S. Rev. St. S§ 691, 693. that a suit in equity will not be main- ^ Fuller v. Met. L. Ins. Co., 87 Fed. tained when the amount is less than Rep. 168. On the point that the $100 (statute enacted subsequent to amount must be actually due, see, the New York cases cited in the however, Schunk v. Moline, 147 "T. S. foregoing notes). No such statute 500, 505. exists here, but a similar principle is ^ Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578 ; applied." See, also. Smith v. Will- Bruce v. Manchester &c. R Co., 117 iams, 116 Mass. 510, 513 ; Chapman U. S. 514. " The jurisdiction does V. Banker & Tradesman Publishing not depend upon the amount of any Co., 128 Mass. 478, the latter case contingent loss or damage which holding that the court will decline to one of the parties may sustain by a entertain a suit beneath its jurisdic- decision against him." Ross v. Pren- 22 JUEISDIOTION. [§18. apparent on the face of the bill does not diminish the amount that is claimed, nor determine what is the matter in dispute ; " for who can say in advance that that defense will be pre- tiss, 3 How. 771, 773. In Elgin v. Marshall, supra, Mr. Justice Mat- thews said: — "The rule, it is true, is an arbitrary one, as it is based upon a fixed amount, representing pecun- iary value, and for that reason ex- cludes the jurisdiction of this court in oases which involve rights that because they are priceless have no measure in money. Lee v. Lee, 8 Pet 44 ; Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 103; Pratt v. Fitzhue;h, 1 Black, 371 ; Sparrow v. Strong, 3 "Wall. 97. But. as it draws the boundary line of jurisdiction, it is to be construed with strictness and rigor. As juris- diction cannot be conferred by con- sent of parties, but m ust be given by the law, so it ought not to be ex- tended by doubtful constructions. Undoubtedly congress in establish- ing a rule for determining the appel- late jurisdiction of this court, among other reasons of convenience that dictated the adoption of the m^ney value of the matter in dispute, had in view that it was precise and defi- nite. Ordinarily it would appear in the pleadings and judgment, where the claim must be stated and deter- mined; but where the recover3' of specific property, real or personal, is sought, affidavits of value were per- mitted from the beginning as a suit- able mode of ascertaining the fact and bringing it upon the record. Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 Dall. 20 ; Course v. Stead, 4 Dall. 33; United States V. Brig Union, 4 Cranch, 216. But the fact of value in excess of the limit must affirmatively appear in the record as thus constituted, as it is essential to the existence and ex- ercise of jurisdicti(m. This court will not proceed in any case unless the right and duty to do so are ap- parent upon the face of the record. The language of the rule limits by its own force the required value to the matter in dispute in the particu- lar action or suit in which the juris- diction is invoked ; and it plainly excludes by a necessary implication any estimate of value as to any mat- ter not actually the subject of that litigation. It would be clearly a violation of the rule to add to the value of the matter determined any estimate in money by reason of the probative force of the judgment it- self in some subsequent proceeding. . . . It is not the actual value of the judgment sought to be reviewed which confers jurisdiction, other- wise it might be required to hear evidence that it could not be col- lected ; but it is the nominal or ap- parent sum or value of the subject- matter of the judgment. Indeed so strictly has [the rule] been applied that in cases where, although the entire matter in dispute in the suit exceeds in value the jurisdic- tional limit, nevertheless if there are several and separate interests in that sum belonging to distinct parties, and constituting distinct causes of action, although actually united in one suit and growing out of the same transaction, the jurisdiction of the court has been constantly denied. Ex parte Baltimore &c. E. Co., 106 U. S. 5 ; Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188 ; Farmers' Lu & T. A. u Water- man, 106 U. S. 265 ; Adams v. Crit- tenden, 106 U. S. 576." See, also, Grant v. McKee, 1 Pet 248 ; Stinson V. Dousman, 20 How. 461 ; Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564 ; Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6 ; Parker §19-] JURISDICTION. 23 sented by the defendant, or if presented sustained by the court ? " ' § 19. The same subject continued. — When matter set up in a cross-bill is directly responsive to the averments in the bill,' and is directly connected with the transactions which are set up in the bill as the gravamen of the plaintiff's case, the amount claimed in the cross-bill may be taken into con- sideration in determining the jurisdiction on appeal from a decree on the bill.^ "Where a bill was brought to restrain the maintenance of an awning over a part of a street, the matter in dispute was held to be the value of the right to maintain the awning, not the amount of damage done by it to the plaintiff.' V. Morrill, 106 U. S. 1 ; Russell v. Stansell, 105 U. S. 303; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 132 U. S. 27. And the rule applicable to several plaintiffs hav- ing separate claims, that each must represent an amount sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, is equally applicable to several liabilities of dif- ferent defendants to the same plaint- iff. " The test of jurisdiction is the joint or several character of the lia- bility to the plaintiff." Walter v. Northeastern R. Co. (U. S., 1893), 13 S. Ct. Rep. 348. In a foreclosure suit involving more than $3,000 the circuit court has jurisdiction to de- termine the priority of all liens upon the premises set up by cross- bill, regardless of the amount claimed. Courtney v. Ins. Co., 4 U. S. App. 140; & G, 1 C. C. A. 249, holding as a consequence that as the jurisdiction of the circuit court of appeals is not limited to any amount, it may entertain an ap- peal from a decree on such a cross- bill refusing to recognize a lien for less than $3,000. 1 Schunk V. Moline, 147 U. S. 500, 505. But no mere pretense as to the amount in dispute vpill avail to create jurisdiction. Bowman v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 115 U. S. 611. 2Lovell V. Cragin, 136 U. S. 130. See, also, Dushane v. Benedict, 120 U. S. 630. ' Whitman v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. Rep. 81. See further, for the matter in dispute in injunction cases. Symonds V. Greene, 28 Fed. Rep. 834 ; Missis- sippi &c. R Co. V. Ward, 2 Black, 485 ; Oleson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 1 ; Market Co. v. Hoff- man, 101 U. S. 112. On bill for an account, McCormick v. Gray, 13 Howr. 26. Where two or more par- ties join as complainants. Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. Rep. 373; Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3; Massa v. Cut- ting, 30 Fed. Rep. 1 ; Bruce v. Man- chester &c. R Co., 117 U. S. 514 Johnston v. Straus, 26 Fed. Rep. 57 Johnson v. Waters, HI U. S. 640 Miller v. Clark, 138 U. S. 333; Davies V. Corbin, 112 U. S. 36; Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366 ; Estes v. Gun- ter, 121 U. S. 183; Brown v. Trous- dale, 138 U. S. 389 ; Hill v. Glasgow R Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 610. Miscellane- ous. Murphy v. East Portland, 43 Fed. Rep. 308 ; Moore v. Edgefield. 32 Fed. Rep. 498; American Fertilizer 24 JUEISDIOTION. [§20. § 20. Original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court. — The constitution of the United States provides that " In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction; "• but that " The judicial power of the United States shall not be con- strued to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by the citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State." ^ It is provided by act of congress^ that "The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature where a State is a party, except between a State and its citizens, or between a State and citizens of other States, or aliens, in which latter cases it shall have original, but not ex- clusive, jurisdiction." * It is well settled that a State may, in the Supreme Court, litigate a disputed boundary line with an- Co. V. Board &c., 43 Fed. Rep. 609 ; Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. Rep. 337, 348. In the last case Justice Field said ; — "It is well settled that where the controversy is not respecting the amount or value of the matter in dispute, such amount or value, when necessary to the jurisdiction, may be shown by the evidence pro- duced iu the cause or by affidavit filed in behalf of the parties." The suit maybe maintained although the claim is made up of distinct de- mands of less value than $2,000, and although the plaintiff may have ac- quired such demands by assignmeul. Bernheim v. Birnbaum. 30 Fed. Rep. 885. On a bill to enjoin the obstruc- tion of a right of way, the value of the property to which the right is appurtenant cannot be considered in determining the amount in dispute. Coleman v. Aldrich (Vt.), 17 Atl. Rep. 848. An allegation by the mort- gagee in an action by him to en- join the construction of a sewer to the injury of the mortgaged prop- erty, that such construction will im- pair the value of his security to an amount exceeding $2,000, is sufficient to give jurisdiction to a federal cir- cuit court. Clapp v. City of Spokane, 53 Fed. Rep. 505. 1 Const., art. Ill, § 2. Congress cannot constitutionally confer on it any other or further original juris- diction. Story on the Constitution (4th ed.), g 1703 ; Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 ; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 173. 2 Eleventh Amendment to the Con- stitution. Prior to this amendment it had been held that a State was suable in the Supreme Court by a citizen of another State. Chisholm V. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419. This amend- ment was construed to include suits then pending, which were thereupon dismissed. HoUingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378. For the history and rea- sons of the amendment, see Cohens V. Virginia, 6 Wheat 406. » U. S. R S., § 687. 8. 143 U. S. 570 ; Ekin v. United States, ^ For its final jurisdiction, see § 23, 143 U. S. 651. infra. 1 26 U. S. St at L., ch. 517, g 5, p. 827. « 26 u. S. St. at L., ch. 517, § 6, p. 828. 2 " In all cases not hereinbefore in 'See § 2:i infra. this section made final." 26 U.' S. St. 8 26 U. S. St. at L., ch. 517, § 6, p. 828. at L., ch. 517, g 6, p. 838. For the 9 23 U. S. St. at L., ch. 355, § 1, p. 443, preceding part referred to, see g 33, superseded by the act establishing a infra. court of appeals in the District of 3 See Northern Pac. R. Co. w Amato. Columbia, 27 U. S. St. at L., ch. 74. 14tU. S. 463. §8, p. 436. The amount is still $5,000. 28 JDRISDICTION. [§ 0'; to the sum or value of the matter in dispute, any case in that court wherein is involved the validity of any treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States." ' For- merly the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review by writ of error the final judgments in all cases at law tried before a jury, and by appeal all other judgments and all decrees of the Supreme Court of any Territory, where the value of the mat- ter in dispute, exclusive of costs, ascertained by the oath of any party or other competent witness, exceeded $5,000.^ Part of this jurisdiction is conferred by the Evarts act upon the circuit courts of appeal.' That act also provides for appeals to the Supreme Court from decisions of the United States court in the Indian Territory.* § 22. The same subject continued — Review of decisions of State courts. — "A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity, or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or authority exercised under, any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity ; or where any title, right, privilege or immunity is claimed under the constitution 1 23 U. S. St. at L., ch. 355, g§ 1, 2, >V. S. Rev. St, S§ 702, 1909 ; 23 U. p. 443. For the judicial construction S. St. at L., ch. 355, p. 443. of this clause and the decisions relat- ^ "The circuit courts of appeal, in ing to appeals generally, see Chapter cases in which the judgments of the XXVIII, infra. In cases where the circuit courts of appeal are made matter in dispute exceeds $100, but finalbythis act [see§23,m/ra], shall is less than $1 ,000, a writ of error may have the same appellate jurisdiction, be allowed by a justice of the Su- by writ of error or appeal, to the preme Court if he shall be of opinion, courts of Territories, as by this act upon petition, etc., presented to him, they may have to review the judg- that the errors involved questions of ments, orders and decrees of the dis- law of such extensive operation as to trict court and circuit courts, and for render a decision of them by the Su- that purpose the several Territories preme Court desirable. U. S. Rev. shall, by orders of the circuit court St, § 706. See Campbell v. Reed, 2 to be made from time to time, be as- Wall. 198; Wise u Columbian T. Co., signed to particular courts." S6U. S. 7 Cranch, 276. St at L., ch. 517, g 15, p. 830. * 26 U. S. St at L., ch. 517, § 13, p. S2H §22.] JDEISDIOTION. or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or immunity specially set up or claimed by either part}' under such constitution, treaty, stat- ute, commission or authority, — may be re-examined and re- versed or aiiirmed in the Supreme Court upon a writ of error. The writ shall have the same effect as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a court of the United States; and the proceeding upon the reversal shall be the same, except that the Supreme Court may, at their discretion, proceed- to a final decision of the case and award execution, or remand the same to the court from which it was so removed. The Supreme Court may re-affirm, re- verse, modify or affirm the judgment or decree of such court, and may at their discretion award execution and remand the same to the court from which it was removed by the writ." ' 1 U. S. Rfv. St, § 709. This statute is not affected by the Evarts act of March 3, 1891 (36 U. S. St. at L., ch. 517, § 5, p. 837). As to the distinction between the construction of a statute and the " validity " of a statute see Glenn v. Garth (U. S., 1893), 13 S. Ct Rep. 350 ; Railroad Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 310 ; Banking Co. v. Mar- sliall, 13 How. 165. The Supreme Court will not entertain jurisdiction if the decision was rendered upon grounds independent of any federal question and broad enough in them- selves to sustain the judgment Hammond v. Johnson, 143 U. S. 73, 78; Haley v. Breeze, 144 U. S. 130; S. C, 12 S. Ct Rep. 836 ; Henderpon Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 141 U. S. 679 ; Beatty v. Benton, 135 U. S. 244; Hopkins v. McLure, 133 U. S. 380; San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65 ; Hale v. Akers, 133 U. S. 554 ; Marrow v. Brinkley, 133 U. S. 178. See, also, Davis v. State, 139 U. S. 651 : Cook Co. v. Calumet &c. Co., 138 U. S. 635 ; Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300 ; Maguire v. Tyler, 8, Wall. 651. " There may be other questions, but it is the presence of the ' federal question,' and the decision of the State court adverse to the federal right, that confers jurisdiction. The mere presence of some one of these questions is not sufficient It must be material; it must appear to have been necessary for the State court to pass upon it in disposing of the suit, and it must have done so.'' Caruth- er's " History of a Law-suit " (3d ed.), § 6, p. 8. In Thorington v. City Council (U. S., 1893), 13 S. Ct Rep. 395, a decision on a matter of prac- tice under the local procedure was held not to raise a federal question. A certificate of the chief justice of a State court, showing that a right claimed under the federal constitu- tion, laws or authority was denied by the decision of that court, cannot of itself give jurisdiction to the United States Supreme Court on a writ of error (see Caperton v. Boyer, 14 Wall. 316), but it may be consid- ered for the purpose of rendering more certain and specific a federal question which was raised on the rec-: ord in general and indefinite terms. Roby V. Colehour (U. S., 1893), 13 S. Ct Rep. 47. " The bare averment 30 JURISDICTION. [§23. § 23. Jurisdiction of the United States circuit court ot appeals. — For the purpose of relieving the United States Supreme Court of " the oppressive burden of general litiga- tion which impeded the examination and disposition of cases of public concern, and delayed suitors in the administration of justice," ' congress passed an act approved March 3, 1891,^ entitled " An act to establish circuit courts of appeals and to define and regulate in certain cases the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and for other purposes." By this act a circuit court of appeals was established in each of the existing circuits with "appellate jurisdiction to review, by ap- peal or by writ of error, final decisions in the district court, and the existing circuit courts, in all cases other than those provided for in the preceding section of this act,' unless other- wise provided by law;'' and the judgments or decrees of the of a federal question is not in all cases sufficient It mast not be wholly without foundation. Tlieie must be at least color of ground foi' such averpient, otherwise a federal question might be set up in almost any case and the jurisdiction of this court invoked simply for the pur- pose of delay." New Orleans v. New Orleans Water-works Co., 142 U. S. 79, 87, quoted in Hamblin v. Western Land Co. (U. S., 1893), 13 S. Ct. Rep. 353, 354. See, also, 1 Desty's Federal Procedure (8th ed.). g 228, n. 1 l7i re Woods, 143 U. S. 202, 205 ; Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 55. 2 26 U. S. Stat, at L., ch. 517, p. 826 et seq. It is commonly called the Evarts Act, after the eminent jurist and statesman who had charge of the bill. ■* The preceding section is as fol- lows : — " Appeals or writs of error may be taken from the district courts or from the existing circuit courts direct to the Supreme Court in the following cases : — In any case in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue; in such cases the ques- tion of jurisdiction alone shall be certified to the Supreme Court from the court below for decision. From the final sentences and decrees in prize cases. In any case that in- volves the construction or applica- tion of tlie constitution of the United States. In any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or con- struction of any treaty made under it authority, is drawn in question. In any case in which the constitution or law of a State is claimed to be in contravention of the constitution of the United States." 26 U. S. Stats, at L., ch. 517. § 5, p. 827. <"The appellate jurisdiction not vested in this court [the Supreme Court] was thus vested in the court created by the act, and the entire jurisdiction distributed. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 666. The words ' unless otherwise provided by law ' were manifestly inserted out of abundant caution in order that any qualification of the jurisdiction by contemporaneous or subsequent acts should not be construed as taking it away except when expresslj' so pro- vided. Implied repeals were in- tended to be thereby guarded against. § 23.] JUKISDICTION. 31 circuit courts of appeals shall be final in all cases in which the jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the opposite par- ties to the suit or controversy being aliens or citizens of the United States or citizens of different States ; also in all cases arising under the patent laws, under the revenue laws, and under the criminal laws, and in admiralty cases, except- ing that in ever}' such subject within its appellate jurisdic- tion the circuit court of appeals at any time may certify to the Supreme Court of the United States any questions or propositions of law concerning which it desires the instruction of that court for its proper decision. And thereupon the Su- preme Court may either give its instruction on the questions and propositions certified to it, which shall be binding upon the circuit courts of appeals in such case, or it may require that the whole record and cause may be sent up to it for its con- sideration, and thereupon shall decide the whole matter in controvers}' as if it had been brought there for review by writ of error or appeal ; and excepting also that in any such case as is hereinbefore made final in the circuit court of ap- peals it shall be competent for the Supreme Court to require, by certiorari or otherwise, any such case to be certified to the Supreme Court for its review and determination with the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried by ap]ieal or writ of error to the Supreme Court." ' To hold that the words referred to Territories. The act took effect im- prior laws would defeat the purpose mediately, so that appeals might be of the act and be inconsistent with taken to the circuit court of appeals its context and its repealing clause." at once (Desty's Federal Procedure Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 (8th ed.), § 167 : In re Claasen, 140 U. a 47, 56. U. S. 209; McLish v. Roflf, 141 U. S. 1 U. a Stats, at L., ch. n\l, % 6. Sec- 661 ; Railroad Co. v. Bennett, 49 Fed. tion 7 of the same act provides for Rep. 598; S. c, 1 C. C. A. 392; Balti- appeals from the district or circuit more &c. R Co. v. Andrews. 50 Fed. court to the circuit court of appeals Rep. 728; s. C, 1 C. C. A. 630), al- where an injunction shall be granted though such causes involving less or continued by an interlocutory than $5,000 were not previously re- order or decree, in a cause in which viewable in any court. Northern Pao. the circuit court of appeals has ju- R. Co. v. Araato, 49 Fed. Rep. 881 ; risdiction of an appeal from a final s. c, 1 U. S. App. 113. "This act decree. Section 13 provides for ap- provides for the distribution of the peals from United States courts in entire appellate jurisdiction of our the Indian Territory to the circuit national judicial system between the court of appeals, and section 15 for Supreme Court of the United States appeals from the Supreme Courts of and the circuit court of appeals. 32 JURISDICTION. [§ 24. § 24. Suits " arising under the constitution or laws of the United States." — The United States circuit courts have original cognizance concurrently with the State courts of all suits at common law or in equity, where the matter in dis- pute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising nnder the conditution or laws of the United States, or treaties made under their au- thority, or in which controversy the United States are plaint- iffs or petitioners.' " The character of a case is determined by the questions involved.^ If from the questions it appears that some title, right, privilege or immunity on which the recover}' depends will be defeated by one construction of the constitution or a law of the United States, or sustained by the opposite construction, the case will be one arising under the constitution or laws of the United States . . . ; other- wise not. Such is the effect of the decisions on this subject." ' A suit may arise under the constitution or laws of the United States althougli it may involve questions other than those which depend on the constitution and laws.'' Where a suit was brought for moneys alleged to be due to the comyjlainant under a contract whereby certain letters patent granted to liim were transferred to the defendant, and the validity or construction of the patents was not involved, the suit did not arise under the laws of the United States.'^ A suit merely on tlieroin established, by designating New York, 115 U. S. 248, 257, citing the classes of cases in respect of Cohens u. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264. 379; which each of those two courts shall, Osborri v. Bank of United States, 9 respectively, have final jurisdic- Wheat. 737, 824; Mayor r. Cooper, 6 tion." McLish u. Roff, 141 U. S. 661 ; Wall. 247, 253; Gold Washing and Badaracco v. Cerf, 53 Fed. Rep. 109. Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199, 201 ; The limitation of the appellate JLiris- Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 264 ; diction of the Supreme Court to cases Railroad Co. u Mississippi, 102 U. S. involving $5,000 or over being ex- 185. 140; Ames u Kansas, 111 U. S. pressly repealed by section 14 of the 449, 462 : Kansas Pac. R Co. v. Atchi- act. there is no ground for contend- son R. Co., 112 U. S. 414, 416; Provi- ing that such limitation applies to dent Savings Co. v. Ford, 114 U. S. the jurisdiction of the circuit court 635, 641 ; Pacific Railroad Removal of appeals. Northern Pac. R Co. v. Cases, 115 U. S. 1, 11. Amato, 49 Fed. Rep. 881; s. C, 1 < Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Califor- U. S. App. 113; 1 C. C. A. 468. nia, 118 U. S. 109; Railroad Co. v. 1 24 U. S. St at L., ch. 373, p. 552. Mississippi. 102 U. S. 135, 141 ; Ames 2 Osborn v. Bank of United States, v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449. 9 Wheat. 737, 824. 5 Albright u Teas, 106 U. S. 613. 3 Chief Justice Waite in Starin v. In such cases the dispute "arises out §24.J JUEISDIOTION. 33 a judgment of a United States court is not within the clause under discussion,' but it is otherwise where a suit is brought by or against a corporation chartered by congress, which lat- ter, according to the masterly analysis of Chief Justice Mar- shall,^ "is pervaded from its origin to its close by United States laws and United States authority." ' of the contract stated in the bill ; and there is no act of congress providing for or regulating contracts of this kind." Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How. 99 : Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547 ; Dale Tile Mfg. Co. v. Hyatt, 125 U. S. 46. See, also, Goodyear v. India- Rubber Company, 4 Blatohf. 63 ; Mer- serole v. Union Paper Collar Co., 6 Blatchf. 656; Blanchard v. Sprague, 1 Clifif. 288; Hill v. Whitcomb, 1 Holmes, 317; Felix v. Schuniweber, 125 U. S. 54. But it was said in Con- tinental Stove Service Co. v. Clark, 100 N. Y. 365, 371, that the State court " may determine what the con- tract is and in whom the title to the patent is vested, but it has no right to say that a party shall be enjoined from using the patent, or in any way to pass upon any question arising as to its infringement." See, also, on this point, Hat Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Eeinoehl, 103 N. Y. 167; St Paul Plow Works V. Starling, 127 U. S. 376 ; Seibert C. O. Cup Co. v. Man- ning, 32 Fed. Rep. 625. 'Provident Savings Society v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635 ; Metcalf v. Wa- tertown, 128 U. S. 586, in which it was also said by Justice Harlan : — "Where, however, the original ju- risdiction of a circuit court of the United States is invoked upon the sole ground that the determination of the suit depends upon some question of a federal nature, it must appear at the outset, from the declaration or the bill of the party suing, that the suit is of that character ; in other words, it must appear in that class of cases 3 that the suit was one of which the circuit court at the time its jurisdic- tion is invoked could properly take cognizance. If it does not so appear, then the court, upon demurrer or motion, or upon its own inspection of the pleading, must dismiss the suit ; just as it would remand to the State court a suit which the record, at the time of i-emoval, failed to show was within the jurisdiction of the circuit court It cannot retain it in order to see whether the defendant may not raise some question of a fed- eral nature upon which the right of recovery will finally depend ; and if so retained, the want of jurisdiction at the commencement of the suit is not cured by an answer or plea which may suggest a question of that kind." It was also pointed out that the cases retained where the question was first raised by answer or plea were re- moved, not original, cases. Where the circuit court has jurisdiction of an original bill by reason of a federal question involved, a supplemental bill is demurrable which presents matters purely local in their nature and of which it has no original juris- diction. Omaha Horse Rj'. Co. v. Ca- ble Tramway Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 689. 2 In Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738. 3 Per Justice Bradley in Provident Savings Society u Ford, 114 U. S. 635, 642 ; Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1. But a Territorial corpo- ration is not a federal corporation. Adams Express Co. v. Denver &c. R. Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 712. National banks 3i JDEISDICTION. r§25. § 25. The same subject continued. — A case does not arise under the laws of the United States simply because the Su- preme Court or any other federal court has determined in an- other suit the principles of law which govern the rights of the parties,' nor where the only issues tendered by the bill are issues of fact.^ But when the acts complained of are done under a law of the United States, or the defense must rest upon such a law, it is a case within the jurisdiction of the cir- cuit court.' " The jurisdiction of this court," said Judge Shiras, " either by original process or by removal, in the class of cases under consideration, depends solely upon the fact that the controversy between the parties requires, for its final deter- mination, the construction of some provision of the constitu- tion, laws or treaties of the United States, and the application thereof to the facts of the particular case, in such sense that the ruling thus made will naturally affect the conclusion reached are excepted by statute. Act of March 3, 1887, § 4 (24 St. at L., ch. 373). See Act of August 18, 1888 (25 St at L. 433) ; Stephens v. Bernays, 44 Fed. Rep. 642 ; Petri v. Commer- cial Nat Bank, 143 U. S. 644. A claim that a municipal ordinance impairs the obligation of a contract will not sustain the jurisdiction of a federal court unless the ordinance is authorized or supposed to be author- ized by a law of the State. Hamil- ton Gas Light & Coke Co. v. City of Hamilton (U. S., 1893), 13 S. Ct Rep. 90. The same statute (24 U. S. St at L, ch. 873, p. 552) confers jurisdic- tion of controversies between citizens of the same State claiming land un- der grants of different States. See Colson V. Lewis, 3 Wheat 877, 379 ; Pawlet V. Clark, 9 Cranch, 293. In Holt on Concurrent Jurisdiction, §60, the author expresses the opinion that the two thousand dollar limita- tion does not apply to controversies in which the United States are plaint- iffs or petitioners, or to controversies between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of differ- ent States, and that (§ 61) in any event the circuit courts will retain jurisdiction of all suits in equity by the United States in which $500 is involved, the amount fixed in the Revised Statutes not being deemed to be repealed by the act of 1887. 24 U. S. St at L., ch. 373, § 4, p. 553, also confers jurisdiction, irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute, of cases commenced by the United States or by direction of any officer thereof against national banks, or cases for winding up the affairs of any such bank. 1 Leather M'f 'rs Nat Bank v. Cooper, 120 U. S. 778 ; s. C, 7 S. Ct Rep. 777. 2 Holland v. Hyde, 41 Fed. Rep. 897, a suit to cancel a land patent on the ground of fraud. See, also, Murray V. Bluebird Min. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 385, 386. 3Sowles V. Witters, 43 Fed. Rep. 700, a suit against a receiver of a na- tional bank ; Evans v. Dillingham, 48 Fed. Rep. 177, a suit against a receiver appointed by a federal court See, also. Wardens &c. v. Bowles, 51 Fed. Rep. 609. §§ 26, 27.] jpEisDicTioN. 36 upon the controversy between the adversary parties to the litigation. Unless from the record it clearly appears that the federal question must be met and decided before the issue or issues in the particular cause can be finally disposed of, it can- not be said that the matter m dispute arises under the consti- tution or laws of the United States." ' § 26. Equitable jurisdiction of the United States district courts. — The jurisdiction of the United States district courts embraces suits in equity to enforce the lien of the United States upon any real estate for any internal revenue tax, or to subject to the payment of any such tax any real estate owned by the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title or interest, suits against consuls or vice-consuls, all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy,^ and suits upon any contract expressed or implied with the government of the United States, or for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort, in respect of which claims the plaintiff would be entitled to redress against the United States in a court of law, equity or admiralty, if the United States were suable, except certain war claims.' § 27. Conflict between federal and State jurisdictions. — It has long been a settled rule of law in all cases of conflict of 1 Murray v. Bluebird Min. Co., 45 ject-matter. The question is review- Fed. Rep. 385. It was said by Judge able only by the United States Su- Brewer on a removed case that " in preme Court. Pennsylvania R Co. questions of doubt as to jurisdiction v. National Docks &c. Ey. Co., 51 Fed. the federal courts should remand. Rep. 858. They should rot be covetous, but 2 U. S. Rev. St., S 563. miserly of jurisdiction.'' Kansas v. 3 24 U. S. St at L. 505. Under Bradley, 26 Fed. Rep. 289, 292. See, U. S. Rev. St., § 716, providing that to the same effect, Fitzgerald v. Mis- the Supreme Court and the circuit souri Pac. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 812, and district courts shall have power 819, 820, where Caldwell, J., also to issue writs of scire /acias and "all said : — " No federal question can other writs not specifically provided arise on an answer irremedially bad for by statute which may be neces- in substance." Where the highest sary for the exercise of their respect- court of a State has adjudicated a ive jurisdictions and agreeable to federal question it will be recognized the usages and principles of law," as conclusive by the United States the district courts have power to circuit court in a suit between the issue writs of iie exeat republiea, same parties involving the same sub- Lewis v. Shainwald, 48 Fed. Rep. 492. 36 JUEISDIOTION. [§27. jurisdiction between the federal and State courts that the court which first takes cognizance of the controversy is en- titled to retain jurisdiction to the end of the litigation and incidentally to take possession or control of the subject-mat- ter of the dispute to the exclusion of all interference from other courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction.' "The proper appli- cation of this rule does not require that the court which first takes jurisdiction of the case shall also first take by its ofii- cers possession of the thing in controversy, if tangible and susceptible of seizure, for such a rule would only lead to un- seemly haste on the part of its officer to get the manual pos- session of the property. "While the court first appealed to was investigating the rights of the respective parties, another court, acting with more haste, might by a seizure of the prop- erty make the first suit wholly unavailing. To avoid such a result the broad rule is laid down that the court first invoked will not be interfered with by another court while the juris- diction is retained."^ ' Blodgett, J., in Union Trust Co. v. Rookfoi-d &c. R Co., 6 Biss. 197, 198, citing Bell v. Ohio L. & T. Co., 1 Biss. 260 ; Riggs v. Johnson Count}', 6 Wall. 166; Bell v. New Albany &c. R Co., 2 Biss. 390. It has been held by an almost unbroken current of authorities that " a federal court shall not interfere with the administration of affairs lawfully in the custody and jurisdiction of a State court. Vice versa, no State court can interfere with the custody and administration of the res, which a federal court has lawfully in custody. ... If there should be a question arising after the administration on the one hand of the State or federal tribunals through its receiver, not coupled with or growing out of the administration of the law through the respective courts, pertaining to the conduct of its offi- cers, such subsequent question can be considered, but not pending the litigation.'' Treat, J., in Levi v. Columbia Life Ins. Co., 1 Fed. Rep. 207. This is the rule established in the leadmg case of Taylor v. Carry], 20 How. 583. 2 Blodgett, J., in Union Trust Co. ?'. Rockford &c. R Co., 6 Biss. 197, 198, quoted in Owens v. Ohio Cent R. Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 1013. The court whose process is first served obtains jurisdiction of all questions which legitimately flow out of the subject- matter of the case. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. V. University of Chicago, 6 Fed. Rep. 443. "Where a State court of competent jui-lsdiction has posses- sion of the res, a United States court will not interfere with the possession on the ground that the court was im- posed upon by a conspiracy and the possession of the res was obtained by fraud. Attleborough Nat. Bank v. Northwestern Manuf. Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 118. But a strict foreclosure of a contract relating to real estate was held under the circumstances of the case to involve a different contro- versy from a sui't to foreclose liens § 28,1 JTJEISDIOTION. 37 § 28. Jurisdiction as dependent upon citizenship. — The United States circuit court has jurisdiction of " suits in which there is a controversy between citizens of different States, in which the matter in dispute exceeds," etc' The court is re- quired to arrange the parties on opposite sides of the contro- versy according to their respective interests and contentions.^ When so arranged it must appear " that those on one side are upon a part of the property, and that the institution of the former suit in a State court would not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction of the latter. Hubbard v. Bellew, 3 Fed. Rep. 447. And a bill in the federal court was sustained against an exec- utor pending proceedings in a State probate court. Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 435. But see Payne v. Hook, 14 Wall. 852. " It may be considered that the two cases of Payne v. Hook decide nothing. They are not in ac- cord with each other, nor with the uniform ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States theretofore." Treat, J., in Levi v. Columbia Life Ins. Co., 1 Fed. Rep. 207. See, gen- erally, Hutchinson v. Green, 6 Fed. Rep, 833 ; Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil- Cloth Company. Ill TJ. S. 294; Peale V. Phipps, 14 How. 868; Ball v. Tompkins, 41 Fed. Rep. 486 ; Dwight V. Central Vermont R. Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 785 ; Webb v. Vermont Central R Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 793; Liggett v. Grlenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 381, a case which was held to be within the rule stated in Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 384, as follows : — "It is only while the property is in possession of the court, either actually or constructively, that the court is bound or professes to protect that possession from the pro- cess of other courts. Whenever the litigation is ended, or such possession of the officer or court is discharged, other courts are at liberty to deal with it according to the rights of the parties before them, whether those rights require them to take possession of the property or not." » 24 U. S. Stats, at L. 552, § 37a Apart from jurisdiction over the subject-matter a citizen of a Terri- tory cannot sue a citizen of a State in the federal courts ; nor an Indian tribe or nation sue a State or citi- zens. Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Briscoe, 144 U. S. 133, 136 ; New Or- leans V. Winter, 1 Wheat 91. Citi- zens of the District of Columbia are under the same incapacity. Barney v. Baltimore, 1 Hughes, 118 ; Hepburn V. Ellzey, 3 Cranoh, 445. Nor can aliens sue each other in the United States courts. Rateau v. Bernard, 3 Blatchf. 244 ; Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12. Nor a State sue its own citizens or citizens of another State on the mere ground of diverse citizen- ship. Indiana v. ToUeston Club, 53 Fed. Rep. 18 ; Alabama v. Wolffe, 18 Fed. Rep. 886. Mere residence is prima facie evidence of citizenship, although it may be explained and re- butted by proof that it was for tem- porary purposes. Lessee of Butler V. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. (C. C.) 101. See, also, on this point, Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. (C. C.) 564 ; Burn- ham V. Rangely, 1 Wood. & M. 7 ; Pond V. Vermont Valley R. Co., 13 Blatchf. 293; Reynolds v. Adden, 136 U. S. 348, 352; Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163, 185; and Kemna v. Brockhaus, 5 Fed. Rep. 763, 763, where Dyer, J., discusses the subject at length. 2 Mangels v. Donan Brewing Co., 38 JUEISDIOTION. [§28. all citizens of different States from those on the other," ' or the jurisdiction must be denied.^ But " it has been repeatedly decided that formal parties, or nominal parties, or parties 58 Fed. Rep. 513. " It is not in the discretion of the pleader to arrange parties in the suit so as to confer jurisdiction. Tliey must be arranged according to their interests in the suit, and the court when passing on the question of jurisdiction will do this. . . . All those whose in- tei-ests are antagonistic to the de- fendants fall on the side of the com- plainants." Bland v. Fleeman, 39 Fed. Rep. 669, 673. See, also, Brown V. Murray, Nelson & Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 708 ; Pacific R Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289 ; Carson v. Hyatt, 118 U. S. 279; Anderson v. Bowers, 40 Fed. Rep. 708; Barney v. Latham, 108 TJ. S. 205 ; Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U. S. 562. In a suit for specific performance of a contract to pur- chase property, one of the complain- ant vendors being also one of the Tendees, but ready and willing to perform his contract, cannot be con- sidered a defendant for the purpose of destroying the diversity of citizen- ship. Perin v. Megibben, 53 Fed. Rep. 86. See, also, Harter v. Ker- nochan, 108 U. S. 562 ; Anderson v. Bowers, 40 Fed. Rep. 708. If it ap- pears that a party defendant should be a complainant, but that the juris- diction would then fail for want of the necessary diversity of citizenship, the complainant may be permitted to dismiss his bill as to such party, and the question will then remain whether that party is so indispensa- ble, that no decree can be made in his absenca Claiboi-ne v. Waddell, 50 Fed. Rep. 868 (citing Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570), where the court said that if there is great delay in raising such a question of juris- diction the court will consider it in passing upon the question. See, fur- ther, as to purging by amendment or dismissal, Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694 ; Beebe v. Louisville &a R. Co., 89 Fed. Rep. 481, 484. 1 Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, 468 ; Blake v. McKim, 103 U. S. 836 ; Mangels v. Donan Brewing Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 513. A joint-stock com- pany organized under the laws of a State, but not incorporated, cannot be a citizen. Chapman v, Barney, 129 U. S. 677. Nor can a limited partnership, though empowered by statute to sue in its partnership name. In such cases suit can be maintained only by averring the proper citizenship of the individual members. Carnegie, Phipps & Co. V. Hulbert, 53 Fed. Rep. 10. 2 Mangels v. Donan Brewing Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 518, where a mortgage bondholder sued for a foreclosure on behalf of himself and all the other bondholders, and the latter, though not made parties, intervened by leave of court and prayed for a foreclosure. The controversy con- sisted of a cluster of questions in- volving the validity of the mortgage and the right of the bondholders to foreclose, and it having appeared that one of them was a citizen of the same State with some of the defend- ants the jurisdiction failed. The court distinguished Stewart v. Dun- ham, 115 U. S. 61, by the important consideration tliat in the case at bar the primary object of the suit was to obtain an adjudication which must necessarily affect directly the interests of the interveners ; whereas in the case referred to, which was a creditor's bill, the action of the court §29.] JUEI8DI0TION. 39 without interest, united with real parties to the litigation, cannot oust the federal courts of jurisdiction, if the citizenship or character of the real parties be such as to confer it." ' § 29. The same subject continued. — It is the settled prac- tice in the courts of the United States, if the case can be de- cided on its merits between those who are regularly before them, although other persons not within their jurisdiction may be collaterally or incidentally concerned who must have been made parties if they had been amenable to its process, that these circumstances shall not expel other suitors who have a constitutional and legal right to submit their case to a court of the United States ; provided the decree may be made without affecting their interests.^ upon the petitions of intervening creditors who claimed no liens upon the assets of the defendant was merely incidental and ancillary. iWood V. Davis, 18 How. 467; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat 433 ; New Chester Water Co. v. Holly Manuf. Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 19 ; Mary- land V. Baldwin, 113 TJ. S. 490; Sioux City &c. Ry. Co. u Chicago &c. Ry. Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 770. The jurisdic- tion of a federal court by reason of diversity of citizenship is not de- feated by the mere fact that a trans- fer of the plaintiffs interest was made in order in part to enable the purchaser to bring suit in a court of the United States, provided the transfer was absolute and the as- signor parted with all his interest for a good consideration. Crawford V. Neal, 144 U. S. 585, citing McDon- ald V. Smalley, 1 Pet 630 ; Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 880 ; Williams v. Nottawa, 104 U. S. 209 ; Manufactur- ing Co. V. Bradley, 105 U. S. 175, 180 ; De Laveaga v. Williams, 5 Saw. 573. See, also. Cross v. Allen, 141 U. S. 538; S. C, 13 S. Ct Rep. 67. 2 Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Pet (1833), 353 ; Carneal v. Banks, 10 Wheat 181 ; El- mendorf v. Taylor, 1 Wheat 52 ; Osbom V. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat 739. See, also. Equity Rule 47 and Chap- ter III, infra, on Parties. But sec- tion 737 of the United States Revised Statutes, authorizing the circuit court to entertain jurisdiction of certain suits properly before it when there are several defendants and one or more of them resides out of the dis- trict etc., does not require the court to entertain jurisdiction of a suit, es- pecially in equity, where non-resident defendants are parties of such impor- tance that complete justice cannot be done between the parties to the suit without their presence, and they have not voluntarily appeared ; and a demurrer to a bill for an account against three partners, two of whom were non-residents, who were not served and did not appear, was sus- tained. Duchesse d'Auxy v. Portei-, 41 Fed. Rep. 68. See, also, Cunning- ham V. Macon &c. R. Co., 109 U. S. 446. The expression in the statute "one or more of the defendants" means one defendant if there is but one, or one or more if there are sev- eral. Wheelwright v. St Louis Canal & T. Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 709. " When one is an indispensable party, inabil- ity to make him a party does not 40 JUEISDICTION. [§30. § 30. Change of citizenship. — While it is true that a citi- zen of the United States can instantly transfer his citizenship from one State to another;' and if the new citizenship is really and truly acquired his right to sue is a legitimate, con- stitutional and legal consequence, not to be impeached by the motive of his removal ; ^ yet if the plaintiff has no intention of acquiring a new domicile or settled home, and his sole ob- ject in removing is to place himself in a situation to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, it will be of no avail for that purpose.' have the efEeot to give the court ju- risdiction of the action as against the other parties, but prevents it from taking jurisdiction. This is familiar law. And it matters not how this inability arises, whether because the party resides beyond the reach of the process of the court or because through the action of some other tribunal it is impossible to make him a party." Brewer, J., in Por- ter V. Sabin, 36 Fed. Rep. 475. The State is an indispensable party to any suit in equity in which its property is sought to be taken and subjected to the payment of its obli- gations ; and as the State cannot be sued such a suit cannot be sustained. Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 113 U. S. 333. Where in a suit to en- force a vendor's lien the vendee con- veys the property pendente lite to a citizen of the same State as the com- plainant, the purchaser is not such an indispensable party as to oust the jurisdiction of the court, especially where he had an opportunity to in- tervene and protect his rights. Fisher V. Shropshire (U. S., 1893), 13 S. Ct Rep. 201. See, also, Langdon v. Branch, 37 Fed. Rep. 449, 464. 1 Cooper V. Galbralth, 3 Wash. C. C. 546, 554 2 Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Broughton, 109 U. S. 121, 125 ; Jones v. League, 18 How. 76, 81. See, also, Case v. Clarke, 5 Mason, 70 ; Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400, 423 ; Robertson v. Car- son, 19 Wall. 94, 106. 'Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 815; Butler V. Farusworth, 4 Wash, C. C. 101, 103. The act of March 3, 1875 (18 U. S. St. at L. 472), provides that " if in any suit commenced in a cir- cuit court or removed from a State court to a circuit court of the United States it shall appear to the satisfac- tion of said circuit court, at any time after such suit has been brought or removed thereto, that such suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said cir- cuit court, or that the parties to said suit have been improperly or col- lusively made or joined, either as plaintiffs or defendants, for the pur- pose of creating a case cognizable or removable under this act, the said circuit court shall proceed no further therein, but shall dismiss the suit or remand it to the court from which it was removed, as justice may require, and shall make such order as to costs as shall be just" A motion to dismiss for defect of citizenship should be upon due notice to the parties to be affected by the dismis- sal. Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 326; Hartog v. Memory, 116 U. S. 588. A change of citizenship pend- ing the suit does not def '^at thp juris- §§ 31, 32.] JDKISDIOTION. 41 § 31. Citizenship of corporations. — Where a corporation is created by the laws of a State the legal presumption is that its members are citizens of the State in which alone the cor- porate body has a legal existence; and that a suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name must be presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the State which created the corporate body; and no averment or evidence to the con- trary is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.' It fol- lows logically that the members of a corporation created by the laws of a foreign State should for like purposes be con- clusively presumed to be citizens or subjects of such foreign State.^ But a corporation chartered in more than one State may be sued in either.' § 33. Citizenship of persons suing in a representative capacity. — It has been repeatedly held that persons who sue in a representative capacity stand upon their own citizenship, irrespective of the citizenship of the persons whom they rep- resent, — such as executors or administrators,* guardians, trustees,* receivers,^ etc. Thus, one appointed administrator diction. Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. Upon a minute consideration of the 199,306; Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U. S. legislation relating to national banks 236 ; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 XJ. S. 61, it was held that such a corporation 64 As to what is sufficient evidence may now sue in the federal courts a of a change, see McDonald v. Salem citizen of a different State from that C. F. Mills Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 577 ; in which it is located, by reason alone Eabaud v. D'Wolf, 1 Paine, 580 ; of diverse citizenship. Petri v. Com- State Savings Ass'n v. Howard, 81 mercial Nat Bank, 142 U. S. 644. Fed. Rep. 433. ^ Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 1 Per Chief Justice Taney in Ohio U. S. 118. &c. R. Co. V. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286. » Page v. Fall River &c. R Co., 31 To the same point : Louisville &c. R Fed. Rep. 357. Co. V. Letson, 2 How. 497; Marshall ^Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall 66; V. Baltimore &o. R Co., 16 How. 314 ; Harper v. Norfolk &c. R Co., 36 Fed. Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shep- Rep. 102; Bradford v. Williams, 8 herd, 30 How. 237; Insurance Co. v. How. 576; Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Ritchie, 5 Wall. 541; Paul v. Vir- Wall. 173; Semmes v. Whitney, 50 ginia, 8 Wall. 168; Railroad Co. v. Fed. Rep. 666. Harris, 13 Wall. 65; Steamship Co. sghirk v. City of La Fayette, 53 V. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118 ; MuUer v. Fed. Rep. 857 ; Dodge v. TuUeys, 144 Dows, 94 XJ. S. 446. The rule ap- U. S. 451 ; s. c, 12 S. Ct Rep. 738. plies to a municipal corporation. ^Davies v. Lathrop, 13 Fed. Rep. Cowles V. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 1 1 8. 853. 42 JUEISDICTION. [§ 33. may become a citizen of another State and after such change sue a citizen of the State where he formerly resided in the federal court.* And where a person not a citizen of Indiana was appointed trustee by an Indiana court of property situ- ated in the latter State, he was held competent to maintain in the federal court for Indiana a suit in his trust capacity for damages to the property.^ A suit to foreclose a trust deed is properly brought in the name of the trustee, and the fact that the beneficiary is a citizen of the same State as the grantor does not defeat the jurisdiction of the federal court if the trustee is a citizen of a different State.' But where an infant sues by his guardian,* or one who is non compos mentis by his next friend,' the citizenship of the guardian or lunatic deter- mines the jurisdiction of the court. §33. Objections for want of diverse citizenship. — For- merly the objection to the jurisdiction from a denial of the complainant's averment of citizenship could only be raised by a plea in abatement.* This rule is modified by the act of March 3, 1875,' determining the jurisdiction of the United States circuit court. The statute provides that if in any suit commenced in one of such courts, "it shall appear to the sat- isfaction of such circuit court, at any time after such suit has been brought or removed thereto, that such suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said circuit court, or that the parties to said suit have been improperly or collusively made or joined, either as complainants or defendants, for the purpose of creating a case cognizable or removable under this act, the said circuit court shall proceed no further therein, but ' Rice V. Houston, 13 Wall. 66. How. 604, 509 : Wickliflfe v. Owings, 2 Shirk V. City of La Fayette, 52 17 How. 47; Bland v. Fleeman, 29 Fed. Rep. 857. Fed. Rep. 669. Where a party puts 3 Dodge V. TuUeys, 144 U. S. 451. in a plea in abatement to the juris- * Dodd V. Ghiselin, 27 Fed. Rep. diction on the ground of citizenship 405 ; Woolbridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. and the issue is tried and determined Rep. 650. upon sufficient pleadings as to form 6 Wiggins V. Bethune, 29 Fed. Rep. and substance, it is determined for 51, Hughes, J., dissenting where the the case and the question cannot next friend is the real plaintiff. again be raised. Sharon v. Hill, 26 6Du Sobry v. Nicholson, 3 Wall. Fed. Rep. 733. 420, 433 ; Sheppard v. Graves, 14 ' 18 U. S. St at L. 473. § 34.] JtTKISDICTION. 43 shall dismiss the suit or remand it to the court from which it was removed, as justice may require, and shall make such order as to costs as shall be just." In such cases it is undoubt- edly the duty of the circuit court, of its own motion, to deny its jurisdiction,^ and the Supreme Court will, on writ of error or appeal, see that that jurisdiction has in no respect been thus imposed upon.^ § 34. Ancillary jurisdiction of the federal courts. — The question as to what facts are necessary to constitute ancillary jurisdiction in the federal courts has been frequently dis- cussed.' " From the principles announced in the authorities the ancillary jurisdiction of the court can only be maintained where the parties to a former suit are before the court, or the facts are such as to make the case a continuation of the former suit, or where the court is called upon to enforce or vacate its judgment or decree or set aside its process or to give relief with reference to property in its possession or under its con- trol, or to bring in outside parties having an interest in the litigation, or where the property involved is in the custody of the court or its officers, and the rights of parties thereto can- not be determined in any other court without a conflict of jurisdiction between the courts. The form of the proceeding must in every case be determined by the particular facts al- leged in the bill ; " ^ and " the question is not whether the pro- ceeding is supplementary and ancillary or is independent and 1 Nashua Railroad v. Lowell Rail- s. c, 4 S. Ct. Rep. 583; O'Brien road, 136 U. S. 356, 373 ; Bland v. County v. Brown, 1 Dill. 588 ; Dun- Fleeman, 39 Fed. Rep. 669. lap v. Stetson, 4 Mason, 360 ; Con well 2 Nashua Railroad v. Lowell Rail- v. Valley Canal Co., 4 Biss. 200 ; road, 136 U. S. 356, 373. Barth v. Makeever, 4 Bisa 313 ; John- 3 Dunn V. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1 ; Clarke son v. Christian, 125 U. S. 643 ; Os- V. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164 ; Freeman born v. Railroad Co., 3 Flip. 506 : V. Howe, 24 Hov. 450; Minnesota Bowen v. Christian, 16 Fed. Rep. Co. V. St Paul Co., 3 Wall. 633; Rail- 730; Wagon Co. v. Snavely, 34 Fed. road Co. v. Chamberlain, 6 Wall. Rep. 833; Yeatman v. Bradford, 44 748; Thompson v. McReynolds, 39 Fed. Rep. 536; Logan v. Patrick, 5 Fed. Rep. 657 ; Jones v. Andrews, 10 Cranoh, 388. A suit in order to be Wall, 337 ; Rosenbaum v. Council ancillary to another must be brought Bluffs Ins. Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 734 Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 81 Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U. S. 83 Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 384 in the same court Winter v. Swin- burne, 8 Fed. Rep. 49. Smith V. Williams, 116 Mass. 510, 012. 2 Harrison v, Stewardson, 2 Hare, 530. See, also, Johnson v. Candage, 31 Me. 28; Hoe v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 501 ; Stevenson v. Austin, 3 Met 474 Of. Murphy v. Jackson, 5 Jones' Eq. (N. C.) 11; Corry v. Trist Ld. Red. 167 ; Smart v. Bradstock, 7 Beav. 500 ; WelduBonham,2S. &S.91. Where complainant sought to establish an equitable title to tracts of public land against a multitude of different own- ers, the circuit court dispensed with the necessity of making all of them parties, and directed that their inter- est should be represented by a few on whom process was ordered to be served. The Supreme Court though not expressing a definitive opinion, doubted if defendant's separate and independent titles could authorize those absent to be thus represented. Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591. Where the mortgage of a railroad is made directly to the persons holding the bonds, who are named and their sev- eral interests described, all of them should be parties to a suit for its foreclosure. Nashville &c. R Co. v. Orr, 18 Wall. 471. §§ 65, 66.] PAETiES. 81 § 65. Suits by members of voluntary associations. — Where property was given in trust for a church not incorpo- rated, it was held competent for any person belonging to that church, on behalf of himself and of all other members entitled to the use of the funds, to come into a court of equity to en- force the execution of the trust.* The officers of a voluntary association whose members are numerous may sue or be sued as representatives of the association.^ Commissioners ap- pointed by the Methodist Episcopal Church South filed a bill in chancery against the trustees of the Book Concern, a prop- erty belonging to the general church, accumulated by all its ministers, for a division of the same, and the rule permitting a portion of the parties to represent the whole body where the latter are numerous was applied.' § 66. Eftect of the decree on absent parties. — In his cele- brated work on Chancery Practice, Mr. Daniell, after stating that it has long been the established practice of the court to allow a plaintiif to sue on behalf of himself and of all the others of a numerous class of which he is one, and to make one of a numerous class the only defendant as representing the others, says that in these cases "the absent parties are generally bound " by the decree.'' In the only case cited by ' Associate Ref. Church v. Trust- owners of eighty-flve of the one ees &c., 4 N. J. Eq. 77. hundred and fifty bonds secured by 2 McFadden v. Murphy, 149 Mass. a mortgage for the removal of the 341 ; Van Houten v. Pine, 36 N. J. trustee under the mortgage, not only Eq. 138 ; Birmingham v. Gallagher, for the benefit of theniselfes, but of 112 Mass. 190; Beatty v. Kurtz, 2 the others who might become par- Pet. 566. See, also, Liggett v. Ladd, ties. It was held that it was within 17 Oregon, 89. the provision of Code Civil Proced- 3 Smith V. Swormstedt, 16 How. ure of New York, section 448, that 388. In that case fifteen hundred where the question is one of common persons wei-e represented by the or general interest of many persons, complainants and double that num- or the persons who might be made ber by the defendants. Judge Story's parties are very numerous, and it statement that where the court, in a may be impracticable to bring them pi'oper case, permits a portion of the all before the court, one or more may parties in interest to represent the en- sue or defend for the benefit of all. tire body, the decree binds all of Gibson v. American L. & T. Co., 12 them, the same as if all were before N. Y. Supl. 444. the court, was also quoted with ap- ■• 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 191. provaL An action was brought by 6 82 PAETIE8. [§ 66. him * three persons constituting a part of the board of direct- ors of a mutual assurance company filed a bill on behalf of themselves and all other stockholders, praying that a policy signed by them might be delivered up to be canceled on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.' It was objected that if the bill were dismissed with costs at the hearing the other members might file a second bill for the same object. To this the Master of the Eolls said: — "It cannot be denied that in cases of this description some anomalies do arise and some difficulties do inevitably occur which prevent the court from adhering strictly to its general principles ; but if this objection be allowed to prevail there would be an end to the advantage which is afforded by this proceeding and to the rule that when parties are very numerous some of them are allowed to proceed in the name of all. How the court would proceed in such a case as that suggested has never, I think, been decided. I think there is a difficulty in the case, but it is one which the court could deal with. My impression is that in cases where a company have authorized others to enter into obligations for them and have thus placed them in a situation of responsibility to third parties, and those persons have come to this court and sought relief in the name and for the benefit of all, but their suit has been dismissed, — my impression is that this court would not allow other members to prosecute another suit for the same object." ' Judge Story says that " if in a bill of this sort an account is taken, and there is a decree giving a certain portion of a fund before the court, the parties not before the court will be bound by that account and decree,* and the court will protect the defendant acting under the decree and obey- ing it from future litigation on the points so decided ; for otherwise the defendant would really be deprived of all pro- tection." ' 1 Barker v. Walters, 8 Beav. 92. § 94, citing Mitf. Eq. PI. by Jeremy, 2 The bill recited that the members 167-171 ; Farrell v. Smith, 2 Ball & B. of the company were so numerous 337, 341, 342; Kenyon v. Worthing- that it was impossible to make them ton, 2 Dick. 668 ; Hallett v. Hallett, 3 parties to the suit Paige, 18-30. In Story's Equity Plead- 3 Barker v. Walters, 8 Beav. 93. ing (10th ed.), g 106, the author says : — * Cf. the language of the court in " But although the court will, in cases Vann v. Hargett, 3 Dev. & B. (N. C.) of this sort, entertain jurisdiction by Eq. 31, quoted in § 62, note 3, supra, creditors, legatees and distributees J Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), on behalf of themselves and all others-, §67.] PAETIES. 83 § 67. Joinder of complainants in cases of fraud. — Persons who have been induced by the same fraudulent representa- tions, contained in a prospectus, to subscribe to the stock of a corporation, have a common interest, and may join in a bill for the benefit of themselves and others similarly deceived to set aside their subscriptions.^ So where persons were induced to subscribe to the stock of a corporation by representations that it had a paid-up capital of a certain amount, was out of debt, and doing a profitable business, and that they would be given employment therein at specified wages, all of which representations were false, it was held that they could main- tain a joint bill for the cancellation of their subscriptions and for a return of the money paid for the stock; it appearing that and will exempt the executor oi' ad- ministrator, or other trustee, from all liability in respect to payments of the assets made pursuant to its decree, yet it is not to be understood that such a decree absolutely binds the absent creditors, legatees or distributees who have had no opportunity of proving and presenting their claims so that they are entitled to no redress, but are deemed to be concluded. On the contrary, although they have no remedy against the executor or ad- ministrator or trustee, yet they have a right to assert their claim to a share in the property against the creditors, legatees or distributees who have re- ceived it" See, also, Farrell v. Smith, 2 Ball & B. 341 ; David v. Frowd, 1 Myl. & K. 200 ; Gillespie v. Alexander, 3 Russ. 130. But the court is always watchful to protect the rights of ab- sent persons whose interests are even incidentally brought to its notice be- fore it finally disposes of the case. Good V. Blewitt, 13 Ves. 397 ; s. c, 19 Ves. 336; Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 96 ; Angell v. Haddon, 1 Mad. 529; Dunch v. Kent, 1 Vem. 260. 1 Bosher v. Richmond & H. L. Co. iVa., 1892), 16 S. E. Rep. .860. The court said : — " Where the fraudulent acts complained of are different and unconnected the joinder is not al- lowed, because they are different and separate, although similar, as where agents procure subscriptions by fraudulent representations at differ- ent times and under varying circum- stances, although similar in their general scope, because the defense is different, each dependent upon its own circumstances. But in a case like the one made by this bill, where parties allege in the bill that the fraudulent acts are exactly the same and perpetrated by the same means and the injury identical as to all ex- cept only in the amount of the in- jury, as where the same false state- ments are distributed to all and the same false and deceitful prospectus is operated upon all alike and all have been defrauded by the same means and the relief sought is the same and the subject-matter identi- cally the same, there is a community of interest and right, and such per- sons may unite as co-plaintiffs against the common wrong-doer.'' Cf. Ches- ter V. Halliard, 36 N. J. Eq. 318, cited in the following section. 84 PAETIES. [§68. they acted jointly in the whole transaction, the representa- tions were made to them jointly, or to one of them acting for all, and the money paid for the stock was drawn out of a for- mer copartnership between them.' A bill by independent mill-owners, who derive water from the same dam, to restrain the operation of a dam above which obstructs their right of flowage, is not multifarious as to parties.^ § 68. The same subject continued. — It was held in New Jersey that several depositors in a savings bank could not join in a bill against the directors on the ground that they were severally induced to put their money in the institution, the same proving to be insolvent.' Persons who were sepa- 1 Sherman v. American Stove Co. (Midi.), 48 N. W. Rep. 537. The case was such that the court was enabled to say : — " There is not a single thing in the whole transaction applying to or affecting one which does not also apply to and ailect the other. The case of one is the case of all and the relief asked is common and identi- cal" -Cornwell Manuf'g Co. v. Swift ( Jlich.), 50 N. W. Rep. 1001. In In- uersoU V. Kirby, Walk. Ch. 65, 70, Chancellor Manning says : — " A com- plainant cannot demand several dis- tinct things having no couuection with each other of several defendants by the same bill. But when the matter in litigation is entire in itself and does not consist of separate things having no connection with one another, it is not necessary Dhat each defendant should have an inter- est in the suit co-extensive with the claim set up by bill. He may have an interest in a part of the litigation instead of the whole." Where the object of an action is to determine the respective rights of parties to water in a stream, and facts are shown which entitle the plaintiff to have this determined, all parties in- terested in the waters of the stream are proper parties. Patten Paper Co. V. Kaukauna Water-power Co. (Wis.), 35 N. W. Rep. 787. See, also. Springer V. Lawrence (N. J.), 21 Atl. Rep. 41. 3 Chester v. Halliard, 36 N. J. Eq. 313. The end sought was to compel the defendants to make good the loss which they alleged they had sus- tained. Beasley, C. J., said : — " Tlie injurious act of the defendants was joint, but it operated on each of the complainants as an individual alone and out of all connection with his fellows. Each depositor was sepa- rately deceived. As actors in the suit each would be obliged to prove a dis- tinct wrong done to himself, and some by the proofs might sustain their case while at the same time others miglit fail to do so. As these parties, therefore, have no common interest, they cannot according to rudimentary principles be joined as parties to the proceeding ; " citing as directly in point, Jones v. Garcia del Rio, 1 Turn. & Russ. 297, where it was held that some of the holders of scrip or shares could not file a bill on behalf of themselves and the others to have their subscriptions returned. In Hudson v. Maddison, 13 Sim. 416, a suit by several occupants of houses to restrain the erection of a steam- §69.] PARTIES. 86 rately indicted for the sale of intoxicating liquors in original packages and separately enjoined from making such sales were not permitted to maintain a joint suit for an injunction against such proceedings, although they were respectively the agent and sub-agent of the same importor.' § 69. Suits affecting rights of residuary legatees. — In suits affecting the rights of residuary legatees or of next of kin, the general rule is that all the members of the class must be made parties.^ But where they are numerous, and only some of them together with the executor and trustee under the will are made parties, the court upon being satisfied that it has a sufficient number before it to secure a fair trial of the question at issue may hear the case.^ engine which would be a nuisance to each of them, it was held that each occupier had a distinct right of suit and consequently could not sue jointly. This was placed on the ground " that as each of them has a separate nuisance to complain of, that which is an answer to one may not be an answer to the other, and if upon such a bill a decree were to be pronounced, it must be a decree which would provide for five differ- ent cases." The foregoing English cases were also cited by the court in sustaining a demurrer to a bill filed by the owners of several and distinct lots of land to enjoin a nuisance common to all the owners, but each complainant seeking relief for spe- cial injury to his own property. Hinchman v. Paterson H. R. Co., 17 N. J. Eq. 76. The same point was aflflrmed in Demarest v. Hardham, 34 N. J. Eq. 469, where, however, it was said that several persons might join in a suit to restrain a nuisance com- mon to all and aflfeoting each in the same way, as, for example, an offen- sive slaughter-house in a populous part of a town. See, also, Gray u Rothschild, 16 N. Y. St. Rep. 331 ; s. C, 1 13 N. Y. 668. In an action against a tax collector for an account, where the defendant had held office for six years, and given six successive bonds with different sureties, it was decided that the sureties could not be joined as defendants in the suit State v. Turner (Ark.), 5 S. W. Rep. 303. 1 Woolstein v. Welch, 43 Fed. Rep. 566. 2MoArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340, 395, citing Davou v. Fanning, 4 Johns. Ch. 199 ; Dehart v. Dehart, 3 Green (N. J.), 471 ; Hawkins v. Haw- kins, 1 Hare, 543, 545, and note ; Cal- vert on Parties, 49, 337. 3 Mc Arthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340, 395, citing Bradwin v. Harpur, Am- bler, 374 ; Harvey v. Harvey, 4 Beav. 315 ; s. c, 5 Beav. 134 " If any such residuary legatees or distributees are out of the jurisdiction of the court, and cannot conveniently be made parties, either as plaintiffs or defend- ants, the court will dispense with them, and proceed to decree the shares of the parties before it. Such a decree is of course not conclusive upon the absentees, or rather persons not made parties. But the general rule is dispensed with, because other- wise persons having clear rights would without their own default be 86 PARTIES. [§70. § 70. Parties in cases of trusts. — The general rule is that in suits respecting trust property brought either by or against trustees the cestuis que trust as well as the trustees are neoes- precluded from asserting them, even ■when the rights of others would not necessarily be prejudiced thereby.'' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 89. That there is some diversity of judicial opinion on the point whether one residuary legatee can maintain a bill for himself and all the other residuary legatees vcho are inter- ested, see Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 89, n. Equity rule 48 of the United States Supreme Court provides that " When the parties on either side are very numerous, and cannot without manifest inconven- ience and oppressive delays in the suit be all brought before it, the court in its discretion may dispense with making all of them parties, and may proceed in the suit, having sufiE- cient parties before it to represent all the adverse interests of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit prop- erly before it But in such cases the decree shall be without prejudice to the rights and claims of all the ab- sent parties." In Harvey v. Harvey, 4 Beav. 215, 220, 221, Lord Langdale said: — "The principal point which arose for decision in this case was whether a legacy given by the will of the testator after the death of the tenant for life to a class of persons not now ascertained, but who are to be ascertained upon the death of the tenant for life, was void for remote- ness. Two objections for want of parties were taken by the defendants. The first was that it was not compe- tent for the plaintiff to sue ' on be- half of herself and all others ' who were in the like interest; for, as some questions might arise between them, the suit could ijot be sustained unless all the persons who had pre- sumptive rights to a share of this legacy were before the court Ques- tions of this nature, whether certain persons so circumstanced are or are not indispensable parties to a suit, are very much questions of convenience ; and in this case I am of opinion that, though some inconvenience may arise in not having all the parties presumptively entitled before the court, yet that such inconvenience would be considerably less than would necessarily arise from requir- ing them to be made parties in this stage of the cause ; and which would probably amount to a complete ob- struction of the suit, and would render it impossible even to bring it to a hearing. My opinion is that the first objection must therefore fail. The other objection for want of par- ties is this: it being a question whether the legacy is void for re- moteness, it may happen that the next of kin have an interest in the legacy. That the next of kin will be convenient or proper parties pro- vided they can be had here without inconvenience to the other side is a matter of no doubt. The plaintiff herself has considered that they would be proper parties, because she has made one of the next of kin, and another person who is both heir- at-law of the testator, and legal per- sonal representative of another next of kin, defendants ; and the widow who would be entitled to a share of the legacy in case of intestacy is also a defendant The plaintiff alleges that there are now suflBcient persons here to argue the question, or to maintain the interest of the next of kin. This, again, is a state of things in which the court may consider a 3 70.] PAKTIES. 87 sary parties.' But where the complainant claims in opposition to the assignment or deed of trust, and seeks to set aside the same on the ground that it is fraudulent and void, he is at liberty to proceed against the fraudulent assignee or trustee suit properly constituted on the ground of convenience ; and looking with that view at the allegations contained in the bill and the answer, it does not now appear known that there will be a preponderating in- convenience by bringing the next of kin before the court I am there- fore of opinion that the cause cannot proceed without some further in- quiry respecting the next of kin; and upon this occasion I must order an inquiry who are the next of kin, and who are the legal personal rep- resentatives of such of the next of kin as are dead. I make no other order, because in the end it may turn out, when we know who are the next of kin, that it would be neces- sary, or at least proper, for the plaintiff to proceed, even in the ab- sence of the other next of kin. The question which I determine in the present stage of the case is this : that there is nothing upon which I can act to show that there would be a preponderating inconvenience in bringing before the court the next of kin or their representatives. There must be an inquiry before any further steps can be had." 'Carey v. Brown, 92 U. S. 171 Vetterlein v. Barnes, 124 U. S. 169 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), g 207 ; Bregaw v. Claw, 4 Johns. Ch, 116; Fish v. Rowland, 1 Paige, 20 Goddard v. Prentice, 17 Conn. 555 Brokaw v. Brokaw, 41 N. J. Eq. 216 Tyson v. Applegate, 40 N. J. Eq. 305, 311 ; Nichols v. Williams, 22 N. J. Eq 63; Dunn v. Seymour, 11 N J. Eq. 220. In Van Vechten v. Terry 2 Johns. Ch. 197, it was held on tiie foreclosure of a mortgage made by a man as trustee for two hundred and fifty persons that the trustee alone was sufficient to be made defendant. It was placed on the ground of the great expense it would call for and the conviction that the trustee would for the purposes of that suit suffi- ciently represent all the parties in interest. But the same chancellor, in Malin v. Malin, 3 Johns. Ch. 238, states the rule to be that a mere nominal trustee cannot bring a suit in his own name without joining the eestuis que trust with him. See, also, Stillwell v. M'Neely, 2 N. J. Eq. 305, 307. In regard to the rule as to par- ties in cases of trust the court said the subject does not seem capable of exact definition. " Courts of equity exercise a large discretion in the matter, guided sometimes by slight circumstances, and taking care, on the one hand, that justice shall not be defeated through the impractica- bility of bringing in all persons in- terested in the issue, and, on the other hand, that the rights of indi- viduals shall not be determined when they are neither heard nor repre- sented." Smith V. Gaines, 39 N. J. Eq. 545, 550, holding that where a bill filed by trustees seeks the sale of real estate vested in them in ti-ust, and they have not a present absolute power of disposition over their es- tate according to the terms of the trust, their eestuis que trust are nec- essary parties to the suit In a suit to set aside a conveyance to a trustee to hold in trust for one person for her life, and at her death to such of her children as she may appoint, such children as the cestui que trust may have are not necessary parties ; 88 PARTIES. [§70. who is the holder of the legal estate in the property without joining the cestui que trust} It is otherwise if the complain- ant is endeavoring to enforce a claim adverse to the interests of the cestui que trust, but which is founded upon the supposed validity of the trust deed.^ Where a suit is brought by a trustee for the recovery of trust property, or to reduce it to possession, and it in no wise affects his relations with his cestui que trust, the latter need not be made a party.' " Cestuis que their interest is too uncertain and terest in the trust property. He may contingent Booraem v. Wells, 19 be invested with such powers and N. J. Eq. 87. •Vetterlein v. Barnes, 134 U. S. 169; Wakeman v. Grover, 4 Paige, 33 ; Irwin v. Keen, 3 Whart. 344, 355 ; Therasson v. Hickok, 37 Vt 464; Hunt V. Weimer, 39 Ark. 70 ; Wins- low V. Minn. &c. R. Co., 4 Minn. 316 ; Tucker v. Zimmerman, 61 Ga. 601. See, also, McArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340. 2 Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Paige, 379. subjected to such obligations that those for whom he holds will be bound by what is done against him as well as by what is done by him. The diflBculty lies in ascertaining whether he occupies such a position, not in determining its effect if he does. If he has been made such a representative, it is well settled that his beneficiaries are not necessary parties to a suit by him against a See, also, O'Hara v. McConnell, 93 stranger to enforce the trust (Shaw U. S. 150; Ex'rs of Reed v. Reed, 16 v. Norfolk County R. Co., 5 Gray, N. J. Eq. 348. 171 ; Bifield v. Taylor, 1 Beat. 91 ; 3 Smith V. City of Portland, 30 Fed. Campbell v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, Rep. 734; Carey v. Brown, 93 U. S. 376; Ashton v. Atlantic Bank, 3 171. See, also, Ashton v. Atlantic Allen, 330), or to one by a stranger Bank, 3 Allen, 317. " If a trustee against him to defeat it in whole or acts in good faith, whatever binds in part. Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Paige, him in any legal proceedings he be- 879 ; Wakefield v. Grover, 4 Paige, gins and carries on to enforce the 34; Winslow v. Minnesota Railroad trust, to which the eesiuis que trust are not actual parties, binds them. Co., 4 Minn., 313; Campbell v. Wat- son, 8 Ohio, 500. In such cases the Whatever forecloses the trustee, in trustee is in court for and on behalf the absence of fraud or bad faith, of the beneficiaries ; and they, though forecloses them. This is the un- not parties, are bound by the judg- doubted rule. Kerrison v. Stewart, ment unless it is impeached for 93 U. S. 155, 160 ; Corcoran v. Chesa- fraud oi- collusion between him and peake & Ohio Canal Co., 94 U. S. 741, the adverse party." The beneficiaries 745; Shaw v. Little Rock &c. R Co., of a fund are not necessary parties 100 U. S. 605, 611." Richter v. Je- plaintiff to a suit by the general rome, 138 U. S. 383. In Kerrison v. owners of it against one wrongfully Stewart, supj'a. Wait, C. J., said: — detaining it Soper y. Manning, 147 "It cannot be doubted that under Mass. 136. And where assignees or some ciicumstances a trustee may other trustees for the benefit of ored- represent his beneficiaries in all things relating to their common in- itors sue for the protection of the fund or to collect moneys due to the § Yl.J PARTIES. 89 t/rust are not, it seems, according to the modern rule in Eng- land, necessary parties to suits against trustees to compel the specific performance of contracts, except where some question arises touching the power of the trustees to execute the con- tract or their authority to act under it. But where a bill in- volves the title of the oestuis que trust to the property in dis- pute, or where they are interested, not only in the fund or estate respecting which the question at issue has arisen, but also in that question itself, they are necessary parties." ' § 71. Parties to bills for specific performance. — Where the vendor files a bill for specific performance, the personal representative of the purchaser, if the latter be dead, is a nec- essary party .^ The heirs or devisees are also necessary par- ties if it is sought to enforce a lien for the purchase-money.^ Where the personal representatives of a deceased vendor file a bill for specific performance, the vendor's heirs ought to be made parties, either as complainants or defendants.* Upon a bill filed by the vendee, he cannot make a person who claims title to the land adversely to the vendor a party to the suit for the purpose of contesting the validity of his title.* The devisees are the proper persons to file a bill to enforce an agreement to convey to the testator lands subsequently de- vised to them.^ On a bill filed by the heirs at law of a de- ceased vendee against the vendor, the personal representative of the decedent is usually deemed a necessary party; "for the heirs are entitled to have the contract primarily paid or discharged out of the personal assets." ' It is erroneous to make a mere agent who is not charged with any fraudulent or inequitable act a party defendant. If he is made a party, the complainant will not be entitled to a decree for costs fund from third persons, the cestuis < Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), que trust need not be made a party § 160. to the suit Christie v. Herrick (1845), 5 Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Lent (1887), 1 Barb. Ch. 254. 6 Paige, 635. > Van Doren v. Eobinson, 16 N. J. « Buck v. Buck (1844), 11 Paige, Eq. 356. 170. 2 Because the personal assets are ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), primarily liable for the debt Story's § 177 ; Gardner v. Kelso, 80 Ala. 497. Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 177. See, also, Downing v. Risley, 15 N. J. 3 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), Eq. 93. §177. 90 PAEnES. [§ 72. against him, although he suffers the bill to be taken as con- fessed for want of an answer.' On the other hand, where an agent contracts in his own name, he is a necessar}' party to a suit by his principal for a specific performance.'' And it was held that an agent who made an express contract in his own name to purchase land, and to give a deed of trust thereon to secure the unpaid purchase-money, could alone compel specific performance of the contract, though the vendor knew that he was acting for an unnamed principal.' § 72. Suits to set aside fraudulent conveyances. — Sepa- rate judgment creditors may unite in one suit against their common debtor to set aside a fraudulent conveyance by him.'' If an assignee for the benefit of creditors refuses or unreason- ably neglects to take proceedings to set aside conveyances by the assignor in fraud of his creditors, a judgment creditor of the assignor may institute such proceedings in the court of chancery for the benefit of himself and other creditors as to whom such conveyances are void, making the assignee a party defendant.* The fraudulent grantor, as he has no further in- terest in the property, is not deemed a necessary party to a bill to set aside the conveyance," especially where the bill is ' Boyd r. Vanderkemp, 1 Barb. Ch. ties, and that the death of one of 273. them should be proved in order to 2 Pennsylvania &c R Co. v. Ryer- excuse his omission as a party to the son, 36 N. J. Eq. 112, 116. bill. Morgan's Heirs v. Morgan, 2 8 Kelley v. Thuey, 103 Mo. 523; s. C, Wheat. 290. 15 S. W. Rep. 62. In a suit to com- * Bomar v. Means (S. G), 16 S. E. pel A. to transfer stock, on a contract Rep. 537; Blackett v. Laimbeer, 1 to transfer it if B.'s note vs-ere not Sandf. Ch. 366. And several grantees paid at maturity, B. is a proper party who took by distinct conveyances, with A. Smedberg v. Whittlesey, 3 and against whom no joint fraud is Sandf. Ch. 320. In a suit by the charged, may be joined as defend- vendee for specific performance of a ants. Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns, contract to convey land, an infant, Ch. 139 ; Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Cowen, to whom part of the purchase-money 682 ; s. C, 15 Am. Dec. 412. See, also, notes were by direction of the vendor Smith v. Summerfield (N. C), 12 S. E. made payable, is a proper party. Rep. 997; Williams v. Michenor, 11 Gentry v. Gentry, 87 Va. 478; S. C, N. J. Eq. 521. 13 S. E. Rep. 966. In a suit brought '' Lee v. Cole (1888), 44 N. J. Eq. by heirs of a vendor to compel spe- 318. See Glenny «. Langdon, 98 U. S. cific performance of a contract to 20. exchange land, it was held that all ^Dunn u. Wolf, 81 Iowa 688 S. a, the co-heirs ought to be made par- 47 N. W. Rep. 887; Tayloi- v. Webb. §72.] PARTIES. 91 filed by his assignee in bankruptcy.' For the same reason the administrator ef the debtor is not a necessary party ; ' nor a person through whom the fraudulent conveyance passed, and who acted merely to promote the scheme for defrauding creditors.' A mortgagee of the grantor, whose rights under the mortgage are not brought into question, is not a neces- sary party ; * but a mortgagee of the fraudulent grantee is a proper party ; ' and the assignee of the grantee who is the owner of the property at the time the bill is filed must be made a party.* A wife is a proper party to a bill filed to set 54 Miss. 36. See, also, Creed v. Rail- way Co., a2 Wis. 860 ; Smith v. Grim, 26 Pa. St. 95 ; Merry v. Freemen, 44 Mo. 518; Dockray «. Mason, 48 Me. 178; Laughton v. Harden, 68 Me. 808. Contra, Gaylords v. Kelsiiaw, 1 Wall. 81. 1 BuflSngton v. Harvey, 95 U. S. 99 ; Weise v. Wardle, L. R. 19 Eq. 171. 2 Coffey V. Norwood, 81 Ala. 513. See, also, the cases cited in the pre- ceding note. Where complainant seeks to subject to the payment of his judgment land the legal title to which was in a third person at the time of intestate's death, and which the administrator fraudulently caused to be conveyed to defendant, such third person and the administrator are necessary parties. Huneke v. Bold (N. Mex.), 32 Pac. Rep. 45. In Hunt V. Van Derveer, 43 N. J. Eq. 414, the creditor of a deceased debtor who had conveyed all her lauds to one of her daughters in her life-time filed a bill to set aside such convey- ances as fraudulent, and alleged that the decedent left no will and that no letters of administration had been taken out on her estate. It was held that all of her children were proper parties, as next of kin, on account of their interest in decedent's personal estate, and therefore a prayer that one of such children (not the grantee) discover whether she has any of her mother's estate was good on demur- rer for misjoinder. 3 Bomar v. Means (S. C), 16 S. E, Rep. 537. For instance, a third per- son through whom land was con- veyed to a wife by her husband. Sides V. Schaiflf (Ala.), 9 So. Rep. 238. But all persons participating in the fraud are proper parties. Miller v. Jamison, 24 N. J. Eq. 41 ; Watts v. Wilcox, 13 N. Y. Supl. 492. Thus it was hold that the attorney of a cred- itor to whom a fraudulent mortgage was made, the attorney participating in the fraud, was properly joined as a defendant. Sweet v. Clay (Mich.), 49 N. W. Rep. 899. < Venable v. United States, 2 Pet 107. 5 Miller v. Jamison, 34 N. J. Eq. 41 ; Whittemore v. Cowell, 7 Allen, 446. A person holding an insurance policy as security for a firm assigned it to a trustee for his wife and children. The firm became bankrupt, and in an action by the assignee in bank- ruptcy against the trustees and the insurance company to defeat the as- signment it was held that the wife and children of the assignor were not necessary parties. Vetterlein v. Barnes, 124 U. S. 169. 6 Winchester v. Crandall, Clarke's Ch. 371. In a suit to have a convey- ance from one defendant to another set aside as fraudulent, one who has 92 PARTIES. [§73. aside conveyances of the husband's property made to her, or in which she has joined, and which are charged to have been voluntary, and fraudulent as against creditors of the husband.' A surety of the debtor is not a necessary party.^ § 73. Parties in Mils for foreclosure. — It is a general rule that all who have an interest in the mortgage and may be af- fected by the decree are proper parties complainant in a bill to foreclose.' " No principle of equity pleading is better settled than that there can be no foreclosure unless all the persons entitled to the mortgage money are before the court." ^ But purchased the land at sheriflf's sale under an execution against both de- fendants is not a necessary party. Kratz V. Buck, 111 111. 40. Where the sole design of the bill is to have the individual property of one part- ner, alleged to have been fraudu- lently conveyed away b}' him, applied in satisfaction of a judgment against the firm, another partner from whom no discovery is sought, and against whom no relief is prayed, is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Ran- dolph V. Daly, 16 N. J. Eq. 313. 1 Randolph v. Daly (1863), 16 N. J. Eq. 313. 2 Cooper V. Cooper, 5 N. J. Eq. 498. On a bill filed by a creditor to set aside as fraudulent a mortgage given to indemnify the mortgagee against his liability as indorser on certain promissory notes, it was held that the holders of the notes were neces- sary parties. Dunham v. Ramsey, 37 N. J. Eq. 388. Where a creditor seeks to reach property fraudulently conveyed by his debtor, which through several mesne conveyances by parties with notice has reached an innocent vendee, who has paid part of the purchase-money, the im- mediate grantor to such vendee should be made a party to the suit Otherwise a decree would not pre- vent him from maintaining an action for the remainder of the purchase- money. Winans v. Graves, 43 N. J. Eq. 263. Suit was brought by cred- itors of the C. Co. to subject real es- tate fraudulently conveyed to S., and by S. conveyed with warranty to the M. Co., to the payment of plaintifl's' claims. There was no prayer that these conveyances be set aside, the object of the bill being merely to have them declared void as to plaint- iffs. It was held that S. was not a necessary party to the suit Pull- man V. Stebbins, 51 Fed. Rep. 10. A bill to set aside conveyances as in fraud of creditors, which joins sev- eral fraudulent grantees, who claim different portions of the debtor's property, is not subject to the objec- tion that it is multifarious. Collins V. Stix (Ala.), 11 So. Rep. 380. 3 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), §§ 199, 201. ^ Large v. Van Doren, 14 N. J. Eq. 208, 318; Trades Savings Bank v. Freese, 26 N. J. Eq. 453; Beebe v. Morris, 56 Ala. 535 ; Bibb v. Hawley, 50 Ala. 403; Palmer v. Carlisle, 1 Sim. & Stu. 423. Where a mortgage is given or assigned for the payment of a debt due to two or more jointly on 1 bill to foreclose filed by the sur- viving obligee, the executor of a de- ceased co-obligee need not necessa- rily be joined as a complainant. §73.] PAETIES. 93 it has been held that a trustee for bondholders may file a bill to foreclose the mortgage security in his own name for the benefit of the cestuis qvs trust, without making any of the bondholders parties.' "Where the trustee under a railroad mortgage at the instance of a majority of the bondholders foreclosed the mortgage, it was held that a bondholder who had no actual notice of the proceedings would be regarded as a party to them so as to be bound by the decree.^ A mort- gagee who has assigned the mortgage as security for a less amount than the mortgage may, especially where the pledgee refuses to proceed, file a bill of foreclosure in his own name.' The heirs of a deceased mortgagee cannot sustain a bill of foreclosure, but it must be brought in the name of the execu- tor or administrator.* Where some of the holders of bonds apply to the trustee to whom a deed of trust was given as se- curitj'^ for the bonds to foreclose it, and he refuses to do so, they may bring suit for such purpose, making the trustee and other bondholders who refuse to join them in the suit defend- ants therein.' Where the trustees of a railroad mortgage or though it would be in accordance with the practice of the court to do so. If there are conflicting claims between tlie parties in interest in the mortgage debt, the surviving obhgee may make the executor of the de- ceased co-obligee a defendant, sug- gesting the reason therefor in the bill. But whether the executor shall be joined as co-complainant or co- defendant is a mere question of prac- tice and cannot support an objection made at the final hearing. Freeman V. Scofield, 16 N. J. Eq. 28. In a suit to foreclose a railroad mortgage it appeared that the owners of the bonds, who, with the trustee, were complainants, held them as collateral security only for a debt less than the amount of the bonds. The assignor was deemed to be a necessary party. Ackerson v. Long Branch &c. Co. (1887), 28 N. J. Eq. 542. 1 Hackensack Water Co. v. De Kay (1883), 36 N. J. Eq. 548, 552; Richter V. Jerome, 123 U. S. 333. Cf. Allen V. Roll. 25 N. J. Eq. 163 ; Tyson v. Applegate, 40 N. J. Eq. 305 ; Boyd v. Jones, 44 Ark. 314; Chicago &c. Land Co. v. Peck, 112 111. 408; Re Chickering, 56 Vt. 83 ; Carpenter v. Cincinnati &c. R. Co., 35 Ohio St. 307. 2 Gates V. Boston &c. R. Co., 53 Conn. 333. ' Norton v. Warner, 3 Edw. Ch. 106. * Roath V. Smith, 5 Conn. 133. 5 Omaha Hotel Co. v. Wade (1878), 97 U. S. 13. It was objected that non-resident holders who were omit- ted, either as complainants or de- fendants, were indispensable par- ties, but the court said : — " It is true, beyond doubt, that all persons ma- terially interested in the fund to be distributed should be made parties to the litigation ; but this rule, like all general rules, will yield whenever it becomes necessary that it should be modified in order to accomplish the 9* PAETIES. [§ 74. deed of trust are dead, a bill of foreclosure and sale may be filed against the company b}'^ one or more of the bondholders on behalf of themselves and all other bondholders secured by the same mortgage ; or if there be several successive mortgages, the trustees of which are dead, and the complainants bond- holders secured by each mortgage, the bill may be filed on behalf of themselves and all of the bondholders under each mortgage.' One of three trustees in a trust deed is en- titled to sue alone for foreclosure when he avers that one of the others is dead, and that the remaining one, at a sale of the property under a decree of a State court, claimed to be interested in the purchase thereof, and "is interested ad- versely to your orator as trustee of said bondholders." " And where one of two testamentary trustees failed to qualify he was not a necessary party to a suit to foreclose a mortgage given by the testator.' The heirs of a deceased mortgagor are necessary parties to a suit to foreclose the mortgage, but the executor or administrator is not a necessary, though he is a proper, party.* § 74. The same subject continued — Parties defendant. — The owner of property mortgaged at the time suit is brought for the foreclosure of the mortgage or the sale of the mort- gaged premises, whether he be the original mortgagor or his successor in interest,* is an indispensable party to the ends of justice. Authorities every- made an absolute assignment of the where agree that exceptions exist to equity of redemption. Daugherty i: the general rule ; and this court de- Deardorf, 107 Ind. 527 ; Ayres v. cided that the general rule will yield Wiswall, 112 U. S. 187; Miner i: if the court is able to proceed to a Smith, 53 Vt. 551. See, also, Bigelow decree and do justice to the parties v. Bush, 6 Paige, 343, holding, how- before the court, without injury to ever, that he is a proper party, and others not made parties who are Vreeland v. Loubat, 2 N. J. Eq. 104, equally interested in the litigation.'' and Chester i\ King, 2 N. J. Eq. 405 ; ' Galveston &c. R. Co. v. Cowdrey, Tyler v. Brigham, 143 Mass. 410, 412, 11 Wall. 459. to the sa)ne point; Andrews u Stelle 2 Robinson v. Alabama & G. Manuf. 22 N. J. Eq. 478. Where a bill for Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 12. foreclosure is brought against the 'Steinhardtt). Cunningham (N. Y.), mortgagor, and he becomes a bank- 29 N. E. Rep. 100. rupt pending the suit, the assignee * Hill n Townley (Minn.), 47 N. W. must be made a party, and a decree Rep. 653. against the mortgagor alone will be ' Excepting a mortgagor who has a nullity as to the assignee. Johnson §74.j PASTIES. 95 suit.' An incumbrancer pendente lite need not be made a party,' and the prevailing rule does not make prior ' or subse- V. Fitzhugh, 3 Barb. Ch. 860. And on a bill for foreclosure by the as- signee of a mortgage, the mortgagee need not be made a party where he has parted with all his interest by an absolute assignment. Whitney u M'Kinney, 7 Johns. Ch. 144. 1 Terrell v. Allison, 31 Wall. 389; Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), §§ 193, 195; Steele v. Maunder, 1 Coll. 535 ; GifEard «. Hart, 1 Sch. & Lef. 386. A person who was a mem- ber of a partnersliip when a mort- gage was given to the firm (but in the name of one partner only;, and also when advances were afterwards made thereon by the firm, and when the bill was filed, ought to be a party to a suit for its foreclosure. De Greiif V. Wilson, 30 N. J. Eq. 435. A mort- gagor is not a necessary party to a bill for deficiency against several successive purchasers of the prop- erty who assumed payment of the mortgage. The court will order hira to be made a party if necessary to their protection. Pruden v. Will- iams, 26 N. J. Eq. 210. Where sev- eral successive purchasers of mort- gaged property have each assumed payment of the mortgage, they are proper but not necessary parties in a suit to foreclose it. Pruden v. Will- iams, 26 N. J. Eq. 210. The heir of a deceased mortgagor is a necessary party (Hill v. Townley,45 Minn. 167; s. c, 47 N. W. Rep. 053; Fell v. Brown, 2 Bro. Ch. 276, 278 ; Farmer V. Curtis, 2 Sim. 466), but not the personal representative (Stanley v. Mather, 31 Fed. Rep. 860), unless the personal estate is to be affected by the proceedings. Leonard v. Morris, 9 Paige, 90 ; Hodgdon v. Herdi- nan, 66 Iowa, 645; Bradshaw v. Out- rani, 13 Ves. 234. In Florida the husband of a married woman is a necessary party to a suit in equity to foreclose a mortgage upon real estate owned by her there. Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694. In a suit to foreclose a mortgage which the wife of the mortgagor has signed for the purpose of releasing her dower, it is not necessary to join her as a defend- ant in order to defeat her inchoate right of dower in the equity of re- demption. Pitts V. Aldrich, 11 Allen, 39. The statute (Gen. St 1888, sec. 3010) which provides that " the foreclosure of a mortgage shall be a bar to any further action upon the mortgage debt, note or obligation, unless the party or persons who are liable for the payment thereof are made par- ties to such foreclosure," applies to mortgages of personal property as well as of real estate. Anson ia Bank's Appeal, 58 Conn. 257. - Cook V. Mancius, 5 Johns. Ch. 89 ; Garth v. Ward, 2 Atk. 174 ; Adams V. Paynter, 1 Coll. 532; Bishop of Winchester v. Paine, 11 Ves. 194, 197. ' Hagan v. Walker, 14 How. 37 ; Western Reserve Bank v. Potter, Clarke's Ch. 432 ; Case Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 40 Fed. Rep. 339 ; First Nat. Bank v. Salem Capital F. M. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 580 ; Wood worth v. Blair, 1 1 2 U. S. 8 ; Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734. " If, however, there is substantial doubt as to the amounts due such prior incumbrancers, or as to the property covered by their liens, or if the bill seeks to affect their interests by praying for a sale of the entire property, and not of the equity of redemption alone, they seem to be necessafy parties." Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 193, note a, and cases cited. A mortgage made sub- ject to a prior mortgage, or to a 96 PAETIES. [§'^5. quent incumbrancers > necessary parties defendant, the only consequence being that those who are omitted are not con- cluded by the decree.^ §75. The same subject continued — Adverse claimants. "It is well settled that in a foreclosure proceeding the com- plainant cannot make a person who claims adversely to both the mortgagor and mortgagee a party, and litigate and settle his rights in that case." ' Nevertheless it was held to be 2 story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 193; McCall v. Yard, 11 N. J. Eq. lease, or to a life estate, or on land incumbered by ground rent, or by tax assessments, which takes pre- cedence of all interests in the lands, may be foreclosed without making the prior mortgagee, lessee, life ten- ant, owner of ground rent, or the municipal corporation to whom taxes are due, parties, although in these cases such persons have a clear inter- est in the land which is the subject- matter of the suit Van Keuren v. McLaughlin, 21 N. J. Eq, 153, 165. 1 Needles v. Deeble, 1 Ch. Cas. 399 ; Roscarrick v. Barton, 1 Ch. Cas. 317 ; Greswold v. Marsham, 3 Ch. Cas. 170; Cockes v. Sherman. Freem. 14; s. C, 3 Ch. Rep. 83; Lomax v. Hide, 3 Vern. 185: Draper v. Claren- don, 2 Vern. 518 ; Godfrey v. Chad- well, 3 Vern. 601 ; Morret v. Westerne, 2 Vern. 668 ; Brewster i>. Wakefield, 32 How. 118; Smith v. Chapman, 4 Conn. 344; Howard v. Railway Co., 101 U. S. 837 ; New Orleaus 0. & B. Co. V. Stafford, 13 How. 343. On a bill to foreclo.se a first mortgage it was held in New Jersey that the holders of all incumbrances exist- ing at the time of commencing the suit must be made parties. And where it appeared on the final hear- ing of a foreclosure suit that a mort- gagee whose incumbrance was sub- sequent to that of the complainant was not a party, the suit was stayed to bring him in. Gould v. Wheeler, 28 N. J. Eq. 541. 58. See, also, the cases cited in the two preceding notes ; Haines v. Beach, 3 Johns. Ch. 459; Ensworth v. Lam- bert, 4 Johns. Ch. 605 ; Carpenter c. Ingals (So. Dak.), 51 N. W. Rep. 948, where it is said the only .necessary party defendant is the owner of the equity of redemption. On a fore- closure suit no incumbrancers need be made parties whose interests have already been foreclosed. Broome v. Beers, 6 Conn. 198. A creditor of the mortgagor, who has attached his equity of redemption in a suit still pending, must be made a party to a. bill of foreclosure. If this be not done, and he subsequently re- cover judgment after the decree for foreclosure has become absolute, he will be entitled, upon perfecting his levy of execution, to redeem. Lyon V. Sanford, ■") Conn. 544. Where a bill to foreclose a mortgage stated that the mortgage casually came into the hands of a non-resident, who unjustly and fraudulently retains it and has no interest in it, it was held that he should be made a party and no decree would be given for complain- ant until he was brought in. Cham- berlain V. Hoffman, 38 N. J. Eq. 41. 3 Dial V. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340 ; Wilkins v. Kirkbride, 37 N J. Eq. 93 ; Croghan v. Minor, 53 Cal. 15 ; Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Lent, 6 Paige, 635 ; McComb V. Spangler, 71 Cal. 423; §TO.J PAETIES. 97 within the authority of the court, upon a bill to foreclose, to determine the validity or invalidity of a prima facie para- mount tax title, and that the holder of it was a proper if not a necessary party to such a bill.' § 76. Complainants in bills to redeem — All persons le- gally interested in the right to redeem a mortgage must be made parties to a bill to redeem,^ and one having an apparent equitable interest in the premises liable to be affected by the decree for redemption ought to be made a party to the pro- ceeding.' " If the mortgagor brings the bill against the mort- gagee, there having been no death or assignment on either side, and no other circumstances to affect the case, no other persons but them need be made parties. If the mortgagor be dead, then his heir or his devisee, if the estate has been de- vised, is the proper party to redeem, if it be a mortgage in fee ; and if it be a mortgage for a term of years only, then Farmers' Loan Co. v. San Diego Street-Car Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 105; Corning v. Smith, 6 N. Y. 83 ; Lange V. Jones, 5 Leigh, 193. Such a bill would be multifarious. Dial r. Reyn- olds, supra; Banks v. Walker, 3 Sandf. Ch. 344. ' Hefner v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co., 123 U. S. 747, containing an exhaustive discussion of the conclu- siveness of the adjudication. 2 Rowell V. Jewett, fi9 Me. 393 ; Hen- ley V. Stone, 3 Beav. 355. In the last case the Master of the Rolls said : — " It is said that no harm can result from one of several persons inter- ested in the equity of redemption be- ing allowed to redeem in the absence of the others. I cannot say I am satisfied of that, but I am warranted in saying that a compulsory bill for redemption cannot be maintained in this court by a party having a par- tial interest in the equity of redemp- tion, in the absence of the other par- ties interested therein ; and no au- tboritj- for such a proceeding has been produced." "If any of them refuse to become parties complain- ant they must be made respondents." Welch V. Stearnes, 69 Me. 192, 198, citing Chamberlain v. Lancey. 60 Me. 230 ; Southard v. Sutton, 68 Me. 575. " There can be no foreclosure or re- demption unless the parties entitled to the whole mortgage money are before the court." Palmer v. Car- lisle, 1 Sim. & Stu. 423, 425. " The fact that one of the parties having an interest in the equity of redemp- tion resides out of the State is no ex- cuse for omitting to make him a party to the bill to redeem." South- ard V. Sutton, supra. s Rowell V. Jewett, 69 Me. 293, 304, where the court said " he should be made a party in order to accomplish what is said to be ' the great object of courts of equity,' the settlement in one suit of the conflicting claims of all parties concerned in the sub- ject-matter, thus putting an end to litigation respecting it" 98 PAETIES. r§77. the personal representative of the deceased. If two estates are mortgaged and by the death of the mortgagor the equity of redemption of the two estates is vested in different per- sons, all of them must be made parties to a bill to redeem." ' Generally the right to redeem exists in every person who has acquired any interest in the lands, by operation of law or otherwise, in privity of title.^ But a mortgagor who has con- veyed his estate absolutely with covenants of warranty has no right of redemption by reason of the cov^enants.' A joint assignee of a mortgagee may, without joining the other as- signee, maintain a bill to redeem a prior mortgage.* § 77. Defendants in bills to redeem. — The rule is element- ary that all parties whose interests are to be affected or con- cluded by the decree should be made parties to a bill to redeem.' The heirs of a deceased mortgagee as well as his personal repre- sentatives are ordinarily necessary parties.' If the mortgagee has assigned his whole interest in the debt he may not be a necessary party ; ' but where he retains an interest in it he is a • Story's Equity Pleading (lOtb ed.), § 182, citing Cholmondeley v. Clin- ton, 2 J. & W. 1 ; s. C, 2 Mer. 171 ; 4 Bligh, 1 ; Dexter u Arnold, 2 Sumner, 108. 2 True V. Haley, 24 Me. 297, 898. ' " He has no remaining interest in the land and no privity of title therein." True v. Haley, 24 Me. 297, 298. * His redemption inures to the bene- fit of his co-tenant, and he can only redeem by paying all claims under the prior mortgage. Piatt v. Squire, 12 Met 494. 5 Hunt V. Eooney, 77 Wis. 258, 262. Under a bill brought by a widow to redeem from a mortgage executed by her husband in which she joined to release dower, she may join as a co-defendant one who after the exe- cution of the mortgage purchased her husband's interest in the land. McCabe v. Bellows, 1 Allen, 269. Where the mortgagee has quit- claimed the land without assigning the mortgage debt he is a necessary party. Beals v. Cobb, 51 Me. 34a So the assignee of the mortgage debt has an equitable interest and should be a party to the suit Stone v. Locke, 46 Me. 445. 6 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 188. " We do not know that where an heir is beyond the jurisdiction of the court the difiSculty is absolutely insuperable. But if it is not, still the court is bound in its decree to take care of his interests, as far as it may, and to give him by notice an oppor- tunity, if practicable, of coming in before the master and litigating for his interests in the taking of the ac- count and the decree of redemption." Per Story, J., in Dexter v. Arnold, 1 Sumn. 109, 113. 7 Whitney v. M'Kinney, 7 Johns. Ch. 144 ; Wolcott v. Sullivan, 1 Edw. Ch. 399. § 78.] PABTIBS. 99 necessary party as well as the assignee.^ A surety on the mortgage note who, to the knowledge of the mortgagor be- fore the latter filed his bill to redeem, had been compelled to pay the note and had thereby become the owner of the mort- gage, was held to be a necessary partj' and entitled to come in and defend without terms.^ But where the husband of an intermediate assignee of the mortgage, who, before the suit was commenced, had assigned all her interest in the mortgage absolutely, neither of them having received any rents or prof- its, was united as a defendant with the last assignee, it was declared to be a clear case of a misjoinder.' Where the legal title is held in trust the trustee and the cestuis que trust are all necessary parties.* § 78. Objection for want of necessary parties. — If the ob- jection of want of necessary parties appears on the face of the bill the defendant may demur.' Such a demurrer must point out the necessary parties, either by name in reference to some statement of their names in the bill, or by their characters, as the heirs, devisees, personal representatives, assignees, cred- itors, etc., of some of the persons named or referred to in such bill.' "Where the omission of necessary parties does not ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.). Drew v. Harman, 5 Price, 319. In a § 191 ; Hunt v. Rooney, 77 Wis. 258, bill to redeem a mortgage a right of 262, holding that the mortgagee after contribution from a subsequent mort- assignment was a proper party, since gagee of a portion of the mortgaged it did not appear when he parted premises cannot be settled unless with his interest, nor what amount such mortgagee is made a party to of rents, if any, he received while he the bill. George v. Wood, 9 Allen, 80. lield the mortgage debt That the ' Mitchell v. Lenox, 2 Paige. 280 ; assignee is a necessary party, see Carey v. Brown, 92 XJ. S. 171 ; Wilson Dies V. Merle, 4 Paige, 259. v. Bellows, 30 N. J. Eq. 282. A gen- 2 Hunt V. Rooney, 77 Wis. 257. " It eral demurrer will not lie where the seems a violation of the most obvious demurrant is a proper party, though and familiar principles of law," said no relief can be had against him. the court, " to state the account and Dorsheimer v. Rorback, 23 N. J. Eq. discharge the debt in his absence from 46. the record." 6 Djas v. Bouchand (1843), 10 Paige, s Lennon v. Porter, 2 Gray, 473. 445 ; Hughes v. Hughes, 72 Ga. 173 ; See, also. Chambers v. Goldwin, 9 Oliva v. Bunaforza, 31 N. J. Eq. 395, Ves. 268 ; Beals v. Cobb, 51 Me. 348. 398. Under n general demurrer for * Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), want of equity, a demurrer ore tenus § 192, citing Whistler w Webb, Bunb. may be made for want of partiea 53; Wetherell v. Collins, 3 Mad. 255; Stillwell v. M'Neely, 2 N. J. Eq. 305. 100 PARTIES. [§ 78. appear on the face of the bill, the proper mode of taking ad- vantage of it is by plea or answer.' If the omitted parties are merely formal, the court will be indisposed to listen to the objection at the hearing, and if it can properly do so will dispose of the case upon its merits without requiring such formal parties to be joined.^ But if a suitable decree cannot be entered for want of an indispensable party, the court may at the hearing take notice of the fact, and direct the cause to stand over that such new parties may be added,^ or dismiss the bill without prejudice;* or the appellate court may, in its 1 Story V. LiviugstOD, 13 Pet. 360 ; Mitchell V. Lenox, 2 Paige, 280. Set- ting fortl) the facts by wliich other persons named therein are made nec- essary or proper parties. Sohwoerer V. Boylston Market Ass'n, 99 Mass. 285, 295 ; Robinson v. Smith, 3 Paige, 222. Exception to the omission of a necessary party may be taken in an answer, praying tlie same advantage as if the defendant had demurred. Tunnard v. Littell, 23 N. J. Eq. 264, 269. A plea for want of parties de- fendant ought not to be allowed where it appears upon the bill that the parties not joined as defendants are beyond the jurisdiction. The ob- jection sliould be taken by demurrer specially pointing out the defect. Palmer v. Stevens, 100 Mass. 461. See, also, Milligan v. Milledge, 8 Cranch, 220. 2 Kean v. Johnson (1853), 9 N. J. Eq. 402. Objections for misjoinder or non-joinder are ordinarily too late at the hearing. Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610 ; Hyde v. Tracy, 2 Day, 493 ; Trustees &c. v. Cowen, 4 Paige, 510; Townsend v. Augur, 3 Conn. 354 ; Ferguson v. Fisk, 28 Conn. 501 ; Nash V. Smith, 6 Conn. 421; Cham- bers V. Robbing, 28 Conn. 552 ; Bun- nell V. Read, 21 Conn. 586 ; Dias v. Bouchand, 10 Paige, 446; Chipman V. Hartford, 21 Conn. 489 ; Cromer v. Pinckney, 3 Barb. Ch. 466, 474 ; Jew- ett V. Tucker, 139 Mass. 566; Van Doren v. Robinson, 16 N. J. Eq. 256 ; Barth v. Deuel, 11 Colo. 494; s. c, 19 Pac. Rep. 471 ; Cutler v. Tuttle, 19 N. J. Eq. 549 ; Trustees v. Williamson, 36 N. J. Eq. 141, 145 ; Annin v. Annin, 24 N. J. Eq. 184; Hendrickson v. Wallace. 31 N. J. Eq. 604, 606 : Swal- low V. Swallow, 27 N. J. Eq. 279. The effect of an absence of necessary pai-ties when the objection is raised for the first time at the final hearing rests very much in the discretion of the court, to be exercised in view of the effect of the decree upon the rights of the omitted parties and of the value of the decree to the com- plainant Winans v. Graves, 43 N. J. Eq. 263, 277 ; Wood v. Stover, 28 N. J. Eq. 248. ' Schwoerer v. Boylston Market Ass'n, 99 Mass. 385, 295; Harris v. Trustees &c., 110 Mass. 209; Price v. Minot, 107 Mass. 49; Van Keuren V. McLaughlin, 21 N. J. Eq. 163; Sears v. Hardy, 120 Mass. 524. Such is the practice in Connecticut New London Bank v. Lee, 11 Conn. 112; Campbell v. Campbell, 8 N. J. Eq. 738, 742; Taylor v. Mills, 2 Edw. Ch. 318; O'Brien v. Heeney, 2 Edw. Ch. 342 ; Taylor v. Mills, 3 Edw. Ch. 318, 323, where neither party had costs of the hearing; Perham v. Haverhill Fiber Co., 64 N. H. 2. * Northampton Nat Bank v. Cral is. 79.] PAETIBS. 101 discretion, if it cannot make a decree which will finally and properly dispose of the subject-matter of the controversy in the absence of a party, remit the cause for the purpose of bringing him in.^ § 79, Objection for misjoinder of complainants. — It is a good ground of demurrer to the whole bill that a person who has no interest in the controversy, and has no equity as against the defendant, is improperly joined as a party complainant.'^ But the objection should be taken by demurrer, or in the an- swer of the defendant, where the objection appears on the face of the bill. It comes too late at the hearing,' or on a 145 Mass. 444, 447; Sohwoerer v. Boylston Market Ass'n, 99 Mass. 285, 398 ; Miller v. McCan, 7 Paige, 451 ; Van Epps v. Van Deusen. 4 Paige, 64. Especially upon complainant's fail- ure to amend. Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wheat 19.3. 199; and see Equity Rule 52 of the United States Su- preme Court, in the appendix to this work. If, on the hearing, it appears by the record that all the necessary defendants have not been made par- ties, and if the bill were amended and they were made parties that the bill would necessarily be multifarious, it should be dismissed without preju- dice. Shaffer v. Fetty, 30 West Va. 348 ; s. c, 4 S. E. Rep. 278. 1 McLaughlin v. Van Keureu, 31 N. J. Eq. 379; Jewett v. Tucker, 139 Mass. 563 ; Lewis v. Darling, 16 How. 1. But he must be an indispensable party. Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 299 ; Berryman v. Graham, 21 N. J. Eq. 370 ; Gibbs v. Diekma, 102 U. S. 216 ; Carey v. Brown, 93 U. S. 171 ; Wetherbee v. Baker, 35 N. J. Eq. 501, 509 ; Livingston v. Woodworth, 15 How. 546; Morgan v. Blatohley, 33 West Va. 155 ; O'Fallon v. Clopton, 89 Mo. 284. New parties to a suit can- not be admitted in an appellate court having no original jurisdiction. The only course for the court to take if necessary parties are not before it is to reverse the decree and dismiss the bill or remit the cause to the court below to the end that proper parties may be added. New Jersey Frank- linite Co. v. Ames, 13 N. J. Eq. 507. 509. 2Clarkson v. De Peyster (1832), 3 Paige, 336 ; House v. Muller, 23 Wall 43. All the defendants may demur. Cuff V. Platell, 4 Russ. 242 ; King of Spain V. Machado, 4 Russ. 235 ; Bill V. Cureton, 3 Myl. & K. 503, 513. " It is well settled to be a sufficient ground for dismissing a bill, that a person is joined as a co-complainant who has no interest in the matters of the suit, and no right to sue: and the ob- jection may be taken by demurrer or raised by plea, as the case may be." Clason V. Lawrence, 3 Edw. Ch. 48, 53. STalmadge v. Pell, 9 Paige, 410, 413 ; Story v. Livingston, 13 Pet. 360 ; Harder v. Harder, 3 Sandf. Ch. 17; Murray v. Blunt, 1 Barb. Ch. 59; Turner v. Hart, 71 Mich. 128 ; S. C, 38 N. W. Rep. 890 ; Green v. Rich- ards, 23 N. J. Eq. 32 ; Lyman v. Place, 26 N. J. Eq. 30 ; Voorhees v. Melick, 25 N. J. Eq. 523 ; Elmer v. Loper, 25 N. J. Eq. 475, 480 ; Bowen v. Idley, 1 Edw. Ch. 148. As a gem ral rule objection should be made by de- 102 PAETIES. [§80. rehearing." The court will, however, dismiss a bill, on its own motion, for misjoinder of complainants when it appears that their separate interests are of such a nature that they are likely, in the future progress of the cause, to come into conflict, and thus transform the suit into a contest between the complainants.' § 80. Objection for misjoinder of defendants. — It is no ground of objection by one defendant that another defendant is not a proper party if the interests of the former are not thereby affected.' It is only where the complainant has some murrer. Hinohman v. Paterson H. R Co., 17 N. J. Bq. 76. If defendant answers, the objection is waived. Hendriokson v. Wallace, 31 N. J. Eq. 604 Complainant joined without consent may have his name stricken out with costs on motion upon no- tice. Keppell V. Bailey, 2 Myl. & K 517 ; Titterton v. Osborne, 1 Dickens, 350; Wilson v. Wilson, 1 J. & W. 459. A motion to dismiss as to him is not correct Southern Life Ins. Co. V. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110. Sometimes an amendment may be allowed making an improper complainant a defend- ant Aylwin v. Bray, 3 Y. & Jer. 518, n. Act 15 and 16 Vict, chapter 86, section 49, provides for curing misjoinder by amendment, or modi- fication of decree, etc., and that no suit shall be dismissed for that rea- son. An objection for want of an indispensable party plaintiff may be made for the first time at the hear- ing. Malin v. Malin, 2 Johns. Ch. 238, 239. Where the objection of want of necessary parties complain- ant is made at the hearing, the cause may be ordered to stand over until they are made parties. Dunn v. Seymour, 11 N. J. Eq. 320, where a trustee sued without joining his ces- tuis que trust. An objection that one holding an equitable title to a patent is not joined as complainant with the holder of the legal title was overruled at the hearing. California Electric Works v. Finck, 47 Fed. Eep. 588. 1 Fowler v. Reynal, 3 McN. & G. 500, 511 ; s. C, 15 Jur. 1019, 1021. 2 Hendrickson v. Wallace's Ex'rs, 31 N. J. Eq. 604. A dismissal should be without prejudice. House v. Mullen, 22 Wall. 42. A bill for fore- closure was filed by A. in his capacity as president of a national bank, and every pleading in the case, including the answer and cross-hill and the captions thereto, and every order and decree, recognized the bank as complainant It was held that the defendant could not, on appeal, even to defeat the jurisdiction, assert that A., instead of the bank, was the complainant Fortier v. New Orleans Nat Bank (1884), 112 U. S. 438. Un- der the Connecticut Practice Act of 1879, all persons having an interest in the subject of the suit, and in ob- taining the judgment, may be joined as plaintiffs ; and new parties may be added and summoned in, and par- ties misjoined may be dropped by order of the court at any stage of the cause, as it may deem the inter- ests of justice to require. Merwin v. Eichardson, 53 Conn. 225. 3 Cherry v. Monro, 2 Barb. Ch. 618; Crosby v. Berger, 4 Edw. Ch. 210; §80.] PARTIES. 103 ground of relief against each defendant, and where his claims for relief against them respectively are improperly joined in one suit, so as to make the bill multifarious, that each defend- ant has the right to demur upon the ground that the other defendant is improperly joined with him in the suit.' Whitbeck v. Edgar, 3 Barb. Ch. 106. The objection can only be taken by the parties improperly joined. Mil- ler V. Jamison, 24 N. J. Eq. 41 ; War- then V. Brantley, 5 Georgia 571 ; Christian v. Crocker, 35 Ark. 327; Gartland v. Nunn, 11 Ark. 720 ; Toul- min V. Hamilton, 7 Ala. 363 ; West- ern Compound Co. v. .^tna Ins. Co., 40 Wia 378 ; Payne v. Berry, 3 Tenn. Ch. 154. Where the answer of one of several defendants objects to a bill for want of proper parties, and the controversy as to that defendant is settled before the final hearing, the objection will be disregarded. Boor- aem v. Wells, 19 N. J. Eq. 87. » Cherry v. Monro (1848), 2 Barb. Ch.6ia CHAPTEE IV THK BILL. ^81. Informations. § 112. 82. Definition and classification of 113. biUi 114. 83. Authority to file a bill 115. 84. Signature to a bill. 116. 85. Affidavit to the bill 117. 86. The same subject continued. 87. The se ceral parts of a bilL 118. 88. The address and introduction. 89. The stating part 119. 90. The interrogating part 91. Prayer for general relief. 120. 92. The same subject continued. 98. Prayer for special relief. 121. 94. The prayer for process. 95. General principles of equity pleading. 132. 96. The same subject continued. 123. 97. The same subject continued — Illustrations. 124 98. The same subject further il- lustrated. 99. Relief secundum allegata et probata. 125. 100. The same subject continued. 126. 101. Jurisdictional averments. 102. The same subject continued. 127. 103. Jurisdictional averments in the federal courts. 128. 104 The same subject continued. 129. 105. Allegations of parties' inter- ests. 106. Allegations in excuse for 180. laches. 131. 107. Allegations of fraud. 132. 108. The same subject continued. 188. 109. Scandal and impertinence. 134 110. The same subject continued. 135. 111. Objections for scandal and 136. impertinence. 187. The same subject continued. Inconsistent allegations. Bills with a double aspect Multifariousness generally. The same subject continued. Multifariousness in matter — Bills held multifarious. The same subject continued — Bills held not multifarious. Multifariousness by misjoin- der of complainants. The same subject continued — Illustrations. Multifariousness by misjoin- der of defendants. The same subject continued — Bills held multifarious. The same subject continued — Bills not multifarious. Multifariousness of bills by and against officers and stockholders. Two or more good grounds of suit required. Objections for multifarious- ness, how taken. Objection, by whom taken. Demurrer for multifarious- ness. Summary statement of the doctrine of multifarious- ness. Bills of discovery. The same subject continued. Bills for foreclosure. The same subject continued. Bills to redeem. Bills for partition. Bills to quiet title. Bills to reform instruments. §81.J THE BILL. 106 138. Bills for specific performance. 139. Bills to set aside fraudulent conveyances. 140. Creditors' bills. 141. When a bill of interpleader will lie. 143. The same subject continued. 143. The same subject continued — Complainant's interest. 144. Requisites of a bill of inter- pleader — Disclaimer of in- terest 145. AflSdavit of no collusion in interpleader. 146. Offer to bring the fund into court in interpleader. 147. Character of defendants' claims in bills of inter- pleader. 148. Description of defendants' claims in bills of inter- pleader. 149. Bills in the nature of inter- pleader. 150. Bills to perpetuate testimony. § 151. Bills of certiorari. 153. Rules in the federal courts regulating amendments. 153. How amendments are made. 154 Effect of amendments. 155. Amendments confined to what matters. 156. Amendments after demurrer sustained. 157. Amendments after replication. 158. Amendments after master's report 159. Amendments after publica- tion. 160. Amendments at the hearing. 161. Amendments to meet the case proved. 163. Amendments changing the ground of action. 163. Amendments constituting a departure illustrated. 164. Amendments not making a new case illustrated. 165. Miscellaneous matters relating to amendments. §81. Informations. — When a suit is instituted on behalf of the government, the matter of complaint is ofifered to the court by way of information, given by the attorney-general or solicitor-general. When the suit immediately concerns the rights of the government alone its oflBcers proceed purely by information.' When the suit immediately concerns the rights of the State, the information is generally exhibited without a relator.^ In other cases the name of a relator is inserted in the information, who is answerable to the court and to the parties for the propriety and conduct of the suit, and xasby be responsible for c;osts if the suit was improperly instituted.^ When the relator has an interest in the matter in dispute, his bill is incorporated with the information, and then they form together an information and bill and are so 1 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 2 Attorney-General v. Delaware &c. § 8. Where a nuisance is purely E. Co., 37 N. J. Eq. 1 ; s. C, aflirmed public, the proceeding to restram it on appeal, 37 N. J. Eq. 631. must be by information by the ■^t- ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), torney-general. Newark Aqueduct § 8. Board v. Passaic, 45 N. J. Eq. 394. 106 THE BILL. [§ S2. termed.' A suit brought by the United States to set aside or annul a government patent for land is instituted and con- trolled by the attorney-general as the head of the department of justice.^ But a bill on behalf of the United States to set aside patents on the ground that they were obtained by fraud is well brought under the direction of the solicitor-general when the attorney-general is under disability to take part in the case.' § 83. Definition and classification of bills. — A bill in equity is in the nature of a petition to the court, setting forth the material facts, and concluding with a prayer for the ap- propriate relief, or other things required of the court, and for the usual process against the parties against whom the relief or other thing is sought, to bring them before the court to make due answer in the premises.* The most general divis- ion of bills is into those which are original and those which are not original. Original bills are those which relate to some matter not before litigated in the court by the same persons standing in the same interests.* Bills not original 1 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), New York, in his own name on be- §8. In such case the attorney-gen- half of the United States, to foreclose eral cannot withdraw the use of the a mortgage, wassustamed, that being State's name to the prejudice of the the form used for a long time in the relator. People v. North San Fran- United States courts sitting in New Cisco Ass'n, 38 Cal. 564. York. But the court recommended 2 United States v. San Jacinto Tin a uniform practice, and that the pro- Co., 125 U. S. 273. ceeding should be in the name of the 3 United States v. Bell Telephone United States. Benton v. Woolsey, Co., 128 U. S. 316. A bill was signed 12 Pet. 27. As to proceedings by in- " Charles Devens, Attorney-General formation against purprestures and By Philip Teare, United States At- public nuisances, State v. Wheeling torney for the District of California." Bridge Co., 18 How. 518; Attorney- The production of a certified copy of General v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct an order from the attorney-general Co., 133 Mass. 361 ; Attorney-General to a United States district attorney v. Hare, 50 Mich., 447 ; Story's Equity to proceed in the case was held suf- Pleading (10th ed.), § 8, note a. ficient to overcome the objection * Mitford's Eq. PI. by Jeremy, 7 ; that the bill did not show on its face Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), that it was filed by the attorney- § 7. general. MuUan u United States, 118 » Mitford's Eq. PL by Jeremy, 38 ; U. S. 371. An information filed by Story's Equity Pleading (10th eA.\ the United States district attorney § 16. in the United States district court of § 83.] THE BILL. 107 are those which relate to some matter already litigated in the court by the same persons, and which are either in ad- dition to or a continuance of an original bill, or both.' Bills in the nature of original bills are those which serve to bring before the court the proceedings and decree in a former suit for the purpose of either obtaining the benefit of the same or procuring the reversal of the decision made therein.^ Original bills are of two kinds: those which pray relief and those which do not pray relief. Those praying relief con- sist (1) of bills praying the decree or order of the court touching some right claimed by the party exhibiting the bill, in opposition to some right, real or supposed, claimed by the party against whom the bill is exhibited, or touching some wrong done in violation of the plaintiff's right ; (2) bills of interpleader, and (3) bills of certiorari.^ Original bills not praying relief are of two kinds: (1) bills to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses, and (2) bills of discovery.'' Bills not original are bills of revivor, supplemental bills, and bills of revivor and supplement. Bills in the nature of original bills are bills in the nature of supplemental bills, bills in the nat- ure of bills of revivor, cross-bills, bills of review, bills im- peaching decrees upon the ground of fraud, bills to suspend the operation of decrees on special circumstances or to avoid them on the ground of matter subsequent, and bills partaking of the qualities of some one or more of these bills.' § 83, Authority to file a bill. — As a general rule when a suit is commenced or defended by a solicitor of the court, or any other proceeding had therein, the court does not inquire into his authority to appear for his supposed client.* Where a suit is commenced in the names of several persons by their solicitors, the court will not inquire whether such suit was authorized by all, unless some of them object to the proceed- ings or the adverse party shows affirmatively that the suit is 1 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), < Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 16. § 19. 2 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), « Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 16. §§ 16-34. 3 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), <> American Ins. Co. v. Oakley, 9 §§ 17, 18. Paige, 496. See, also. Bums v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 305. 108 THE BILL. [§ 83. commenced and carried on in the names of some of the parties without authority.' "Where a party for whom a solicitor ap- pears denies his authority and applies to the court for relief before the adverse party has acquired any rights or suffered any prejudice in consequence of the acts of such solicitor, the court may correct the proceedings, and compel the solicitor to pay the costs to which the parties have been subjected in con- sequence of his improper interference.^ If the adverse party, however, has acquired rights, or been subjected to costs, by proceedings in the name of a party who denies the authority of the attorney or solicitor who commenced the proceedings) and the attorney or solicitor is solvent and responsible, the court usually allows the proceedings to stand, and leaves the party injured to his remedy against such attorney or solicitor by a summary application to the court or otherwise.' A rule requiring the solicitor to pay costs for making use of a party's name without consent cannot apply when he has been em- ployed -by one of several executors or administrators and has acted in the name of all.* A party cannot change his solicitor without an order of the court.^ IBank Com'rs v. Bank of Buffalo, name of the principal. Oakeyu. Bend, 6 Paige, 497. 3 Edw. Ch. 482. 2 American Ins. Co. v. Oakley ^ Mumford v. Murray, Hopk. Ch. (1843), 9 Paige, 496. 369; Stevenson v. Stevenson, 3 Edw. 'American Ins. Co. v. Oakley, 9 Ch. 390. Whether the complainant Paige, 496. A board of health being can file a supplemental bill, or an charged by statute to take all neces- original bill in the nature of a sup- sary measures to prevent the exercise plemental bill, by a new solicitor, of any trade in violation of its order, without an order to change the may for that purpose, without special former solicitor, on record, qucere. authority, bring suit in the name of McLaren v. Charrier, 5 Paige, 530. the city. In such a suit, as in others Upon the death of the solicitor for brought in the name of the city, the non-resident complainants, the court bill may properly be signed by the allowed notice to be sent to them mayor. Taunton v. Taylor (1874), 116 through the postoffice for an order Mass. 355. that they appoint another solicitor < Dare v. Allen, 3 N. J. Eq. 388. within thirty days. Draper v. Holland, The governor of a state may author- 3 Edw. Ch. 273. Upon motion to ize an attorney to bring an action in change a solicitor the court will not its name. Texas v. White, 7 Wall, make the payment of the solicitor's 700. As a general rule if an agent costs a condition of the substitution, institutes a suit under authority from but will leave him to his remedy at his principal he must do so in the law against the client and preserve § 84.J THE BILL. 109 § 84. Signature to a bill. — It is a rule adopted at as early a period as the time of Sir Thomas More that all bills in equity, whether original or not, must have the signature of counsel.' If the complainant sues in person the signature of counsel would probably be dispensed with.^ The complain- ant's bill (not sworn to) need not be actually signed by the complainant in person. It is sufficient if it is signed by his solicitor and counsel.' Where a bill was filed without the signature of counsel, and was afterwards signed by him with- out permission of the court, it was ordered to be stricken off the files.* A bill which is defective for want of signature of counsel cannot be remedied after it is put upon the files unless under an order of court,* but it has been held not a ground of demurrer.' The bill may be ordered from the files by the court of its own motion for want of a signature.' The omission of the signatures of solicitors or counsel to a bill is a cause for moving to take the bill from the files. ^ If a bill pur- ports at the beginning thereof to be brought by ten persons who are named therein as plaintiffs, but is in fact signed by only two of them, without any signature, either of themselves or of counsel, in behalf of the others, it is the bill of those two only." A signature on the back is sufficient,^" and a bill signed '•A. B. by his solicitor, C. D.," containing no allegation that C. D. was authorized to sign it, is properly signed." A peti- tion for an injunction signed by " A. M. Allen," with extrinsic to him any lien he may have on * Partridge v. Jackson, 3 Edw. Ch. jjapers or a fund in court. Steven- 530. son V. Stevenson, 3 Edw. Ch. 340. 5 Partridge v. Jackson, 2 Edw. Ch. 1 Story on Equity Pleading (10th 520. ed.), §47. " Every bill shall contain « Gove u Pettis, 4 Sandf. Ch. 408. the signature of counsel annexed to Contra, Dwight v. Humphreys, 3 Mc- it, which shall be considered as an Lean, 104 ; Kirkley v. Burton, 5 afflrmation on his part that upon the Madd. 378. instructions given to him, and the case ' French v. Dear, 5 Ves. 547. laid before him, there is good ground 8 Gove v. Pettis (1846), 4 Sandf. Ch. for the suit in the manner in wliich 40J ; Dillon v. Francis, 1 Dick. 68 ; it is framed." United States Equity Carey v. Hatch, 2 Edw. Ch. 190. Rule 24. 9 Chapman v. Banker & Tradesman 2 Foster's Federal Practice (2d ed.). Pub. Co., 128 Mass. 478. ^ 86, referring to U. S, R. S., § 747 ; 10 Dwight v. Humphreys, 3 McLean, 1 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. 97. 104. 3 Hatch V. Eustaphieve, Clarke's npope v. Salamanca Oil Co., 115 Ch. 63. Mass. 386. 110 THE BILL. [§ 85. evidence of identity, is sufficient.' But a signature to a bill in the firm name of two counselors, who are in partnership, is sufficient.^ Bills must be signed hy counsel. Signing the name of counsel is not a compliance with the rule, either in spirit or letter.' § 86. AflBdavit to the bill. — Where a particular allegation is inserted in a bill for the purpose of transferring the juris- diction from a court of law to a court of equity, the bill, or rather that particular allegation in the bill, must be verified by the oath of the complainant, or by the oath of some other person on his behalf who knows the fact.* Thus a bill seek- ing a discovery of deeds or writings sometimes prays relief founded on the deeds or writings of which the discovery is sought. If the relief so prayed be such as might be obtained at law, it the deeds or writings were in the custody of the plaintiff, he must annex to his bill an affidavit that they are not in his custody or power, and that he knows not where they are unless they are in the hands of the defendant. But a bill for a discovery merely, or which only prays the delivery of deeds or writings or equitable relief grounded upon them, does not require such an affida.vit.'* If a plaintiff should seek to obtain a discovery from the defendant of a bond lost or destroyed, and also relief consequent upon the discovery, he is required to make a suggestion in his bill that without such discovery he has not sufficient evidence to maintain a suit at law, and also to annex an affidavit of the loss or destruction of the bond ; for if it is not lost or destroyed, or if he has other sufficient evidence to establish its contents in proof, his proper remedy is not at law, and for want of such averments his bill would be demurrable.' A bill averring that defendant 1 Carlton v. Rugg, 149 Mass. 550. by a commissioner of the circuit court 2 Hampton v. Coddington (1877), 28 for the district. U. S. R S., S 945. N. J. Eq. 557. * Story's Equity Pleading, §§ 288. 3 Davis V. Davis, 19 N. J. Eq. 180 ; 477 ; Livingston v. Livingston, 4 Roach V. Hulings, 5 Cranch, 637 ; Johns. Ch. 894. After proof taken it Pope V. Salamanca Oil Co., 115 Mass. is too late to urge that an affidavit of 286 ; Eveland v. Stephenson, 45 Mich, the loss of a deed was not filed with 394. the bill. Bennett v. Waller, 23 111. 97. 4 Alston V. Jones (1848), 3 Barb. Ch. « Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 397. Affidavits in the United States § 313. If the defendant by his an- circuit or district courts may be taken swer does not admit the loss, the § 86.] THE BILL. Ill has property subject to the payment of his debt, but that its kind, description and manner of holding are concealed from and unknown to complainants, should be sworn to.' A bill to perpetuate testimony must be accompanied by an affidavit of the circumstances by which the evidence intended to be per- petuated is in danger of being lost.^ A bill praying for an in- junction generally requires a special affidavit to support it.' In the federal courts, whenever a bill for an injunction is to be used as evidence either upon a motion for preliminary in- junction or in any other way, it must be verified ; but there is no imperative rule requiring a verification of a bill at the time it is signed which prays for an injunction.'' A bill of inter- pleader should be supported by an affidavit that the plaintiff does not collude with either of the defendants.' In the fed- eral courts " every bill brought by one or more stockholders in a corporation against the corporation and other parties, founded on rights which may properly be asserted by the corporation, must be verified under oath."* § 86. The same subject continued. — Under a statute re- quiring a petition by a creditor for a warrant to seize the complainant is put upon his proof. Eq. 482. It may be verified by an Miller v. Wack, 1 N. J. Eq. 205. attorney, Youngblood v. Sohamp. 15 Though the affidavit be not filed N. J. Eq. 42 ; by statute in Texas, Ed- with the bill it is one of those defects rington v. AUsbrooks, 21 Tex. 186. which may be supplied in the prog- < Black v. Henry G. Allen Co., 42 ress of the cause where there has Fed. Rep. 618, 622. See, also, Huglies been no demurrer to the bill for want v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Fed. of it Thornton u Stewart, 7 Leigh, Rep. 106, 110; Woodworth v. Ed- 128. In the courts of Connecticut wards, 3 Woodb. & M. 120, 123. an affidavit need not be annexed to Where a complainant comes into a bill in any case, Nash v. Smith, court with a sworn bill, and it turns 6 Conn. 421; Jerome v. Jerome, 5 out upon investigation that the bill Conn. 352 ; nor in Massachusetts, has been framed with skill and care. Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 805. to avoid an impression which would 1 Sweetzer v. Buchanan (Ala.), 10 be made by an ingenuous statement So. Rep. 553, following Lawson v. of the case, the complainant assumes Warren, 89 Ala, 584. a position in the court which de- 2 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), prives him of the benefit of doubts g§ 304, 309. which might otherwise be resolved 3 Hammersley v. Wyckoff, 8 Paige, in his favor. Herbert v. Soofleld, 9 72 ; Bogert v. Haight, 9 Paige, 297 ; N. J. Eq. 493. Hatch V. Eustaphieve, 1 Clarke Ch. * See § 145, infra. 63 ; Holdredge v. Gwynne, 18 N. J. « United States Equity Rule 94 Eq. 26, 32; Perkins v. Collms, 3 N. J. 112 THE BILL. [§87. estate of au insolvent debtor to be " verified by oath," an affidavit that the allegations in the petition are true accord- ing to the best of the knowledge and belief of the affiant is sufficient.' An injunction bill which is filed by a corporation may be verified by the solicitor or counsel, or other agent, without the oath of any of the regular officers, where the per- son verifying the bill is better acquainted with the facts than any of such officers.^ The oath of a Jew complainant to an injunction bill must be made according to the form and solemnities of the Jewish religion.^ The jurat to a bill of complaint is not rendered defective by the want of the state; ment of the county where the bill was sworn to.'' An affida- vit of a person other than the complainant that " each and every allegation contained in the bill are true so far as they are known to him personally, and so far as he has heard he believes them to be true," is insufficient to sustain an injunc- tion.* And so is the oath of an attorney that statements " are true when made On his own knowledge, and when made upon information of others he believes them to be true," where it does not appear from the bill that any one of the statements was made upon the knowledge of the affiant or information of others.' § 87. The several parts of a bill.— Formerly a bill in equity consisted of nine parts, some of which were not es- sential, and might be used or omitted at the discretion of the person who prepared it. The several parts were: (1) Tiie ad- dress; (2) the introduction; (3) the stating part; (4) the con- federating part; (5) the charging part; (6) the jurisdictional clause; (7) the interrogating part; (8) the prayer for relief; (9) the prayer of process.^ Of these the confederating part is now in general disuse,^ and was never considered indispensa- 1 American Carpet Lining Co. v. ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), Chipman, 146 Mass. 385. §§ 26-44. 2 Bank of Orleans v. Skinner, 9 ' The usual form was that *the de- Paige, 305. fendants, combining and confederat- 3 Newman v. Newman, 7 N. J. Eq. ing together, and with divers other 26. persons as yet to the plaintiffs un- * Barnard v. Darling, 1 Barb. Ch. known, but whose names when dis- 218. covered he prays may be inserted in ■' Chesapeake &c. R Co. v. Huse, 5 the bill, and they be made parties West Va. 579. defendant thereto, etc. Story's « Pullen V. Baker, 41 Tex. 419. Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 29. § 88.J THE BILL. 113 ble ; ' its use is expressly made optional in the federal courts,' and has been forbidden by statute in some of the States. The charging part " is often omitted, and is also rendered un- necessary in the federal courts, and does not seem indispensa- ble in any case.* The jurisdiction clause is intended to give jurisdiction to the court by a general averment that the acts complained of are contrary to equity, and tend to the injury of the plaintiff, and that he has no remedy, or not a complete remedy, without the assistance of a court of equity. This clause is a mere superfluit}'^,' for if the case made is not of equitable jurisdiction the bill will be dismissed notwithstand- ing such an averment is made in it.' § 88. The address and introduction. — In the United States a bill is addressed to the court from which it seeks relief by its appropriate and technical description, and the address must be varied accordingly.' The introductory part usually contains the names and description of the persons exhibiting the bill, the character in which they sue, and such other de- scription as is necessary and proper to found the jurisdiction of the court, and sometimes the names and descriptions of the defendants, although the latter are more usually found in the stating part.' The United States Equity Eules provide as 1 Comstock V. Herron, 45 Fed. Rep. pretense of the defendant is held to 660 ; Story's Equity Pleading (10th be sufficient." Story's Equity Plead- ed.), § 29 ei seg. ' ing (10th ed.), § 31; Freichnecht v. ■''Equity Rule 21. Meyer, 39 N. J. Eq. 551-554 3 Which " usually consists of some * Equity Rule 21 ; Freichnecht v. allegation or allegations which set Meyer, 39 N. J. Eq. 551. forth the matters of defense or ex- ^ See United States Equity Rule 21. cuse which it is supposed the defend- * Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), ant intends or pretends to set up to § 34. justify his non-compliance with the '' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), plaintiff's right or claim, and then § 26. But if the name of tlie charges other matters which dis- judge were also prescribed in the prove or avoid the supposed defense statutory form, it would seem to be or excuse. It is sometimes also used sufficient if it were omitted, provided for the purpose of obtaining a dis- the court were correctly described. covery of the nature of the defend- Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 186. ant's case, or to put in issue some ^^Story'sEquity Pleading (10th ed.), matter which it is not for the inter- § 26. See, also, Foster's Federal est of the plaintiff to admit; for Practice (2d ed.), § 66. In Gibson's which purpose the charge of the Suits in Chancery, § 187, it is said to 8 114 THE BILL. ;;§ 89. follows : ' — " Every bill in the introductorj' part thereof shall contain the names, places of abode and citizenship of all the parties, plaintiffs and defendants, by and against whom the bill is brought. The form in substance shall be as follows : To the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the district of : A. B., of , and a citizen of the State of , brings this his bill against C. D., of , and a citizen of the State of , and E. F., of , and a citizen of the State of , and therefore your orator complains and says that," etc. The necessity of proper jurisdictional averments, especially in the federal courts, has benn pointed out in other parts of this work.'' § 89. The stating part. — The most important part of a bill in equity is that denominated the "stating part," in which should be set forth all the facts fundamentally material to the complainant's case, actually essential to it as a portion of its very consistency, and none others.' Care should be taken to frame this part fully and accurately and to state every ma- terial essential to the plaintiff's case ; for if the proof should disclose a good ground for relief which is not shown in the bill, it will not avail the plaintiff without an amendment of his bill, which, however, is very generally allowed.* The stat- ing part of a bill cannot be enlarged by the terms of the prayer for relief. Thus, if the stating part shows no ground for an account, a prayer for an account does not entitle the plaintiff to maintain his bill.' And so if a plea is put in, its validity will be determined by examining the stating part of the bill and not with reference to the interrogatory part.' A general charge or statement of the matter of fact is sufficient ; and it is not generally necessary to charge minutely all the circumstances which may conduce to prove the general charge.' be the practice to insert the names ' Farren's Bill in Chancery, pp. 15, of all the parties, defendants as well 80. as complainants, next after the ad- * See §§ 99, 100, 161, infra; Story's dress ; and in the learned author's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), g§ 37, 28. opinion " it is the best possible prao- ' Bushnell i\ Avery, 121 Mass. 148. tice." Of. Leavenworth v. Pepper, ^Story'sEquity Pleading (10th ed.), 32 Fed. Rep. 718. § 27. 1 Equity Rule 20. ' Stoi-y's Equity Pleading (10th ed. ), 2 See §§ 103, 104, infra, and § 28 e« § 28. See, however, § 95, n. 1, on seq., supra. p. 121, g§ 106, 107, 108, infra. § 90.] THE BILL. 115 § 90. The interrogating part. — The interrogating part of a bill was formerly one of its most important features, but now that all parties are competent witnesses, a discovery is not often sought.' The general interrogatory is substantially as follows: — " That the defendant may full answer make to all and singular the premises, fully and particularly, as though the same were repeated and he specially interrogated," etc.^ But a prayer in a bill that the defendants may each be re- quired " to answer unto the premises" was held to be a good general interrogatory.' Although under a general interroga- tory defendant must answer fully and circumstantially the charges of the bill, it is common, where a discovery is sought, to add to the general requisition a repetition by way of inter- rogatory of the matters most essential to be answered, adding to the inquiry, after each fact, an inquiry of the several cir- cumstances attending upon it and their variation, with a view to prevent evasion.* The defendant is not bound to answer a particular interrogatory unless it is justified by allegations in the bill, but if he does answer and the answer is replied to the informality is cured." But a variety of questions may be founded on a single charge in the bill, if they are relevant to it." 1 Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 183. a prayer for process, and is followed 2 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 377 ; by a prayer for specific and general Ames V. King, 9 Allen, 358. relief. Ames v. King, 9 Allen, 358. 3 McClaskey v. Barr, 40 Fed. Rep. * Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 559. Chancery rule 13 (Code Ala., § 86 Interrogatories are now regu- p. 812), prescribing a form to pre«ede lated in the federal courts by Equity the interrogating part of a bill, has Rules 98, 41, 43, 43 and 44. See the no application to bills containing no Appendix. Interrogatories appended interrogating part Thornton u. Shef- to the bill, and based on the state- field &c. R. Co., 84 Ala.. 109 ; S. C, 4 ments and charges therein made. So. Rep. 197. By Mass. Stats. 1883, ch. may be regarded as incorporated in 323, sec. 10, if a bill asks for relief and the bill, and a prayer for a responsive discovery the discovery can only be answer thereto, on oath, is not de- had by interrogatories. Amy v. Man- murrable. Romaine v. Hendrick- ning, 149 Mass. 487, 491. A prayer son's Ex'rs, 24 N. J. Eq. 331. that the defendant make answer to ^ story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), the matters alleged therein is a good § 36. general interrogatory, and a sufiS- « Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), cient compliance with a chancery § 37. The criterion of immateriality rule requiring that bills in equity of interrogatories in a bill is not shall conclude with a general inter- whether an affirmative answer will rogatory, although it is coupled with prove the bill, but whether it will 116 THE BIIvi;,. [§91. The defendant is not bound to answer interrogatories when his answer will tend to subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, or to punishment for a criminal offense.' § 91. Prayer for general relief. — The eighth part of a bill in equity is the prayer for relief. The bill usually contains a prayer for general relief. For although the complainant imay not be entitled to the relief specifically prayed for, he may under the general prayer obtain any other specific relief consistent with the case made by the bill.^ Upon a bill for an injunction to prevent a threatened trespass, the court may, under a prayer for general relief and in order to avoid a mul- tiplicity of suits, award damages for the injury done by such tend to prove the bill. Uhlmann v. Arnholt &c. Brewing Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 369. ' As, for instance, a penalty for breach of the Sabbath by executing a note on that day. Stewart v. Dra- sha, 4 McLean, 563 ; 1 Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5th ed.) 568, 716. 2 Coltou V. Ross, 2 Paige, 396 ; Wil- kin V. Wilkin, 1 Johns. Ch. Ill ; En- glish V. Foxall, 2 Pet 595 ; Texas v. Hardenberg, 10 Wall. 68 ; Graham v. Benyman, 19 N. J. Eq. 29; Miller V. Jamison, 24 N. J. Eq. 41 ; Force v. Dutolier, 18 N. J. Eq. 401, 405 ; Belle- ville Mut Ins. Co. V. Van Winkle, 12 N. J. Eq. 333; Shelby v. Tardy, 84 Ala. 327 ; S. C, 4 So. Rep. 276 ; Frank- lin V. Greene, 2 Allen, 519. Such re- lief as is necessary to carry into effect the particular relief demanded will be granted. Mitchell v. Moore, 95 U. S. 587. Where a case for re- lief is made out in the bill, it may be given by imposing conditions on the complainant, consistently with the rules of equity, in the discretion of the court Walden v. Bodley, 14 Pet 166. A complainant may have relief even against the admissions in his bill Finley v. Lynn. 6 Cranch, 238. Where the particular relief prayed for has become impossible by the act of the defendant, the court may grant appropriate relief under the general prayer. Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford &c. R Co., 17 Conn. 42. As to the granting of re- lief under the general prayer, the court said in Hill v. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31, 35: — "If the facts which he states are broad enough to give him relief, it matters not how narrow his prayer may be, if his bill contains a prayer for general relief. And al- though he may claim a relief not at all warranted by his facts, or may be entitled to a relief upon very differ- ent principles of equity from what he supposed, such a misapprehension of his case cannot defeat his right to relief." See, also. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Hogle, 25 111. App. 543. Un- der a general prayer for relief any relief may be granted for which the basis is laid in the bill ; and where a bill for specific performance of a contract to purchase land alleged the possession of the land by the defend- ants, but contained no specific prayer for rents and profits, it was held proper to afford the complainant that relief, the court refusing to com- pel specific performance on account of his defective title. Watts u. Wad- dle. 6 Pet 38ft § 92.] THE BILL. 117 trespass before the injunction was issued.' On a bill filed by a cestui que trust, praying for an account, the removal of the trustees, payment to complainant of the trust money and for general relief, it was held proper to appoint a new trustee and order payment of the fund to him.^ In a bill to establish title, praying that defendant be ordered to remove his build- ings from the land in dispute, the court may, under the prayer for general relief, make a like order in respect to streets upon which the land abuts.' Where the praj^er of a bill was chiefly directed toward securing a right to redeem from a mortgage, but the general object was to secure to the plaintiff a dower interest of which she had been defrauded, and the bill contained a prayer for general relief, it was held that the court might decree such relief as the facts stated in the bill would justify.* On a bill by a second mortgagee to set aside a sale made under the first mortgage to the owner of the equity of redemption, the prayer for general relief will sustain a decree to restrain the purchaser from committing waste.' If a bill is brought for the sale of an estate upon which a charge is created in favor of the complainant and fails to obtain that form of relief, it may nevertheless be maintained to declare and enforce the charge under the prayer for general relief.' According to the weight of authority, a receiver may be appointed under a prayer for general relief.' §93. The same subject continued. — The court, under the prayer for general relief, will grant such relief only as the 1 Winslow V. Nayson, 113 Mass. 3 Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. 838, 411 ; Omaha Horse Ry. Co. v. Cable 350. Traruway Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 727. A * Jones v. Van Doren, 130 U. S. 684. bill will not be dismissed on account 6 Thompson v. Hey wood, 129 Mass. of the incongruousness and inaptness 401. of the special prayers for relief. "Nudd v. Powers, 136 Mass. 273. Even if the special prayers were such A bill for the specific enforcement of that no relief could be granted under a contract, which also contains a them, the court, under the general prayer for general relief, is sufiBcient, prayer, may grant any appropriate where the evidence justifies it, to sus- relief consistent with the case made tain a decree for the payment of by the bill. Annin v. Annin, 34 N. money. Cushman v. Bonfield (111.), J. Eq. 184. 38 N. E. Rep. 937. 2 Mitchell V. Moore, 95 TT. S. 587. ' Story's Equity Pleadings (10th ed) g 43, note b. 118 THE BILL. [§ 93. case stated in the bill and sustained by the proof will justify.' Under a prayer for general relief a party cannot recover a claim distinct from that demanded by the bill.^ Where com- plainant filed a bill to restrain the obstruction of a water- course flowing through his own and defendant's land, it was held that he was not entitled, under the prayer for general relief, to an injunction restraining defendant's obstruction of the flowage on his land outside of the location of the al- leged water-course.' Upon a bill to recover the interest of a legac}^ only, a decree cannot be made for the payment of the principal which has fallen due since the filing of the bill. Such decree is not within the special prayer for relief, and could not have been prayed for at the time of filing the bill.* Where complainant in a bill for specific performance of an agreement to convey land fails to establish his claim to that relief, he cannot, under the prayer for general relief, have a decree for the repayment of the money paid on the contract. The court said : — " The complainant, having failed on his only ground for equitable relief, cannot have his suit retained for granting a relief to which he is only entitled at law."* Where plaintiff sought to have his title confirmed against purchasers from his grantee, averring the execution and delivery of his deed to the grantee, he was not allowed to attack the validity of the deed under the prayer for gen- eral relief.' § 93. Prayer for special relief. — As a general rule a plaintiff cannot have an injunction under the prayer for gen- eral relief; but it must be expressly prayed.' If a writ of ne exeat is desired it is prudent to specially pray for it, al- though it has been held that it may be granted in a proper case under the prayer for general relief.' 1 Hobson V. McArthur, 16 Pet 182 ; » Welch v. Bayaud, 31 N. J. Eq. 186, Allen V. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 187. 139 U. S. 658, 663 ; Rennle v. Crom- « Mackall v. Casilear, 137 U. S. 556. bie, 12 N. J. Eq. 457, and the cases '' Story's Equity Pleading (10th cited in the first note to the preced- ed.), § 41. See United States Equity ing section. Rule 31. 2 Pickens v. Knisely, 29 West Va. 1. ^Gilbert?;. Colt 14 Am. Dec, 561, n. ; 3 Rigg V. Hancock, 36 N. J. Eq. 42. Shainwaldw Lewis, 46 Fed. Rep. 839; < Jordan v. Clark, 16 N. J. Eq. 243. Durham v. Jackson, 1 Paige, 639. §9*-J THE BILL. 119 § 94. The prayer for process.— The ninth part of a bill is the prayer of process to compel the defendant to appear and answer the bill and abide the determination of the court on the subject. The ordinary process prayed is a writ of sub- poena, which requires the defendant to appear and answer the bill on a certain day named in the writ, under a certain penalty.' The rule is that a person against whom process of subpoena is not prayed, although he is named in the bill, is not a defendant to the suit.* Where there was no prayer of United States Equity Rule 21, re- quiring a special prayer for a ne exeat, is expressly limited to cases where the writ is asked for " pending the suit" Lewis v. Shainwald, 7 Sawy. 403, where Sawyer, C. J., said : — "It is sufficient if the facts alleged in the bill show a proper case for the writ, and it may be granted in the decree under the prayer for general relief. Or the facts may be shown and the writ applied for upon a petition presented in the case either before or after judgment or decree." An injunction, a receiver and a ne exeat may all be resorted to in the same suit to aid the court in doing justice between the parties. Kirby V. Kirby, 1 Paige, 261. If relief is asked to which the complainant is not entitled, the bill is demurrable. Jordan v. Clark, 16 N. J. Eq. 243. Under a special prayer, relief of the same general character but less ex- tensive may be granted, or the prayer may be amended if necessary. Cam- den Horse R. Co. v. Citizens' Coach Co., 81 N. J. Eq. 525, Where all the necessary facts are alleged in the complaint, the court has power to grant full relief, without regard to the prayer. Muehlberger v. Schil- ling, 3 N. Y Supl. 705. 1 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 44. "The prayer for process of sub- poena in the bill shall contain the names of all the defendants named in the introductory part of the bill, and if any of them are known to be infants, under age, or otherwise un- der guardianship, shall state the fact, so that the court may take order thereon as justice may require upon the return of the process. If an in- junction or a writ of ne exeat regno, or any other special order pending the suit, is asked for in the prayer for relief, that shall be sufficient, with- out repeating the same in the prayer for process." United States Equity Rule 23. 2 Talmadge v. Pell, 9 Paige, 410, 412. Where a person is sued in a personal and also a representative capacity, process should be prayed against him in both capacities. Car- ter V. Ingraham, 48 Ala. 78. In New Hampshire the prayer may in most cases be omitted. Equity Rule 2, 38 N. H. 605. " It is essential that the defendants should be clearly desig- nated as such ; but it cannot be ma- terial whether they are designated by praying process against them in the form of courts of equity, or by a pos- itive allegation that they are im- pleaded as defendants according to the forms of courts of law." Elmen- dorf V. Delancey, Hopk. Ch. 555, 556. Bute/. 1 Danieli's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 390 and note. A prayer for process, in a bill, against "the said defendants," without naming anybody, where it does not appear with reasonable cer- 120 THE BILL. [§95. process against a corporation by its corporate name, but only against tbe officers thereof, and the corporation was not de- scribed in the bill as being a party thereto, it was held that the corporation was not before the court as a party to tbe suit.^ A bill without a prayer of process is demurrable.^ § 95. General principles of equity pleading. — The same precision of statement that is required in pleadings at law has never been attained in bills in equity.' Still, when prin- ciples have by repeated adjudications become settled, it is quite as important that they be preserved in a court of chan- cery as in a court of law.* " "No rule of equity pleading is bet- ter settled than that which declares that every material fact which it is necessary for a complainant to prove to establish his right to the relief he asks must be alleged in the prem- ises of his bill with reasonable fullness and particularity." ^ tainty, in the other parts of the bill, who are referred to as " the said de- fendants," and in other parts of the bill some only of the persons who are necessary parties are mentioned as the defendants, is fatally defect- ive, if necessary parties to the suit are thereby omitted. Howe v. Rob- ins, 36 N. J. Eq. 19. ' Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 2 Paige, 438. When a bill, in its premises, sets forth sufficient facts to show that the complainant is entitled to relief as an executor, or that the defendant is liable as an executor, it is not necessary that either should be so styled in the commencement or conclusion of the bill. Ransom v. Geer, 30 N. J. Eq. 249 ; Plants Plant, 44 N. J. Eq. 18 ; Evans v. Evans, 23 N. J. Eq. 72. See, also. White v. Da- vis, 48 N. J. Eq. 22. A bill must state clearly the persons who are made defendants either by praying process against them or by a distinct allegation designating the persons impleaded as defendants. Elmen- dorf V. Delancey, Hopk. Ch. 555. Parties against whom relief is de- manded must be designated by name in the complaint as defendants. An- derson V. Wilson, 100 Ind. 402. 2 Elmendorf v. Delancey, 1 Hopk. Ch. 555. 3 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Sturges, 33 N. J. Eq. 328, 387, holding it too late to complain at the hearing of mere want of precision in the bill ; Crane V. Deming, 7 Conn. 387, 394 ; Cor- nelius V. Halsey, 11 N. J. Eq. 37; Ransom v. Geer, 30 N. J. Eq. 249; Marselis v. Morris &c. Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 31. " The courts are not so much in- clined to regard mere technicality in pleading as they were three-quarters of a century ago." McEwan v. Broadhead (1855), UN. J. Eq. 129, 132. In Phillips v. Schooley, 27 N. J. Eq. 410, a demurrer was allowed for want of precision in the allega- tions in the bill. * Marselis v. Morris &c. Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 31. 5 Smith's Administrator v. Wood, 42 N. J. Eq. 563, 566 ; Phihiower v. Todd, 11 N. J. Eq. 55 ; Kip v. Kip, 33 N. J. Eq. 213 ; Search v. Search, 27 N. J. Eq. 137 : H.aidiug v. Handy. §96.] THE BILL. 121 There are some cases in which the same decisive and categor- ical certainty is required in a bill in equit3'^as in a declaration at common law ; ' but certainty to a common intent is all that is ordinarily required.^ § 96. The same subject continued. — Pleadings should con- sist of averment or allegations of fact, and not of inference and argument ; ' but it is proper to aver the facts and state the 11 Wheat 103; Drews v. Beard, 107 Mass. 64, 73; Phelps v. Elliott, 35 Fed. Rep. 455, 461 ; St. Louis &c. Ry. Co. V. Johnston, 133 U. S. 577 : Shep- ard V. Shepard, 6 Conn. 37. " It is an elementary rule of pleading that ii bill must state all the facts on which the complainant's right to re- lief rests with certainty and clear- ness and positively." Brokaw v. Brokaw, 41 N. J. Eq. 315, 220. Un- certainty in material allegations is not fatal to a bill whose object is the discovery of material facts al- leged to be entirely in the defend- ant's knowledge. Watson v. Murray, 23 N. J. Eq. 357. " While it is true that the bill should contain aver- ments of the rights of the complain- ant alleged to be attacked and of the injury thereto inflicted or threat- ened by the defendant sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court and sustain the relief asked, it is not always necessary that such injury be characterized by technical terms — the acts of the defendant detailed with particularity or proved to the extent specified. With reference to such acts, if there is in the bill sub- stantial averment or the recital of facts which disclose to the defendant generally the ground of complaint, it will be suflScient on final hearing on the pleadings and proof, in a case where the facts cannot be within the knowledge of the acting party, if the grounds of relief are substantially involved in the statement of the bill and are sustained by the evidence." Mott V. Mott, 49 N. J. Eq. 193, 195. Outcault V. Disborough, 3 N. J. Eq. 214 ; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Sturges, 33 N. J. Eq. 328, 337 ; Goherty v. Ben- nett, 37 N. J. Eq. 87; Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cowen, 537, 571 ; Brice v. Brice, 5 Barb. 533, 541; Deatly's Heirs v. Murphy, 3 A. K Marsh. 473, 474. 1" General allegations will not be suflScient where the bill seeks (1) to attach property, or (2) to have a re- ceiver appointed, or (3) to obtain an injunction, or (4) to set aside a con- veyance, a settlement or a contract, or (5) to reform a written instrument, or (6) to sell, re-invest or expend the property of minors, or (7) to set up a resulting or constructive trust, or (8) to have a specific performance of a contract, or (9) to obtain a divorce, or (10) to obtain a new trial at law, or (11) to review a former decree in equity, or (12) where in any case fraud is charged [see § 107, infra] or a trust is set up." Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 201. 2 Randolph v. Daly, 16 N. J. Eq. 314; Goherty v. Bennett, 37 N. J. Eq. 87 ; Paterson &c. R. Co. v. Jer- sey City, 9 N. J. Eq. 434 ; O'Hare v. Downing, 130 Mass. 16 ; St. Louis v. Knapp, 104 U. S. 658; Mutual Life Ins. Co. V. Sturges, 33 N. J. Eq. 328, 337. ' Hood V. Inman, 4 Johns. Ch. 437, 440. Facts must be averred, and not merely the evidence of them. Hobart V. Frisbie, 5 Conn. 592. 122 THE BILL. [§96. conclusions therefrom in an alternative form.' " Inasmuch as" is sufficiently direct and positive in a bill; more direct than any statement under a " whereas " in a declaration at law.* A statement of matters of fact in the form of a charge is sufficient, on general demurrer, where it is evident that a statement by way of allegation or averment was intended by the pleader.^ If a fact is stated anywhere in the stating part of the bill with legal certainty, and is material, it is well pleaded, and therefore admitted by a demurrer.'' Where a complainant claims the benefit of a statute, his bill must con- tain all the averments necessary to bring his case within its beneficial provisions.* But where the complainant predicates his right to the relief prayed for upon a statute, when he is in reality entitled to the relief only on general equitable grounds, the bill will not be dismissed for that reason." An allegation in a bill that the petitioner " has been informed and believes, and therefore avers," is a sufficiently positive averment.' 1 Black V. Henry G. Allen Co., 43 Fed. Eep. 618. "Bills which are to be verified by the oath of the agent or attorney for a complainant should be drawn in the same manner as bills which are to be sworn to by the complainant himself, stating those matters which are within the per- sonal knowledge of such agent or attorney positively. And those which he has derived from the information of others should be stated or charged upon the information and belief of the complainant, and the oath of the agent or attorney verifying the bill should state that the deponent has read the bill or heard it read, and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowl- edge except as to the matters which are therein stated to be on the infor- mation or belief of the complainant, and that as to these matters the de- ponent believes it to be true." Bank of Orleans v. Skinner, 9 Paige, 305, 307. 2 Paterson &c. R. Co. v. Jersey City, 9 N. J. Eq. 434 8 Johnson v. Helmstaedter, 30 N. J. Eq. 124. * Paterson &c. R. Co. v. Jersey City, 9 N. J. Eq. 434 * Eberhart v. Gilchrist, 11 N. J. Eq. 167. 6 Adams v. Kehlor Milling Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 218. Under the Connecti- cut Practice Act of 1879, which per- mits the joinder of legal and equita- ble causes of action, the facts upon which both kinds of relief are sought may be presented in a single count Trowbridge v. True, 52 Conn. 190. 'Wells V. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 30 Conn. 316; Campbell v. Paris R Co., 71 111. 611. But a mere alle- gation of information and belief is not sufficient Lucas v. Oliver, 34 Ala. 636 ; Cameron v. Abbott 30 Ala. 416; Ewing v. Duncan (Tex.), 16 S. W. Rep. 1000 ; Messer v. Storer, 79 Me. 512; s. C, 11 At!. Rep. 375. See, also, Walton v. Westwood, 73 111. 185. Mere informalities or defective modes of statement in a bill are waived where no demurrer or mo- tion of any sort is interposed, and. § 97.] THE BILL. 123 When a bill truly sets forth sufficient facts to entitle com- plainant to relief, the pleader may or may not, at his option, aver additional cumulative facts which only intensify, without varying, the principle of relief claimed.' § 97. The same subject continued — Illustrations. — A bill to enforce payment of a debt out of the separate estate of a married woman need not set out any specific estate or prop- erty belonging to the defendant in her own right, but may allege generally that she is possessed of property to her sole and separate use which is chargeable with the payment of the debt.^ An equitable attachment of debts due to the de- fendant, made by a suit in equity, ought to describe the nature of the debts and the persons who owe them.' In the com- plaint in an action to rescind a purchase of land it is not neces- sary to allege a disaffirmance, or a previous offer to reconvey, nor to make an offer in the pleading to do what the court may require as a condition of granting relief.* In alleging the legal organization of a corporation, it is unnecessary to state in detail that all the preliminary steps were taken.' A bill in equity to set aside a judgment against complainant in a suit of which he had no notice should show the character of the claim upon which the judgment is based, as well as the char- acter of the defense, so that the court may see that there was a good defense that might have been made. A mere allega- tion that complainant has a good defense, " as he is advised," is insufficient.* While irremediable injury is a ground of equity jurisdiction, a general allegation of such injury, not stating facts on which the allegation is based, nor showing how or why the damages will be irremediable, is not suffi- cient.' A bill to rescind a contract of sale of land, which avers that defendants, by false representations that they had after answer, the introduction of any ^ Amy v. Manning, 149 Mass. 487. evidence is objected to on the ground * Knappen v. Freeman (Minn.), 50 that the petition fails to state a cause N. W. Rep. 533. of action. Sayer v. Devore, 99 Mo. *Pope v. Leonard, 115 Mass. 286. 437 ; S. a, 18 S. W. Rep. 301. « Jeffrey v. Fitch, 46 Conn. 602, 606. • Noble's Adm'r v. Moses, 81 Ala. ' WiUingham v. King, 23 Fla. 478 ; ■)30; a a, 1 So. Rep. 217. s. C, 2 S. Rep. 851 ; Cresap v. Kemble, 2 Roger* V. Ward (1864), 8 Allen, 26 West Va. 608. 387. 124 THE BILL. [§ 97. a suflBcient title, induced plaintiffs to enter into the contract, when in fact the title was in another, of which plaintiffs were ignorant, is sufficient without alleging the facts to show want of title in defendants.' A bill or any other pleading which relies upon usury as its substance must distinctly state the terms of the usurious contract.^ Upon a bill for relief against a usurious contract, the court is not authorized to decree payment to the defendant of the amount equitably due unless the complainant in his bill has offered to pay what is equitably due.' " If the party sets up a title to relief in equity on the ground of being a honafide purchaser, he ought to deny notice in the most de- cided manner." * Where a party seeks the aid of a court of equity for relief against a forfeiture, he must aver in his peti- tion that he is now ready and willing to pay the money.* A demurrer to a bill setting up a trust will not be sustained on the ground that the nature of the trust is not sufficiently set forth, when the facts stated are sufficient, if true, to enable the court to act intelligently.* It is proper to recite in a bill for infringement of a patent prior litigation over the same patent,' the state of the art, the steps which have been taken, either by the inventor or by other inventors,' and it is the common practice for the complainant to aver that his patent has been adjudicated elsewhere by some circuit court, if such is the fact.' A simple averment that the defendant has in- fringed, without specifying in what particulars, is sufficient.'" 1 Oiendorff v. Tallman, 90 Ala. 441 ; of first mortgage bonds of another S. C, 7 S. Rep. 821. company. The complaint did not 2 Cole V. Savage, Clarke's Oh. 361. show what the amount was that the ' Judd V. Seaver, 8 Paige, 548. original promoters were to receive, * BrinckerhofE v. Lansing, 4 Johns, or that they did in fact receive any- Ch. 66, 71. thing. It was held that the com- 5 Beecher v. Beecher, 43 Conn. 557. plaint did not state a cause of action, iJCavender v. Cavender, 114 U. S. since no breach of the contract was (1885), 464. A complaint alleged that shown. De Lacy v. Walcott (Supe:. the plaintiff paid to a corporation N. Y.), 21 N. Y. Supl. 619. and its promoters $10,000, for which 'Steam-gauge & Lantern Co. v. they agreed to give him an amount McRoberts, 26 Fed. Eep. 765. of capital stock and of money equal 8 Steam-gauge & Lantern Co. v. to whatever the original promoters McR(,berts, 26 Fed. Rep. 765. received, and that defendants re- ^ American Bell Tel. Co. v. South- fused to give him anything except ern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 80 !. $10,000 of said stock, and a document '" American Bell Tel. Co. v. South- stating that he was entitled to $10,000 ern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 803, where §98.] THE BILL. 125 § 98. The same subject further illustrated. — A pleading is suflBcient which sets forth documents according to their tenor or legal effect and avers the substantive facts relied on as a cause of action or defense.^ If a party avers that he holds title to anything by a certain instrument, which he annexes, and that instrument both grants the title and describes the full extent of the rights conferred, it is equivalent to an aver- ment that he has title to all the rights specifically described in such instrument.^ Generally the bill ought not to set forth the court said it was difficult to sus- tain the rule on principle, but the weight of authority was decisive. 1 Edison Electric L. B. v. United States Electric L. Co., 35 Fed. Rep., 134. 137. A bill which does not set fortti a copy of an instrument vital to complainant's claim, or aver its terms, is demurrable. Marshall v. Turabull, 84 Fed. Rep. a37. A bill to enjoin the infringement of a patent therein described merely as an " im- provement in cable railways," with- out making the patent or specifica- tious exhibits, is demurrable for want of certainty. Wise v. Grand Ave. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 277, 378. A bill which describes an invention as " a new and useful improvement in thermo-electric batteries," fuUj' de- scribed in letters patent thereinafter mentioned, and then refers to the letters patent by their date only, without giving the number, and without referring to any record in the patent office, by book and page, iloes not describe the invention with sufficient particularity ; and the fact that the letters patent were filed on a motion for preliminary injunction, and are before the court, will not cure the defect, since they are not a part of the record. Electrolibration Co. V. Jackson, 52 Fed. Rep. 773. A bill to restrain the infringement of a patent must either set out the patent or attach it as an exhibit or give a substantial description of the inven- tion. Stirrat v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 142. A bill for the can- cellation of a deed is not bad on de- murrer because it alleges that the deed was executed to complainant, it being apparent that defendant was intended ; especially where a copy of the deed was attached as a part of the bill, whereby the error was cured. Piedmont Land & Imp. Co. V. Piedmont Foundry & Machine Co. (Ala.), 11 So. Rep. 332. In an action to foreclose building association mortgages given to secure several notes, by the express terms of which the constitution and by-laws were made a part of each note, it was sufficient, where copies of each note and of the by-laws were filed with the complaint, to refer thereto in such complaint simply as the note ; each note, together with the consti- tution and by-laws, constituting one instrument. Hatfield v. Hun (Ind.), 31 N. E. Rep. 532. 2 American Bell Tel. Co. v. South- ern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 803. It was there said that " The weight of authority is that the profert of any recorded instrument is equivalent to annexing a copy." Bogart v. Hinds, 25 Fed. Rep. 484, and cases cited ; Post V. Hardware Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 618. But a statement in the bill that the plaintiff pi'ays liberty to refer to the files and records of another suit 126 THE BILL. [§ 09. deeds in hmc verba, bnt so much of them only as is material to the point in question.' § 99. Relief secundum allegata et probata. — !N^o facts are properly in issue unless charged in the bill, nor can relief be granted for matters not charged, although they may be ap- parent from other parts of the pleading and evidence ; for the court pronounces its decree secundum allegata et probata? A party can no more succeed upon a case proved but not alleged in that court, to show such and such things, was held in Pacific R. Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., Ill U. S. 505, not to make such records a part of the bill. 1 Hood v. Inman, 4 Johns. Ch. 437; Nix v. Winter, 35 Ala. 309; Duckworth v. Duckworth, 35 Ala. 70 ; Camden &c. R. Co. v. Stewart, 19 N. J. Eq. 343, 347 ; Equity Rule 36 of the United States Supreme Court ; Rule 4 of Chancery in New Hampshire, 38 N. H. 606. 2 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 857 ; Anderson v. Northrop (Fla), 12 So. Rep. 318 ; Glascott v. Lang, 2 Phil. Ch. 310 ; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 27 N. J. Eq. 399 ; Simms v. Guthrie, 9 Cranch, 19; Eyre e. Potter, 15 How. 42; Stucky V. Stucky, 30 N. J. Eq. 546, 554: Hart v. Stribling, 21 Fla 136; Grosholz V. Newman, 21 Wall. 481 ; Brainerd v. Arnold, 27 Conn. 617; Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788; Marshman v. Conk- lin, 21 N. J. Eq. 546 ; Armstrong v. Ross, 20 N. J. Eq. 110 ; Vansciver v. Bryan, 13 N. J. Eq. 434; Lehigh Valley R Co. v. McFarlan, 30 N. J. Eq. 180; Wilson v. Cobb, 28 N. J. Eq. 177, and Smith v. Axtell, 1 N. J. Eq. 494, where it is said the parties are confined to the issues as much as in a court of law ; Triggs v. Jones (Minn.), 48 N. W. Rep. 1113; Pasman v. Montague, 80 N. J. Eq. 385 ; Skinner v. Bailey, 7 Conn. 497 ; Andrew v. Farnham, 10 N. J. Eq. 91; Plume v. Small, 5 N. J. Eq. 460 ; Hopper v. Sisco, 5 N. J. Eq. 343 ; Hoffman v. McMorran, 52 Mich. 818; Henry v. Suttle, 42 Fed. Rep. 91; Mott V. Mott, 49 N. J. Eq. 192, 195 ; Barteau v. Barteau (Minn.), 47 N. W. Rep. 645 : Parsons v. Heston, 11 N. J. Eq. 155; Watkins u. Mil- ligan, 37 N. J. Eq. 435; Hart v. Schenck, 33 N. J. Eq. 148. 154 The complainant must obtain leave to amend, or fail. Midner v. Midner, 26 N. J. Eq. 299 ; Gorham n Farson, 119 111. 435; Hagar v. Whitmore, 83 Me. 848 ; & C, 19 Atl. Rep. 444. The prayer for general relief will not save him. Francis v. Bertrand, 26 N. J. Eq. 213 ; Walker v. HUl, 21 N. J. Eq. 191. Where complainant's bill by mistake disclaims title to a lot of land, the court will not on a prayer for general relief, without any amendment, there having been am- ple time to amend after the error was discovered, allow complainant to recover such lot. Hickson v. Bryan, 80 Ga. 314; s. C, 5 S. E. Rep. 495. Pub- lic Statutes of Rhode Island, cha.pter 192, section 33, providing that " no suit in equity shall be defeated on the ground that a mere declaratory decree is sought, and the court may make binding declarations of right in equity without granting con- sequential relief," cannot be held to authorize a declaratory decree in any suit unless a case is stated in the bill which shows a right to actual re- § 100.] THB BILL. 127 than upon a case alleged but not proved.' Nor can any ad- missions in an answer, under any circumstances, lay the foun- dation for relief under any specific head of equity unless it be substantially setforth in the bill.^ " It is an established doc- trine of this court," said Yice-Chancellor Van Fleet, " that where the bill sets up a case of actual fraud, and makes that the ground for the prayer for relief, the complainant is not in general entitled to a decree by establishing some one or more of the facts, quite independent of fraud, which might of them- selves create a case under a distinct head of equity from that which would be applicable to the case of fraud originally stated."' § 100. The same subject continued. — But the rule that the proof and the pleading must correspond is to be applied equitably and not rigidly, especially when it is appealed to on behalf of a party having all the time of the progress of the cause the facts in full possession, and therefore not misled by a pleading which, although inaccurate or mistaken as to some of the details, yet contains averments sufficient to support a claim for the relief prayed for.^ " It is undoubtedly a well- lief, either immediate or prospective, 648. It was error to decree a peti- against the defendants. Hanley v. tioner relief as a second mortgagee Wetmore, 15 R L 386 ; & C, 6 Atl. upon an allegation that he was the Rep. 777. Where a bill was filed to holder of the equity of redemption, set aside an administrator's sale on Stevens v. Church, 41 Conn. 370. the ground of actual fraud and col- ' Phelps v. Elliott, 35 Fed. Rep. 455, lusion, and the proof showed that it 461 ; Foster v. Goddard, 1 Black, 518 ; should be set aside, not for collusion, Boone v. Chiles. 10 Pet 177 ; Carneal but because it was in fact purchased v. Banks, 10 Wheat. 181. for the administrator himself, the 2 Jackson v. Ashton, 11 Pet 229; complainant was held not entitled to Knox v. Smith. 4 How. 298. relief, the case uj-oved not being the ' Hoyt v. Hoyt (1876), 27 N. J. Eq. one made by the bill nor within the 399,402, citing Montesquieu u Sandys, issue made by the parties. Howell 18 Ves. 302. Cf. Reed v. Cramer, 2 V. Sebring, 14 N. J. Eq. 84. See, also, N. J. Eq. 277. on this point, Doggett v. Simras, 79 * Crawford v. Moore, 28 Fed. Rep. Ga. 253 ; s. c, 4 S. E. Rep. 909. A 824, 827 ; affirmed in Moore v. Craw- bill sought to establish a trust by ford, 130 U. S. 122, 142. In Texas v. virtue of an express agreement The Hardenberg, 10 Wall. 68, it was as- evidence was of a purely resulting serted on behalf of the defendant that trust, in an entirely different person, upon the bill, which was for an in- It was held that the variance was junction to restrain the defendant fatal. Midner v. Midner, 27 N. J. Eq. from asking payment of certain 128 THE BILL. [§ 101. settled rule in equitj' that the decree must conform to the bill, and be warranted by it both in the relief and in the grounds of relief. Relief not embraced in the prayer of the bill can- not be decreed, nor can the relief asked for be granted upon grounds not disclosed by the bill. It is, however, no objec- tion that the relief established by the proof is broader and stronger than that stated in the bill, or that grounds of relief not contained in the bill are established in evidence, provided the decree is warranted by the charges and prayers of the bill, and the bill sustained by the evidence." ' § 101. Jurisdictional averments. — The facts requisite to show that the court has jurisdiction of the suit must be di- rectly averred in the bill.^ But where the description in a mortgage annexed to and made part of the complaint, in a suit to foreclose, shows that the mortgaged premises were, at the time the suit was commenced, in a legal subdivision, which the court judicially knows to have been within the bonds of the United States belonging to the complainant, but in the posses- sion of the defendant, he could in no event be held to account for the pro- ceeds of the bonds ; the prayer of the bill being only for relief by injunc- tion against receiving payment of the bonds or coupons, and by decree specifically for delivery of them to complainant Chief Justice Chase in his opinion said it was plain enough that the principal object of the bill was to prevent the collection of the bonds by the defendants, and to com- pel the surrender of them to the State of Texas ; but that there were averments and interrogatories look- ing to the proceeds as well as to the bonds themselves. Admitting that the allegations and interrogatories did not assert the right of the com- plainant to the proceeds with abso- lute directness and distinctness, he added :—" The bill might have been better drawn ; but we think it would savor of exti'eme technicality to re- fuse to see in the bill enough, in relation to the proceeds of the bonds, to warrant relief in this respect under the general prayer." 1 Ryerson v. Adams, 6 N. J. Eq. 613. See, also, Thornton v. Ogden, 32 N. J. Eq. 733. Where a bill for foreclosure of a lien alleged that the contract arose under a contract of a certain date, proof of the same con- tract at a different date is an imma- terial variance. Kiel v. Carll, 51 Conn. 440. Under Code of Maryland, article 5, section 34, which provides that on appeal in equity no objection to the admissibility of evidence or the sufficiency of the bill shall be made in the court of appeals unless the record shows that such objection was made by exceptions filed in the court below, the court of appeals will decree according to the evidence in the record, whether covered by the averments of the bill or not Schroeder v. Loeber (MA.), 24 Atl. Rep. 226. 2 Griswold v. Mather, 6 Conn. 430, § 102.] THE BILL. 129 boundaries of the county in which the suit was brought, it cannot be objected that the complaint does not show that the premises were so situated.' Under code provisions abolishing forms of actions, and providing that the com plaint shall state the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and con- cise language, both legal and equitable relief may be granted in the same action, and it is not necessary, in order to obtain equitable relief, to allege that plaintiff has no adequate rem- edy at law.^ In an action to subject defendant's undivided interest in land as heir to the satisfaction of a judgment against him, execution on which had been returned unsatisfied, though the petition does not formally allege that the land in question is within the county where the suit is brought, yet that fact sufficiently appears by an allegation that such land had been allotted as dower to a widow by an agreement be- tween herself and her husband's heirs, of whom defendant was one, that such agreement, describing the land, had been recorded in the county clerk's office of the county in which the action was brought, and by annexing a copy" of such agreement as an exhibit to the petition.' § 102. The same subject continued. — In New Jersey the chancellor, upon the application of a creditor or stockholder of a corporation alleging that it has become insolvent and will not be able to resume business in a short time with safety to the public and advantage to its stockholders, is empowered by statute to proceed in a summary manner to inquire into the truth of the allegations, and if they be established he may en- join it from the further exercise of its franchise, appoint a re- ceiver, etc. In describing what averments the bill should contain it was declared not sufficient to allege that the cor- poration had become insolvent and had suspended its business for want of funds, but that the facts and circumstances which prove insolvency must be set out, and that those facts must be clearly established by the proofs. " The proof in support of a jurisdictional fact must always be clear and convincing," said > Scott V. Sells, 88 Cal. 599; S. C, 'Bryant v. Bryant (Ky.). 20 S. W. 26 Pac. Rep. 350. Rep. 370. 2 Ely V. New Mexico &c. E. R. Co., 129 IT. S. 291 ; s. a, 9 S. Ct. Rep. 293. 9 130 THE BILL. [§ 103. Yice-Chancellor Van Fleet, " for the court derives its power from the fact, and hence until the fact is shown to exist it has no power. To doubt in such a case is to deny." ' § 103. Jurisdictional averments in the federal courts. — " It was settled at a very early day that the facts on which the jurisdiction of the circuit courts rests must in some form appear on the face of the record of all suits prosecuted before them." ' The presumption is that a cause is without its ju- risdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. In cases where jurisdiction depends on citizenship of the parties, such citizenship or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or they should appear affirmatively and with equal distinct- ness in other parts of the record.' The Supreme Court will 1 Atlantic Trust Co. v. Consoli- dated Electric Storage Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 402. See, also, Rawnsley v. Tren- ton Life Ins. Co., 9 N. J. Eq. 25; Oakley v. Paterson Bank, 3 N. J. Eq. 173, 176 ; Parsons v. Monroe Mfg. Co., 4 N. J. Eq. 187, 206; Brumdred v. Paterson Machine Co., 4 N. J. Eq. 294, 305 ; Goodheart v. Raritan Min. Co., 8 N. J. Eq. 73, 77 ; Newfoundland Railroad Construction Co. v. Schack, 40 N. J. Eq. 232, 336. 2 Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; Johnson v. Christian, 125 U. S. 643, 644 ; Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 DalL 8 ; Bushnell V. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387 ; Hornthall V. Collector, 9 Wall. 560 ; Ex parte Smith, 94 U. S. 455; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646 ; Grace v. Ameri- can Central Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278, 383; Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S. 253, 255 ; Mansfield &c. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382; Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co, 10 Wall. 553 ; Han- cock V. Holbrook, 112 XJ. S. 329; Sullivan v. Fulton Steamboat Co., 6 Wheat. 450. And it is error for a court to proceed without its jurisdic- tion is shown. Continental Ins. Co. V. Rhoads, supra; Grace v. American Central Ins. Co., supra; Mansfield &c. Ry. Co. V. Swan, supra. See, also, § 24 (at p. 33), note 1, and § 35, supra. 3 Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 649, where it was held that an alle- gation of " residence " is not equiva- lent to an averment (see, also. Pa- cific Postal Tel. Co. v. Irvine, 49 Fed. Rep. 113) of citizenship, and that the ruling in Railway Company v. Ram- sey, 22 Wall. 322, approved in Briges V. Sperry, 95 U. S. 401, that such citizenship need not necessarily be averred in the pleadings, if it other- wise affirmatively appears by the record, does not apply to papers copied into the transcript which do not make a part of the record by bill of ex- ceptions, or by an order of the court referring to them, or by some other mode recognized by law. Equity Rule 20 of the United States Su- preme Court provides that "every bill in the introductory part thereof shall contain the names, places of abode and citizenship of all the par- ties, plaintiffs and defendants, by and against whom the bill is brought" § I04.J THE BILL. 131 take notice for itself of the absence of the averment of the necessary facts to show the jurisdiction of the circuit court.' § 104. The same subject continued. — So where the juris- diction depends upon the alienage of one of the parties,' or upon the amount in dispute,' the facts must appear affirma- tively on the face of the bill. And where a suit is brought by an assignee of a contract within the statute excluding ju- risdiction unless the assignor could have maintained the suit, etc., it is well settled that the capacity of the assignor must be averred.* An allegation in a bill " that this suit is brought in good faith, and for the collection of and to compel the collection of what your orator believed to be a meritorious claim," is not a suflBcient compliance with Uquity Kule 94 of the United States Supreme Court, which requires, in certain suits by a stockholder of a corporation against the corpora- tion and others, an allegation that " the suit is not a collusive one to confer on a court of the United States jurisdiction of a case of which it would not otherwise have cognizance." ' But although the jurisdiction be not alleged in the proceed- ings, as if the fact of diverse citizenship do not appear, a de- cree in the case while it remains unreversed is conclusive between parties and privies." 1 Johnson v. Christian, 125 U. S. 2 Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 640, 643, 644 A bill may be dismissed 649. Where the Supreme Court ren- by the court on its own motion where dered a decree dismissing a bill for the proper allegations as to citizen- want of an allegation of citizenship, ship of the parties are not contained a petition for reconsideration was in the introductory part, and are filed later in the term, and the court, not pointed out by counsel elsewhere upon closer inspection of the record, in the bill, or where the prayer for discovered it to be a. case where no subpoena does not contain the names such allegation was necessary and of the defendants as rsquired by the vacated its former decree. Johnson rules. City of Carlsbad v. Tibbetts, v. Christian, 135 U. S. 643. 51 Fed. Rep. 853. Although diverse ' Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. Rep. 373. citizenship of the parties should be ■• Corbin v. County of Blackhawk, covered in proper averments, the 105 U. S. 659, 667; Turner v. Bank fact that it appears in the summons of North America, 4 Dall. 8 ; Mollan forming a part of the record is suf- v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537 ; Bank of ficient when the question is first United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31; raised in the Supreme Court Gor- Bradley v. Rhines, 8 Wall. 393. don V. Third Nat Bank, 144 U. S. 97 ; s Quinoy v. Steel, 130 U. S. 241. s. a, 12 S. Ct Rep. 657. 6 M'Cormiok v. Sullivant 10 Wheat 132 THE BILL. [§ 105. § 105. Allegations of parties' interests. — A bill is demur- rable which fails to show that the complainant has an interest in the subject-matter, and title to sue concerning it.' The bill should show the relation borne by the plaintiffs to the subject-matter,— as, for instance, where they claim as heirs of devisees of a certain person, the relation of each to that person should be set forth.^ "Where plaintiffs described them- selves as citizens and tax-payers of a city and sought relief from threatened injury to their interests as such, they were not entitled to relief by virtue of their interest as citizens and tax-payers of the county.-' A decree founded on a bill which shows no right of action in complainant against defendant in respect to the subject-matter of the suit is a nullity, and will be so treated, even in a collateral proceeding.* The bill must also show by sufficient averments that the defendant has an interest in the subject-matter, and is liable to answer to the complainant therefor.' 192, where it is said that the inferior courts of the United States, although of limited jurisdiction, are not in- ferior in the technical sense of the term. See, also, Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch, 185; Skillern's Ex'r V. May's Ex'r, 6 Cranch, 267. 1 Carter v. Carter, 82 Va 624; Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), §260. 2 Norris v. Lemen, 28 West Va. 336. '■> Whitney v. City of New Haven, 58 Conn. 451. The attorney-general of the United States has no power to maintain in his own name, " as he is the attorney-general of the United States,'' a bill in equity to repeal let- ters patent for an invention. Attor- ney-General V. Eumford Chemical Works, 32 Fed. Rep. 608. Under the Connecticut Practice Act of 1879, all objection to the capacity or right of the plaintiff to sue is waived if the question is not raised by the answer, and the CEise goes to trial on its mer- its. Merwin v. Richardson, 52 Conn. 234. * Consolidated Electric Storage Co. V. Atlantic Trust Co. (N. J. Ch.), 24 Atl. Rep. 229. 5 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 263. A bill filed against a township and its treasurer to restrain the col- lection of a drain tax assessed for tlie construction of a drain in the town- ship, which prays that the "so-called drain tax upon the said land may be declared to be null and void, and that said . . . treasurer of the township of Walker may be enjoined . . . from collecting said drain taxes, and from returning the same to the county treasurer of said county ; and for such other and fur- ther relief in the premises as shall be agreeable to equity ; " and that pro- cess may issue against the township treasurer and the township, — is de- murrable for want of equity, in that there is no allegation showmg that the township is interested in the pro- ceeding. Emerson v. Walker Tp., 63 Mich. 483; & c, 30 N. W. Rep. 92. One of the essential qualifications of §§ 106, 107.] THE BILL. 133 § 106. Allegations in excuse for laches. — A complainant who is prosecuting a stale demand should set forth in his bill specifically what were the impediments to an earlier prosecu- tion of his claim,' " how he came to be so long ignorant of his rights and the means used by the respondent to fraudulently keep him in ignorance ; and how and when he first came to a knowledge of the matters alleged in his bill ; otherwise the chancellor may justly refuse to consider his case, on his own showing, without inquiring whether there is a demurrer or a formal plea of the statute of limitations in his answer." ^ §107. Allegations of fraud. — A bill for relief on the ground of fraud must be specific in its statement of the facts that constitute the fraud alleged.' •' Mere words in and of a bill in chanoery is that, it should, either in the caption or in the body of the bill, name some person or per- sons as parties defendant, and de- scribe them as having some interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and these requisites are as essential to a bill of review as to an original bill, and without them a paper purporting to be a bill of review should be dis- missed on demurrer, or stricken from the files on motion. Kanawha Val- ley Bank v. Wilson, 35 West Va. 36; S. c, 13 S. E. Eep. 58. 1 Marsh v. Whitmore, 31 Wall. 178. 2 Badger v. Badger, 3 Wall. 95; Richards v. Mackall, 134 U. S. 183; Stearns v. Page, 7 Hovr. 819 ; Godden V. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201. "Where the suit is one which would be barred by presumption [lapse of time] but for explanations or excuses, the com- plainant is bound to state in his bill tlie facts or circumstances on which he relies to repel the presumption." Olden V. Hubbard (1881), 34 N. J. Eq. 85, 87. Where the allegations of a bill show that complainant's claim is barred by his laches, relief cannot be granted thereon whatever the evi- dence may ba Walker v. Ray, 111 111. 315. It seems that an allegation in the bill in excuse for gross laches of negotiations from time to time be- tween plaintiff and defendant, and that plaintiff hoped for a settlement, should state that defendant gave en- couragement to such hope. Mackall V. Casilear, 137 U. S. 556, 567. 5 Horsford v. Gudger, 35 Fed. Rep. 388; Patton v. Taylor, 7 How. 133; Moore v. Hawkins, 19 How. 69; Gates V. Steele, 58 Conn. 316 ; Knox County V. Harshman, 133 U. S. 156; Carr v. Fife, 44 Fed. Rep. 713. It is well settled law that affirmative re- lief will not be granted in equity upon the ground of fraud unless it is made a distinct allegation in the bill, so that it may be put in issue by the pleadings. Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 508; Moore v. Green, 19 How. 69; Beaubien v. Beaubien, 23 How. 190 ; Magniac u Thompson, 15 How. 281 ; Eyre v. Potter, 15 How. 42 ; Fisher v. Boody, 1 Curt 206; Voorhees v. Bonesteel, 16 Wall. 16; Bergan v. Porpoise Fishing Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 397. 402 ; Stover v. Reading, 29 N. J. Eq. 153 ; Jewett v. Dringer, 27 N. J. Eq. 371 ; Small v. Boudinot, 9 N. J. Eq. 381 ; State v. Williams, 39 Kan. 517 ; s. c, 18 Pac. Rep. 727 ; Nichols V. Rogers, 139 Mass. 146; State v. 134 THE BILL. [§ 108. themselves, and even as qualifying adjectives of more specific charges, are not sufficient grounds of equity jurisdiction unless the transactions to which they refer are such as in their es- sential nature constitute a fraud or breach of trust, for which a court of chancery can give relief." ' The defendant should not be subjected to being taken by surprise, and enough should be stated to justify the conclusion of law, though without un- due minuteness.^ In a bill to set aside a decree on the ground of fraud, it will not suffice to charge generally that it was fraudulently procured or that the court was imposed upon. A state of facts must be disclosed by the bill from which the court can see that the conclusions stated by the pleader to the effect that the judgment was fraudulently procured, etc., are properly drawn.' § 108. The same subject continued. — " It is a mistake to suppose that in stating the facts which constitute a fraud? where relief is sought in a bill in equity, all the evidence Turner, 49 Ark. 311; s. c, 5 S. W. Rep. 302 ; McKaw v. Ordway, 76 Ala. 847 ; Wetherly v. Strauss, 93 Cal. 383 ; S. C, 28 Pac. Rep. 1045 ; Threlkel v. Scott. 89 Cal. 351 ; s. C, 26 Pac. Rep. 879 ; Bull v. Bull, 2 Root, 479 ; McMa- hon V. Rooner (Mich.), 58 N. W. Rep. 539. The defendant is entitled to a full opportunity to disprove the facts charged. Smith v. Wood, 43 N. J. Eq. 568, 567. 1 Van Weel v. Winston, 115 U. S. 328, 387 ; Ambler v. Choteau, 107 U. S. 586, 591 ; St Louis &c. Ry. Co. v. Johnston, 133 U. S. 577. 2 St Louis &o. Ry. Co. v. Johnston, 133 U. S. 577. When the plaintiff in equity seeks relief from the effects or results of some fraud, accident or mistake, he should in his bill fully and explicitly state the circum- stances, so as to present a clear pict- ure of the particulars, or how the fraud was committed, and how the plaintiff was misled ; of the char- acter and causes of the accident or mistake and how it occurred. Merrill V. Washburn, 83 Me. 189 ; s. c, 33 Atl. Rep. 118. If the allegation is insuffi- cient, of course a demurrer does not confess the fraud. Penny v. Jackson, 85 Ala. 67 ; s. c, 4 So. Rep. 720. A bill to set aside or annul a patent of the United States for public land on ac- count of fraud or mistake should set out by distinct averments the particulars of the fraud, the names of the parties engaged in it and of the officers imposed on, and the man- ner in which the mistake occurred. United States v. Atherton, 103 U. S. 372. See, also, Moore v. Hawkins, 19 How. 69. An averment that dece- dent, at a time when he was "very feeble both in mind and body, was persuaded and induced, through some undue and improper influence unknown to complainants, to exe- cute " a certain deed, is entirely in- sufficient, in that it does not state the facts constituting such influence. Jackson v. Rowell, 87 Ala. 685 ; s. c., 6 So. Eep. 95. 3 United States v. Norsch, 43 Fed. Rep. 417. § 108.] THE BILL. 135 which may be adduced to prove that fraud must be recited in the bill. It is sufficient if the main facts or incidents which constitute the fraud against which relief is desired shall be fairly stated so as to put the defendant upon his guard and apprise him of what answer may be required of him." ' And an imperfect averment, if it is to be the subject of exception, must, in the main, be brought to the notice of the court by a demurrer. It is but seldom, and only when the statement is so vague and loose as to be utterly inert and inefficient, that it can be objected to at the final hearing. The general rule is that the court will not listen to such objections at the hear- 1 Per Justice Miller in United States V. Bell Telephone Co.. 128 U. S. 316. A bill brought by the guardian of a lunatic to have a deed executed by her to her son set aside, which charges that defendant fraudulently pro- cured the deed from his mother either while she was non compos, or when her mind was deranged or un- sound or weak, or by undue influence exerted by him over her, describes with sufficient particularity the acts relied on as invalidating the deed, since the charge that he fraudulently procured the deed is specifically set forth, and the guardian could not have knowledge of the peculiar and special phase of fraud adopted. Mott V. Mott (N. J. Ch.), 22 Atl. Rep. 997. A complaint for the reconvey- ance of real estate, which alleges that defendant, while acting as plaint- iff's agent, proposed that she convey all her real estate to him for the pur- pose of managing the same, promis- ing to reconvey on demand ; that she was induced by his representations and promises to make the convey- ances, and that at the time of mak- ing the promises he had no intention of performing them, but made them with the fraudulent purpose of in- ducing her to put the property in his hands that he might cheat and de- fraud her, sufficiently sets out the facts which constitute the alleged fraud. Alaniz v. Casenave, 91 Cal. 41 ; s. C, 27 Pac. Rep. 521. For other cases where the allegations were held to be sufficient, see Peck v. Vinson, 134 Ind. 131; s. C, 24 N. E. Rep. 726; Beethoven Piano Organ Co. v. C. G. McEwen Co., 12 N. Y. Supl. 553; Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79; S. a, 12 S. Ct. Rep. 340; Lawrence V. Gayetty, 78 Cal. 126; s. a, 20 Pac Rep. 382 ; Gibson v. Trowbridge Furniture Co. (Ala.), 9 So. Rep. 370 ; United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 316. " The rule of cer- tainty in pleadings in equity does not require that the facts and cir- cumstances shall be minutely alleged. General averments of facts from which, unexplained, a conclusion of fraud arises, are sufficient." Burford V. Steele, 80 Ala. 147 ; Pickett v. Pip. kin, 64 Ala. 530. In a bill against the officers of a bank for gross mis- conduct in managing its affairs, whereby it was ruined, particular instances of official misfeasance and carelessness, which standing alone might not fix personal liability, are sufficient, when connected with gen- eral allegations of official miscon- duct and culpable negligence, to sus- tain it on general demurrer. Acker- man V. Halsey, 37 N. J. Eq. 356 ; s. a on appeal, 38 N. J. Eq. 501. 136 THE BILL. [§ 109. ing of the case if the matters stated are such that the court can properly proceed to a decree.^ § 109. Scandal and impertinence. — Scandal consists in the allegation of anything which is unbecoming the dignity of the court to hear, or is contrary to good manners, or which charges some person with a crime not necessary to be shown in the cause ; to which may be added that any unnecessary allega- tion, bearing cruelly upon the moral character of an individual, is also scandalous.^ " All matters not material to the suit, or, if material, which are not in issue, or which, if both material and in issue, are set forth with great and unnecessary prolixity, constitute impertinence." ' Matter which is scandalous is also impertinent, but a bill may contain matter which is impertinent without being scandalous.* A deposition taken in another suit between the same parties, and annexed to the bill by way of schedule, is incompetent, and therefore impertinent, when it is not shown by competent evidence that there was a suit pending in which it was taken, and no certified or sworn copy of the original is produced.^ Recitals from a bill filed by the defendant in another suit, which might involve contradictions impairing his credibility as a witness, and which, if admitted by the answer, would have no tendency to establish the com- plainant's claim to the relief sought in his bill, are impertinent. So, also, are recitals of deeds at length, in hmo verba, unless 1 Rorback v. Dorsheimer, 29 N. J. certain whether the matter be perti- Eq. 516, 518; Mason u Daly, 117 Mass. nent is to try whether the subject- 403. matter of the allegation could be - 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 347; put in issue and would be matter Ex parie Simpson, 15 Ves. 476; Hood proper to be given in evidence be- Inman, 4 Johns. Ch. 487; Christie tween the parties.'' Per Chancellor (I. Christie, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 499 ; Kent in Woods v. Morrell, 1 Johns. Campbell v. Taul, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) Ch. 103. See, also, Mrzena u. Brucker, 564. Immaterial allegations which 3 Tenn. Ch. 161 ; Wood v. Mann, 1 are reproachful are scandalous. Sumn. 578 ; Chapman v. School Dist, Woods V. Morrell, 1 Johns. Ch. 103. Deady, 108 ; Spaulding v. Farwell, 62 3 Camden &c. R Co. v. Stewart Me. 319. (1868), 19 N. J. Eq. 345. See, also, < M'Intyre v. Trustees &c., 6 Paige, Slack V. Evans, 1 Price, 278, note; 239. AUfrey v. Allfrey, 14 Beav. 235 ; 5 Camden i&a R Co. «, Stewart, 19 Gompertz v. Best, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 114, N. J. Eq. 343. 117. " The best test by which to as- § 110.] THE BILL. 137 Qecessary for some special purpose appearing on the face of the pleadings.' The court, in cases of impertinence, ought, before expunging the matter alleged to be impertinent, to be especially clear that it is such as ought to be struck out of the record, for the reason that the error, on the one side, is ir- remediable ; on the other, not.^ § 110. The same subject continued.— A repetition of the same allegations in different parts of a bill or answer renders either one or the oth^r of such allegations impertinent.' If the alleged objectionable parts of a bill have a tendency, or would be admissible in evidence, to show the truth of any al- legation in the bill that is material with reference to the re- lief prayed, they will not be stricken out.'' A bill to charge the managers of a savings bank with a loss resulting from an illegal loan of the bank's securities by a portion of the mana- gers, is not open to the objection that it contains impertinent or scandalous matter because it shows the condition of the bank and the unlawful management of it prior to the time when the act was committed from which the loss resulted.' 1 Camden &c. R. Co. v. Stewart, 19 legitimate by having an effect on the N. J. Eq. 343. costs. Desplaces v. Goris, 1 Edw. Ch. 2 Dodd V. Wilkinson, 43 N. J. Eq. 350. The degree of the relevancy is 647 ; Davis v. Cripps, 2 Y. & Coll. 443 ; not material. Gleaves v. Morrow, 2 Tucker v. Cheshire R Co., 1 Foster Tenn. Ch. 596 ; Story's Equity Plead- (N. H.), 38. By United States Equity ing (10th ed), § 269. The case should Rule 26 " every bill shall be expressed be especially clear to warrant the in as brief and succinct terms as it expunging of matter from pleadings reasonably can be. and shall contain as impertinent. Finger v. City of no unnecessary recitals of deeds, Kingston, 9 N. Y. Supl. 175 ; but documents, contracts, or other insti-u- when the chancellor has struck out ments in hcec verba, or any other statements from a bill which are very impertinent matter, or any scandal- prolix, and appear to be of but small ous matter not relevant to the suit."' importance to the case, the appellate 3 Norton v. Woods, 5 Paige, 260. court will not interfere with suchor- * Kirkpatrick v. Corning, 40 N. J. der. Camden &a R Co. v. Stewart, Eq. 341 ; Gleaves v. Morrow, 21 Eng. 21 N. J. Eq. 484. Ch. 592 ; Goodrich v. Rooney, 1 Minn. 5 Wilkinson v. Dodd, 42 N. J. Eq. 195 ; Fisher v. Owen, 8 Ch. D. 645, 234 ; Dodd v. Wilkinson, 42 N. J. Eq. 653. A few unnecessary words do 647. " A bill in chancery, like a dec- not render a bill impertinent unless laration at law, should confine its they embarrass the defendant in statements to such facts as are proper answering the bill. Hawley v. Wolv- to show that the complainant is en- erton, 5 Paige, 522. Matter may be titled to relief, and which if proved 138 THE BILL. [§ 111- In a bill by a cestui que trust for the removal of the trustee it is not scandalous or impertinent to impute to the trustee cor- rupt and improper motives.' § 111. Objections for scandal and impertinence. — Neither scandal nor impertinence, however gross, is ground of de- murrer.' By statute in England, and the orders in chancery upon the subject, mere impertinence cannot be excepted to or corrected in the progress of a suit, but the court must direct at the decree that all costs occasioned by it shall be paid by the party in fault.' In the United States circuit courts a bill " may, on exceptions, be referred to a master by any judge of the court for impertinence or scandal, and, if so found by him, the matter shall be expunged at the expense of the will entitle him to relief, and should not set out the evidence, whether oral or written, by which the facts are to be proved. But one subject of relief, to which a complainant in equity is always entitled, and which he generally seeks, is a discovery of such facts material to his relief as are within the knowledge of the de- fendant. He is therefore entitled to set out such collateral facts and cir- cumstances as would, if proved or admitted, support his case, or go to show that he is entitled to relief, for the very purpose of requiring an answer upon oath. Such statements would, without doubt, be impertinent in a bill which requires an answer without oath, and has no interroga- tories annexed relating to them, as they are only pertinent for the pur- pose of discovery." Camden &c. R Co. V. Stewart (1868), 19 N. J. Eq. 343, 846. See, also, Hawley v. Wolverton, 5 Paige. 533. Interrogatories in the bill seeking to compel respondents to make discovery, and annex copies of correspnndence with persons not parties, for the purpose of developing the System by which they carried on the business of loaning money, are improper, and should be stricken out Alexander v. Mortgage Co. of Scot- land. 47 Fed. Rep. 131. ' Earl of Portsmouth v. Fellows, 5 Mad. 450; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.), 348. 2 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 349. See, also, Machinery Co. v. Brown Folding Machine Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 73 ; Stirrat v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 148; Pacific Railroad v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., Ill TJ. S. 505, 516, 533 ; Parsons v. Johnson, 84 Ala, 854; S. C, 4 So. Rep. 885. 3 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 350 ; 15 and 16 Vic, ch. 86, § 17 ; Ord. XL, 11. " Before this change it was the practice to except to pleadings, in- terrogatories, depositions, aflBdavits and schedules, and to strike out un- necessary or irrelevant matter at the cost of the party in fault, or in some cases at the cost of the offending solicitor ; and the courts have inti- mated that an examiner might be made to pay the costs occasioned by taking down the impertinent an- swers of a witness to interrogatories put by the examiner." Camden &c. R R Co. V. Stewart, 19 N. J. Eq. 843, 346. 112.] THE BILL. 139 plaintiff, and he shall pay to the defendant all his costs in the suit up to that time, unless the court or judge thereof shall otherwise order. If the master shall report that the bill is not scandalous or impertinent, the plaintiif shall be entitled to all costs occasioned by the reference." ' Exceptions must specify clearly what portion of the bill is objectionable.^ §112. The same subject continued. — Exceptions for im- pertinence cannot be taken after the defendant has answered or submitted to answer.' And if an exception be partly good and partly bad, it must be overruled in toto.* Where the de- fendant is in laches for not procuring the master's report, the » United States Equity Rule 26. The rule to file exceptions also pre- vails in New Jersey. Camden &c. R. Co. V. Stewart, 19 N. J. Eq. 343. See Kirkpatrick v. Corning, 40 N. J. Eq. 341. And in Tennessee. Code, § 4401 ; Johnson v. Tucker, 2 Tenn. Ch. 244. And it was also the prac- tice in the New York court of chan- cery when it existed. Under the code in that State the court may strike out scandalous or impertinent matter on motion. Bowman v. Shel- den, 5 Sand. 660 ; Carpenter v. West, 4 How. Pr. 53; Mussina v. Clark, 17 Abb. 188; Opdyke v. Marble, 18 Abb. 366, 875. The rule to file exceptions to a bill and refer them to a master is for the relief of the coui-t. They may be heard directly by the chan- cellor at his option. Camden &c. R Co. V. Stewart, 19 N. J. Eq. 343. - Whitmarsh v. Campbell, 1 Paige, 645 ; Franklin v. Keeler. 4 Paige, 382 ; Benedict v. Dake, 6 How. Pr. 353; Bryant v. Bryant, 3 Rob. 613. United States Equity Rule 27 provides that "no order shall be made by any judge for referring any bill, answer or pleading, or other matter or pro- ceeding depending before the court for scandal or impertinence, unless exceptions are taken in writing and signed by counsel, describing the particular passages which are con- sidered to be scandalous or imperti- nent ; nor unless the exceptions shall be filed on or before the next rule- day after the process on the bill shall be returnable, or after the answer or pleading is filed. And such order, when obtained, shall be considered as abandoned, unless the party ob- taining the order shall, without any unnecessary delay, procure the mas- ter to examine and report for the same on or before the next succeed- ing rule-day, or the master shall cer- tify that further time is necessary for him to complete the examina- tion." ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), §370. < Wagstaff V. Bryan, 1 R. & M. 30 ; Tench v. Cheese, 1 Beav. 571, 575; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 352 ; Chap- man V. School Dist., Deady, 108, 117. But see Camden &c. R Co. v. Stewart, 19 N. J. Eq. 348, 350, where, on hear- ing of exceptions to a bill for imper- tinence, the costs occasioned to the defendant by the parts of the bill and schedule adjudged to be impertinent were ordered to be paid by the com- plainants. The exceptions having been sustained in part and overruled in part, neither party had costs from the other upon the exceptions. 14:0 THE BILL. [§ 113. proper remedy is by an order that he procure the report in a time stated or that the exceptions be dismissed.' A bill may be referred for scandal at any time ^ by any party to the cause ; ' as, for instance, a defendant who has not been served,* and even by leave of the court, upon the application of a stranger to the suit,' or the court may expunge such matter of its own motion.' § 113. Inconsistent allegations. — Where there are some allegations making out a case entitling the complainant to relief, and these allegations are contradicted by others in the same bill, it is demurrable.' Thus a bill in which the com- plainant seeks to amend and foreclose a mortgage given by a married woman, and, as alternative relief, prays that if fore- closure is denied the mortgagor's title may be decreed to be held in fraud of her husband's creditors, and the land sub- jected to sale as the property of her husband for the benefit of complainant as one of the creditors, is demurrable for re- pugnancy.^ Land was conveyed under an agreement that, after the execution of a first mortgage, a second one should be given for the unpaid purchase-money. A claim having been filed for a mechanic's lien for labor and materials fur- nished the vendee, the vendor filed a bill to have the lien declared invalid, and, in the alternative, to have the first mortgage postponed to his claim to the extent of the lien, alleging that the first mortgagee and the vendee were respon- sible, through fraud and misrepresentations, for the existence of the lien in priority to the claim of the vendor. It was held 1 Camden &c. E. Co. v. Stewart, 19 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), N. J. Eq. 343. § 270. 2 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 354 ; 7 Bridger v. Thrasher, 28 Fla. 383. Elhson V. Burgess, 2 P. Wms. 313, n. ; Failure of defendant to demur to a Barnes v. Saxby, 3 Swanst 232, n. ; bill containing two directly opposite Booth V. Smith, 5 Sim. 689. and repugnant allegations is a waiver 3 Coffin V. Cooper, 6 Ves. 514 of the defect, and relief should be < Fell V. Christ's College, Cambridge, granted if the proof shows that 2 Bro. C. C. 279. plaintiff is entitled to it under either 5 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 351, aspect of the case. American Free- 352 ; Williams v. Douglas, 5 Beav. 83, hold Land Mortg. Co. v. Sewell (Ala.), 85 ; s. c, 6 Jur. 379. See, also. Car- 9 So. Rep. 143. penter w West, 4 How. Pr. 43. SBynum v. Ewart (Tenn.), 18 S. ^Ex parte Simpson, 15 Ves. 476; W. Rep. 394. § 11*.] THB BILL. 141 that a bill resting on such inconsistent allegations could not be sustained, and should be dismissed as against the lien claimant.' § 114. Bills with a double aspect. — A bill with a double aspect may be filed where the complainant is in doubt whether he is legally entitled to one kind of relief or another upon the facts of the case as stated in the bill ; in which case his prayer should be framed in the alternative, so that if the court decides against him as to one kind of relief prayed for, he may still obtain the proper relief under the other branch of his alternative prayer.^ The alternative case stated must 1 Leonard v. Cook (N. J.), 30 Atl. Rep. 1085. Deceased took out a life insurance policy in his own name, and assigned it to a minor child. Suit was brought to subject the pro- ceeds of the policy to the payment of debts contracted by the assured. The bill alleged that under the policy the insurance was payable to a minor child of the assured. An amendment thereto, without pur- porting to correct the allegation, alleged that the policy was in the name of the assured, and was as- signed by him to the child. It vvas held that the bill was demurrable for inconsistencies in the description of the policy. Friedman v. Fennell (Ala.), 10 So. Rep. 649. In an ac- tion to cancel a mortgage and the deed made on foreclosure thereof, the bill alleged that the debt had been paid before foreclosure, that the property had been bought in by the mortgagee, and that the mort- gagors had no power to execute the mortgage. It was held that the bill was not bad on demurrer as being based on antagonistic rights, when the averment that the mortgagors had no power to execute the mort- gage was erroneous. Dickerson v. Winslow (Ala.\ U So. Rep. 918. 2 Lloyd V. Brewster, 4 Paige, 537. "It is a well-settled rule that the complainant, if not certain as to the specific relief to which he is enti- tled, may frame his bill in the alter- native, so that if one kind of relief is denied another may be granted, the relief of each kind being consistent with the case made by the bill. Terry V. Resell, 33 Ark. 493; Colton v. Ross, 3 Paige, 396; Lingan v. Hen- derson, 1 Bland, 253; Murphy v. Clark, 1 Sm. & M. 236." Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. (1885), 756 ; Maynard V. Tilden, 28 Fed. Rep. 688, 704. " It is true that under the general prayer no relief can be granted which is distinct from and independent of that specially prayed for, except when the bill is filed in a double aspect. But it is certainly perm issible for a complainant to aver in his bill that either one or the other of two alternative statements is true.'' Fisher v. Moog, 39 Fed. Rep. 665, 668. A bill in chancery is not multifarious simply because it contains a prayer for alternate relief inconsistent with its prayer for specific relief. Korne V. Korne, 30 West Va. 1 ; s. c, 3 S. E. Rep. 17. The Civil Code of Kentucky provides that a party must demand the specific relief he thinks he is en- titled to, but there is no rule which forbids a prayer for specific relief in 142 THE BILL. [§ 115. be the foundation for the same relief. A bill for rescission of a contract cannot be joined with one for specific perform- ance.' If the prayer for relief is in a double alternative and the complainants are entitled to either of the three kinds of relief thus asked for, the defendant cannot demur, but may at the hearing insist that the complainants be confined to such relief only as they may be entitled to under all the cir- cumstances of the case as then presented.' Where the com- plainant prays for particular relief, and for other relief in addition thereto, he can have no relief inconsistent with such particular relief, although it should be founded on the bill.' Where the case made by the bill entitles the complainant to one of two kinds of relief, but not to both, the prayer should be in the disjunctive.^ § 115. Multifariousness generally. — It is a rule in equity that two or more distinct subjects cannot be embraced in the same suit, and the offense against this rule is termed multi- fariousness.' "Multifariousness means the joining together improperly in one bill of complaint distinct and independent matters and thereby confounding them." ° It is almost uni- versally declared that every case must be governed by its own circumstances, and that the question is left to the discretion of the court." Multifariousness may consist of what is more properly termed misjoinder ; that is, where all of the parties the alternative. Peck's Ex'r v. Price with the objection as addressed to (Ky.), 4 S. W. Rep. 306. the sound discretion of the court" 1 Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130. ' Mills v. Hurd, 32 Fed. Rep. 127 ; 2 Western Ins. Co. v. Eagle Fire Singer Mfg. Co. u. Springfield Foun- Ins. Co., 1 Paige, 384. dry Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 393 ; Gaines v. 8 Colton V. Ross (1831), 2 Paige, 396 ; Chew, 2 How. 619 ; Clegg v. Varnell, Wiltshire v. Marfleet, 1 Edw. Ch. 654. 18 Tex. 894 ; De Wolf v. Sprague 4 Colton V. Ross, 2 Paige. 396. Mfg. Co., 49 Conn. 282, 292 ; Butler 5 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 334. v. Spann, 27 Miss. (Cush.) 234 ; United 6 Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. N. J. States v. Courtner, 26 Fed. Rep. 296; Zinc & Iron Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 545, Marshall v. Means, 12 Ga. 61 ; Peo- 548 ; Story's Equity Pleading, § 271 ; pie v. Morrill, 26 Cal. 336 ; Kennebec Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245, &c. R. Co. v. Portland &c. R Co., 52 where it was also said that " recent Me. 173 ; Warren v. Warren, 56 Me. cases seem to show an increasing 368 ; Abbot v. Johnson, 33 N. H. 26 ; tendency to avoid the application of Bartree v. Tompkins, 4 Sneed, 623. strict technical rules to a bill ob- In Foster's Federal Practice (2d ed.). jected to as multifarious, and to deal g 75, the author says : — " The cases § 115.] THE BILL. 143 are concerned in several transactions which form the subject- matter of the suit, but the court will not permit'them to be litigated on one record; but the vice more commonly exists where it is attempted to bring two parties together who have no common interest in the litigation, whereby one party is compelled to join in the expense and trouble of a suit in which he and his co-defendant have no common interest, or in which one party is joined as complainant with another party with whom in like manner he either has no interest at all, or no such interest as requires the defendant to litigate it in the same action.' Courts have been much more tolerant of the first kind of multifariousness than of the second.- show a tendency towards holding that multifariousness depends so much upon the discretion of the courts of first instance that a decis- ion overruling an objection upon that ground would not be reviewed upon appeal (referring to Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619 : Oliver u. Piatt, 3 How. 333 ; Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. ?05; Sheldon v. Keokuk N. L. Packet Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 769 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. 335, n. 3). In no case has the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a decree on account of mul- tifariousness in the bill." 1 United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 353 ; 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 385 ; Newland v. Rogers, 3 Barb. Ch. 432. 2Conover v. Sealy, 45 N. J. Eq. 589, 593, where it is held to be a question of expediency ; Newland v. Rogers, 3 Barb. Ch. 432. In England objec- tions for misjoinder of complainnuts is abolished by 15 and 16 Vic, ch. 86, § 49, but not for misjoinder of sub- jects. So by the code of Tennessee, § 4327, distinct and unconnected matters may be united against one defendant. "An objection to a bill )n equity for multifariousness is well taken when several plaintiffs, by one bill, demand several matters per- fectly distinct and unconnected against one defendant, or when one plaintiff demands several distinct and unconnected matters against several defendants. But where one general right is claimed by the bill, though the defendants have separate and distinct interests, the bill is not mul- tifarious." Mix V. Hotchkiss (1840), 14 Conn. 33, 42. Where several grounds for relief are stated, but all arising out of the same series of transactions and relating to the same subject-matter, and they can be con- veniently settled in one suit, the bill is not multifarious. Eosenstein v. Burns, 41 Fed. Rep. 841. In suits between the proper parties relating to the same subject-matter, several species of relief may be prayed, al- though each might be the subject of a separate suit Durling v. Ham- mar, 20 N. J. Eq. 330. -'The defini- tion of multifariousness given by Lord Cottenham in Campbell %: Mackay, 1 Myl. & Cr. 603, has, I be- lieve, been generally adopted as cor- rect He says it exists when a party is able to say he is brought as a de- fendant upon a record with a large portion of which, and of the case made by vihich, he has no concern whatever, but that it does not exist in a case where it appears that the complainants have common interest, 144 THE BILL. [§ 116. § 116. The same subject continued. — " The objection of multifariousness raises merely a question of convenience in conducting the suit. It does not go to the merits of the com- plainant's case and call upon the court to decide whether the complainant has a case against any of the defendants, but the court in dealing with it is simply called upon to exercise its discretion, and to decide whether both or all the causes of action set forth in the bill should be tried in a single suit, or should be split up and tried in two or more suits ; or whether a defendant who is a necessary party in respect to one or more matters covered by the bill has a sufficient interest in or con- nection with the other matters involved in the suit to make him a proper party in respect to such other matters."' and the defendants are interested in all the diflEerent questions raised in the record, and the suit has a com- mon object" Bolles v. Bolles, 44 N. J. Eq. 385, 387. 1 Bolles V. Bolles, 44 N. J. Eq. 385, 388. " No general rule defining what causes of action may be properly joined and what cannot can be laid down. The question is always one of convenience in conducting a suit, and not a principle, and is addressed to the sound discretion of the court If it appears that the causes of ac- tion or claims are so dissimilar or distinct in their nature that they can- not be heard and determined to- gether, but must be heard piece- meal — first one and then the other — a clear case of fatal misjoinder is presented ; but where a complainant has two good causes of action, each furnishing the foundation of a sepa- rate suit,one the natural outgrowth of the other, or growing out of the same subject-matter, where all the defend- ants have some interest in every question raised on the record, and the suit has a single object, they may be properly joined, and the objection of multifariousness or misjoinder will not be sustained." Ferry v. Lai- ble, 37 N. J. Eq. 146, 150, quoted in Young V. Young, 45 N. J. Eq. 27, 39. To sustain the objection the matters must be of such distinct natures, or the forms of proceeding in relation to such several matters must be so distinct, that it would be improper, or very inconvenient to litigate the same in one suit Newland v. Rogers, 3 Barb. Ch. 432. But the rule as to misjoinder of causes of action is as applicable to the case of a sole de- fendant as to that of several defend- ants. Latting v. Latting, 4 Sandf. Ch. 31. A bill in which several plamtiffs demand several matters perfectly distinct and unconnected against one defendant or in which one plaintiff demands several mat- ters of distinct natures against sev- eral defendants, is multifarious. Marselis v. Morris &c. Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 31 ; Metcalf v. Cady, 3 Allen, 587 ; Mayer v. Denver &c. R Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 197 ; Lewarne v. Mexican Inter- national Imp. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 629 ; Crane v. Fairchild, 14 N. J. Eq. 76 ; Waller v. Tayloi-, 42 Ala. 297. Where the cancellation of a certificate as asUed for is merely auxiliary to the principal relief demanded, viz., the delivery of certain bonds, only one §1L7.J THE BILL. 145 § 117. Multifariousness in matter — Bills held multi- farious. — A bill for the rescission of a contract on the theory that it is void, and for an accounting on the theory that it is valid, is multifarious.' So, also, a bill for an injunction to re- strain waste, and an account for rent due;^ a bill for partition and for the enforcement of a mortgage against the estate ; ' a bill for relief against fraudulent conveyances by plaintiff's debtor and for relief against a cloud cast on plaintiff's title by one of such conveyances ; * a bill by a creditor to set aside his debtor's conveyance to his wife for fraud, to subject the prop- erty, to compel the settlement of a subsequent assignment by the debtor for the benefit of hiscreditors, to remove the trustee thereunder, and to have a receiver substituted ; * a bill which prayed relief against all the executors of an estate and also against one of them individually as a mortgagee, with notice of the trust, of property bought with trust funds belonging to complainants, cestuis que t/rust; ^ a bill blending together a de- mand by the plaintiff as legatee against the defendant as executor with a demand of the plaintiff in his private capacity cause of action is stated. Turner v. Conant. 18 Abb. (N. Y.) N. Cas. 160. It is not indispensable that all the parties should have an interest in all the matters contained in the suit; it is sufficient if each party has an in- terest in some matters in the suit, and that they are connected with the others. Even if one is a necessary party to some portion only of the case, the bill is not therefore neces- sarily multifarious. Lenz v. Pres- cott, 144 Mass. 505, 513; Brown v. Guarantee Safe &c. Co., 128 U. S. 403, 412 ; Woolley v. Pemberton, 41 N. J. Eq. 394, 398 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 9 R I. 397 ; Judson v. Toulmin, 9 Ala. 662. In Carroll v. Roosevelt, 4 Edw. Ch. 21 1, it is said the question is controlled by considerations of convenience and expediency. A bill is not multifari- ous when its allegations all relate to one transaction between the same parties, to one and the same subject- 10 matter and the same injury, although it may pray for two different modes of relief against that injury. Wells V. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 30 Conn. 316. See, also, Chaffin v. Hull, 39 Fed. Rep. 887. 1 St Louis &c. R. Co. V. Terre Haute &c. R Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 440, quoting from Shields v. Barrows, 17 How. 130. Though a bill asking for a spe- cific performance of a contract to convey lands, and for their partition, may be bad for multifariousness, yet, where defendants do not raise the question, and all the parties are be- fore the court, the relief sought will be granted. Brown v. Grandin (N. J.), 13 Atl. Rep. 266. 2 Reed v. Reed, 16 N. J. Eq. 248. 3 Belt V. Bowie, 65 Md. 350. < Robinson v. Springfield Co., 21 Fla. 203. 5 Seals V. Pheiffer, 77 Ala. 278. 8 Cocks V. Varney, 43 N. J. Eq. 514. 146 THE BILL. [§ 118. against the defendant in his individual character; ' a bill seek- ing to enjoin and to recover .damages for infringing a patent, and also to enjoin and to recover damages for the publication of slanderous circulars concerning the patent.* § 118. The same subject continued — Bills held not mul- tifarious. — The following are instances of bills held not to be multifarious: — For the perpetuation of testimony in regard to a title and the removal of a cloud thereon ; ' for the vaca- tion of deeds which were made by decedent, but not properly delivered, and for the partition of his land ; * a bill for ac- counting between partners relating to the transactions of two separate firms, of which the parties were the only members;* 1 Davoue v. Fanning, 4 Johns. Ch. 199. A demand against the de- fendant as administrator cannot be joined in the same suit with one against him individually and person- ally. Latting v. Latting, 4 Sandf. Ch. 31. Where the complainant as next of kin calls upon the defendant who is the personal representative of the intestate to answer in that ca- pacity, and as an heir at law calls upon the defendant to account for the rents and profits, the bill is mul- tifarious. Van Mater v. Sickler, 9 N. J. Eq. 483. Upon a bill by the holder of a debt secured by deed of trust, to set aside a release negli- gently executed bythe trustee to the grantor, the plaintiff cannot have a decree for the payment of his debt by the trustee personally. Williams V. Jackson, 107 U. S. 478. 2 Fougeres v. Murbarger, 44 Fed. Rep. 392. Plaintiffs, who claimed to be purchasers at an auction sale of lots held in trust by a city for the benefit of schools, filed a bill seek- ing to restrain a resale as interfer- ing with their rights. It was held that an allegation added, as a short supplement, to the complaint, after the prayer for relief, to the effect that the plaintiffs are citizens and tax-payers of the school district to be benefited bythe sale, and that the sale as newly advertised is without warrant of law, and will be a great injury to the school district, cannot be considered, as the public and pri- vate controversy have no relation to each other, and should not be properly joined. City of Fort Smith V. Brogan, 49 Ark. 306; s. c. 5 S. W. Rep. 387. For other illustrations of bills pronounced multifarious see Lewarne v. Mexican International Imp. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 639 ; Mobile Sav. Bank v. Burke (Ala,), 10 So. Rep. 338; Price v. Coleman, 21 Fed. Rep. 357 ; Harlan v. Person (Ala.), 9 So. Rep. 379 ; West v. Randall, 2 Mason, 181 ; American R, & C. Co. v. Linn (Ala.), 7 So. Rep. 191 ; East v. East, 80 Ala. 199; McDonnell r. Eaton, 18 Fed. Rep. 710; Shaffer v. Fetty. 30 West Va 248 : & c, 4 S. R Rep. 278 Chapin v. Sears, 18 Fed. Rep. 814 Griffith V. Segar, 29 Fed. Rep. 707 Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed Rep. 702 Shickle v. South St Louis Foundry Co., 22 Fed. Rep. 105. 3 Cleland v. Casgrain (Mich.), 52 N. W. Rep. 460. * Vreeland v. Vreeland (N. J. Err & App.), 24 Atl. Rep. 551. ' Lewis V. Loper, 47 Fed. Rep. 259. § 118.] THE BILL. 14:7 for subjecting land attached, and also to remove the lien of a judgment charged to be fraudulent as against the attach- ment ; ' to obtain the construction of a will and to recover property held by several persons by titles under it ; ^ to estab- lish a resulting trust, and for partition, where the partition is decreed incidentally, to afford complete relief and avoid mul- tiplicity of suits ; ' for partition of lands among the heirs, and incidentally thereto an allotment of dower, and sale of enough land to pay taxes due, and an adjustment and equalization of advancements;* for partition and account by the same bill;* a bill setting up an equitable title to the land in the widow, and praying that if that claim shall fail that dower may be assigned;' a bill filed by an execution creditor seeking to set aside fraudulent conveyances, and at the same time to reach other property of the debtor which is not the subject of exe- cution at law and respecting which a discovery is prayed ; ' a bill to wind up a partnership and for partition of real estate;' a bill praying for an injunction to restrain the use of an er- roneous appraisal of damages for land taken by eminent do- main, as a defense to an action for the actual value, and also for an order directing a new appraisal;' a bill for specific performance of a contract to convey land, with a prayer for ' Stewart v. Stewart, 37 West Va, foreclosure of the judgment lien 167. and for possession, making the mort- 2 Withers v. Sims, 80 Va. 651. gagors and the trust mortgagee de- » Appeal of 'Hays, 123 Pa. St 110; fendants. It was held that the bill S. a, 16 Atl. Rep. 600. was not multifarious. De Wolf v. * Marshall v. Marshall, 86 Ala. 383 ; Sprague Mfg. Co., 49 Conn. 282. The s. c, 5 So. Rep. 475. Connecticut Practice Act of 1879 au- •Obert V. Obert, 10 N. J. Eq. 98. thorizes the making of any person a 'Rockwell V. Morgan, 13 N. J. Eq. defendant who claims an interest ad- 384. verse to the plaintiff or whom it is "Randolph v. Daly, 16 N. J. Eq. necessary to bring in for a complete 314. determination of any matters in- 8 Held not fatal on appeal. Briges volved in tlie suit But it is doubt- V. Sperry, 95 U. S. 401. The plaintiff ful if that controlled the decision held a judgment lien upon certain (though it certainly fortified it), for real estate of which a trust mortgage the court and counsel made a thor- had been made which if valid had ough citation and analysis of cases, priority, and brought a suit for the English and American, selting aside or postponing of the 9 Wells v. Bridgeport Hydraulic mortgage as void against hira, for a Co., 30 Conn. 31& 148 THE BILL. [§ 119- alternative relief by repayment of money expended in improv- ing it.' § 119. Multifariousness by misjoinder of complainants. Complainants are not misjoined vrhen they have a common in- terest in the attainable object of a suit, and their interests, though perhaps not co-extensive, are not inconsistent or con- > Young V. Young, 45 N. J. Eq. 28. "Where a bill in chancery, after stat- ing the case, prayed for relief by a decree of redemption or specific per- formance, as the court upon the facts should deem proper, after a hearing upon the merits it was held that the bill was not objectionable as embrac- ing distinct subjects. Avery v. Kel- logg, 11 Conn. 562. A count for in- f ringem en t of a patent and a count for interference under United States Re- vised Statutes (§ 4918) may be joined in the same bill. American Roll Paper Co. V. Knapp, 44 Fed. Rep. 609. A bill is not multifarious which assails two patents issued to the same party and which relate to the same subject, and both of which are held by the same defendant, the latter patent being for an improvement upon the earlier one. United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315. A bill by a cestui que trust against the trustee and his grantee with notice, praying that complainant's title to one-half of the property in question may be decreed and established, and also that it may be partitioned, and one-half set off to her by metes and bounds, is not mul- tifarious. Durling v. Ham mar, 20 N. J. Eq. 220. For further instances of bills sustained against the objec- tion of multifarious of matters, see Brown v. Guarantee, Trust &c. Co., 128 U. S. 403; Grant u Phoenix Mut L. Ins. Co., 121 U. S. 105; Keys v. Matliis, 38 Kan. 213 ; s. C, 16 Pac. Rep. 436; Chaffin v. Hull, 39 Fed. Rep. 887; Yates v. Law, 86 Va. 117; s. c, 9 S. E. Rep. 508 ; Jones v. Van Doren, 130 U. S. 684; Gillespie v. Moon, 2 Johns. Ch. 585; Eosenstein V. Burns, 41 Fed. Rep. 841 ; Equitable Life Ass. Soo. v. Patterson, 1 Fed. Rep. 126 ; Standart v. Burtin, 46 Hun, 82 ; Hebert v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 12 Fed. Rep. 807 ; Dickerson v. Winslow (Ala.), 11 So. Rep. 918; Brugger v. State Investment Ins. Co., 5 Saw. 304; Mann v. Higgins, 83 CaL 66; S. c, 23 Pac. Rep. 206; Fitch c. Creighton, 34 How. 159 ; Yellow Pine Lumber Co. v. Carroll, 76 Tex. 135 ; S. C, 13 S. W. Rep. 361 ; Pacific R. R Co. V. Atlantic &c. R. Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 277 ; Brown v. Buckner, 86 Va. 612 ; s. c, 10 S. E. Rep. 882 ; Crumhsh V. Shenandoah Valley R. Co., 28 West Va. 623 ; Handley v. Heflin, 84 Ala. 600 ; s. C, 4 So. Rep. 725 ; United States V. Pratt Coal & Coke Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 708 ; Chamberlin v. Jones, 114 Ind. 458 ; S. C, 16 N. R Rep. 178 ; Recke- fus V. Lyon, 69 Md. 589 ; s. c, 16 Atl. Rep. 530; National Bank v. Texas Investment Co., 74 Tex. 421 ; s. a, 12 S. W. Rep. 101 ; Tipton v. Wortham (Ala.), 9 So. Rep. 596 ; Thomas v. Sell- man (Va.), 13 S. E. Rep. 146; Pitts- field Nat Bank v. Taller, 14 N. Y. Supl. 557 ; Poole v. Winton, 16 N. Y. Supl. 308; Mills v. Hurd, 32 Fed. Rep. 127; Williams v. Wheaton, 86 Ga. 223 ; S. a, 13 S. E. Rep. 634 ; Dyer v. Cranston Print Works Co. (R L), 24 Atl. Rep. 837 ; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 485; Waters v. Hubbard, 44 Conn. 340 ; Mix v. Hotchkiss, 14 Conn. 33 ; Conover v. Sealy, 45 N. J. Eq. 589. § 120.] THE BILL. 149 flicting, and are supported by the same equity against the defendant, and his defense against one of them is his defense against the other.' Where several plaintiffs proceed upon identical titles to correct an identical wrong by the same wrong-doers with reference to the same subject-matter, the bill is not multifarious for misjoinder of complainants.''' A bill for the recovery of a subject under a common title, although complainants claim in aliquot parts, against persons for with- holding and ■ diverting that subject who are jointly and sev- erally liable therefor, is not multifarious.' The fact that two separate decrees may be necessary in order to give full relief does not necessarily make a case of misjoinder.* If two com- plainants should unite a joint demand against the same de- fendant, the bill would be demurrable for multifariousness.' Complainants with distinct causes of action alleging distinct injuries cannot unite in the same bill. To authorize them to join as complainants their cause of action must be the same, the injury the same, and they must be entitled to the same remedy.' Two alternative claims, each belonging to many persons, one of whom has no interest in one claim and others of whom have no interest in the other claim, cannot be joined in one bill in equity.' § 120. The same subject continued — Illustrations. — "Where there was a general submission to arbitration by sev- eral insurance companies of a question of damages, and a single award was made, it was held that a bill brought by all the companies as parties plaintiff, against the other party to the award, to set it aside, was not multifarious.* A bill by devisees against the executor and a co-devisee to set aside a 1 Herbert v. Herbert, 47 N. J. Eq. Co., 10 N. J. Eq. 256, 261. See, also, 13; Buckeridge u Glasse, Cr. & Phill. Walker v. Powers, 104 TJ. S. 245; 136 ; Fierry v. Emmert, 36 Md. 464. Doggett v. Railroad Co., 99 17. S. 73 ; 2 Langdon v. Branch, 37 Fed. Rep. Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 449. § 279 ; Bridger v. Thrasher, 22 Fla. 3 Shields v. Thomas, 18 How. (1856), 388; Keyes v. Mathes, 88 Kan. 213; 353. Jeffers v. Forbes, 28 Kan. 174 4 Neal c. Eathell. 70 Md. 593; s. C, 'Stebbins v. St. Anne, 116 U. S. 17 Atl. Rep. 566. 386. 6 Harrison v. Hogg, 3 Ves. Jr. 333, s Hartford F. Ina Ca v. Bonner 338. Mercantile Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 151. 6 Plum V. Morris Canal & Banking 150 THB BILL. [§ 121. deed from the executor to his co-defendant, and for an ac- counting, is not multifarious, all the complainants having a common interest.' A bill by abutting land-owners to enjoin a traction company from operating a railway track on a cer- tain street is not multifarious, where the rights under which all the plaintiffs claim are the same, and the acts complained of affect them all alike.^ " It is well settled that a bill by several to compel the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate, in which the complainants hold distinct rights, cannot be sustained." ' Persons who have been sep- arately indicted for sales of liquor in original packages cannot unite in a bill to enjoin further prosecution, although they are respectively the agent and sub-agent of the same importer.* § 131. Multifariousness by misjoinder of defendants. — A bill which joins different claims against different defend- ants is multifarious.' A claim against two or more defend- ants cannot be properly united in the same bill with a separate claim against one only. Nor can distinct claims against two or more defendants, upon individual accounts, be thus joined.' In such case either or all of the defendants may demur.' " In order to determine whether a suit is multifarious, or, in other ' BoUes V. BoUes (N. J.), 14 Atl. Eep. Ch. 366 ; Summeilin v. Fronterizac 593. &c. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 249. Injimc- ^Eaffevty v. Central Traction Co. tion against unconstitutional tax. (Pa.), 23 Atl. Rep. 884 See, also. Cutting v. Gilbert, 5 Blatchf. 259. Parker v. Nightingale, 6 Allen, 341 ; « Keith v. Keith, 143 Mass. 262 ; Flint V. Russell, 5 Dill. 151. Cf. Hud- Einans v. Wortman, 13 N. J. Eq. 205 ; son V. Maddison, 12 Sim. 416. For Sanborn v. Dwinnell, 135 Mass. 236; other cases of proper joinder of com- Stephens v. Whitehead, 75 Ga. 294. plainants, see Allen v. Fairbanks, 45 6 Brewer v. Norcross, 17 N. J. Eq. Fed. Rep. 445 ; Shields v. Thomas, 18 219, 225. How. 253. Joinder in bills of peace, ' Emans v. Wortman, 13 N. J. Eq. see Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352 ; 205 ; Boyd v. Hoyt, 5 Paige, 65 ; Swift Osborne v. Wisconsin Cent. R Co., 43 v. Eckford, 6 Paige, 22. Although Fed. Rep. 824 ; Smith v. Earl Brown- the Mississippi statute permits dis- low, L. R. 9 Eq. 241 ; Rudge v. Hop- tinct matters against the same de- kins, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 170. fendants to be united in one bill in ' Marselis v. Morris &c. Co., 1 N. J. equity, distinct and unconnected Eq. 31, 39. equities against disconnected defend- ■• Woolstein v. Welch, 42 Fed. Rep. ants may not be united in one bill. 566. For other cases, see Ward v. Columbus Ins. &c. Co. v. Humphries, Sittingbourne Ry. Co., L. R 9 Ch. 64 Miss. 258. 488; Blackett v. Lainbeer, 1 Sandf. § 122.] THE BILL. 151 words, contains distinct matters, the inquiry is not . . . whether each defendant is connected with every branch of the cause, but whether the plaintiff's bill seeks relief in respect of matters which are in their nature separate and distinct. If the object of the suit be single, but it happens that different persons have separate interests in distinct questions which arise out of that single object, it necessarily follows that such different persons must be brought before the court in order that the suit may conclude the whole object." ■ The com- plainant may join in the same bill two good causes of complaint arising out of the same transactions where all the defendants are interested in the same claim of right and where the relief asked for as to each is of the same nature.^ Where the same relief is asked against several defendants and all based upon the same transactions, and unless they can be joined in one bill a multiplicity of suits, all growing out of the same trans- action, would have to be brought, the bill will not be held bad for multifariousness.' § 122. The same subject continued — Bills held multifa- rious. — A bill to enforce specific performance by one defend- ant cannot join another defendant against whom a partner- ship settlement is sought.* A bill for an accounting against a treasurer and a collector of a county is multifarious, the causes of action against the two officers being distinct;' and a bill which prayed relief against all the executors of an es- tate and also against one of them individually as a mortgagee, 1 Per Sir John Leach in Salvidge braces distinct matters which do not V. Hyde, 5 Maddock, 138, 146 ; Turner afiect all the defendants alike. Payne V. Robinson, 1 Sim. & S. 313 ; At- v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425. A bill for a torney-General v. Corporation of foreclosure and other equitable relief Poole, 4 M. & Cr. 17, 81 ; Bernes v. incidental thereto is not multifari- Frick, 38 N. J. Eq. 89, note, citing ous because the interests of the re- cases ; Brown v. Guarantee Trust &c. spondents are in separate portions Co., 138 U. S. 404, 412; Heggie v. of the property mortgaged, nor be- Hill, 95 N. C. 303 ; Sims v. Adams, 78 cause some relief (removal of cloud Ala. 395 ; Smith v. Scribner, 59 Vt 96 ; on title) is asked for which does not s. C, 7 Atl. Rep. 711. affect them all. Middletown Savings 2 Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 137. Bank v. Baoharach, 46 Conn. 513. 3 "Western L. & E. Co. v. Guinault, * Bayzor v. Adams, 80 Ala, 239. 37 Fed. Rep. 523. A bill cannot be » Sumter County v. Mitchell, 85 said to be multifarious unless it em- Ala. 313 ; s. c, 4 So. Rep. 705. 152 THE BILL. [§ 122. with notice of the trust, of property bought with the money of the estate for some of the cestuis under the will ; * and a bill brought by an assignee of an insolvent debtor against several defendants to set aside mortgages of real estate exe- cuted to each of them separately on the same day by the in- solvent debtor, in violation of the insolvent laws ; also other mortgages of other real estate executed by him to a portion of the defendants separately on another day.^ And a bill to restrain a town and its sergeant from collecting from com- plainants' employer the amount of a road tax, which it was alleged the sergeant had threatened to do, though not author- ized by any town ordinance or general law, and to restrain the employer from pa5'ing the tax and deducting the amount from complainants' wages, is multifarious.' A bill in chan- cery charging two separate trustees for the plaintiff, each of a separate fund, with violations of their respective trusts at different times, but in pursuance of a joint fraudulent com- bination to defraud the plaintiff, is bad for multifariousness, if the fraud and combination be not found.* A bill to reform a deed which complainant had supposed conveyed her the fee, but which in reality only gave her a life-estate, and also to set aside a trust-deed on the same land which she had exe- cuted for the purpose of making a settlement on her husband and children, but without understanding its effect, is bad for multifariousness, as the trustee has no concern with the ref- ormation of the first deed.* 1 Cocks V. Varney, 42 N. J. Eq. 514. cutting timber on the land. It was 2Metcalf V. Cady. 3 Allen, 587. held multifarious. Washington City 3 Buffalo V. Town of Pocahontas, Sav. Bank v. Thornton. 83 Va. 157 ; 85 Va 222; s. c, 7 S. E. Rep. 238. s. c, 2 S. E. Rep. 193. * Coe u Turner, 5 Conn. 37. A bill ' Van Houten w Van Winkle (N. J. ), demanded fourfold relief, to wit: 20 Atl. Rep. 34. For other cases of First, a personal decree against de- multifariousness for misjoinder of fendant T. as indorser of notes se- defendants, see Sadler v. Whitehurst, cured by a deed of trust ; second, a, 83 Va. 46 ; s. C, 1 S. Rep. 410 ; Cam- like decree against the same defend- bridge Water-works v. Somerville ant for damages for breach of war- Dyeing Co., 14 Gray, 193 ; Wood v, ranty in said deed; third, to quiet Dummer, 3 Mason, 308; Barre Na- the title to a certain portion of the tional Bank v. Hingham Mfg. Co., land as to other defendants, and to 127 Mass. 563; West v. Randall, 2 have the land in dispute sold ; fourth. Mason, 181, 200 : Pops v. Leonard, 115 to restrain certain defendants from Mass. 286; Mendenhall v. Hall. 134 § 123.] THE BILL. 153 § 123. The same subject continued — Bills not multifa- rious. — A bill filed by an assignee in bankruptcy against sev- eral defendants to set aside various conveyances of property alleged to have been made in favor of creditors is not multi- fariousness;' nor a creditor's bill to set aside an alleged fraud- ulent conveyance, joining as defendants the various owners of separate portions of the land ; ^ nor a bill of peace by the owner of a continuous property under a single title against several defendants who claim title thereto though from different sources ; ' nor a bill against the executors of an estate under a revoked will fraudulently probated, and all those who pur- chased from them with notice ; * nor a bill that seeks to estab- lish the lien of an equitable mortgage on lands, against the mortgagor, his grantee, and a mortgagee of the latter with notice of the lien ; ' nor a bill by one partner against an as- signee of another to whom the latter has privately assigned the effects, asking to set aside the assignment and to wind up the concern and take the accounts ; * nor a bill that asks a specific performance against one defendant, and to enjoin a suit for unlawful detainer, brought by other defendants, claiming under title from the former defendant ; ' nor a bill by stock- holders of a corporation, seeking the cancellation of two deeds of trust executed by the corporation conveying its property for want of authority to execute them, some of the bonds secured by each deed being owned by one of the defendants ; ' U. S. 559, 568 ; Patterson v. Kellogg, Commonwealth v. Drake, 81 Va. 305 ; 53 Conn. 38 ; Haines v. Carpenter, 1 Randolph v. Daly, 16 N. J. Eq. 313 ; Woods, 263; Wlnsor v. Bailey, 55 Rinehart v. Long, 95 Mo. 396. See, N. H. 218 ; Copen v. Flesher, 1 Bond, also. Field v. Holzman, 93 Ind. 205 ; 440 ; White v. Curtis, 2 Gray, 467 ; Bobb v. Bobb, 8 Mo. App. 257 ; Im- Brian v. Thomas, 63 Md. 476 ; Cous- porters' & Traders' Bank v. Littell, 41 ens V. Rose, L. R. 13 Eq. 866 ; Kings- N. J. Eq. 29. bury V. Flowers, 65 Ala. 479 ; Simpson ' Hyman v. Wheeler, 33 Fed. Bep. V. Wallace, 88 N. C. 477 ; Hayes' 639. See, also. United States v. Curt- Appeal, 123 Pa. St 110; Story's ner, 36 Fed. Rep. 396, 398. Equity Pleading (10th ed.) § 271, n. a. ^ Gaines v. Chew, 3 How. 619. 1 Jones V. Slausson, 33 Fed. Rep. * Oliva v. Bunaforza, 31 N. J. Eq. 683. See, also, Potts v. Hahn, 83 395. Fed. Rep. 660 ; McLean v. Lafayette ' Hayes v. Heyer, 4 Sandf. 485. Bank, 3 McLean, 415; Dodge v. 'Shafer v. O'Brien, 31 West Va, Briggs, 37 Fed. Rep. 160; Gaines v. 601 ; s. G, 8 S. E. Rep. 393. Mausseaux, 1 Woods, 118. ^Hardie v. Bulger, 66 Miss. 577 ; 2 Russell V. Garrett. 75 Ala. 348 : S. C, 6 S. Rep. 186. 154 THE BILL. [§ 124. nor a bill for the payment by a corporation of a dividend from money in its hands, and for the recovery from the treas- urer of money misappropriated, and the application of that money to a dividend ; ' nor a bill filed by heirs to settle an es- tate and making an administrator de ionis non, and the ad- ministrators of a previous administrator de bonis non, and the owner of the only indebtedness existing against the estate, which indebtedness is assailed as invalid, parties ; * nor a bill by the surety of a defaulting collector, joining as defendants the principal, the co-sureties, and the purchasers from them with notice of the lien created by the bond.' Where there were two mercantile firms and some of the members common to both, a creditor's bill was not multifarious when filed against the personal representatives of two of the deceased partners of the two firms, and also against the surviving part- ner of one of the firms.* So where the United States brought one suit against several parties having several interests in lands the patents to which the United States sought to va- cate." § 124. Multifariousness of bills by and against officers and stockholders. — A claim against the directors of a corpo- ration, under a statute, on the ground that its debts exceed ' Dunphy v. Travelers' Newspaper v. Goepper, 147 Mass. 309 ; S. C, 17 N. Ass'n, 146 Mass. 495 ; S. C, 16 N. E. E. Rep. 831 ; Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. Rep. 426. Brooks, 66 Miss. 583 ; S. C, 6 So. Rep. 2 Deans v. Wilcoxen, 25 Fla. 980 ; 467 ; Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Bonner s. c, 7 So. Rep. 163. Mercantile Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 152 ; 'Schussler v. Dudley, 80 Ala. 547 ; Union Pac. R Co. v. McShane, 3 DilL S. C, 2 So. Rep. 526. 303 ; Conover v. Sealey, 45 N. J. Eq. * Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127. 589 ; S. C, 19 Atl. Rep. 616 ; Manners v. 'United States v. Curtner, 26 Fed. Rowley, 10 Sim. 470; Barry v. Barry, Rep. 296. See generally for cases 64 Miss. 709 ; S. C, 3 So. Rep. 532 ; where bills have been sustained, Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley, 105 First Nat. Bank v. Moore, 48 Fed. U. S. 175; Mahler v. Schmidt, 43 Rep. 799 ; Williams v. Wheaton, 86 Hun, 512 ; Miller v. Harris, 7 Baxt Ga. 223 ; S. C, 12 S. E. Rep. 634 ; Con- ^Tenn.) 101 ; Larkins v. Biddle, 21 verse v. Michigan Dairy Co.. 45 Fed. Ala. 252; Hale v. Nashua &c. R. Co., Rep. 18 ; Grant ■;;. Phoenix Life Ins. 60 N. H. 533 ; Lockwood Co. v. Law ■ Co., 121 U. S. 105; Northern Pac. R renoe,77 Me. 297; Almond u Wilson, '"■o. V. Walker, 47 Fed. Rep. 681 ; Lind- 75 Va. 613 ; Chipman v. Palmer, 77 ley r. Russell. 16 Mo. App. 217 ;Poppen- N. Y. 56; Blaisdell v. Stephens, 14 husen v. Falke, 4 Blatchf. 493 ; Jaynes Nev. 17. § 125. J THE BILL. 155 its capital stock, cannot be joined with a claim against its stockholders on the ground that the capital stock was not dulj'^ paid in and certified.' But a bill in equity to enforce a stat- utory liability of the ofiicers of a corporation is not multi- farious because it contains three distinct grounds of liability, if all the defendants are under the same liability and have a common interest.^ Where a bill was brought against the president and directors of an insolvent bank for gross official misconduct and negligence, it was held to be no ground of demurrer for multifariousness that some of the defendants had been directors longer than others, because the court could discriminate between them, and hold those elected recently only liable for losses incurred during their term of office.' A bill by a stockholder against a corporation which joins a claim for restitution of property to the corporation with a claim for a payment of a dividend is not multifarious.* § 125. Two or more good grounds of suit required. — To support the objection of multifariousness because the bill con- tains different causes of suit against the same person, two things must concur : First, the grounds of suit must be dif- ferent; second, each ground must be sufficient as stated to sustain a bill.* "To render the bill multifarious it must con- tain two or more good grounds of suit, which cannot properlv be joined in the same bill, against the defendant or different defendants. For, if a good cause of complaint is joined in the bill with other allegations which could not entitle the complainant to file a bill against the defendants or either of them, such allegations are simply impertinent or afford grounds of demurrer to that part of the bill for want of equity."^ "A bill is not multifarious when it sets up one sufficient ground for equitable relief, and sets up another 1 Cambridge Water-works v. Som- Albans Iron Works, 50 Vt. 477 • erville Dyeing & Bleaching Co., 14 Sturgeon v. Furrall, 1 HI. App. 537. Gray, 193; Pope v. Leonard, 115 < Dunphj v. Traveller Newspaper Mass. 386. Ass'n, 146 Mass. 495. '^Pope V. Salamanca Oil Co., 115 'Brown v. Guarantee Trust &c. Mass. 286. Co., 138 U. S. 408, 413. 'Ackerman v. Halsey (1888), 87 sPer Chancellor Walworth in N. J. Rq. 356. See, also, Lewis v. St Many v. Beekman Iron Co., 9 Paige, 188, 194. 156 THE BILL. [§ 126. claim, which, upon its face, contains no equity which can en- title the complainant to the interposition of the court, either for discovery or relief." ' Thus a bill brought by a widow to redeem from a mortgage executed by her husband, in which she joined to release dower, is not multifarious though it prays that dower be assigned her, the court having no authority to assign dower.^ So where a bill states a case rendering an ac counting proper, there is no misjoinder of causes of action because a transaction is embraced in the statement concern- ing which, if it stood alone, a sufficient legal remedy would exist.' § 126. Objection for multifariousness, how taken. — If a bill is obviously defective for multifariousness, the objection should be taken by demurrer.* " Multifariousness as to sub- iVarick V. Smith. 5 Paige, 160, quoted and approved in Durling v. Hammar, 20 N. J. Eq. 220, 228. See, also. Patten Paper Co. v. Kaukauna Power Co., 70 Wis. 659 ; S. C, 35 N. W. Rep. 737 ; Pleasant v. Glasscock, 1 Sm. & M. Ch. 17; Richards v. Pierce, 52 Me. 562. 2 McCabe v. Bellows, 1 Allen, 269. To be multifariousness it must con- tain more than one good distinct and severable ground for the mainte- nance of a suit Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. V. N. J. Zinc & Iron Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 545, 548. SRippe V. Stogdill, 61 Wis. 38. * Snowden v. Tyler, 21 Neb. 199 ; 31 N. W. Rep. 661 ; Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127. "A plea that a bill is multifarious,'' said Vice-chancellor Shadwell, in Benson v. Hadfield, 4 Hare Ch. 32, "is a defense I have never seen, though I know such a plea has. whether successful or not, been attempted." Concerning the propriety of taking the objection early in the cause, he continued : — "The objection of multifariousness is one which should be taken in limine. It is obvious that if it be not so taken, the mischief is generally in- curred before the defendant can ob- tain any benefit from the objection. The defendant may be subjected to the expense of taking copies of papers relating to matters with which he has no concern and be kept before the court on the dis- cussion of points in which he is not interested. If the defendant does not ■take the objection in limine, the court, considering the mischief as already incurred, does not, except in special cases, allow it to prevail at the hear- ing. All that the court can do in this case is to protect the defendant from the costs incurred if it shall hereafter appear he has been im- properly subjected to costs." The case was one where the defect of multifariousness was removed by amendment, but the defendant in- sisted that the evidence showed that complainant's case was really multi- farious. That the objection should be taken by demurrer if apparent, see, also. Grove v. Fresh, 9 Gill & J. 281 ; Avery v. Kellogg, 11 Conn. 562 : Moreau v. SaflFarans, 8 Sneed (Tenn.), 595 ; Bell v. Woodward, 42 N. H. 181. §§ 137, 128.] THE BILL. 157 jects or parties within the jurisdiction of a court of equity cannot be taken advantage of by a defendant except by de- murrer, plea or answer to the bill, although the court in its discretion may take the objection at the hearing or on appeal, and order the bill to be amended or dismissed.' A fortiori it does not render a decree void so that it can be treated as a nullity in a collateral action." "^ % 127. Objection by whom taken. — As a general rule an objection for multifariousness cannot be made by a defendant who is not affected by it.' The joinder of a defendant against whom no valid claim is made and no relief can be sought will not sustain a demurrer for multifariousness by another defend- ant.* If no decree can be made against one defendant, a co- defendant cannot raise the objection of multifariousness.' Where a joint claim against two defendants is united in the same bill with a separate claim against one of them only, either or both of the defendants may demur for multifariousness.' §128. Demurrer for multifarionsness. — To sustain a demurrer to a bill for multifariousness against several defend- ants, it is not necessary that the defendant demurring should so far answer the bill as to deny the ordinary general charge 189. By statute in Tennessee the entoausesof complaint which destroy objection must be made by demurrer each other and seeks different reliefs or by motion to dismis'i. Gibson's inconsistent with each other is mul- Suits in Chancery, § 292. tifarious ; and although no advantage ' Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 412; be taken of the defect by the plead- Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127, 132. See, ine;s. the court may dismiss the bill, also. Greenwoods v. Churchill, 1 M. and will do it where the form of the & K. 559: Labadie v. Hewitt, 85 111. bill embarrasses the court in the ad- 341 ; Davoue v. Fanning, 4 Johns, ministrat on of justice. Swayze v. Ch. 199 ; Bissell v. Beckwith, 38 Swayze, 9 N. J. Eq. 273. Conn. 357; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 IT. S. ^Hefifner v. Northwestern Mut L. 340; Annin v. Annin, 24 N. J. Eq Ins. Co.. 123 U. S. 747. 184 • Rockwell v. M. i;;an, 13 N. J. Eq. 3 See Dykers v. Wilder, 3 Edw. Ch. 384; Sanborn v. Adair, 27 N. J. Eq. 496, 497 425; Matthewson v. Johnson, Hoff. 't Varick i'. Smith. 5 Paige, 137. Ch. 560 ; Ohio v. Ellis, 10 Ohio, 456 ; 5 Norton v. "Woods, 5 Paige, 249, Davies v. Quarterman, 4 Y. & Coll. 256. 257 ; Abbott v. Johnson, 32 N. H. 9 : « Emans v. "Wortman, 13 N. J. Eq. Cousens v. Rose, L. R. 12 Eq. 366. A 205. b 11 wh'ch sets up distinct and differ- 158 THB BILL. [§ 129. of combination.' A bill will not be dismissed for multifar riousness after the pleadings and proofs are in, unless it be of such a character as to embarrass the court in making a decree in the case binding upon the parties, and which cannot be carried into execution consistently with the rules and practice of the court.^ Where a bill is obviously defective for multi- fariousness, if the defendant neglects to demur and answer on the merits and the bill is dismissed for multifariousness on the hearing, it may deprive the defendant of costs.' A de- murrer for multifariousness, like a demurrer for a misjoinder at law, goes to the whole bill; and if the demurrer is allowed, the bill will be dismissed as to the parties who demur.* A general demurrer on the ground of multifariousness, which is not sustained as to the only part which makes it multifarious, will be overruled.' § 129. Summary statement of the doctrine of multifari- ousness. — A learned author has recently summed up the rule of multifariousness as follows: — "To make a bill demur- rable for multifariousness it must contain all of the following characteristics: 1. It must join two or more causes of action against two or more defendants. 2. These two or more causes of action must have no connection or common origin, but must be separate and independent. 3. The evidence pertinent to one or more of the causes must be wholly impertinent as to the other or others, i. One or more of these separate and independent causes of action must be capable of being fully determined, without any necessity of bringing in the other cause or causes in order to adjust anj' of the legal or equi- 1 Emans v, Wortman, 13 N. J. Eq. and before answer. Whitney v. 305, 207. Union Ry. Co., 11 Gray, 359. 2 Hays V. Doane, 11 N. J. Eq. 84 ; * Boyd v. Hoyt, 5 Paige, 65 : White TuUar v. Baxter, 59 Vt 467 ; s. C, 8 v. White, 5 Gill, 359 ; Mcintosh v. Atl. Rep. 493 ; Wade v. Pulcifer, 54 Alexander, 16 Ala. 87 ; Gibbs v. Cla- Vt 45. gett, 2 Gill & J. (Md.) 14. But the 3 Harrison u. Righter, 11 N. J. Eq. defendant is always permitted to 389. The objection of multifarious- amend upon terms, unless there are ness to a bill which sets forth two other fatal defects in the bill, distinct and independent grounds of Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245 : complaint is obviated by the removal Price v. Coleman, 21 Fed. Rep. 357. of one of these grounds by the de- » Brownlee v. Lockwood, 20 N. J. fendant after the filing of the bill Eq. 339. § 130.] THE BILL. 159 table rights of the parties. 5. The decree proper, as to one or more of these separate and independent causes of action, must be exclusively against one or more of the defendants, and the decree proper as to the other cause or causes must be exclu- sively against the other defendant or defendants. 6. The relief proper against one or more of the defendants, on one or more of these separate and independent causes of action, must be distinct from the relief proper against the other defendant or defendants on the other cause or causes of action. 7. The satisfaction of the proper decree by any of the defendants, to the extent of his alleged liability, on any one or more of said distinct causes of action, must not be a satisfaction of the proper decree against the other defendant or defendants on the other cause or causes of action. 8. Upon the considera- tion of the entire bill the multifariousness must be apparent, and the misjoinder of distinct causes of action manifest." ' § 130. Bills of discovery. — By reason of the statutes which enable a party to a suit at lavF to compel his adversary to testify, the jurisdiction of equity in respect of pure bills of discovery has become practically inoperative and obsolete,' and whether it has ceased to exist and can no longer be in- voked is a question on which there is some conflict of judicial opinion. It was held in Michigan that bills of discovery could no longer be maintained in that State.' It has also been de- • Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 292. necessity of the case, and when the 2 In Preston v. Smith, 26 Fed. Rep. necessity does not exist there is no ?84, 889, Judge Brewer said " they room for the practice. It has always liave fallen into a condition of ' in- been held that when a court of law nocuous desuetude.' " could enforce the production of doc- 3 Riopelle u. Doellner, 26 Mioh. 103; uments or any other disclosure re- Sheldon v. Walbridge, 44 Mich. 251. In quired by a party of his adversary, the case first cited the court said : — that was a complete answer to a bill "Since the statutes have allowed of discovery; and now this can lie parties to become general witnesses done in all cases more readily and there seems to be no further office completely than was possible by for a bill of discovery. It was never bill." But the statute making par- as desirable a means of obtaining the ties competent witnesses did not testimony of a party as the present operate to repeal express statutory method. But it was the only means provisions for compelling discovery formerly existing whereby any dis- in certain cases. McCreery v. Bay closures could be enforced in aid of Circuit Judge (Mich.), 53 N. W. Rep. legal proceedings. It was always an 613. exceptional process, confined to the 160 THB BILL. [§ 131. cided in several cases in the federal courts that a pure bill of discovery is no longer maintainable.' § 131. The same subject continued. — On the other hand, Judge Wallace, of the United States circuit court, sustained a bill of discovery in aid of a suit at law, pointing out that such a bill would lie not only when the plaintiff was destitute of other evidence than the oath of the adverse party to estab- lish his case, but also to avoid such evidence or to render it unnecessary,' in which respect it affords a more adequate and 1 Rindskopf v. Platto, 29 Fed. Rep. 130, where a bill of discovery was described as a bill " to discover facts which could not be proved according; to the existing forms of procedure at law." (See Dunn i\ Coates, 1 Atk. 388,889.) Brown v. Swann. 10 Pet. 497; Heath v. Erie R. Co., 9 Blatchf. 319. In Preston v. Smith, 26 Fed. Rep. 885, 889, Judge Brewer said : — " I do not understand that a bill can be sustained solely for the sake of discovery, at least that is the general rule." In United States v. McLaugh- lin, 24 Fed. Rep. 823, 825, Sawyer, C. J., said : — "It is very doubtful whether a pure bill of discovery in on equity suit would lie at the pres- ent day. It may be that a discovery might be asked for in a bill of relief. But it is probable that no prudent counsel, understanding what must be the effect, would at this day file a pure bill of discovery or call for a discovery in a bill for relief, and thus unnecessarily give the defend- ant an advantage which he would not otherwise have under our pres- ent practice, which enables the com- plainant to place the dtfendantupon the stand and examine him as a wit- ness, and thereby obtain his testi- mony much more judiciously — tes- timony of a character less prejudicial to his client's interest than it would be were the testimony to come in the form of a sworn answer strained through the colander of his counsel and by him shaped and shaved in his office at his leisure." In Ex parte Boyd, 105 tr. S. 647, Justice Matthews said : — "A bill in equity to compel disclosures from a plaintiff or a de- fendant of matters of fact peculiarly within his knowledge essential to the maintenance of the legal rights of either in a pending suit at law would scarcely be resorted to when parties are competent witnesses and can be compelled to answer under oath all I'elevant interrogatories properly exhibited." In Paton v. Majors, 46 Fed. Rep. 210, it was taken for granted that a bill could not be sustained as a bill of discovery in the federal courts in view of the judiciary act of 1789, limiting the jurisdiction of the United States courts to cases where a plain, ade- quate and complete remedy cannot be had at law. See, also. Hall v. Joiner, 1 S. C. 186 ; McGough v. In- surance Bank, 2 Ga. 151. 2 Citing Montague v. Dudman, 2 Ves. Sr. 398 ; Finch v. Finch, 2 Ves. Sr. 491 ; Brereton v. Gamul. 2 Atk. 241: Earl of Glengall v. Eraser, 2 Hare, 99 ; Marsh v. Davidson, 9 Paige, 580; Peck v. Ashley, 13 Met. 481; Stacy V. Pierson, 3 Rich. Eq. 152; Williams v. "Warren, 8 Blackf, 477, and distinguishing Brown v. Swann, 10 Pet 497. § 132.] THE BILL. 161 complete remedy than a disclosure in the suit at law." So in Alabama, West Yirginia and New Jersey it was distinctly de- clared that the statutory provisions permitting the examina- tion of the parties to a suit as witnesses in a court of law did not deprive the court of chancery of its power to entertain a pure bill of discovery.^ There seems to be no objection to a bill praying for relief as well as discovery.' § 132. Bills for foreclosure. — A bill for foreclosure must show that the mortgage debt is due and owing to the com- plainant ; but technical pre cision is not essential, and it is sufB- ' Colgate V. CJompagnie Francaise, 33 Fed. Rep. 82. Referring to the case in hand he said : — "A consider- ation peculiar to a bill of discovery like the present, in which the com- plainant seeks a discovery concern- ing the infringement of a patent, should be adverted to. Courts of equity in patent causes sometimes exercise the power of granting to a complainant an inspection of alleged infringing devices as incidental to ordinary discovery. Vidi v. Smith, 3 El. & B. 969 ; Morgan v. Seward, 1 Webst Pat. Cas. 169 ; Russell v. Cow- ley, 1 Webst. Pat. Cas. 468 ; Shaw v. Bank of England, 32 Law J. Exoh. 36. Courts of law have no such au- thority, but power to do so was con- ferred in England upon courts of common law by 15 and 16 Vict, ch. 83, § 43. Manifestly cases may occur where the exercise of this power is necessary in order to prevent a de- fendant from profiting by his own artifice. The case made by the pres- ent bill is one where, if the defend- ant has infringed the complainant's invention, it would be obviously diflBcult, if not impossible, to prove the fact, unless an inspection were granted." 2 Wood V. Hudson (Ala.), 11 So. Rep. 530; Russell i'. Dickeschied, 24 West Va. 61, 68 ; Shotwell v. Smith, 11 20 N. J. Eq. 79. See Manchester Fire Ass. Co. V. Stockton Agr'l Works, 88 Fed. Rep. 378 ; Paine v. Warren, 38 Fed. Rep. 357. In the latter case, the court, discussing the nature of bills of discovery, said : — " Neither the answers to the interrogatories nor the answer of the defendant to the bill of discovery could be offered in evidence by him on his behalf. The party propounding the interrog- atories or filing the bill was not obliged to offer the answers in evi- dence. In this manner he could sift the conscience of his adversary with- out peril to himself; and although he may, if he desires to do so, compel his adversary to be examined as a witness, yet he may deem it a matter of the highest importance to learn from his answer to a bill of discov- ery whether he can safely examine him as a witness." In Kendallville Refrigerator Co. v. Davis, 40 III. App. 616, the court deemed it doubtful if the jurisdiction of a pure bill of dis- covery had been impliedlj- abrogated by the statute. ' Kendallville Refrigerator Co. v. Davis, 40 111. App. 616; Elliston v. Hughes, 1 Head (Tenn.), 335 ; Cannon V. McNabb, 48 Ala. 99; Millsaps v. Pfeiflfer, 44 Miss. 805; Shotwell v. Smith, 30 N. J. Eq. 79. 162 THE BILL. [§ 133. pient if the bill shows it substantially.' The allegation in a bill for a foreclosure that the respondent, to secure the debt described, " did execute to the petitioner a deed of a certain piece of land," describing it with the condition, is a sufBcient averment of an interest in the mortgaged premises on the part of the petitioner to warrant the court in entertaining the bill and passing a decree upon it.* § 133. The same subject continned. — It is not necessary in a suit for the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien to allege in the complaint that the indebtedness arose under a particular contract. It is enough to state the indebtedness whether it arose under one contract or several.^ A bill to foreclose rail- road mortgage bonds alleged that the corporation duly issued and disposed of a large number of them to divers persons, who were hona fide holders of the same, and entitled to re- ceive the money due thereon and to the benefit of the mort- 1 Cornelius v. Halsey, 11 N. J. Eq. 27. An allegation in a foreclosure bill that "a great part" of the prin- cipal of a mortgage debt is due is not conclusive against complainant's claim that all of the principal is due. Such allegation is a mere averment of pleading, and is amendable. Ha- gan V. Ryan, 27 N. J. Eq. 236. In a suit to foreclose a mortgage given to secure a bond, it is not necessary to allege a consideration, both being under seal. It is sufficient to state that the mortgage was duly exe- cuted, delivered and acknowledged. Brown v. Kahnweiler, 28 N. J. Eq. 311. In a suit on a note and to fore- close a mortgage securing the note, though the complaint fails to allege who the mortgagee is, or that the mortgage is due and unpaid, or that it was executed to secure the note, and does not contain a description of the mortgaged premises, it is not de- murrable, since plaintiff is entitled to a personal judgment on the note. Taylor v. Hearn (Ind.), 31 N. E. Rep. 201. In Day v. Perkins, 2 Sandf. Ch. 360, it was held that an allegation of indebtedness was not necessary : that a statement of the execution of the bond and mortgage was sufficient 2 The court said the question had never been adjudicated by the Su- preme Court, and that " if we err, we have the satisfaction of knowing that we err in upholding manifest truth and justice against dubious, if not overnice, technicality." Bull v. Meloney, 27 Conn. 560, 562 (the chief justice dissenting). A complaint in an action to foreclose a mortgage which states the title of the cause, name of the court and of the county in which the suit is brought, and of the parties to the action, and alleges the execution of a note in writing for the amount claimed, and of a mortgage, also the time of the matu- rity of the note and its non-payment, and the fact that plaintiffs are the owners and holders of the note, states a cause of action. Bethel v. Robin- son (Wash.), 30 Pac. Rep. 734. 3 Kiel V. Carll, 51 Conn. (1883), 440. § 133.] THB BILL. 168 gage. It was held to be a sufficient averment that the bonds were lawfully issued and used for a lawful purpose.' When, by the terms of a mortgage, it has become due b^^ default in the payment of interest before suit is commenced, it is not necessary that the bill should formally allege that the prin- cipal is due. An allegation that no principal or interest has been paid is sufficient.^ Where a mortgage contained a con- dition that upon the failure for ninety days to pay the inter- est the principal should become due, provided such failure was not caused by the fault of a third party, it was deemed sufficient to allege the default in payment of interest. If there was any fault of a third party it was matter of defense to be made out by the defendant.' The complainant need not allege the specific interest of one made a party defendant, but it is sufficient to allege generall}'^: — " The defendant has or claims some interest in or lien upon said real property; but the same, whatever it may be, is subject to the lien of said mortgage." * 1 Mead v. New York &o. R. Co., 45 Conn. 199. ^Bodine v. Gray, 24 N. J. Eq. 335. ' Little Rock &c. Co. v. Barrett, 103 U. S. (1881), 516. * Dexter, Horton & Co. v. Long (Wash.), 37 Pao. Rep. 271. In an ac- tion for foreclosure of a mortgage by an assignee, an omission to allege in the complaint an assignment of the bond, as well as of the mortgage, does not invalidate a judgment of foreclosure, where the assignment of both bond and mortgage is on rec- ord, and the referee's report of the amount due refers to such record. Preston v. Loughran, 13 N. Y. Supl. 313. A mortgage provided that in the event of foreclosure, "reasonable attorney's fees, to be taxed by the court, shall be allowed to the plaint- iff." It was held that an averment thut $200 is a reasonable attorney's fee " for the collection of said prom- issory note, and for the foreclosure of the said mortgage," was simply an averment that that sum was a reasonable attorney's fee in the fore- closure suit. And that even if the alle- gation as to attorney's fees were un- certain, it would not render the com- plaint demurrable, as the allegation is not necessary. First Nat. Bank v. Holt, 87 Gal. 158 ; s. G, 25 Pac. Rep. 272. See, also, White v. AUatt, 87 Cal. 245 ; S. C, 25 Pac. Rep. 420. Where the notes and mortgage set out in the complaint showed that they were made to plaintiff as " trustee of the es- tate of W., deceased," an averment in the complaint that plaintiff sued as "trustee for the heirs at law of W." was held immaterial and redundant, and disregarded. White v. AUatt, supra. Where a mortgage given by a vendor to secure the vendee against any damages arising from defects in the title which is in litigation speci- fied an unfavorable termination of the litigation as the contingency upon which liability depends instead of an eviction, the petition for fore- 164 THE BILL. [§§ 134, 135. § 134. Bills to redeem. — It is not essential in a bill to re- deem to offer to pay the amount. There is no decree for payment, but the bill is dismissed upon default of payment, and the decree becomes equivalent to a foreclosure.' A sub- sequent incumbrancer will not be allowed, on a bill to redeem, to show usury in the debt of a prior incumbrance, unless the usury, and the particular facts and circumstances constituting it, are set forth in the bill. A general allegation is not suf- ficient.' § 135. Bills for partition. — It is not necessary to aver in a bill for partition that the complainant is in possession of the premises, as that fact is presumed from the allegation that the parties are seized in common.' And an allegation that plaintiff and defendants are seized and possessed of land is a sufficient allegation of possession by plaintiff.* Where a bill to wind up a partnership was also a bill to partition real es- tate, so distinct in character as to be either one or the other, the court treated it as a bill for partition, finding sufficient allega- tions for the purpose."* Upon a bill for the sale of land held closure was not demurrable because it order that the court may see that the failed to allege an eviction, nor be- right of redemption has not been lost cause it showed no offer to restore through lapse of the time limited by possession or account for rents and the statute for such redemption profits, since, if defendant was not the Langley v. Jones, 43 N. J. Eq. 404. owner, plaintiff was not accountable ' Jenkins v. Van Schaack, 3 Paige, to him for rents. Nix v. Draughan 242. (Ark.), 15 S. W. Rep. 893. ^Balen v. Jacquelin, 23 N. Y. Supl. 1 Quin V. Brittain (1840), Hoff. Ch. 193. 353. A bill for redemption, which ^ Briges v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 401. A sets forth a liquidation by the parties complaint in partition alleged that of the sum payable, and an offer to defendant was the wife of one pay that sum, which was refused, B., who died intestate, leaving need not contain an offer to pay plaintiffs, his children by a former what may be found due on an ac- marriage ; and that before his death count to be taken, where there is one R conveyed the laud to B. and nothing to be accounted for. Free- defendant by a deed which recited man v. Deming, 3 Sandf. Ch. 450. that they were to hold the land in 2 Waterman v. Curtis, 26 Conn, common. It was held that the com- (1857), 241, 246. A bill to redeem plaint was demurrable because it did lands sold for taxes, under N. J. Rev. not allege that the parties thereto, at Sup. 992, sec. 57, must aver when the the time the suit was commenced, defendant received his certificate of had any interest in the land. Brown pale, an 1 how long he has held it, in v. Brown (Ind.), 32 N. E. Rep. 1128. § 136.] THE BILL. 165 in common, and division of the proceeds, and also praying general relief, it was held that the bill ought to contain a prayer for partition, although by statute the court was author- ized, in suits in equity for partition, to order a sale upon mo- tion of any party to the suit.' The complainant's title must be set forth positively and determinately,'* although it will be sufficient to aver as to the defendant's title that the defend- ant is seized in fee of, or otherwise well entitled to, the other remaining undivided parts of the premises.' An allegation that defendants have received all the rents, issues and profits from the land, and have neglected and refused to pay plamtiflf his share, is not an allegation that they claim under a title hostile to the plaintifP.'' § 136. Bills to quiet title. — In a bill to quiet title under a statute which requires complainant to be " in peaceable pos- session, claiming to own," an averment that complainant is the owner in fee, and in possession, is sufficient ; certainty to a common intent being enough.' A complaint which alleges that plaintiff " is the owner by a complete equitable title, and is entitled to the possession " thereof, is good on demurrer, without specifying the nature and extent of such title.' In a suit to set aside tax deeds as clouds on the title of lands, the allegation that the plaintiff is seized in fee-simple is a suffi- cient allegation that he has possession as well as title.' An • Dyer v. Vinton, 10 H. L 517. adverse interest, without further de- 2 Uxbridge v. Staveland, 1 Ves. 56. fining it, is sufficient to authorize a ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.). determination of the title and the § 255. granting of appropriate relief. "These * Balen v. Jacquelin, 33 N. Y. Supl. conclusions accord with the decisions 193. of the courts of California and In- ' Ludington u. Elizabeth, 33 N.J. diana under similar statutes, from one Eq. 159. of which the present statute of Ari- s Stanley v. HoUiday (Ind.). 30 N. E. zona would seem to have been taken. Rep. 634. Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 220, 242- JGage V. Kauflfman, 133 U. S. 471. 247; Statham «. Dusy (Cal.), 11 Pac. Under the laws of Arizona and the Rep. 606 ; Heeser v. Miller, 77 Cal. 193 ; act of the territory of 1881, chapter s. c, 19 Pac. Rep. 375; Jefferson villa 59, an allegation in a complaint to &c. Co. v. Oyler, 60 Ind. 383, 392 ; Trit- quiet title, that plaintiff is the owner, tipo v. Morgan, 99 Ind. 269." Ely v. without setting out matters of evi- New Mexico &c R. Co., 129 U. S. dence, and that defendant claims an 291. 166 THE BILL, [§ 136. allegation in a bill to remove a cloud on title that " said claim is an injury " to complainant is not sufficient unless facts are stated from which the court can see that there is or may be a legal injury by the existence of the claim.' A description of the land in a bill to remove a cloud as a " sand-bar," a " piece of ground," etc., is sufficient to include the term " island." ^ The bill should allege that the defendant's claim is hostile to the complainant's title ; ' but an objection for want of it comes too late after answer and proofs taken.* 1 Welles V. Rhodes, 59 Conn. (1890), 498, 507. Defendant cannot be com- pelled to discover the nature of his claim unless the bill shows a legal cloud. Welles v. Rhodes, 59 Conn. (1890), 498, 507. In a bill filed under the New Jersey act to quiet titles (P. L. 1870, p. 20) the complainant is not required to set out the adverse right and show how or why it is in- valid ; it is sufficient to allege that it is claimed or reputed that there is an outstanding hostile right South- mayd v. Elizabeth. 89 N. J. Eq. 203. And objections that the complainant has not alleged peaceable possession of the premises in dispute, and that no action to test the defendant's title thereto was pending, come too late at the hearing. McClave u Newark, 31 N. J. Eq. 472. 2 Butler V. Grand Rapids &c. R Co. (Mich.), 48 N. W. Rep. 569. ' Campbell v. Disney (Ky.), 18 S. W. Rep. 1037. *Cleland v. Casgrain (Mich.), 52 N. W. Rep. 460. Plaintiff's bill al- leged that a patent of certain land was in 1872 issued to the heirs at law of one S., the heirs being his mother and several brothers and sisters, and the children of deceased brothers and sisters ; that plaintiff was mar- ried in 1870 to R, a son of a de- ceased sister ; that R. died intestate, without issue, in 1871 ; that in 1870, after said marriage, the mother of S. conveyed her interest in the land to R. ; that by virtue of the deed, and the statutes of Washington relating to the rights of married people, the share of R and of the mother of S., deeded to him, became the common property of R and plaintiff, and on R's death plaintiff became the owner in fee-simple of an undivided one- half; that defendants claimed the whole of the land under a convey- ance made pursuant to a sale under a decree of the court, to which plaintiff was not a party. The bill sought to establish plaintiff's title to the shares claimed by her. It was held that the bill was demurrable in not stating when and where S. died, or any facts by which the court could ascertain under what act of congress the patent was issued to his heirs, and what laws as to the property rights of married people were in force, or the residence of R and his wife (plaintiff), or the date of the suit under which the sale and con- veyance was made to defendants, or any reasons for plaintiff's delay in suing. Hershberger v. Blewett, 46 Fed. Rep. 704. A complaint to remove cloud on title alleged that " plaintiff and its grantors had been in actual, open and notorious posses- sion of said property continuously since the 28th day of March, 1862, under color and claim of title ; that neither defendant nor his ancestors §§ 137, 138.] THE BILL. 167 § 137. Bills to reform instruments. — The bill for reforma- tion must aver either fraud, accident or mistake, or circum- stances from which fraud or mistake are necessarily implied.' A bill for the correction of an insurance policy should show- clearly the parol contract that was made and in what the error consists.- A bill to reform a contract for mistake in reducing it to writing, there having been no mistake in the contract as agreed on, need not allege that the mistake was mutual.' A bill for reformation of a power of attorney, which seeks also to set aside a sale made thereunder because of de- fendant's alleged bad faith in making it, need not aver a re- quest to correct the mistake before filing the bill, as the court having jurisdiction to set aside the sale will administer com- plete relief.^ A bill for the reformation of a written contract should embody both the defective instrument and the real agreement.* § 138. Bills for specific performance. — On bill for the specific performance of an agreement for the purchase and sale of land, where the defendant's refusal to perform is based on alleged defects in the complainant's title, full statement nor predecessors have been seized or agreed that he would execute a deed possessed of the premises in ques- conveying to her the property during tion, or any part or parcel thereof, her natural life, and then to her heirs within more than ten years before the and assigns forever ; that by mutual date of commencement of this suit" mistake the words "and then to her The complaint was held suflBcient to heirs and assigns forever " were admit evidence of plaintiff's adverse omitted from the deed; that def end- possession. Bellingham Bay Land ant directed the person who wrote Co. V. Dibble (Wash.), 31 Pac. Eep. 30. the deed to insert the said words, but 'Appeal of HoUenback (Pa.), 15 he through mistake omitted them; Atl. Rep. 616. . that plaintiff did not find out the 2 Bishop V. Clay &c. Ins. Co., 49 mistake until a short time before Conn. 167. bringing the suit. It was held that 'Born V. Schrenkeisen, 110 N. Y. the complaint was faulty in not stat- 55 ; S. C, 17 N. E. Rep. 339. ing the terms of the agreement be- * Miller v. Louisville &c. R Co., 83 tween the parties which the deed Ala.374;S.G,4So.Rep.842. Amarried was given to effectuate, but that de- woman, in a suit against her husband fendant waived the defect by filing to have reformed a certain deed exe- an answer. Hyland v. Hyland, 19 cuted by him to Ijfer, alleged that for Oregon, 51 ; s. C, 23 Pac. Rep. 811. a valuable consideration the defend- ' Thompsonville Scale Mfg. Ca v. ant sold to her certain land ; that he Osgood, 36 Conn. 16. 168 THE BILL, r§ 138. and proof of the title is required.' A complaint for specific performance, which alleged that defendant executed a contract wherein it offered to convey lands at a certain price, and to keep the offer open for two years, provided plaintiff would in- sure the property for defendant's benefit, was held insufficient, for failure to allege that plaintiff did insure the property.' But where the bill set out the contract, which recited that it was executed for " valuable consideration," it was a sufficient allegation that the contract was founded on a valuable con- sideration.' In a suit for specific performance of a bond to make " a good and valid deed in common form," the bond is properly declared on in accordance with its legal effect as an obligation to convey " in fee-simple by warranty deed." * The bill must allege the legal obligations created by the contract sought to be enforced, and it is not sufficient where it simply states that a contract was made as shown by an exhibit.' "Where the defendant sets up a different agreement in his an- swer, the plaintiff cannot avail himself of it without amending his bill.' Where complainant's right to maintain the biU de- 1 Cornell v. Andi-us, 36 N. J. Eq. 321. 2 Chadboume v. Stockton Savings & Loan Soc, 88 Cal. 636 ; S. C, 26 Pac. Rep. 539. A bill against tbe executor and minor devisees of a testator, to compel the conveyance of property which he contracted to sell complain- ants upon the execution of certain notes, suflSciently avers the perform- ance of the conditions precedent on the part of complainants by alleging generally that they are ready to exe- cute the notes upon receiving the conveyance, it not being necessary to allege an offer to perform by a tender of the notes to the executor, as he had no power to convey. Deglow's Ex'r V. Meyer (Ky.), 15 S. W. Rep. 875. In a suit for specific performance of a contract to convey land the petition is not demurrable for failure to allege payment of the cash payment as agreed, or the execution, tender or delivery to defendant of a mortgage to secure the deferred payments, where it does allege that plaintiff has duly performed all the conditions of the contract on his part Pomeroy V. Fullerton (Mo.), 81 S. W. Rep. 19. 3 Byars v. Thompson, 80 Tex. 463 ; & C, 15 S. W. Rep. 1087. ♦Phillips V. Herndon, 78 Tex. 378; S. C, 14 S. W. Rep. 857. ^Guadalupe County v. Johnston (Tex.), 20 S. W. Rep. 833. 6 Buck V. Dowley (1860), 16 Gray, 555. Where there is no ofifer in the bill to pay the balance of the pur- chase-money, but the case shows that the tender would have been only an empty show, and the court has power to require its payment, the allegation is merely fortn;il and the want of it becomes immaterial. Moore v. Crawford, 130 U. S. 132. Where the allegations of the com- plaint, in an action against two own- ers of land for specific performance of a contract to sell and convey land § 139.] THE BILL. 169 pends on acts of part performance they must be clearly set forth. An allegation merely that he entered upon the prem- ises and made valuable improvements is insufficient.* If the contract is alleged to be in writing, it is not necessary to al- lege it to be signed by the party, but it will be presumed to be so signed.^ § 139. Bills to set aside fraudulent conveyances. — In an action to set aside a deed as fraudulent, the complaint will be fatally defective unless it avers delivery of the deed.' A complaint which fails to state that the debtor was insolvent is demurrable.^ One who attacks an assignment on the ground that it is fraudulent as to creditors of the assignor existing at the time of the execution must allege and prove that there were such creditors at that time.^ But an allegation that de- signed by one only, were that defend- ants were the equitable owners of the land, but that the legal title stood in the name of one only, such aver- ment of ownership was sufficient as against a motion for judgment upon the pleadings, though it might have been obnoxious to a special demurrer, or to a motion to make more definite and certain. Rice v. Bush, 16 Colo. 484 ; s. c, 27 Pac. Rep. 720. 1 Fowler v. Sunderland, 68 Cal. 414. Where a written contract, describing laud to be conveyed, is uncertain, and is to be reformed on account of the mutual mistake or omission of the parties in reducing it to writing, or where the description of the land can be made sufBciently certain by extrinsic evidence, the petition should allege all the facts, and what is de- sired, before a specific performance is decreed; and all the matters in controversy between the parties, whether as to the reformation of the contract, if one is necessary, or the identification of the property by ex- trinsic evidence, should be settled and concluded in the action for the specific performance, and the de- scription not left to be corrected by another action for that purpose. Bacon v. Leslie (Kan.), 31 Pa& Rep. 1066. 2 Dunn V. Calcraft, 2 Sim. & Stu. 56 ; Cozine v. Graham, 2 Paige, 177 ; Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), §253. 3 Doerfler v. Schmidt, 64 CaL 265 ; s. c, 30 Pac. Rep. 816. For proper parties to the bill, see § 72, snipra. * Shew V. Hews, 126 Ind. 474 ; a C, 26 N. E. Rep. 483. 5 Burton v. Platter, 53 Fed. Rep. 901 (C. C. App.), See, also, Braley v. Byrnes, 20 Minn. 435, 488 ; Brugger- man v. Hoerr, 7 Minn. 337, 343 ; Stone V. Myers, 9 Minn. 303. If he attacks the assignment on the ground that it is fraudulent as to those who be- come creditors of the assignor sub- sequent to its execution, "he must allege and prove that the assignor made the conveyance with the actual intent to defraud, with the intent to put the assigned property out of the reach of debts which he intended thereafter to contract, and which he had reasonable grounds to believe he would not be able to pay, and that 170 THE BILL. [§ 139. fendant did not have at the time of the conveyance, and has not had, up to the time of the commencement of the suit, sufficient property subject to execution to pay his debts, is a sufficient allegation of his insolvency during that period.* Where a bill by several creditors to subject property alleged to have been disposed of fraudulently by their debtor states that " the prices for the goods sold by them are ovfing, un- paid and due," it is a sufficient allegation, on demurrer, that the debts were due and demandable when the bill was filed.'' To entitle the assignee of a judgment to proceed in equity to subject to the payment of his debt property which has been fraudulently conveyed, it is not necessary to aver in the bill that the assignment was in writing.' "Where the allegations of fraud are positive and specific, they are properly taken as true on the bill being taken as confessed.* he subsequently did contract such debts in pursuance of that fraudu- lent intent. Even a voluntary con- veyance is not fraudulent per se as to subsequent creditors." Burton v. Platter, 53 Fed. Rep. 901, 906, citing Harbach u Hill, 113 U. S. 144, 149 Clark V. Killian, 103 U. S. 766, 769 Wallace v. Penfield, 106 U. S. 360 Graham v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 148, 153; Cunningham v. Williams, 43 Ark. 170, 178 ; Toney v. McGehee, 88 Ark. 419. 1 York V. Rockwood (Ind. Sup.); 31 N. E. Rep. 1110, holding also that where the conveyance was made to a grantee who paid no consideration, it was not necessary to allege or prove notice to the grantee of the fraudulent intent of the grantor. 2 Gibson v. Trowbridge Furniture Co. (Ala.), 9 So. Eep. 370. 3 Jones V. Smith, 92 Ala. 455 ; S. C, 9 So. Rep. 179. * Welsh V. Solenberger, 85 Va. 441 ; s. c, 8 S. E. Rep. 91. A bill to sub- ject to the claims of creditors prop- erty alleged to have been disposed of fraudulently by their debtor should set forth the character of the several demands and when they became due. Gibson v. Trowbridge Furni- ture Co. (Ala.), 9 So. Rep. 870. In a suit to set aside an assignment for the benefit of creditors as fraudulent, where a person is properly charged in the bill as assignee, it is not a good objection that he is not so styled in the prayer for process or subpoena. White V. Davis (N. J.), 21 Atl. Rep. 187. The complaint in an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, before judgment obtained, is not de- murrable because it makes no formal demand for judgment against the debtor for the amount due from him, facts sufficient to warrant such a judg- ment being stated. Miller v. Hughes, 38 S. C. 530 ; s. c, 12 S E. Rep. 419. In an action to set aside as fraudulent a deed of lands, the habendum clause of which reads, " to have and to hold what interest and title I may and do have by reason of my survivorship of my late wife, to whom said lands belonged," the bill must show what interest the vendor had, and its value, and deny the adequacy or payment of the consideration. Moorer v. Moorer, 87 Ala. 545 ; s. a, 6 Sa Rep. 289. §§ 140, 141.] THE BILL. ■ 171 § 140. Creditors' bills. — A creditors' bill must aver that the judgment debtors or some of them resided in the county to which the execution at law was issued at the time of issu- ing it, otherwise the bill will be dismissed ' and an injunc- tion allowed thereon will be dissolved.^ Where it appeared from the evidence in a creditors' suit that execution was issued to the sheriff of the county where the judgment was recovered and where the defendant was served, and that some years afterward the judgment debtor resided in that county, the omission of any allegation in the bill as to the residence of the judgment debtor at the time of the issuance and delivery of the execution did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, espe- cially when the objection was raised for the first time on ap- peal.' A defendant in a judgment creditors' bill cannot be compelled to discover property to a later date than the filing of the bill. A supplemental bill is necessary to discover as well as to reach property srhsequently acquired.'' A creditor, to entitle himself to the aid of the court in the recovery of his debt, must show that he has prosecuted his debtor at law to judgment and execution so as to have gained a legal lien and preference at the time of filing the bill or at least before issue joined.' A creditors' bill based on a valid and subsist- ing judgment whollj' unsatisfied against an insolvent cor- poration need not allege that the judgment was based on a valid and subsisting debt." § 141. When a bill of interpleader will lie. — Where two or more persons claim the same thing by different or sepa- rate interests, and another person, not knowing to which of the claimants he ought of right to render a debt or duty, or to deliver property in his custody, fears he may be hurt by some of them, he may exhibit a bill of interpleader against them.'' The attitude of the complainant in a bill of inter- 1 Wilbur V. Collies, Clarke's Ch. 348; Gregory v. Valentine, 4 Edw. 315. Ch. 282. 2 Smith V. Fitch, Clarke's Ch. 265. ' Williams v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 'Deimel v. Brown, 136 III 586; 683. s. C, 37 N. K Rep. 44 ; distinguishing « Tatum v. Rosenthal (Cat), 30 Pac. Durand v. Gray, 129 111. 9 ; s. c, 31 Rep. 136. N. E. Rep. 610. 'A bill of interpleader is ordinarily < Hope u Brinckerhoff, 4 Edw. Ch. filed "where two or more persons 172 THE BILL. i§142. pleader was thus defined by Lord Cottenham : ' — " The defini- tion of interpleader is not and cannot be disputed. It is where the plaintiff says, ' I have a fund in my possession in which I claim no personal interest and in which you, the de- fendants, set up conflicting claims. Pay rae my costs and I will bring the money into court and you shall contest it be- tween you.' " ' § 142. The same subject continued.— A chose in action may be the subject of interpleader.' The bill is proper, al- though the claim of one defendant be actionable at law and claim the same debt, or duty, or other thing, from the complainant by dif- ferent or separate interests : and he, not knowing to which of the claim- ants he ought of right to render the same debt, duty or other thing, and fearing that lie may suffer injury from their conflicting claims, files a bill against them, and prays that they may be compelled to interplead and state their several claims, so that the court may adjudge to whom the same debt, duty or other thing belongs." Story's Equity Pleading (lOth ed.), § 291. "To sustain an ac- tion of interpleader it must appear that the plaintiff is ignorant of the rights of the respective claimants." Trigg V. Hitz, 17 Abb. Pr. 436 ; Ma- chine Co. V. Gifford, 66 Barb. 599 ; Morgan v. Fillmore, 18 Abb. Pr. 217. The plaintiff must show that " he is ignorant which claimant has the better right." Railroad Co. v. Ar- thur, 90 N. Y. 234. 237; Taylor v. Satterthwaite, 22 N. Y. Supl. 187, 188. " The object of a bill of interpleader is to protect the complainant where he stands in the situation of a stake- holder, not knowing to whom to pay the money or to deliver the property in his hands, and where a recovery against him at the suit of one party might not be a protection against the claim made by the other." Per Chancellor "Walworth, in Badeau v. Rogers (1830), 2 Paige, 209, 210; Hastings v. Cropper, 3 Del. Ch. 165 ; Bedell v. Hoffman, 2 Paige, 199; Strange v. Bell, 11 Ga. 108; Shaw v. Coster, 8 Paige, 339 ; CuUen v. Daw- son, 24 Minn. 66; Bell v. Hunt, 3 Barb. Ch. 391 ; Green v. Mumford, 4 R. I. 313; Sprague v. West, 127 Mass. 471 ; Morse v. Stearns, 131 Mass. 389 ; Hayes v. Johnson, 4 Ala. 267 ; National Life Ins. Co. v. Pin- grey, 141 Mass. 411 ; Farley v. Blood, 30 N. H. 354 ; Louisiana State Lot- tery Co. v. Clark, 16 Fed. Rep. 20 ; McWhirter v. Halsted, 24 Fed. Rep. 828 ; Bartlett v. The Sultan, 23 Fed. Rep. 257 ; Pfister v. Wade, 66 Cal. 43 ; Providence Bank v. Wilson, 4 R L 507 ; Blake v. Garwood, 42 N. J. Eq. 276 ; Wing v. Spaulding (VtX 23 Atl. Rep. 615 ; Fitch v. Brower, 42 N. J. Eq. 300 ; Atkinson v. Manks, 1 Cowen, 691 ; De Zouche v. Garrison (Pa.), 21 Atl. Rep. 450 ; Wallace v. Sorter, 52 Mich. 159; Orr W. D. Co. v. Lar- combe, 14 Nev. 53 ; Hechmer v. Gil- ligan, 28 West Va. 750. 1 In Hoggart v. Cutta, Craig & P. 197, quoted in Wing v. Spaulding (Vt), 23 Atl. Rep. 615. 2 Hoggart V. Cutts, Craig & P. 197. 3 Robinson v. Jenkins, 24 Q. B. D. 275. § 143.] THE BILL. 178 the other in equity,' and although the complainant has not been sued or has been sued by only one of the defendants.' It has been held that the holder of a fund who is already a party to a suit in chancery brought by one claimant against the other to settle the right to the fund ought to apply by petition in that suit for leave to pay the fund into court and not resort to a bill of interpleader.' When a bill of interpleader is necessary to determine conflicting claims of creditors, it may be maintained by one of the creditors as well as by the debtor. Thus, such a bill may be main- tained to determine conflicting claims against a county for one-half of a fine to which a person is entitled who makes complaint and carries on a certain prosecution.* The jurisdic- tion in equity is not ousted by statutes providing for adequate relief upon motion in an action at law.' A person ought not to be made a defendant who asserts no positive claim to the subject-matter of the suit, but merely withholds his consent to its transfer to another claimant." § 143. The same subject continued — Complainant's in- terest. — A bill of interpleader is not a proper remedy when the complainant has any personal interest in the question to be settled,' or, to speak more accurately, an interest in the 1 Richards v. Salter, 6 Johns. Ch. § 88 ; Wood v. Swift, 81 N. Y. 31, 35 ; 445. Barry v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 53 2NewhaIl v. Kastans, 70 111. 156; N. Y. 586; Board of Education v. Richards v. Salter, 6 Johns. Ch. 445; Scoville, 13 Kan. 17, 30. Gibson v. Goldthwaite, 7 Ala. 281; 6 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1564; Dungey v. Angove, 3 Ves. 310 ; Duke Desborough v. Harris, 5 De G., M. & of Bolton V. Williams, 2 Ves. Jr. 152 ; G. 439, 455 ; Jones v. FarreU, 1 De G. East India Co. v. Edwards, 18 Ves. & J. 208; Symes v. Magnay, 20 377. Beav. 47. Cf. Fenn v. Edmonds, 5 SBadeau v. Rogers, 2 Paige, 209. Hare, 314. " The filing of bills of in- But see Birch v. Corbin, 1 Cox, Eq. terpleader ought not to be encour- 144 aged, and they should never be * Webster v. Hall, 60 N. H. 7. But brought except in cases where the there must not be several objects of complainant can in no other way controversy without a common in- protect himself from an unjust liti- tereat There must be a common gation in which he has no interest." fund to serve as the focus of con- Per Chancellor Walworth in Bedell flicting interests. Wallace v. Sorter, v. Hoffman, 2 Paige, 199, 201. See, 53 Mich. 159. also, Greene v. Mumford, 4 R. L 313. 5 Foster's Federal Practice (2d ed.), '^ Lozier v. Van Saun, 3 N. J. Eq. 174 THE BILL. [§ 143. particular suit; for a mere collateral interest in the result, as affecting property not directly involved, will not defeat the complainant.' He cannot sustain the suit if he is obliged to admit that as to either of the defendants he is a wrong-doer.^ He must not be under any liabilities to either of the defend- ants beyond those which arise from the title to the property in contest."" And " not only must he be disinterested when he brings his bill, but he must continue to be disinterested. His position must be one of continuous impartiality." * On a bill of interpleader to determine who was entitled to the pro- ceeds of a certain note, it appeared that one defendant claimed the note as a gift from a decedent of whom complainant was administrator, and had placed it in complainant's hands to be collected and applied to a debt due from such defendant to complainant. The other defendants claimed that the note be- longed to the estate of decedent, who was their mother. It was held that complainant had such an interest in the pro- 325; Story's Equity Pleading (tOth ed.), § 297; 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1560. 1 Oppenheim v. Leo Wolf, 3 Sandf. Ch. 571. 2 Shaw V. Coster, 8 Paige, 339; Lains v. Zeden, L. R 9 Ch. App. 786 ; 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1566. 8 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1560. If he has claimed an interest he may withdraw it before interpleader or- der. Adams v. Dixon, 19 Ga. 513 Atkinson v. Manks, 1 Cowen, 691 J.icobson V. Blackhurst, 2 J. & H. 486 Fairbanks v. Belknap, 135 Mass. 179 Third National Bank v. Skillings Lumber Co., 132 Mass. 410 ; Killian V. Ebbinghaus, 110 U. S. 568. See Bechtel v. Sheafer, 117 Pa. St 555, containing a full discussion of the nature of Interpleader, where it was said : — " As a general rule the part}' seeking relief by an interpleader must not have incurred any inde- pendent liability to either of the rival claimants. If he has expressly ac- knowledged the title or right of one of them and agreed to hold the prop- erty for him, or, disregarding the adverse claim of one, has by contract made himself liable in any event to the other, he cannot be said to stand indifferent between them." Quoted and approved in De Zouche i\ Garri- son, 140 Pa. St 430, 436. In National Life Ins. Co. v. Pingrey, 141 Mass. 411, 414, the court said: — "A plaint- iff cannot have an order that the defendants interplead when one ini- portantquestion tobetried is whethi r by reason of his own act he is under a liability to each of them." Citing Cochrane v. O'Brien, 2 J. & Lat 380 ; Desborough v. Harris, 5 De G., M. & G. 439: Baker n Bank of Australia, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 511. Anderson v. Wilkinson, 10 Sm. & Ves. 248 ; Bedell v. HoflEman, 2 Paige, M. 601. 199; Atkinson v. Mauks, 1 Cowen, 'Wing v. Spaulding (Vt), 23 Atl. 'i91 ; State Ins. Co. v. Gennett, 2 Tenn. Rep. 615. 176 THE BILL. [§ 145. by not objecting by demurrer, nor on motion to pay the money into court.' § 145. Affidavit of no collusion in interpleader. — The complainant must annex to his bill an affidavit that there is no collusion between him and any of the defendants, and that the bill is filed of his own accord for relief,* otherwise it is ground for demurrer;' and it has been said that it may be taken advantage of at the hearing.* The affidavit may be sworn before the bill is actually filed.* All the complainants should join in it, and the affidavit of the complainants' solic- itor is not generally sufficient.* "Where the bill is filed by an ofiBcer of a company on behalf of the company, he must not only swear that he does not collude, but also, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the compan}' does not collude with either of the defendants.' The court gives credit to the affi- davit, and will not allow it to be overthrown before the hear- ing by a counter-affidavit.' iWing V. Spaulding (Vt), 23 Atl. Rep. 615. See, also, Toulmin v. Raid, 14 Beav. 499; Statham v. Hall, 1 Turn. & E. 30 ; Yates v. Tlsdale, 3 Edw. Ch. 71 ; Turnpike Co. v. Ferree, 17 N. J. Eq. 117. 2 Shaw V. Coster, 8 Paige, 339; Foster's Federal Practice (2d ed.), S 88 ; Gibson's Suits in Equity, § 718 ; 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1562; Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), g 291. Objection to the form of affi- davit should be taken by demurrer. Hamilton v. Marks. 5 De G. & S. 638. By the Connecticut practice no affi- davit of collusion is required. Nash V. Smith, 6 Conn. 431. 3 Shaw V. Coster, 2 Edw. Ch. 405 ; Metcalf V. Hervey, 1 Ves. Sr. 248; Farley v. Blood, 30 N. H. 8o4 ; Gibson V. Goldthwaite, 7 Ala. 281 ; Blue v. Watson, 59 Miss. 619. * Mount Holly &c. Co. v. Ferree, 17 N. J. Eq. 117. But Cobb v. Rice, 130 Mass, 231, holds this to be a formal objection which is waived by going to a hearing upon the merits. See, also, Daniel v. Fain, 5 Lea, 258. 5 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1562; Braithwaite's Pr. 27. But see Fran- come V. Francome, 13 W. R 355. 6 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1562; Wood V Lyne, 4 De G. & S. 16. But where the complainants were abroad the solicitor's affidavit was allowed for the purposes of injunction. Lar- abrie v. Brown. 1 De G. & J. 204 ; s. c. 33 Eeav. 007. ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed), § 297; 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1563; Gibson's Suits in Chancery, §718. 8 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (.Ith ed.) 1563; Manley r. Robinson, L. R 4 Ch. 347; Langston v. Boylston. 2 Ves. Jr. 101, 110 ; Hamilton v. Marks, 5 De G. & S. 638, 643 : Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 391. Where the plaint- iff stated under oath that there was no collusion between himself and either of the defendants, and an order was made requiring the de- §§ 146, 147.] THE BILL. 177 § 146. Offer to bring the fund into conrt in interpleader. As a general rule the party filing a bill of interpleader must offer by the bill to bring the money or thing in controversy into court.* And if an injunction be asked for it will only be granted on condition of his complying with such offer.* If an injunction is wanted it would only seem to be necessary to make the offer in the bill and be in readiness and able to com- ply with it whenever the court shall direct.' If lai^d be the matter in dispute, proper conveyances ought to be in readiness for delivery when the bill is filed, or the court may order them to be filed subject to further order.* Objections that the bill is irregular in waiving the oath of the defendants, and in not annexing an affidavit that there was no collusion between the plaintiff and either of the parties, that the plaintiff did not bring the property in controversy into court, and did not set set out che respective claims of the defendants, and that after the defendants had interpleaded no replication was filed, are all formal objections which should be taken by demurrer, and are waived by going to a hearing upon the merits.' § 147. Cliaracter of defendants' claims in bills of inter- pleader. — Bills of interpleader do not ordinarily lie, excejit in cases of privity of some sort between all the parties; such as privity of estate, or title or contract, and where the claim fendants to interplead, evidence to Williams v. Wright, 20 Tex. 499 ; prove collusion could not be received Meux v. Bell, 6 Sim. 175. after the making of such order. 2 gj^aw u Coster, 3 Edw. Ch. 405; Fahie v. Lindsay, 8 Oregon, 474. Richards v. Salter, 6 Johns. Ch. 445 ; 1 Shav? V. Coster, 3 Edw. Ch. 405 ; Biggs v. Kowns, 7 Dana, 410 ; Fowler Mohawk &c. R Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige, v. Lee, 10 Gill & J. 358. The fund 384; Stoi-y's Equity Pleading (10th must be brought into court before ed.), § 397 ; Earl of Thanet v. Pater- any order will be made in the caus". son, Barnard. 347; S. C, 3 Ves. Jr. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1563. 108; Hyde v. Warren, 19 Ves. 333, ^Shaw u Coster, 3 Edw. Ch. 405. 333 ; Bignold v. Audland, 11 Sim. 38 ; Williams v. Walker, 3 Rich. Eq. 291, 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1563; holds that the complainant should Parker v. Barker, 42 N. H. 78, 96 ; obtain an order and bring the money McGaruah v. Prather, 1 Black, 299. into court before proceeding further. By the practice in Connecticut this Where the claim is for goods their is unnecessary. Nash v. Smith, 6 value may be brought in. Burnett Conn. 421. The omission of the offer v. Anderson, 1 Mer. 405. does not render the bill demurrable. * Farley v. Blood, 80 N. H. 354. 5 Cobb V. Rice, 130 Mass. 231. 13 178 THE BILL. [§ 147. by all is of the same nature and character. Where tke claim- ants assert their rights under adverse titles, and not in priv- ity, and where their claims are of different natures, the bill cannot be maintained. Thus, if an estate is put up for sale at auction, and A. becomes the purchaser and pays his de- posit; and then by order of the same owner it is set up again for sale, and B. becomes the purchaser and pays his deposit, such a case is not a proper case of interpleader if each de- mands his deposit from the stakeholder, for A. and B. do not claim in privity and their deposits are distinct.' The rule finds an apt illustration in the case of a tenant, who can only interplead those persons who claim rent in privity of contract or tenure, as where the conflict is between the original lessor and one claiming the rent as assignee. But if a stranger claims under title paramount there is an absence of privity, and the suit cannot be maintained.'* Kor can a party inter- ested in the title to realty, and claiming to hold the legal title, file a bill to compel third persons to interplead for his benefit.' An agent who has collected money for his principal is not so far an implied trustee as that he can interplead his principal and a third person who is an adversary claimant.* The bill will not lie by a debtor against his creditor and a third person who claims the debt, not through any privity with the creditor, but by a title paramount and adverse to his;° nor by a sheriff who has seized property upon execu- tion to determine whether the execution debtor or a third person claiming it is entitled to the property, as their claims against him are not of the same character or in the same right.* Where plaintiff sued defendant for a broker's commis- sion for the sale of certain land, made though their agency, the action by a third person against defendant in another court to recover for " work, labor and services " in the sale of the land is not "a demand against him for the same debt" • Story's Equity Pleading (lOthed.), *Snodgrass v. Butler, 54 Miss. 45, § 293 ; 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 49. See, also, Dodd v. Bellows, 29 1564 ; Gibson's Suits in Equity, § 715 ; N. J. Eq. 127 ; Crawshay v. Thorn- Glyn V. Duesbury, 11 Sim. 189, 148; ton, 2 M. & C. 23; Pearson v. Car- City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige, 570. don, 2 R. & M. 606, 607, 610. 2 Snodgrass v. Butler, 54 Miss. 45. * Third Nat. Bank ti. Skilling^ • Padgett V. Baker, 1 Tenn. Ch. Lumber Co., 133 Mass. 410. 23a « Shaw V. Coster, 8 Paige, 339. § 148.] THE BILL. 179 within the New York Code, allowing an order of interpleader when competing creditors demand " the same debt." ' § 148. Description of defendants' claim in bills of inter- pleader. — In a bill of interpleader the claims should be spe- cifically set forth, so that they may appear to be of the same nature and character, and the fit subject of a bill of interpleader.^ " The complainant in an interpleading bill must show that he is ignorant of the rights of the respective parties who are called upon by him to interplead ; or that at least there is some rloubt, in point of fact, to which claimant the debt or duty be- longs. And therefore if the complainant states a case in his bill which clearly shows that one defendant is entitled to the debt or duty, and that the other is not, both defendants may (and should) demur." ' The complainant sets out the claims as ex- hibited to him, and he cannot be expected to do it with as much particularity as the defendants themselves might do. It is enough for him to satisfy the court that there are opposing claims against which he is in equity entitled to protection until they are settled so that he may pay with safety.* In other words, he does not set out the case of the claimants, but he states only the claim made to him.' ' Taylor v. Satterthwaite (1893), 22 * Lozier v. Van Saun, 3 N. J. Eq. N. Y. Supl. 187, where it was also 325. Where a bill of interpleader held that the granting of an order of was brought, but could not be sus- interpleader is within judicial dis- tained as such upon the facts, yet as cretion, and the order will not be enough was alleged to enable the disturbed unless the discretion was court to see what were the rights of improperly exercised. the parties, it was held that the 2 A bill which stated that G. proper relief should be granted under caimed to be administrator of C, the prayer for general relief. Hollis- and to be therefore entitled to a cer- ter v. Lefevre, 35 Conn. 456. See, tain fund, and also that he claimed also, Stevens v. Warren, 101 Mass. an interest in such fund, without 564; Muldoon v. Muldoon, 133 Mass. stating what that interest was or how 111. it was obtained, was dismissed, be- ^ Briant v. Reed, 14 N. J. Eq. 272. cause the claim was not specifically See, also, Gibson's Suits in Equity, set forth. Varrian v. Berrien, 42 N. J. g§ 714, 715. A bill of interpleader, Eq. 1. under the English practice, must 3 Shaw V. Coster, 8 Paige, 339; admit a deflnite thing or sum to be Parker v. Barker, 42 N. H. 93 ; Mo- due from the plaintiff ; but even if hawk &c. R Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige, this rule prevails in Connecticut, 384; Briant v. Reed, 14 K J. Eq. 272. which is doubtful, the want of such 180 THE BILL. [§ 149. § 149. Bills in the nature of interpleader. — There are many cases where a bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader will lie by a party in interest to ascertain and establish his own rights, where there are other conflicting rights between third persons.' In such cases the complainant seeks relief for himself, whereas in an interpleader bill, strictly so called, the plaintiff asks only that he may be at liberty to pay the money, or deliver the property to the party to whom it of right be- longs, and may therefore be protected against the claims of both.' But a bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader cannot be maintained unless the relief sought is equitable relief.' A vendee of personal property may file such a bill against his vendor and a third person who claims the property, praying a decree upon their titles, that he may be secure in the pay- ment of the purchase-money.' So a mortgagor may bring before the court persons asserting conflicting claims to the mortgage money, and have a decree for redemption which will enable him to pay the money safel}'.' an admission may there be waived by an omission to take the objection until after the hearing. Consociated Presbyterian Soc. v. Staples, 23 Conn. 544 On a bill of interpleader the plaintiffs are in general entitled to their costs out of the fund. Where the money is not brought into court they must pay interest upon it Spring V. South Carolina Ins. Co., 8 Wheat 268. Upon a bill of inter- pleader filed by underwriters against the different creditors of an insolvent debtor, claiming the fund proceeding from an insurance made for account of the debts, some on the ground of special liens, and others under the assignment in insolvency, the rights of the respective parties will be de- termined. But, on such a bill, those of the co-defendants who fail in es- tablishing any right to the fund are not entitled to an account, from the defendant whose claims are allowed, of the amount and origin of those claims. Spring v. South Carolina Ins. Co., supra. 1 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 2976,- 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1571. -' Bedell v. Hoffman, 2 Paige, 199: 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1571. "In strict actions of interpleader legal rights are only enforced, in actions in the nature of interpleader equita- ble relief in addition is sometimes given, and that seems to be the whole of the distinction." New England Mut L. Ins. Co. V. Odell, 50 Hun, 279, 280. Where the sum which the plaintiff is willing to pay is not the sum which the defendants claim, it is fatal to the maintenance of the action. Baltimore &o. R Co. v. Arthur, 90 N. Y. 235. 3 Killian v. Ebbinghaus, 110 U. S. 568; Conley v. Alabama G. L. Ins. Co., 67 Ala. 472. 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5tli ed.) 1573. inferior court And if there is any «2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1573. doubt as to the fact whether the de- '2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1574. cree in the inferior court was pro- * Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), nounced before the filing or not, the § 298. The bill is filed by the de- court will refer it to the master to fendant, not by the plaintiff ; nor inquire into that fact and certify it can it be filed after a decree in the to the court Cooper's Eq. PI. 50, 51. § 152.] THE BILL. 183 course, and without payment of costs, to amend his bill in any matters whatsoever, before any copy has been taken out of the clerk's oflBce, and in any small matters afterwards, such as filling blanks, correcting errors of dates, misnomer of parties, misdescription of premises, clerical errors, and gener- ally in matters of form. But if he amend in a material point, as he may do of course, after a copy has been so taken, be- fore any answer or plea or demurrer to the bill, he shall pay to the defendant the costs occasioned thereby, and shall, without delay, furnish him with a fair copy thereof, free of expense, with suitable references to the places where the same are to be inserted. And if the amendments are numerous he shall furnish in like manner to the defendant a copy of the whole bill as amended, and if there be more than one defend- ant a copy shall be furnished to each defendant affected thereby." ' Another rule provides for obtaining an order to amend after answer, plea or demurrer and before replication, as well as after replication but before plea or demurrer is allowed.^ It is further provided that " if the plaintiff so ob- taming any order to amend his bill after answer, or plea or demurrer, or after replication, shall not file his amendments or amended bill, as the case may require, in the clerk's oflSce on or before the next succeeding rule day, he shall be consid- ered to have abandoned the same, and the cause shall proceed as if no application for any amendment had been made." ' " No special replication to any answer shall be filed. But if any matter alleged in the answer shall make it necessary for the plaintiff to amend his bill, he may have leave to amend the same with or without the payment of costs, as the court or a judge thereof may in his discretion direct."* If a demurrer or plea is allowed, the court may permit the complainant to amend within its discretion upon such terms as it shall deem reasonable.' 1 Equity Rule 28. As to amend- ' Equity Rule 30. ments after an insuflBcient answer, * Equity Rule 45, for a coDstruction see Chase v. Dunham, 1 Paige, 573. of which see Wilson v. Stotley, 4 2 Equity Rule 29. Mercantile Na- McLean, 375. tional Bank v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. ' Equity Riile SSL 567; Neale v. Neale, 9 Wall 1. "184 THE BILL. [§§153,154. § 153. How amendments are made. — Amendments are either made by interlineations or by insertions in the margin, if short, or by being separately engrossed and annexed to the original bill. If they are of such a nature as to require the original bill to be re-engrossed, they must then be designated in some way sufficient to point them out to the defendant.' " By annexing the engrossed amendments to the original bill, and by referring in that part of the bill where the amend- ments should have been inserted to the annexed amendments, and by referring at each amendment to the proper place for its insertion in the original bill, the record will be kept from being defaced, and all the requisite certainty and convenience will be obtained." ^ Upon an application to amend an injunc- tion bill the proposed amendments should be attached to the petition and sworn to. It is not enough to swear to the pe- tition without deposing to the truth of the amended matter.' It seems that the complainant and not his solicitor ought to swear to the truth of proposed amendments, and that the in- formation upon which the new matter is founded has come to his knowledge since the filing of the original bill.^ § 164. Effect of amendments. — Amendments to a bill have the same effect in the ultimate determination of the cause as if they had been originally inserted.^ When properly allowed they take effect as of the filing of the original bill." The allow- 1 Luce V. Graham, 4 Johns. Ch. 170, the body 'of the bill, "and your ora- 172. In Pierce v. West, 3 Wash, tor by way of amendment, etc., (C. C), an amended bill was held im- showeth.'' Grim v. Wheeler, 3 Edw. pertinent for incorporating an un- Ch. 448. reasonable amount of the original, ' Rogers v. De Forest, 8 Edw. Ch. thus increasing the cost and produc- 171. ing inconvenience to the defendant. * Verplank v. Mercantile Ins. Co., ■i Luce V. Graham, 4 Johns. Ch. 170, 1 Edw. Ch. 46. A sworn bill may be 173. A slight clerical error in a bill amended in its prayer, and by add- may be amended by interlineation, ing a new and proper party com- Ayers v. Valentine, 3 Edw. Ch. 451. plainant, without swearing to the An amendment to a bill made by amendment. Livingston v. Marshall, an interlineation with difEerent ink 83 Ga. 381 ; s. C, 11 S. E. Rep. 543. from that in which the bill is written 5 Hoyt v. Smith, 28 Conn. 467, 471. needs no foot-note to explain it. Bpigher v. Moog, 39 Fed. Rep. 665, Werborn v. Austin, 82 Ala. 498. In 667 ; Hurd v. Everett, 1 Paige, 124 ; amending it is not correct to state in Adams v. McPhillips, 82 Ala. 102. It § 155.] THB BILL. 186 ance of trivial amendments to the bill on the hearing to cause it to conform to unimportant facts brought out by defendant's testimony, or judicially known to the court, is not ground for continuing a cause, as such amendments could not require new pleadings by defendant.' Where an injunction bill is amended on leave, the injunction continues in force although the order granting leave is silent on the subject.* Upon a mere amendment of the complainant's bill, no new subpoena is necessary except to bring in new defendants who are made parties by the amendment.' § 155. Amendments confined to what matters.— All mat- ters which arose previous to the filing of the original bill, al- though discovered afterwards, should be introduced into the same by way of amendment if the cause is in a stage in which an amendment is allowable.* As a general rule a bill cannot was held in Alabama that an amend- ment alleging a contemporaneous part payment to take a case out of the statute of frauds would relate back to the original filing of the bill, though the effect was to take com- plainant's demand out of the bar of limitations. Adams v. Phillips, 75 Ala, 461. But see Story's Equity Plead- ing (10th ed.), § 887, note a; Wel- don V. Neal, 19 Q. B. D. 394 ; Judson V. Courier Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 705; Winston v. Mitchell (Ala.), 9 So. Rep. 551. Where a complainant amends his bill by inserting an allegation that it is filed in behalf of himself and of all others standing in the same situa- tion, a person as to whom the right to sue was barred at the time of such amendment, so that he could not have filed a bill himself, cannot come in and claim relief against the de- fendant upon the decree made upon the amendment. Cunningham v. Pell, 6 Paige, 655. After an amend- ment in a material matter to a bill in chancery, defendant should be al- lowed a reasonable time to plead, answer or demur, not only to the amendment but to the amended bill ; and one hour and three-quarters was held not a reasonable time. Davis v. Davis, 62 Miss. 818. 1 Phillips V. Edsall, 127 DL 535; S. a, 20 N. E. Rep. 801. ^Seldeu v. Vermilya, 4 Sandf. Ch. 578. See, also. Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. (C. C.) 174, 180. 3 Lawrence v. Bolton (1832), 3 Paige, 294; Longworth v. Taylor, 1 McLean, 514; Equitable Life Ass. Soc. V. Laird, 24 N. J. Eq. 319; An- gerstein v. Clarke, 1 Ves. Jr. 250. The practice is otherwise in England when a material amendment is made. Foster's Federal Practice (2d ed.), § 165. When a bill to foreclose is amended without service of a copy of the amendment upon defendant, and complainant afterwards asks for the appointment of a receiver, an ap- pearance to that motion will not waive defendant's right to a copy of the amendment. Myers v. Morris (N. J.), 11 All. Rep. 859. *A supplemental bill is necessary for subsequent matter. Stafford v. Howlett, 1 Paige, 200; Candler u 186 THE BILL. [§ 155. be amended for the purpose of stating in it new matters which have occurred subsequent to the commencement of the suit, or of bringing a party before the court whose right or inter- est in the suit accrued subsequent to the time of filing the original bill.'' A bill insufficient in itself is not aided by an amendment stating f .icts which may or may not be subsequent in time to the filing of the bill.* Where an executor appointed by a foreign tribunal files a bill in chancery, and subsequently takes out letters of administration in the State where the suit is brought, he must amend his bill so as to state that fact. This is an exception to the general rule that facts which have occurred since the filing of the bill must be brought before the court by supplemental bill and not by way of amend- ment.* Pettit, 1 Paige, 168. But now not necessary in "West Virginia. Crum- lish V. Shenandoah Valley R Co., 28 West Va. 623. 2 Clark V. Hall, 7 Paige, 386, 403; Mason v. Hartford &c. R Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 334; Bannon v. Coraegys, 69 Md. 411; a C. 16 Atl. Rep. 129; Killinger v. Hartman, 31 Neb. 297; Lyster v. Stickney, 12 Fed. Rep. 609 ; Copen V. Flesher, 1 Bond, 440. A bill which shows on its face that the plaintiff has before suit assigned all his interest in the matter in contro- versy IS demurrable, nor can an amended bill be filed in the name of the assignee. Keyser v. Eenner's Adm'r, 87 Va. 249 ; S. C, 13 S. E. Rep. 406. Where a feme sole who should have been made a defendant marries after the commencement of the suit against the other defendants, she cannot be brought before the court with her husband by an amendment of the original bill, but a supple- mental bill is necessary. Campbell V. Bowne, 5 Paige, 34. 3 Nichols V. Rogers. 139 Mass. 146. Under Revised Statutes of Missouri, sections 3535, 3573, it is competent, in an action against the directors of a corporation for abuse of their trusts, to file an amended and sup- plemental petition alleging that the breaches of their trust complained of were then still continued, and the court may render judgment upon matters occurring down to the date of the filing of such amended peti- tion. Ward V. Davidson, 89 Mo. 445 : S. a. 1 S. W. Rep. 846. U. S. R S., § 911. Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins. Co., S 2U. S. R S., § 912; U. S. St at L. Paige, 438, 449; Bond v. Hendricks, 197. 1 A. K. Marsli. 594 ; Lyle v. Brad- ' Equity Rule 12. ford, 7 Mon. (Ky.) 113. But if a per- * Supreme Court Rule 5. son is specifically named as a de- ' Supreme Court Rule 5. "It is fendant, he may be brought into well settled that no persons are par- court by process issued against him ties as defendants to a bill in chan- generally. ' It is by inspecting the eery except those against whom pro- bill,' said the chancellor in Walton's cess is prayed, or who are specifically Ex'r v. Herbert, 18 N. J. Eq. 73, ' that named and described as defendants the defendant ascertains the nature in the bill. Story's Equity Plead- of the charge against him, and if he ing, g 44; 1 Daniell's Oh. Pr. 390; be properly charged in the bill as Cooper's Eq. PI., § 16 ; Elmeudorf v. executor or devisee, or in any other Delancey, Hopk. (N. Y.) Ch. 555 ; capacity, it is not a good objection § 167.] PROCESS FOR APPEARANCE. 203 § 167. Issue of a subpoena. — It is irregular to serve a sub- poena in a case before the bill has been filed.' It is expressly provided by the United States Equity Eules that "No pro- cess of subpoena shall issue from the clerk's office in any suit in equity until the bill is filed in the office."^ When the bill is filed the clerk issues process of subpoena thereon as of course upon the application of the plaintiff.' But the issue of the subpoena before bill filed is a purely technical irregularity, and is waived by an appearance.^ In a case where a motion that the subpoena is issued against him personally.' " White v. Davis, 48 N. J. Eq. 22, 24, overruling a de- murrer to a bill which duly charged the defendant as a fraudulent as- signee for the benefit of creditors, but prayed process without styling him assignee, etc. Where a bill for foreclosure made a certain person defendant as executor and as guard- ian, and the return to the process showed that he was served as exec- utor and guardian, and the bill stated clearly and distinctly that he had an individual interest in the premises, it was held that a decree of fore- closure was binding upon hira in his individual as well as representative capacity. Cornell v. Green, 43 Fed. Rep. 105. A defective description of the representative capacity of a de- fendant in tlie subpoena which sum- mons him is cured if he is properly described in the bill, and if he ap- pears even by the defective title and answers without objection. Johnson V. Waters, 111 U. S. 640. Where a complainant wishes to make an un- baptized infant a party defendant, it seems the subpoena should describe him as the last-born child of A. B. and C. D. — his father and mother. Eley V. Broughton, 2 Sim. & Stu. 188. • Saxton V. Stowell (1845), 11 Paige, ■"i3(!. Except in injunctions to stay waste. Crowell v. Botsford, 16 N. J. Eq. 458. See, also, Hayden v. Buck- lin, 9 Paige, 512. "In common par- lance we use the expression 'filing of the bill ' to denote the commence- ment of a suit in chancery, instead of referring to the issuing and serv- ice of the subpoena, or the making of a bona fide, attempt to serve it, after the bill has been filed, which is the actual commencement of the suit in this court." Fitch v. Smith, 10 Paige, 9, 11 ; Webb v. Pell, 1 Paige, 564. ^Equity Rulell. ' Equity Rule 12. "Whenever any subpoena shall be returned not exe- cuted as to anj defendant, the plaint- iff shall be entitled to another sub- poena toties quoties against such de- fendant, if he shall require it, until due service is made." Equity Rule 14. * Crowell V. Botsford (1863), 16 N. J, Eq, 459, where the court said : — "The commencement of a suit in chancery was originally by bill, be- fore issuing a subpoena. The bill contained, as it still does, a prayer for subpoena, which issued as soon as the bill was filed. Gilbert's 'Forum Romanum,' 64 ; 3 Blackstone's Com. 442-3. Yet in a very early treatise upon the proceedings of the court of chanceiy, it is stated that ' notwith- standmg the practice before this time hath been that no subpoena should be sued forth of the court of chancery without a bill first exhib- ited, yet of late, for the ease of all suitors and subjects, it hath been 204 PE00ES8 FOE APPEARANCE. [g 1«T. was made in the Supreme Court for leave to file a bill by a State against General Grant, the practice of that court in all cases of original equity jurisdiction, and which would there- after be adopted, was declared as follows : — "In cases of equity it has been the usual practice to hear a motion in be- half of the complainant for leave to file the bill, and, leave having been given, subsequent proceedings have been regu- lated by orders made from time to time as occasion required. The motion for leave has been usually heard ex parte; except at the last term, when leave was asked in behalf of the State of Mississippi to file a bill against the President of the United thought good that every man may have a subpoena out of the same court without a bill first exhibited.' Tothills' Proceed. 1. And by Lord Clarendon's Orders in Chancery, in 1661, it is directed ' that all plaintiffs may have liberty to tate forth sub- poenas ad respondendum before the filing of their bills, if they please, notwithstanding any late order or usage to the contrary.' Beames' Orders in Chancery, 168. This order continued in force until 1705, when it was enacted by statute of Anne (ch. 16, § 28), that 'no subpoena or any other process for appearance do issue out of any court of equity till after the bill is filed, except in cases of bills for injunction to stay waste, or stay suits at law commenced.' The statute is equally peremptory with our owe, yet it has always been regarded as directory only, and a de- parture from its requirements a mere irregularity, which subjected the party to costs. In Hinde's Ch. Pr. 76, it is said that, notwithstanding the statute, 'solicitors, through ig- norance or inattention, frequently sue out and serve this writ before the bill be filed, taking care to file the bill on the return day ; yet that prac- tice is altogether irregular (except in caaes in the statute excepted), and the complainant does it at the risk of costs.' The elementary books all treat the issuing of the subpoena before the filing of the bill, since the passage of the statute, as an irregularity, which exposes the complainant to the hazard of costs. 1 Newland's Pr. 62; 2 Mad- dock's Ch. Pr. 197 ; 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 110; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. 592. The same rule prevailed under the ancient practice of the court prior to the adoption of Lord Clarendon's order authorizing the subpoena to be issued before the filing of the bill. Cases are very frequent during the reign of Elizabeth, where costs are adjudged to the defendant for want of a bill after the service of a subpoena. Cary, 98, 103, 105, 114, 118, 143, 145, 153, 156. ... It is considered most advantageous for the defendant, when he has been im- properly served with a subpoena be- fore filing the bill, to wait till the attachment has been issued against him, and then move to set the process aside for irregularity. The effect of such a proceeding is to oblige the plaintiff to sue out and serve a fresh subpoena. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. 593. This, in its operation, is in accord- ance with the practice in this court, although no resort is had with us (o the writ of attachment" §§ 168, 169.] PK0CE8S FOE APPEAKANOK. 1105 States.' Under the peculiar circumstances of that case it was thought proper that argument should be heard against the motion for leave. "We perceive no reason for making such an exception in the case of the present motion. It will be heard, therefore, on the regular motion day, and only on the part of the complainant ; and the court will require that ten printed copies of the bill be filed with the clerk before the hearing." - § 168. The same subject continued. — In case of gross or improper delay between the filing of the bill and the taking out or service of the subpoena, a court of equity, in the exer- cise of the judicial discretion belonging to it, may refuse this assistance to the plaintiff and direct the bill to be taken off the file.' A mistake in antedating a subpoena, when in fact it was not issued before the filing of the bill, may be cor- rected.* § 169. Return day of a subpoena. — A subpoena to answer a bill to foreclose a mortgage was inadvertently made returnable on Sunday. It was duly served more than ten days before the return day, and no answer filed or appearance entered. It was held that the return day could be amended so as to make it ' State of Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 any respect affect the merits of the Wall. 475. case, it is not necessary to issue and 2 State of Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wall, serve a new subpcBna to answer the 341, 242. amended bill. Longworth v. Taylor, ' Bancroft v. Sawin, 143 Mass. 144 ; 1 McLean, 514 ; Angerstein v. Clarke, Coppin V. Gray, 1 Y. & C. (Ch.) 205, 1 Ves. Jr. 250. See § 154, supra. By 209; Boyd v. Higginson, Flan. & appearing generally one waives his KeL 603, 613; Forster «. Thompson, right to object that he is not named 4 Dru. & War. 303, 318. If process as a defendant in the prayer for a sub- be not taken out within a reasonable poena. Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. time, the filing of the bill may not Rep. 457. But Lord Eldon said in stop the running of the statute of Cook v. Davies, 1 Turn. & R 309, limitations. Coppin v. Gray, supra. 310 : — "I have always understood * Dinsmore v. Westcott (1874). 25 that if a bill is filed and an answer is N. J. Eq. 302. Objection that no put in, and then an order is obtained ticket was issued with the subpoena to amend, and the bill is amended, cannot be taken by demurrer. Lud- but no subpoena to answer the ington V. Elizabeth, 32 N. J. Eq. 159. amended bill is served, the amend- Where an amendment to a bill intro- ments go for nothing." See, also, duces no new fact, and does not in Bramston v. Carter, 2 Sim. 458. 206 PROCESS FOB APPEAEANOE. [§ 170. returnable on the following Monday, and a decree yro oon- fesso be entered thereon.' The fact that a subpoena to appear and answer is returnable on a legal holiday is not ground for setting it aside.^ In a copy of the subpoena which was served the return day was stated to be on the 12th of January in- stead of the 12th of February as in the original. The origi- nal subpoena, which was without defect, was exhibited to the defendant with the seal of the court impressed thereon. It was held that the court had jurisdiction.^ § 170. Who may serve a subpoena. — United States Equity Rule 15 provides that " the service of all process, mesne and final, shall be by the marshal of the district or his deputy, or by some other person specially appointed by the court for that purpose, and not otherwise. In the latter case the per- son serving the process shall make aifidavit thereof." * In New Jersey a subpoena in chancery need not necessarily be served by a sheriff or a coroner. It may be served by a pri- vate person ; but in such case there must be an affidavit of the manner and time of service, and upon the return of the writ a rule must be taken upon the defendant to plead, an- swer or demur at or before the next stated term of the court.* In Vermont the person specially authorized should be named in the order made by the chancellor signing the subpoena. The defendant is not bound to notice any service unless made by a regular officer or person duly authorized by name or by a publication made agreeably to the rules of the court." ' McEvoy V. Trustees, 38 N. J. Eq. precepts therein shall be directed to 420. such disinterested person as the ^ Kinney v. Stewart, 37 N. J. Eq. court or any justice or judge thereof 339. may appoint, and the person so ap- '" Where the service appears from pointed may execute and return the return to have been legal and them." U. S. E. S., g 922. proper though false, it is sufficient to ^ West v. Smith, 3 N. J. Eq. 309. give the court jurisdiction." Low u ^Allyn v. Davis, 10 Vt. 547; Bur- Mills, 61 Mich. 85. hngton Bank v. Catlin, 11 Vt 100. . Vanbibber, 6 Humph. 18. But it Paige, 370. " Notwithstanding the has also been held that he may limit opinion of Lord Bathurst expressed his pro confesso to the part to which in Bacon v. Griffith, 3 Dick. 473, that the exceptions have been sustained, after exceptions sustained and fail- Abergavenny v. Abergavennj', 3 Eq. ure to answer the application should Ca. Abr. 178 ; Weaver v. Livingstone, be to take the whole bill for con- Hopk. Ch. 493. The complainant fessed, I can see no reason why the cannot have an order pro confesso complainant may not elect in such until his exceptions for insufficiency case whether he will insist upon a are sustained and the defendant has pro confesso to the whole bill or only failed to put in a sufficient answer to the part excepted to. An iusuffi- within the time prescribed by law or cient answer being legally no answer, the order of the court Smith v. St the complainant is entitled as a right Louis Mut L. Lis. Co., supra. to a pro confesso of the whole bill if 3 Bronson v. La Crosse &c. R Co., 2 he chooses." Smith v. St Louis Mut Wall. 383. L. Ins. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 605, citing * Emery v. Downing (I860), 18 N. J. Turner v. Turner, 1 Dick. 316; Att'y Eq. 59. Gen'l V. Young, 3 Ves. 209 ; Jopling §§ I'J."), 196. J TAKING THE BILL PEO OONFBSSO. 235 § 195. When proof of the bill is necessary. — If the alle- gations in the bill are distinct and positive they may be taken as true without proof.' But if they are indefinite, or the demand of the complainant is in its nature uncertain, the req- uisite certainty must be afforded by proof.^ In either event, although the defendant may not be allowed, on appeal, to question the want of testimony or the insufficiency or amount of the evidence, he is not precluded from contesting the suflB- ciency of the bill or from insisting that the averments con- tained in it do not justify the decree.' § 196. Effect of answer by one of several defendants. — "Where defendants are jointly interested, a decree ^ro confesso as to some merely takes away their standing in court, and disentitles them to appear or be heard on many questions, certainly without an order of court; but the success of the others avails for them, and the bill will be dismissed as to all.* 1 Williams v. Corwin, Hopk. Ch. 471 ; Central R. Co. v. Central Trust Co., 133 U. S. 83, 91; Harmon v. Campbell, 30 II!. 25. See, also. Con- solidated Electric Storage Co. v. At- lantic Trust Co. (N. J. Ch.), 24 Atl. Rep. 289. When a bill is taken pro confesso the complainant is not bound to prove the contract stated in the bill. Douglass v. Evans, 1 Tenn. (Overton), 82. If any particular claim in a bill be not answered the com- jjlainant should insist on an answer, and if such answer be refused he may take a decree pro ianto by con- fession ; and then if the charge is sufHciently explicit it may be with- out further proof. But should the complainant, instead of pursuing that course, bring the case to a hearing on the merits, he can only entitle him- self to the claim by proving it. Pegg V. Davis, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 381. 2 Central R Co. v. Central Trust Co., 133 U. 8. 83, 91 ; Williams v. Corwin, Hopk. Ch. 471; Pegg v. Davis, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 281. See, generally, Atkins V. Faulkner, 11 Iowa, 326; Larkin v. Mann, 2 Paige, 27 ; Cole- man V. Lyne, 4 Rand. 454 ; Wilkins V. Williams, 4 Porter (Ala.), 245; Singleton v. Gale, 8 Porter (Ala.), 270. 3 Central R. Co. v. Central Trust Co., 133 U. S. 83, 91. ^Kopper V. Dyer, 59 Vt 477; S. C, 9 Atl. Rep. 4; Clason v. Morris, 10 Johns. 524. See, also. Prow v. De La Vega, 15 Wall. 552 ; Cunningham v. Steele, 1 Litt (Ky.) 52; Hanson v. Jeremiah, 2 Bibb, 349; Butler v. Kinzie (Tenn.), 15 S. W. Rep. 1068 ; Phillips V. Hollister, 2 Cold. (Tenn.) 271 ; Petty v. Hannum. 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 102, 105 ; Hennessee v. Ford, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 500; Cherry v. Clements, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 553; McDaniel v. Goodall, 2 Cold. (Tenn.) 395; Caldwell u. MoFarland, 11 Lea (Tenn.), 467; Smith v. Cunningham, 3 Tenn. Ch. 573 ; Terry v. Fontaine, 83 Va. 451; S. C, 2 S. E. Rep. 743; Anon., 4 Hen. & M. 476 ; Findlay v. Sheffy, 1 Rand. (Va.) 73 ; Cartique v. Raymond, 4 Leigh, 579; Ashby v. Bell, 80 Va. 811. 236 TAKING THE BILL PRO C0NFES80. [§ 190. "Where the complainant is required to make out his case by proof he must do so in every particular as to each party against whom recovery is sought if his suit is of a character that necessarily involves the several defendants in the facts which must bind or relieve all." • Thus where only one of two mem- bers of a firm, who are sued jointly on notes given by the firm, answers the bill, and establishes fraud on the part of complainant, judgment should also be rendered in favor of the other defendant, if the facts as to him are the same, though he failed to appear, and a decree pro confesso was had as to him.^ A bill filed against an administrator and others to reach a fund realized from the sale of certain lands made under decree of court in settlement of the estate of a decedent to whom they had, as alleged, been conveyed in fraud of creditors, prayed that the administrator be made a defendant and required to answer under oath, and the administrator did answer under oath denying the fraud. It was held that the complainant was not entitled to a decree pro confesso against the defendants who failed to answer, when the evidence showed that no fraud was committed.' But this doctrine has never been applied to the case of an answer by a defendant who has distinct rights and no joint or common interest with the party who files the 1 Butler V. Kinzie (Tenn.), 15 S. W. Kinzie, supra (Tenn.), 15 S. W. Rep. Rep. 1068. . . . "It a pro confesso 1068. is to operate as an estoppel at all 2 Butler v. Kinzie (Tenn.), 15 S. AV. times and under all circumstances Rep. 1068 ; Petty v. Hannum, 3 without qualification, then courts Humph. (Tenn.) 103, 105. must sit like fangless lions while 3 Terry v. Fontaine's Adm'r, 83 fraud and falsehood prevail within Va. 451 ; s. C, 3 S. E. Rep. 743. their precincts and defiantly taunt * Butler v. Kinzie (Tenn.), 15 S. W. their helplessness to uphold the Rep. 1068 ; Simpson v. Moore, 5 Lea majesty and power of the law to do (Tenn.), 376 ; Andress v. Lee, 1 Dev. right and justice. Technicalities & Bat Eq. 318, 831, where, how- should never be allowable as shields ever, the court said : — " Because of for wrong but only for the protec- the obvious equity of such a course tion of merit When they present we are bound to hold that the defense themselves as barriers to justice, inures to the benefit of all defendants courts should without hesitation cut having a joint interest in thesubject- through them to the right that the matter.'' Upon a bill for specific ends and purposes of equity and good performance and for a compensation conscience may be attained and in damages against the vendor and a served." Turner, C. J., in Butler v. subsequent purchaser with notice. §§ 197, 198.] TAKING THE BILL PEO CONFBSSO. 237 § 197. Decrees pro confesso against infants. — "It is a well-settled principle . . . that before a decree can pass against an infant defendant in chancery full proof must be made against him and that proof preserved in the record or decree. No presumption can be indulged that proof was made against the infant defendant unless it is shown by the record. The answer of a guardian ad litem admitting the truth of the charges in the bill cannot affect the infant's rights, but with respect to them all the allegations must be proved with the same strictness as if the answer had inter- posed a direct and positive denial of their truth ; nor can a default or a decree pro confesso be entered against the in- fant." ' It is clear that where no answer has been put in by a guardian ad litem a decree cannot be rendered against in- fants by default, but the plaintiff must prove his case. " This is a settled principle both in England and America." "^ "When notice by publication against infant non-resident defendants is nugatory and void, the appointment of a guardian ad litem, for them, based upon such publication, is also void, if they are not in court amenable to any of its orders.' § 198. Elt'ect of amending the bill. — It was held in the New York court of chancery that where the complainant amends his bill after a personal service of a subpoena upon the defendant, who neglects to appear in the suit, the service of a new subpoena is not necessary to authorize the entry of an order to take the amended bill as confessed. Such an order applies to the bill as it then stands, including amendments that have been made ; * and where the complainant amends the latter admitting the facts and Ormsbee, 13 III. 169; Masterson v. notice thereof in his answer, and the Wiswould, 18 111. 49 ; Eeaves v. bill being taken as confessed against Fielden, 18 111. 77 ; IngersoU v. In- the other defendants, the proper de- gersoll, 42 Miss. 155. See O'Hara v. cree ifl for a specific performance by MacConnell, 93 XJ. S. 151 ; Mills v. the purchaser and not a decree for Dennis, 3 Johns. Ch. 367; Carneal compensation in damages. Boyd v. v. Sthreshley, 1 A. K. Marsh. 471. Vanderkemp, 1 Barb. Ch. 273. ^ Massie v. Donaldson, 8 Ohio, 377, 1 Chaffln V. Kimball, 23 111. 36, 38 McClay v. Norris, 4 Gilm. (111.) 370 Cochran v. McDowell, 15 111. 10 Greenough v. Taylor, 17 111. 603 381. 3 McDermaid v. Russell, 41 IlL 489, 491; Campbell v. Campbell, 63 111. 463 ; Chambers v. Jones, 73 IlL 375. Tuttle V. Garrett, 16 111. 354 ; Hitt v. * Bond v. Howell (1844), 11 Paige, 238 TAKING THE BILL PBO CONFESSO. [§ 199. his bill after answer, if a further answer to the amended bill is not waived, the defendant must put in a further answer to the amendments, or the complainant will be entitled to an order taking the whole bill as amended confessed.' But if an original bill is taken as confessed and an amended bill is sub- sequently filed making other persons parties, the order j[>ro coTifesso is thereby opened.^ It is declared in several cases in Kansas that if a defendant has been personally served with a summons the bill cannot be materially changed without notice when the defendant is in default or is absent.' § 199. Rights of the defendant after decree pro confesso. If a defendant has appeared and the bill is taken for confessed against him for want of an answer, he still has the right to be heard upon the form of the decree and to appeal therefrom.^ A defendant who has appeared by a solicitor is entitled to notice of all the subsequent proceedings in the cause, although he suffers the complainant's bill to be taken as confessed ; and a decree taken against him ex parte without notice to his solic- itor of the hearing will be set aside as irregular.' When the 833. But see Harris v. Deitrioh, 29 the order useless. The vice-chan- Mich. 366. Where a bill is amended cellor said the difficulty was that after appearance, it is necessary to what the complainant called a cleri- enter an order that the party answer cal error might not be so regarded by the bill as amended, and notice is to a defendant. Merely putting in an be given of the same with a copy of answer is not sufficient to overrule the amended bill. It cannot in such an order to take a bill pro confesso, a case be taken pro confesso upon an Carter v. Torrance, 11 Ga. 654. order to answer entered prior to the " Beecher v. Ireland, 46 Kan. 97 : amendment. Jackson v. Edwards a C, 26 Pac. Rep. 448; Haight v. (1836X 2 Edw. Ch. 582. Schuck, 6 Kan. 192 ; Al vey v. Wilson. 1 Trust & Ins. Co. v. Jenkins (1841), 9 Kan. 401 ; Railroad Co. v. Van Riper, 8 Paige, 589 ; Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 19 Kan. 317. 23 ; Bacon v. Griflfith, 4 Ves. 619, n. ; * Blanchard v. Cooke, 144 Mass. Jopling V. Stewart, 4 Ves. Jr. 619. 207 ; Frow v. De La Vega, 15 Wall. ButseeSuydam v. Beals, 4 McLean, 552; Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U. S. 12, 15. 128. As to what objections may be 2 Bank of Utica v. Finch (1845), 1 made on appeal, see O'Hara v. Mc- Barb. Ch. 75. In Weightman v. Connell. 93 U. S. 150 ; Brown v. Lake Powell, 2 De G. & S. 570, it was held Superior Iron Co., 134 U. S. 530 ; Mas- that after an order to take the bill terson v. Howard, 18 Wall. 99 ; Ohio pro confesso the bill cannot be &c. R. Co. v. Central Trust Co., 133 amended even to the extent of cor- U. S. 83. recting a clerical error without viti- * Hart v. Small, 4 Paige, 551. It ating the proceedings and rendering seems that where a bill is taken as § 200.] TAKING THE BILL PRO COISTFESSO. 239 order of reference on a decree pro confesso directs that notice of proceeding before the master be given to the defendant, a rule to confirm the report of the master nisi should be en- tered on the part of the complainant.' § 200. Decree pro confesso as an estoppel. — As a rule a decree ^ro confesso will estop a party from resisting liability when the facts charged make a case against him.^ The alle- gations of the bill cannot be questioned in subsequent pro- ceedings in the court below or upon appeal. Anything in the allegations themselves tending to show that the decree is er- roneous is assignable for error ; but facts not found in the al- legations of the bill are inadmissible to afPect the decree.' Heirs and personal representatives of a defendant who has suffered a bill to be taken as confessed against him are bound by his implied admissions arising from his neglect to put in an answer.* But " a decree j^ro confesso is not a decree as of course, according to the prayer of the bill, nor merely such as the complainant chooses to take it ; but it is made by the court, according to what is proper to be decreed upon the statements of the bill, assumed to be true." ' The decree es- tablishes facts which are well pleaded, but does not aid or supplement a bill which fails to state a good cause of action.* confessed against a defendant before ^ Christie v. Bishop, 1 Barb. Ch, liis death, and after his death the 105. suit is revived against his heirs or ' Central E. Co. v. Central Trust his personal representatives, they Co., 133 U. S. 83, 90. must apply to vacate the order tak- « Keil v. "West, 21 Fla. 508, 520 ; ing tlie bill as confessed if they wish Gault v. Hoagland, 25 111. 266 ; Gen- to controvert the allegations in the try v. Rogers, 40 Ala. 443, 446 ; bill or to set up any defense except White v. Lewis, 2 A. K. Marsh. 123 ; such as has arisen since the entry of Robinson v. Townshend, 3 Gill & J. the order. Christie v. Bishop (1845), 413 ; McDonald v. Mobile Life Ins. 1 Barb. Ch. 105. Co., 56 Ala. 468; Central R. Co. u. 1 Brundage v. Goodfellow, 8 N. J. Central Trust Co., 133 U. S. 83, 91 ; Eq. 513. That a defendant is en- Cowan v. Wells, 5 Lea (Tenn.), 682. titled to notice, see Bennett v. Hoef- A defendant in equity, who suffers a ner, 18 Blatchf. 841, 342. default, does not admit facts not al- 2 Butler V. Kinzie (Tenn.), 15 S. W. leged in the bill, nor conclusions of Rep. 1068 ; Stone v. Duncan, 1 Head the pleader from the facts stated. (Tenn.), 103. Cramer v. Bode, 24 111. App. 219. 3 Thompson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104. 24:0 TAKING THE BILL PEO CONFESSO. [§g 201, 202. In the latter case the decree would stand in point of legal ef- ficacy precisely where a decree stands, after pleadings and proof, which is founded on a cause of action not stated in the bill.' §201. The same subject continued. — "A judgment ^o confesso appearing in the record in which it is recited that publication was made in a newspaper in accordance with an order of the court requiring defendants to appear and make defense at a given term, it is sufficient proof that publication was made. And it is immaterial whether this is made on the minutes of the court or at rules by the master.^ But if the judgment pro confesso does not show all these facts of publica- tion, it will still be suflicient evidence of publication if it recite that publication was duly made or regularly made.' So if publication is recited as having been made it will be presumed to have been made according to law.* And finally, if no yuAg- raent pro confesso appears, and it is recited in the final decree that publication has been made, this is sufficient.' Or if there is no recital of publication or of the terms of any judgment pro confesso, and the final decree recites that the cause was heard on judgment pro confesso, it will be presumed that a regular judgment for confession was taken, and that the judg- ment recited publication according to law, and that publicar tion was in fact made according to the presumed recitals."' § 202. Opening decrees pro confesso — The general rule. — Great liberality has been exercised in the opening and correct- ing of decrees before enrollment, and even afterwards, where 1 Consolidated Electric Storage Co. son, 5 Lea (Tenn.), 848 ; Martin u V. Atlantic Trust Co. (N. J. Ch.), 24 Porter, 4 Heisk. 415. Atl. Rep. 229 ; Chadwell v. MoCall, 1 * Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. Tenn. Ch. 640 ; McGavock v. Elliott, 173, 184, 185 ; Kilcrease's Heirs v. 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 373 ; Ross v. Ramsey, Blythe, 6 Humph. 389, 390. 3 Head (Tenn.), 15 ; §g 99, 100, supra. " Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 2 Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 185 ; Gilchrist v. Cannon, 1 Cold. 171, 184, 185 ; Mitchell v. McKinney, 587 ; Kyle v. Phillips, 6 Bax. 45. 6 Heisk. 87 ; Allen v. Gilliland, 6 Lea, « Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn, 532, 533. 171, 185 ; Kilcrease's Heirs v. Blythe. s Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 6 Humph. 389, 390 ; Sparks v. White 171, 184, 185; Walker v. Cottril, 6 7 Humph. 91, 92; Mitchell u. McKiii- Bax. (Tenn.) 261 ; Netherlands John- ney, 6 Heisk. 87. § 202.] TAKING THE BILL PEO OONFE880. 241 the decree has been taken pro confesso for the purpose of rectifying mistakes apparent upon the face of the proceedings, or where there is a clear case of surprise and merits.' There is no general and positive rule upon the subject. Whether the court will interfere to release a party from the consequences of his default must depend upon sound discretion arising out of the circumstances of the case.* In one case Lord Thurlow observed that if a defendant comes in after a bill has been taken pro confesso upon any reasonable ground of indulgence and pays costs, the court will attend to his application if the delay has not been extravagantly long.^ And Lord Hard- wicke said it was a question on which side the greatest in- ' Carpenter v. Muohmore (1862), 15 N. J. Eq. 123. After a decree pro confesso, order of reference, and re- port of master, the decree will be opened and the defendant let in to answer on terms if the equity of the case requires such relaxation of the rules of the court. Williamson v. Sykes (1860), 13 N. J. Eq. 182. That the decrees pro confesso will be opened in proper cases, even after enroll- ment, see Embury v. Bergamini, 24 N. J. Eq. 238 ; Millspaugh i;. McBride, 7 Paige, 509 ; Kemp v. Squire, 1 Ves. Sr. 204 ; Beekman v. Peck, 3 Johns. Ch. 415 ; Erwin v. Vint, 6 Munf. 367 ; Tripp V. Vincent, 8 Paige, 176. But not when the bill has been taken as confessed after appearance. May- nard v. Pereault, 30 Mich. 160. It is not a matter of course to set aside an order taking the bill as confessed merely upon an afiSdavit of merits, even before a decree in the case. Wells V. Cruger, 5 Paige, 164. " The whole current of authorities goes to show that there is a difference be- tween decrees by default, orders that the bill be taken pro confesso and actual decrees pro confesso. The last is considrred, when compared with the others, as sacred, and to be disturbed only for weighty reasons." 16 Robertson v. Miller (1836), 3 N. J. Eq. 451, 454. 2 Carter v. Torrance, 11 Ga, 655 Wooster v. Woodhull, 1 Johns. Ch, 539; Russell v. Waite, Walk. Ch. 31 Pittman v. McClellan, 55 Miss. 299 Hearne v. Ogilvie, 11 Ves. Jr. 76 Warner v. Ogilvie, 3 Paige, 406 ; Ma- gowan V. James, 12 Sm. & M. 448 ; Parker v. Grant, 1 Johns. Ch. 630. The application should not be granted when the result must be in- jurious to the complainant. Robert- son V. Miller, 3 N. J. Eq. 451. That the exercise of discretion is not re- viewable, see Buchanan v. McManus, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 449; Chandler tJ. Jobe, 5 Lea, 593, except in extraordi- nary cases, s. a .In Mississippi the statute provides that "such pro confesso so taken shall not be set aside except upon good cause shown, supported by affidavit of the party or his solicitor." This is mandatory, and converts what was before very much a matter of discretion into a matter of duty, so that if good cause be shown the pro confesso must be set aside. Pittman v. McClellan, 55 Miss. 299. 3 Williams v. Thompson, 2 Bro. Ch. 279; Wooster v. Woodhull, 1 Johns. Ch. 539. 242 TAKING THE BILL PRO CONFESSO. [§§ 203, 204. convenience would lie, and he finally opened the cause on payment of the cost of the default and of all subsequent pro- ceedings, notwithstanding two years had elapsed after the decree had been made absolute on account of the defendant's not appearing at the hearing.* § 203. Who may apply to open decrees pro confesso. — A party who is in contempt for disobeying an order of the court cannot obtain relief, which rests upon the favor of the court, until the contempt be purged. On that ground a motion to open a default for not answering was denied.^ "Where in a suit relating to property a decree pro confesso was taken against the defendant for want of an answer, it was held that his assignee in insolvency j)endente lite might be admitted as a party and be allowed to file an answer and try the case upon its merits.' Where a mortgagor sells his interest in the prem- ises after a decree of foreclosure against him pro confesso, the grantee can have no better title to open the decree than the mortgagor would have.* § 204. Grounds for opening decrees pro confesso. — Where on the service of the subpoena the defendant's solicitor wrote • Cunningham v. Cunningham, answer. . . . The purpose of the Ambler, 89; s. c, Dick. 145. Ordi- statute was to place the non-resident narily in England a party, whether who comes within its saving in the plaintiff or defendant, who had same plight as if the case were then made default at the hearing and newly begun when he presents his who had thereby suffered his bill to petition and is admitted to defend ; be dismissed or a decree to be made that is, to place him in the same absolute against him, was relieved status as if the cause were just stand- upon the usual terms of payment ing for defense. It is obvious that of costs. Robson v. Cramell, Dick, by this construction he could make 61 ; Kemp v. Squire, Dick. 131 ; an issue of either law or fact Any Frey v. Frosser, Dick. 398; Fer- other construction would be but to ran V. White, Dick. 782. The Ian- offer a benefit with one hand and guage of the Tennessee statute is that withhold it with the other." Brown non-residents " may be admitted to v. Brown, 2 Pickle (Tenn.), 277; S. c, answer the bill upon petition show- 6 S. W. Rep. 869. ing fnerits and giving security for ^ Ellingwood i'. Stevenson (1846), 4 the payment of costs." " He has Sandf. Ch. 366. first to acquire his status by the pres- ' Blanchard v. Cook (1887), 144 entation of a petition. If the pe- Mass. 207. tition shall be adjudged good and < Watt v. Watt (1847), 2 BarUCh. sufficient, then he is admitted to 371. § 205.] TAKING TIIK BILL PRO CONFESSO. 2-i3 a letter to the solicitor of the plaintiff requesting him to cause the appearance of the defendant to be entered and send him a copy of the bill ; and the plaintiff's solicitor sent him a copy of the bill accordingly, but neglected to enter the defendant's appearance and proceeded to have the bill taken jpro confesso, and a final decree was entered in the cause, it was held that the sending of a copy of the bill and requesting that an an- swer might be put in was to be deemed an admission of an appearance or a waiver of the formal entry of it, and that the defendant was therefore to be considered as in court and en- titled to be served with a rule to put in an answer before the bill could be taken pro confesso, and the order for taking the bill as confessed and all subsequent proceedings were set aside for irregularity.' §205. The same subject continued. — Where a defendant has had an opportunity to set up his discharge under the bankrupt act as a technical defense, and has neglected to do so, the court will not open a regular default for the purpose of enabling him to set it up.^ A decree fairly and regularly obtained by default for want of an answer will not be set aside to let in a defense founded on a fraudulent speculation.^ Where the principal witness in support of the bill had died after the bill was iakenpro confesso, an application by the de fendant to be let in to make a defense was refused.'' It is the settled practice of the court not to set aside a regular order taking a bill as confessed to enable a defendant to set up an unconscientious defense. And where the defense is usury, the court requires the defendant to undertake that he will not avail himself of that defense, except as to tlie amount of the usurious premium.* The court will not set aside a regu- 1 Livingston v. Woolsey (1820), 4 '' Wooster v. WoodhuU, 1 Johns. Ch. Johns. Ch. 365. A decree p^o con- 539. fesso was opened, with leave to an- * Quincy v. Foot (1846), 1 Barb. Ch. swer, on the ground of surprise ; no 496 ; National Fire Ins. Co. v. Sack- negligence being attributable to the ett, 11 Paige, 660. After a default defendants. Miller u Wright (1874), has been regularly entered in a fore- 35 N. J. Eq. 840. closure suit, it will not be opened for 2 Freeman v. Warren, 3 Barb. Ch. the purpose of enabling the defend- 035. ant to set up as a defense that the ■' Parker v. Grant, 1 Johns. Ch. 680. mortgage was given in violation of 244 TAKING THE BILL PRO CONFESSO. [§ 206. lar decree by default on the application of the defendant, for the mere purpose of enabling him to enforce a forfeiture in a suit at law.' § 206. Requisites of the application to open a decree pro confesso. — An application by a defendant to open a decree 'pro confesso and file an answer may be either by petition properly verified, or upon motion sustained by affidavit. The former mode is the more usual and formal, but either may be resorted to.'' A final decree which has been regularly entered, upon a bill taken as confessed, will not be set aside upon the mere affidavit of the defendant that he is advised he has a the restraining law ; except upon the terms of paying the money or prop- erty actually received from the mort- gagee. Bard v. Fort, 3 Barb. Ch. 632. 1 Baxter v. Lansing, 7 Paige, 350. The defendant's solicitor in a fore- closure suit obtained an order ex- tending the time for answering, and filed his answer (setting up usury) within the time limited, but did not serve the order on complainant's solicitor, who entered a decree pro confesso after the original time for answering had expired. All the sub- sequent proceedings in the cause were had without his knowledge of the existence of such order or an- swer. It was held that the final de- cree was regular, and the sheriff's sale under it would not be set aside, the purchaser, too, having laid out money on the property since he bought it Wrigley v. JoUey, 86 N. J. Eq. 168. Mere poverty and conse- quent inability to employ counsel is not ground for opening a default. Keil V. "West, 21 Fla. 508. See, also, Robertson v. Miller, 3 N. J. Eq. 451. Where on a bill to quiet title a pro confesso order was entered for plaint- iff after service of subpoena on de- fendants, and a copy of the bill on their attorney, who made affidavit that defendants instructed him to make a settlement without making any defense, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the order pro confesso, especially where the proposed answer failed to meet the case made by the bill. Mills V. McLeod (Mich.), 49 N. W. Rep. 134. 2 Emery v. Downing (1860), 13 N. J. Eq. 59, 60. In the federal courts the proper method of relief is by motion to the court to vacate the decree. Stewart v. French, 22 Wall. (1875), 288. But not after the term has ex- pired. Allen V. Wilson, 21 Fed. Rep. 881. Where a decree has been ren- dered in a cause on a demurrer to the bill, an answer, a supplemental and amended answer, and replications thereto, on depositions taken, and the report of a commissioner, which has been excepted to, the exceptions acted on, and the principles of the cause have been adjudicated, such decree cannot be reversed on motion under Code of West Virginia, chapter 184, section 5, which provides that the court in which there is a judgment by default, or a decree on a bill taken for confessed, may, on motion, reverse such judgment or decree for certain errors, Rader v. Adamson (West Va.), 16 S. E. Rep. 808, because it was really a decree on the merits. § 207.] TAKING THE BILL PEO CONFESSO. 245 good defense on the merits. He must either state the nature and facts of his defense in the aflBdavit, or he must move upon the sworn answer which he proposes to put in, so that the court can see what the defense is. And in either case the com- plainant is entitled to service of a copy of the answer or affidavit upon which the motion is based.' A regular decree entered by default will not be opened to let in a defense of usury, without an offer on the part of the defendant to waive the forfeiture and to consent to a decree for the payment of what is equitably due.* § 207. Terms upon which decrees pro confesso are opened. Where the complainant's proceedings are strictly regular the 1 Goodhue v. Churchman (1846), 1 Barb. Ch. 596; Winship v. Jewett, 1 Barb. Ch. 173 ; Montgomery v. 01- well, 1 Tenn. Ch. 173. " The showing as to merits must be of facts stating a defense and in a distinct and satis- factory manner." Keil v. West, 21 Fla. 508. In Wells v. Conger, 5 Paige, 164, it was held that he must, upon the motion, produce the answer he proposes to put in. See, also, Long v. Long, 59 Mich. 296 : Mills v. McLeod (Mich.), 49 N. W. Rep. 134 ; Emery v. Downing, 13 N. J. Eq. 59. But in Tennessee this is not necessary until it is determined by the court whether he is entitled to make defense by an- swer. Metcalf V. Landers. 3 Bax. (Tenn.), 35. See Cook v. Dews, 2 Tenn. Ch. 496 ; Tatten v. Nance, 3 Tenn. Ch. 264, holding that the affidavit must be made by the defendant in person unless the facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of some other person swearing to it "The object of pre- senting the answer at the time is twofold : first, not to delay the com- plainant in his suit ; second, that the court may see that a meritorious de- fense is made." Pittman v. McClel- lan, 55 Miss. 299, and cases there cited. It should be verified though the bill waives ananswer under oath. Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 235. " Under the seventeenth equity rule a defendant may, by special leave of the court, at any time after a bill is taken pro confesso and before final decree, either answer, plead or demur to the bill, but to entitle him to do so he should, according to long estab- lished practice, assign some satis- factory reason in his application for leave why the delay and failure to appear and answer have occurred, and the facts should be verified by oath. But the sufficiency of the reasons assigned is not reviewable by this court, nor are the terms upon which the party may be allowed to answer, plead or demur. These are matters of practice properly within the sound discretion of the court or judge to whom the application is made." Belt v. Bowie, 65 Md. 350, holding that under permission to plead the defendant may plead the statute of limitations. " Cross-affi- davits te resist the setting aside of a pro confesso are of doubtful and dangerous tendency, and should not be allowed." Gibson's Suits in Chan- cery, § 285, note 2, at p. 209, citing Buchanan v. McManue, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 449; Brown v. Brown, 3 Pickle (Tenn.), 304. 2 Watt V. Watt (1847), 3 Barb. Ch. 371. 246 TAKING THE BILL PEO CONFBSSO. [§ 208. decree is opened upon the payment of costs.' But where a sole defendant resided out of the State and no foreign publi- cation was ordered or notice given to him, costs on opening the decree were ordered to abide the event of the suit.^ Where a defendant in a foreclosure suit, who was proceeded against as an absentee, applied to be let in to defend, after decree and before a sale of the mortgaged premises, and did not swear to a defense on the merits, he was required to pay the costs already accrued, subsequent to the time of his appearance, and also to give security to pay the future costs of the suit if he failed to succeed in his defense. If he swore to a good defense upon the merits and stated what it was, the court would not require him to pay the costs, where he applied upon the first opportunity after he had notice of the proceedings against him, although the complainant denied upon oath that any such defense existed. But the court in such a case might require the absentee to give security to pay the costs already accrued and the costs of the future litigation if he were defeated in the suit.'' § 208. Opening decrees on account of defective process. — A decree pro confesso will not be opened because of a defect in the subpoena where the defendant appeared." Where a copy of subpoena to appear and answer was served in blanli as to the return day and month, a decree pro confesso taken under it was set aside.^ lOram v. Dennison, 18 N. J. Eq. sonal service. The copy served on 438. See, also, Wooster v. WoodhuU, the defendant was not a true copy, ] Johns. Ch. 539. The " terms are as it contained no return day what- that the defendant shall pay costs ever. The defendant, however, al- occasioned by his default and inci- lowed the complainant to go on and dent to the relief." Pittman v. Me- take a decree pro con/esso on July 1, Clellan, 55 Miss. 399. 1880. On December 18th following *Oram v. Dennison, 13 N. J. Eq. he moved in person to vacate the 438. proceedings subsequent to the bill ' Hartwell v. White (1841), 9 Paige, and issue of subpoena on the ground 868. of the defect in the copy of the < Keil V. West, 31 Fla. 508. subpoena. He made no showing of 6Arden v. Walden (1833), 1 Edw. merits nor tendered any answer, Ch. 631. But in Gould v. Castel, 47 neither did he suggest any excuse or Mich. 604: S. C., 11 N. W. Rep. 403, a explanation for his delay. The court subpoena was issued in due form and said : — " We think the defendant returned with regular proof of per- was guilty of gross laches and was in § 209.] TAKING THE BILL PRO CONFESSO. 247 § 209. Practice in taking bills pro confesso in the federal courts. — The practice in taking decrees jpro confesso and the bearing of the United States equity rules upon the subject was thus described by Mr. Justice Bradley : ' — "By the early practice of the civil law, failure to appear at the day to which the cause was adjourned was deemed a confession of the ac- tion; but in later times this was changed, so that the plaintiff, notwithstanding the contumacy of the defendant, only ob- tained judgment in accordance with the truth of the case as established by an ex jparte examination.^ The original prac- tice of the English court of chancery was in accordance with the later Roman law.^ But for at least two centuries past bills have been taken pro confesso for contumacy.* Chief Baron Gilbert says: — 'Where a man appears by his clerk in court, and after lies in prison, and is brought up three times to court by habeas corpus, and has the bill read to him and refuses to answer, such public refusal in court does amount to the confession of the whole bill. Seoondl}', when a person appears and departs without answering, and the whole process of the court has been awarded against him after his appear- ance and departure to the sequestration, there also the bill is taken pro confesso, because it is presumed to be true when he has appeared and departs in despite of the court and with- stands all its process without answering.' ^ Lord Hardwioke likened a decree pro confesso to a judgment by nil dicit at common law and to judgment for plaintiff on demurrer to the fault by lying by and not moving on and be allowed to answer. The court his own contention in regard to the said : — "In order to open a decree defect of the process." See, also, regularly entered it is necessary that Long V. Long, 59 Mich. 296 ; Benedict it appear that the defendant has some V. Thompson, Walk. Ch. 447 ; Hart v. good defense and what that defense Lindsay, Walk. Ch. 74, 75 ; Keil v. is." He was allowed fifteen days to West, 21 Fla. 508. A writ and sub- make the proper affidavit,^ such afiS- poena having been issued without the davit to be entitled in the causa required revenue stamp, the defend- Disbrow v. Johnson (1866), 18 N. J ant neglected to answer within the Eq. 36. prescribed time, because he supposed i In Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. the time would not begin to run until 104, 110 et seq. the writ was stamped. In this he 2 Keller, Proced. Rom., § 69. mistook the law, and a stamp having ' Hawkins v. Crook, 3 P. Wms. 556. been afl^ed and decree pro confesso * Hawkins v. Crook, 3 P. Wms. 556. t ken, he moved to open the same ^ Forum Romanum, 36. 248 TAKING THE BILL PEO CONFESSO. [§ 209. defendant's plea.' It was said in Hawkins v. Crook'' that 'the method in equity of taking a bill pro confesso is consonant to the rule and practice of the courts at law, where, if the de- fendant makes default by nil dioit, judgment is immediately given in debt or in all cases where the thing demanded is cer- tain ; but where the matter sued for consists in damages, a judgment interlocutory is given, after which a writ of inquiry goes to ascertain the damages, and then the judgment follows.' The strict analogy of this proceeding in actions at law to a general decree pro confesso in equity in favor of the com- plainant, with a reference to a master to take a necessary account or to assess unliquidated damages, is obvious and striking. . . . We may say that to take a bill pro confesso is to order it to stand as if its statements were confessed to be true, and that a decree pro confesso is a decree based on such statements assumed to be true,* and such a decree is as bind- ing and conclusive as any decree rendered in the most solemn manner. ' It cannot be impeached collaterally, but only upon a bill of review or [a bill] to set it aside for fraud.' " * 1 Davis V. Davis, 2 Atk. 21. 2 2 P. Wms. 556, and quoted in 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 179. s 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 153. 4 1 Danigll's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 696 ; Ogilvie V. Heme, 13 Ves. 563. Con- tinuing, Mr. Justice Bradley, in Thom- son V. Wooster, lU U. S. 104, 112, said : — " Such being the general nat- ure and effect of an order taking a bill pro confesso and of a decree pro confesso regularly made thereon, we are prepared to understand the full force of our rules of practice on the subject. Those rules, of course, are to govern so far as they apply ; but the effect and meaning of the terms which they employ are necessarily to be sought in the books of author- ity to which we have referred. By our rules a decree pro confesso may be had if the defendant, on being served with process, fails to appear ; or if, having appeared, he fails to plead, demur or answer to the bill within the time limited for that pur- pose ; or if he fails to answer after a former plea, demurrer or answer is overruled or declared insuflScient The twelfth rule in equity prescribes the time when the subpoena shall be made returnable, and directs that at the bottom of the subpoena shall be placed a memorandum that the de- fendant is to enter his appearance in the suit in the clerk's office on or be- fore the day at which the writ is re- turnable, otherwise the bill may be taken pro confesso. The eighteenth rule requires the defendant to file his plea, demurrer or answer (unless he gets an enlargement of the time) on the rule-day next succeeding that of entering his appearance, and in de- fault thereof the plaintiff may, at his election, enter an order (as of course) in the order book that the bill be taken pro confesso, and there- upon the cause shall be proceeded in ex parte, and the matter of tlio bill § 210.] TAKING THE BILL PRO CONFE880. 249 § 210. The same subject continued. — After quoting from the rules in equity,' "it is thus seen that by our practice," continued Justice Bradley,^ " a decree pro confesso is not a decree as of course, according to the prayer of the bill, nor merely such as the complainant chooses to take it; but that it is made (or should be made) by the court according to what is proper to be decreed upon the statements of the bill as- sumed to be true. This gives it the greater solemnity, and accords with the English practice as well as that of New York. Chancellor Kent, quoting Lord Eldon, says: '"Where the bill is thus taken pro confesso, and the cause is set down for hear- ing, the course' is for the court to hear the pleadings and itself to pronounce the decree, and not to permit the plaintiff to take, at his own discretion, such a decree as he could abide by, as in case of default by the defendant at the hearing.' * Our rules do not require the cause to be set down for hearing at the regular term, but after the entry of the order to take the bill pro confesso, the eighteenth rule declares that there- upon the cause shall be proceeded in ex parte and the matter of the hill may Tye decreed hy the court at any time after the expiration of thirty days from the entry of such order, if it can be done without answer and is proper to ie decreed. This shows that the matter of the bill ought at least to be opened and explained to the court when the decree is applied for, so may be decreed by the court at any motion and afiSdavit of the defend- tirae after the expiration of thirty ant." days from the entry of said order if • See the last note in the preceding the same can be done without an an- section. swer and is proper to be decreed ; or ^lu Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. the plaintiff, if he requires any dis- 104, 113, 119. covery or answer to enable him to 3 " Says Lord Eldon in Geary v. obtain a proper decree, shall be en- Sheridan, 8 Ves. 192." titled to process of attachment *Kose v. Woodruff, 4 Johns. Ch. against the defendant to compel an 547, 548. No service of any copy of answer, etc. And the nineteenth rule an interlocutory decree taking the declares that the decree rendered bill pro confesso is necessary before upon a bill taken pro confesso shall the final decree. Bank of United be deemed absolute unless the court States v. White, 8 Peters, 262. That shall at the same time set aside the a final decree is necessary to give same, or enlarge the time for filing effect to the preliminary order or de- the answer, upon cause shown upon cree, see Lockhart v. Horn, 3 Woods, 542, 548. 250 TAKING THE BILL PEO CONFESSO. [§ 210. that the court may see that the decree is a proper one. The binding character of the decree, as declared in Rule 19, ren- ders it proper that this degree of precaution should be taken. . . . Both parties in this case seem to have taken for granted that the rights of the defendants were the same as if the decree had been made upon answers and proofs. In the English practice, it is true, as it existed at the time of the adoption of our present rules (in 1842), the defendant, after a decree pro oonfesso and a reference for an account, was enti- tled to appear before the master and to have notice of, and to take part in, the proceedings, provided he obtained an order of the court for that purpose, which would be granted on terms.' The former practice in the court of chancery of New York was substantiall}' the same.^ In New Jersey, except in plain cases of decree for foreclosure of a mortgage (where no reference is required), the matter is left to the discretion of the court. Sometimes notice is ordered to be given to the defendant to attend before the master, and sometimes not ; as it is also in the chancellor's discretion to order a bill to be taken pro confesso for a default, or to order the complainant to take proofs to sustain the allegations of the bill.' As we have seen, by our eighteenth rule in equity it is provided that if the defendant makes default in not filing his plea, demurrer or answer in proper time, the plaintiff may, as one alterna- tive, enter an order as of course that the bill be taken pro confesso, ' and thereupon the cause shall he proceeded in ex parte.'' The old rules, adopted in 1822, did not contain this ex parte clause ; they simply declared that if the defendant failed to appear and file his answer within three months after appear- ance day, the plaintiff might take the bill for confessed, and that the matter thereof should be decreed accordingly.'' Un- der these rules the English practice was left to govern the subsequent course of proceedings, by which, as we have seen, 1 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. ( Ist ed.) 804 ; 2 Brundage v. Goodfellow, 4 Hatet Ch. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d ed. by Perkins), (8 N. J. Eq.) 513. 1358 ; Heyn v. Heyn, Jacob, 49. * See Equity Rules VI and X of 2 1 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. 520; 1 Barb. 1822; 7 Wheat VII, and Pendleton Ch. Pr. 479. v. Evans, 4 Wash. 0. C. 335 ; O'Hara ' NixoQ Dig., art. Chancery, § 31 ; v. McConnell, 93 U. S. 150. Gen. Orders in Chancery, XIV, 3-7; § 210.] TAKING THE BILL PEO C0NFES80. M51 the defendant might have an order to permit him to appear before the master, and be entitled to notice. Whether under the present rule a diflFerent practice was intended to be intro- duced is a question which it is not necessary to decide in this case." ' 1 Mr. Justice Bradley in Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, 119, 120. OHAPTEK VIL APPEARANCE. 211, Definition of appearance. 213. Who may appear in a cause. 213. What constitutes an appear- ance. 214. Appearance gratis. 215. When an appearance must be made. 216. Effect of appearance by guardian ad litem. 217. Effect of unauthorized ap- pearance. § 218. General and special appear- anca 219. Extending time for appear- ance. 220. Appearance by married women. 221. Mode of entering special ap- pearance. 322. Effect of an appearance. 323. The same subject continued. §211. Definition of appearance. — Appearance is the pro- cess by which a person against whom a suit has been com- menced • submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.' An appearance may be special (sometimes termed conditional) or general. A special appearance is ordinarily made for the ex- press purpose of disputing the jurisdiction of the court. A general appearance is one that is not expressly or necessarily limited to the particular matter, motion or pleading constitut- ing the appearance.' A party must manifest an intention to appear specially or he will be rigidly held to have appeared generally.^ The court has power to allow a general notice of appearance to be amended so as to make it special only.* Thus, after a general appearance by the defendant, a foreign corporation, the complainant amended his bill so that it was no longer demurrable for want of jurisdiction, and the defend- ant, upon motion, was permitted to amend his appearance so as to make the same special for the purpose of setting aside I An appearance to a bill not origi- nal is subject to the same regulations as an appearance to an original bill. Braithwaite's Pr. 339. I I Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 586. ' Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 346. * Eomaine v. Union Ins. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 625, 638. ' Hohorst V. Hamburg- American Packet Co. (N. Y.. 1889), 38 Fed. Rep. 373 ; or to allow an appearance to be withdrawn. Rhode Island v. Massa- chusetts, 18 Peters, 33. §§ 212, 213.] APPEAEANOB. 253 service of process and to move to dismiss for want of juris- diction.' § 212. Who may appear in a cause. — Before a person can be held to have appeared in an action his name ought to be found somewhere in the record.'' If a party is named as a defendant on the record he may, if the plaintiff consents, enter his appearance at the hearing ; ' and where he is not named as a defendant he may, with the consent of all the parties to the suit,* but not otherwise,^ appear at the hearing, and the ob- jection of want of consent cannot be first taken on appeal.' § 213. What constitutes an appearance. — At common law a judgment or decree could not be taken without formal appearance by the defendant, or entry of appearance for him by the plaintiff in cases where such entry was allowable.' What constituted such formal entry was at one time often a matter of grave consideration. In chancery it consisted in filing in the proper clerk's ofiBce a written request to enter appearance and give notice to the opposite party.' But, at present, the formal entry has throughout the United States ceased to be important, because service on a defendant to ap- ])ear is made equivalent to actual appearance.' Doubtless an entry of the solicitor's name, either by himself or the clerk at his instance, on the rule or trial docket would be sufficient ; '" 1 Hohorst V. Hamburg- American ^ 1 Tidd Pr. 238 ; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. Packet Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 273. It has (5th ed.) 537. been held that a recital of an appear- 8 1 Tidd Pr. 238 ; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. ance is never conclusive, and when (5th ed.) 537 ; 1 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. the expression is general it is con- 170 ; Livingston v. Gibbons, 4 Johns, fined to those parties vpho have been Ch. 94. served with process. Chester v. 'Sweeny v. CofSn, 1 Dill. 75; Miller, 18 Cal. 558; Hirschfield v. Fowlkes u Webber, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) Franklin, 17 Cal. 606. 530. 2 Kentucky S. M. Co. v. Day, 2 lopugsley v. Freedman's S. & T. Sawy. 468. Co., 8 Tenn. Ch. 130, 138. See, also, 3 Attorney-General v. Pearson, 7 Romaine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 Fed. Sim. 290, 302. Rep. 625, 637, where it was said that * Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694. appearances are rarely formally "Attorney-General v. Pearson, 7 entered as such, notwithstanding Sim. 302 ; Kentucky S. M. Co. v. Day, Equity Rule 17, providing that " the 2 Sawy. 468. appearance of the defendant either " Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694. personally or by his solicitor shall be 254 APPEARANCE. [§ 214. and an entry upon the records of the court by filing a plead- ing duly signed constituting a part of the record, or formally in person or by attorney making an application or motion, would be an appearance.' Accordingly it was held by Chan- cellor Kent that where the defendant puts in an answer which is read in court by consent of the opposite counsel and ordered to be filed and a decretal order is made thereon, it is an appearance on the records.^ A demurrer to a bill signed by the attorney-general of a State was held to be a suf- ficient appearance by such State in a suit brought against it ; ' and the filing of a petition for removal is an appearance within the act of congress providing for the removal of causes.* A fortiori will an answer or agreement, or both, signed by counsel, filed and used as a defense upon a motion, application or hearing, be held an appearance.* § 214, Appearance gratis. — A defendant may appear and make all appropriate defenses before service of subpoena upon him," and such an appearance is termed an appearance gratis? A defendant, upon being arrested on a ne exeat, may imme-- diately enter his appearance and demand a copy of the bill, without waiting for the service of a subpoena.' An appear- entered in the Older-book on the day 2 Tenn. Ch. 130, 139; Proudfit v. thereof by the clerk." Notice by the Picket, 7 Cold. (Tenn.) 563. defendant's solicitor of an appear- « Or upon other defendants. Jones ance given to the plaintiffs solicitor v. Fulghum, 3 Tenn. Ch. 193. would probably bind the defendant ' Jones v. Fulghum, 3 Tenn. Ch. Livingston v. Gibbons, 4 Johns. Ch. 193 ; Squibb v. McFarland, 11 Heisk. 94. (Tenn.) 563, 567. In Fell v. Christ 1 Pugsley V. Freedman's S. & T. Co., College, 2 Bro. C. C. 279, Lord Thur- 8 Tenn. Ch. 130 ; Hinde's Pr. 144 ; 1 low said : — " I have no notion that a Harr. Pr. 219, cited by Chancellor party made a defendant to a bill of Kent in Livingston v. Gibbons, 4 complaint in this court may not ap- Johns. Ch. 99 ; Simmons v. Baynard, pear gratis and get rid of the suit as 30 Fed. Rep. 632. soon as he can." See, also, Bowhee 2 Livingston v. Gibbons, 4 Johns, v. Griggs, 1 Dick. 38; Barkley v. Ch. 99. Lord Eeay, 2 Hare, 809 ; Waffle v. ' New Jersey v. New York, 6 Peters, Vanderheyden, 8 Paige, 45 ; Dunn 323. V. Dunn, 4 Paige, 425; Seebor v. * Sweeny v. Coffin, 1 Dill. 75. See, Hess, 5 Paige, 85. also, Desty's Removal of Causes (3d 8 Georgia Lumber Co. v. Bissell, 9 ed.), § 105Z, pp. 335, 336. Paige, 225. ' Pugsley V. Freedman's S. & T. Co., § 215.] APPEAEANOE. 256 ance gratis does not deprive the eoini)lainaiit of his right to move for an injunction ex jparte. Otherwise, as Lord Chan- cellor Eldon said, if a person about to commit waste, and against whom a bill had been filed, could by appearing the evening before the motion prevent it, he would get two days for cutting the timber.' But if the defendant appears after service of subpoena, he is entitled to notice of any appli- cation made against him.^ Until an appearance the court will not authorize any proceeding by which he may be prej- udiced ; as, for instance, a special injunction, unless there are very cogent reasons to justify the immediate interference; and a service of notice of motion before appearance, without the special leave of the court, is irregular.^ In the case of an in- junction, the cause is in fact pending in the court from the time the chancellor makes the order for issuing the injunction. And though the defendant is not hound to appear before service and answer to it, still he is at liberty to do so, and it would not be permissible for the complainant to object. For im- proper delay in the service the defendant may appear and move for the dissolution or discharge of the injunction, or for service; or in term time may have the cause entered on the docket, and it would then stand for all proper proceedings the same as if the bill and injunction had been formally served.* Upon an appearance gratis the time within which the defendant must answer is to be calculated from the date of his actual appearance and not from that at which the sub- poena would have been served if he had waited until the reg- ular service.^ An appearance gratis does not deprive the defendant of costs upon the allowance of his plea.' § 215. When an appearance must be made. — The United States Equity Rules provide that "the appearance-day of the defendant shall be the rule-day to which the subpoena is made returnable, provided he has been served with the process twenty days before that day ; otherwise, his appearance-day shall be the next rule-day succeeding the rule-day when the 1 Allard v. Jones, 15 Ves. 605 ; Perry « Howe r. Willard, 40 Vt 654. tt Weller, 3 Russ. 519. 5 Webster v. Threlfall, 1 Sim. & 2 Perry v. Wheeler, 3 Russ. 519. Stu. 135. 3 Hill V. Rimell, 2 My. & Cr. 641. esowhee v. Grills, 1 Dick. 38. 256 APPEARANCE. [§g 216, 217. process is returnable." ' A defendant may enter his appear- ance before the day at which the writ is returnable and file an answer before the next succeeding rule-day.' It is error to render a final decree for want of appearance at the first term after service of subpoena unless another rule-day has in- tervened.^ A non-resident defendant is entitled to the whole of the time which is fixed by statute wherein to appear, not- withstanding a copy of the order for his appearance be per- sonally served upon him pursuant to the statute.* § 216. Effect of appearance by guardian ad litem. — Al- though if a party who is sui juris voluntarily appear and file his answer to a bill, it will be a waiver of the service of process, and he will be held to be a party, yet such a result does not fol- low where the answer of infants is filed by a guardian adlitem? % 217. Effect of unauthorized appearance. — The entry of an appearance for a defendant carries with it a presumption that it was entered by his authority. If the contrary be al- leged, affirmative proof must be produced, and until it is the defendant will be treated as properly in court.' It was for- merly held that a defendant was concluded by an appearance entered for him without his authority, and that the only re- dress he could obtain for such a wrong was by an action ' Equity Rule 17. Equity Rule 3 court said : — " He is to defend the provides that the first Monday of suit in the court from which he every month shall be a rule-day. derives his authority, according to 2 Heyman v. Uhlman, 34 Fed. Rep. the rules and principles of law ap- 686. plicable to the case, as admitted in 'O'Hara v. McConnell, 93 U. S. that tribunal, and in conformity (1876), 150. See Elquity Rules 18, 19. with the ordinary mode of trial and * Cornell v. Watson, 1 Edw. Ch. 83. practice of the court in similar cases. * Frazier v. Rankey, 1 Swan (Tenn.), It is not within the scope of his au- 75, 78 ; Taylor v. Walker, 1 Heisk. thority, or duty, to consent to change (Tenn.) 734. See, also, Irons v. Crist, the tribunal for trial, or that the de- 3 A. K. Marsh. 143; Bradwell v. cision shall be upon principles other Weeks, 1 Johna Ch. 335. It was than those applicable to like cases in held in Wallace v. Hannuni, 9 the forum in which the suit is pend- Humph. (Tenn.) 139, that a guardian ing. This special and restricted ad litem might, for the benefit of power admits of the exercise of no the heirs, waive the service of a such discretion." copy of a declaration in ejectment 'Dey v. Hathaway Printing &c. on himself ; but that he could not Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 419. submit the cause to arbitration. The g 218.] APPEAKANOE. 257 against the person who had fraudulently assumed to act for hira. The modern rule is firmly settled the other way, and may be stated thus: — The entry of an appearance for a de- fendant carries with it a presumption that it was entered by authority. If the contrary be alleged, aflBrmative proof must be produced, and until it is the appearance will be hold to be valid; but on its being satisfactorily proved, promptly after the discovery of the fact, that it was entered without authority, the defendant will be relieved from its conse- quences.* A judgment against a defendant who was never served with process, upon an unauthorized appearance by an attorney, may be enjoined though such defendant does not show that be has any defense to the claim sued on.^ But an unauthorized appearance is not sufficient ground for vacating a decree against a party who was a non-resident and was served with notice by publication and mail in the manner prescribed by statute.' § 218. General and special appearance. — An appearance by motion to continue the cause to the next term is a gen- eral appearance.* A defendant demurred to the bill for want of jurisdiction acquired by the service of the subpoena and for want of equity. It was held too late to avail himself of the former objection." Under a rule declaring that service of no- tice of an appearance or retainer generally by an attorney of 1 Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Pinner from a State to a federal court con- (1887), 43 N. J. Eq. 52, 56; Dey v. stitutes a general appearance is not Hathaway Printing &c. Co., 41 N. J. settled. See Friedlands v. Pollock, 5 Eq. 419. In Armstrong v. Craig, 18 Cold. (Ten n.) 490: Parrott 17. Alabama Barb. 387, it was said that if an at- Gold Life Ins. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 391 torney appears and acts without au- Atchison v. Morris, 11 Fed. Rep. 583 thority and is responsible, the court Miner i\ Markham, 28 Fed. Rep. 387 will not usually interfere if the oppo- Small v. Montgomery, 17 Fed. Rep. site party has acquired rights, but 865. will leave the party to his remedy *Hale v. Continental Ins. Co., 12 against him. Fed. Rep. 359, where Wheeler, D. J., 2 Mills V. Scott, 43 Fed. Rep. 453. said : — " As the defendant appeared 3 Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Pinner, 43 and demurred the parties are before N. J. Eq. 53. the court, and there can be no ques- ^ Straus w Weil, 5 Cold. (Tenn.) 120, tion remaining upon the demurrer 125. See, also, Jones v. Andrews, 10 except as to the equity of the bill." Wall. 327. Whether the filing of a See, also. King v. Stafford, 5 How. petition for the removal of a cause Pr. 30. 17 258 APPEAEANCE. [§§ 219, 220. the defendant shall in all cases be deemed an appearance, a notice of a special retainer for the purpose of moving to set aside the plaintiff's proceedings is not a general appearance in the action.' If a defendant wishes to challenge the suflS- ciency of the service by which it is attempted to obtain juris- diction over him, he can do so by a special appearance for that purpose alone without leave of court.^ But he cannot come in under a special appearance for the purpose of con- testing a portion of the complainant's case without submit- ting himself to the jurisdiction of the court as to any other matter.' § 219. Extending time for appearance. — "Every court of equity possesses the power to mould its rules in relation to the time and manner of appearing and answering, . . . and it is not only in the power of the court, but it is its duty, to exercise a sound discretion upon this subject, and to enlarge the time whenever it shall appear that the purposes of justice require it." * § 220. Appearance by married women. — Where a bill is iiled against husband and wife, the husband is bound to enter a joint appearance and put in a joint answer for both.' Where a bill against husband and wife was taken as confessed against him and the wife then appeared in the cause and answered, the court said it was irregular for the wife to appear in the cause except with her husband.' 1 Webb V. Mott, 6 How. Pr. 440. case cited was made upon aflBdavit 2 National Furnace Co. v. Moline of the facts, and the court laid a rule Malleable Iron Works, 18 Fed. Rep. on the complainants to show cause 863. But see Romaine v. Union Ins. why the defendants should not be Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 635, 637. allowed to the next term to make 'National Furnace Co. v. Moline their appearance and defense, and Malleable Iron Works, 18 Fed. Rep. that in the meantime no further pro- 863, denying a motion to enter such ceeding should be had in the case, an appearance. ' Leavitt v. Cruger, 1 Paige, 431. A * Poultney v. City of La Fayette, 13 decree against a woman whom the Peters, 473. " The rules prescribed bill shows to be both a minor and a by this court," continued Taney, C. J., feme covert, with no appearance by "do not and were not intended to her or for her, without appointing a deprive the courts of the United guardian ad litem, is erroneous. States of this well-known and neces- O'Hara v. McConnell, 93 U. S. 150. sary power." The application in the * But the defendant waived the ir- §§ 221, 222.] APPEAEANOB. 259 § 221. Mode of entering special appearance. — It was said by Hammond, J., in a case before him in the United States oir. cuit court, that if a special appearance is desired it seems to be accomplished by some mere statement of counsel that he so appears, or it is left to mere implication from the step that he takes ; and wherever the fact appears that he so limits his appearance, no matter how, no courts are more liberal than the federal courts in giving effect to that intention, without regard to any technical requirement of the practice in that behalf.* "Where a subpoena was served outside of the judicial district, but the case was one in which the court would have jurisdiction to proceed upon a voluntary appearance, such service was deemed to be a mere irregularity, and that the cor- rect course for the defendant was to move to enter a condi- tional appearance, so called because it is accompanied by, or the order granting leave to appear for the purpose of setting aside the service should contain, an undertaking or stipulation that the defendant shall submit without further process to the orders of the court if the point should be decided against him.^ § 222. Effect of an appearance. — The right of the defend- ant to insist upon an objection to the illegality of the service is not waived by a special appearance to move the dismissal of the action on that ground or to set aside the service ; nor when that motion is overruled by answering to the merits ; and the objection may still be taken in the appellate court.' An appearance after judgment by default and making an un- successful motion to set it aside is not a waiver of the objec- regularity by accepting her appear- ^ Romaine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 ance and putting her under an order Fed. Rep. 635. See Dorru Gibboney, 3 to answer. Toole v. De Kay, 4 Sandf. Hughes, 388 ; Thayer v. "Wales, 5 Ch. 385, 887. The court may, upon Fisher's Pat. Cas. 448 ; National Fur- application by motion or petition nace Co. v. Moline Malleable Iron where the wife refuses to join with Works, 18 Fed. Rep. 868. the husband, or the latter is abroad ' Harkness v. Hyde, 98 TJ. S. 476. and not amenable to process of the " It is only where he pleads to the court, enter an order that she appear merits in the first instance without and answer separately. 1 Barb. Ch. insisting upon the illegality that the Pr. (8d ed.) 83. objection is deemed to be waived." 1 Romaine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 s. a, p. 479, per Justice Field. See, Fed. Rep. 625, where the authorities also, Halstead v. Manning, 34 Fed. are examined. Rep. 565. 260 APPBAEANOE. [§ 222. tion that summons was issued before filing the complaint.' An appearance subsequent to a decree and asking leave to make a motion to strike the case from the docket on the ground that no process was served does not impart validity to the decree if it is otherwise void.'' It was held in 'New York that where a bill was filed against a person not residing within the circuit of a vice-chancellor, and the residence else- where appeared on the face of the bill, his voluntary appear- ance by a solicitor did not give jurisdiction, and his allowing the bill to be taken as confessed did not bind him. " The residence within the circuit was a jurisdictional fact," said the court, " which must exist before the court can act at all, either by issuing processes or accepting the appearance of a defendant. It is necessary to give jurisdiction of the cause, not of the person. In such case there can be no waiver. The want of jurisdiction appears on the record." ' Although an appearance by a defendant who was not found within the district, and was not served, is such a waiver as to give the court jurisdiction to proceed to judgment against him, it does not preclude him from contesting the validity of attachment proceedings prior to the appearance, and a fortiori it does not affect the rights of a garnishee, either by compelling the latter to appear and make disclosure under the writ of gar- nishment or to assert their title or possession to the property.* And the putting in issue the ground of an attachment by proper plea or an application to remove the cause to a federal court is not such an appearance as will subject the defendant against his consent to a judgment upon the cause of action against him i/n personam!' An appearance gratis by one who 1 Mills V. State, 10 lad. 114. Blatchf. 428. Since a judgment for 2 Dorr V. Gibboney, 3 Hughes, 383. costs in a suit for partition is in per- ' Burckle v. Eckhardt, 3 Comst sonam, where the appearance in the 138. See, also. State v. Whitewater action of non-resident defendants Valley Canal Co., 8 Ind. 320 ; Ro- was by attorneys appointed therefor maine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 Fed. Rep. by the court, a sale of land on exe- 625. Where a defendant appears cution of such judgment is void, specially to plead to the jurisdiction Foote v. Sewall (Tex. Sup.), 17 S. W. of the court it will not operate as an Rep. 373. appearance for the purposes of juris- * Noyes v. Canada, 30 Fed. Rep. 665. diction over him. United States v. 'Freidlander v. Pollock, 5 Cold. American Bell Tel. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. (Term.) 490 ; Sherry v. Divine, 11 17 ; "Van Antwerp v. Hulburd, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 722 ; Boon v. Rahl, 1 § 223.] APPEAKANCE. 261 is not named in the bill does not cure the defect ; ' for no one is a party unless named in the bill.'' § 233. The same subject continued. — The rule is that where a defendant appears solely for the purpose of objecting, by motion, to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, such motion is not a voluntary appearance which is equivalent to service.' "Where, however, the motion involves the merits of the case made by the bill the rule is otherwise.* Thus where a defendant appears and moves to dismiss for want of jurisdic- tion and also for want of equity,' or if he sets up the same de- fense in an answer," or perhaps by demurrer,' it is a waiver of the objection that he was not sued in the proper district.' Where a partj' is ordered to appear but no process is served upon him, and he voluntarily appears and files an answer, it is too late for him to object that there was error in the order.' A general appearance waives the omission of the defendant's name in the prayer for process.'" By appearing and putting in an answer the defendant waives any objection to the regu- larity of service of the subpoena." Notice of a writ of error is waived by appearance and moving to dismiss for want of notice.*^ An appearance upon appeal is a waiver of citation, and once entered it cannot be withdrawn so as to defeat the appeal for want of a citation." Heisk. (Tenn.) 12. See, also, Merrill ' Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327. V. Houghton, 51 N. H. 61. « Blackburn v. Selma &c. R Co., 8 1 Kentucky S. M. Co. v. Day, 3 Flippin, 525. Sawy. 468, 473. In an action in the '' Blackburn v. Selma &c. R Co., 2 United States courts against a State, Flippin, 525, 538. if the State neglects or refuses to ap- * See § 38, supra; Agee v. Dement, pear, upon due service of process, no 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 332 ; Ferris v. Fort, coercive measures will be taken to 2 Tenn. Ch. 147, 150. compel an appearance, but the plaint- ' Henderson w Carbondale Coal & iff will be allowed to proceed ex Coke Co., 140 TJ. S. 26. parte. New Jersey v. New York, 5 i" Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. Eep. Peters, 284; Massachusetts v. Rhode 457; Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatohf. 11. Island, 13 Peters, 755. " Goodyear v. Chaffee, 3 Blatohf. 2 § 166, note 5, supra. 268 ; Payne v. Farmers' & Citizens' 3 Elliott V. Lawhead, 43 Ohio St. 171. Bank, 29 Conn. 416. * Elliott V. Lawhead, 43 Ohio St 12 McBee v. McBee, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 171 ; Handy v. Insurance Co., 37 Ohio 558. St 366 ; Maholm v. Marshall, 29 Ohio '» United States v. Yates, 6 How. St 611. 606. CHAPTER VIIL DEMCTRRERa 234 Definition of a demurrer. 235. Nature and office of a demur- rer. 226. Speaking demurrers. 227. Demurrers to answers. 228. Admissions' by a demurrer. 229. The same subject continued — Construction of written in- struments. 230. Admissions available for what purpose. 231. General and special demur- rers. 232. When a defendant should de- mur. 233. Classification of demurrers to relief. The same subject continued — Demurrers to substance. Classification of demurrers to form. 286. Classification of demurrers to discovery. Demurrers to bills for relief and discovery. What objections are reached by general demurrer. 239. What objections are not covered by general demur- rer. The same subject continued. Demurrer to part of a bill — Plea or answer overruling demurrer. 242. The same subject continued — United States Equity Rules. 243. Specification of extent of de- murrer. 244 Incorporating demurrer in an- swer. 284 235. 287. 238. 240. 241. § 245. General demurrer — Specifica- tion of grounds — Statutes and rules of court 246. The same subject continued. 247. Demurrers bad in part. 248. Demurrer for want of juris- diction. 249. The same subject continued. 250. Demurrer for incapacity to sue. 251. The same subject continued. 252. Demurrer for want of parties. 253. The same subject continued — Eflfect of sustaining demur- rer. 254 Demurrer for misjoinder of parties. 255. Formal requisites of demurrer for want of parties. 256. Demurrer for defect of par- ties. 257. Statute of limitations as a ground of demurrer. 258. Demurrer for laches. 259. The same subject continued. 260. The statute of frauds as a ground of demurrer. 261. Demurrers for want of title in complainant 263. Demurrer for multifarious- ness. 263. Demurrers to amended bills. 264 Demurrer ore terms. 265. The same subject continued — Costs. 266. Filing a demurrer. 267. Title of a demurrer. 268. Protestation clause. 269. Signature to a demurrer. 270. Certificate of counsel. §§ 224, 225.] DEMUEEEES. 263 371. Prayer of judgment S72. Demurrer on extension of time to answer. 373. Motions to take demurrers off the fila 374. Setting demurrers down for argument. 375. Effect of judgment on demur- rer. 376. Overruling a demurrer. 377. The same subject continued. 278. OverruHng a demurrer upon appeal. 379. Sustaining a demurrer — Leave to amend. 380. The same subject continued. § 224. Definition of a demurrer. — A demurrer has been so termed because the party demurring demoratur, or will go no farther,' the other party not having shown suflScient mat- ter against him ; and it is in substance an allegation by a de- fendant, which, admitting the matters of fact stated by the bill to be true, shows that as they are therein set forth they are insufficient for the plaintiff to proceed upon or to oblige the defendant to answer, or that for some reason apparent on the face of the bill, or because of the omission of some matter which ought to be contained therein, or for want of some cir- cumstance which ought to be attendant thereon, the plaintiff ought not to be allowed to proceed. It therefore demands judgment of the court whether the defendant shall be com- pelled to make any further or other answer to the plaintiff's bill or that particular part of it to which the demurrer applies.^ §225. Nature and offlce of a demurrer. — A demurrer must be founded on some dry point of law which goes to the absolute denial of the relief sought.' As the appointment of a receiver rests in the sound discretion of the court, it forms no ground of demurrer to a bill praying for the appointment.* '3 Blackstone's Com. 314. A de- murrer in equity is borrowed from the common law. There was no demurrer in the civil law, nor in tlie ecclesiastical courts. Hays v. Heath- erly (West Va.), 15 S. E. Rep. 223, 335, 326. 2 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 543. The only pleading that can be demurred to is the bill, which, of course, in- cludes a cross-bill. The ground of demurring to the bill in equity is the sime as for demurring to a declara- tion at law, namely, that upon the facts of the bill, and assuming every- thing stated in it to be true, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Langdell's Equity Pleading, § 94 et seq.; Hays v. Heathei-ly (West Va.), 13 S. E. Rep. 333. ' Verplank v. Caines, 1 Johns. Ch. 57 ; Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 384 ; Roberdean v. Rous, 1 Atk. 544 ; Brien V. Buttorff, 3 Tenn. Ch. 523. * Verplank v. Caines, 1 Johna Ch. 57. 264 DEMUEEERS. [§ 226. A demurrer must be founded upon an absolute, certain and clear proposition that, taking the charges in the bill to be true, the bill would be dismissed at the hearing.' A demurrer will not hold to an irregularity of practice in regard to the bring- ing or filing of a bill; " as, for instance, that it had not been served.' A clause in a bill which does not show any inde- pendent right to equitable relief, nor strengthen the right to relief under the other averments of the bill, and is mere sur- plusage, cannot be reached by demurrer, but by exceptions to the bill.* So an irregularity in filing a supplemental bill and an amendment to the original bill without leave of court can- not be taken advantage of by demurrer, but a motion should be made to strike it from the files.' § Warthen v. Brantley, 5 Ga. 570 : that persons are improperly made Whitbeck v. Edgar, 2 Barb. Ch. IOC ; complainants. See Story's Equity Toulmin v. Hamilton, 7 Ala. 362; Pleading (10th ed.), § 543, n. Miller v. Jamison, 24 N. J. Eq. 41 ; 1 Dart V. Palmer, 1 Barb. Oh. 92. Gartland v. Dunn, 11 Ark. 720 ; 2 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), Payne v. Perry, 3 Tenn. Ch. 154 ; New § 541. York &c. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 17 N. Y. 288 DEMUREEES. [§ 255. where a defect of parties is developed by the bill itself and a special demurrer is interposed on that ground is to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the bill unless the complainant asks leave to amend by bringing in other parties. But when the demurrer is general the court should look alone to the equi- ties of the bill, and if the facts of the bill should stand with proper parties, it should overrule the demurrer and order such parties to be brought in as are indispensable to a full settlement of the matters in interest between the parties al- ready before the court.' But want of parties will not be con- sidered on a special demurrer in which this is not set down among the causes assigned.'' § 255. Formal requisites of demurrer for want of par- ties. — The rule is that a demurrer for want of parties must show who the parties are, not by name, for that the defendant might not be able to do, but in such manner as to point out the defect in the bill and to enable the complaint to amend it by making proper parties.' But this rule does not apply where it appears from the face of the bill that the coraplain- 593 ; Christian v. Crocker, 25 Ark. 16 N. J. Eq. 453. Where the claim 337 ; Great Western Compound Co. made by a railroad company against V. ^tna Ins. Co., 40 Wis. 373 ; Cherry another is for the retention of rolling V. Monroe, 2 Barb. Ch. 618 ; Sweet v. stock by receivers, and such claim is Converse, 88 Mich. 1 ; S. C, 49 N. W. preferred by intervention in a pend- Rep. 899 ; § 80, supra. See Pringle v. ing suit against defendant, and it ap- Crooks, 8 Y. & CoU. 666. When a bill peai-s that the claim is fully vested in is sufficient as to one of several de- the intervener, it is improper to join fendants it will not be dismissed, with it in the petition the original although it may be insufficient as to plaintiff, and a demurrer to the peti- another defendant who has not ap- tion will be sustained on that ground, peared and defended the suit Garner Central Trust Co. of New York v. V. Lyles, 35 Miss. 176. Wabash &c. Ry. Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 1 Eagle V. Beard, 33 Ark. 497. 156. 2 Nash V. Smith, 6 Conn. 433. A ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), special demurrer for want of proper § 543 ; Attorney-general v. Poole, 4 parties as defendants may be met Myl. & Cr. 17 ; Pyle v. Price, 6 Ves. by citing in the parties omitted. 781 ; Attorney-general v. Jackson, 11 Sears v. Hotchkiss, 35 Conn. 171, 177. Ves. 369 ; Chapman v. Hamilton, 19 The bill is not demurrable for want Ala, 121 ; Craddock v. American of proper parties defendant when Fi-eehold L. & M. Co., 88 Ala. 281; all the persons whose rights are to be Chambers v. Wright, 52 Ala. 444 ; a&ected by the decree are joined. Robinson v. Dix, 18 West Va. 528. Swedesborough Church v. Shivers, § 256.] DEMUEEEB8. 289 ant has sufficient information as to the names, interests and residences of the proper parties.' § 256. Demurrer for defect of parties. — A demurrer for defect of parties cannot be sustained unless the bill itself shows the defect.'' Thus in a suit to foreclose a mortgage the owner of the equity of redemption is the only necessary party defendant, and in an action against a sole defendant not the maker of the note and mortgage, a bill which, after the usual allegations as to the making of the note and mortgage, alleged that the defendant had or claimed to have some interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises, which interest or lien was inferior and subordinate to the mortgage, a demurrer on the ground of defect of parties, in that the makers of the note and mortgage were not joined as defendants, was overruled. ""We do not think the complaint shows upon its face,'' said the court, " that any other person is a necessary defendant, because its allegations are entirely consistent with this sole defendant being the owner of the mortgaged premises and the only per- son having a right to redeem the same, in which case he would be the only necessary defendant. In other words, the only strictly necessary party defendant is the owner of the equity of redemption, and the complaint does not show that the de- fendant is not such owner. If it should transpire on the trial that he was only a subsequent lien-holder, the plaintiff's ac- tion would fail; if, on the other hand, he proves to be the owner of the premises, it would not fail, and because the com- plaint is quite consistent with the conditions under which there would be no failure on account of defect of parties defendant it is not demurrable on that ground." * 1 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. Eep. * Carpenter v. Ingalls (S. Dak.), 51 498, 501. Where a bill for foreclosure S. W. Eep. 948. If only a part of the alleged that the mortgagor's wife, bill is insuflSoient as to parties a de- '• Matilda C," joined him in the exe- murrer to the whole bill for want of cution of the mortgage, a demurrer parties is bad. Laughton v. Harden, for want of parties in that " Martha C." 68 Me. 208. was not joined as a party defendant ' Carpenter v. Ingalls (& Dak.), 51 was overruled. Craddock v. Ameri- 8. W. Rep. 948. can Freehold L. & M. Co, 88 Ala. 281 ; s. c, 7 S. Rep. 196. 19 290 DEMUEEEES. [§ 257. § 267. Statute of limitations as a ground of demurrer. — Where upon the face of the bill relief is barred by the statute of limitations, the objection may be taken by demurrer.' " Lord Eedesdale seems to have held that the defense could only be taken by plea or answer,^ but this is certainly not the present doctrine." ' If it does not distinctly appear from the bill that the suit is barred by limitation, a demurrer setting up the statute should be overruled.* Where relief is sought on the ground of fraud, the weight of authority is in favor of the proposition that if the party injured by the fraud remains in ignorance of it vrithout any fault or want of diligence on his part, the bar of the statute does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered,' and upon a demurrer setting up the stat- iBell V. Johnson, 111 111. 374; Heniy County Supervisors v. Win- nebago Drainage Co., 52 111. 454 ; Ilett V. Collins, 103 111. 74; Hubbard V. United States Mortgage Co., 14 111. App. 40 ; Bonney v. Stoughton, 18 111. App. 562 ; Conover v. Wright, 6 N. J. Eq. 613 ; Olden v. Hubbard, 34 N. J. Eq. 85, 86 ; Bird v. Inslee, S3 N. J. Eq. 363; Buckman v. Decker, 23 N. J. Eq. 283 ; Van Hook v. Whitlock, 7 Paige, 373 ; Rhode Island v. Massa- chusetts, 15 Pet. 233 ; Harpending v. Reformed Dutch Church, 16 Pet. 455, 486 ; Noyes v. Crawley, 10 Ch. D. 31 ; Dawkins v. Penrhyn, 4 App. Cas. 51 ; S. C, 6 Ch. D. 318; Caldwell v. Mont- gomery, 8 Ga. 106 ; French v. Dickey, 3 Teun. Ch. 302 ; Pierson v. David, 1 Iowa, 23; Wilhelm's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 120, 125. 134 2Mitford's Eq. PI., by Jeremy, 272, 273. 3 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 484, n., § 503. " We consider it now to be the well-settled principle and practice of courts of equity that ad- vantage may be taken of the statute of limitations by demurrer, provided the lapse of time appears on the plaintiff's bill, without any reason being set forth to show that it should not apply." Wilhelm's Appeal (1875) 79 Pa. St 120, 125, 134. " Ordinarily courts of equity adopt the time fixed by statute for barring claims at law in analogous cases as the period at the end of which they will conclude recovery in equity." Reynolds v. Sumner, 126 111. 58 ; S. C, 9 Am. St Rep. 523; an article on "Legal and Equitable Limitation," by W. Archer Cocke, Esq., in 7 Va. L. Jour. 385 ; Beach on Modern Equity Jurispru- dence, § 20. As to the practice of the United States courts in following State statutes of limitation, see Kirby v. Lake Shore &c. R Co., 120 U. S. 130, 136 ; Fogg v. St Louis &c. R. Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 871, 873 ; Pulliam V. Pulliam, 10 Fed. Rep. 53 ; Cleve- land Insurance Co. v. Reed, 1 Biss. 180 ; Reeves v. Vinacke, 1 McCrary, 213, 217. * Bacon v. Rives, 106 U. S. 99 ; Muir V. Trustees &c., 3 Barb. Ch. 477. 5 Avery v. Cleary, 133 U. S. 604; Bailey v. Glover, 21 Wall. 342, 349 ; Kirby v. Lake Shore &c. R. Co., 120 U. S. 130, 136; Beach on Modern Equity Jurisprudence, § 83, discuss- ing what constitutes discovery within the rula § 258.] DEMUEEEES. 291 ute the court will not infer that the facts constituting the fraud were discovered at the time when the fraud is alleged to have been committed.^ §258. Demurrer for laches. — The defense of laches on the part of the complainant may be set up under general de- murrer where the laches is apparent on the bill itself.^ And 1 Jones V. Slauson, 33 Fed. Rep. 633 ; Johnson v. Powers, 13 Fed. Rep. 315 ; Shelton v. Keokuk Nor. Line Packet Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 769, 777. See, also, Radolifif V. Rowley, 8 Barb. Ch. 33. ^ Beach on Modern Equity Juris- prudence, g 17 ; Bryan v. Kales, 134 U. a 136 ; Lansdale v. Smith, 106 V. S. 391 ; McCabe v. Mathews, 40 Fed. Rep. 338; Sfc Louis &c. R Co. v. Terre Haute &c. R Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 440 ; Fellows v. Hyman. 33 Fed. Rep. 313; Horsford v. Gudger, 35 Fed. Rep. 388 ; Naddo v. Bardon, 51 Fed. Rep. 493; Hinchman v. Kelley, 54 Fed. Rep. 63 ; Metropolitan Nat. Bank V. St Louis Dispatch Co., 13 S. Ct Rep. 944, affirming & c, 36 Fed. Rep. 733; Maxwell v. Kennedy, 8 How. 310; Mercantile Bank v. Carpenter, 101 tr. S. 567; Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 159 ; Bank v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 568 ; Speidel v. Henrici, 130 U. S. 387 ; S. C, 7 S. Ct. Rep. 610 ; Partridge v. Wells, 30 N. J. Eq. 176; Williams v. Hart, 116 Mass. 513 ; Fogg v. Price, 145 Mass. 513, 516; Plymouth v. Russell Mills, 7 Allen, 438 ; Olden v. Hubbard, 34 N. J. Eq. 85, 86 ; Rolfe v. Gregory, 81 L J. Ch. 710; S. C, 10 W. R 711; Dossee v. Mookerjee, 7 Moo. lud. Ap. 4; Dringer v. Jewett, 43 N. J. Eq. 701 ; s. C, 13 Atl. Rep. 664. But see Beekman v. Hudson River &c. Ry. Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 3. The defense of laches may be enforced in proper cases wherein the facts appearing call for it, whether they arise upon the bill and pleadings or upon the whole case as presented by the evi- dence. The court will often take notice of it, even though the objec- tion is not made by the parties. La- kin V. Sierra &c. Min. Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 337, and cases there cited ; Sullivan v. Portland &c. R Co., 94 U. S. 811 ; Richards v. Mackall, 134 U. S. 183; Taylor v. Holmes, 137 U. S. 489 ; Norris v. Haggin, 136 U. S. 386 ; Woelensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S. 96. The withdrawal of a demurrer to a bill is no waiver of the defense of laches, and it may be set up in the answer. Snow u. Boston Blank-Book Manuf g Co., 153 Mass. 456 ; S. C, 26 N. E. Rep. 1116. The defense of laches is peculiar to courts of equity and applies although no statute of limitations governs the oasa BeU v. Hudson, 73 Cal. 285 ; S. C, 3 Am. St Rep. 791 ; Harwood v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 81 ; Sullivan v. Portland &o. R Co.. 94 U. S. 811 ; Godden v. Kim- mell, 99 U. S. 201 ; Sheldon v. Rock- well, 9 Wis. 181 ; s. c, 76 Am. Dec. 365; Harrison v. Gibson, 23 Gratt^ 213 ; Stout V. Seabrook, 30 N. J. Eq. 189, 190 ; Matter of Neilley, 95 N. Y. 390 ; Groenendyke v. Cofeeen, 109 111. 389. " No doctrine is so wholesome, when wisely administered, as that of laches. It prevents the resurrection of stale titles and forbids the spying- out from the records of ancient and abandoned rights. It requires of every owner that he take care of his property and of every claimant that he make known his claims. It gives to the actual and longer possessor 292 DKMDBBKRS. [§ 259. especially " where the complainant undertakes in the bill to account for the delay, no necessity exists for an answer, the facts fully showing the delay appearing in the bill and a de- murrer brings before the court the sufficiency of the allega- tions.'" A presumption of payment of a mortgage from lapse of time may be raised by demurrer, and such a demurrer does not admit the allegations of a bill that both the principal and interest of the mortgage are now due and owing, because such allegations are rather conclusions than averments of fact.^ § 269. The same subject continued. — But a demurrer for laches less than the statutory period will not be sustained un- less the bill upon its face, without resorting to inferences, makes a clear case of unreasonable delay.' A bill will not be dismissed on demurrer, on the ground of laches, in a case where there is no analogous statutable bar, unless it appears on the face of the bill that the complainant has delayed suing for so long a time after his cause of action arose as to deprive the court of the power of ascertaining with reasonable cer- tainty what the truth is with respect to the matter in litiga- security and induces and justifies delay. " Where the laches of a cora- him in all efforts to improve and plainant sufficient to bar a recovery make valuable the property he holds, appears on the face of a bill," said It is a doctrine received with favor, the court, " no reason is perceived because its proper application works which would prevent a defendant justice and equity, and often bars from raising the question as to the the holder of a mere technical right, sufficiency of the bill as well by de- which he has abandoned for years, murrer as by answer, and this is be- from enforcing it when its enforce- lieved to be fully supported by the ment will work large injury to authorities.'' Where some of the de- many.'' Justice Brewer in Naddo v. f endants demur on the ground of the Bardon, 51 Fed. Rep. 493, 495. Hall staleness of the claim, while others V. FuUerton, 69 111. 448, is in point, do not, it is error to dismiss as to all. There it was held that the rule re- Solomon v. Solomon, 81 Ala. 505. quiring a defendant in a chancery ' Furlong v. Riley, 103 IIL 628. suit to set up and insist on the com- ^ Olden v. Hubbard, 34 N. J. Eq. 85. plainant's laches in filing his bill is ^ Jones v. Slauson, 83 Fed. Rep. for the purpose of enabling the com- 632 ; Denstons v. Moriis, 2 Edw. Ch. plainant to amend his bill and ac- 53 ; Kittle v. De Graaf, 80 Fed. Rep. count for the delay so as to admit 689 ; Partridge v. Wells, 30 N. J. Eq. proof to meet the objections, and 176; Hazard u Dillon, SI Fed. Rep. will not be extended to a case where 485. the bill attempts to account for the §§ 260, 261.J DBMUEEEES. 293 tion or that he has by his delay placed himself in a position where he has gained an unfair advantage over his adversary.' § 260. The statute of frauds as a ground of demurrer. — If in a bill for specific performance the agreement as stated in the bill appears to be a parol agreement only and no suffi- cient grounds are alleged to take the case out of the statute, the defendant may, by demurrer, object to any relief founded thereon.^ A demurrer is, in effect, the same as an answer which admits the parol agreement but claims the benefit of the statute.' Thus where a bill to enforce an express trust concerning land, and praying for discovery and relief, shows on its face that the agreement was not in writing, a demurrer will lie both to the discovery and the relief.* And the ob- jection that the contract as alleged in the bill was not to be performed within one year may be taken advantage of by demurrer.* But if the bill alleges such a part performance as will take the agreement out of the statute, a demurrer pre- cludes the defendant from the benefit of the statute.' So, unless it affirmatively appears that the contract is by parol it will be presumed to be in writing, and a demurrer will not hold ; in such a case the statute must be insisted upon in a plea or answer.' § 261. Demurrer for want of title in complainant. — It is well settled that the complainant cannot maintain his suit 1 Le Gendre v. Byrnes, 44 N. J. Eq. in the answer. Learned v. Foster, 372. In a case heard by a single 117 Mass. 365. justice upon bill and demurrer and 2 Cozine v. Graham (1830), 3 Paige, reserved thereon, an objection of 177; Van Dyne v. Vreeland, 11 N. J. laches not taken in the demurrer nor Eq. 370 ; Macey v. Childress, 2 Tenn. assigned ore tenus at the hearing is Ch. 443 ; Ahrend v. Odiorne, 118 Mass. not open to the defendant at the 261. argument before the full court. ' Van Dyne v. Vreeland, 11 N. J. Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279. Eq. 370. See. also, Nash -u. New England &o. Ins. < Slack v. Black, 109 Mass. 49fi Co., 127 Mass. 91. But where by the Campbell v. Brown, 129 Mass. 33. terms of the report of asingle justice * Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 278, to the full court, the case is sub- eVan Dyne v. Vreeland, 11 N. J. mitted upon the facts agreed by the Eq. 370. parties, no question of equity plead- 'Cozine v, Graham, 2 Paiop, 177 ing being raised, the defense of laches Champlin v. Parish, 11 Paige, 405 may be relied on though not set up Macey v. Childress, 3 Tenn. C i. 4rl3, 443. 294 DEMUEREES. [§ 262. unless he both avers and establishes by proof, where the aver- ment is denied, that he has an interest in the subject-matter of the suit or right to the thing demanded and a proper title to institute the suit.' If such want of title appears upon the face of the bill the objection may be taken by general de- murrer for want of equity.- But where the bill shows a title apparently good the defendant may by plea or answer show either that nothing was ever vested in the complainant or that the title which he had has been transferred to another.' Where two persons join as complainants, both must have an interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and both be entitled to relief; and if the bill itself shows that one of the complain- ants is not entitled to relief, it is demurrable.* "Where a bill to quiet title shows the source and nature of the complainant's title, and contains an allegation that his title is clear and un- disputed, a demurrer to the whole bill will be taken to admit only such title as the facts stated disclose.' § 262. Demurrer for multifariousness. — Upon a demur- rer for multifariousness it should be distinctly specified in the pleading as a ground of objection. Otherwise it will be deemed to be waived, and cannot ordinarily be insisted on at the hearing or after decree rendered.* A mere allegation • Storj-'s Equity Pleading (10th ed.), to show any title or interest in the § 728 ; § 105, supra. premises, but which contained no 2 Hodge V. North Mo. R Co., 1 Dill, specific suggestions, was treated as a 104 Citing CufiE v. Platell, 4 Russ. general demurrer for want of equity, 242 ; Makepeace v. Haythorne, 4 although not conforming exactly to Russ. 244; Clarkson v. Peyster, 3 that pleading. Merrifield v. Inger- Paige, 336, and especially King of soil, 61 Mioh. 4. Spain u Machado, 4 Russ. 225. See, spreston v. Smith, 26 Fed. Rep. also, Northern Pac. R Co. v. Am- 884 A bill by persons claiming to acker (C. C. App.), 49 Fed. Rep. 529. be next of kin against executoi-s for 3 Barr u. Clayton, 29 West Va. 256 ; an account, making persons claim- Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), ing an interest in the personal estate §§ 260, 261, 728. as next of kin parties defendant, < Vaughn v. Lovejoy, 34 Ala, 437 ; but alleging that the latter have no Moore v. Moore, 17 Ala. 631 ; Tucker interest in it, is demurrable as to V. Holly, 20 Ala. 426; Jones v. Quin- them. Muir v. Trustees &c., 3 Barb, nipiac Bank, 39 Conn. 25. A general Ch. 477. demurrer ia good. Dias v. Bouchand, « gg 126, 127, 128, supra; Labadie v. 10 Paige, 445. A demurrer to the Hewitt, 85 111. 341. Cf. Whiteside bill because the complainant failed County v. BurcheU, 31 IlL 68. §§ 263, 264.] DEMDREEES. 295 "that the bill is multifarious" is informal; it should state that the bill unites distinct matters upon one record and show the inconvenience of so doing.^ The rule that where there is a misjoinder of parties defendant a demurrer by those who are not affected cannot be sustained is applied when there is a misjoinder of matters, but no misjoinder as to the party de- murring.' A demurrer for want of equity and multifarious- ness may be overruled if the bill although multifarious states a case for equitable relief, since the costs are in the control of the court.' § 263. Demurrers to amended bills. — An amended bill is open to demurrer the same as an original bill; and even where a demurrer to the original bill has been overruled a demurrer to an amended bill has been allowed.'* Where an amendment to a bill is inconsistent with and makes a new case f 10 111 the original bill, it is a good ground of demurrer.'* The objection that the complainant has submitted to the master's report upon exception taken to the answer to the original bill, and that the amendments to the bill do not make a new case calling for further discovery, cannot be raised by demur- rer to the discovery sought by such amended bill.* It is proper to entitle a demurrer to an amended bill as such in- stead of entitling it a demurrer to the original and amended bill.' § 264. Demurrer ore tenus. — It is the settled practice that where a demurrer is put in to the whole bill for causes 1 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 586. *1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 583; 2 Torrent v. Hamilton (Mich.), 54 Moore v. Armstrong, 9 Porter (Ala.X N. W. Rep. 634. 697 ; Bancroft v. Wardour, 2 Bro. 'Storrs u Wallace, 54 Mich. 113. C. C. 66; s. C, 3 Dick. 672; Bosan- Where plaintiff seeks damages for quet v. Marsham, 4 Sim. 573 ; Horton anxiety and harassment arisins from v. Thompson, 8 Tenn. Ch. 575. But the facts complained of, and for ex- a defendant cannot put in a general penses in taking care of the prop- demurrer to an amended bill after erty, a demurrer will not be sus- answering the original bill Atkin- tained for misjoinder of actions, son v. Hanway, 1 Cox, 860. since there can be no recovery of » Larkins v. Biddle, 31 Ala. 252 ; damages for the causes stated, and Winter v. Quarles, 43 Ala. 692. those allegations are surplusage. 'Chazournes v. Mills, 3 Barb. Ch. Newman v. Smith, 77 Cal 23 ; s. C, 466. 18 Pac. Rep. 791. 'Smith v. Bryon, 8 Madd. 428. 296 DKMDEEEE8. l§§ 265, 2GG. assigned on the record, if those causes are overruled the de- fendant will be allowed to assign other causes ore tenus at the argument.* But the demurrer ore tenus must be for some cause which covers the whole extent of the demurrer on the record,^ and both must go to the whole bill and not to a part only." A misjoinder may be assigned as cause for demurrer ore tenus under a general demurrer for want of equity, although the latter be overruled.'' "Where a general demurrer to the whole bill for want of equity is overruled, the defendant may demur 07'e tenus upon the ground that the suit is brought by a feme covert in her own name when she should have prose- cuted by her next friend.* Upon a general demurrer for want of equity the defendant may demur ore tenus for want of jurisdiction.' § 265, The same subject contiuued — Costs. — If a party cannot sustain the demurrer on the record, and avails himself of the right to demur ore tenus, he must pay the costs of the written demurrer; ' and he will not generally be entitled to costs upon sustaining the demurrer ore tenus; for if the objec- tions had been formally stated, the complainant might have submitted to the demurrer and asked leave to amend his bill.' § 266. Filing a demurrer. — The United States Eules in Equity provide that " it shall be the duty of the defendant, unless his time shall otherwise be enlarged, for cause shown 1 Barrett v. Doughty, 25 N. J. Eq. Robinson v. Smith, 3 Paige, 222 ; "Van 380 ; Forbes v. Whitlock, 8 Edw. Ch. Cleef v. Sickels, 2 Edw. Ch. 392, 39a 416; Dick u Oil Well Supply Co., 25 8 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. Rep. Fed. Rep. 105, where the defendant 498. Where there was a good demur- denied the complainant's right to sue rer for informality which the court on a patent as a receiver. would allow to be amended on the 2 Barrett v. Doughty, 25 N. J. Eq. complainants paying costs, and the 380. defendant obtained a dismissal of the 3 Shepherd v. Lloyd, 2 Y. & Jer. bill on a demurrer ore tenus, upon 490; Story's Equity Pleading (10th which, if alone, he would have to ed.), § 464. pay costs, no costs were given to * Barrett v. Doughty, 25 N. J. Eq. either party. Gove v. Pettis, 4 Sandf. 380. Ch. 403. If an objection for want of ' Garlick v. Garlick, 3 Paige, 440. proper parties be made ore tenus at 8 Barber v. Barber, 5 Jur. (N. S.) the hearing, the complainant will be 1197 ; s. 0., 29 L. J. Ch. 49. allowed to amend without costs. ' Garlick v. Garlick, 8 Paige, 440 ; Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. Eep. 498, Forbes v. Whitlock, 8 Edw. Ch. 446 ; 501. §§ 267, 268.] DBMUEEBES. 29'( by a judge of the court upon motion for that purpose, to file his plea, demurrer or answer to the bill in the clerk's oiBce on the rule-day next succeeding that of entering his appearance. In default thereof the plaintiff may at his election enter an order (as of course) in the order-book that the bill be taken pro confesso; and thereupon the cause shall be proceeded in ex parte, and the matter of the bill may be decreed by the court at any time after the expiration of thirty days from and after the entry of said order if the same can be done with- out an answer and is proper to be decreed."' The defend- ant may, at any time before the bill is taken for confessed, or afterwards with the leave of the court, file a deniurrer or plea." The court will, upon a special application and sat- isfactory grounds shown, allow a defendant to put in a de- murrer to the whole bill after the time for demurring alone has expired.' After answer it is too late to demur unless the answer is first withdrawn.* § 267. Title of a demurrer. — A demurrer must be en- titled in the cause, and is headed, " The demurrer of A. B. (or, of A. B. and C. D.), one, etc., of the above-named defendants to the bill of complaint of the above-named plaintiff." If it be accompanied by a plea or by an answer it should be called in the title " the demurrer and plea " or " demurrer and an- swer." * A demurrer to an amended bill need not be entitled as a demurrer to the original and amended bill but as a de- murrer to the amended bill.^ § 268. Protestation clause. — A demurrer is commonly preceded by a protestation against the truth of the matters 1 Equity Rule 18. See, also, Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. 2 Equity Rule 33. See, also. East Rep. 498. India Co. v. Hinchman, 3 Bro. Ch. •> Smith v. Bryon, 8 Madd. 428. A Rep. 873 ; Lowesby v. Warder, 2 Cox demurrer filed in a cause and acted Gas. 368. upon as valid and stating a ground 3 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 593 ; of demurrer in proper form will be Bruce v. Allen, 1 Mad. 556. See, also, regarded as a valid demurrer by the Lakens v. Fielden, 1 1 Paige, 644 ; appellate court although it does not Davenport v. Sniffen, 1 Barb. Ch. 338. contain the names of the parties or ^ Brill t\ Stiles, 35 111. 305, 310. of the court Eigenman v. Rook- 5 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 585. port &c. Ass'n, 79 Ind. 41. 298 DEMUEHERs. [§§ 269, 270. contained in the bill.' It is a practice derived from the com- mon law, and was ])robably intended to avoid any conclusion in another suit ; and it has no effect in limiting admissions as to the facts properly alleged in the pending suit.^ § 269. Signature to a demurrer. — In order to prevent de- lays by putting in frivolous demurrers, it is required by the rules of court that the demurrer should be signed by counsel.' But it is not required to be put in on oath, as it asserts no fact, and relies merely upon matters apparent upon the face of the bill ; * and it need not be signed by the defendant.' § 270. Certificate of counsel. — In the federal courts a rule provides that " no demurrer or plea shall be allowed to be filed to any bill, unless upon certificate of counsel that in his opinion it is well founded in point of law, and supported by the affidavit of the defendant that it is not interposed for de- lay." * It has been held that the complainant cannot treat a plea filed as a nullity and enter an order taking the bill pro confesso, where the plea is not sufficiently verified, the proper mode of taking advantage of such a formal defect being by an application for an order setting aside the pleading, or to take it off the files for irregularit}^.^ But in a recent case the United States Supreme Court affirmed a decree of the circuit court, entered upon an order pro confesso after the filing of a demurrer, declared to be fatally defective in lacking the affi- davit of the defendant and certificate of counsel.' In Massa- • 1 The usual formulary is that "this a demurrer signed by a solicitor who defendant, by way of protestation, has not appeared is a nullity. Graham not confessing all or any of the mat- v. Elmore, Harring. Ch. S65. It is ters and things in the said complain- customary for the solicitor to sign it ant's bill contained to be true in such as well as the counsel. 1 Barb. Ch. manner and form as the same are Pr. (2d ed.) 109. therein set forth and alleged, do de- < Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), mur to the said bill," etc. Story's § 461 ; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 455, n. 591. 2 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. Rep. 5 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 591. 498, 501; Story's Equity Pleading « Rule 31. (10th ed.), § 453 ; Cooper's Eq. PI. ' Ewing v. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 184 111. • Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Witherow » Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), (May, 1893), 13 S. Ct Rep. 936. See, § 461; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) also, Secor v. Singleton, 9 Fed. Rep. 591. Where a solicitor has appeared, 809 ; § 880 n. 3, infra. §§ 271, 272.] DEMUEEEKS. chusetts a statement in the nature of a demurrer for want of equity, contained in the answer to a bill, which is permitted by a local rule in chancery, need not be accompanied by a certificate that it is not intended for delay, which the statute requires in the case of demurrers.^ § 271. Prayer of judgment. — The demurrer having as- signed the cause or causes of demurrer, then proceeds to de- mand judgment of the court whether the defendant ought to be compelled to put in any further or other answer to the bill, or to such part thereof as is specified as being the subject of demurrer; and concludes with a prayer that the defend- ant may be dismissed with his reasonable costs in that behalf sustained.^ If a demurrer is to part of the bill only, the answer (if any) to the remainder usually follows the state- ment of the causes of demurrer, and the submission to the judgment of the court of the plaintiff's right to call upon the defendant to make further or other answer.' § 272. Demurrer on extension of time to answer. — After a chamber order for further time to answer the defendant cannot put in a demurrer, except on special leave of the court, and if he puts in such a demurrer without leave it will be ordered to be taken off the files for irregularity.* But the rule does not apply where extension of time to answer is given by stipular tion of the complainant's solicitor, without restriction.* If, 1 " It is not a formal demurrer, and Ch. 635. An order that defendants so the statute does not in terms ap- appear and answer is sufficiently ply. And it is not within the reason complied with by filing a demurrer, of the statute provision, because the New Jersey v. New York, 6 Pet 323. time for filing an answer is not ex- * Bedell v. Bedell, 2 Barb. Ch. 99. tended nor the preparation of the " For the party who agrees to extend cause for hearing necessarily delayed the time may always prevent the thereby." Mill River &c. Ass'n v. putting in of a demurrer after the Claflin, 9 Allen, 101. time is thus extended, if he wishes 2 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 589. to do so, by making it a part of 3 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 589. the stipulation that the defendant * Burrall v. Eaineteaux (1880), 2 shall not demur to the bill. And if Paige, 331 ; Bedell v. Bedell, 2 Barb, the defendant, after applying for and Ch. 99 ; Dyson v. Benson, Cooper, accepting such a stipulation, for 110; Cosserat v. Tollett, 3 Swanst. furthertime to answer merely, should 683 ; Cowman v. Lovett, 10 Paige, 559. put in a demurrer to the bill, it would See, however, Garr v. Ogden, 4 Edw. be a matter of course for the court. 300 DEMUREEES. [§§ 273, 27i. however, in the latter case a defendant puts in a demurrer which is clearly frivolous, it will be taken from the files.' § 273. Motions to take demurrers off the flies. — An objec- tion that a demurrer was not filed in time should be taken by an application for an order setting it aside or to take it oflf the files.^ The same course should be taken for an irregularity in filing a demurrer and answer after an order to plead, answer or demur, not demurring alone.' According to strict prac- tice, on a demurrer, if the plaintiff has not an alEdavit of serv- ice of the order for setting down the demurrer, the demurrer may be struck out of the paper. If an affidavit of service is produced, that authorizes the court, in the absence of the de- fendant, not to overrule the demurrer, but to hear the plaintiff.* When a demurrer is struck out of the paper for want of an appearance, it cannot be again set down without an order which may be granted on petition or motion.^ The demurrer is not taken off the files by the mere pronouncing of the order, but when the order is drawn up, it is carried to the clerk in court, who withdraws the demurrer, and usually an- nexes the order to it.* § 274:. Setting demurrers down for argument.— Under the former English practice the complainant obtained an order ex parte, upon petition, setting the demurrer down for argu- ment, which was served upon the defendant's solicitor at least two days before the hearing.' The practice in the United States is subject for the most part to local regulations, and is not absolutely uniform even in the federal courts, although an equity rule provides that if the plaintiff shall not set down a demurrer for argument on the rule-day when the same is upon a proper application for that joint demurrer and answer has been purpose, to order the demurrer to be given on the hearing of a motion to taken o£f the files.'' S. O., p. 100. take it off the files for irregularity. 1 Bedell v. Bedell, 8 Barb. Ch. 99. Osborn v. Jullion, 3 Drew. 552, 554. 2Ewing V. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 134. < Penfold u. Ramsbottom, 1 Swanst. The application should be for an 553. order " to take a certain paper pur- * Tolson v. Lord Fitzwilliam, 4 porting to be a demurrer " off the Mad. 408. files. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 732. 6 Cust v. Boode, 1 Sim. & Stu. 21. sCurzonuDeLaZouche, ISwanst '1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 666, 185. Leave to amend the title of a 666. § 2T6.] DEMUEEEES. 301 filed, or on the next succeeding rule-day, he shall be deemed to admit the truth and sufficiencj'^ thereof, and his bill shall be dismissed as of course unless a judge of the court shall allow him further time for the purpose.' " No formal order in writing upon the minutes is necessary to set a demurrer down for argument ; though that would be a better practice, no doubt, as it would be to set down an equity case for hear- ing formally, which is rarely done at all. "When the case is ready for hearing, or the demurrer or plea is ready to be ar- gued, the parties appear informally in court and proceed with the matter, no attention being paid to a formal entry setting the hearing down in writing on the minutes, order-book or docket." ^ A demurrer to a bill praying for an injunction must be decided before a motion for an injunction can be heard.' "Where the court permitted a demurrer to be incor- porated in an answer, it was held that the demurrer must be brought to a hearing before a trial on the merits.^ Under the equity rule above quoted the complainant has no right to dismiss his bill after the cause has been decided against him because of his failure to set a plea down for argument.' "Where some of the defendants filed pleas, and then obtained leave to withdraw them, while other defendants demurred, and it being doubtful whether or not the pleas were before the court, action on the pleas was postponed until the hearing on the demurrer.* § 275. Effect of judgment on demurrer. — A demurrer to a complaint because it does not state sufficient facts to con- stitute a cause of action is equivalent to a general demurrer to a declaration at common law, and raises an issue which, 1 Equity Rule 38. « Ketchum v. Cargill, 6 McLean, 13. •iPer Hammond, D. J., in Elec- *Holt v. Daniels, 61 Vt 89, 93. trolibration Co. v. Jackson, 52 P'ed. After the court has referred to a Rep. 773 (West. Dist. of Tenn.). It master all the issues, both of law was there held that where it has been and fact, and pending the report, the the practice of the court to treat all court cannot hear a demurrer. Car- days in term time as rule-days, the tee v. Spence, 24 S. C. 550. failure of the plaintiff to set down a * Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Union Roll- demurrer for argument on the rule- ing Mill Co., 109 XJ. S. 702, 717. day when filed or the next rule-day, « Campbell v. Mayor &c., 33 Fed. as provided by Equity Rule 38, is not Rep. 795. ground for dismissing the bUL 302 DEMUEEEES. [§ 276. when tried, will finally dispose of the case as stated in the complaint, on its merits, unless leave to amend or plead over is granted. If final judgment is entered on the demurrer, it will be a final determination of the rights of the parties, which can be pleaded in bar to another suit for the same cause of action.^ A decision on demurrer in the cause is the law of the court to be followed upon similar facts until a different rule is laid down by the appellate court.^ Where a suit is removed to a federal court after a State Supreme Court has passed upon a demurrer filed in the suit, the decision on such demurrer is binding on the federal court.' § 276. Overruling a demurrer. — When a demurrer is overruled, a final decree for the plaintiff is not entered of course, but the defendant, upon proper application, where there is no rule of court upon the subject, may have leave to answer.* Where an appeal is taken to the full court from a decree overruling a demurrer, it is in the discretion of the justice making the decree to order the defendant to answer pending such appeal.* Under the New Jersey statute regu- lating the practice in chancery, the defendant, under the usual order to answer after demurrer overruled, cannot file a plea without a special order for that purpose,* which will not be granted where it is manifest that the plea, if true in fact, would be no bar to the relief sought by the bill.' If an answer is filed with a demurrer and the demurrer is overruled, 1 Alley V. Nott, 111 U. S. (1884), 473. granted and the demurrer overruled. 2 Wakelee v. Davis, 44 Fed. Rep. Osborne &c. v. Barge, 30 Fed. Eep. 532. 805. 3 Lookout Mountain Co. v. Hous- 6 Forbes v. Tuckerman, 115 Mass. ton, 44 Fed. Rep. 449. 115. * Forbes v. Tuckerman, 115 Mass. * White v. Dummer, 3 N. J. Eq. 115, 119. Under the West Virginia 527. code, on overruling a demurrer the "Seeley v. Price, 5 N. J. Eq. 831. court should not at once decree The chancery act (Rev. N. J., p. 109, against the defendant as upon a bill sea 81) provides that if the plea or taken as confessed, but should award demurrer filed by a defendant be a rule to answer, which rule, how- overruled, no other plea or demurrer ever, need not be served. Hays v. shall be thereafter received ; but after Heatherly (West Va,), 15 S. E. Rep. demurrer overruled it has always 328. Upon a demurrer to a cross- been held that it is in the discretion bill filed without leave, leave may be of the court to permit the defendant § 277.] DEMUEREKS. 303 no order to answer over is necessary.' "The correct practice is not to render a decree directly upon overruling a demurrer; but the order should be that the defendant answer the bill, and if he neglect to do so the complainant may have the bill taken for confessed, and the court will proceed to render a decree as in other cases where bills are taken for confessed." ^ "Where a defendant answers over upon the overruling of his demurrer, he waives it except so far as he may have the same advantage in substance on the hearing in case the complain- ant (upon his whole case, pleadings and proof considered) is not entitled to the relief sought.' Where upon demurrer al- leging several specific grounds and dismissal of the bill as to some of the defendants, the other defendants are required to answer as to so much of the bill as relates to them, the de- murrer is by implication overruled.^ Where a defendant answers and demurs but takes no testimony in support of his answer, and elects to go to a hearing upon his demurrer, leave will not be granted to open proofs upon overruling the de- murrer.' § 277. The same subject continued. — The overruling of a demurrer to a bill without assigning any reason therefor does not determine finally the suflficiency of the bill, but only that there is sufficient equity upon its face to require an answer.' When there is a demurrer to the whole bill and also to part, and the latter is sustained, the proper decree is to dismiss so much of the bill as seeks relief in reference to the matters to file a plea instead of an answer. Miller v. Davidson, 8 IlL 518. In Kirkpatrick v. Corning, 39 N. J. Eq. Lambert v. Lambert, 53 Me. 544, 5i5, 22, 23. it was said that " In equity the over- 1 0'Hare v. Downing, 130 Mass. 16. ruling of the demurrer is never fol- 2 Miller v. Davidson, 8 111. 518. lowed by a decree making a final But it is entirely in the discretion disposition of the case ; the order is of the court whether the defendant that the party demurring answer will be ruled to answer after demur- further." rer overruled. Iglehart v. Miller, 41 3 Gordon v. Reynolds, 114 111. 118, 111. App. 439. The court may enter 123. a decree against him at once and of * Mason v. Bair, 33 IlL 194. course, hear evidence, or refer to the * Orendorf v. Budlong, 12 Fed. Rep. master to take evidence before enter- 34. ing a decree. Iglehart v. Miller, 41 * Battle v. Street, 85 Tena 283 ; s. c, III. App. 489 ; Roach v. Chapin, 27 2 & W. Rep. 884 IlL 194; Wangeliti v. Goe, 50 IlL 459; 804: DEMOEEEES. [§ 277. adjudged to be bad, overrule the demurrer to the residue and direct the defendant to answer thereto.^ Though a demurrer cannot be good in part and bad in part as to the matter de- murred to, it may be good as to one defendant and bad as to another, and therefore may be sustained as to one and over- ruled as to the rest.^ Where upon demurrer setting up the statute of limitations the court was in doubt whether the statute applied to such a suit, the demurrer was overruled with liberty to make the same defense by plea or answer.' After a demurrer had been overruled the bill was amended and the defendant answered, not taking in his answer the ob- jection which had been raised on the demurrer. It was held that he might at the hearing take the same objection.* " If a demurrer is overruled without leave to rely on it in the an- swer, so far as the question involved in it is concerned it should be treated by the chancellor as settled and the cause heard and decided on the merits as prepared for hearing by the parties ; and even where leave has been given to rely on a demurrer in the answer, it is error to act on it on final hear- ing, the advantage of it being lost and the demurrer waived unless it is disposed of before the cause is heard on the mer- its." * A defendant whose demurrer has been overruled and to whom time has been given to answer may demur again if the complainant in the meantime has amended his bill by join- ing another person as plaintiff.' There have been instances where the court on the argument of a demurrer granted leave to the defendant on overruling it to put in another less ex- tended.' But a defendant will only once be permitted to 1 Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 and such determination submitted to U. S. 126. the appellate court for review with 2 Mayor &c. v. Levy, 8 Ves. 398. all others on demurrer or otherwise ' Stevens v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co., 5 which are open to revision on ap- Dill. 486. peal. Boyd v. Sims, 3 Pickle (Tenn.), Rhode Island u Massachusetts, 14 seaux, 1 Woods, 118 ; Watkins v. Pet. 211. Stone, 2 Sim. & Stu. 560 ; Giant Pow- ' Wooley v. Peraberton (N. J. Eq.), fler Co. u. SafetyNitro-PowderCo., 19 10 Atl. Rep. 159. A plea is not ren- Fed. Rep. 509 ; Corporation of London dered double by the mere insertion V. Cdiporation of Liverpool, 3 Anst therein of several averments, which 738; Whitbread v. Brockhurst, 1 are necessary to exclude collusion Bro. C. C. 404, 416, n. 9 ; S. C, 8 Ves. arising from allegations which are & B. 154, n. The reason why the made in the bill, to anticipate and court does not admit double pleas is defeat the bar which might be set because all the different ciroum- up in the plea. Bogardus v. Trinity stances may be put together in one Church, 4 Paige, 178. Nor because answer, which cannot be done at the single defense set up consists of common law. Saltus v. Tobias, 7 a variety of facts and circumstances. Johns. Ch. 214; Didier v. Davison, Hazard u. Durant, 25 Fed. Rep. 26. §§ 297, 298.] PLEAS. 319 the other grounds be overruled.' If the complainant replies to a plea instead of setting it down for argument it is a waiver of an objection for duplicity and multifariousness.* § 297. Leave to file double pleas.— When great inconven- ience will result to the defendant by compelling him to an- swer the complainant's bill, the court upon special application and notice,' and ordinarily upon the condition that the de- fendant pay the costs,^ may permit him to plead several mat- ters in bar;' as, for instance, where he could not make his defense by answer without setting out a long account, which would be unnecessary if the defense sought to be made by plea was valid." But the complainant must make out a special case of hardship.' And the court will not allow a defendant to plead double upon an affidavit merely showing that he has several defenses of which he might avail himself, if permitted to do so.^ § 298. Pleas supported by answers. — A simple denial of an averment of the bill is the province of an answer, not of a plea;' and if resorted to by plea the latter constitutes an anomalous plea, or plea not pure, and must be supported by an answer." " If the defense which is set up by a plea has been 1 Eeissner v. Anness, 3 Bann. & A. 5 Didier v. Davison, 10 Paige, 515 : 148 ; Noyes v. Willard, 1 Woods, 187. Mount v. Manhattan Co., 41 N. J. Eq. It was said in Cook v. Mancius, 3 211; s. C, 9 AtL Rep. 114; Gibson v. Johns. Ch. 427, that although a plea Whitehead, 4 Madd. 241 ; Scott v. be multifarious, yet if it discloses Broadwood, 2 Coll. C. C. 447 ; Hard- facts which form a fatal objection to man v. EUames, 5 Sim. 640; S. C, 2 the bill, as the names of necessary MyL & K. 732. parties, it will be suffered to stand, " Van Hook v. Whitlock, 3 Paige, with liberty to the plaintiff to amend 409. his bill by adding the parties on pay- '"Such leave will not be readily ment of the costs of the plea and granted ; and if it is granted each subsequent proceedings, but not of defense must be set up by a separate the useless matter in the plea. plea." Langdell's Equity Pleading 2 Sharon v. Hill, 22 Fed. Bep. 28. (2d ed.), § 98; Mount v. Manhattan 3 Mount V. Manhattan Co., 41 N. J. Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 211 ; & C, 9 Atl. Rep. Eq. 211 ; s. c, 9 Atl. Rep. 114 ; Didier 114. i\ Davison, 10 Paige, 515. 8 Didier v. Davison, 10 Paige, 515. * Kay V. Marshall, 1 Kean, 190, 197 ; 9 Bailey v. Le Roy, 2 Edw. Ch. 514 ; S. C, 8 CI. & Fin. 245 ; Story's Equity Evans v. Harris, 2 Ves. & B. 361, 864. Pleading (10th ed.), § 657, n. ; Noyes v. " Benson v. Jones, 1 Tenn. Ch. 498. Willard, 1 Woods, 187. 320 PLEAS. [§ 299. anticipated by the bill, and evidence has been charged in dis- proof of the defense, the defendant must answer charges of evidence notwithstanding his plea, for an answer to that extent will be needed in trying the truth of the plea. The defendant therefore incorporates an answer with hi^ plea ; and then the answer is said to support the plea. Such an answer, it will be observed, contains discovery only, and it is called an answer in support of a plea to distinguish it from the case where a defendant defends by answer as to part of the bill, and by plea as to part." ' A plea denying partnership must be accompanied by an answer and discovery as to all the circumstances spe- cially charged as evidence of the partnership.* § 299. Pleas overruled by answers.— A plea that goes to the whole bill and is coupled with an answer not in support of it, but which denies the equities set up in the bill, is overruled by the answer.' Where an answer accompanying a plea covers any part of the relief embraced by such plea, it will overrule the plea.* If it commences as an answer to the whole bill it overrules a plea or demurrer to any particular part of the bill, • Langdell's Bq. PL (3d ed.), § 100. the bill contains anticipatory aver- " There is no instance where a plea ments, no answer in support of the contains in itself a full defense to plea, is necessary, unless discovery the bill that an answer is necessary upon interrogatories is called for. unless it is rendered so in order to ^ Everitt v. Watts, 3 Edw. Ch. 486 ; negative some equitable ground Innes v. Eveans, 3 Edw. Ch. 454. stated in the bill for avoiding the » Corlies v. Corlies' Executors, 23 effect of the expected bar, as where N. J. Eq. 197. " The general rule is fraud, combination, facts tending to that when the defendant at the same avoid the force of the statute of time sets up the same defense both frauds or to bring the plaintiff within by answer and plea in bar, the some of the exceptions of the statute former overrules the latter. The of limitations, as the one or the other reason is, that by interposing the of these defenses may be expected ; plea he claims that he ought not to and in these and similar cases the be required to answer, and yet at defendant is bound not only to deny the same time does answer." Har- those charges in his plea, but to sup- rison v. Farrington, 38 N. J. Eq. 358, port his plea by an answer also deny- 361. mg them fully and clearly." Wash- ^ Bangs v. Strong, 10 Paige, 11; ington, J., in Sims v. Lyle, 4 Wash. Grant v. Phoenix Mut L. Ins. Co., (C. C.) 301. But see Hilton v. Guyott, 121 U. S. 105 ; Bolton v. Gardner, 3 42 Fed. Rep. 249, 251, where it is said Paige, 273; Souzer v. De Meyer, 2 that in modern practice, even though Paige, 574. § 300.] PLEAS. 321 although such part is not in fact answered.' But the rule ap- plies only to cases where a defendant defends by answer as to part of the bill, and by plea as to part, and not to an answer in support of what are termed anomalous pleas.- Where com- plainant, in his bill charging a fraudulent transfer of property, waives defendant's oath to the answer required, a plea in abatement " to the said bill so far as the same makes any charges or seeks any relief against " defendant need not be supported by an answer, as in such case, both pleadings cov- ering the same parts of the bill, the answer would overrule the plea in toto? Where plaintiff in an attachment bill charged a fraudulent disposition of defendant's property, and in ad- dition set out fraudulent transfers in support of the charge, defendant, by plea, was allowed to traverse the cause laid for the attachment and by answer deny the other facts alleged, the answer in such case not overruling the plea.* A United States equity rule provides that " no demurrer or plea shall be held bad and overruled upon argument, only because the answer may extend to some part of the same matter as may be cov- ered b}' such demurrer or plea." But it has been adjudged that if the answer extends to the whole of the matter covered by the plea the latter must be overruled." § 300. Allowing a plea to stand for an answer, — If a plea is bad in form only, but good in substance as to the whole or any part of the relief sought, and was not pleaded in bad faith, it will usually be permitted to stand as a part of the defendant's answer, or the defendant will be permitted to insist upon the same matter in his answer." But a plea which sets up no valid defense to any part of the matter it professes 1 Leacraft v. Dempsey, 4 Paige, 124. Butchers' Union Live Stock Co., 12 2 See Langdell's Eq. PI. (2d ed.), Fed. Rep. 225. § 100 et seq., and § 105, where the sSouzer v. De Meyer, 3 Paige, subject is clearly expounded. Green 674 ; Orcutt v. Orms, 3 Paige, 459 V. Harris, 11 R I. 5, 35. Jarvis v. Palmer, 11 Paige, 650; Bel 3 Cheatham v. Pearce (Tenn.), 15 v. Woodward, 43 N. H. 193, 196 S. W. Rep. 1080. Pearse v. Dobinson, L. E, 1 Eq. 241, ♦ Pigue w Young, 85 Tenn. 268. See, also, Rhode Island v. Massa- 'Grant u. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. chusetts, 14 Pet. 310. Where one Co., 131 U. S. 105, 115; Dakin v. defense is made by plea and an- TJnion Pac. Ry. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 665 ; other by an answer accompanying Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. it, the plea may be ordered to stand 21 322 PLEAS. [§ 301. to cover should be overruled absolutely, and will not be per- mitted to stand for an answer.^ If a plea to the whole bill unaccompanied by an answer is allowed to stand for an an- swer without reserving to the complainant the right to except, it is to be deemed a full answer, though not necessarily a per- fect defense.^ §301. Classification of pleas. — Pleas in equity are pure and not pure, the former consisting of matter dehors the bill,^ the latter of matter either by way of affirmance or denial of matter already in the bill, and must ordinarily be supported by an answer.* Pleas not pure are generally termed anoma- lous pleas and sometimes negative pleas.* A plea may be either to the relief or the discovery, or to both, and if it is a good plea to the relief it will be also good to the discovery.^ Pleas to the relief are either pleas in abatement or pleas in for an answer. Lewis v. Baird, 3 McLean. 56, 63. 1 Orcutt V. Orms, 3 Paige, 459. 2 Orcutt V. Orms, 3 Paige, 459. A plaintiff cannot except to a plea which is ordered to stand for an an- swer without liberty to except be expressly given. Kirby v. Taylor. 6 Johns. Ch. 243. Where a plea which constituted a full defense to a par- ticular part of the bill was disallowed on the ground of a technical defect or informality in the manner of pleading, the court permitted it to stand for an answer ; and prohibited the complainant from calling for a further answer, by exceptions, as to that part of the bill, but without pre- cluding him from excepting to the answer to the other parts of the bill, if he so desired. Leacraft v. Demp- sey, 4 Paige, 124. Allowing a plea to stand for an answer, without any provision in the order that the com- plainant have liberty to except for insufficiency, in a case where an an- swer on oath has been waived, is no evidence that the court considered the allegations of the plea as a full and perfect defense to the suit. Mc- Cormick v. Chamberlain, 11 Paige, 543. Where a plea is ordered to stand for an answer with liberty to except, or the plea is accompanied by an answer, which will enable the complainant to except without spe- cial leave, the master, upon a refei- ence of the exception, must decide as to the sufficiency of the answer considering the plea as a part thereof. Orcutt v. Orms, 3 Paige, 459, where it was said that by al- lowing a plea to stand for an answer the court decides that it contains matter of defense ; but that it is not a full defense to all which it pro- fesses to cover, or that it is inform- ally pleaded, or that the defense cannot properly be made by way of plea, or that the plea is not properly supported by an answer. 3 Benson v. Jones, 1 Teun. Ch. 498 ; MoCloskey v. Barr, 38 Fed. Eep. 165. < Benson v. Jones, 1 Tenn. Ch. 498. 6 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 651; Langdell's Eq. PI. (2d ed.) glOl. 6 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 625. § 301.J PLEA8. 323 bar.i Under the head of pleas in abatement may be ranged pleas to the jurisdiction, pleas to the person, and pleas to the bill.^ Pleas to the jurisdiction are that the subject of the suit is not within the jurisdiction of a court of equity; or that some other court of equity has the proper jurisdiction ; ' or that the defendant has not been properly served with process.^ Pleas to the person are to the person of the plaintiff or to the person of the defendant ; of the former some are generally unknown in America, and rarely used in modern times in Eng- land. The others are (1) of alienage ; (2) of infancy ; (3) of coverture ; (4) of idiocy or lunacy ; (5) of bankruptcy or in- solvency; (6) of the want of character in which the plaintiff sues.^ It is a good plea in abatement that the defendant is not the person he is alleged to be, or that he does not sustain the character he is alleged to bear in the bill." Pleas to the bill are as follows : — (1) Plea of another suit depending in a court of equity for the same matter; (2) plea of want of proper parties; (3) plea of multiplicity of suits; (4) plea of multifariousness.' Pleas in bar are divided by Judge Story into three kinds: — (1) Pleas founded on some bar created by statute ; (2) pleas founded on matters of record, or as of rec- ord, in some court ; (3) pleas purely of matter of fact.* Pleas of the statute of limitations or of the statute of frauds are illustrations of the first sort. Under the second head are judgments and decrees of courts of record." The principal pleas of matter in pais are (1) a plea of release ; (2) a plea of a stated account ; (3) a plea of a settled account ; (4) a plea of an award ; (5) a plea of a purchase for a valuable considera- tion ; (6) a plea of title in the defendant.'" Pleas to bills of 1 Beames on Pleas, 58. « Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), i Beames on Pleas, 58. § 733. 3 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), gi; 710-716. 735. But see § 126. supra, as to the * Foster's Federal Practice, § 126, objection on the ground of multifa- citing Lamed v. GrifBn, 13 Fed. Rep. riousness. 590; Williams v. Empire Transpor- 8 story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), tation Co., 1 N. J. L. J. 315. § 749. 5 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 9 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), t; 723. Objection to the capacity of § 751 et seq. a party to sue, as that he is insane, m Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), must be made by plea and not by an- g 795. swer. Hoyt v. Hoyt, 58 Vt. 53a Si'p, howevre, § 49, supra. 324 PLEAS. [§ 302. discovery are (1) pleas to the jurisdiction ; (2) pleas to the person ; (3) pleas to the bill or frame of the bill ; (4) pleas in bar, properly so called.' § 302. Pleas in abatement. — Matter in abatement of the suit, as that there is no such person as the alleged complain- ant, must be set up by way of plea and not in the answer.^ An objection that a plaintiff suing and describing himself as an assignee is not legally such must be made by plea and not by demurrer.' The defense that the complainant suing as a corporation has no legal existence should be made by plea in abatement ; it cannot be pleaded in bar or given in evidence under the general issue.* The objection of complainant's bankruptcy should be taken by way of plea, and is waived if not so taken.^ That the defendant was exempt from service of process is proper matter for plea in abatement.' The ob- jection that the defendant was not sued in the proper district, if the facts do not appear on the face of the bill, must be raised by plea in abatement.' Whenever a party against whom a cause has been removed from a state court to a fed- 1 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 817. Plea.s to the discovery are not often used, a demurrer answering the purpose as well or better. Lang- dell's Eq. PI. (2d ed.) § 148. ^Chapman v. School District, Deady, 108, 116. An objection that the defendant, a receiver, was sued without leave of the court was not adnaitted a year and a half after the bill was filed and after the defend- ant had appeared, answered and cross-examined witnesses. Jerome V. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734. See, also, In re Young, 7 Fed. Eep. 855. 3 Nicholas v. Murray, 5 Sawy. 320. * Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wether- bee, 2 Cliff. 555. See, also, Conard v. Atlantic Ina Co., 1 Peters, 450 ; Kane V. Paul, 14 Peters, 41 ; Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642. See § 251, supra. 'Kittredge v. Claremount Bank, 3 Story, 590. "Where a claim in suit is one which could be properly proved before a commissioner in bankruptcy, and after the pleadings are closed a discharge has been ob- tained, it is usual to plead it as a defense at the very next term happen- ing after the last continuance: nor am I aware of any practice to allow it to be pleaded afterwards when long delays have intervened unless a good excuse is given for the delay and on suitable terras." Woodruff, J., in Doggett v. Emerson, Woodb. & M. 196, 210. BLarned v. Griffin, 12 Fed. Rep. 590. ' It is not like a case of an entire want of jurisdiction over the person or subject-matter, which may be taken advantage of at any time. Blackburn v. Selma &c. R Co., 2 Flippin, 525, 532, 534 See, also, Dodge V. Perkins, 4 Mason, 435, 437. § 303.] PLEAS. 325 eral court wishes to test any allegation of fact on which such removal was had, he may do so by a dilatory plea in the nature of a plea to the jurisdiction.' A plea in abatement of a foreclosure bill, on the ground that the value of the mort- gaged property is insufficient to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the court, must allege specifically what this value is, and not merely state that the value of the matter in demand is too small to be within the jurisdiction.^ By act of congress of March 3, 1875,' " if in any suit commenced in a circuit court, or removed from a State court to a circuit court of the United States, it shall appear to the satisfaction of said circuit court, at any time after such suit has been brought or removed thereto, that such suit does not really and substan- tially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said circuit court, or that the parties to said suit have been improperly or collusively made or joined, either as plaintiffs or defendants, for the purpose of creating a case cognizable or removable under this act, the said circuit court shall proceed no further therein, but shall dismiss the suit or remand it to the court from which it was removed, as justice may require, and shall make such order as to costs as shall be just." * § 303. Plea of pendency of another suit. — The doctrine is now well settled that an action pending in a foreign juris- diction cannot be pleaded in abatement to an action com- menced in a domestic forum even if there be identity of 1 McDonald v. Salem Capital Flour ' 18 St at L. 470, re-enacted March Mills Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 577. 3, 1887 ; 34 St. at L., oh. 372. 2 Peters v. Goodrich, 3 Conn. 146. * Where a plea undertakes to an- It was said in Shattuck v. Cassidy, 3 swer the whole bill but extends only Edw. Ch. 153, that a valid plea to to a part, it is bad. Noe v. Noe, 32 the jurisdiction must show that some N.J. 469; Snow v. Counselman, 136 jthercourthas exclusive jurisdiction. 111.191; Searight v. Payne, 1 Tenn. A plea to the jurisdiction that one of Ch. 186. But see United States the parties to the case is a citizen of Equity Rule 36. A plea which con- a State other than that alleged in the eludes whether the defendant ought petition for removal need not be sup- to make answer to matters contained ported by an answer. McDonald v. in the bill in any other manner is a Salem Capital Flour Mills Co., 31 plea to the whole bill. Allison v. Fed. Rep. 577. Sharply, Hard. 98 ; Bell v. Wood- ward, 43 N. H. 181. 194. 326 PLEAS. [§ 303. parties, of subject-matter, and of the relief sought.' Doubts have been entertained as to whether the pendency of a suit in a State or federal court in the same district might not be successfully pleaded to the prosecution of a like suit in the other court.'' But it now seems to be established that it can- not be.' The pendency of an action in a State court is good ground for abatement of a second action in a court of the same State between the same parties for the same cause and relief.^ The pendency of a prior suit will not be a bar to a subsequent suit if the latter embraces more as to parties and subject-matter than the former;' but it may justify an order of the court staying the further prosecution of the first suit.* 1 Radford v. Folsom, 14 Fed. Rep. 97 ; Smith v. Lathrop, 44 Pa. St. 336 ; Bowne V. Joy, 9 Johns. 231 ; Allen v. Watt, 69 111. 655; Insurance Co. v. Brune, 96 U. S. 588 ; Stanton v. Em- brey, 93 U. S. 548 ; Mitchell v. Bunch, 3 Paige, 606 ; McHenry v. Lewis, 21 Ch. D. 203; S. 0., 33 Ch. D. 397; Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bockwoldt, 33 Ch. D. 835 ; Cole v. Flitcraft, 47 Md. 813 ; Seevers v. Clement, 38 Md. 436; Grider v. Appejson, 33 Ark. 332 ; Lynch v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 637. " That country is undutif ul and unfaithful to its citi- zens which sends them out of its jurisdiction to seek justice else- where." Hatch V. SpofEord, 23 Conn. 485. 2 See Mercantile Trust Co. v. La- moille Valley R. Co., 16 Blatchf. 334 ; Andrews v. Smith, 5 Fed. Rep. 833. 3 Dwight V. Central Vt R. Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 785, 789; Gordon v. Gil- foil, 99 U. S. 168 ; Latham v. Chafee, 7 Fed. Rep. 530 ; Pierce v. Feagans, 39 Fed. Rep. 587. " The effect of the pendency of another suit for the same cause in another court of the United States has never been expressly de- cided. See "Wheeler v. McCormick, 8 Blatchf. 367; Steiger v. Heidel- berger, 4 Fed. Rep. 455: S. C, 18 Blatchf. 436 ; Brooks v. Mills County, 4 Dill. 534, 537. But there seems to be no difference in prmciple be- tween such a suit and one in a court of another State, except that pro- ceedings in such a case in a federal court could be enjoined by a federal judge. See Massachusetts Mut L. Ins. Co. V. Chicago &c. R. Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 857 ; Beauchamp v. Marquis of Huntley, Jacobs, 546 ; Erie Ry. Co. v. Ramsey, 45 N. Y. 637." Foster's Fed- eral Practice (3d ed.), § 139. < Radford v. Folsom, 14 Fed. Rep. 97 ; Insurance Co. v. Brune, 96 U. S. 588, where the statement of Lord Hardwicke in Foster v. Vaesall, 3 Atk. 587, is quoted approvingly, that " the general rule of courts of equity with regard to pleas is the same as in courts of law but exercised with more liberal discretion.'' 5 Massachusetts Mut L. Ins. Co. v. Chicago &C. R Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 857. A plea of another suit pending is good only when the first suit is be- tween all the same parties. Watson V. Jones, 18 Wall. 679; Dwight v. 6 Massachusetts Mut L Ins. Co. v. Chicago &c. R Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 857 ; Hurd V. Molles, 28 Fed. Rep. 897. § 304.] PLEAS. 327 § 304. The same subject continued. — A plea of another suit depending for the same cause in bar of a suit in equity can only be of a suit depending in the same or in some other court of equity.' The first suit must be for the sume purpose as the second and substantially the same relief obtainable.^ Where suits between the same parties in relation to the same subject-matter are pending at the same time in difPerent courts of concurrent jurisdiction, a judgment on the merits in one may be used as a bar to further proceedings in the others.' "Where a suit is pending for the same cause in a court of law, all that the defendant can ask is an order putting the com- plainant to his election whether he will proceed at law or in equity.* But the order will not be granted unless the suit at law is for the same cause and the remed3' at law is co-extensive and equally beneficial with the remedy in equity.' If the pendency of the prior action is alleged in the bill, the court will take notice of it on demurrer, or on motion, and thereupon require the complainant to elect which remedy he will pursue." In other cases the objection of a former suit pending must be taken by plea and not by answer ' or motion,' except when Central Vt. R Co., 9 Fed. Eep. 785, bill, the court will allow the second 789. And in an infringement suit to stand. American Bible Society v. by A. against B. and C, a plea of Hague, 4 Edw. Ch. 117. pendency of another suit between * Way v. Bragaw, 16 N. J. Eq. 314. A. and B., averring that C. is only 5 "Way v. Bragaw, 16 N. J. Eq. 313. B.'s agent and servant, does not See Tansey v. McDonnell, 142 Mass. make B. the sole true defendant, and 330. is bad. Estes v. Worthington, 30 6 Sears v. Carter, 4 Allen, 339. Fed. Rep. 465. ' Pierce v. Feagans, 39 Fed. Rep. ' Way r. Bragaw, 16 N. J. Eq. 214 ; 587. "This would seem to follow Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), from the practice, which is not to § 742. reply to such a plea nor to set it ^ Hurd V. Moiles, 28 Fed. Rep. 897 ; down for argument, but to refer it Hertell v. Van Buren. 3 Edw. Ch. 20; on motion at once and of course to Watson V. Jones, 18 Wall. 679. a master to ascertain and report 8 Stout V. Lye, 103 U. S. 66. Upon whether or not both suits are for a plea of another suit pending, the the same matter, and if it is found court looks to see whether the bills to be true the plea is allowed, and if are substantially for the same cause it is found not to be true it is over- and for the like object On the dis- ruled. Story's Eq. PI., § 743. But missal at the proper stage of the first the plaintiff may except to the 8 Murray v. Shadwell, 17 Ves. 353 ; See, also, Hertell v. Van Buren, S disapproving Anon., Mosely, 268. Edw. Ch. 20. 328 PLEAS. [§§ 305, 306. two suits are brought in the name of an infant, in which case it is a motion of course to obtain a reference on the state- ment of counsel that both suits are for the same purpose, to see which of them is most for the infant's benefit and so most proper to be proceeded with.' § 305. The same subject continued — Form and proceed- ings. — The pendency of a former suit being pleaded in bar, the defendant may state the pendency and object of the for- mer suit, and aver that the present suit was brought for the same matters; or he may omit the averment that the suits are for the same subject-matter, provided he state facts suffi- cient to show that they are so.^ The plea should state that there have been proceedings in the former suit, such as an ap- pearance or process requiring an appearance at least,' and that the suit is still pending.'' The usual course is not to reply to the plea or to have the plea set down and argued, but to refer it to one of the masters to look into the two suits, and to re- port whether or not they are both for the same matter ; if he reports that thej'^ are, the plea is allowed ; but if he reports that they are not, the plea is then ipso facto overruled. If the plaintiff sets down the plea to be argued he admits the truth of the plea, and it must be allowed unless defective in form.' § 306. Plea of want of parties. — If the defect for want of proper parties is not apparent on the face of the bill, the de- master's report and bring the matter head, 11 N. J. Eq. 139. The safe on to be argued befoi-e the court, course is to make an express aver- and if he conceives the plea to be ment Devil v. Brownlow, 3 Dick, defective in form, or otherwise, inde- 611. pendent of the truth of the matter ' Story's Equity Pleading (lOth ed.), pleaded, he may set dovrn the plea § 737 ; Moore v. Welsh Copper Co., 1 to be argued as in the case of pleas Eq. Abr. 39, pi. 14 in general. Mitford's Eq. PI. (Tyler's < Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), ed.), 893. But if he sets the plea §737, where the learned author deems down to be argued, he admits the a positive averment essential, truth of it, and it must be allowed if * Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), not defective. Story's Eq. PI § 743." § 743. In New Jersey the coraplain- Battell V. Matot, 58 Vt 371, 281. ant may take issue upon the facts of 1 Sullivan v. Sullivan, 3 Mer. 40 ; the plea or have a reference to a Battell V. Matot, 58 Vt. 371, 281. master to ascertain whether both 2 Davison's Ex'rs v. Johnson, 16 suits are for the same matter. If he N. J. Eq. 113; McEwen v. Broad- does neither, then the defendant § 307.] PLEAS. 329 fendant may plead the matter necessary to show it.' Such a plea consists of new matter and is called a pure plea, and need not be supported by an answer.^ It goes to the whole bill, as well to discovery as to the relief, where relief is prayed.' The plea must state the names of the necessary parties if known,* setting forth the facts by which they are made necessary.^ "Where a plea of want of parties had been submitted to and the bill amended by adding the required party, a second plea to the amended bill for want of parties was overruled because the defendant was bound to disclose all the proper parties in the first instance.* A plea for want of proper parties ought not to be allowed where it appears upon the bill that the parties not joined as defendants are beyond the jurisdiction. The objection should be taken by demurrer specially pointing out the defect.' § 307. Plea of the statute of limitations. — If the objec- tion of the statute of limitations does not appear on the face of the bill it may be taken by way of plea or by way of an- swer.' If the bill does not state any circumstances to take the case out of the statute, such as fraud, etc., the plea may be a pure plea, though otherwise if the bill should charge a fraud which had not been discovered within the period named in the statute. In such case the plea should be accompanied by an answer, answering and denying the circumstances of fraud alleged, in order to avoid the bar.' Where the statute is a good defense to only a part of the complainant's demand, must set the plea down for argument. ' Palmer v. Stevens, 100 Mass. 461. McEwan v. Broadhead, 11 N. J. Eq. See, also, Milligan v. Milledge, 3 139. Cranch, 320. 1 Howth V. Owens, 29 Fed. Rep. 8 Conover v. Wright (1848), 6 N. J. 722. But see United States v. Gilles- Eq. 613. It may be presented by de- pie, 6 Fed. Rep. 803. murrer wlien the facts appear on the 2 Goldsmith v. Gilliland, 24 Fed. face of the bilL § 257, su^ira. Car- Rep. 154 roll V. Waring, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 491, ' Howth V. Owens, 39 Fed. Rep. holds that the statute may be set up 722. by plea, though the lapse of time ap- * Dwight V. Central Vt R. Co., 9 pears on the face of the bill, and that Fed. Rep. 785 ; Cook v. Mancius, 3 the plea need not be sworn to. Johns. Ch. 427. » Conover v. Wright, 6 N. J. Eq. 5 § 78, n. 1, at page 100, supra. 613 ; Goodrich v. Pendleton, 3 Johns. 6 Rawlins v. Dalton, 8 Y. & Coa Ch. 384. (Ex.) 447. 330 PLEAS. [§ 308. if pleaded as a bar to the whole the plea will be bad.* But a plea of the statute of limitations setting up two matters, either of which establishes that defense, is not for that reason a double plea.- It is not necessary that the plea should make express reference to the statute of the State in which the pro- ceeding is instituted. The court will take judicial notice of it.'' Nor is it necessary in terms to refer to the statute which creates the bar. But it will be sufficient for the defendant to state the necessary facts to bring the case within the op- eration of the statute, and then insist that by reason of the existence of those facts the complainant's right or remedy is at an end.* A plea of the statute which does not negative an averment in the bill that the complainant was under disabil- ity^, etc., is defective.' The defendant need not aver that the case does not fall within any of the exceptions in the statute.' It is generally too late to interpose a plea of limitations after the master's report is in, where the point was not taken on demurrer or by answer, though it is within the power of the court, in the furtherance of justice, to allow the plea in an ex- treme case at any time.' It was recently decided in the United States circuit court that on a bill to restrain the in- fringement of a patent, laches of the complainant could be taken advantage of by plea.' §308. Plea of the statute of frauds.— "Where the bill shows upon its face that the contract which is the subject of the suit was invalid by the operation of the statute of frauds, the defense may be taken by demurrer.' And under such circumstances a plea of the statute has been overruled. •" But where the invalidity of the agreement does not affirmatively appear upon the face of the bill the defendant may plead the 1 Wood V. Ex'rs of Riker, 1 Paige, « Carroll v. Waring, 3 Gill & J. 616. (Md.) 491, 493. 2Didier v. Davison, 3 Sandf. Ch. ' Webb u. Fuller, 83 Ma 405; s. C, 61. 23 Atl. Rep. 384. ' Harpending v. Reformed Dutch « Edison Electric Light v. Equitable Church, 16 Pet. (1843), 455. Life Assurance Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 478, < Van Hook v. Whitlock, 7 Paige, per Coxe, D. J. 873. 9 See § 260, supra. » MoCIaskey v. Barr, 38 Fed. Rep. w Black v. Black, 15 Ga 44& 165. § 309.J PLEAS. 331 statute of frauds in bar of the suit.' Thus, to a bill for the specific performance of a contract respecting lands, the de- fendant may plead the statute and by negative averments insist that there has been no contract or agreement in writing signed by the parties.'^ And a plea of the statute was allowed where the bill stated a parol agreement concerning an inter- est in lands, and alleging a part payment of the purchase- money, such payment not being sufficient to take the case out of the statute.' It has been said that if a bill for specific per- formance of a contract for the sale of land states the agree- ment generally without specifying whether it was in writing or not, the statute may be set up by plea, but that if the bill states an agreement in writing, a denial of the agreement should be made by answer and not by plea." § 309. Plea of res adjudicata. — If the judgment of a court of law of ordinary jurisdiction has finally decided the rights of the parties, that judgment may in general be pleaded in bar of a bill in equity founded upon the same cause of action.* And a decree of the same or another court of equity may be pleaded with the same effect.' A former decree pleaded in bar need not appear to have been between precisely the same parties as those in the suit to which it is pleaded,' " for if a 1 Cottington v. Fletcher, 3 Atk. 155. (N. S.) 1143. But as a general rule 2 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), the statute of frauds must be specially § 761 ; Cooper's Eq. PI. 255. urged, either by formal plea or in 'Main r. Melbourn,4Ves. 720. See, the answer, in order to enable the also, Brodie v. St. Paul, 1 Ves. 326 ; defendant to rely upon it as a de- Jordan V. Sawkins, 1 Ves. 403 ; Park- f euse at the hearing. Keys v. Astley, hurst V. Van Cortland, 1 Johns. Ch. 9 Law T. (N. S.), 356. 273. « Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 4 Morison v. Tumour, 18 Ves. 183. § 780 et seq. But see Story's Equity Pleading (10th t Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed. ), ed.), § 763, n. 3, where the soundness § 790 et seq. The objection that a of this distinction is questioned. If claim was not seasonably offered the bill does not allege the contract under an order previously made in in writing, but only in general terms, the cause limiting the time for pre- and a hearing is had before any an- senting claims against a receiver swer is filed, it is competent for the should be made by plea rather than defendant, where the bill asks a by demurrer. Central Trust Co. v. specific performance of a contract Wabash &c. Ry. Co., 46 Fed. Rep. for tlie ?ale of land, to plead the 156. statute of frauds at the hearing 'Matthews v. Roberts, 3 N. J. Eq. orally. Lincoln v. Wright, 5 Jur. 338L 332 FLEAS. [§ 309. man institutes a suit and afterwards sells part of the property in question to another, who files an original bill touching the part so purchased by him, a plea of the former suit depending touching the whole property will hold," ' but it miist always appear to have been for the same subject-matter.- In order to constitute the former judgment or decree at bar it must appear that the point in issue was judicially determined after a hearing and upon consideration of the merits.' A dismissal for want of prosecution is not conclusive in favor of the de- fendant even upon another suit for the same relief.^ Where iMitford'a Pleading, ch. 3, § 3, part 8, citing Moor v. Welsli Copper Co., 1 Eq. Cas, Abr. 39. See, also, Huggins V. York Building Co., 3 Atk. 44. 2 Matthews v. Roberts, 3 N. J. Eq. 338. A party may be concluded by the former decree, though he was not named in the proceeding, if his in- terest was involved in such a form as to have admitted of his contesting the same question which is presented iu the second suit. Taylor v. Corne- lius, 60 Pa. St 187. 3 Keller v. Stolzenbach, 20 Fed. Rep. 47; Badger u Badger, 1 Cliff. 387, 245 : Haws v. Tiernan, 63 Pa. St. 193 ; Hughes I'. U. S., 4 Wall. 333 ; Gard- ner V. Raisbeok, 38 N. J. Eq. 71. ^ Carrington i'. Holly, 1 Dick. 380 ; Rosse V. Rust, 4 Johns. Ch. 300 ; Bad- ger V. Badger, 1 Cliff. 387, 345 ; Por- ter V. Vaughn, 36 Vt 624. The effect is like that of a nonsuit in an action at law. American Diamond Rock Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 17 Blatchf. 208. In Horner v. Brown, 16 How. 354, it was held that a judgment of nonsuit entered upon an agreed statement of facts submitted to the court for decision was not a bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties and for the same cause of ac- tion. In Badger v. Badger, 1 Cliff. 337, 245, Judge Clifford said if the dismissal was not upon the merits of the bill it matters not whether it was without the consent of the complain- ant In Hughes v. United States, 4 Wall. 333, Justice Field said : — " If the first suit . . . was disposed of on any ground which did not go to the merits of the action, the judg- ment rendered will prove no bar to another suit now ; the primary pur- pose of rules of court being to regu- late the practice and promote the dispatch of business, the intention to create an estoppel ought not to be lightly imputed to the rule now under consideration. Such effect, it seems to me, is foreign to the object to be served. True, the rule declares that the plaintiff so in default ' should be deemed to admit the truth and suffi- ciency ' of the plea, but this implied admission is merely for the occasion and to open the way for a decree of dismission ' as of course,' without trial, hearing or adjudication, a de- cree which is the equivalent of a judgment of nonsuit at law for want of answer or other default of a like nature." Where a judgment record made a profert in a plea showed that the decree in the former suit was without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to bring a new action against all but one of several defend- ants who joined in the plea, it w;is held that the plea was bad. Garrett V. N. Y. Transit &c. Ca, 39 Fed. R.-p. 139. § 310.] PLEA8. 333 judgments are pleaded in bar the court may on motion refer the pleas to a master to ascertain the truth of the same, and the questions as to the identity of the parties and of the cause of action may also be included in the reference.' But the de- fendant may have the truth of the plea as to the existence of the record tried under the plea and replication in ordinary course.^ It is entirely competent for the court, upon the sug- gestion of the complainant or of its own motion, to require a defendant before the plea is argued to produce a copy of the record relied on by him, of which only a recital, according to the pleader's understanding of it or his construction of it, is set forth in the plea.' § 310. The same subject continued. — A defense of res ad- judioata, in suits in equity, must be pleaded, either by special plea in bar or in the answer ; appearing neither in bill, plea nor answer, it cannot be relied upon in the evidence.* But where the forms of pleading are such that a party has no opportunity to plead a former judgment or decree as an es- toppel, the record of the decision in the former suit may be given in evidence with the same conclusiveness as if pleaded.* Where a record in bar is pleaded the defendant may be re- quired to show it before the complainant traverses the plea or sets it down for argument; but this practice does not ex- tend to the pleading of a judgment or decree of another court in the bill of complaint.* Ordinarily so much of the 1 Emma Silver Min. Co. v. Emma to establish the facts, the defense Silver Min. Co., 1 Fed. Rep. 39 ; Tarle- that the foreign judgment is con- ton V. Barnes, 2 Keen, 633, 685 ; Wild elusive, having been rendered in a V. Hobson, 2 Ves. & B. 110. court having jurisdiction both of the 2 Emma Silver Min. Co. v. Emma parties and of the subject-matter, Silver Min. Co., 1 Fed. Rep. 39. may properly be presented by plea 3 Emma Silver Min. Co. v. Emma unsupported by an answer, when Silver Min. Co., 1 Fed. Rep. 89, 43. the jurisdictional facts do not ap- < Turley v. Turley, S.") Tenn. 251 ; pear in the bill, and when the facts S. C, 1 S. W. Rep. 891. which an answer would tend to 'Down V. McMichael, 6 Paige, 139. prove may be treated as proved in "Where one sued upon a foreign impeachment of the plea, without judgment bi-ings a bill in aid of his destroying the defense pleaded, defense, setting up the erroneous Hilton v. Guyott, 43 Fed. Rep. 249. character of the foreign judgment, « Phelps v. Elliott (1886), 26 Fed. and praying discovery to enable him Rep. 881. 334: PLEAS. [§§ 311, 312. former bill and answer must be set forth as is necessary to show that the same point was then in issue.' If, however, the pleader files the record upon which he relies as an exhibit to his bill, it will be sufficient.^ §311. Plea of release denying fraud. — Where fraud or other circumstances are charged in the bill, to avoid a release, the defendant pleading the release must, by proper negative averments in his plea, deny the allegations of the fraud, etc., and must support his plea by a full answer and discovery as to every equitable circumstance charged in the bill in avoid- ance of such release.' A plea of release is not bad because it is not stated in the plea, or the answer in support of it, that the release was obtained freely and without fraud, when the bill contains no allegations of fraud.* "Where the bill charges that a release of the complainant's demand was obtained by fraud and without consideration, it is not sufficient for the de- fendant merely to plead the release in bar of the suit, although it recites the consideration; but the plea should also contain an averment of the truth of such recital, so that the facts may be put in issue by the replication.' The plea of release must set out the consideration upon which it was made, and if the bill be for an account the plea must set out the accounts which form the consideration.' § 313. Pleas of stated account. — Pleas of stated account (where the bill seeks to open and correct) are regulated by the same principles which regulate anomalous pleas gener- ally.' To a bill to impeach a decree for fraud the decree itself is pleaded.' To a bill to set aside an award the award is pleaded.' To a bill alleging circumstances to take an ac- count out of the statute of limitations the statute is pleaded.'" To a bill alleging that although a release had been given 1 Story's Equity Pleading, § 791. 6 story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 2Jourollmonu. Massengill, 86Tenn. §797; Brooks «. Sutton, L. E. 5 Eq. 81, 86. 361. 'Bolton V. Gardner, 3 Paige, 373; 'Green v. Harris, 11 E. I. 5, 39. Allen V. Randolph, 4 Johns. Ch. 693. 8 Green v. Harris, 11 R L 5, 29. ^MoCIaine's Adm'x v. Shepherd's « Green v. Harris, 11 R I. 5, 29. Ex'x, 21 N. J. Eq. 76. w Green v. Harris, 11 R. L 5, 29. » Fish V. Miller, 5 Paige, 36. § 313.] PLEAS. 335 there was property not covered by it, and asking for an ac- count, the defendant pleaded a release, and Lord Talbot said it was every day's practice.' The books abound with cases of bills filed to open settled accounts for either fraud or error in which the account itself was pleaded in bar with proper averments. The principle is the same in regard to accounts stated but not actually settled.^ To a bill to set aside a deed, so far as it confirmed a former deed and operated as a re- lease, the deed was pleaded in bar.' § 313. The same subject continued. — In pleading a stated account in bar to a bill for account, the plea, although neither fraud nor error be charged, must aver that the account is just and true to the best of the pleader's knowledge and be- lief.* It is a fatal objection to such a plea that it does not state explicitly the balance found to be due on the account- ing.' A defendant may plead or set up in his answer a stated account to a bill for an account generally; and this will be prima facie a bar to any further accounting, unless upon a bill charging error or fraud.' Where the complainant seeks to impeach and open a stated account on the ground of fraud 1 Pusey V. Desbourie, 3 P. Wms. not avail him. The respondent has 315. in most cases no other defense ex- 2 Knight w Bampfield, 1 Vern. 179 ; cept to reply in liis plea on stated Green v. Harris, 11 R I. 5, 29. account and to deny the fraud 3 De Montmorency v. Devereux, 1 charged." In Cook v. Wilcock, 5 Ur. & Wal. 119, 127. The doctrine Madd. 328, Sir John Leach said : — as to pleas of account stated is so '• Where the plaintifE in equity seeks recognized by Chancellor Walworth to avoid a legal bar upon equitable in Weed v. Smull, 7 Paige, 573. " It grounds, there the defendant in is diflScult to see how it can be other- equity, pleading the legal bar, must wise," said the court in Green v. of necessity accompany his plea Harris, 11 R. I. 5, 29, " without with averments generally denying changing the whole system regu- the equitable matter ; for otherwise lating what are called anomalous there would be no fact to be tried pleas or pleas not pure. The bill upon his plea, because the bill admits claims an account, and, instead of the legal bar." See, also, Foley v. reserving it for a replication, charges Hill, 3 Myl. & C. 475, 480, 483. tliat the respondent sets up a pre- < For want of such averment a plea tended stated or settled account as was overruled with leave to amend. an excuse for not accounting, and Driggs v. Garretson, 25 N. J. Eq. 178. tlien goes on to allege circumstances ^ Harrison v. Farrington, 38 N. J. of fraud or error as reasons why this Eq. 359. p-etended bar should be set aside or ' Bullock v. Boyd, 2 Edw. Oh. 293. 336 PLEAS. [§314. or mistake therein, if he not only impeaches the account in his bill, but also charges that he has no counterpart of the ac- count and prays that it may be set forth in the answer, the defendant who pleads the stated account in bar must annex a copy of the account to the answer in support of the plea. But where the complainant by his bill waives an answer on oath, no answer or discovery in support of the plea is neces- sary, and the defendant in that case may plead the stated iic- count in bar without setting forth a copy thereof.' Upon a general bill for an account, if the defendant sets up a stated account in bar, the complainant will not be permitted to show mistakes or errors in such account ; but he must amend his bill, as the stated account is prima facie a bar until the par- ticular errors in it are assigned.^ Complainant brought a bill for an account alleging a settlement with the defendant, but that it was induced by defendant's fraud. Defendant filed a plea setting up the settlement in bar and denying the fraud, and also an answer in support of his plea denying the fraud. Having proved the settlement alleged in his plea, it was held that the burden of proving the fraud was upon the complain- ant.' § 314. Plea of bona fide purchase. — A defendant who claims protection as a hona fide purchaser should aver the want of notice fully, positively and precisely, even though it be not charged in the bill, and should deny all knowledge of the facts charged, and from which notice may be inferred.'' 'Weed V. SmuU, 7 Paige, 573, fendant. and cross-items in such an where it was also held that if the account in the defendant's favor are complainant files a. general bill for not matters of set-off and need not an account without alleging or sug- be pleaded to be availed of except gesting that there has been any set- when the whole account is set out in tlement or statement of accounts be- the answer. Goldthwait v. Day, 149 tween the parties, the defendant may Mass. 185. plead an account stated in bar of the ' Farrington v. Harrison, 44 N. J. suit so far as it seeks an account be- Eq. 232. tween the parties without annexing < Woodruff v. Cook, 3 Edw. Ch. 359^ a copy of the account to his plea. 364 ; Galatian v. Erwin, Hopk. Ch. 48 2 Weed V. Sraull, 7 Paige, 573. A Lowry v. Tew, 3 Barb. Ch. 408, 414 bill in equity upon a mutual account Murray v. Ballou, 1 Johns. Oh. 666 imports an offer on the part of the Manhattan Co. v. Evertson, 6 Paige, plaintiff to pay any balance that may 457 ; Harris v. Fly, 7 Paige, 431. If a be found due from him to the de- defendant relies upon want of notico § 315.] PLEAS. 337 A plea that the defendant is a lona fide purchaser for a valu- able consideration without notice must show to whom the consideration was paid, as well as its actual payment, before receiving notice of the complainant's equities.' A plea of hmia fide purchase without notice for " good and valuable consideration, to wit, a certain sum of money," was overruled because the consideration was not set forth in amount and in traversable form, and so that the court could see that it was adequately valuable if not traversed.^ Where the bill waives an answer on oath a plea of l)ona fide purchaser need not be accompanied by an answer denying the matter charged by way of notice.' § 315. Plea of usury. — Usury as a defense must be spe- cially pleaded or set up in the answer to entitle it to consid- eration,* and the plea or answer must distinctly set forth the terms of the usurious agreement." In a suit to foreclose a trust deed an allegation by the defendants that they " did not nor did either of them receive the full sum from said com- plainants at the time of making said loan, nor at any time, nor did they receive any money at the date of said notes and trust deed, and so these respondents say that the amount in another from whom he purchased, fix him with notice actual or con- he must aver the fact in pleading, structive ; but when the facts alleged Woodrufif u. Cook, 3 Edw. Ch. 259, 264. are not within his personal knowl- 1 Tompkins v. Ward, 4 Sandf. Ch. edge he is merely to deny notice 594. Where a defendant pleads that thereof ; he is not to deny their ex- he is a hona fide purchaser of a part istence besides, thereby creating un- of the premises in question, in bar of necessary collateral issues. Tomp- a bill seeking to set aside a convey- kins v. Ward, 4 Sandf. Ch. 594. ance to his remote grantor on the 2 ggcombe t;. Campbell, 18 Blatchf. ground of fraud and breach of trust, 108. and charging that parts or portions ' Tompkins v. Anthon, 4 Sandf. Ch. of the premises are claimed by such 97. defendant, but without describing < Atlantic &c. R. Co. v. Carolina them, the plea must aver that he Nat. Bank, 19 Wall. 548. claims no right or title to or in any 'Vroom v. Ditraar, 4 Paige, 526; other portion of the premises except New Orleans &c. Co. v. Dudley, 8 that described in and covered by the Paige, 452 ; Luce v. Hinds, Clarke's plea. Tompkins v. Anthon, 4 Sandf. Ch. 453 ; Crane v. Homeopathic L. Ch, 97. In the answer in support of Ins. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 484 ; New Jer- a plea of bona fide purchase, etc., the sey Patent Tanning Co. v. Turner, 14 defendant must deny every allegation N. J. Eq. 326 ; Taylor v. Morris, 23 in the bill which, if admitted, would N. J. Eq. 606. 28 338 PLEAS. [§§ 316, 317. claimed by said complainants is largely tainted with usury," is not sulBciently definite as a charge of usury.' § 316. Frame of a plea. — The title of a plea must agree with that of the cause at the time the bill is filed ^ and is headed as follows : — " The plea of the above-named defendant (or, of A. B., one of the above-named defendants) to the bill of complaint of the above-named plaintiff (or plaintififs)." ^ When put in by more than one defendant the heading runs as follows: — " The joint and several plea of the above-named defendants (or of A. B. and C. D., two of the above-named defendants)." * Where it is the plea of a man and his wife the words " and several" should not be inserted, but if intro- duced the plea is not thereby vitiated.^ If a female defend- ant marries subsequently to the filing of the bill, but before pleading, the plea should (unless she has obtained an order to defend the suit by herself) be headed thus : — " The plea of A. B. and C, his wife, lately, and in the bill called C. D., spin- ster (or widow, as the case may be), to the bill of complaint of the above-named plaintiffs." " A plea like a demurrer ' is usu- ally introduced by a protestation against the confession of the truth of any matter contained in the bill, but this is un- necessary.' § 317. The same subject continued. — When a plea is ac- companied by an answer it should be headed " The plea and answer," or "The joint plea and answer," or "The joint and several plea and answer," as the case may be.' In practice a plea or demurrer to a part of the bill only usually precedes the answer, which in that case commences thus : " And as to the residue of the said bill this defendant, not waiving his said plea, but relying thereon, and saving and reserving to himself, etc., for answer thereto, or to so much thereof as he 1 Goodwin v. Bishop (111.), 34 N. E. called William Jones)." Braith- Rep. 47. waite's Pi-. 44, 62. 2 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 681. » 1 Daniell's CSi. Pr. (5th ed.) 681. If the defendant's name is misspelt * 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 681. in the bill the correction should be '1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 681. made in the heading thus : — " The 6 i Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 683. plea of the above-named defendant, ' See § 268, svpra. John Jones (in the bill by mistake 8 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 683. « 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 68?. § 318.] ■ pi.EAS. 339 is advised is material," etc' But there is no objection, except as to tiie convenience of reference, in permitting the answer to precede a plea to a part of the bill, in which case the pleader must by a reference to the part of the bill which is subsequently covered by the plea, or otherwise, show that it is an answer to the residue of the bill only.^ "Where a plea does not go to the whole bill, it must distinctly set out the part of the discovery or relief intended to be covered by it, either in the words of the bill or by such a description that the court will not be obliged to look into the whole bill to as- certain the part thereof which is covered by the plea.' "Where a plea to a part of a bill is overruled because it does not dis- tinctly set out the part intended to be covered by it, it should be without prejudice to the defendant's right to insist upon the same matters in his answer, as a defense to the suit jpro tanto.* Other formal requisites of a plea are noticed in suc- ceeding sections. § 318. General rules of pleading. — A plea must be positive and direct and not merely argumentative, and when a fact is traversed simply by alleging one contradictory thereto the plea must go further and directly negative or traverse the facts inconsistent with the facts alleged.* In a plea in bar all the facts necessary to render the plea a complete equitable bar must be clearly and distinctly averred in order that the complainant may take issue upon them.^ An averment of a conclusion of law is bad pleading.' Thus a plea that defend- ant is " the sole owner in fee-simple " of the property described 1 Leacraft v, Dempsey, 4 Paige, defense by an answer. Matthews v. 134, 125. Roberts, 2 N. J. Eq. 338. 2 Leacraft v. Dempsey (1833), 4 SMcCloskeyu Barr, 38 Fed. Rep. Paige, 124, 126. 165. 'Jarvis v. Palmer, 11 Paige, 650; 'A plea that "complainants were Van Hook v. Whitlook, 3 Paige, 409, at the time of bringing this suit, and 418. long prior thereto, ousted and dis- * Jarvis i'. Palmer, 11 Paige, 650. seized, and out of possession of said 5 McDonald v. Salem Capital Flour- premises," states a mere conclusion ing Mills Co., 81 Fed. Rep. 577. If the of law, and is wholly wanting in defendant has a substantia! defense proper averments of facts and cir- which cannot avail him under his cunistances to sustain that conclu- plea, from inaccuracy in pleading, he sion. McCloskey v. Barr, 38 Fed. may claim the full benefit of such Rep. 165. 340 PLEAS. [§ 319. in the bill, without stating any facts from which the court can see whether defendant is the owner in fee or not, is bad.' A plea of a discharge under an insolvent act must state distinctly every fact which was necessary to give the discharging officer jurisdiction in the first instance.' In pleading a right acquired under a judgment of an inferior court of limited jurisdiction, sufficient should be stated in the pleading to show that such court had jurisdiction to render the judgment.' A plea set- ting up title to land by virtue of a purchase at sheriff's sale under a writ of fieri faoias was held defective because it did not set out any order or decree authorizing the issuing of the writ.* In setting up a defense under a public statute it is not necessary to set forth the statute in the plea. It is sufficient to state the facts which are necessary to bring the case within the operation of the statute and to insist that upon those facts the plaintiff's right or remedy is at an end.' Charges in the bill to support the allegation of fraud must be met in the plea. They may be met by a general denial (no matter how gen- eral), provided it be sufficient to put the charges of fraud con- tained in the bill in issue. It is no ground of objection that the denials are explicit and particular." As to matters which are not alleged to be the defendant's own acts, or to be within his personal knowledge, it is sufficient if the defendant in his negative averments denies the facts charged upon his belief only ; but he must so frame his averment that the complain- ant can put the facts in issue by a replication.' Where a deed is set up in a plea it is not sufficient to say it was " executed in due form of law;" delivery and acceptance must also be averred.* § 319. The same subject continued. — " The proper office of a plea is to bring forward fresh matter not apparent on the face of the bill, and which, if true, is a bar to the complain- 1 Mcaoskey v. Barr, 38 Fed. Rep. < Wesling v. Sohrass, 33 N. J. Eq. 43. 165. But the failure to traverse a 'Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 plea that is bad as alleging matters Paige, 178. of law and not of fact is not assign- « Harrison v. Farrington, 38 N. J. able for error. National Bank v. Life Eq. 858, 363. Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 54. ' Bolton v. Gardner, 8 Paige, 373. i Salters v. Tobias, 3 Paige, 388. « Whitlook v. Fiske, 3 Edw. Ch. » Drix V. Briggs, 9 Paige, 695. 181. §§ 320, 321.J PLEAS. 341 ant's action. And a plea which sets forth nothing except what appears on the face of the bill is bad and must be dis- allowed, although the defendant might have availed himself of the objection by demurrer." ' But this rule must be un- derstood with the qualification that the plea is not of a purely negative character; for a negative plea may put in issue the very fact asserted in the bill.^ And " it is also true that a de- fendant may present a good plea by averring the facts con- tained in the bill and along with them other and additional facts not contained in the bill, provided that the facts taken from the bill and the new facts together establish a defense." ' § 320. Amendment of pleas. — Where there has been an evident slip or mistake, and the material ground of defense seems to be sufficient, it is customary to grant leave to amend,* but " the court always expects to be told precisely what the amendment is to be, and how the slip happened," before it will allow an amendment.' And in giving leave to amend, the defendant will be required to exercise the privilege in a very short time.^ § 321. The same subject continued. — There are numerous cases where an amendment has been allowed to a plea sup- ported or accompanied by an answer.' " Two general rules 1 Chancellor Walworth in Cozine so as to raise a multitude of issues, V. Graham, 2 Paige, 177, 180 ; Phelps and after long delay, was denied. V. Garrow, 3 Edw. Ch. 139; Sperry » Newman v. Wallis, 2 Bra Ch. V. Miller, 2 Barb. Ch. 632. If the 143, 147. acts constitute a defense the defend- 6 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 226 ; ant should demur. Phelps v. Gar- Nobkissen v. Hastings, 2 Ves. Jr. 87. row, 3 Edw. Ch. 139. 7 In Thompson v. Wild, 5 Madd. 82, 2 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), a plea of release was supported by g 660. an answer. Leave had been given 'Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas to amend the plea, and besides amend- &c. By. Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 151. ing the plea the sworn answer was * Pope V. Bish, 1 Anst 60 : Freeland also amended in some material pas- V. Johnson, 2 Anst 411 ; Merre wether sages. Sir John Leach said that there V. Mellish, 13 Ves. 439; Woods v. was so much inconvenience in al- Strickland, 2 Ves. & B. 156. See, lowing any alteration in an answer also, Newman v. Wallis, 2 Bro. Ch. that he should not as a general rule 143, 147. In Giant Powder Co. v. in future give leave to amend a plea Safety Nitro Powder Co., 19 Fed. supported by an answer. He over- Rep. 509, 513, leave to amend a plea ruled the plea but let it stand as an 342 PLEAS. [§ 321. may be traced through all the cases : first, to use great cau- tion in allowing amendments of a sworn answer or other pleading ; secondly, to consider whether the plea was so defect- ive in substance that an amendment would be of no use ; and even in such cases leave has often been given to withdraw the plea and file a new one. But subject to these considerations courts of equity have always exercised the right to allow amendments of pleas in all cases." ^ answer. Afterwards, in Watkins v. Stone, 3 Sim. & Stu. H^O, he allowed a defendant to withdraw a plea ac- companied by an answer and file a new one. In Davies v. Davies, 2 Keen, 534, which was a plea of set- tled accounts accompanied by an an- swer to the excepted parts denying the fraud, Lord Langdale allowed the plea to be amended. In Phelps V. Sproule, 1 Myl. & K. 831, 837, there was a plea of stated accounts and release supported by an answer. The chancellor allowed the plea to be amended. The plea lacked the aver- ment denying the collusion charged in the bill. In Bayley v. Adams, 6 Ves. Jr. 586, 598, 599, a case thor- oughly discussed, where a plea was supported by an answer. Lord Eldon gave leave to amend the plea, or both plea and answer, as counsel might choose. In Allen v. Randolph, 4 Johns. Ch. 693, a release was pleaded without averments denying the fraud charged in the bill. The plea was accompanied by an answer support- ing it and denying the fraud. Chan- cellor Kent allowed it to be amended. In Leaycraft v. Dempsey, 4 Paige, 124 (& C, 15 Wend. 83), there was a plea of stated account with an an- swer. Chancellor Walworth held the plea defective, but said it would be of course to amend it. But it was allowed to stand for an answer. In Foley v. Hill, 3 Myl. & Cr. 475, 483, where a plea was supported by an answer denying part of the charges. Lord Cottenham held the answer not sufficient, but said if de- fendant's counsel could effect their object by amending he might per- mit it In Portarliugton v. Soulby, 6 Sim. 356, the vice-chancellor over- ruled a plea supported by an answer, but allowed the defendant to plead de novo, who thereupon put in both plea and answer anew. When these came on, the vice-chancellor again overruled the plea but let it stand for an answer with liberty to except. In Meeker v. Marsh, 1 N. J. Eq. 198, which was a plea of stated account supported by an answer, the chan- cellor allowed both to be amended. 'Green v. Harris, 11 R. L 5, 20, where, upon an application to amend a plea, the court said in reply to the contention that its power was abso- lutely limited by the prescribed rules, which did not allow amendments : — " While the rule does not provide for amending a plea as a matter of right, it would be contrary to all the prin- ciples of equity practice to construe it as preventing the court from al- lowing an amendment in cases where the justice of the case requires it, and it may be presumed the court would not allow it in any other case. Says Mr. Justice Taney in Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Peters, 810, 257: — 'The court of chancery has always exercised an equitable discretion as to its rules of pleading whenever it has been nec- essary to do so for the purposes of § 322.] PLEAS. 343 § 322. Yeriflcation of pleas. — It is a general rule that where a defendant pleads matter of fact not stated in the bill, and onW sustainable by proof other than that of a record or some public testimonial,' he must make oath to the truth justice.' The forty-ninth New York chancery rule provided that if a plea be overruled no other plea should be received. But it vras laid down that this did not prevent the court from allowing another plea on special grounds. 1 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. 226. So, also, in the English chancery. Eowley v. Eccles, 1 Sim. & Stu. 511. In In re Lyons, 1 Br. & Wal. 327, Lord Chancellor Plunkett said: — ' Rules ought to be enforced against a party who undertakes to act in opposition to them without an application to the court in the first instance. Yet there is no ground for saying, nor can it be pretended, that these rules, the creatures of the court, are to become its masters by assuming a nature so binding as to overrule and control the acts of that very court which gave them exist- ence.' And in Dicas v. Lord Brougham, 6 C. & P. 249, which was a suit against Lord Brougham in consequence of an order made by him in a case in chancery, Lord Lyndhurst, C. B., said that the chan- cellor had the authority to make an order in a particular case altering the practice. So, also, in Burrell v. Nicholson, 6 Sim. 212, Shadwell, V. C, said : — ' The orders of the court are to be considered as laying down general rules, but not as being so imperative that they can under no circumstances be departed from.' And also Lord Chancellor Cotten- ham in Smith v. Webster, 3 Myl. & Or. 344. And the ordinances of Lord Bacon, A. D. 1618 (No. 44), evidently contemplate the making of an order upon the special nature of the case against the general rules whenever necessary.'' After an amendment of the final decision of the chancellor upon the merits it was held proper to refuse to permit pleas to be amended so as to meet objections which were raised at the hearing two months before the decision was rendered, especially where such amendment would not affect the grounds on which the decision was based. Clafliu v. Bennett, 51 Fed. Rep. 693. ' " If the plea relies upon any pub- lic record or other matter of which the court must take notice, or which may be shown by a record, as upon a former decree in relation to the same matter in bar, then if the de- cree be enrolled according to the English mode the defendant may make profert of the record without swearing to the plea, because to the verity of the record there can be no addition by the defendant's oath; but if the decree be in paper only, so that it cannot be shown to the court, then the plea must be on oath. A plea resting upon a statute alone is a plea of matter of record ; but if it be necessary to couple any mere matter of fact with a statute in order to constitute a complete defense, then the plea must be on oath, because the defense would be unavailable with- out an averment of such fact Wall V. Stubbs, 2 Ves. & B. 354, 357. . . Where the lapse of time appears upon the face of the bill without any allegation of an ac- knowledgment, payment or other circumstance which can take the case out of the statute, the defendant may take advantage of the statute either by a plea or by a demurrer ; 344 PLEAS. [§ 322. of the facts he so advances as a defense.' It has been held that a plea must be verified by oath although the complain- ant has expressly waived an answer from the defendant on oath.* A verification conforming to a statute which requires an afiidavit that the plea is not interposed for delay, but in good faith, is sufficient although the defendant does not make oath that the matter is true.' It was held in Tennessee that a plea in abatement may be sworn to by an attorne}'^ or agent of the defendant if the facts constituting the foundation of the plea be within his personal knowledge.* and such plea or demurrer need not be sworn to, because the oath of the defendant cannot be required to verify facts which the complainant himself has stated to be true." Car- roll V. Waring, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 491. 1 Carroll v. Waring, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 491 ; Dunn v. Keezin, 3 Scam, fill.) 297 ; Heartt v. Corning, 3 Paige, 566 ; Bassett v. Company, 43 N. H. 251. United States Equity Rule 31 provides that "no demurrer or plea shall be allowed to be filed to any bill unless upon a certificate of coun- sel that in his opinion it is well founded in point of law, and sup- ported by the afiidavit of the defend- ant that it is not interposed for delay ; and if a plea, that it is true in point of fact." 2 Heartt v. Corning, 3 Paige, 566 : Bassett v. Company, 43 N. H. 251. ' " The old rule on the subject was that to a plea of matter in pais in bar the defendant must make oath that it is true. And it has been held that such oath is requisite even though the bill pray an answer with- out oath. Heartt v. Corning, 3 Paige, 566. But where the statute directs what the verification of the plea shall be, it must be assumed that no further or other verification is neces- sary." Harrison v. Farrington, 88 N. J. Eq. 359, 360. « Bank v. Jones, 1 Swan, 391. See, also, Carter v. Vaulx, 3 Swan, 641 ; Bank v. Anderson, 3 Sneed, 672 ; Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 170; Klepper v. Powell, 6 Heisk. 508. In the case last cited it was held that it was not necessary that the fact of agency should be stated in the afii- davit, and that the essential require- ment is that the truth of the plea should be verified by some one who is willing to swear that it is true. But an affidavit by a third person, who does not purport to be either the agent or attorney of the defend- ant, that he is "informed and be- lieves that the plea is true," etc., is not suflScient Bank v. Jones, supra. See, however, as to the sufficiency of an oath upon information and belief, Ewing V. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 134; Heartt v. Corning, 3 Paige, 566. An affidavit that the facts in the plea are true "in substance and in fact" complies with a rule that the afBda- vit must be positive in form, Wrom- pelmeir v. Moses, 3 Baxt (Tenn.) 470; Trabue v. Higden, 4 Cold. (Tenn.) 622, 623; Bank v. Jones, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 393 ; Seifreid v. Bank, 2 Tenn. Ch. 18, especially where the party furthermore swears that he is acquainted with the facts. Cheatham V. Pearce (Tenn.), 15 S. W. Eep. 1080, 1082. A plea need not be verified before the court where the suit is pending. It may be sworn to before §§ 323, 324.J PLEAS. 345 § 323. The same subject continued. — Where a plea is not sufficiently verified the proper mode of taking advantage of the defect is by an application, upon motion and notice,' for an order setting aside the plea, or to take it ofif the files for irregularity.^ The objection cannot be made upon the argu- ment of the plea,' nor upon the hearing.* The affidavit may be amended by leave of the court.' §324. Proceedings when a plea is filed. — A party does not take notice of the filing of a plea or demurrer unless no- tice thereof be entered in the order book as prescribed by a rule of the court.* As a general rule neither party can take a step in the cause until the plea is disposed of.' And, if a defendant pleads only to part of the bill and answers to the residue, the plaintiff cannot except to the answer until the plea has been argued,' or if he does so the truth of the plea is any officer in the State authorized to administer oaths, Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 170; s. c, 3 S. W. Rep. 26, and where the defendant is a non- resident, there is no objection to a verification before any officer of an- otlier State who would be authorized by the laws of the forum to admin- ister oaths in legal proceedings. Cheatham v. Pearce (Tenn.), 15 S. W. Rep. 1080. In Toledo Tie & Lumber Co. V. Thomas, 33 West Va. 566; s. a, 11 S. K Rep. 37, where the same matter in abatement was pre- sented by both plea and answer, the latter alone being sworn to, the mat- ter was treated as properly pleaded. 1 Harrison v. Farrington, 38 N. J. Eq. 358, 360 ; Wild v. Gladstone, 3 De G. & S. 740 ; s. C, 15 Jur. 713. 2 Ewing V. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 134 Heartt v. Corning, 3 Paige, 566 Wild V. Gladstone, 3 De G. & S. 740 B. c, 15 Jur. 713. See, however. Na- tional Bank v. Insurance Co.. 104 U. S. 54, where it was said that a plea lacking the requisite certificate and affidavit may be disregarded. » Goodyear v. Toby, 6 Blatcbf. 130 ; Heartt v. Corning, 3 Paige, 566 ; Bas- sett V. Company, 43 N. H. 251. But see Wall v. Stubbs, 2 Ves. & B. 354, 358 ; § 880 n. 3, infra. * Harrison v. Farrington, 88 N. J. Eq. 358, 360. 5 Cheatham v. Pierce (Tenn.), 15 S. W. Eep. 1080; Wrompelmeir v. Moses, 3 Baxt. (Tenn.) 471 ; Trabue v. Higden, 4 Cold. (Tenn.) 624 ; Seifreid V. Bank, 3 Tenn. Ch. 19. 6 Newby v. On gon Cent. R Co., 1 Sawy. 63, which was an unsuccessful motion to dismiss because of plaint- iff's failure to reply or set down the plea for argument, the same not hav- ing been entered on the order book. 'IDaniell's Ch. Pr. (5fch ed.) 691. See, also, Buchanan v. Hodgson, 11 Beav. 368. The defendant cannot, in the meanwhile, obtain an order that the plaintiff make his election. Anon, Moseley, 304 ; Vaughan v. Welsh, Moseley, 210; Fisher v. Mee, 3 Mer. 45, 47. 81 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 691. Unless in cases where the pleas are confined to the relief and the defend- ant undertakes to answer to the 346 PLEAS. [§ 325. admitted.' And though by amending a bill in equity the complainant may have tacitly admitted the plea of defendant theretofore filed, the amended bill, standing in the place of a new one, is not answered by that plea, and if defendant then demurs, the case stands as if no plea had been filed.^ The court will not grant an injunction nor appoint a receiver pending a plea to its jurisdiction.' Where some defendants filed pleas and then obtained leave to withdraw them, while other defendants demurred, it being doubtful whether or not the pleas were before the court, it was held to be the better practice to postpone action on the pleas until the hearing on the demurrer.* The filing of a plea is a compliance with a rule to answer.' A plaintiff has been permitted to file a de- murrer to a plea, but the practice is contrary to general usage.' § 325. Setting a plea down for argument. — " If the plaintiff conceives a plea to be defective in point of form or substance, he may take the judgment of the court upon its sufficiency. And if the defendant is anxious to have the point determined he may also take the same proceeding." ^ A motion to strike out an insufficient plea is not correct practice. The plea should be set down for argument.' The manner of setting a plea down for argument is regulated by local rules. In the United States courts a rule provides that if the plaintiff fail whole discovery sought. Pigot v. Kay v. Marshall, 1 Keen, 190 ; Jones Stace, 2 Dick. 496 ; Sidney v. Perry, v. Earl of Stafford, 3 P. Wins. 79, 81 ; 2 Dick. 602. Roberts v. Hartley, 1 Bro. 0. C. 56 : 1 Brownell v. Curtis, 10 Paige, 210. De Minckwitz v. Udney, 16 Ves. 355 ; 2 Tompkins v. Hollister, 60 Mich. Phillips u Gibbons, 1 Ve& & B. IJS-l: 470; S. C, 27N. W. Rep. 651. Newman v. White, 16 Beav. 4; 'Ewing V. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 139, Heartt v. Corning, 3 Paige, 566. where it was said, however, that " If « Beard v. Bowler, 2 Bond, 18; any irremediable mischief should Goodyear v. Toby, 6 Blatchf. 180. impend, which it is absolutely neces- See, also, Witt v. Ellis, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) saiy to meet with promptness, or if 40 ; Klepper v. Powell, 6 Heisk. there be any just suspicion that the (Tenn.) 506. plea or demurrer is merely intended 'Mitford's PI., ch. 2, § 2, part 2. for delay, the court will order an 8 Corlies v. Corlies' Executor (1872), immediate hearing or trial of the 38 N. J. Eq. 197. But the court in plea.'' the exercise of its discretion consid- * Campbell v. Mayor, 83 Fed. Rep. ered the motion as if the plea were 795. set down for argument and over- ' Bracken v. Kennedy, 3 Scam. 664 ; ruled it § 326.] PLEAS. 347 to set down any plea or demurrer for argument on the rule- day when the same is filed or on the next succeeding rule- day, he is deemed to admit the suificiency thereof, and his bill is dismissed as of course, unless a judge of the court allows him further time for the purpose.^ It was held that the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the rule in a case pending in a circuit where it had been the practice to treat all days in term time as rule-days was not sufficient ground for dis- missing the bill.^ In the case cited Judge Hammond said : — "'So formal order in writing upon the minutes is necessary to set the plea down for argument, though that would be a better practice, no doubt, as it would be to set an equity case down for hearing formally, which is rarely done at all. When the case is ready for hearing, or the demurrer or plea is ready to be argued, the parties appear informally in court, and pro- ceed with the matter, no attention being paid to a formal entry setting the hearing in writing on the minutes, order book or docket." ' No one except the party who files the plea can take advantage of the failure of the plaintiff to act upon it.* § 326. Argument of a plea. — Where a plea is set down for argument without any replication no objection can be taken to its form or regularity. Such objection can only be made by exceptions.' But the sufficiency of the bill as to substance is tested, although its allegations are not taken so strictly against the complainant as in case of a demurrer.'' By setting the plea down for argument the complainant tests its suffi- ciency and in effect demurs to it.' Every fact stated in the bill and not denied by the averments in the plea and by the answer in support of the plea must be taken as true.' Where 1 Equity Rule 38. « Rumbold v. Forteath, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 2 Electrolibration Co. v. Jackson, 686. 52 Fed. Rep, 778. 7 Korn v. Wiebusch, 33 Fed. Rep. 'Eleotrolibration Co. v. Jackson, 50, 51 ; Burrell v. Hackley, 35 Fed. 52 Fed. Rep. 773. Rep. 833 ; Davison v. Johnson, 16 N. 4 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Union Roll- J. Eq. 112 ; Hilton v. Guyott, 42 Fed. ing Mill Co., 109 U. S. 702, 717. Rep. 249, 251 ; Flagg v. Bonnell, 10 sKellner v. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 82. Fed. Rep. 633 ; Davison v. Johnson, 8 Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 16 N. J. Eq. 113. See, also, Aimen- Paige, 178; McCloskey v. Ban, 38 gaud V. Coudert, 27 Fed. Rep. 247. Fed. Rep. 165. 348 PLEAS. [§ 327. the complainant files no replication to the defendant's plea, but sets it down for argument, the truth of all facts stated in the plea and well pleaded is admitted,* however inconsistent with or contradictory of the allegations of the bill and the statements and recitals in the returns.^ Where a plea re- quires an answer to support it, upon argument of the plea the answer may be read to counterprove the plea;' and if the defendant appears not to have sufHciently supported his plea by his answer, the plea must be overruled or ordered to stand for an answer only.* If a plea accompanied by an answer is allowed, the answer may be read at the hearing of the cause to counterprove the plea.' A plea upon argument may be either allowed simply or with leave to amend, or the benefit of it may be saved to the hearing,* or it may be ordered to stand for an answer,' or it may be overruled." § 327. Allowing a plea on argument. — If a plea is allowed simply, it is thereby determined to be a full bar to so much of the bill as it covers, if the matter pleaded with the aver- ments necessary to support it be true.' Where a plea is al- lowed upon argument, or the plaintiff without argument thinks it, though good in form and substance, not true in point of fact, he may take issue upon it and proceed to dis- prove the facts upon which it is endeavored to be supported.'" This he does by filing a replication in the same manner that he would do if the defendant had simply put in an answer to the bill in the usual way." Where a defendant files a plea 1 Kellner v. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 43 Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Paige, Fed. Rep. 623 ; Gallagher v. Roberts, 178. 1 Wash. (C. C.) 330 ; Rowley v. Will- 6 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 699. iams, 5 Wis. 151; Davison v. John- 'See § ZOO, supra. son, 16 N. J. Eq. 112. 8 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. {5th ed.) 695. 2 United States v. American Bell 8 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 690; Tel. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 17, case of a Bassett v. Company, 48 N. H. 258. plea in abatement >» 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 696 ; 3 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), McEwen v. Broadhead, 11 N. J. Eq. §§ 690, 699 ; Bogardus v. Trinity 129 ; United States v. Dalles Military Church, 4 Paige, 178; 1 Daniell's Ch. Road Co., 140 U. S. 599, 617. Pr. (5th ed.) 694. "l Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 697; < Stoi-y's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), MoEwen w Broadhead, 11 N.J. Eq. § 699 ; Hildyard v. Cressy, 3 Atk. 303. 129 ; United States v. Dalles Military » Souzer v. De Meyer, 2 Paige, 574 ; Road Co., 140 U. S. 599, 617, where it § 328.] PLEAB. 349 which goes to the whole equity of the bill, and a motion is afterwards made in the cause which confesses the truth of the plea, the court may deal with the cause as though an order had been made allowing the plea.^ " The rule seems to be settled that the allowance of a plea, which either constitutes a full defense to the complainant's whole case or deprives him of all power to farther prosecute his action, will, if he holds II n injunction, entitle the defendant to its dissolution. The allowance of the plea will not ipso facto dissolve the injunc- tion, but a dissolution will be granted as of course on mo- tion." ^ Upon the allowance of a plea to the whole bill the case is not out of court until a subsequent order has been ob- tained dismissing it.' § 328. Overruling a plea on argument. — The effect of overruling a plea is to impose upon the defendant the neces- sity of making a new defense. This he may do either by a new plea * or by an answer, and the proceedings upon the new defense will be the same as if it had been originally made.^ The defendant may have leave to amend upon the overruling of his plea," and where the complainant amends his bill after a plea to the same has been disallowed, the de- was held that rule 33 of the rules o*' reply to it When he does reply and practice in equity, that the plaintiff takes issue, the determination of that may set down a plea to be argued or issue is final. The practice is well may take issue upon it, does not mean settled and the decisions are uni- that the plaintiff is to make thereby form." Flagg v. Bonnel, 10 N. J. Eq. such a conclusive election that if he 83. sets down tlie plea to be argued and ^ Tarleton v. Barnes, 3 Keen, 683, it is sustained on the argument he which was a case of a plea of lis cannot afterwards take issue on it pendens allowed upon reference to a ' Fulton V. Graceu, 44 N. J. Eq. 443. master. 2 Fulton V. Graoen, 44 N. J. Eq. 443, ^ By leave of the court, but not 446. " If the defendant interposes a otherwise. McKewan v. Sanderson, plea in bar to the whole bill and the L. R 16 Eq. 316 ; Chadwick v. Broad- complainant does not reply to it but wood. 3 Beav. 316; Wheeler v. Mc- is disposed to question its validity, in- Cormick, 8 Blatchf. 267 ; Lamb v. stead of the complainant's demurring Starr, Deady, 350. to it the defendant must set it down s \ Daniell's Oh. Pr. (5th ed.) 701, for argument, and this answers to 703. the demurrer at law. If the plea *> Sanders v. King, 6 Madd. 61 ; should be decided not to be good, the Loving v. Fairchild, 1 McLean, 333. defendant must answer the bill. If See, also, U. S. E. S., § 954. it is sustained, the complainant must 350 PLEAS. [§ 339. fendant may put in a new plea to the amended bill.' Where a plea with an accompanying answer is overruled, and the de- fendant ordered to put in a full and perfect answer, he is not allowed to repeat in his second answer the same matter contained in the plea which has been overruled.^ Where the complainant sues in forma pauperis, the costs upon overrul- ing the defendant's plea, on the ground of its informality, are not to be paid to the complainant if the defendant finally succeeds in his defense.' A United States equity rule pro- vides that "if upon the hearing any plea is overruled the plaintiff is entitled to his costs in the cause up to that period unless the court is satisfied that the defendant has good ground, in point of law or fact, to interpose the same, and it was not interposed vexatiously or for delay. And upon the overrul- ing of any plea the defendant is assigned to answer the bill, or so much thereof as is covered by the plea, the next suc- ceeding rule-day, or at such other period as, consistentl}' with justice and the right of the defendant, the same can in the judgment of the court be reasonably done; in default whereof the bill is taken against him pro confesso, and the matter thereof proceeded in and decreed accordingly." * § 329. Allowing a plea at the hearing. — " If a plea in the apprehension of the complainant be good in matter, but not true in fact, he may reply to it and proceed to examine wit- nesses in the same way as in case of a replication to an answer ; but such a proceeding is always an admission of the suiBoiency of the plea itself, as much so as if it had been set down for argument and allowed; and if the facts relied on by the plea are proved, a dismission of the bill on the hearing is a matter of course." ' Equity Eule 33 in the United States courts 1 American Bible Society v. Hague, 94 ; Bean v. Clark, 30 Fed. Rep. 225 ; 10 Paige, 549. Birdseye v. Heilnes, 37 Fed. Rep. S89 ; 2 Coster V. Murray, 7 Johns. Ch. Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Paige, 167. 178; Dows v. McMichael, 3 Paige, 3 Bolton V. Gardner, 3 Paige, 273. 344 ; Cottle v. Krementz, 25 Fed. * Equity Rule 84. Under this rule Rep. 494 ; Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. permission to answer cannot be de- 303, 314 ; Hoxie v. Hoxie, 7 Paige, nied the defendant. Wooster v. Blake, 187. Upon replication to a plea, 7 Fed. Rep. 816. nothing is in issue except what is 5 tlughes V. Blake, 6 Wheat 453, distinctly averred in the plea, and if 472 ; Harris v. Ingledew, 3 P. Wms. that is established at the hearing, the § 330.] PLEAS. 351 which now provides that if, when the plaintiff takes issue ou the plea, the facts stated therein shall be determined for the defendant, "they shall avail him as far as in law and equity they ought to avail him," changes the old rule that a replica- tion to a plea admits its sufficiency; and hence, when the facts found under such an issue show that the plaintiff is equitably entitled to part of the relief prayed as against one defendant, and to all of it as against another, the bill will not be dismissed, but the appropriate relief will be granted.' At the hearing the defendant has the right to open and close the argument, and the burden of proof rests on him.'' § 330. Overruling a plea as false. — If the defendant pleads a false plea and it be so found the complainant is en- titled to a decree, which may be based on an admission in the plea as well as the allegations in the bill. For instance, a creditor filed a bill against an executor for discovery of assets and application thereof to his debt. The defendant's plea ad- mitted sufficient assets but denied the validity of the claim. On the hearing the claim was sustained, and although it ap- peared that the executor had not in fact sufficient assets, his admission was held to support a personal decree against him.' plea is a bar to so much of the bill Cranch, 403, 413 ; Farley v. Kittson, as it professes to cover. Fish v. 120 U. S. 803. Miller, 5 Paige, 26. Where the court ' Kennedy v. Cresswell, 101 U. S. has held that there is equity in de- 641. In this case Mr. Justice Brad- fendant's equitable plea praying re- ley said: — "Since, then, the com- lief against the plaintiff, the latter plainants were entitled to a decree, cannot dismiss the case in vacation, the question is, what decree? If a de- so as to prevent a trial of the issues fendant plead a false plea, and it be made by the plea. Friei-son v. Alex- so found, what is next to be done? ander, 74 Ga. 666. Is it to be merely overruled and an I Pearce v. Rice (U. S.), 12 S. Ct order made that he answer further. Rep. 180. See, also, Todd v. Munson, as in the case of overruling a demur- 53 Conn. 579, where the court said rer, or of overruling a plea for insuf- that if the allegations of a complaint ficiency? This is not the usual or defense, which are manifestly in- course. Having put the plaintiff to sufiBcient in substance, are yet trav- the trouble and delay of an issue the ersed and found true on the trav- defendant cannot, after it is found erse, it does not necessarily follow against him, claim the right to file an that the party in whose favor the is- answer, although if the complainant sue is found is entitled to judgment denies a. discovery, which the plea 2Gernon v. Boecaline, 2 Wash, sought to avoid, he may undoubtedly (C. C.) 199 ; Stead's Ex'rs v. Course, 4 insist upon it. But that is the com- 852 PLEAS. [§ 330. Where a plea to the bill has been overruled on the merits, the same matter cannot be set up in the answer as a bar to the suit without the special permission of the court.' If a plea contains several distinct averments or allegations of fact, all the allegations must be supported by the proofs, or the plea will be overruled as false. '^ It was held in Tennessee by a di- vided court that a defendant, after an unsuccessful trial on bis plea to the jurisdiction, might answer to the merits.' plainant's right, not the defendant's. Lord Hardwicke said: — 'All pleas must suggest a fact ; it must go to a hearing ; and if the party does not prove that fact which is necessary to support the plea, the plaintifT is not to lose the benefit of his discovery, but the court may direct an exam- ination on interrogatories in order to supply that' Brownsword v. Ed- wards, 3 Ves. 243. This statement is adopted by Lord Redesdale, Mr. Beames, and all subsequent writers on equity pleading. Mitf. (4th ed.) 302; Beames' Pleading in Equity, 318 ; Story, Eq. PL, § 697. If the plea is found to be false, it would seem to be just and equitable that the case should stand as if the defendant had admitted the allegations of the plaintiff. Sir Thomas Plumer states the matter thus : — 'Supposing a plea to be correct in form, but proved false, it seems to be conceived that the course at the hearing is to take it up just as if there was no answei'. That is not correct. Upon a plea found false, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree; and if a discovery is wanted, the defendant is ordered to be examined upon interrogatories.' West V. Strickland, 2 Ves. & B. 150. Chancellor Walworth, in a case be- fore him where the defendant pro- duced no evidence to establish the truth of his plea, said : — ' Where a plea in bar to the whole bill is put in, if the complainant takes issue thereon he admits the sufficiency of the plea, and leaves nothing in ques- tion but the truth thereof. If at the hearing the plea is found to be true the bill must be dismissed. But if the plea is untrue, the complainant will be entitled to a decree against the defendant in the same manner as if the several matters charged in the bill had been confessed or admit- ted. If a discovery is necessary to enable the complainant to obtain the relief sought for by his bill, the de- fendant cannot evade answering by putting in a plea which turns out to be false. In such a case, after the plea is overruled as false, complain- ant may have an order that the de- fendant be examined on interroga- tories before a master as to the several matters in relation to which a discovery was sought by the bill.' " Dows V. McMichael, 2 Paige, 345. 'Townsend v. Townsend, 2 Paige, 413. 2 Down V. McMichael, 6 Paige, 139. 'Battelle v. Youngstown Rolling Mill Co., 16 Lea (Tenn.), 35, where all the Tennessee authorities are re- viewed and discussed. OHAPTEK XI. ANSWERS. (a) Answer as a Pleading. 331. Nature of an answer. 332. Defenses properly taken by answer illustrated. 333. Defenses improper for an an- swer. 334. General requisites of an an- swer. 335. Exceptions to the rule requir- ing a full answer. 336. Answer to bill for account. 337. Specific denials required. 338. Sufficiency of interrogatories. 339. Answers on knowledge, in- formation and belief. 340. Inspection of documents. 341. Process to compel an answer. 343. Answer in patent cases. 343. Answer to charges of fraud. 844. Inconsistent defenses. 345. Defense of res adjudicata. 346. Answer setting up bona fide purchase. 347. Laches and statute of limita- tions. 348. Answer setting up statute of frauds. 349. Answer setting up usury. 350. Answer by a married woman. 351. Answer by a corporation. 353. Joinder of several defenses. 353. Frame of answer. 354. Status of answer upon re- moval to federal court. 355. Signatui-e to answer. 356. Answer under oath — Waiver of oath. 357. Before whom answer to be sworn. 358. Mode of administering oath. 359. Jurat. 360. The same subject continued — Defendant's signature. 361. Service of answer. 363. Filing an answer — Further time. 363. Answer after expiration of time. 364. Taking answers off the file. 365. The same subject continued. (b) Answer as Evidence. 366. General statement of the rule. 367. Hearing upon bill, answer and replication. 368. Hearing on bill and answer. 369. What constitutes a responsive answer. 370. The same subject continued. 371. Responsive answers illus- trated. 872. The same subject continued. 873. Answers not responsive illus- trated. 374. Answer refuting itself — Con- tradiction of deeds. 375. Answer overcome by circum- stances alone. 376. Answer alleging facts upon hearsay. 377. Answer on information and belief. 878. Answer not direct and posi- tive. 879. Answer alleging ignorance of the facts. 380. Answer denying legal conclu- sions. 381, Falsus in uno, falsiis in omni- bus. 354 ANSWERS. [§ 331. § 382w Answer of one defendant against a co-defendant. 383. The same subject continued. 384 Answer of one defendant when available by a co- defendant 385. Corroborating evidence. 386. Effect of failure to answer fully. 387. Admissions in an answer. 388. Answers not under oath. 389. Summary statement of the prevailing rule. 390. Answer of infants. (c) Amendment or Answers. 391. General rules relating to amendments. 392. The same subject continued. 393. The same subject illustrated. 394 Application to amend. 395. At what time amendments may be allowed. 396. The same subject continued. 397. Laches in applying to amend. 398. Amending answer upon amendment of bill. 399. Amendments setting up new mtter. 400. Amendment setting up usury and limitation. 401. Amendments at the hearing. 403. Amendments how made. 403. Amendments to meet views of the court 404. Supplemental answers. 405. The same subject continued. (d) Exceptions to Answers. 406. 407. 408. Definition and object of ex- ceptions. What constitutes scandal. What constitutes imperti- nence. 409. The same subject continued. 410. Impertinence illustrated. 411. What is not impertinent 412. The same subject continued. 413. Exceptions for insufficiency. 414. The same subject continued. When exceptions for insuffi- ciency do not lie. Exceptions to answer to amended bill. 417. Procedure upon exceptions. 418. The same subject continued. 419. Further answers. 420. Form of exceptions. 415. 416. (a) Answer as a Pleading. § 331. Nature of an answer. — An answer generally con- troverts the facts stated in the bill, or some of them, and states other facts to show the rights of the defendant in the subject of the suit. But sometimes it admits the truth of the case made by the bill, and. either with or without additional facts, submits the questions arising upon the case thus made to the judgment of the court.' An answer, in cases where I Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 849. United States Equity Rule 39 provides as follows : — "The rule that if a defendant submits to an- swer he shall answer fully to all the matters of the bill shall no longer apply in cases where he might by plea protect himself from such an- swer and discovery. And the de- fendant shall be entitled in all oases by answer to insist upon all matters of defense (not being matters of abatement, or to the character of the parties, or matters of form) in bar of § 331.J AS A PLEADING. 365 relief is sought, properly consists of two parts: first, of the defense of the defendant to the case made by the bill ; and secondly, of the examination of the defendant on oath, as to the facts charged in the bill, of which a discovery is sought. or to tlie merits of the bill, of which he may be entitled to avail himself by a plea in bar, and in such answer he shall not be compellable to answer any other matters than he would be compellable to answer and discover upon filing a plea in bar, and an an- swer in support of such plea, touch- ing the matters set forth in the bill, to avoid or repel the bar or defense. Thus, for example, a bona fide pur- chaser for a valuable consideration without notice may set up that de- fense by way of answer instead of plea, and shall be entitled to the same protection, and shall not be compel- lable to make any further answer or discovery of his title than he would be in any answer in support of such plea" In Reed v. Cumberland Ins. Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 146, 152, the court said : — " The defendant may claim by the answer [which contained a demurrer for want of jurisdiction] the same benefit that he would have been ei-.itled to if he had demurred to the bill, or pleaded the matter al- leged in his answer in bar ; but in such case it is only at the hearing of the cause that any such benefit can be insisted upon. He will, however, then, in general, be entitled to all the same advantage of this mode of de- fense that he would have had if he had adopted the more concise mode of demurring or pleading ; " citing Wray V. Hutchinson, 3 Myl. & K 235, 238, 243 ; Mulligan v. Mitchell, 1 Myl. & C. 433, 447 ; Clark v. Flint, 33 Pick. 331 ; Ludlow V. Simond, 2 Cai. Cas. in Err. 1, 40. But in such a case the answer must point out a specific defect in the bill. Manning v. Merritt, Clarke's Ch. 98 ; Holmes v. Dale, Clarke's Ch. 71 ; Matthewson v. Johnson, Hoff. Ch. 560 (multifariousness). Answers in chancery which deny both the truth and the sufSciency of the allegations of the bill are sanctioned in Con- necticut by long and general prac- tica Arnold v. Middletown, 39 Conn. 401. It is not proper pleading to in- corporate a demurrer into an answer unless the demurrer is left for con- sideration as if it stood alone. Holt V. Daniels, 61 Vt. 89; S. c, 17 Aa Rep. 786. But under the Michigan practice, a separate hearing is per- mitted only on a regular demurrer. Zabel V. Harshman, 68 Mich. 870; S. c, 36 N. W. Rep. 71. " It is not an unusual thing in practice for an answer to conclude by the defend- ant's insisting that there is no equity in the complainant's bill and putting himself upon the judgment of the court respecting it. The practice rests upon sound policy. A demur- rer admits the truth of the charges in the bill. A bill addresses itself to the conscience of the defendant, and when it contains charges of fraud or other immorality implicating the character of the defendant, an up- right man would forego his legal rights rather than avail himself of a legal objection which, if success- ful, would deprive him of all oppor- tunity of relieving his character by a denial of the charges.'' Campbell V. Campbell's Adm'r, 8 N. J. Eq. 738, 741. An answer may submit legal propositions arising on facts ad- mitted by the bill or facts which it states. McGuckin v. Kline, 31 N. J. Eq. 454 356 ANSWERS. [§ 332. and to which interrogatories are usually addressed.' As a general rule the defendant can pray nothing but to be dis- missed, and if he has any relief to pray or discovery to seek, he must do so by cross-bill.^ A defendant ma}' set up mat- ter in his answer by way of avoidance or defense which has occurred since the filing of the bill.' And the answer may contain defenses previously raised by plea or demurrer and overruled.* " Eesort is f requentlj' had to an answer in order to set up a defense which would be proper in a plea, for the reason that less certainty and precision is required in an an- swer than in a plea." * § 332. Defenses properly taken by answer illustrated. — Where a contract is sought to be enforced in equity, the de- fense that the defendant was induced to sign it by undue influ- ence may be set up by answer, and is not obnoxious to the rule that the defendant cannot have positive relief upon an answer.' So, where a vendor brings a suit for foreclosure on a mortgage by his vendee, the latter may claim by answer an abatement 1 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), §850. 2 Miller v. Gregory, 16 N. J. Eq. 374; Cullum v. Erwin, 4 Ala. 543; Chapin v. Walker, 6 Fed. Rep. 794 ; & c, 3 McCrai-y, 175 ; Cummings v. Gill, 6 Ala. 563 ; Goodwin v. McGehee, 15 Ala. 333 ; Hubbard v. Turner, 3 McLean, 519 ; Morgan v. Tipton, 3 McLean, 339; Ford v. Douglas, 5 How. 143; Armstrong v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 37 Fed. Rep. 466: Mc- Guckin v. Kline, 31 N. J. Eq 454, 460 ; Ringo v. Woodruff, 43 Ark. 469 ; Black V. Keiley, 83 N. J. Eq. 358 ; Hofif V. Bird, 17 N. J. Eq. 301 ; Aspin- wallu Aspinwall, 49 N.J. Eq. 303; ch. Xn, infra. As to waiver by rep- lication and hearing on the merits, see Baxter v. Seattle, 3 Wash. St. 353 ; & U, 37 Pac. Rep. 537. 3 Lyon V. Brooks, 3 Edw. Ch. 110; Turner u. Robinson, 1 Sim. & S. 3; Earl of Leicester v. Perry, 1 Bro. C. C. 305. « Dormer v. Fortescue, 3 Atk. 284 ; Crawford v. The William Penn, 8 Wash. 484; Storms v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co., 5 Dill. 486 ; Burnley v. Town of Jeffersonville, 3 McLean, 336. 6 McCabe v. Cooney, 3 Sandf. Ch. 314. See, also, Maury v. Mason, 8 Porter (Ala.), 313, 338. The court may at any time, before a cause is set for hearing, permit a withdrawal of the answer and the filing of a de- murrer, upon good cause shown. Lowe V. Morris, 4 Sneed, 70; Mer- chant V. Preston, 1 Lea, 383 ; Cook v. Richards, 11 Heisk. 714; Chestnut i'. Frazier, 6 Bax. 319, holding, how- ever, that it cannot be done without leave of the court. "The rules of chancery to expedite and facilitate the preparation of suits are not so imperative and inflexible that upon sutBeient cause shown the chancel- lor may not relax them." Marsh v. Crawford, 1 Swan, 116. See Pawley V. M'Gimpsey, 7 Yerg. 503. ^ true distinction to be between alle- gations upon those subjects upon which the bill requires an answer and allegations of new matter not stated or inquired of in the bill but introduced by the defendant in his defense. Whetlier the plaintiff calls upon the defendant to make an an- swer which must directly deny or affirm some statement, or whether he requires him to make a statement § 370.] AS EVIPENCB. 397 the parts of it, the grossest injustice might be done. The de- fendant must answer every material allegation in the bill, whether specially interrogated thereto or not, and unless he states the act or contract fully as it truly was, how can he conscientiously swear that the facts in his answer are true? Half a fact or half a contract is not the truth. Neither is it of the facts upon the particular sub- ject-matter, the principle is the same. If the answer which is required in- volve some statement favorable to the defendant other than matter merely in denial of the plaintiff's allegation, the defendant being re- quired to furnish that matter is en- titled to the benefit of it An answer does not set up a fact 'by way of avoidance merely ' when it is only a response which the defendant is obliged to make to the bill of the plaintiff. He [Parker, C. J.] pro- ceeds to lay down this as a test of the responsiveness of an answer: 'If tl '■ whole subject-matter of the statement or allegation in the answer might have been left out, then the nllesatiou in the answer upon that subject is in no way responsive to the bill — the bill requiring no state- ment upon that point. But if the omission of some statement upon that subject would furnish just ground of exception to the answer, then the statement to the extent to which it is required is but a response to the requisition of the plaintiff.' The same principles will be found further illustrated in Schwartz v. Wendell, Walk. Ch. 367, and Cooper V. Tappan, 9 Wis. 361. In Ringgold V. Ringgold, 1 Harris & Gill, 11, it is said that if the answer admit liabil- ity there can be no escape from it but by proof, but everything it says with regard to the creation of the liability must be taken together; and in Allen v. Mower, 17 Vt. 61 : — ' It is readily perceived that everything in the answer responsive to the bill as to the creation of the original liabil- ity charged must be taken together as part and parcel of one entire trans- action.' Accordingly in Dunham v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 33, where a bill was filed to redeem stock, and it al- leged the stock to have been pledged for a certain sum, and the answer stated that it was pledged at the same time for an additional sum, the answer was held to be responsive. Mr. Justice Marcy said : — ' Whether he has gone beyond what he was re- quired to do may be tested, I think, by supposing an interrogatory in- serted in the bill pointing to the very matter which he has answered and he had refused to answer. Interrog- atories are not a necessary part of the bill, nor are they to be answered unless they are such as are war- ranted by the premises and allega- tions of the bill. If the respondent had stopped after denying that the stock was pledged for the loan of $500, and refused to answer an inter- rogatory as to the amount for which it was pledged, because such inter- rogatory was not warranted by the bill, there would have been, it seems to me, very little difBculty in show- ing the answer to be insufBcient. The defendant is bound to admit or deny the facts stated in the bill with all their mateiial circumstances without special interrogatories for that purpose.' Our own cases as far they have gone conform to these principles. In Eberly v. Groffi, 9 Harris, 251, the bill charged that an 398 ANSWERS. [§ 370. true if ia truth the terms of the contract are different. But another subsequent, independent and distinct fact not stated in the bill is not responsive and therefore not within the rule."> assignment was without considera- tion. The answer denied that it was without consideration, and proceeded to set forth what the consideration was, and it was held to be respon- sive. Tliei-e was, indeed, an inter- rogatory asking for the considera- tion, but that, as we have seen, did not make it responsive if in point of fact it was not so. So in Pusey v. Wright, 7 Casey, 387, the present chief justice said : — 'If a contract be set forth and the defendant be called on to answer it, a denial that it exists modo et forma would not be good according to chancery prac- tice, for this is subject to the impli- cation that it existed in some other form; to avoid this the defendant should state how it existed and wherein it had an existenca' And, again, it is not doubted but that if a different contract had been set up by defendants, which was alleged to have superseded the one charged by the plaintiffs, they would have had the affirmative of the issue. The answer then would not have been responsive to the bill — it would have been by way of confession and avoidance, and have required proof. But the answer here admitted the contract and stated its terms, but de- nied the existence of the stipulations in it, alleged by the plaintiffs as the foundation of their claim for relief. This did not require the defendants to make proof if the plaintiffs did not These principles and authori- ties amply sustain the conclusion of the master in stating the terms of tlie contract of partnership. The defend- ants were called on, not merely to admit or deny it modo et forma, but to set out what were the terms agreed upon. They could have been asked especially upon an interroga- tory based upon the statement of the bill to answer what the terms were, and this shows that the an- swer, though there was no interroga- tory, was directly responsive." ' Sharswood, J., in Eaton's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 483, 490. An answer, in stating the particulars of a trans- action charged and inquired into by the bill, is responsive. Merritt v. Brown, 19 N. J. Eq. 286. " Where a deed or instrument in writing is nec- essary to establish any right, and the bill requires evidence of such right, the answer unaccompanied by such deed or writing will be no evidence, although it should directly respond to the bill, because the answer is only in the nature of parol evidence, and in such case evidence of a higher grade is required." Neale v. Hag- throp, S Bland, 551, 567, citing Brown V. Selwin, Cas. Temp. Talbot, 242; Hay ward v. Carroll, 4 H. & J. 521 ; Jones V. Slubey, 5 a & J. 381. A bill to reform the certificate of a married woman's acknowledgment to a deed executed by her and her husband alleged that she was ex- amined by the oiSoer separate and apart from her husband, and that by mistake the fact was not stated in the certificate. It was held that an allegation in the answer, "We deny the statements set forth in . . . said bill," was responsive, and cast on plaintiffs the burden of proving their allegations. Hand v. Weidner (Pa.), 25 Atl. Rep. 38, distinguishing § 371.J AS EVIDENCE. 399 §371. Responsive answers illustrated.— The plaintiff in his bill against a corporation and its stockholders denying his right alleged that he was an original subscriber for stock, that he tendered the company the amount due on his stock, which was refused and his right as a stockholder denied. The answer admitted his subscription, but alleged that it was accompanied by an agreement that it was wholly for the use of the defend- ant stockholders. It was held that the allegation in the an- swer was not subsequent matter in avoidance, but a material portion of the facts in the case, and responsive to the bill.^ To a bill by a wife against her husband to recover a sum of money alleged to have been paid by her in building and furnishing their house, and for which the defendant had given her no security, an answer that the money had been given him by the complainant, and that there was no agreement, contract or understanding that he was to repay or in any way secure the money, is re- sponsive.^ Where a bill to set aside a decree and recover property alleges that the decree was obtained by fraud and collusion, and the pleas and answers under oath deny the fraud and collusion charged and aver a purchase of the property in good faith for valuable consideration, etc., these averments are responsive to the allegations of the bill.' To a bill to subject stocks of an estate to the payment of a debt for which they were held as collateral security, the answer by one of the exec- utors admitted that the money was borrowed from the plaintiff and the security given as alleged in the bill, but averred that the loan was made to the business firm of which the executor was a member, and that the stock pledged by the executor as security then belonged to the estate, and that these facts were known to the plaintiff. It was held that the answer set up no new contract, but was responsive to the bill.* Association v. Sowers, 134 Pa. St 354 ; plaintiff equal to the testimony of S. &, 19 Atl. Rep. 686. another witness. 1 Appeal of Rowley, 115 Pa. St 150, 2 Gleghorne v. Gleghorne, 118 Pa. lidding, also, that the statement ac- St 383; s. C, 11 Atl. Rep. 797. knowledgment and affidavit upon 3 Beals v. Illinois &c. R. Co., 133 \\ hich the governor directed the U. S. 290. charter to issue, together with the ^Bell v. Farmers' Deposit Nat charter itself, was testimony ooiTob- Bank, 131 Pa. St 318: s. C, 25 orative of the testimony of the W. N. C. 166; 18 Atl. Rep. 1079. 4:00 ANSWERS. [§§ 372, 373. § 372. The same subject continued. — In a suit to enforce the lien of a mortgage against a husband and wife, the wife answered, admitting that she signed the instrument, but only upon the false and fraudulent misrepresentations of the com- plainant's agent, who obtained her signature and acknowl- edgment, and that she was ignorant, and unable to read. A general replication was filed, and the cause was heard on the pleadings alone. The court held that the allegations of fraud were not new matter in avoidance, but were responsive to the bill, and were suiEcient to prove that the wife did not exe- cute the mortgage.' § 373. Answers not responsive illustrated. — Upon a bill between partners for an account of the partnership transac- tions, an allegation of the answer that a third party is a joint partner with the complainant and defendant, and therefore a necessary party to the suit, is not responsive, and cannot be assumed to be true, at the hearing upon exceptions to the an- swer.- Usury set up m an answer to a bill for foreclosure, the case being heard on bill, answer and replication, must be proved.' In a sworn answer to a bill to restrain the collection 1 Reid V. McCallister, 49 Fed. Rep. sion of its contents, wliich impression 16. The court said: — "Matter in was designedly produced by the false avoidance is something subsequent to representations of tlie plaintiff." and distinct from or dehors the fact Where a bill by judgment creditors admitted; but if the admission and to set aside a sale under execution, avoidance constitute one single fact on the ground of fraud in the judg- or transaction the answer is evidence mcnt, calls for an answer under oath, of both. Hart u Ten Eyck, 2 Johns, and the answer is made accordinniy. 88 and note. The plea of non est denying eacli and all of the allesa- factum denies the execution of the tions of fraud, it is responsive to tlie deed by the defendant, puts the fact bill. Morrison v. Durr, 122 U.S. 518; of execution in issue, and under it s. C.,7S. Ct. Rep. 1215. Wliere counsel you may prove, because compre- wish particul:ii' parts of the answer bended in it, that the defendant was pointed out as responsive to the bill, imposed upon and put her name to they should call the attention of the the paper under an erroneous im- court thereto, and ask it especially pression as to its character or con- to call the jury's attention to them, tents. Van Valkenburg ?•. Ronk, 13 Adkins v. Hutchings, 79 Ga. 2ni'; Johns. 3:8. And so here the answer S. C, 4 S. E. Rep. 887; Webb v. Rob- is competent, and until contradicted inson, 14 Ga. 216. sufficient evidence that the defend- ^ Brewer v. Norcross, 17 N. J. Eq. ant put her name to this instrument 319. under an entirely erroneous impres- 'Roberts v. Birgess, 80 N. J. Eq. § 374:.] AS EVIDENCE. 401 of a judgmeut on the ground that it was recovered on a prior judgment, which was recovered on a note which the judgment creditor held as collateral security, and that the debt for which the note was collateral had been paid, an allegation denying defendant's knowledge of any defense to the note is not re- sponsive to the bill.^ In a suit by a creditor for an account of a deceased husband's estate, and for pajnnent of plaintiff's debt, the wife, who was also administratrix, answered that a certain bond executed by her father to the husband had, in pursuance to an agreement at the time of its execution, been assigned to her by a post-nuptial settlement as her sole and separate estate. It was held that these allegations were in no way responsive to any allegation in the bill.^ Where the de- fendant in a bill to foreclose a mortgage answers, under oath, admitting the execution of the mortgage, but alleging that it was given in lieu of another mortgage that the complainant agreed to cancel and return to the defendant, which he failed to do, and praying that he may be compelled to so cancel and return it before the relief sought is granted, the alleged agree- ment is new matter and not responsive to the bill.^ § 374:. Answer refuting itself — Contradiction of deeds. — The rule which makes responsive answers evidence for defend- ants ex necessitate applies only to fair answers, not to those which upon their face are incredible.* And an answer may contain within itself such circumstances as will alone suffice to deprive it of all efficacy.' Thus where an answer denies a fact charged in the bill, but proceeds to give a circumstantial account of the transaction inconsistent with the truth of the 139. See, also, Bray v. Hartough, 4 written agreement, defendant's an- N. J. Eq. 46. swer that she had the right so to do ' Harding v. Hawkins (111.), 31 N. E. by virtue of a contemporaneous parol Rep. 807. agreement is not I'esponsive, and the 2 Lewis V. Mason, 84 Va. 731 ; S. C, burden of proving the parol agree- 10 S. E. Rep. 529. Facts set up in ex- ment is on lier. Appeal of Kenney planation or justification of a misrep- (Pa.). 13 Atl. Rep. 589. resentation admitted to be untrue * Stevens v. Post, 12 N. J. Eq. 408. must be proved by the defendant. ^ Commercial Bank v. Reckless, 5 Winans v. Winans, 19 N. J. Eq. 230. N. J. Eq. 650 ; Brown v. Bulkley, 14 3 Ingersoll v. Stiger (N. J.), 19 Atl. N. J. Eq. 394 ; Dunham v. Gates, 1 Rep. 842. Where the bill alleges that Hoff. Ch. 185; Morris u. White, 36 defendant violated the terms of a N. J. Eq. S29. 26 402 ANSWERS. [§ 375. denial, a single witness without corroborating circumstances is suflScient to prove the fact charged.' And the answer of a mortgagor to a bill of foreclosure denying the delivery of the mortgage is not, in itself, sufficient to overcome the presump- tion of delivery arising from the possession of the mortgage by the mortgagee duly executed, acknowledged and recorded.^ The allegations of an answer that the recitals contained in a deed are fraudulent and false, unsupported by evidence of fraud or mistake, are altogether inadequate to overcome the express language of the deed.' §375. Answer overcome Iby circumstances alone. — Evi- dence sufficient to outweigh a sworn answer may consist of circumstances alone.'' A co-defendant in a creditors' bill, who was charged with being indebted to the principal defendant for goods sold, answered under oath that the goods had been paid for by offsetting against them a debt due from the prin- cipal defendant. When examined as a witness he testified evasively, and when questioned as to details said that he could not remember, and must refer to his books. It was admitted that the books had been falsijied in order to cheat a third person. Defendant's book-keeper testified that the entries in regard to the transaction in question had been changed. The evidence was held sufficient to impeach the sworn answer.' 1 Ban-ague v. Siter, 9 Ark. 545. but ofifera himself as a witness, the 2 Commercial Bank v. Reckless, 5 rule that one witness is not sufficient N. J. Eq. 650 ; Long v. Kinkel, 36 N. to overcome a responsive answer to J. Eq. 359. a material fact under oath is hardly 3 Forrest v. Frazier, 2 Md. CIi. 147. applicable. An answer may carry 1 Bowden v. Johnson, 107 XJ. S. its refutation within itself. Brown v. 251. where the omission of the de- Bulkley, 14 N. J. Eq. 294 : Dunham v. fendant to testify was taken notice Gates, 1 Hofl. Ch. 185. And the de- of as a very unfavorable circum- fendant may refute himself by his stance. Un.on Bank v. Geary, 5 owu evidence. There may also be Peters 99, 111. But in Maryland evidence arising from circumstances "pregnant circumstances" alone stronger than the testimony of any have been expressly ruled to be insufE- single witness. Clark v. Van Eiems- cient. Roberts v. Salisbury, 3 Gill dj k, 9 Cranch, 153." Morris v. White, & J. 435, 433 ; Glenn v. Grover, 3 Md. 36 N. J. Eq. 324, 329. 212 829 ; Ing v. Brown, 3 Md. Ch. '> Beimel v. Brown (III), 27 N. E. 521 524. "Where the defendant Rep. 44. "The cases to which the does not rely on his answer alone, rule [requiring two witnesses or their § 376.] AS EVIDENCE. 403 § 376. Answer alleging facts upon hearsay. — The answer of a defendant formally denying that which he is not alleged to know, and which from his situation he could not know with any certainty, is not so conclusive as to require more than one witness on the part of the complainant to establish what is thus denied.' Thus when an executor or administrator, an- swering in his representative character, alleges facts of which equivalent] was intended to apply must be those in which the facts denied depended on oral only and circumstantial evidence: not where thej' were conclusively proved by the production of the written con- tract ; nor are the exceptions to the rule confined to cases where the con- tract denied has been formally signed and executed by the parties. As, for example, suppose a verbal contract were made to which no witness could testify and which never had been re- duced to writing and executed as the agreement of the contracting parties, and the complainant charg- ing and seeking the performance of such contract were to exhibit with Iiis bill twenty letters written by the defendant to third persons stating the contract in every particular ; all of which letters were admitted to be genuine by the answer, which, how- ever, denied the contract. Could it ba contended that such letters would be less satisfactoi-y than the proof of twenty witnesses who may have heard the defendant on one occasion only state or admit the same facts that were contained in the letters? . . The absurdity of applying this chancery rule to such a case is too clear to be countenanced for a mo- ment" Jones V. Belt, 3 Gill (Md.), 100, 132. See, also. Trump v. Balt- zell. 3 Md. 295, 303 : Brown v. Brown, 10 Yerger (Tenn.), 84. 1 Garrow v. Carpenter, 5 Porter (Ala.), 359; Combs w Boswell, 2 Dana, 474 ; Lawrence v. Lawrence, 4 Bibb, 385: Watson v. Palmer, 5 Ark. 501, 506 ; Loomis v. Fay, 84 Vt. 240 ; Law- rence V. Lawrence, 81 N. J. Eq. 317 ; Clark w.Van Riemsdyk,9 Cranch, 153 ; Bell V. Romaine, 30 N. J. Eq. 24, 27 ; Boyd V. Reed, 6 Heisk. 631. Where a defendant, who has sworn to his answer, states either in the answer or under oath in another suit that he has no personal knowledge as to the matters set up in the answer, such answer is not evidence in his favor. Deimel v. Brown (111.), 27 N. E. Rep. 44. " While the defendant's answer which is required to be sworn to is made evidence in the cause by the complainant, it is only entitled to weight when it is entitled to belief ; and if he chooses to swear to that which the court sees he cannot or which he admits he does not know, he is entitled to no more credit and is subject to the same censure and condemnation as any other reckless witness who the court sees is trying to impose upon it his belief when he should only speak of his knowledge. The court is not a mere machine to weigh everything that is offered without examming its value, any more when the defendant's oath is put into the scale than when ex- amining the testinion}' of any other witness." Fryrear v. Law- rence, 5 Gilm. (III.) 325, quoted and approved in Deimel v. Brown (liL), 27 N. R Rep. 45. 404 ANSWERS. [§§ 377, 378. he can have no personal knowledge, the answer is not ac corded the weight which is due to that of a party speaking of facts which may be within his own knowledge.' § 377. Answer on information and belief. — "Where a de- fendant in his answer only denies a fact charged in the bill according to the best of his knowledge and belief, a single witness on the part of the complainant is sufficient to estab- lish the fact.' Thus a denial of knowledge, information or belief concerning the matter of an allegation in the bill, " wherefore he denies the same," is not evidence for the de- fendant that requires to be overcome.' § 378. Answers not direct and positive. — Where the an- swer contains no positive denial of the material fact distinctly alleged and charged in the bill, the complainant is not required to increase the weight of his evidence to overcome the answer.* 1 Pennington n Gittings, 2 Gill & J. 208, 216, holding, however, and of course, that such an answer requires the complainant to prove his case. - Knickerbacker v. Harris, 1 Paige, 210 ; Town v. Needham, 3 Paige, 546 ; Allen V. O'Donald, 28 Fed. Rep. 17 ; Watson V. Palmer, 5 Ark. 501 ; Mc- Kissick !.'. Martin, 12 Heisk. :!13; Wilkes V. May, 3 Head, 175 ; Atlantic F. & M. Ins. Co. V. Wilson, 5 R I. 479; Fryrear v. Lawrence, 5 Gilm. (Ill), 325; McGuffie u Planters' Bank, Freem. (Miss.) 383 ; Toulme v. Clark, 64 Miss. 471 : Loomis v. Fay, 24 Vt. 340. Cf. Carrick v. Prater, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 270. A denial, on informa- tion and belief, of notice to another, is not sufficient of itself to dissolve an injunction. Pierson v. Eyerson, 5 N. J. Eq. 196. 3 The Halladay Case, 27 Fed. Rep. 830. But an answer founded upon mere hearsay is sufficient to put the ciMiiplainant upon proof of the aver- ments in the bill. Doub v. Barnes, 1 Md. Ch. 127, 132. And if no evidence is produced, the answer must pre- vail. Carpenter v. Edwards, 64 Miss. 595; Robinson v. Mandell, 3 Cliff. 169. * Benson v. Woolverton, 15 N. J. Eq. 158; Rhea v. Allison, 3 Head, 179 ; Farnam v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212 ; Le Neve v. Le Neve, 1 Ves. 66 ; Bar- rague v. Sitex', 9 Ark. 545. " Answers in equity may be sufficient as plead- ings, if no exception to them is taken, and yet not be sufficiently full, ex- plicit and unequivocal to be used as evidence." Morse v. Hill, 136 Mass. 60, 69. On a hearing on bill and an- swer and depositions, a mere aver- ment in the answer that the defend- ants "claim and charge" that the rents, issues and profits received by the complainant as mortgagee in pos- session were more than sufficient to satisfy the mortgage in suit is not conclusive on the complainant as a statement of fact. Denman v. Nel- son, 31 N. J. Eq. 452. The answer of a defendant that he has seen the an- swer of another defendant in the cause and that the same is true can- not avail to make such answer evi- §§ 379, 380.] AS EVIDENCE. 405 Thus "the opinion of a defendant, generally expressed, that a matter was transacted pursuant to law, cannot outweigh the positive declaration of a witness who states the facts which show that the law was disregarded." ' So the testimony of a witness who swears positively that he paid the defendant a certain sum of money will prevail over an answer which avers that if the defendant received the money he does not recollect the fact.^ § 379. Answer alleging ignorance of tlie facts. — Where an answer in the body of it purports to be an answer to the whole bill, but the defendant declares that he is entirely ig- norant of the matters contained in the bill and leaves the complainant to make out the best case he can, or in language to that effect, and the plaintiff files a general replication, all the allegations of the bill are thus denied and put in issue, and consequently all of them must be proved at the hearing.' But such an answer has no weight as evidence and simply requires the complainant to prove his case.^ §380. Answer denying legal conclusions. — A denial in an answer can avail nothing when the affirmative is conclu- sively presumed by a rule of law.^ " Intentions and motives are not facts touching which the answer is conclusive." * Thus dence for himself, when the answer 31 Ala. 279 ; Williamson v. MoCon- referred to was not then filed, and nell, 4 Dana, 454. there is nothing to identify it with ^Smallwood v. Lewin, 15 N. J. Eq. the answer afterwards filed by such 60; Adams t:. Adams, 21 Wall. 185; co-defendant Carr v. Weld, 19 N. J. Commercial Mut. M. Ins. Co. v. Union Eq. 319. Mut. Ins. Co., 19 How. 318, 819. In- 1 Lyon V. Hunt, 11 Ala. 295, 317. ferences of law or fact drawn by a 2 Phillips V. Richardson, 4 J. J. defendant from his own averments Marsh. 312. are solely for the court. Mazet v. 3 Neale v. Hagthrop, 3 Bland. 551, Pittsburgh, 137 Pa. St. 548. See, also, 579 ; Potter v. Potter, 1 Ves. 374 ; Copeland v. Crane, 9 Pick. 73. Amhurst v. King, 1 Cond. Ch. Rep. " Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. 365. 407. But in Beatty v. Davis, 9 Gill, 218 * Young V. Hopkins, 6 T. B. Mon. (see, also, Glenn v. Grover, 3 Md. 213, (Ky.) 18 ; Harlan v. Wingate, 3 J. J. 329), it was said that " an answer re- Marsh. 138 ; Brown v. Pierce, 7 Wall, sponsive to the bill, emanating from 205, 211, 212; Drury v. Conner, 6 a party made a witness by the act of Har. & J. 288 ; Paulding v. Watson, the complainant, speaking in refer- 406 ANSWEES. [§§ 381, 382. a denial by the answer of the existence of fraud will not avail to disprove it where the answer admits facts from which fraud follows as a natural and legal, if not a necessary and unavoidable, conclusion.' § 381. Falsus in uno, falsvis in omnibus. — It has been said that " where the answer is contradicted in any one or more important particulars by sufficient evidence, that is, by two witnesses or one witness with corroborating circumstances, it is deprived in all other respects of that weight which is allowed to answers by the rules of a court of equity ; for being falsified in one thing, no confidence can be placed in it as to the others according to the msixim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.'''' ^ § 382. Answer of one defendant against a co-defendant. — It is a general and strict ' rule that the answer of one de- fence to the motives and views under the influence of which the transac- tion in dispute was made, a matter lying necessarily within his own bosom, must be held as conclusive upon the question of intention unless it is overcome by the testimony of two witnesses," etc. ' Sayre v. Fredericks, 16 N. J. Eq. 205 ; Cook v. Johnson, 13 N. J. Eq. SI ; Hoboken Bank v. Beckman, 33 N. J. Eq. 53 ; Gaines v. Russ, 20 Fla. 157. 2 Roundtree v. Gordon, 8 Mo. 19, 25. And in Young v. Hopkins, 6 T. B. Mon. 18, it was said that where the answer is discredited on other points, one witness will prevail against it. See, also, Forsyth v. Clark, 8 Wend. 637, and of. Fant v. Miller, 17 Gratt. 187. "When a witness is examined deliberately and in private upon in- terrogatories prepared, and has the opportunity of weighing his answers before he finally signs them, they being read over to him, it must, at least, be admitted that, whatever other disadvantages such a mode of judicial inquiry may be exposed to, it can never be seriously urged that a witness has been entrapped by sur- prise and through inadvertence, and that he has been made to say in hurry and confusion, and from mere weakness of nerves and apprehen- sion, that which, on reflection and deliberation and the free use of his understanding, he has a right to unsay. Tlierefore, in courts pro- ceeding m this course of examina- tion, the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is one of unquestionable jus- tice." Roundtree v. Gordon (supra), 8 Mo. 19, 35. The complainant can- not assail the character of the de- fendant in order to weaken the effect of his answer. Gibson's Suits in Cliancery, § 460; Murray v. John- son, 1 Head, 854 ; Butler v. Catling, 1 Root (Conn.), 310 ; Salmon v. Clagett, 3 Bland, 125 ; Brown v. Bulkley, 14 N. J. Eq. 294. C/. Miller i\ Tolleson, Harper's Eq. 145 ; Gillett v. Robbins, 12 Wis. 319 ; Petty v. Taylor, 5 Dana, 598. 3 Bevans v. Sullivan, 4 Gill, 883, 391. § 383.] AS EVIDENCE. 407 fendant is not evidence against another defendant,' especially where the defendant whose answer it is sought to use against a co-defendant is substantially a plaintiff.'^ Wor does it make any difference that one defendant is the agent of the other.' But a decree will not be reversed for error in refusing to ex- clude an answer as evidence against a co-defendant when the other testimony in the cause is sufficient to sustain it.* § 383. The same subject continued. — But the answer of one defendant is evidence against other defendants claiming through him,^ or where the defendants are either legally or fraudulently combined so as to create a unity of interest be- tween them." So where one partner, in a joint and several answer put in by both, makes admissions as to his own acts relative to the business of the firm, and the other defendant states his belief that what is thus admitted by his copartner is true, a decree may be made against both on such admis- sions.' And in an interpleader suit where it appears by the answer of each defendant that he claimed the fund in dispute from the complainant, no other evidence of that fact need be produced to entitle the complainant to a decree.^ 1 Glenn v. Grover, 3 Md. 211, 329 ; 2 Field v. Holland, 6 Cranch, 8. Hardesty ». Jones, 10 Gill & J. 404; One defendant may by admissions Blakeney v. Ferguson, 14 Ark. 640 ; remove the bar of the statute of lim- Christie v. Bishop, 1 Barb. Ch. 105 ; itations against himself without af- Salmon v. Smith, o8 Miss. 399; Han- fecting the others. Fitzhugh v. Mc- over Nat. Bank v. Klein, 64 Miss. Pherson, 9 Gill & J. 51, 75. 141; Webb v. Pell, 3 Paige, 368; 3 Ladd D. Marine Ins. Co., 3 Wheat. Clark V. Van Riemsdyk, 9 Cranch, 380. 153; McKim v. Thompson, 1 Bland, * Barraque v. Siter, 9 Ark. 545. 160; Savage v. Carroll, 1 Ball & 5 Field v. Holland, 8 Cranch, 8, Beatty, 548, 553; Reese v. Reese, 41 disapproved in Jones u. Hardesty, 10 Md. 554; Stewart v. Stone, 3 Gill & Gill & J. (Md.) 404, 415. J. 514 ; Hayward v. Carroll, 4 H. & 6 Christie v. Bishop, 1 Barb. Ch. 105. J. 520; Calwell v. Boyer, 8 Gill & J. " Judd v. Seaver, 8 Paige, 548. See, 149 ; Glenn v. Baker, 1 Md. Ch. 73, also, Dunham v. Gates, 3 Barb. Ch. 77; Jones v. Hardesty, 10 Gill & J. 196. But of. Bevans v. Sullivan, 4 464; Wrottesley v. Bendish, 3 P. Gill, 383, 391. Wras. 235 ; Leigh v. Ward, 2 Ventris, 8 Balchen v. Crawford, 1 Sandf. Ch. 72. The reason is that neither party 380. Admissions contained in the should be charged by evidence with- answer of one defendant will be re- out an opportunity to cross-examine oeived in evidence against a oo- tlic witness. Powles v. Dilley, 9 Gill defendant, where the parties stand to (Jill), 233, 236. each other in such relation that the 408 ANSWEE8. [§§ 384, 385. § 384. Answer of one defendant when aTailaWe Iby a co- defendant. — " Though it is laid down as a general rule that the answer of one defendant cannot be read by another de- fendant as evidence in his own favor, yet the universality of this rule has been controverted, and it has been held that where the answer in question is unfavorable to the plaintiff and is responsive to the bill by furnishing a disclosure of the facts required, it may be read as evidence in favor of a co- defendant, especially where the latter defends under the title of the former." ' There can be no judgment against defend- ants failing to answer where the principal matter of the bill put in issue by other defendants fails for want of proof ; ^ but other matters not necessarily connected with the principal matter, alleged against one only of the defendants who did not appear in the action, will be taken as true and judgment rendered thereon against him.' § 385. Corroborating evidence. — " The circumstances to fortify a witness whose statement is contradicted by the an- swer must be clearly proved by indisputable evidence and not by the deposition of another witness relating different facts and contradicted in the same manner; for both depositions being annulled by the answer, neither can be resuscitated and brought to succor the other." * admissions of the one would be com- Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland, 361 ; petent evidence against the other; Clason r). Morris, 10 Johns. 534. See, but a co-defendant, having filed a also, § 196, swpra. " The settled doc- separate answer, is entitled to every trine of this court is that when one defense which his answer will allow of several defendants makes default, to be made under it. McElroy u. Lud- followed by a, pro confesso, and it lura, 32 N. J. Eq. 838. appears from their defense that, on 1 3 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 283, the whole case, the complainant is not citmg Mills V. Gore, 20 Pick. 28; entitled to succeed, he will not be Miles V. Miles, 32 N. H. 147 ; Powles allowed to do so even against him V. Dilley, 9 Gill, 232. See, also, Sal- who made default." Salmon v. raon V. Smith, 58 Miss. 399 ; and of. Smith, 58 Miss. 399, 409, citing Cannon v. Norton, 14 Vt. 178. The Minor v. Stpwart, 2 How. 913 ; Har- case of Field v. Holland, 6 Cranch, 8, grove v. Martin, 6 Smed. & M. 61. supports the view that the answer of ' State v. Columbia, 13 S. C. 370. one defendant is evidence against the * Love v. Bra.\ton, 5 Call, 537, 544 plaintiff and inures to the benefit of " In applying the rule it is not neces- co-defendants. sary that the corroboration [of one estate V. Columbia, 13 S. C. 370; witness] should be by additional c'.r- § 386.] AS EVIDENCE. 409 §386. Eifect of failure to answer fully. — Where a mate- rial and controlling fact which is clearly and fully averred in the bill is not denied or alluded to in the answer, some author- ities hold that the fact must be taken as confessed,' especially if it be a fact which prima facie is within the knowledge, in- formation or belief of the defendant.^ Other authorities hold that while at law every fact alleged and not denied is taken as true, in chancery every allegation of fact not admitted and not denied must be proved, the failure to admit or deny being equivalent to a denial.' But in all cases a fact is not regarded press proof on the particular fact in question. If that were required it would be equivalent to another wit- ness. The preponderance may be ef- fected by a contradiction of other material parts of the answer, or by any other evidence legally bearing on the subject-matter of the cause, tending to give probability to the statement of the one witness rather than to that of the defendant, and thereby producing conviction of its truth." Bent v. Smith, 23 N. J. Eq. 560, 567. In Norris v. Campbell, 37 Md. 688, the testimony of the com- plainant and his son was held insuflS- cient to outweigh the answer. See further, as to corroborating circum- stances, Thomason v. Smithson, 7 Porter (Ala.), 144; Brittin v. Crab- tree, 20 Ark. 30 ; Only v. Walker, 3 Atk. 407; Robinson v. Hardin, 26 Ga. 844; Durham v. Taylor, 29 Ga. 166 ; Beimel v. Brown (111.), 37 Atl. Rep. 44 ; Preschbaker v. Feaman, 33 111. 475; Pickering v. Day, 3 Hous- ton, 474; Gould v. Williamson, 21 Me. 273; Field v. Wilbur, 49 Vt, 157; American File Co. v. Garrett, 110 U. S. 288 ; Morrison v. Durr, 133 U. S. 518; Rowley's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 150. iPinnell v. Boyd, 33 N. J. Eq. 190; Jones V. Knauss, 31 N. J. Eq. 609; Lee V. Stiger, 30 N. J. Eq. 610 ; San- born V. Adair, 29 N. J. Eq. 338. 2 Grady v. Robinson, 28 Ala, 289 ; Smilie v. Siler, 35 Ala. 88 ; Clark v. Jones, 41 Ala. 349; McAllister v. Clopton, 51 Miss. 257; Mead v. Day, 54 Miss. 58; Neal v. Hagthi-op, 3 Bland (Md.), 551, 569, conceding that this rule stands in need of all the support it can derive from rea- son, authority and analogy. 3,Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 457 ; Hill V. Walker. 6 Cold. (Tenu.) 439; Hardeman v. Burge, 10 Yerg. 202; Smith V. St. Louis Ins. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 602, an excellent case; Gloa v. Randolph, 133 111. 197; Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 296, 302; Meyers V. Busby, 32 Fed. Rep. 670 ; Webb v. Powers, 3 W. & il. 497. 510 ; Warner V. Dove, 83 Md. 579, 584; Eyler v. Crabbs, 3 Md. 137, 154; Warfield v. Gambrill, 1 Gill & J. 503; Penning- ton V. Gittings, 2 Gill & J. 308, 316 : Joice V. Taylor, 6 Gill & J. 54, 59 : Dilby V. Barnard, 8 Gill & J. 170, 180 ; Dugan V. Gittings, 3 Gill & J. 315 ; Briesch v. McCauley, 7 Gill, 189, 196 ; Young V. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51 ; Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583, 609 ; Hopkins v. Stump, 2 H. & J. (Md.) 301, 305; Rider v. Rieley, 22 Md. 540; Brown v. Pierce, 7 Wall. 211 ; Hoyal v. Bryson, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 142; Cropper v. Burton, 5 Leigh, 435 ; Brockway v. Copp, 3 Paige, 539; Bagshaw v. Batson, 1 Dick. 113; Lnnn v. Johnson, 3 Ired. 410 ANSWBE8. [§§ 387, 388. as admitted by the failure of the defendant to answer it un- less it can either be presumed or is alleged to be within the defendant's knowledge.' It is also settled that an evasive answer is not an admission.^ § 387. Admissions in an answer. — On a hearing on bill, answer and replication, only those parts of the answer which are responsive to the bill can be evidence in favor of the de- fendants, but all its admissions can be used as evidence against them ; ' provided, however, that the admitted facts are put in issue by the bill.'' The defendant also must abide by the case made in Ms answer, and cannot take advantage of another case made by the proofs,* especially where they are contra- dictory to an admission in his answer.' § 388. Answers not under oatli. — Where an answer is not sworn to, an oath being waived, it is not evidence in favor of the defendant for any purpose; and a single undiscredited witness will be sufficient to prove the allegations in the bill which the answer denies.' But admissions in such an answer Eq. 70. See, also, Cowen v. Alsop, Savage v. Benham, 17 Ala. 119; 51 Mis9. 158 ; Hardwick v. Bassett, Clark v. Jones, 41 Ala. 349. 25 Mich. 149 ; Yates v. Thompson, 44 ' Attorney-General v. Steward, 21 nt App. 145; Dooley u. Stipp, 21 111. N. J. Eq. 340, 341; Pugh v. Fair- 86 ; Heacock v. Dureaux, 42 IlL 230 ; mount &c. Mining Co., 112 U. S. 238. Nelson v. Pinegar, 30 111. 473 ; De * If the admitted facts are not put Wolf V. Long, 2 Gilm. (111.) 679 ; Wll- in issue by the bill, the complainant son V. Kinney, 14 111. 27 ; Trenchard must amend in order to avail him- V. Warren, 18 111. 143. self of them. Hofl v. Burd, 17 N. J. • Clark V. Jones. 41 Ala. 349, 351 ; Eq. 201. See, also, § 99, supra; Mil- Thovington v. Carson, 1 Porter (Ala.), ler i\ Avery, 2 Barb. Ch. 582. A de- 257; Bank of Mobile v. P. & M. Bank fendant to a bill who states in his &c., 8 Ala. 772; Cowan v. Price, 1 answer under oath the provisions of a Bibb, 178 ; Moore v. Lookett, 2 Bibb, writing which is [jresumed to be in 67 ; Peai-son v. Meaux, 3 A. K. Marsh, his possession cannot complain that 4 ; Moscley v. Garrett, 1 J. J. Marsh, the court acted upon his admission 212; Mitchells Maupin, 3 Monr. 185; without the production of the writ- Kennedy V. Meredith, 3 Bibb, 465 ; ing. Cavender v. Cavender, 114 U. S. Tate V. Conner, 1 Dev. Eq. 234 ; Lunn 464. V. Johnson, 3 Ired. Eq. 70; Cropper » Mead v. Coombs, 26 N. J. Eq. 173. V. Burtons, 5 Leigh, 426 ; Coleman v. * Lippincott v. Ridgway, 11 N. J. Lynes, 4 Rand. 454; Kirkman v. Eq. 528. Vanlier, 7 Ala. 217. ^Patterson v. Gaines, 6 How. 550. 2 White V. Wiggins, 33 Ala. 424 : See, also. Clay v. Towie, 78 Me. 86 ; § 389.] AS EVIDENCE. 411 are evideace against the defendant.' And so are the admis- sions in a sworn answer when the bill prays an answer with- out oath.^ Ordinarily where the bill prays an answer without oath, the answer if sworn to is treated as if it were not ; ' but it is evidence against the complainant on a motion to dissolve an injunction.* The answer of a corporation under its corpo- rate seal, which the complainant does not require to be veri- fied by the officers of the company for the purposes of dis- covery, is not evidence in favor of the corporation, although it is responsive to the bill.' § 389, Summary statement of the prevailing rule. — In view of the numerous exceptions noticed in the foregoing sec- tions to the rule which attempts to define the quamtum of evidence required to overcome a sworn answer in equity, the law as laid down by the Supreme Court of Vermont squares with common sense and is akin to the proposition that two and two make four. "The general rule in equity upon this subject, as has often been declared, is that two witnesses, or evidence equal to that of two witnesses, is required to over- come the sworn answer of the defendant responsive to the bill. Other authorities say the rule requires one witness with corroborating circumstances. The rule has its basis in the s, c. 3 Atl. Rep. 852; Lindsley v. not evidence, but that the replication James, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 487; Dunlapu may and will be waived by filing a Haynes, 4 Heisk. 479. Such an an- motion to set the cause for hearing swer is a mere pleading which puts on bill and answer only, in which the complainant to prove his case, case the facts in the answer are Walton I'. Cody, 1 Wis. 430 ; Hatch v. taken to be true. Euslaphieve, Clarke's Ch. 63. But it i Uhlmann v. Arnholt &c. Brewing cannot be overcome without proof. Co., 41 Pa. St. 369 ; Reed v. Cumber- Hanover Nat. Bank v. Klein, 64 Miss, land Ins. Co., 86 N. J. Eq. 393, 396, 141 : Buttrick v. Hadden, 13 Met. 355 ; and cases cited in a note thereto by Dugan V. Gittings, 3 Gill, 138; Drury the reporter "as to the general effect r. Conner, C Har. & J. 388; Watson of complainant's waiving oath to an V. Palmer, 5 Ark. 501 ; Lawrence v. answer." Liiwrence, 21 N. J. Eq. 317; Union 2 Hyer v. Little, 30 N. J. Eq. 443; Bank v. Geary, 5 Peters, 99, 113; Symmes v. Strong, 28 N. J. Eq. 131. Fishell V. Bell, Clarke's Ch. 37 ; Miller 8 Sweet v. Parker, 23 N. J. Eq. 453. V. Avery, 3 Barb. Ch. 583. It was ^ Walker v. Hill, 31 N. J. Eq. 191. held in Dascomb v. Marston, 80 Me. ^Lovett v. Steam Saw-Mill Ass'n, 6 233 ; s. c, 13 Atl. Rep. 888, that after Paige, 54. leplication an unsworn answer is 412 ANSWERS. [§ 389. fact that the answer is called out by the orator for his own use. If it admits the fact charged in the bill to be true the orator adopts this admission as sufficient proof of the fact. If the answer denies the fact charged the orator is left to estab- lish it by other means, if he can, and at the same time the denial is evidence for the defendant. . . . But the rule as often announced respecting the effect of the answer as proof is, we think, misleading, as a careful examination of the au- thorities will show. The weight of evidence does not depend upon the number of witnesses that depose to given facts. The burden of proof, when an answer is responsive to the bill, de- volves upon the orator to satisfy the trier that such answer is untrue; but this burden may sometimes be discharged by documentary proof or circumstantial evidence without the deposition of any witness testifying to the facts set out in the bill.^ It is obvious that a sworn answer responsive to the bill stands as the deposition of one witness, and, if encountered by only one witness testifying in contradiction, and no circum- stances appear affecting the case, no preponderance of proof is made out on either side, and the orator must fail because the burden of proof is upon him. But the answer considered as evidence is to be weighed precisely as it would be if it ap- peared in a deposition disconnected from the defendant's pleading; and the fact that the defendant is interested in the event of the suit has the same effect in discrediting his story that it does in an ordinary case at law. Again, if the answer is evasive or equivocating, it lessens its force as evidence pre- cisely as such circumstances impair the story of a witness told on the witness stand. In short, the answer, when used as evidence, is subject to the same proper criticism and the same leffal infirmities that attach to all evidence in whatsoever form it is introduced in court. All that the orator is bound to do is to meet and overcome the answer by competent proof. This proof may require one or twenty witnesses; it may be made without any.'^ Another rule relating to the answer as 1 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. 840, note 2. which contains clear and positive 2 " It is important to state here the denials, must prevail unless it is true import of the rule in equity that overcome by the testimony of two an answer responsive to allegations witnesses, or at least by one witness and charges made in the bill, and and attendant circumstances. . §§ 390, 391.J AMENDMENT. 418 evidence is important to be noticed here. The authorities all agree that the answer is evidence only when it is a direct and explicit denial of the allegations made in the bill. If it denies such allegations on information and belief it is not evidence. If the defendant sets up other matters in confession and avoidance of the charges made in the bill, such other matters are not evidence. Such allegations in the bill are mere plead- ings, and if relied on by the defendant must be made out by proof if the answer is traversed." ' § 390. Answer of infants. — The answer of infants by their guardian is a pleading merely, and not an examination for the purpose of discovery ; it is not evidence, therefore, although it is responsive to the bill and sworn to by their guardian ad lHem? Even the admission in a deceased heir's answer of the will of the testator has been held not to be binding upon the infant heir who has succeeded him.' (c) Amendment of Answers. § 391. General rules relating to amendments. — " An ap- plication to amend an answer is addressed to the discretion of the court. In mere matters of form, clerical mistakes or verbal inaccuracies, great indulgence is shown in allowing amendments even in sworn answers. But applications to amend in material facts, or to change essentially the grounds taken in the original answer, are granted with great caution and only where it is manifest that the purposes of substantial jus- The rule as stated has reference to 536 ; Wright v. Miller, 1 SanJf. Ch. an answer opposed only by the testi- 103 ; James y. James, 4 Paige, 114. mony of one witness. But if the ■'Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), evidence in the cause, no matter § 871. Where infant children, by what it may be, is sufficient to out- their father, file their bill alleging weigh the answer, the plaintiflC may his inability to support them, and liave a decree in his favor." Mit- praying iticome from their estates ford's Eq. PI. (Tyler's ed., 1876) 463. for that purpose, the fact of their 1 Veile V. Blodgett, 49 Vt. 270, 277. father's ability will be inquired into See, also, Deimel v. Brown (111.), 37 and determined by the court; the N. E. Rep. 45, cited in g 376, n. 1, su- admissions of the answer by the ex- pva; McLane v. Johnson, 59 Vt. 337 ; ecutor are not sufficient Tompkins s. c, 9 Atl. Rep. 837. v. Tompkins' Ex'rs, 18 N. J. Eq. 303. 2Bulkley v. Van Wyck, 5 Paige, 414 ANSWERS. [§ 391. tice require it." ^ " To file an amended answer it should ap- pear that the reasons for it are cogent and satisfactory ; that the mistakes to be corrected or facts to be added are made highly probable, if not certain, and that the mistakes have been ascertained and the new facts have come to the knowl- edge of the party since the original answer." ^ 1 Huflfman v. Hummer, 17 N. J. Eq. 269, 271, citing Wells v. Wood, 10 Ves. 401 : Livesey v. Wilson, 1 Ves. & B. 149; Smith v. Babcock, 3 Sumn. 585 ; Vandervere v. Beading, 9 N. J. Eq. 446. 2 Foutty V. Poar, 35 West Va. 70 ; S. C, 12 S. E. Rep. 1096, citing Matthews V. Dunbar, 3 West Va. 138 ; Wyatt v. Thompson, 10 West Va. 645 ; McKay V. McKay, 33 West Va. 786; S. C, 11 S. E. Rep. 213 ; Tracewell v. Boggs, 14 West Va. 254 ; Sturms v. Fleming, 26 West Va. 59. Ordinarily, leave to amend will be denied where the de- fendant knew of the facts which he wishes to introduce at the time his original answer was filed. Suydam V. Truesdale, 6 McLean, 459; Web- ster Loom Co. V. Higgins, 13 Blatchf. 85 ; India Rubber Comb Co. v. Phelps, 8 Blatchf. 85: Cross v. Morgan, 6 Fed. Rep. 241. The tests proposed by Mr. Justice Story for giving leave to amend an answer are that the reasons must be satisfactory ; the facts highly probable, if not certain, and material to the controversy; that there must have been no gross ne,2;ligence, and that the mistakes must have been ascertained ' since the putting in of the answer. Smith v. Babcock, 3 Sumner, 586. " There are upwards of fifty authorities upon the matter of reforming answers, and yet it will be found that the court has never been willing to go further than to permit a defendant to correct or add some single fact which had been misstated or omitted through mis- take, fraud or accident." Vander- vere V. Reading, 9 N. J. Eq. 446, 450. See, also, Mechanics' Bank v. Burnet Mfg. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 336. United States Equity Rule 60 provides that '■ after an answer is put in, it may be amended as of course in any matter of form, or by filling up a blank, or correcting a date, or reference to a document, or other small matter, and be resworn at a.nj time before a replication is put in or the cause set down for hearing upon bill and an- swer. But after replication or such setting down for hearing, it shall not be amended in any material matters, as by adding new matters, facts or defenses, or qualifying or altering the original statements, except by special leave of the court, or of a judge thereof, upon motion and cause shown, af tej- due notice to the adverse party, supported, if required, by affi- davit; and in every case where leave is so granted, the court or judge granting the same may, in his dis- cretion, require that the same be separately engrossed and added as a distinct amendment to the original answer so as to be distinguishable therefrom." " If an admission has been made in an answer improvi- dently and by mistake, the court will relieve the party making it from its effect by an order directing so much of the answer as contains the admission to be treated as no part of the record ; but before such an order will be made, the court must be sat- isfied by affidavit that the admission was made under a misapprehension or by mistake. Courts exercise a g 392.] AMENDMENT. 415 § 392. The same subject continiied.^ The discretion to allow amendments is sparingly exercised, and generally re- fused when there is unreasonable delay in the application or the amendment introduces a new defense.' "Even before the production of evidence the court listens to applications to amend sworn answers with great caution, and will not, as a general rule, permit material facts prejudicial to the com- plainant to be added, if they were known to the defendant at the time the original answer was sworn to." ^ liberal discretion in relieving from the effect of admissions in answers under oath, which are mere plead- ings and are frequentl}' signed by counsel; but where an answer is under oath, great caution is observed. If the relief sought is from an ad- mission of law, it may be sufficient to show that he was erroneously ad- vised by his solicitor in that regard ; but where the relief sought is from an admission of fact, it should be shown that the answer was drawn with care and attention, stating, upon information and belief, such facts as were not within the defendant's own knowledge. No court ought to re- lieve a party from the consequences of a reckless misstatement under oath. It should also be shown that the fact misstated was not one within the defendant's own knowledge, and that he was erroneously informed in regard to it, and made oath to the answer honestly believing such er- roneous information." Maher v. Ball, 39 111. 531, 538. 1 Pinkston v. Taliaferro, 9 Ala. 547 ; Goodwin v. McGehee, 15 Ala. 23'.'. 2 Marsh v. Mitchell, 26 N. J. Eq. 498, 500, citing Vandervere v. Reading, 9 N. J. Eq. 446 ; note to Livesey v. Wil- son, 1 Ves. & B. 149 ; Bowen v. Cross, 4 Johns. Ch. 875 ; Champion v. Kille, 1 McCart. 233 ; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. 778, 780. "Although courts of equity are very indulgent in allowing amend- ments of answers in matters of form, mistake of dates, or verbal inaccu- racies, it is for obvious reasons slow to allow material alterations in sworn answers. Livesey v. Wilson. 1 Ves. & B. 149 ; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. 778, and cases cited. It is especially reluctant to listen to such applications after evidence has been taken and pub- lished. Smith V. Babcook, 3 Sumn. 583 ; and at such a stage of the cause as would enable the defendant to ex- periment with the court so as to avoid relying at first upon an unpopular defense, such as the statute of lim- itations and the statute of frauds. Cocke V. Evans, 9 Yerg. (Tenu.) 287. 395. It has never permitted a ma- terial amendment where the applica- tion has bten made merely on the ground that the defendant, at the time he put in his answer, was act- ing under a mistake in point of law, Rawlins v. Powel, 1 P. Wms. 300; Pearce v. Grove, 3 Atk. 522; nor when the amendment would contra- dict the statements in the first an- swer, Greenwood v. Atkinson, 4 Sim. 61 ; [Cook V. Bee, 2 Tenn. Ch. 343, 346] ; or change the whole ground of defense, Murdock's Case, 3 Bland, 261 ; Western Reserve Bank v. Stryker. 1 Clarke's Ch. 380 ; Campion V. McLeay, 2 Ves. & B. 256; unless, indeed, the ol>ject be to remove out of the plainliff's way the effect of a denial or to give him the benefit of 416 ANSWERS. [§ 393. § 393. The same subject illustrated. — Where a defendant in a suit in rem omitted to attack in his answer the validity of a co-defendant's claim, leave to amend should be readily- given him unless there be special circumstances to forbid. Such an application differs essentially and radically from the application of a defendant to amend his answer so far as the complainant's claim to relief against him is concerned.' An answer containing mere clerical or accidental mistakes may be amended by supplemental answer; and so when matters have arisen or come to the knowledge of the defendant after the first answer has been put in.^ An omission of the names of the parties from an unsworn answer, made by mistake of the solicitor, was held to be amendable, under the circum- stances, after replication and testimony in behalf of the par- ties for whom it was put in as a mere pleading.^ Leave was given to amend an answer to supply an omission arising from an admission. Edwards v, McLeay, 2 Ves. & B. 856. The defendant must make such a case that it shall appear to be due to justice to permit the case already on record to be altered. Third W. Sav. Bank v. Dimick, 9 C. E. Gr. 36 ; or, as it has been more strongly put, he must show such cir- cumstances as repel the notion of any attempt to evade the justice of the case, or to set up new and in- geniously contrived defenses or sub- terfuges. Smitli V. Babcock, .SSumn. 583; Wells v. Woods, 10 Ves. 401. And see Spurrier v. Fitzgerald, 6 Ves. 548; Huffman v. Hummer, 3 C. E. Gr. 871. These rules are spoken of in connection with and as specially applicable to answers under oath. And certainly the rule of amend- ments is moi'e strict as to sworn pleadings than to those which are only the act or words of counsel. But the reasons upon which these rules are based are equally applicable to answers put in by the parties without oath, where the oath is dis- pensed with in accordance with law. Thus the same rules which govern the amendment of answers under oath would certainly govern similar amendments of an answer of a peer in England upon honor, a Quaker upon affirmation, or a corporation under its great seal. Story's Equity Pleading, §g 874, 875a. And Lord Eldon so held in Curling v. Marquis of Townsend, 19 Ves. 638, where the answer was of a peer without attesta- tion of honor. I can see no reason why these I'ules would not equally control where, the oath being waived under a statute, the answer is signed by the party. It is, in such case, as much the solemn averment of record of the defendant as if sworn to. See Taylor v. Dodd. 5 Ind. 346." Chan- cellor Cooper, in Cook v. Bee, 8 Tenn. Ch. 343, 34.5. • Smock V. Jones, 39 N. J. Eq. 16. ■i Western Reserve Bank v. Stryker, Clarke's Ch. 380. 'McMichael v. Breunan, 31 N. J. Eq. 496. § 39-t.J AMENDMENT. 417 oversight of ihe solicitor who drew the answer, and which was not discovered until the cause was ready for hearing.' § 394. Application to amend. — A motion to amend a sworn answer in a material matter must be made upon notice, and be supported by affidavit,' in which the defendant should state that when he put in his answer he did not know the circum- stances on which he makes the application, or any other cir- cumstances on which he ought to have stated the fact other- wise.' " An application for leave to file a supplemental answer I Arnaud v. Grigg, 39 N. J. Eq. 1, where Chancellor Eunyon said : — " There is abundant precedent for al- lowing it. In Nail v. Punter, 4 Sim. 474, leave waB given to a defendant to amend by stating facts she had desired to state in her answer, but which she had been prevailed upon to omit by the mistaken advice of her solicitor. So too under like cir- cumstances in Burgin v. Giberson, 23 N. J. Eq. 403. In Dagly v. Crump, 1 Dick. 35, a defendant was allowed to amend his answer by limiting the admission of assets contained therein. The admission was most important, and was made by mistake and the carelessness of the solicitor who drew the answer. See, also, Hughes v. Bloomer, 9 Paige, 370, and Curling V. Marquis Townshend, 19 Ves. 638, and Swallow v. Day, 2 Col. C. C. 183. In Fulton v. Gilmour, 8 Beav. 154, leave was given after the cause was at issue on the paper to file a supple- mental answer to correct an impor- tant date. And see s. o. on appeal, 1 Phil. 533. In Bowen v. Cross, 4 Johns. Ch. 375, an amendment was allowed under circumstances quite similar to those presented in this case. There appears to be no occa- sion for delaying the hearing by rea- son of the leave to amend. Unless the complainant objects, on the ground of surprise, to that course of 27 practice, there will under the cir- cumstances be an order that the an- swer stand as if amended by setting up the instrument. Podmore v. Skip- with. 3 Sim. 565. If objection be made on that ground leave will be given toifile a supplemental answer." 2 Huffman v. Hummer, 17 N. J. Eq. 369, 370; Vandervere v. Reading, 1 Stockt. 446; Smith v. Babcock, 3 Sumner, 584 ; Liggon v. Smith, 4 Hen. & Mun. 407; 3 Dan. Ch. Pr. 915; 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 270. 3 Bell V. Hall (1845), 5 N. J. Eq. 49 ; Wells V. Wood, 10 Ves. 401. " The defendant moved the court to be per- mitted to amend his answer so as to rely upon the statute of frauds as a defense. The court declined to enter- tain the motion unless accompanied with an affidavit showing a sufficient reason why the defense was not in- serted in the original answer. Bowen V. Cross, 4 John. Ch. 375 ; Thomas v. Doub, 1 Md. 353 ; Graham v. Skinner, 4 Jones' Eq. 94 ; McKim v. Thompson, 1 Bland, 150. The affidavit required in such cases is obviously the affi- davit of the defendant, although it may, if deemed necessary, be supple- mented by that of his solicitor. The oath of the defendant cannot be dis- pensed with except under special circumstances. This is the rule in relation to amended and supple- mental bills. Verplanok v. Mercau- 418 ANSWEBS. [§ 395. is made upon motion or '^y summons.' The summons or notice of motion must be served on the plaintiff and must specify the facts intended to be stated in the proposed supple- mental answer, and be supported by affidavit verifying the truth of the proposed supplemental answer, specifically stat- ing the facts intended to be placed on the record,^ and show- ing a sufficient reason why they were not introduced into the original answer.' The defendant must also, it seems, produce a full copy of the intended supplementary answer for the in- spection of the plaintiff." * § 395. At what time amendments may be allowed. — There seems to be no limit to the time within which an application to amend may be granted, so that the plaintiff may be placed in the same situation that he would have been in had the an- swer been correct or full enough at fft-st.' Thus leave has been granted after replication ° and after the cause has been set down for hearing.' tile Trust Co., 1 Edw. Ch. 47, 56. And a fortiori it must be so as to an- swers." Cook V. Bee. 2 Tenn. Ch. 343, 344. An amendment will not be allowed when the complainant by aflSdavit shows that the new matter proposed is false. Hicks v. Otto, 17 Fed. Rep. 539. 1 It seems, however, from Churton V. Frewen, L. R. 1 Eq. 338, that the application should be made by mo- tion only. 2 Curling v. Marquis Townshend, 19 Ves. 628, 631 ; Fulton v. Gil more, 8 Beav. 154 ; Smith v. Hartley, 5 Beav. 432 ; Haslar v. Hollis, 2 Beav. 236. If the application be founded upon documentary evidence it must be produced. Churton v. Frewen, K R 1 Eq. 238. ' Tennant v. Wilamore, 3 Anst. 363 ; Scott V. Carter, 1 Y. & J. 453 : Small- wood V. Lewin, 3 Beas. (N. J.) 133 ; Smith V. Babcock, 3 Sumner, 585; Vandervere v. Reading, 9 N. J. Eq. 446. < 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 781 ; Bell V. Dunmore, 7 Beav. 383 ; Fulton V. Gilmore, 8 Eeav. 154 6 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.)783; Tillinghast v. Champlin, 4 R. 1 128 ; Martin v. Atkinson, 5 Ga. 390 ; Gib- son's Suits in Chancery, § 435 ; Fur- man V. North, 4 Baxt 396. See, also, McVey v. Ely, 5 Lea, 438. 6 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.)783; Jackson v. Parish, 1 Sim. 505, 509 ; Raincock v. Young, 16 Sim. 122; Par- sons V. Hardy, 21 L. J. Ch. 400. 'Tillinghast v. Champlin, 4 R I. 138 ; Fulton v. Gilmore, 8 Beav. 154 ; Podmore v. Skipwith, 3 Sim. 565. But see McDougall v. Furrier, 4 Russ. 486. A defendant may be permitted to amend his answer by setting up supplemental matter at the final hearing, in order to obviate an objec- tion, when the evidence pro and con on the matter is all before the court, and all the means for doing equity between the parties. Hamilton v. Nevada &c. Min. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 563. In an action for an accounting it is not an abuse of discretion to per- §§ 396, 397.] AMENDMENT. 4:19 § 396. The same subject continued. — The allowance of an amendment of the answer is in the discretion of the court. Where the defendant does not propose by the amendment to make a new defense, but merely more effectually to set up one which is already presented by the answer, the purposes of justice seem clearly to demand that the amendment, if ma- terial to the defense, be allowed ; even though the cause is ready for a hearing.' And a defendant at the close of the evidence was permitted to amend his answer by the addition of words which contained no new fact, but merely modified the terms of the prayer.' So where an objection to the rele- vancy or competency of the testimony was made specific for the first time in the closing argument for the complainant in an equity case, the court will permit the defendant to so amend his pleadings as to obviate the objection, the testimony before the court showing a proper case therefor.' § 397. Laches in applying to amend. — The court is relucts ant to allow amendments setting up new matter, as, for in- stance, a discharge in bankruptcy, after evidence has been taken, especially where no satisfactory reason is given for neg- lecting to rely on the matter in the original answer.* An ap- plication to amend a sworn answer on the ground of mistake, made two years after discovery of the same, without excuse for the delay, and upon feeble proof of the alleged mistake, was denied.* An amended answer relying upon the statute of limitations ought not to be allowed three years after the filing of the original answer, although the latter be not under oath, merely upon the affidavit of the defendant's solicitor that the original answer was filed in the absence of his client, mit defendant to file an amended an- which has been sworn to by the de- swer denying certain averments as fendant is always granted with ex- to taxes paid after the evidence was treme caution, and I am not aware closed. Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. of any case in which such amend- V. Jones, 89 Cal. 507 ; s. c, 36 Pac. Rep. ment has been allowed after the wit- 1089. nesses had been examined ami the 1 Arnaud v. Grigg, 29 N. J. Eq. 1, 2. proofs in the cause were closed." 2 Rettig V. Newman, 99 Ind. 427. Chancellor Walworth in Fulton Bank 3 Hamilton v. Southern Nev. Gold v. Beach, 1 Paige, 429, 433. &c. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. .563. 5 Wilson v. Wintermute, 37 N. J. *Furman v. Edwards, 3 Tenn. Ch. Eq. 63. 365. "An amendment to an answer 420 ANSWERS. [§§ 398, 399. and that the omission of the defense of the statute was in- advertent.* After proof taken and publication passed, an amended answer is allowed only under very special circum- stances, and certainly should not be allowed where only a legal defense is set up.^ § 398. Amending answer upon amendment of bill. — Where a complainant amends his bill after answer it is a mat- ter of right for the defendant to put in a new or further an- swer to the amended bill, except where the amendment is a mere matter of form which cannot vary the right of the de- fendant.' But if the substance of the bill is amended in any manner, however trifling, the defendant may put in another answer and make an entirely new defense.* An amendment of a bill for discovery by making it one for discovery and re- lief justifies an amendment of the answer.* § 399. Amendments setting up new matter. — Where subse- quently to the filing of the answer events have occurred which the defendant deems it necessary to set out for the purposes of his defense, he has been allowed to state them by means of a supplemental answer.* And on a bill filed to determine title to land the defendant was permitted to amend his an- swer so as to set up a title to the land in dispute which he acquired after his answer was filed.' 1 Wilson V. Wilson, 2 Lea, 17. which in fact requires no further an- 2 StuU V. Goode, 10 Heisk. 58. In swer to protect his rights, be allowed Ruggles V. Eddy, 11 Blatchf. 524, the costs of putting in a new answer to court refused to allow an amend- the amendments. And if he elects ment, after an interlocutory decree to put in an entirely new defense to and reference to a master, withdraw- the bill in such a case the costs of such ing an admission in a sworn answer, defense must abide the event of the After replication filed the defendant suit Trust &c. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 8 cannot put in any amended or new Paige, 5y9. answer without leave of court or Stafford v. Brown (1833), 4 Paige, SMany v. Beekman Iron Ca (1841), 88 ; Spencer v. Van Duzen, 1 Paige, 9 Paige, 188, 194 ; Cotes v. Turner, 555. Bunb. 128. 2 Davis V. Mapes, 2 Paige, 105. See, ^ United States v. McLaughlin, 24 also. Fay v. Jewett, 3 Edw. Ch. 323 ; Fed. Rep. 823, 825. The doctrine that Heugh V. Garrett, 44 L. J. Ch. 305 ; exceptions to the answer for insuflS- Lockett V. Lockett, L. E. 4 Ch. 336, ciency are confined to cases where 841; Reade v. Woodroofe, 24 Beav. complainants are compelled to rely 421 ; Elmer v. Creasy, L. R 9 Ch. 69. on defendants to prove their case, ' Mclntyre v. Trustees &a, 6 Paige, and are not properly taken where all 239. the matters concerning which com- * Siffkin V. Manning (1841), 9 Paige, plainants ask discovery are of record, 222; Brownell v. Curtis, 10 Paige, does not apply to bills for relief. 210, 211 ; Foley v. Hill, 3 MyL & Cr. McCIaskey v. Barr, 40 Fed. Rep. 559. 475. See Darnell t». Reyney, 1 Vern. "> 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 761. 344. §§ 414, 415.] EXCBPTioNs. 435 swer to the interrogatories, the plaintiff may, upon the allow- ance of the plea, except to the answer, as he may if a partial plea is overruled.' If a plea is ordered to stand for an an- swer with liberty to except, the plaintiff may file exceptions to the answer or to that part of it to which he is by the order permitted to except; but he cannot except unless liberty to do so be expressly given by the order.^ § 414. The same subject continued. — When the complain- ant allows the time fixed by rule of court for setting down ex- ceptions filed to an answer for scandal, impertinence and in- sufiiciency to pass by, and the court, after examining the exceptions, is of opinion that the cause will be more speedily determined by a withdrawal of the exceptions, the time will not be enlarged, though good cause be shown, but the com- plainant will be allowed to withdraw the exceptions and reply to the answer.' § 415. When exceptions for insufficiency do not lie. — Where an answer is under oath exceptions for insufficiency will not lie, because such an answer is not evidence for the party making it.* Such an answer can be excepted to only for scandal or impertinence.' For the same reason exceptions will not lie to the answer of a corporation under its corporate 1 1 Darnell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 761. ciency. Story's Equity Pleading 2 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 761. (10th ed.), § 867. ' American Loan & Trust Co. v. * Fulton County v. Miss. &c. R. East & West Ry. Co., 40 Fed, Rep. Co., 31 111. 366 ; Brown v. Mortgage 384. The court may allow the filing Co., 110 111. 238 ; McCormick v. of exceptions to the answer, an Chamberlain, 11 Paige, 543; Good- amendment of the bill, and require win v. Bishop (111.), 34 N. E. Rep. 47 : an answer to the amendment and to Vermilyea v. Christie, 4 Sandf. Ch. the exceptions all at the same time. 376, 377 ; Smith v. St. Louis Mut L. Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, 3 Ins. Co.. 3 Tenn. Ch. 599 ; Carpenter Story, 590. After a reference for i>. Benson, 4 Sandf. Ch. 496 ; Sheppard impertinence exceptions for insufH- v. Akers, 1 Tenn. Ch. 326. But the ciencj' may be filed. Patriotic Bank rule is otherwise in New Jersey. V. Bank of Washington. 5 Cranch, Reed v. Cumberland Ins. Co., 36 N. J. C. C. 602. But in siich case the latter Eq. 393, 397 ; Ryan v. Anglesea R. will be deemed a waiver of the former. Co. (N. J.), 12 Atl. Rep. 539. And an answer cannot be referred ^Mix v. People, 116 111. 267; Brown for impertinence, but may for scan- v. Scottish-American Mortgage Co., dal, after a reference for insuflS- 110 111. 235 ; Fulton County v. Miss. &c. R. Co., 31 III. 366. 436 ANSWERS. [§ 416. seal ; ' nor to the answer of a peer upon protestation of honor ; ^ nor to the answer of the attorney -general ; ' nor to the answer of an infant.* § 416. Exceptions to answer to amended bill. — Where a complainant amends his bill after answer he is thereby deemed to admit the suflBciency of the answer.* Hence if he neglects to except to the answer to his original bill, or his exceptions thereto have been overruled, he cannot except to the answer to his amended bill for insufficiency upon the ground that the original bill was not fully answered,* unless the defendant, after being duly called upon to file his answer to the bill as amended, or voluntarily waiving such call, chooses to let his original answer stand as an answer to the amended bill.' So if the amended bill states an entirely new case, exceptions will lie although some of the interrogatories embraced in them 1 Smith V. St. Louis Mut. L. Ins. Co., 3 Tenn. Cii. 599 ; United States V. McLaughlin, 24 Fed. Rep. 833; Wallace v. Wallace, Halst (N. J.) Dig. 173. 2 Hill V. Earl of Bute, 3 Fowl. Ex. Pr. 11. 'Davison v. Attorney-General, 5 Price, 398, n. ; Smith v. St Louis Mut. L. Ins. Co., 3 Tenn. Ch. 599. * Copeland v. Wheeler, 4 Bro. C. C. 256; Lucas v. Lucas, 13 Ves. 374; Bulkley v. Van Wyok, 5 Paige, 536 ; Leggett V. Sellon, 3 Paige, 84. 61 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 763. Exceptions are superseded by an amendment pending a decision upon them, De la Torre v. Bernales, 4 Mod. 396, except where the amend- ment does not relate to the merits. Miller v. Wheatley, 1 Sim. 296 ; Tay- lor V. Wrench, 9 Ves. 315. 6 Chazournes v. Mills, 3 Barb. Ch. 466; Overy v. Leighton, 2 Sim. & Stu. 234 ; Wich v. Parker, 22 Beav. 59 ; S. C, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 582; Denis v. Rochussen, 4 Jur. (N. S) 298. In Glassington v. Thwaites, 2 Russ. 458, 464, the rule was departed from un- der peculiar circumstances. Where the complainant, after excepting to the answer of the defendant and sub- mitting to the master's report thereon, files an amended bill asking for dis- covery, without making any new case entitling him to a further dis- covery, the proper course for the de- fendant — if the discovery sought is not wholly immaterial, so as to make it a proper subject of demurrer — is to answer the amended bill without reference to the discovery sought And then if the complainant excepts to his answer for insufficiency upon that ground, he may move to take the exceptions off the files for irreg- ularity ; or he may insist before the master, upon the reference of the ex- ceptions, that such exceptions relate to the mattei-s of the original bill only ; or that the principle upon which the discovery is sought has been decided against the complain- ant upon the reference of the excep- tions to the original answer. Cha- zournes V. Mills, 2 Barb. Ch. 466. 'Angel V. Penn. R Co., 87 N. J. Eq. 92. § 417.] EXCEPTIONS. 437 were contained in the original bill.' And where the answer to the amended bill stated facts similar to those contained in the first answer, not called for by the amendments, and omit- ting the material circumstances discovered in the first an- swer, the complainant, upon special application for leave, was permitted to except for insufficiency.^ If the answer to the amendments also undertakes to answer former exceptions, but is not sufficient in either respect, the complainant may file new exceptions based on the new matter, which, if not submitted to, should be referred together with such of the old exceptions as are not sufficiently answered.' New ex- ceptions should be entitled, " exceptions taken by the com plainant to the answer of the defendant C. D. to the com- plainant's bill of complaint," or " to the answer, etc., to the amendments to the original bill of complaint of the complain- ant." " §417. Procedure upon exceptions. — The method of dis- posing of exceptions differs in various jurisdictions. In the English chancery they were referred to a master in the first instance.' The same practice prevailed in the New York court of chancery ° and still obtains in Tennessee.' In the 1 Mazarredo i'. Maitland, 3 Mad. 66, 1 Sim. & Stu. 426, exceptions irregu- 72; Partridge v. Haycraft, 11 Ves. larly entitled were ordered to be 570, 581. "The general rule of the taken off the file. court is that if the answer is insuffi- 5 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 347. cient the complainant must raise all But it was otherwise at the equity his objections thereto in the first in- side of the exchequer, where they stance ; and he will not be permitted were heard by the court upon argu- to raise any objections to the second ment. 2 Fow. Ex. Pr. 1, 2. answer which were not made by ex- 6 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 247 ; ceptions to the first." Eager v. Wis- Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 186. As to wall, 2 Paige, 369, 871. taking out and serving an order of 2 Irvine v. Viana, M'Clel. & Y. 563. reference, see Peale v. Bloomer, 8 ' Bennington Iron Co. v. Campbell, Paige, 78 ; Summers v. Murray, 2 2 Paige, 160. Edw. Ch. 205 ; HaU v. Wood, 1 Paige, * Bennington Iron Co. v. Campbell, 404 As to master's report upon ex- 2 Paige, 161. In Williams v. Davies, ceptions, see Corning i". Cooper, 7 ' Gibson's Suits in Chancery, g 422. Davenport, 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 305. Exceptions to an answer in South See, also, Camden &c. E. Co. v. Stew- Carolina may be heard and deter- art, 19 N. J. Eq. 343. mined by the court. Satterwhite v. 438 ANSWEES. [§ 417. federal courts " after an answer is filed on any rale-day, the plaintiff shall be allowed until the next succeeding rule-day ' to file in the clerk's office exceptions thereto for insufficiency, and no longer, unless a longer time shall be allowed for the purpose upon cause shown to the court or a judge thereof ; and, if no exceptions shall be filed thereto within that period, the answer shall be deemed and taken to be sufficient." ^ " Where exceptions shall be filed to the answer for insuffi- ciency within the period prescribed by these rules, if the de- fendant shall not submit to the same and file an amended answer on the next succeeding rule-day, the plaintiff shall forthwith set them down for a hearing on the next succeed- ing rule-day thereafter before a judge of the court, and shall enter as of course in the order book an order for that pur- pose. And, if he shall not so set down the same for a hear- ing, the exceptions shall be deemed abandoned, and the answer shall be deemed sufficient; provided, however, that the court or any judge thereof may for good cause shown enlarge the time for filing exceptions,' or for answering the same in his discretion upon such terms as he may deem rea- sonable." * " If at the hearing the exceptions shall be allowed, the defendant shall be bound to put in a full and complete Paige, 587 ; Burrell v. Nicholson, 6 Weber v. Weitling, 18 N. J. Eq. 39. Sim. 312 ; Davenport v. Whitmore, 8 Hearing of exceptions to report, see Sim. 251 ; Wynne v. Jackson, 2 Sim. Byington v. Wood, 1 Paige, 145 ; & Stu. 226 ; Eushton v. Troughton, 3 Kilbee v. Sneyd, 2 MolL 239 ; New Sim. 33. As to exceptions to master's York Fire Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 6 report, see Myers v. Bradford, 4 Paige, 511 ; Eager v. Wiswall, 2 Johna Ch. 434; Foote v. Van Ranat, Paige, 369. Costs on exceptions to 1 Hill Cb. 185 ; Byington v. Wood, 1 report, see Richards v. Barlow, 1 Paige, 145 ; Crispe v. Nevil, 1 Ch. Cas. Paige, 333. Costs on exceptions gen- 60; Mackie v. Cairns, Hopk. Ch. 9. erally, seo Richards v. Barlow, 1 Form of exceptions to report, see Paige, 138 ; Norton v. Woods, 5 Paige, Wilkes V. Rogers, 6 Johns. 566 ; Caud- 200 ; Richards v. Barlow, 1 Paige, ler V. Pettit, 1 Paige, 427 ; Franklin 323 ; Jolly v. Carter, 2 Edw. Ch. V. Hunt, 4 Paige, 382 ; Noble v. Wil- 209. son, 1 Paige, 164 ; Craven v. Wright, i See Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 2 P. Wms. 181 ; Cotham v. West, 2 (C. C.) 335. Atk. 182 ; Byington v. Wood, Hopk. 2 Equity Rule 61. Ch. 98 ; Higbie v. Brown, 1 Barb. Ch. ' Under special circumstances the 320. Filing exceptions to report, see time may be limited. Read v. Conse- StafiCord v. Rogers, Hopk. Ch. 98; qua, 4 Wash. (C. C.) 835. Myers v. Bradford, 4 Johns. Ch. 434 ; * Equity Rule 63. § ilS.] EXOKPTIONS. 4:39 defense thereto on the next succeeding rule-day; otherwise the plaintiff shall as of course be entitled to take the bill, so far as the matter of such exceptions is concerned, as confessed, or at his election he may have a writ of attachment to com- pel the defendant to make a better answer to the matter of the exceptions ; and the defendant when he is in custody upon such writ shall not be discharged therefrom but by an order of the court, or of a judge thereof, upon his putting in such answer, and complying with such other terms as the court or judge may direct." • " If upon argument the plaint- iff's exceptions to the answer shall be overruled, or the an- swer shall be adjudged insufficient, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all the costs occasioned thereby unless other- wise directed by the court or the judge thereof at the hearing upon the exceptions." ^ § 418. The same subject continued. — The procedure upon exceptions to answers for scandal and impertinence is similar to that on exceptions to bills on the same grounds.' The English practice upon finding impertinence in a pleading seems to be to order it to be expunged and leave it to the objecting party to see that the order is actually executed.* In Tennessee, where a general appeal in chancery carries up the entire record for revision and no immediate appeal lies from an interlocutory order, it was declared to be the better practice to make an order considering it as executed until reversed, or at most expunge by drawing lines around the impertinent matter, or otherwise designating it without in fact striking it out ; but that in a case of clear scandal the court would direct the actual expunging, leaving the opposite • Equity Rule 64. cause be shown, but the complainant ^ Equity Rule 65. Where the com- will be allowed to withdraw the ex- plainant allows the time fixed by rule ceptions and reply to the answer. of court for setting down exceptions American L. & T. Co. v.'K & W. Ry. to the answer for impertinence and Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 384, insufficiency to pass by, and the ' 1 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 201. court after examining the exceptions See § 113, supra. is of opinion that the cause will be * Davis v. Cripps, 7 Y. & C. (C. C.) more speedily determined by a with- 443 ; Raphael v. Birdwood, 1 Swans. drawal of the exceptions, the time 332. will not be enlarged, though good 440 ANSWERS. [§ 419. party to his remedy by bill of exceptions.' Where the master proceeds ex parte it is his duty nevertheless to examine the exceptions with as much care as if they were litigated before him by the parties.' § 419. Further answers. — A further answer upon excep- tions sustained is in every respect similar to and is considered as part of the answer to the. original bill.' Therefore if the defendant, in a further answer, repeats anything contained in a former answer, the repetition, unless it varies the defense in point of substance, or is otherwise necessary or expedient, will be considered as impertinent.^ But if the defendant dis- covers that parts of the bill to which the exceptions are not taken are not fully answered, he may in his further answer to the exceptions answer those parts of the bill which are not covered by the exceptions or by his former answer.' And it seems that he may set up any new matter of defense which has arisen since the filing of his original answer.' The title of a second answer must correspond with the order under which it is put in, and if there are no amendments it should be entitled, " The further answer of the defendant, C. D., to the original bill of complaint of the complainant." If there are amendments it should be, " The further answer of the defendant, C. D., to the original bill of complaint, and the an- swer of the same defendant to the amended bill of the com- plainant." ' 1 Johnson v. Tucker, 3 Tenn. Ch. third answer is referred for insufB- 244, 250. ciency on the old exceptions it should 2Byington v. Wood, 1 Paige, 146. be referred to the same master if he 'Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), remains in office and is competent § 868 ; Cooper's Eq. PL 321, 322. It is to act in the case. Leggett v. Dubois, prepared, signed and filed in the 3 Paige, 477. same manner as the original answer. * Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 197. An t? 868; Smith v. Serle, 14 Ves. 415, order may be entered for a further holding that the costs of expunging answer upon exceptions for insuffi- such matter are in strictness to be ciency submitted to before exceptions paid by the counsel who signed the taken at the same time for imperti- answer. nence are disposed of. Lawrence v. * Alderman v. Potter, 6 Paige, 658. Lawrence, 4 Edw. Ch. 357. Where « Alderman v. Potter, 6 Paige, 658. there has been one reference on ex- ' Bennington Iron Co. v. Campbell, ceptions to an answer, if a second or 2 Paige, 160. § 420.] EXCEPTIONS. 441 § 420. Form of exceptions. — Exceptions to an answer must be in writing ' and signed by counsel ^ and properly en- titled.' They must point out specifically the matters or in- terrogatories which are not sufficiently answered by separate exceptions applicable to each part/ stating the substance at least of the charge or interrogatory referred to." Exceptions consisting of general objections to an answer which is clearly good in part are defective.' Where impertinent matter is re- ferred to only as set forth on certain specified pages and lines of the answer it is not sufficient, certainly on appeal, as the paging may not be preserved in the record so as to enable the appellate court to determine whether the exceptions are properly sustained or disallowed.' There is no such term as "ambiguous" known in equity practice with reference to pleading except in so far as it may be embraced in the term "insufficient." Thus where a certain portion of the answer is alleged to be impertinent, indefinite and ambiguous, the only point is that the allegations referred to are imperti- nent.' Exceptions to an answer for insufficiency which are themselves insufficient may be struck off the files on motion, but it is not too late to object to them when they are no- ticed for argument upon the master's report." If the defend- 1 Beanies' Ord. 78, 181 ; De la Torre Stu. 236 ; Woodrofe v. Daniel, 10 V. Bernales, 4 Mad. 396. Sim. 243 ; Brown v. Keating, 2 Beav. 2Yatesi!.Hardy, Jacob, 228; Cand- 581, 583; Esdaile u Molyneaux, 1 ler V. Partington, 6 Mad. 122 ; Taylor De G. & S. 218 ; Duke of Brunswick V. Wrench, 9 Ves. 315. v. Duke of Cambridge, 12 Beav. 379, 3 Williams v. Da vies, 1 Sim. & Stu. 280 ; Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story (C. C), 426. 296. Exceptions which fail to state * 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 764 ; the charges in the bill to which the Brooks V. Byam, 1 Story (C. C), 296 ; answer is addressed and the exact Fulton County v. Miss. &c. E. Co., 21 terms of the answer are too general 111. 838, 366 ; Baker v. Kingsland, 3 to be considered. Bower Barff Iron Edw. Ch. 138. Exceptions to an an- Co. v. Wells Iron Co., 43 Fed. Eep. swer cannot avail the complainant 891. on motion to dissolve an injunction « Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Cokefair, 41 on bill and answer, unless such ex- N. J. Eq. 142. See, also, Conway v. captions point out a failure to an- Wilson, 44 N.J. Eq. 457; s. c, 11 AtL swer the ground of equity on which Rep. 734. the injunction was allowed. Stitt v. ' Mix v. People, 116 III. 267. Hilton, 31 N. J. Eq. 285, 289. 8 United States v. McLaughlin, 24 5 Stafford v. Brown, 4 Paige, 89, Fed. Rep. 828. 90; Hodgson v. Butterfield, 3 Sim. & 9 Baker v. Kingsland, 3 Edw. Ch. 442 AN8WBE8. [§ Graham v. Tankersley, 15 Ala, close a mortgage, a defendant files a 634. cross-bill setting up another mort- "Graham v. Tankersley, 15 Ala. gage, but not averring its date, or 634. that it is a prior lien, and offers no s Scott v. AUgood, 1 Fowler's Ex. proof in reference to it, a decree dis- Pr. 91, where defendant obtained an regarding the cross-bill and its prayer order to answer only one, and that is not erroneous. Johnson v. Meyer all be consolidated. (Ark.), 16 S. W. Rep. 131. » Story's Equity Pleading (10th 2 Bernier i\ Bernier, 73 Mich. 43 ; ed.), § 401 ; Neal v. Foster, 34 Fed. s. c, 40 N. W. Rep. 50. Rep. 496, 497. See, also, Tansey v. 3 Ballance v. Underbill, 3 Scam. McDonnell, 143 Mass. 230. 464 CROSS-BILLS. [§ 445. original was pending.' In such case it would be necessary to set forth the matters in the original bill and its prayer and object together with the proceedings thereon, if any, so that the court might be possessed of the whole case of which the cross-bill is only a part. But this practice never obtained in this country. In the national courts, at least, the cross-bill must from the necessity of the case be filed in the circuit court where the original bill is pending. Hence there is no necessity for bringing the facts of the original bill or its ob- ject or prayer to the attention or knowledge of the court by repeating them in the cross-bill, and a mere reference to the bill which is already before the court, and the object of the case, is sufficient for all pi'actical purposes. Of course it is necessary to set forth in the cross-bill so much of the matter in the original bill and the subsequent pleadings and proceed- ings thereon as may be essential to show what right or de- fense is sought to be brought before the court for adjudica- tion and to make a proper case therefor." ^ The cross-bill should be signed by counsel,' and pray for a subpcsna, to the end that the premises may be answered.* § 445. Process upon cross-bills. — The appearance of a de- fendant to a cross-bill is enforced in the same manner as the appearance of a defendant to an original bill;' and it may be regarded as abandoned if the parties voluntarily go to a hear- ing without an answer.' It is the duty of a party who files a cross-bill to take steps to have it answered.' In a proper case 1 Story's Equity Pleading, §§ 400, 457 ; Washington &c. R Co. v. Wash- 424, supra. ington, 10 Wall. 399 ; Ballance v. 2 Per Deady, J., in Neal v. Foster, Underbill, 3 Scam. (111.) 453, 461; 34 Fed. Rep. 496, 497. By statute in Cummings v. Gill, 6 Ala. 453 , Shelby Illinois the defendant is expressly v. Smith, 3 A. K. Marsh. 604 ; Smith excused from stating in his "cross- v. Woolfolk, 115 U. S. 143. See An- bill any of the pleadings or proceed- derson v. Ward, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 47. ings in the suit " in which it is to be « Hungate v. Reynolds, 73 111. 425 ; filed. Cable v. Ellis, 120 111. 136, 143. Purdy v. Henslee, 97 111. 389 ; Parke 'Smith's Ch. Pr., Book II, c i. v. Brown, 13 111. App. 391 ; Thoraason *2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 133; v. Neeley, 50 Miss. 810. Hayne v. Hayne, 3 Ch. Rep. 19 ; " Reed v. Kemp, 16 111. 445 ; Purdy Talmadge v. Pell, 9 Paige, 410. v. Henslee, 97 111. 389. In Arkansas SThomason v. Neeley, 50 Miss. 310 ; process is necessary as against a oo- Miles V. Bacon. 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) defendant, but not as against the §446.] CEOSS-BILLS. 465 an order may be obtained for substituted service of a sub- poena to answer a cross-bill upon the solicitor in the original bill.' § 446. Original and cross-bill as one cause. — For many purposes the original and cross-bill are considered as one cause.^ They are ordinarily heard together, and the rights of all the parties in respect of the matters litigated are settled by one decree.' If the cross-bill be set for hearing, the legal effect is to set the original cause for hearing also ; * and an appeal from a decree upon a cross-bill opens the cause on the original bill.' If there is a defect of jurisdiction under the original bill, as, for instance, where there is an adequate rem- edy at law, a cross-bill founded upon matters of equitable cognizance cures the defect." complainant in the original bill. Hoi-nor v. Hanks, 32 Ark. 572; Walker v. Byers, U Ark. 263. See, also, Josey v. Rogers, 13 Ga. 478. No process is required to bring in as de- fendant to a cross-bill an infant com- plainant in the original bill under the Illinois statutes relating to cross- bills (1 Starr & C. Ann. St., pp. 407, 408, §g 30-35)i Kingsbury v. Buck- ner, 134 U. S. 650; S. G, 10 S. Ct Rep. 638. 1 See § 178, supra; Johnson R Co. V. Union S. & S. Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 331; Dunlevy v. Dunlevy, 38 Fed. Rep. 459 ; Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 9 Blatohf. 316. Cf. Anderson v. Lewis, 8 Bro. C. C. 439 ; Bond v. Newcastle, 3 Bro. C. C. (Bett's ed.), 387, n. 2 ; Mason V. Gardiner, 4 Bro. C. C. 478 ; Bruncher V. Nichols, 1 Howard's Eq. Side, 298 ; Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 355. Serv- ice by publication is irregular. Web- ster Loom Co. V. Short, 10 Off. Gaz. 1019. ^ Neal V. Foster, 84 Fed. Rep. 496, 498; Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 663; Cockrell v. Warner, 14 Ark. 345 ; Ewing v. Patterson, 35 Ind. 336 ; Field V. Schieffelin, 7 Johna Ch. 253; Cross V. De Valle, 1 Wall. 14 30 sWhyte v. Arthur, 17 N. J. Eq. 521 ; Ballance v. Underbill, 3 Scam. (111.) 453, 461; Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591 ; Beauchamp v. Putnam, 34 111. 378, 381; Moore v. Huntington, 17 Wall. 417, 423 ; Ex parte Railroad Co., 95 U. S. 221. « Cocke V. Trotter, 10 Yerg. 313; Kemp V. Mackrell, 3 Atk. 813 ; Her- gel V. Laitfcuberger, 2 Tenn. Ch. 251. * Woodrum v. Kirkpatrick, 2 Swan, 218; Hergel v. Laitenberger, 2 Tenn. Ch. 251. But the cross-bill is treated as a separate suit so far as to allow an appeal from an order of dismissal on sustaining a demurrer for want of equity. Brooks v. Woods, 40 Ala. 538 ; Lehman v. Ford, 47 Ala. 733. But see Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591. A cross-bill which was an- swered should be noticed and dis- posed of in the final decree. Moore V. Huntington, 17 Wall. 417. See, however, Essex v. Day, 52 Conn. 484. 6 Sale V. McLean, 29 Ark. 612 ; Lo- gan V. McMillin, 5 Dana, 489. See, also, Wickliffe v. Clay, 1 Dana, 589 ; Hall V. Edrington, 8 B. Mon. fKy.)47. Cf. Carroll v. Richardson, 87 Ala. 605 ; S. c. 6 So. Rep. 342, where it was held that if upon demurrer to a 466 0EO8S-BILL8. [§ 447. § 447. Effect of dismissal of the original bill.— The gen- eral rule is that when the original bill is dismissed the cross- bill goes with it.* This rule is based upon the idea that the averments of the cross-bill and its subject-matter constitute simply a defense to the original bill, and therefore, having no individuality, no distinctive relief can be granted. But when the cross-bill alleges facts other than those found in the orig- inal bill, pertaining to the same subject-matter, and affirmative relief is asked against the complainant upon grounds justify- ing equitable interference, the dismissal of the original does not carry with it the cross-bill, which remains for disposition in the same manner as if it had been filed as an original bill.^ There is no retention of the cross-bill, however, when the re- lief asked by it is directed against a co-defendant instead of the complainant.' If a cross-bill is filed against a person who cross-bill it appears that the original bill is without equity, the cross-bill should be dismissed without consid- ering its sufficiency. 1 Abels V. Mobile Real Estate Co. (Ala.), 9 So. Rep. 423; Elderkin v. Fitch, 2 Ind. 90 ; Carroll v. Richard- son, 87 Ala. 605 ; White v. Wingate (Wash.), 30 Pao. Rep. 81; Slason v. Wright, 14 Vt 208 ; McGuire v. Cir- cuit Judge, 69 Mich. 598 ; Thomason V. Neeley, 50 Miss. 310; Lardner v. Ogden, 31 Miss. 340, 344; Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108; Markell v. Kasson, 31 Fed. Rep. 104; Cross v. De Valle, 1 Wall. 1. Where the original bill is dismissed at the hear- ing for want of equity, a cross-bill which seeks to dispossess the com- plainant from real estate may also be dismissed where the defendant's remedy at law is complete. Wach- ter V. Blowney, 104 111. 010. See, also, Fitzhugh v. Barnard, 13 Mich. 112, 113. Of. Loomis v. Freer, 4 IlL App. 547. 2 Lowenstein v. Glidewell, 5 Dill. 325, 829 ; Fiske v. Wetmore, 15 R. 1 354, 356 ; s. a, 5 Atl. Rep. 375 ; Jesup V. m. Cent R Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 483, 495 ; Wilkinson v. Roper, 74 Ala. 140 ; Abels V. Mobile Real Estate Co. (Ala.), 9 So. Rep. 428 ; Markell v. Kasson, 31 Fed. Rep. 104 ; Worrell v. Wade, 17 Iowa, 96; King v. Thorp, 21 Iowa, 67 ; Chicago R Co. v. Union R M. Co., 109 U. S. 702; Salem National Bank v. Salem Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 580 ; Continental Ina Co. v. Webb, 54 Ala. 688 ; Dawson v. Amey, 40 N. J. Eq. 494 ; Dewees v. Dewees, 55 Miss. 315 ; Jones V. Thacker, 61 Ga. 339 ; Rag- land V. Broadnax, 29 Gratt 401, 419; West Va. &c. L. Co. v. Vinal, 14 West Va. 637. The cross-bill may be retained although the dismissal of the original was upon motion of the complainant Sigman v. Lundy, 66 Miss. 522; s. C, 6 So. Rep. 245. See § 452, n. 4, infra, 3 Trimble v. Fariss, 78 Ala. 260; Lehman v. Dozder, 78 Ala. 235 ; Wil- kinson V. Roper, 78 Ala. 140 ; Jones v. Robinson, 77 Ala. 499 ; Gil man v. Rail- road Co., 72 Ala. 566. But this dis- tinction is now abolished by section 3460 of the Alabama code. Abels v. Mobile Real Estate Co. (Ala.), 9 So. § 448.] CE0SS-BILL8. 467 was made a party to the litigation by an amended bill, the dismissal of the latter disposes of the cross-bill as to him. § 448. Miscellaneous irregularities and waiver. — An irreg- ularity in filing a cross-bill is waived where the complainant answers it without taking any steps to require an answer to the original bill or to restore the latter, the same having been lost.^ The complainants having answered a cross-bill cannot complain that the notice thereof required by statute was not given them.' A decree on a cross-bill without an answer or a rule to answer is erroneous.* After a decree settling the rights of the parties has been rendered, it is error to grant leave to answer a cross-bill and to take depositions.' Rep. 423. See Chicago Artesian Well irregularities that did not affect the Co. V. Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 57 111. jurisdiction of the court; as, for in- 424 stance, where an absent party neg- 1 Wright V. Frank, 61 Miss. 33. lected to plead or answer to a cross- 2 Davis V. Hall, 92 III 85. bill after due service of the order, and 3 Russell V. Lamb, 83 Iowa, 558; it was taken for confessed against s. 0., 48 N. W. Rep. 939. him before he was ordered to plead, < Blair v. Reading, 99 DL 600. etc., to the original and supplemental 'Scott V. Rowland (Va.), 4 S. E. bills. Mellen v. Moline Malleable Rep. 595. A final decree cannot be Iron Works, 131 U. S. 353. attacked in collateral proceedings for CHAPTEE XIII. DISMISSAL OF BILLS OTHERWISE THAN AT A HEARING. § 449. 450. 451. 452. Motion to dismiss unauthor- ized suit Right of complainant to dis- miss — (a) Exceptions. (b) Exceptions illustrated. (c) Proceedings upon a refer- ence as affecting complain- ant's right. 453. (d) The rule in Illinois. 454 (e) Tlie same subject contin- ued — Construction of stat- ute. 455. (f) Where complainant repre- sents a class. 456. (g) Dismissal by one of sev- eral complainants. 457. (h) Dismissal of part of a bill 458. (i) Dismissal contrary to stip- ulation. § 459. (j) Where complainant is in contempt 460. (k) Dismissal, how effected. 461. (1) Costs upon dismissal 462. (m) Dismissal without costs. 463. (n) Dismissal without preju- dice. 464. (o) Reinstatement aft«r dis- missaL 465. Dismissal for want of prose- cution. 466. The same subject continued — Reinstatement 467. Dismissal for want of equity. 468. Dismissal for want of juris- diction. 469. Compelling complainant to elect 470. The same subject continued. § 44:9, Motion to dismiss unauthorized suit. — One in whose name a bill has been filed without authority may move to have it taken off the file or dismissed, and he is entitled to costs of the application as between solicitor and client, and the defendant is entitled to costs as between party and party. ^ •The solicitor who filed the bill may be ordered to pay all the costs. Palmer v. Walesby, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 732; Wright v. Castle, 3 Mer. 12. See, also, § 83, supra; Jerdein v. Bright, 10 W. R. 380 ; Allen v. Bone, 4 Beav. 493; Atkinson v. Abbot, 3 Drew. 251 ; Wade v. Stanley, 1 J. & W. 674; Crossley v. Crowther, 9 Hare, 384. The motion should be supported by affidavit, 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 308, and be made promptly upon discovery of the facts and notice given to the solicitor, co- plaintiff if any, and, except In case of a sole plaintiff, the defendant Titter- ton V. Osborne, 1 Dick. 350; Tab- bernor v. Tabberuor, 2 Keen, 679; Hood V. PhiUips, 6 Beav. 176. But it was held in Town of Kankakee v. Kankakee &c. R. Co., 115 111. 88, cit- ing Frye v. Calhoun County, 14 111. 132, that the court may dismiss the bill on its own motion when its at- tention is called to the facts. One of several complainants cannot have the whole bill dismissed for making him a party without authority. Fagan v. Fagan, 15 Ala. 335. § 450.] DISMISSAL OF BILLS. 469 Where a bill was filed i ^ 'n name of a corporation against a majority of the persons >. ho composed it, and the latter be- fore answer presented a petition asking for a dismissal on the ground of want of authority to mstitute the suit, the court declined to grant the application at that stage of the case, es- pecially where it appeared that the members authorizing the suit constituted, according to the charter, a quorum of the corporate body.' § 450. Right of complainant to dismiss — (a) Exceptions. It is very clear from an examination of the authorities, Eng- lish and American, that the right of a complainant to dismiss his bill without prejudice on payment of costs is of course except in certain cases.^ These exceptions were broadly stated by Chancellor Harper, of South Carolina,' as fol- lows: — "The exception stated in general terms is that it is within the discretion of the court to refuse him permission to do so if a dismissal would work a prejudice to the other parties; and I gather from the cases compared with each other that it is not regarded as such prejudice to a defendant that the complainant dismissing his own bill may at his pleas- ure harass him by filing another bill for the same matter. But whenever in the progress of a cause a defendant entitles himself to a decree either against the complainant or against a co-defendant, and a dismissal would put him to the expense and trouble of bringing a new suit and making his proofs anew, such dismissal will not be permitted." * And upon an 1 Bethel Church v. Carmack, 3 Md. 3 jn Bank v. Rose, 1 Rich. Eq. 394 Ch. 143. See further as to the credit 1 Daniell'8 Ch. Pr. (5th. ed.) 830, « 1 Foster's Federal Practice (3d 831. ed.), § 159. CHAPTEE XY. ABATEMENT, REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT. g 481. Abatement of a suit 482. Effect of an abatement. 483. Method of revivor. 484 Title to reviva 485. Revivor by the defendant or his representative. 486. Frame of a bill of revivor. 487. Subpoena upon a bill of re- vivor. 488. Pleadings and proceedings upon a bill of revivor. 489. What renders a suit defective. 490. General nature of supple- mental bills. 491. Petition instead of supple- mental bill. 492. Supplemental bill not a sub- stitute for amendments. 493. Use of supplemental bills illus- trated. 494. The same subject continued. 495. Making a new case by supple- mental bill. 496. The same subject continued. 497. Supplemental bills inconsist- ent with original. 498. Retaining original bills to per- mit supplemental bills. 499. Title of complainant in a sup- plemental bill. 501, 502, 503. § 500. Leave to file a supplemental bill Application for leava The same subject continued — Hearing on petition — Ex- ercise of discretion. Discretion of the court not re- viewable. 504. Effect of filing without leave. 505. Frame of a supplemental bill. 506. Parties to a supplemental bill. 507. Process upon supplemental bills. 508. Proceedings on supplemental bills — Demurrers and pleas. 509. The same subject continued — Answer. 510. The same subject continued — Replication and evidence. 511. Original bills in the nature of supplemental bills. 512. The same subject continued — Frame of the bill. 5 13. Original bill in the nature of a bill of revivor. The same subject continued — Frame of bill — Proceedings. Bill of revivor and supple- ment 514. 515. § 481. Abatement of a suit. — If any event happens after the filing of a bill in equity which makes it necessary to bring in a new party, either plaintiff or defendant, in order to ob- tain a complete or satisfactory determination of the contro- versy, the suit will either abate or become defective. The abatement or defect must be remedied by the filing of a bill of revivor, a bill in the nature of a bill of revivor, a supple- § 481. J ABATEMENT, EEVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. 497 mental bill, a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, or a bill of revivor and supplement.' In general upon the death of a plaintifif or of a defendant materially interested the suit abates.'* If, however, the whole interest or liability of the party dying, be he plaintiff or defendant, survives to or de- volves upon other parties to the suit, no abatement takes place; ' and likewise where the interest of the party dying so determines that it can no longer affect the suit, and no person becomes entitled thereupon to the same interest (which happens in the case of a tenant for life, or a person having a temporary or contingent interest, or an interest defeasible upon a contingency), the suit does not so abate as to require any proceeding to warrant the prosecution of the suit against the remaining parties;* and if the plaintiff in a bill of inter- pleader should die after a decree that the defendants inter- plead there will be no abatement of the suit ; * and in a suit by or against an officer in his official capacity the death of the officer works no abatement, and the successor for the time being becomes the party.' The coming of age of an infant party does not abate the suit ; nor does it render the suit defective so as to require a supplemental bill, unless his 1 1 Foster's Federal Practice (3d ed.), the wife abates upon the death of § 174 ; Mitford's Eq. PI., ch. 1, § 3. the latter. Hand v. Jacobus, 19 N. J. See, also, Story's Equity Pleading Eq. 79. (10th ed.), § 336 ei seq. '2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1511 ; 2 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1507 ; Gilchrist v. Cannon, 1 Cold. 581. The Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), death of one of several complainants § 354. The dissolution of a corpora- in a creditor's bill does not effect an tion produces the same result in a abatement. Story's Equity Pleading suit by or against it 3 Foster's Fed- (10th ed.), § 357. eral Practice (2d ed.), § 174, citing < Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.X National Bank v. Colby, 31 Wall. 609 ; § 356. But if such party be the sole Greeley v. Smith, 3 Story, 658 ; plaintiff or defendant there is neces- Mumma v. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 281 sarily an end to the suit under the (but see Lake Superior Iron Co. v, circumstances stated. Brown, Bonnell & Co., 44 Fed. Rep. » Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 529) ; Hemingway v. Stansell, 106 U. § 362. S. 399; Grantland v. Memphis, 12 « Felts v. Mayor of Memphis, 3 Fed. Rep. 287 ; and as to consolida- Head, 650 ; Dawson v. Clark, 3 Sneed, tion of two corporations, Edison E. 438 ; Hardee v. Gibbs, 50 Miss. 802 ; L. B. V. Westinghouse, 34 Fed. Rep. McDuff v. Beauchamp, 50 Miss. 531. 332. A suit by a husband and wife See Winthrop v. Farrar, 11 Allen, for the specific performance of an 398. agreement to convey real estate to 32 498 ABATEMENT, EEVIVOE ANB SUPPLEMENT. [§ 482. interest in the subject of the suit is changed by that event.' A suit abates by the marriage of a female plaintiff,' unless before revivor her husband dies, in which case a bill of revivor becomes unnecessary; but the subsequent proceedings should be in the name and with the description which she acquired by the marriage.' Upon the marriage of a female defendant the suit does not abate, although her husband ought to be named in the subsequent proceedings.* § 482. Effect of an abatement. — The abatement of a suit in equity is merely an interruption to the suit, suspending its progress until new parties are brought before the court.' In general no proceedings can be had in a cause during an abate- ment, except for a revivor, or to prevent injury to the sur- viving parties where those entitled omit to revive.^ But proceedings may be had to preserve the property in dispute,^ or to punish a party for breach of an injunction,' or to set •Campbell v. Bowne, 5 Paige, 34. 2 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), §354; Quackenbush v. Leonard, 10 Paige, 181. See, however, Lorillard V. Standard Oil Co., 8 Fed. Eep. 903. 3 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 361. The marriage of a male de- fendant in a partition suit does not abate it. Clark v. Hall, 7 Paige, 386. 4 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 354 ; Quackenbush v. Leonard, 10 Paige, 131. 'Hoxie V. Carr, 1 Sumner, 173, 178. See, also, Story's Equity Pleading, § 354; Melius v. Thompson, 1 Cliff. 125, 129. 6 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 389; Griswold v. Hill, 1 Paine, 483. There is a distinction between the action of the court in the cause and the ac- tion of the court beyond the cause, the latter term applying to measures which are necessary for the execu- tion of a decree which has been pro- nounced, and without respect to the relief to which the party was prima- rily entitled upon the merits of the case. The distinction is pointed out by Baldwin, J., in Cocke v. Gilpin, 1 Rob. 28. And in Crislip v. Cain, 19 West Va. 438, 458, it was held that the death of a party would not sus- pend proceedings by rule to compel payment by the purchaser of land sold under a decree. So where after a decree for foreclosure and sale the defendant dies, a sale may be made without a revivor. Whiting v. Bank of U. S., 13 Pet 6. But c/. Appold V. Building Ass'n, 37 Md. 457. 'Washington Ins. Co. v. Slee, 8 Paige, 368. 8 Hawley v. Bennett, 4 Paige, 168 But where the suit abates by the death of either of the parties pending an injunction, the defendant or his representatives may have an order that the complainant or his repre- sentatives revive within a reasonable time or that the injunction be dis- solved. Leggett V. Dubois, 2 Paige, 211, where sixty days was the time fixed ; White v. Fitzhugh, 1 Hen. & M. 1. See, also, Chowick i\ Dimes, 3 Beav. 290, 292, 293 ; Chester v. Life Ass'n &c., 4 Fed. Rep. 487. This does § 483.] ABATEMENT, REVIVOK AND SUPPLEMENT. 499 aside proceedings in the master's office.' If depositions are taken pending an abatement, but the abatement was not known when the commission issued, they may be read.' Money may be paid out of court when the right is clear, dur- ing an abatement,' or upon consent of parties.* The court will also, pending an abatement, make an order for the de- livery of deeds and writings brought into court, or it will send it to a master to inquire to whom they belong.' If a bill is retained, and an action directed against one of the defend- ants to try the right, and a material defendant dies before trial, the trial may proceed without a revivor, unless the decree has directed the deceased defendant to attend it.' A receiver will not be discharged on an abatement of the suit without a special order of the court. An order dismissing a bill for want of prosecution, made pending an abatement, will be irregular.' If pending a total abatement process of con- tempt is issued, it will be irregular and may be discharged on motion with costs.' The statute of limitations will run pend- ing an abatement in all cases except a decree to account.' Where a suit abates by the death of a party after the argu- ment, the decree of the court may be pronounced, notwith- standing, but should in such case be entered nunc pro tunc as of the time of the argument.'" § 483. Method of revivor. — In the absence of statutory regulations the usual mode of reviving and continuing the proceedings whenever there is an abatement of the suit be- not apply to injunctions made per- » Wharam v. Broughton, 1 Ves. 185. petual by decree. See Askew v. * Humphreys v. Hollis, Jac. 73. Townsend, 3 Dick. 471. 'Canham v. Vincent, 8 Sim. 277. iQuackenbush v. Leonard, 10 sg Daniell's Cb. Pr. (3d Am. ed.) I'aige, 181. 1715. But where there is a partial 2 Washington Ins. Co. v. Slee, 2 abatement, as by the death of one Paige, 368 ; Sinclair v. James, 1 defendant, process of contempt may Dick. 277; Thompson v. Took, 1 be issued and executed against the Dick. 115 ; Peters v. Robinson, 1 others. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (3d Am. Dick. 117. ed.) 1716. 'Roundell v. Currer, 6 Ves. 850. « HoUingshead's Case, 1 P. Wms. See, also. Finch v. Lord Winchelsea, 748. 1 Eq. Ab. 2. '"Davies v. Davies, 9 Ves. 461; 4 Beard v. Powis, 2 Ves. Sr. 899. Campbell r. Mesier, 4 Johns. Ch. 342. 500 ABATEMENT, EEVIVOR AfTD SUPPLBMENT. [§ 484. fore its final consummation is by a bill of revivor.' In most of the States the statute provides for a summary revival of a suit by a suggestion of the death of the party. These are generally held to apply only to those cases where a bill of revivor was proper under the previous practice, and do not include cases where a supplemental bill was necessary.' Nor do such provisions abolish the chancery practice of revival by bill; either remedy may be resorted to at the election of the party.' § 484. Title to revive. — The general rule is that no person can revive a suit abated by the death of a party unless he is in privity with the deceased. But it is not sufficient that he may, in a legal sense, be a privy in estate ; he must be a privy in representation.* The words " legal representative " when Rogers v, Paterson, 4 Paige, 450. Where a rule of practice provides for a revivor upon the death of a defend- ant, by suggestion and order for sum- mons to the representatives, although an amendment of the bill is not a usual mode of introducing the per- sonal representative or heir of a de- ceased defendant, it may serve the purposes of a suggestion of the death and of the persons who are his repre- sentatives ; and when they are served with notice to appear, and plead or answer, all the purposes of the rule of practice are satisfied. Floyd v. Ritter, 65 Ala. 501. s Bock V. Book, 24 West Va, 586 ; Floyd V. Ritter, 65 Ala. 501 ; Foster V. Burem, 1 Heisk. 783, 785 ; Fox v. Abbott, 13 Neb. 228, 333; Carter v. Jennings, 24 Ohio St 183; Reid V. Stuart, 20 West Va. 382, 391. < Lord Coke, in 1 Inst 371, says : " There are four sorts of privies, viz. ; Privies in estate, as donor and donee, lessor and lessee; privies in blood, as heir and ancestor ; privies in rep- resentation, as executors and admin- istrators; and privies in tenure, as lord and tenant; which are all re- 1 Story's Equity Pleading, § 854. " The only methods of reviving a suit in equity in the federal courts seem to be a bill of revivor, a bill in the nature of a bill of revivor, a bill of revivor and supplement, or a supple- mental bill in the nature of a bill of revivor." 1 Foster's Federal Prac- tice (2d ed.), § 178. Where a bill, cross-bill, and supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review be- tween the same parties and relating to the same subject, are all abated by the death of one of the parties, the whole proceedings may be revived by one bill of revivor. The party re- viving will not therefore be allowed the costs of two or more separate bills for that purpose. Wilde v. Jenkins, 4 Paige, 481. 2 Ross V. Hatfield, 2 N. J. Eq. 863 Douglass V. Sherman, 2 Paige, 858 Rogers v. Paterson, 4 Paige, 417 Daniels v. Brodie, 8 Edw. Ch. 275. The order for the revival of a suit upon petition should be entitled as in the original cause at the time of the abatement; but all the subse- quent orders and proceedings must be entitled in the cause as revived. § 485.] ABATEMENT, EEYIVOK AND SUPPLEMENT. 501 used in this connection mean an executor or administrator, or devisee in a will, who has the power and authority under the law to legally represent.' § 486. Rerivor by the defendant or his representatives. The general rule is strict that before a decree or a decretal order by which a defendant becomes entitled to an interest in the further continuance of the suit, neither he nor his rep- resentatives can sustain a bill of revivor." " After a decree the defendants as well as the plaintiffs are entitled to a bill of revivor ; and although originally the right appears to have been restricted to those cases in which the defendant had, or was supposed to have, a beneficial interest in the decree, yet it is now well settled that if the defendant or his representa- tives have any interest in the further prosecution of the suit, the suit may be revived at his instance." ' ducible to two heads — privies in law and privies in deed. Now the right to revive is not applicable to all these different sorts of privies, but by the authorities is expressly con- fined to persons who are in privity by representation, such as heirs in relation to the real estate, and exec- utors and administrators in relation to the personalty." See, also, Rals- ton V. Sharon, 51 Fed. Rep. 702 Slack V. Walcott, 3 Mason, 508 Hawkins v. Chapman, 36 Md. 83 Hall V. Hall, 1 Bland, 131. 1 Johnson v. Van Epps, 110 111. 559; Coxr. Curwen, 118 Mass. 198 Cochran v. Cochran, 127 Pa. St 490 s. C, 17 AtL Rep. 981 ; Railroad &c, Co. V. Bryan, 8 Smedes & M. 234 Warnecke v. Lembea, 71 111. 91 Bowman v. Long, 89 III. 19 ; Ralston V. Sharon, 51 Fed. Rep. 702. 2Soulliard v. Dias, 9 Paige, 393, 394 ; Benson v. Wolverton, 16 N. J. Eq. 110; and Republic of Peru v. Reeves, 40 N. T. Super. Ct 316, holding, also, that the statute provid- ing for revival by order instead of by bill has not altered the rule ; MoDer- mott V. McGown, 4 Edw. Ch. 592; Griffith V. Bronaugh, 1 Bland, 547. 'Peer v. Cookerow, 13 N. J. Eq. 136, 137, citing 1 Mitford's Eq. PL by Jeremy, 79, and note q ; Lord Stow- ell V. Cole, 2 Vern. 219, note 1 ; Hor- wood V. Schmedes, 12 Ves. 311 ; Griffin v. Spenoe, 69 Ala. 393, 398; Rogers v. Paterson, 4 Paige, 409; Reid V. Stuart, 20 West Va. 382; Wilhanis v. Cooke, 10 Ves. 406 ; De- vaynes v. Morris, 1 Myl. & Cr. 213, 225. See, also, NicoU v. Roosevelt, 3 Johns. Ch. 60. Where a sole com- plainant or defendant dies after de- cree either party may revive the suit Benson v. Wolverton, 16 N. J. Eq. 110. In Peer v. Cookerow, 13 N. J. Eq., supra, and Anderson v. White, 10 Paige, 575, the defendant was held entitled to revive for the purpose of appeal. Whether upon the death of a sole complainant after a dismissal of the bill, the suit may be revived by the defendant or for the mere purpose of recovering costs, quaere. Benson v. Wolverton, 16 N. J. Eq., supra. Upon the death of the complainant after a decretal 502 ABATEMENT, EEVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. [§ 486. § 486. Frame of a Mil of revivor. — A bill of revivor must state the original bill, the several proceedings thereon, and the abatement.' It must set out enough of the stating part of the original bill to warrant or explain the prayer of the bill of revivor and show the complainant's title to revive.^ Thus where an executor applies to revive he must show that he has taken probate of the will of the decedent.' The bill must also charge that the cause ought to be revived and to stand in the same condition with respect to the parties to the original as it was at the time when the abatement happened ; and it must pray that the suit may be revived accordingly.^ In some cases it may be necessary to pray that the defendant may answer the bill of revivor; and the prayer may vary ac- cording to any special circumstances of the case.* Thus, where an admission of assets by the representative of a de- order his representatives have the first right to revive as against the defendant. Pell v. Elliott, Hopk. Ch. 86 ; Quackenbush v. Leonard, 10 Paige, 131. iMitford's Eq. PI., ch. 1, § 3; Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), §374. 2 Phelps V. Sproule, 4 Sim. 318; United States Equity Rule 58 pro- vides that "It shall not be neces- sary in any bill of revivor or sup- plemental bill to set forth any of the statements of the original bill, unless the special circumstances of the case may require it." This rule vpas copied from an English order in chancery under which it was held necessary to set out enough of the original pleadings to show the title of the plaintiff, as against the de- fendant, to revive the suit Griffith V. Ricketts, 3 Hare, 476. The rule is stated in Lord Chief Baron Gilbert's Forum Romanum, 209, as follows : — " Where a man brings a bill of re- vivor grounded upon an original bill and proceedings, he needs to set forth no more thereof, and the best draftsmen in the age have, in that case, gone no further than thus : ' That your orator, in or about such a time, exhibited his original bill of complaint in this honorable court to be relieved touching certain matters and things therein contained, as by the said bill duly filed and remain- ing of record in this honorable court appears ' (and carry it no further) ; ' that the defendant such a day put in his answer, as by the said answer remaining of record appears. That witnesses were examined, and the cause being at issue came on to be heard such a day, when it was or- dered and decreed so and so.' And here take in the words of the order- ing part very shortly, and no more than what is material to the revivor." 3 Douglass V. Sherman, 3 Paige, 358; Humphreys v. Incledon, 1 P. Wms. 752. * Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.X §374. ' 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 47. If the defendant in the original bill dies before answering or filing a sufficient answer, the bill of revivor must pray that the person against whom a revivor is sought may an- § 487.] ABATEMENT, EEVITOE AND SUPPLEMENT. 503 ceased party is requisite, it must pray that if the defendant do not admit assets to answer the purposes of the suit the ac- counts may be taken.' If the bill seeks merely to revive the suit, it prays simply for a subpcsna to revive. If it requires an answer, as in the case of a bill against an executor re- quiring him to admit assets, it prays a subpoena to revive and answer.'' A bill of revivor must be signed by counsel.' § 487. Subpoena upon a bill of revivor. — A bill of revivor is filed in the same manner as an original bill, and no applica- tion for leave to file it is necessary.* The subpoena is sued out and served in the same manner as an ordinary subpoena, and is in the same form, except that it states the nature of the bill to which the defendant is required to appear; and pro- swer the original bill. Cooper's Eq. PI. 70, 71 ; Story's Equity Pleading, ^375. » Story's Equity Pleading (lOth ed.), g374 «Mitford's Eq. PL, ch. ], § 3; 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1707. »2 Paniell'a Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1707. Where the complainant has a right to revive a suit, he may add to the bill of revivor such supplemental matter as is proper to be added, by way of supplement merely, in that stage of the case. Pendleton v. Fay 3 Paige, 204 ; Bowie v. Minter, 2 Ala, 406. < Pendleton v. Fay, 3 Paige, 204. United States Equity Rule 56 pro- vides that " whenever a suit in equity shall become abated by the death of either party or by any other event, the same may be revived by a bill of revivor, or a bill in the nature of a bill of revivor, as the circumstances of the case may require, filed by the proper parties entitled to re- vive the same, which bill may be filed in the clerk's office at any time; and upon suggestion of the facts the proper process of sub- poena shall, as of course, be issued by the clerk, requiring the proper rep- resentatives of the other party to ap- pear and show cause, if any they have, why the cause should not be revived. And if no cause shall be shown at the next rule-day, which shall occur after fourteen days from the time of the service of the same process, the suit shall stand revived as of course." United States Revised Statutes, § 955, provide as follows: — "When either of the parties, whether plaint- iff, petitioner, or defendant, dies be- fore final judgment, the executor or administrator may, if the suit sur- vives, pi'oseoute or defend to final judgment. The defendant shall an- swer, and the cause will be heard and determined and judgment rendered for or against the executor or admin- istrator. If the executor or adminis- trator neglects or refuses to become a party twenty days after being served with a scire facias, the court may, nevertheless, render judgment against the deceased party. The ex- ecutor or administrator on becoming a party is entitled to a continuance until the next term." 504 ABATEMENT, REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT. [§ 488. cess of contempt may be issued to compel an appearance.' Service upon the solicitor of the party in the original cause will not be permitted.* § 488. Pleadings and proceedings upon a bill of reTivor. If a bill of revivor does not show a sufficient ground for re- viving the suit or any part of it, either by or against the person by or against whom it is brought, the defendant may, by demurrer, show cause against the revival.' A demurrer will lie for want of privity,* or for want of sufficient interest in the party seeking to revive, or for some imperfection in the frame of the bill." If the bill is unnecessarily or im properly filed, the objection may also be taken by demurrer.' If a bill is brought without sufficient cause to revive, and this fact is Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1 3 Daniell's Ch, 1707. 2 Brown v. Lee, 8 Dick. 645 ; Lee v. Warner, 2 Dick. 546. But see Dunn V. Clark, 8 Pet 1, 2 ; Norton v. Hep- worth, 1 Hall & Twell. 158 ; 1 Fos- ter's Federal Practice (2d ed.), § 96. 3 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 617 et seq.; University College v. Foxcroft, 2 Ch. Rep. 244. An answer may be a waiver of objections. Nan- ney v. Totty, 11 Price, 117, 131. See Harris u Pollard, 3 P. Wms. 348. But if there is no demurrer, and the plaintiff shows no title to revive, he will take nothing by his suit at the hearing. Mitford's Equity Plead- ing, by Jeremy, 202, 289, 290. < Story's Equity Pleading, § 620. "The only questions which can be raised upon a bill of revivor are whether the party in whose name the revival is asked has succeeded to the interests, rights or claims of the de- ceased, or has become the legal rep- resentative of his estate so as to enable him to continue the prosecution of the suit, if not already determined, or to revive it so as to enforce the judg- ment rendered, if not already exe- cuted." Per Justice Field, in Sharon V. Terry (Cal., 1888), 36 Fed. Rep. 887. See, also. Peer v. Cookerow, 14 N. J. Eq. 361, where it was held that an attack upon a judgment in a pro- ceeding to revive it is a collateral at- tack, and can avail only when there is an absolute want of jurisdiction either of the parties or of the subject- matter. ' As in case of a bill of revivor for untaxed costs merely, or by a defend- ant before decree. Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), §§ 620, 621. *Asif the bill fails to make proper parties, or omits to state facts neces- sary to support the revivor. Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), g§ 622-626. 'Pendleton v. Fay, 3 Paige, 204. The mere fact that the time limited by statute for appealing has elapsed since the signing of the decree can- not be urged against a bill of revivor for the purpose of appeal, under a general demurrer for want of equitj'. The matter of limitation must be pleaded, even though the objection appear upon the record. Peer i: Cookerow, 13 N. J. Eq. 136. A bill to revive a suit in equity, founded on a judgment obtained more thHii twenty years before the bill wasfilrd. was dismissed on demurrer. Bird r. Inslee, 23 N. J. Eq. 363. § 488.] ABATEMENT, KEVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. 505 not apparent on the face of the bill, the defendant may plead the matter necessary to show that the complainant is not en- titled to revive the suit against him.* Or, if the complainant is not entitled to revive the suit at all, although a title is stated in the bill, so that the defendant cannot demur, the objection to the complainant's title may be taken by way of plea.* So if a person who is entitled to revive a suit does not proceed in due time, the statute of limitations, if applicable, may be pleaded to a bill of revivor afterwards filed.' Objection for want of proper parties may be taken by plea.* An answer, unless the bill calls for it, is unnecessary and inexpedient;' and where an answer is required, it is open to exceptions for scandal and impertinence, the same as an answer to an orig- inal bill.' An answer must be signed by counsel and filed in the same manner as other answers.' If the answer does not admit the complainant's title to revive, or states any circum- stances which the complainant is desirous of controverting, it must, if the abatement has occurred after decree, or after issue joined in the original cause, be replied to.* Otherwise a separate replication is unnecessary.' If the bill prays merely a revivor, no hearing is necessary, the mere order of revivor 1 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), » Harris v. Pollard, 3 P. Wms. 348 § 829 ; Pendleton v. Fay, 3 Paige, 204. 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1709 •■i Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), Codrington v. Houlditoh, 5 Sim. 286 § 829 ; Pendleton v. Fay, 3 Paige, 204. Lewis v. Bridgman, 2 Sim. 465. No ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), formal replication to an answer to a g 831 ; HoUingshead's Case, 1 P. bill of revivor is required to avoid its Wms. 743. See Egremont v. Hamil- effect as evidence in the cause. New ton, 1 Ball & B. 531 ; Perry v. Jen- defenses set up in an answer to a bill kins, 1 Myl. & Cr. 118 ; Murray v. of revivor cannot be considered, and East India Co., 5 Barn. & Aid. 204 ; no formal replication is necessary to Mason v. Hartford &o. R. Co., 19 avoid its effect as evidence. Fretz v. Fed. Rep. 53. Stover, 22 Wall. 198; Gunnell w Bird, 4 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 10 Wall. 304. § 830; Fallowes v. Williamson, 11 « Nanny v. Totty, 11 Price, 117; Ves. 306 ; Bettes v. Dana, 2 Sumner, Wagstaff v. Bryan, 1 Euss. & My. 28; 383. The general doctrine is that ob- Langley v. Overton, 11 Sim. 805. jections taken to the original bill, or '2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) which might have been taken, can- 1712. not be again made upon a bill of 8 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) revivor, where the original suit is 1718. abated on the death of the plaintiff. 9 Cotton v. Earl of Carlisle, 5 Mad. Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. Rep. 337. 427. 506 ABATEMENT, EEVIVOE ANX> SUPPLEMENT. [§ 489. being effectual in all cases.' Bat if the right to revive is con- tested in the answer, or the bill contains supplemental mat- ter, a hearing must be had, which is brought on in the usual mode.^ If the decision is in favor of the bill, the order pro- nounced will be that the original suit stand revived, and be carried on and prosecuted between the parties to such suit in like manner as between parties to the original suit.' § 489. What renders a suit defective. — If, after the insti- tution of a suit, a person who is a necessary party thereto comes into being, or any other event occurs which, without abating the suit, occasions such an alteration in the interest of any of the original parties, or gives any person not a party such an interest therein, as makes it necessary that a change of interest shall be brought to the attention of the court, and the person not already a party brought before it, the suit is said to become defective.* Under such circumstances the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, is entitled to supply the defect by means of a supplemental bill.* In the federal courts the rule is well settled that " an assignment by a defendant of all his interest in a litigation does not neces- sarily defeat the suit. His assignee pendente lite is bound by what is done against him. The assignee may, at his own elec- tion, come in by an appropriate application and make himself a party so as to assume the burden of the litigation in his own name, or he may act in the name of his assignor. A pendente lite assignment carries with it an ample license by the assignor for the use of his name in the cause by the as- 1 Pruen v. Lunn, 5 Russ. 3. of an executor without stating that 2 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 57 ; it was at his instance, the record not Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 383. showing that he had notice, cannot 3 Day u Potter, 9 Paige, 645 ; Har- support a decree against him. Smith ria V. Pollard, 3 P. Wms. 848. Where v. Bryant, 7 J. J. Marsh. 374. the court overrules a demurrer to a < 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) bill to revive a decree, it should not 1721. As to dismissal of a suit for order the defendant to plead over, failure to perfect the same, see Bolton but it should at once make the proper v. Bolton, 2 Sim. & Stu. 371 ; Hinde order reviving the decree. Nye v. v. Morton, 2 H. & M. 368 ; Adamson Slaughter, 27 Miss. 638. On a bill v. Hall, 1 Turn. & Russ. 358 ; Robin- of revivor there must be an order son v. Norton, 10 Beav. 484. that the bill be revived before final 5 story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), decree. Pickering v. Walcott, 1 Ind. 330 : Greenleaf v. Queen, 1 Pet 138, 362. An order to revive in the name 148. § 490.J ABATEMENT, EEVIVOK AND SUPPLEMENT. 507 signee to perfect the rights assigned. Of this the plaintiffs in the action cannot complain, because the assignee is bound by all that is done whether a party by name or not." ' The rule has elsewhere been stated as follows : — " The general rule is that where an interest in the subject of the suit is ob- tained pendente lite by a stranger to such suit through the force of general laws, such as assignments in bankruptcy and insolvent acts, such stranger must be joined as a party before the proceedings can be carried further. The distinction is between cases of voluntary alienation and cases of involun- tary alienation. In the latter class of cases the assignee must be made a partj^ ; in the former he may or may not at the pleasure of the complainant."^ § 490. General nature of supplemental bills. — " The prov- ince of a supplemental bill is to bring before the court mate- rial matters which have occurred since the original bill was filed; or matters which existed previously (at least for the purpose of a further discovery) when the cause is in that stage in which it cannot be done by amendment; or in a similar state of the cause, to add parties ; or to remedj^ a defect in 1 Waite, C. J., in Ba; parie Railroad Johnson, 11 Johns. 488; Gale v. Ver- Co., 95 U. S. 221, 326. The same rule non, 1 Sandf. 679; Gibson, t;. Green, applies where a party becomes bank- 45 Miss. 209 ; Murray v. Murray, 5 rupt. Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U. S. 521. Johns. Ch. 60 ; Woddail v. Holliday, 2 Davis V. Sullivan, 33 N. J. Eq. 44 Ga. 18 ; Noonan v. Orton, 34 Wis. 569, 573, citing Story's Equity 359 ; Fellovcs v. Hall, 3 McLean, 487 ; Pleading, § 342. See Mount v. Man- Hecht v. Wassell, 27 Ark. 412 ; Stone hattan Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 26: Sedg- v. Brookville Bank, 39 Ind. 284. virick V. Cleveland, 7 Paige, 387, Many cases on the subject are cited where Chancellor Walworth dis- by the reporter in a note to Ester- cusses extensively and minutely the brook &c. Manuf. Co. v. Ahern, 30 effect of the bankruptcy or insolv- N. J. Eq. 341. A plaintiff in a bill ency of a party to the suit ; Garr v. to redeem who conveys his interest Gomez, 9 Wend. 649; Zane v. Flint, in the land pendente lite is not en- 18 West Va. 693 ; Springer v. Vander- titled to a decree. Johnson v. Thomp- pool, 4 Edw. Ch. 362 ; Hathaway v. son. 139 Mass. 398. " The principle is Scott, 11 Paige, 173; Storm i". Dav- elementary that a complainant suing enport, 1 Sandf. Ch. 135 ; Anon., 10 in his own right, and alone, cannot, Paige, 20 ; Mills v. Hoag, 7 Paige, after he has parted with his whole 18 ; Scouten v. Bender, 1 Barb. Ch. interest in the subject-matter of the 647 ; Johnson v. Fitzhugh, 3 Barb, litigation, further prosecute the ac- Ch. 860; Penniman v. Norton, 1 tion." Fulton u Greeacen, 44 N.J. Barb. Ch. 246 ; Lenihan v. Hamann, Eq. 443, 446. 14 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 274 ; Raymond v. 508 ABATEMENT, BEVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. [§ 491. the prayer of the original bill." ' It may be filed after as well as before a decree," and on behalf of a defendant.' It is merely an addition to and continuation of the original suit.* Subpoe- nas in the original suit should be served before a supplemental bill is filed.' It is too late to file a supplemental bill after a dismissal of the original bill ; ' but permission may be reserved in the decree of dismissal.' A supplemental bill is used to state new matter and not to set forth a mere discovery of further evidence.' § 491. Petition instead of supplemental bill. — In New Jersey the practice of applying to be made a party defend- ant by petition instead of by supplemental bill is specially authorized by statute in certain cases, and the courts have shown a disposition to extend it further where there is no good reason against it. Thus it was held that a subsequent incumbrancer may be admitted as a party by petition in a fore- closure suit.' In Massachusetts, where the statute provides 111. 516: 1 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 393. See United States Equity Rule 57. 2 Woodward v Woodward, 1 Dick. 33 ; Jenkins v. Eldridge, 3 Story (C. C), 307 ; Boeve v. Skipwith, 1 Eq. Gas. Abr. 80 ; Dormer v. Fortescue, 3 Atk. 124 ; Jones v. Jones, 3 Atk. 110 ; Crop- per V. Knapman, 2 Y. & Coll. 338 ; Simmons v. Gutteridge, 13 Ves. 263. Or after the appellate court has re- manded the cause for further pro- ceedings. Greer v. Turner, 36 Ark. 17. But it must not seek to vary the prin- ciples of the decrea O'Hara v. Shep- herd, 3 Md. Ch. 306. 3 Story's Equity Pleading (lOth ed.), 837 ; Baker v. Whiting, 1 Story (C. C), 318 ; Barrington v. O'Brien, 2 Ball & B. 140; Standish v. Eadley, 2 Atk. 177 ; Gould v. Tancred, 2 Atk. 533. * Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), g 333 ; Milner v. Milner, 2 Edw. Ch. 114. One who was a solicitor or counsel in the original suit cannot act as a master in proceedings on the supplemental bill. M'Laren v. Char- rier, 5 Paige, 530. » Outwater v. Berry, 6 N. J. Eq. 68. 6 Emory v. Keighan, 88 Burke v. Smith, 15 111. 158. ' Allen V. Allen, 3 Tenn. Ch. 145. 6 North American Coal Co. v. Dyeit, 3 Edw. Ch. 115 ; Atwood v. Shenan- doah, 85 Va. 966 ; s. c, 9 S. E. Rep. 748 ; Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story, 299. 9 Leveridge v. Marsh, 30 N. J. Eq. 59, 60. The subject of admitting new parties is treated in the sections on " Intervention " in chapter XVII, infra. In Hoppock v. Cray (N. J. Ch.), 21 Atl. Rep. 624, Vice-chanceUor Bu-d said : — " There can be no doubt that in many cases where irregular- ity in the proceedings in a cause is to be brought to the attention of the court it may be done by petition. Such has been the practice in several instances in this State ; but my un- derstanding of the rule is that when new matter is introduced, which has had its origin since the filing of the bill, and with which third parties have been connected, who should or properly may be made parties to the further proceeding, then a supple- mental bill is not only proper but § 492.] ABATEMENT, REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT. 509 that a new trustee shall have and exercise the same rights and duties as if originally appointed, he may be admitted on his own petition to prosecute a bill in equity filed by his prede- cessor to recover the trust estate.' § 492. Supplemental bill not a substitute for amend- ment. — A supplemental bill (strictly so called) is, in the first place, proper whenever the imperfection in the original bill arises from the omission of some material fact which existed before the filing of the bill, but the time has passed in which it can be introduced into the bill by an amendment.* But whenever the same end may be obtained by an amendment the court will not permit a supplemental bill to be filed.' So where, according to the modern practice, matter arising since the original bill was filed but before answer may be inserted in the bill by amendment, it cannot, if known in time to be inserted, be brought into the suit by supplemental bill.^ justified by the best authorities." Salinas v. Pearsall, 24 S. C. 179, af- firms the general rule that new mat- ter cannot be introduced by petition. 'Murray v. Dehon, 102 Mass. 11. Where trustees are changed pending a suit against the trust fund, if the presence of the new trustees is neces- sary or desirable, a supplemental bill is required. North American Coal Co. V. Dyett, 2 Edw. Ch. 115. See, also. King v. Donnelly, 5 Paige, 46. So where a personal decree is sought against a purchaser pendente lite. Livingston v. Freeland, 3 Barb. Ch. 510. Where an alleged settlement of a case pending proceedings in the same is presented to the court by pe- tition of one of the parties, and a hearing is had thereon without ob- jection by the adverse party that the matter should be set up by supple- mental bill, the court will not set aside a decree made upon the facta proved. Cedar Valley L. & C. Co. v. Coburn, 29 Fed. Rep. 586. 2 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), tj 333 ; Veazie v. Williams, 3 Story, 54 ; Dodge v. Dodge, 29 N. H. 177 ; Stafford v. Hewlett, 1 Paige, 200. 3 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 333; Murray v. King, 5 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 233; Stafford v. Howlett, 1 Paige, 200. To defeat a supple- mental bill " it is suflBcient if it ap- pears that the facts sought to be set up by way of a supplemental bill were known in time to have been presented by way of amendment to the original bill. It is not enough that they were not known when the original bill was filed." McCrary, J., in Mosgrove v. Kountze, 14 Fed. Eep. 315, 316, 317. * Henry v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 299, where the original bill alleged that the defendant was about to sell certain stocks delivered to it as collateral security for money loaned to the plaintiffs and prayed a full accounting and injunction against the threatened sale, and that in case any sales were made before final hearing they might be declared void. After an account had been taken the plaintiffs filed a supple- 510 ABATEMENT, EEVI70R AND SUPPLEMENT. [§ 493. § 493. Use of supplemental bills illustrated. — Where an original bill was properly filed by a guardian to reach the property of the defendant after the return of an execution unsatisfied, it was held that a supplemental bill was proper to reach subsequently acquired property to satisfy the same debt.' A purchaser of the right of one of the parties to a suit pending the litigation will not, without the consent of the other parties to the suit, be permitted to come in and take a part in the proceedings in the cause, unless he makes himself a party by filing a supplemental bill.^ Where, on a bill to re- deem a mortgage and for an account from the mortgagee in possession, the latter answered that he had assigned the mort- gage to a person named, the cause was ordered to stand over without cost (the assignment being unrecorded), with leave to the complainant to file a supplemental bill to bring in the assignee.' A general creditor having filed his bill for relief, and having subsequently obtained judgment and execution at law, is not entitled to relief upon his original bill, though a decree ^ro confesso be taken against the defendant. A supple- mental bill should be filed stating the facts which entitle him to relief.* Where a bill has been filed by creditors to subject the land of a decedent to the payment of his debts, and it is discovered before the termination of the suit that some other mental bill alleging that a sale had plemental bill for the mere purpose been made and praying damages. It of putting in issue new matters was held that as the plaintiffs knew which might have been introduced all the facts connected with the sale into the original bill by way of before the defendant answered, this aniendrapnt, although the new facts new matter should have been brought were not known to the complainant in by amendment. Moreover, the until after the cause was at issue on proceeds of the sale were taken into the original bill. The proper course consideration in the accounting, and for the complainant, where the at the hearing there were no excep- proofs have not yet been taken, is to tions to the master's report, and the apply for leave to withdraw his rep- supplemental bill was filed moi-e than lication and to amend. Dias v. Merle, five years after the plaintiffs had no- 4 Paige, 259. tice of the sale and several months i Eager v. Piioe, 8 Paige, 334. after final decree. The supplemental 2 "Wilder v. Keeler, 3 Paige, 164. bill was dismissed on demurrer. See Watt u Crawford, 11 Paige, 470; Where no occurrence has taken place § 489, supra. to change the rights of the parties ' Fritz u Simpson, 34 N. J. Eq. 436. subsequent to the commencement of ■• Edgar v. Clevenger, 3 N. J. Eq. the suit, the complainant cannot, 258; Candler v. Pettit, 1 Paige, 168. after the cause is at issue, file a sup- § 4:94.] ABATEMENT, EEVIVOK AND SUPPLEMENT. 511 person has an interest in the land who had not been made a party to the suit, he may be brought before the court by a supplemental bill.' In an action by a wife for her share of the community property, plaintiff was properly allowed to file a supplemental petition alleging that a certain house, standing in the name of another, was in fact defendant's property.^ A complainant to whom a mortgage has been assigned as secu- rity for a specific debt can only have a decree for that debt, although pending the foreclosure suit the whole mortgage is absolutely assigned to him. His remedy for the residue must be by supplemental bill or petition for surplus should the premises be sold.' After the filing of a bill a decree in an- other suit between the same parties settled part of the matter in controversy, and it was held to be properly set up by way of supplemental bill, being in support of the relief originally prayed for.* Upon the hearing of a cause if it appears that all the proper parties are not before the court, the complain- ant may be permitted to file a supplemental bill to bring in the necessary parties.' In strict practice a complainant is put to his supplemental bill and a defendant to his own cross-bill, to raise a defense, arising pendente lite, against a co-defendant." §494. The same subject continued. — "When new events or new matters have occurred since the filing of the original bill, a supplemental bill is in many cases the proper mode of bringing them before the court.' Thus, where a mortgagor filed a bill for an accounting on the mortgage note, and sub- i Robertson n Winchester, 85 Tenn. ' Underbill v. Atwater, 22 N. J. 171 ; s. c 1 S. W. Rep. 781. "Notb- Eq. 17. ing is more usual than to file a sup- * Jenkins v. International Bank, 127 plemental bill for the purpose of U. S. 484. bringing a new party before the 'Jenkins r. Freyer, 4 Paige, 47. court." Greenwood v. Atkinson, 5 ^ " It is true that a departure from Sim. 419, 423. When a supplemental the earlier practice enables a defend- bill is filed bringing new parties into anl without cross-bill to attack a co- court it is as to them a new suit, and defendant ; but the rule has never is to be considered as being com- been so far relaxed as to permit iiienced when the supplemental bill matter happening after the institu- is filed in ofiice. Morgan v. Morgan, tiou of the suit to be put in evidence 10 Ga. 297. without a supplemental or cross-bill." ^McCaflfrey t?. Benson, 40 La. Ann. National Bank d. Sprague, 21 N.J. 10 ; s. c. 3 So. Rep. 393. Eq. 530, 533. 7 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 512 ABATEMENT, REVIVOR AND SUPPLKllhNT. [§ 495. sequently tendered the mortgagee a certain sum in discharge of the mortgage, which the mortgagee received, but then de- clined to satisfy the mortgage, it vi'as held that the plaintiff could only bring in this new^ matter by supplemental bill in order to obtain the relief to which it entitled him.' " Wher- ever a party is permitted to file a supplemental bill for the purpose of introducing matters which have arisen since the filing of the original bill, the court will also give to the com- plainant permission to introduce other matters into the sup- plemental bill which might have been introduced by way of amendment to the first bill." " § 495. Making a new case by snppleniental bill. — A new case cannot be introduced by a supplemental bill which has not a near relation to or a natural connection with the orig- inal bill and where the relief is not a modification or enlarge- ment of that originally sought.' Thus where a bill sought relief against defendants as a partnership, a supplemental bill S 336 ; Burke v. Smith, 15 111. 158 : Cedar Valley L. & C. Co. v. CobuiD, 39 Fed. Rep. 586 ; Hoppock v. Cray (N. J. Ch.), 21 Atl. Rep. 624. Es- pecially where the practice of the court does not allow such matter to be inserted by amendment Collins V. Lavenberg, 19 Ala. 682; Barringer V. Burke, 21 Ala. 765. It was said in Allen V. Taylor, 8 N. J. Eq. 435, that a strictly supplemental bill is always founded on facts that have occurred since the filing of the original bill. "The more general and approved practice is, as we understand it. that if the defendant has discovered any new matter of which he would avail himself, or when any event happens subsequent to filing an original bill which gives a new interest or riglit to a party, it should be set out in a supplemental bill." Gove v. Lyford, 44 N. H. 525, citing Saunders v. Frost, 5 Pick. 279 ; Eastman v. Batch- elder, 36 N. a 154. When a com- plainant would assert matter which arose after the cause is at issue as a defense to a defendant's cross-bill, the proper mode is to file a supple- mental bill. Jenkins v. International Bank, 111 111. 462, 470. After a rep- lication has been filed, and an order of reference obtained, a plaintiff can- not file a supplemental bill to bring before the court facts known to him before the filing of the replication. Dias V. Merle, 4 Paige, 259. See § 492, n. 4, at p. 510, supra. A sup- plemental bill based on newly-dis- covered matter should always be filed as soon as practicable after the mat- ter is discovered. Henry v. Travel- ers' Ins. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 299 ; Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 338. 1 Fisher v. Holden (Mich.), 47 N. W. Rep. 1068. 2 Chancellor Walworth in Stafford V. Hewlett, 1 Paige, 200, 201. 3 Maynard v. Green, 30 Fed. Rep. 643; Milwaukee &c. R Co. v. Mil- waukee & St Paul R. Co., 6 Wall. 743 ; Turner v. Pierce, 31 Wis. 342 ; Ledwith v. Jacksonville (Fla., 1893). 13 So. Rep. 455. See Pinch r. An- thony, 10 Allen, 470, 477. § 496.] ABATEMENT, EBVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. 513 seeking entirely distinct relief against them as a corporation was not allowed.' But where a bill was brought to foreclose securities pledged to secure certain notes, and a supplemental bill was filed in the suit setting up that, pending the suit, an accounting had been decreed between the parties, and a cer- tain sura found due on the notes, it was held that the supple- raental bill did not state a different cause of action from the original bill, since the debt was the same, though the evidence of it had been changed from notes to a decree.^ So where the original bill asked for a balance due on account and for general relief, there was no departure in a supplemental bill asking for the balance due on the account, or for that amount as damages for an alleged fraud.' § 496. The same subject contiaued. — A complainant who has no cause of action at the time of filing his original bill cannot maintain a supplemental bill upon a cause of action that accrued thereafter, even though it arose out of the same transaction that was the subject of the original bill.* Nor is the objection waived by the failure of the defendant to raise it by demurrer. It may be insisted upon at the hearing where the evidence discloses the facts.' But where the origi- nal bill is founded on an existing cause of action, the objection 1 Maynard v. Green, 30 Fed Bep. 760. See, also, Hill v. Hill, 10 Ala. 643. 537; Vaughan v. Vaughan, 30 Ala. 2 Jenkins v. International Bank, 380, 334. But c/. Gillett v. Hall, 13 111 111. 463. See, also. Gage v. Par- Conn. 486, where it was held that ker, 103 111. 538. when a supplemental bill has been ' Grabenheimer v. Blum, 63 Tex. properly allowed and Sled, it becomes 369. a part of the original bill in such a *Stranghan v. Hall wood, 30 West sense that if the jurisdiction of the Va. 374, 391 ; s. C, 4 S. E. Rep. 394 Pinch V. Anthony, 10 Allen. 470, 477 ; Winn v. Albert, 3 Md. Ch. 43 Milner v. Milner, 3 Edw. Ch. 114 Crump V. Perkins, 18 Fla. 353, 360 court could not be supported on the original bill, but can on the supple- mental bill, it will be supported as to both taken together. 5 Stranghan v. Hallwood, 30 West Candler v. Pettit, 1 Paige, 168 ; Edgar Va. 374. 291 ; S. C, 4 S. E. Rep. 394 ; V. Clevenger, 3 N. J. Eq. 859 ; Bannon Butchers' & Drovers' Bank v. Willis, V. Comegys, 69 Md. 411 ; Evans v. 1 Edw. Ch. 645. In New York the Bagshaw, L. R. 8 Eq. 469, 471 ; God- objection was held too late on ap- frey v. Tucker, 33 Beav. 385 ; Fahs peal. Luft v. Manhattan R. Co., 14 V. Roberts, 54 111. 193; Miller v. Cook, N. Y. Supl. 876; Preusser v. Stock- 135 111. 190 ; S. a, 25 N. E. Rep. 756, ton, 14 N. Y. Supl. 876. 33 514 ABATEMENT, EEVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. [§§ 497, 498. that the supplemental bill introduces a new cause may be waived by omitting to demur and consenting to a hearing.' § 497. Supplemental bills inconsistent with original. — A supplemental bill should not be allowed where it makes a case in utter and irreconcilable conflict with the grounds on which the original bill was based.^ A supplemental bill for an accounting between partners will not be allowed if it makes a case antagonistic to that made by the original bill, and this though it be based on facts occurring after the filing of the original bill.' A bill was filed claiming under an exe- cution of a power to sell contained in a will, which proved defective, and praying an injunction upon a judgment for land recovered by the heirs. It was held that a supplemental bill, charging that since the filing of the original the defect in the will had been supplied, overruled the original bill.* § 498. Retaining original bills to permit supplemental bills. — If an original bill be sustainable on any ground, even for the purpose of granting temporary relief, the court hav- ing possession of the case may hold it for the more general and important purposes, and will permit the complainant to file a supplemental bill if the facts warrant it.' Thus a mortgagee having filed a bill before the debt became due, for an injunction against waste, may file a supplemental bill for foreclosure after the debt is due.* And where a bill was insufiBcient to support the relief prayed for solely by rea- 1 Pinch V. Anthony, 10 Allen, 471 ; Hallwood, 30 West Va. 274 ; s. c, 4 Crump V. Perkins, 18 Fla. 353,360; S. E. Rep. 394, dismissing at the Pingree v. Coffin, 12 Gray, 888, 338 ; hearing a bill filed by leave of the Underbill v. Van Cortlandt, 2 Johns, court. Ch. 369. ' Maynard v. Green. 80 Fed. Rep. * "In such a case the court, at the 643. In Leonard v. Cook (N. J. Ch.X hearing, might give to the statements SI Atl. Rep. 47, on a complicated and grounds set out in the original state of facts, the original and sup- bill a liberal construction, so as to plemental bills were held to be so reconcile them, and might not refuse inconsistent as to destroy the com- the plaintiffs relief simply because plainant's standing in court some of the statements of the sup- * Sanderlin v. Thompson, 3 Dev. plemental bill were in conflict with Eq. (N. C.) 539. statements in the original bill. Cho- ' Edgar v. Clevenger, 3 N. J. Eq. teau V. Rice, 1 Minn. 106. But it 259. could do no more.'' Stranghan v. ^ Allen v. Taylor, 3 N. J. Eq. 435. §§ 499, 500.] ABATEMENT, EEVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. 515 son of want of a certain notice to the defendant, it was re- tained to allow the complainant to give the requisite notice and file a supplemental bill.' If the original bill is sufiicient for one kind of relief, and facts afterwards occur which en- title the complainant to other or more extensive relief, he may have such relief by setting out the new matter in a sup- plemental bill.^ i5 499. Title of complainant in a supplemental bill. — To entitle the plaintiff to file a supplemental bill and thereby to obtain the benefit of the former proceedings, it must be in re- spect to the same title, in the same person, as stated in the original bill.' Thus, if a person should file an original bill to redeem as heir at law of the mortgagor, and it should turn out upon an issue and hearing of the cause that he is not the heir at law, and he afterwards purchases the title of the true heir at law, he cannot file a supplemental bill to have the bene- fit of the former proceedings ; for he claims by a different title from that asserted in the original bill. His true course would be to file an original bill.* §500. Leave to file a supplemental bill. — As a general rule it is irregular for a complainant to file a supplemental bill without first obtaining leave from the court,' especially 1 Duffield V. Brainerd, 45 Conn. 425, § 333, note a; 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. 430. See, also. Hunter v. Hallett, 1 (2ded.)73; Buckingham u Corning, Edw. Ch. 388, 893, where the cause 29 N. J. Eq. 238 ; Walker v. Hallett, was suffered to stand over to allow 1 Ala. 379 ; Allen v. Taylor, 3 N. J. the complainant, a surviving hus- Eq. 435 ; Kimble v. Seal, 93 Ind. 376 ; band, to take out letters of adminis- Winn v. Albert, 3 Md. Ch. 42 ; Secor tration. v. Singleton, 41 Fed. Rep. 725 ; Bowie 2 Candler v. Pettit, 1 Paige, 168. v. Minter, 2 Ala. 406 ; Ashuelot R 3 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), Co. v. Cheshire R. Co., 59 N. H. 409 ; g 339. See, also, Ralston v. Sharon, Tappan v. Evans, 13 N. H. 330 ; Gove 51 Fed. Rep. 703. v. Lyford, 44 N. H. 525; Pedrick v. 4 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.). White, 1 Met. 76 ; Edmonds v. Robin- g 339 ; Tonkin v. Lethbridge, Cooper, son, 39 Ch. D. 170 ; United States 43 ; Oldham v. Eboral, 1 Cooper's Sel. Equity Rule 57. See § 504. note 9, Oas. 37 ; Rylands v. Latouche, 3 infra. Leave may be implied, as by Bligh, 566 ; Pilkington v. Wignall, 3 an order granting an injunction Mad. 240; Bannon v. Comegys, 69 asked for in the supplemental bill. Md. 411. Eager v. Price, 2 Paige, 334 In Mil- 5 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (3d ed) 403; ler u Clark, 49 Fed. Rep. 695, it seems Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), that a supplemental bill was filed 516 ABATEMENT, EEVITOK AND SUPPLEMENT. [§§ 501, 502. where a decree has been entered,' or it is sought to change the issue raised by the original bill.^ If a supplemental bill becomes necessary in conjunction with a bill of revivor, an application need not be made to the court.' An order grant- ing leave to file a supplemental bill is not to be treated as an adjudication upon its sufficiency; that question is to be deter- mined in the usual way/ § 601. Application for leave. — An order granting leave to file a supplemental bill may generally be made upon an ex pa/rte application.* But notice is necessary where the complainant asks for a preliminary injunction or some other special relief upon the matter of the supplementary bill, previous to the appearance of the defendant thereto.* The application should be by petition ' stating the relief sought by the original bill, the new matters which have occurred, and pra3'ing leave to ex- hibit a supplemental bill to set them forth, with all proper cir- cumstances and explanations, and to pray such relief upon them as the petitioner may be advised he is entitled to.' §602. The same subject continued — Hearing on peti- tion — Exercise of discretion. — Leave to file a supplemental bill is granted much as of course if probable cause for filing it without leave and not objected to visions of the New York code, it has on that ground. been held that an order on an •Tappan v. Evans, 12 N. H. 330; ex parte application is improper. Perry v. Philips, 17 Ves. 178. Fleischmann «. Bennett, 79 N. Y. 579. 2 Ashuelot &a R Co. v. Cheshire 'Lawrence v. Bolton, 8 Paige, 294^ R Co., 59 N. H. 409 ; Cololough v. In a doubtful case the court may di- Evans, 4 Sim. 76 ; Jones v. Jones, 3 rect notice, although the defendant Atk. 110 ; Crompton v. Wombwell, 4 has appeared. Eager v. Price, 2 Sim. 638. Paige, 334. 3 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 404 ; ' HoflEman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 403. Pendleton v. Fay, 3 Paige, 106 ; Utica See, also, Parkhurst v. Kinsman, 2 Ins. Co. V. Lynch, 3 Paige, 210. See Blatch. 72. Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2ded.) g 486, n. 3, at p. 503, supra. 74, says it may be made by motion * Turner v. Pierce, 31 Wis. 342. or petition. 6 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 403; « Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 403. Eager v. Price, 2 Paige, 334 ; Walker The averments of the proposed bill V. Hallett, 1 Ala, 379. But United need not be set out, but only the States Equity Eule 57 requires " due ground of relief sought Parkhurst notice to the other party." And r. Kinsman, 3 Blatch. 73. notwithstanding the mandatory pro- §§ 503, 504. J ABATEMENT, BEVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. 517 is shown.' Ordinarily the court examines the question only so far as to see that it is not intended for deky or vexation,* in which case it will as of course refuse leave.' The practice of dealing with such applications under the rule in the federal courts has always been liberal to the applicant. Objections which may more properly be raised by demurrer will not be considered, and grave doubts of the complainant's right to the relief prayed for are not decisive against granting leave.* In one case a delay of two months after the complainant becam o aware of the necessity of filing the bill was held not unrea- sonable under the circumstances." Where the defendant filed an answer and took no further step in the cause for twenty- three years, leave to file a supplemental bill was refused.* § 503. Discretion of the court not reviewable. — The ap- plication to file a supplemental bill, like an application to amend, is ordinarily addressed to the discretion of the court, the exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal.' Under the present system in l^ew York it was said by the court of appeals to be " well settled that an order allowing or refusing leave to serve a supplemental complaint is a matter within the discretion of the Supreme Court, as that discretion may finally be exercised by the general term, and it is not the sub- ject of review in this court." ' § 604. Effect of filing without leave. — Where a supple- mental bill has been filed without leave and no objection is taken, it will be considered as waived by a voluntary appear- ance and demurrer by the defendant;' although the court ' Eager v. Price, 2 Paige, 333 ; 465. See, also, in respect of delay. Walker v. Hallett, 1 Ala. 879. See, Ashuelot E. Co. v. Cheshire R. Co., however, Fleischmann v. Bennett, 79 59 N. H. 409. N. Y. 579; Graves v. Miles, Harring. 'Turner v. Berry, 8 111. 541, — "al- Ch. 333. though not universally so," said the * Eager v. Price, 3 Paige, 33. court The general rule, as stated, 5 Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 would probably be followed in the Sandf. Ch. 369. federal courts. See § 437, supra. * Oregon & Trans. Co. v. Northern 8 Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Bankers' Pac. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 438. The &c. Tel. Co., 109 N. Y. 343, citing rule referred to is Equity Rule 57. Fleischmann v. Bennett, 79 N. Y. 579. 5 Miller I). Clark, 49 Fed. Rep. 695. 9 Allen v. Taylor, 3 N. J. Eq. 435. 6 Woodroflf V. Brugh, 6 N. J. Eq. The objection is not a ground of de- 518 ABATEMENT, EBVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. [§ 505. may, in its discretion, dismiss it on that ground.* So if the defendant answers the supplemental bill he cannot take the objection of irregularity at the hearing.^ § 506. Frame of a supplemental bill. — A supplemental bill must state the original bill and the proceedings thereon -, and if the supplemental bill is occasioned by an event subse- quent to the original bill, it must state that event and the consequent alteration with respect to the parties.' It is not the practice to reiterate substantively in a supplemental bill all the charges of the original bill, but to set them out by way of reference and charge the new and additional facts by way of supplement.'' "You may in the supplemental bill state that you made such a representation in the former bill instead of representing the facts in the second bill." ^ Even where a supplemental bill is filed against a new defendant it is not necessary to state more of the case than is sufficient to show an equity against him.' A supplemental bill to per- petuate testimony'' upon the discovery of new facts after filing the original bill must state what the facts are.' The prayer murrer but for a motion to dismiss, forth any of the statements in the which rests in discretion. Henry v. original suit unless the special cir- Travelers' Ins. Co., 45 Fed. Eep. 299, cumstances of the case require it" 303 ; Mackintosh v. Flint &c. R Co., This is a copy of the English Order 47 34 Fed. Eep. 583 ; Secor v. Singleton, in Chancery, of August, 1841, which 41 Fed. Rep. 725. See, also, Bowie v. was simply a re-affirmance of the Minter, 2 Ala. 406 ; Hyer v. Caro, 17 pre-existing practice. 1 Foster's Fed- Fla. 333. eral Practice (2d ed.), § 188. But if 1 Barriclo v. Trenton Mut &c. Ins. it sets out the allegations in full, it Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 155. See, also, cases is not open to demurrer. Johnson u. cited in the preceding note. Snyder, 7 How. Pr. 395. 2 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 405; » Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 37. See, Walker v. Hallett, 1 Ala. 379 ; Bel- also, Baldwin v. Mackown, 3 Atk. cher V. Pearson, Rolls, July 13, 1782, 817. Misrecitals of the allegations cited in Mitford, 234. A party in con- in the original bill cannot change tempt cannot object after final de- the character of the relief sought by cree. Walker v. Hallett, supra, the latter. Both are taken as consti- ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), tuting but one bill. Potier v. Bar- g 343 ; Mitford's Eq. PI., by Jeremy, 76. clay, 15 Ala, 439. * Edgar v. Clevenger, 3 N. J. Eq. « Vigers v. Lord Audley, 9 Sim. 73. 464 ; Vigers v. Lord Audley, 9 Sim. ' Knight v. Knight, 4 Mad. 1. See 73. United States Equity Rule 58 Attorney-General v. Fishmongers' provides that " it shall not be neces- Co., 4 My. & Craig, 1. sary in any supplemental bill to set g§ 506, 507.] ABATEMENT, EEVIVOB AND SUPPLEMENT. 519 of a supplemental bill must be adapted to the object for which it is exhibited ; and it always concludes with praying the process of the court in the usual form.' It should also be signed by counsel.^ § 506. Parties to supplemental bills. — Where a supple- mental bill is filed for the mere purpose of bringing a party before the court upon the original facts appearing upon the record, it is only necessary to make him a defendant in such bill.' But where the purpose is to bring new matter before the court based upon new facts, all of the original parties should be made parties to the supplemental bill/ except a merely formal party to the original bill whose rights or in- terests are not affected by the new matter.' "Where a person acquires the interest of a party in the suit pendente lite, and thereupon files a supplemental bill, he must make all the par- ties to the original bill, whether complainants or defendants, parties to his supplemental bill." In the federal courts a sup- plemental bill may be maintained without regard to the citi- zenship of the parties thereto.' § 507. Process upon supplemental bills. — If a party to the original bill does not voluntarily appear to a supplemental bill, the complainant must proceed by subpoena to compel an appearance to the same.' A different rule obtains in the fed- 1 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1680. But see Bignall v. Atkins, 6 Mad. 369, and Shaw V. Bill, 95 U. S. 10, holding cases cited in the first note to this that no subpoena need be issued section. It is too late at the hearing against parties to the original bill. to object for want of parties. Jones » 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) v. Jones, 3 Atk. 217. 1680. 8 Borst v. Eoyd, 8 Sandf. Ch. 503. 3 Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Seymour, See, also, Feary v. Stephenson, 1 9 Paige, 538 ; Ensworth v. Lambert, Beav. 43. 4 Johns. Ch. 605 ; M'Gown v. Yerks, 6 ' § 35, supra; Miller v. Rogers, 29 Johns. Ch. 450; Brown v. Martin, Fed. Rep. 401. See, also, Omaha 3 Atk. 317 ; Dyson v, Morris, 1 Hare, Horse Ry. Co. v. Cable Tramway 418 ; Wilkinson v. Fowkes, 9 Hare, Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 689 ; Adams Ex- 193 ; Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 404. press Co. v. Denver &c. Ry. Co., 16 * Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Seymour, Fed. Rep. 712 ; §§ 34, 35, supra, on 9 Paige, 538 ; Blunt v. Hay, 4 Sandf. ancillary jurisdiction generally. Ch. 863 ; Jones v. Jones, 3 Atk. 317 ; «2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 74 ; Jones V. Howells, 3 Hare, 342. Lawrence i>. Bolton, 3 Paige, 294, ^ Allen V. Taylor, 8 N. J. Eq. 435; holding, however that the irregu- 620 ABATEMENT, KEVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. [§ 508. eral courts. There no process of subpoena is necessary unless new parties are brought in. A rule upon parties already served to answer the supplemental bill is suflBcient.* §608. Proceedings on supplemental bills — Demurrers and pleas. — If it appears upon the face of the supplemental bill that the whole of the matters charged therein arose pre- vious to the commencement of the suit, and that the situation of the cause was such that they might have been inserted in the original bill by amendment, the defendant may demur.^ But if it does not distinctly appear by the supplemental bill that the new matters charged therein arose before the filing of the original bill, the defendant can only take advantage of the irregularity by a plea alleging the fact.* If a supple- mental bill is filed without any sufiicient grounds, the defend- ant may demur.* An objection that the supplemental bill states a new and distinct cause of action should be made by demurrer, and is waived by going to a hearing before the master upon the merits.' The defendant may demur to a supplemental bill claiming the same matter as in the original bill, but upon a title totally distinct.' And so where the sup- plemental bill is filed upon matter arising subsequent to the time of filing the original bill, against a person who claims no interest out of the matters in litigation by the former bill, such person may demur.' Demurrers and pleas to supple- mental bills are subject to the same rules, both with respect larity of omitting to take out a sub- mental bill is filed in the clerk's pcena is waived where the defendant office, unless some other time shall be applies for further time to answer. assigned by a judge of the court" 1 Shaw V. Bill, 95 H S. 10. See ' Stafford v. Hewlett, 1 Paige, 200. French v. Stewart, 23 WalL 238. ♦Lawrence v. Bolton, 3 Paige, 294 ; 2 Stafford u.Howlett (1828), 1 Paige, Milner v. Harewood, 17 Ves. 143; 200, 201 ; Colclough v. Evans, 4 Sim. Fulton Bank v. New York &c. Canal 76 ; Henry v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 45 Co., 4 Paige, 127, holding that the Fed. Rep. 299. The objection comes objection may be taken by demurrer, too late at the hearing. Lewellen v. plea or answer, but comes too late at Maokwortb, 2 Atk. 40 ; McElwain v. the hearing. But see, on the latter Willis, 8 Paige, 505. United States point. Eager v. Price, 2 Paige, 334. Equity Rule 57 provides that if leave " Pinch v. Anthony, 10 Allen, 471. is granted to file a supplemental bill * Tonkin v. Lethbridge, Cooper, 88. "the defendant shall demur, plead '2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 76. or answer thereto on the next sue- See, also, Baldwin v. Mackown, 3 ceeding rule-day after the supple- Atk. 817. §§ 509, 510.] ABATEMENT, REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT. 521 to their form and substance, and to the practice arising upon them, as demurrers and pleas to original bills.' § 609. The same subject continued — Answer. — The form of an answer to a supplemental bill and the manner of putting it in, etc., are the same as in the case of an answer to the original bill, and are subject to the same contingencies.* If there is matter properly subject to demurrer or plea the defendant may by his answer claim the same benefit of it as if he had set it up by demurrer or plea.' Where a defendant to a supplemental bill is called upon to answer the original bill at the same time that he answers the supplemental mat- ter, the usual course is to include the answer to both bills in the same pleading;* but it is not absolutely irregular to sepa- rate them.' After the answer has been put in and the proceed- ings on the supplemental bill have arrived at the same point at which the original bill stood, they then proceed pari passu, together.' When the two suits proceed as one cause, orders and papers are entitled " A. B., complainant ; C. P. and E. F., respondents — by original and supplemental bills." ' If no proof is made of the supplemental matter the bill will be dismissed at the hearing.* Where a supplemental bill is filed before a decree on the original bill, both bills are heard to- gether ; if after a decree, then the cause is heard upon the supplemental bill only.' § 610. The same subject continued — Replication and evidence. — A replication may be filed by the complainant in a supplemental suit to the defendant's answer, if one is put in, in the same manner as in the case of an original suit. But a separate replication in a supplemental suit is only necessary iSDaniell's Ch. Pr. {2d Am. ed.) ' John u. Brown, Seaton on Decrees, 1681, 1683; Secor v. Singleton, 41 385. Fed. Rep. 725. SBagnal v. Bagnal, 2 Eq. AU 178; 2 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 78; 2 s. c, 6 Bro. P. C. 86. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1681, 9 Adams v. Dowding, 2 Mod. 61. 1682. Where the two causes are heard to- 3 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 78. gether the decree is in form, " that * Vigers v. Loi'd Audley, 9 Sim. 408. it is in the original cause ordered, ' Sayle v. Graham, 5 Sim. & etc., and on the supplemental bill it 'Lube's Eq. PI. 138. is ordered, etc." Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 406. 522 ABATEMENT, EEVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. [§511. where there has been already a replication in the original suit. "Where there has been no replication in the original suit, a general replication will apply to the whole record and not merely to the original bill.* A supplemental suit being merely a continuation of the original, whatever evidence was properly taken in the latter may be used in both, even though not entitled in the supplemental suit.' But evi- dence of fraud taken under an original bill was held inadmis- sible as to defendants brought in by supplemental bill only charging them with a knowledge of the pendency of the orig- inal suit.' And where the case made by a supplemental bill cannot stand as against defendants thereby made parties without the evidence under the original bill, which is inadmis- sible as to them, and no advantage can accrue to the com- plainants from the supplemental bill, the new defendant will not be required to answer it, but the bill will be dismissed.'' § 511. Original bills in the nature of supplemental bills. — A supplemental bill is said to be properly applicable only to cases where the same parties or the same interests re- main before the court.' Eut where relief of a different kind or upon a different principle is required from that in the orig- inal bill or decree, an original bill in the nature of a supple- mental bill may be filed.* Thus where a sole complainant, suing in his own right, transfers his whole interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, the complainant, being no longer able to prosecute the suit for want of interest, and his assignee claiming by a title which may be litigated, the ben- efit of the former proceedings cannot be obtained by a mere supplemental bill, but must be sought by an original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill.' The same result follows ' Catton V. Earl of Carlisle, 5 Mad bills in general. 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. 427. (2d ed.) 86. A supplemental bill 2 Giles V. Giles, 1 Keen, 685 ; Tur- should be used in preference to an rell V. Spaeth, 9 Off. Gaz. 1163. See, original bill whenever it can equally also. Garth v. Wood, 2 Atk. 174. subserve the purposes of justice. 3 Stover V. Wood, 26 N. J. Eq. 57. Allen v. Taylor, 3 N. J. Eq. 435. * Stover V. Wood, 26 N. J. Eq. 57. ' Fulton v. Gracen, 44 N. J. Eq. 444. ' Story's Equity Pleading, § 346. It was there said that the differ- ' Stoi-y's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), enoe between an original bill in the § 3516. The proceedings upon the nature of a bill of revivor, and an bill are the same as upon original original bill in the nature of a sup- §§ 512, 513.] ABATEMENT, EEVIV'OE AND SUPPLEMENT. 523 where a sole plaintiff suing in his own right is deprived of his whole interest in the matters in question by an event subse- quent to the institution of the suit, as in the case of a bank- rupt or insolvent debtor whose whole property is transferred to assignees.' §512. The same subject continued — Frame of the bill. — An original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill must state the original bill, the proceedings upon it, the event which has determined the interest of the party by or against whom the former bill was exhibited, and the manner in which the prop- erty has vested in the person who has become entitled. It must then show the ground upon which the court ought to grant the benefit of the former suit to or against the person who has become so entitled; and it must pray the decree of the court, adapted to the case of the plaintiff in the new bill.' § 513. Original bill in the nature of a bill of revivor. — If a suit becomes abated, and nothing but the death of the plemental bill, is this : Under the former the defendant is absolutely bound by the former proceedings in the cause, but under the latter he has a righ"; to avail himself of any new equity or defense which has arisen since the original bill was filed, or which he may have a right to urge against the new party coming into the litigation, but which did not ex- ist against the original complainant. In Campbell v. City of New York, 35 Fed. Rep. 14, a similar case, Judge Wallace said that " although the distinction between supplemental bills and original bills seems to rest upon purely artificial reasons, it is well recognized and is attended in practice with consequences which aflfect the substantial rights of par- ties.'' See, also, Zinc Co. v. Frank- linite Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 333, 347; Tappan v. Smith, 5 Biss. 73 ; Bowie V. Minter, 2 Ala. 406 ; Butler v. Cun- ningham, 1 Barb. 85. A judgment debtor appealed from the judgment wliich was affirmed and the surety on the appeal bond paid it The surety then levied execution upon land occupied by the debtor in an- other county, and in aid of such exe- cution filed what he called a " sup- plemental bill " in the county where the judgment was rendared. This bill averred that the land levied on had been paid for by the judgment debtor, but that the title had been fraudulently conveyed to others who were made parties and against whom a decree was asked. All the defend- ants resided in the county where the land was situated. It was held that the bill was not a supplemental bill, but an original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, and that it sliould have been filed in the county where the defendants resided. McDonald v. Asay, 139 111. 133 ; s. c, 37 N. E. Rep. 939. ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 349. See Lee v. Lee, 1 Hare, 031 ; Robertson v. Southgate, 5 Hare, 333. 2 Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 353 ; Mitford's Eq. PI., by Jeremy, 99, 524 ABATEMENT, EEVIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. [§ 513. party is necessary to be established to show the title to revive, a simple bill of revivor is sufficient ; but where there are other facts which may be brought into litigation besides the mere representative character of the new party, an original bill in the nature of a bill of revivor must be filed.' Where by the event which abates a suit the interest of a party is transmit- ted by devise or otherwise, so that the title to the property as well as the person entitled thereto may be a subject of litigation in the suit, an original bill in the nature of a bill of revivor is necessary.^ Thus if the complainant in a suit brought to set aside a conveyance of land dies, leaving a will devising the land in controversy, and the devisee seeks to re- vive the original suit, he can only do it in that mode which will give the heirs at law an opportunity to dispute the valid- ity of the will. For such purpose an original bill in the nat- ure of a bill of revivor is the appropriate process.' The ground of the distinction between bills of revivor and bills in the nature of bills of revivor is that the former, in case of death, are founded upon mere privity of blood or representa- tion by operation of law ; the latter upon privity of estate or title by the act of the party.* The bill is said to be original merely for want of that privity of title between the party to the former bill and the party to the latter, although claiming the same interest, which would have permitted the continu- ance of the suit by a bill of revivor.' Therefore, when the validity of the alleged transmission of interest is established, the party to the new bill will be equally bound by, or have the advantage of, the proceedings on the original bill as if there had been such a privity between him and the party to the original bill, claiming the same interest.' The suit is con- 1 Story's Equity Pleading (10th edL), * Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 377 et seq.; Ross v. Hatfield, a N. J. § 379. Eq. 363 ; Mitford's Eq. PI., ch. 1, § 3. * Mitford's Eq. PL, by Jeremy, 97, 2 Douglass V. Sherman, 3 Paige, 98; Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), 358 ; Story's Equity Pleading (10th § 380. ed.), § 878. « Mitford's Eq. PL, by Jeremy, 97, ' Lyons v. Van Riper, 26 N. J. Eq. 98 ; Story's Equity Pleading, § 380. 337. See, also, Spier v. Robinson, 9 After a decree in favor of an admin- How. Pr. 325 ; Wilkinson v. Parish, isti ator, an administrator de bonis 3 Paige, 653; Slack v. Walcott, 3 Mon can revive the suit only by a bill Mason, 508; Anderson v. McNeal, 4 of this nature. Story's Equity PI. ;id- Lea, 303. iug (10th ed.), 882. See Plulp.., v. §§ 514, 515.] ABATEMENT, REVIVOK AND SUPPLEMENT. 525 sidered as pending from the filing of the original bill so as to save the statute of limitations, to have the advantage of com- pelling the defendant to answer before an answer can be com- pelled to a cross-bill, and to have every other advantage which would have attended the institution of the suit by the original bill if it could have been continued by a bill of revivor merely.' § 514. The same subject continued — Frame of bill — Proceedings. — An original bill in the nature of a bill of re- vivor should generally state the same facts as a bill of revivor. It should state the original bill, the proceedings upon it, the abatement, and the manner in which the interest of the de- ceased party has been transmitted. It should also charge the validity of the transmission, and state the rights which have accrued by it.^ The bill should also pray that the suit may be revived, and the plaintiff have the benefit of all the former proceedings thereon.' The practice as to demurring, pleading to and answering bills of this nature is the same in all respects as the practice upon original bills.* They are brought to a hearing in the same manner as original bills, a revivor being obtained only by decree and not by an order to revive, as in the case of an ordinary bill of revivor.* § 516. Bill of revivor and supplement. — A bill of revivor and supplement is a compound of a supplemental bill and a bill of revivor, and not only continues the suit which has Sproale, 4 Sim. 318 ; Stuart v. Bur- Mathewson, 13 Pet 164 ; S. C, 2 Sum- rowes, Drury (Irish), 265. It can be ner, 262 ; 1 Foster's Federal Practice maintained only by some person who (2d ed.), § 182. claims in privity with the complain- ' Mitford's Eq. PI., by Jeremy, 97, ant in the original bill. Oldham v. 98 ; Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), Eboral, Coop. Sel. Cas. 27; Rylands §880. V. Latouohe, 2 Bhgh, 585 ; Tonkin v. 2 phelps v. Sproule, 4 Sim. 183 ; Lethbridge, Coop. 43. In the federal Mitford's Eq. PI., by Jeremy, 97 ; courts such a bill may be maintained Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), irrespective of the citizenship of the § 386. representative, provided the requisite ' Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), diversity of citizenship existed be- § 386. tween the parties in the original suit * 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) See §§ 34, 35, mpra; Hone v. D'Alon, 1720, 1721. 39 Fed. Eep. 465; Minnesota Co. v. »3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 408. St Paul Co., 2 Wal . 609 ; Clarke v. 52G ABATEMENT, KETIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT. [§ 515, abated by the death of a party, but supplies any defects in the original bill arising from subsequent events.' If a suit be- comes abated, and by any act besides the event by wlich the abatement happens, the rights of the parties are affected, as by a settlement^ or a devise, under certain circumstances,' although a bill of revivor merely may continue the suit, so as to enable the parties to prosecute it, yet to bring before the court the whole matter necessary for its consideration the parties must, hj supplemental bill, added to and made part of the bill of revivor, show the settlement or devise, or other act by which their rights are affected. And in the same manner, if any other event which occasions an abatement is accompanied or followed by any matter necessary to be stated to the court, either to show the rights of the parties or to obtain the full benetit of the suit beyond what is merely necessary to show by or against whom the cause is to be revived, that matter must be set forth by way of sup- plemental bill added to the bill of revivor.* This species of bill must be framed and proceeded upon in the same manner as bills of revivor or supplemental bills, and is subject to the same defenses as each of those bills.' The case must be set down for hearing against all the parties, although the bill is only a bill of revivor against one and an order to revive has been obtained.* 1 Westcott V. Cady, 5 Johns. Ch. 500 ; Story's Equity Pleading (10th 834. It does not cure a defect ap- ed.), § 887. parent upon the face of the original 'Story's Equity Pleading {] 0th ed.), bill. Bampton v. Birchall, 5 Beav. §g 387, G27. If any matters contained 330 ; & C, 1 Phil. 668. Whenever a in a bill of revivor and supplement complainant has a right to revive a are irrelevant and improper, the de- Buit, he may add to the bill of re- fendant may avail himself of the vivor such supplemental matter as is objection, either by a plea or by de- proper to be added. Pendleton v. murrer, or by exceptions for imperti- Fay, 3 Paige, 204 nence. Pendleton v. Fa}% 3 Paige, 2 Merryweather v. Mellish, 13 Ves. 204. But the demurrer should go to 161. the supplemental matter and not to 3 Eylands v. Latouche, 2 Bligh, 566. the whole bill. Randolph v. Dicker- * Mitford's Eq. PI., by Jeremy, 70, son, 5 Paige, 517. 71 ; Russell v. Sharp, 1 Ves. & B. « Lake v. Austwick, 4 Jur. 314. CHAPTEK XYI. EVIDENCE. J 516. General rules of evidence in equity. 517. Judicial notice. 518. Judicial notice in the federal courts. 519. Bill in another suit as evi- dence. 530. Method of taking testimony — Federal rules. 531. Time for taking testimony in federal courta. 533. Production of documents by a defendant 533. The same subject continued. 534 Production of documents by the plaintiff. 535. Subpoena duces tecum against persons not parties. 536. The same subject continued. 537. Subpoena duces tecum against parties. 538. Inspection of documents on subpoena duces tecum. 539. Inspection before triaL 530. Inspection in aid of proof. 531. Interlocutoi-y order involving inspection. 533. Stipulations relating to evi- dence. § 538. The same subject continued. 534. Bills of discovery. 535. The same subject continued. 536. Commissions to take testi- mony. 537. Depositions de bene esse under acts of congress. 538. Objections to evidence. 639. The same subject continued. 540. Objections to competency of witnesses. 541. Compelling a witness to an- swer. 543. Return of depositions. 543. Admissibility of depositions without cross-examination. 544. Eight of a party to suppress depositions. 545. Re-examination of witnesses. 546. The same subject continued. 547. Additional testimony — The general rule. 548. The same subject continued — Illusti'ations. 549. The same subject continued — Exceptions to the rule. 550. Proof at the hearing. 551. The same subject continued. 553. Letters rogatory. § 516. General rules of evidence in equity. — The rules of evidence as to matters of fact are generally the same in equity as at law.' The competency of witnesses is governed 1 3 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th ed.), § 850; Manning v. Lechmere, 1 Atk. 453; Glynn v. Bank of England, 8 Ves. 41. "There is no rule of evi- dence better settled than that which declares that parol evidence is inad- missible to contradict or substantially vary the legal import of a written agreement. Such testimony is not only contrary to the statute of frauds but to the maxims of the common law ; and the rules of evidence on 528 EVIDENCE. [§ 516. by the same rules in equity as at law.' So the rule that the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the afiSrma- tive is common to courts of equity as well as to courts of law ; ' as also the fundamental maxims that no proof can be ad- mitted of any matter which is not noticed in the pleadings,' this or on most other points are the same in courts of law and of equity." Per Chancellor Kent, in Stevens v. Cooper, 1 Johns. Ch. 425, 429, cit- ing Lake v. Philips, 1 Ch. Rep. 59 ; Binstead v. Coleman, Bunb. 65 ; Par- teriche v. Powlet, 2 Atk. 38S ; Irnham V. Child, 1 Bro. 92 ; Portmore v. Mor- ris, 2 Bro. 219; Meres v. Ansell, 3 Wils. 275; Preston v. Merceau, 2 Black. Rep. 1249. 1 Nash V. Williams, 20 Wall. 236 ; 3 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th ed.), § 313. But in equity, where all ques- tions as well of fact as of law are for the court, the fact that a witness tes- tifying as an expert is not properly qualified goes to the weight, and not to the admissibility, of his testimony. Stegner v. Blake, 36 Fed. Rep. 183. And see, particularly, where this dis- tinction is admirably elucidated, Bar- ragne v. Siter, 9 Ark. 545. United States Revised Statutes, section 858, provides that "in the courts of the United States no witness shall be ex- cluded in any action on account of color, or in any civil action because he is a party or interested in the issue tried ; provided, that in actions by or against executors, administrators or guardians, in which judgment may be rendered for or against them, neither party shall be allowed to tes- tify against the other as to any trans- action with or statement by the tes- tator, intestate or ward, unless called to testify thereto by the opposite party or required to testify thereto by the court. In all other respects the laws of the state in which the court is held shall be the rales of de- cision as to the competency of wit- ne.sses in the courts of the United States in trials at common law and in equity and admiralty." In regard to the concluding provision of the section just quoted, see Brown v. Spoflford, 95 U. S. 474 ; Robinson v. Mandell, 3 Cliff. 169; Bast v. First Nat. Bank. 101 U. S. 93;. American E. Const Co. V. Consumers' Gas Co., 47 Fed. Rep. 43, 46; Richardson v. Hardwick, 106 U. & 252 ; Conn. Mut L. Ins. Co. V. Union Trust Co., 112 U. S. 250 ; Sims v. Hundley, 6 How. 1 ; Potter V. National Bank, 103 U. S. 163 ; Goodwin v. Fox, 129 U. S. 601, 631 ; McNiel v. Holbrook, 12 Pet. 84; 1 Foster's Federal Pi-actice (2d ed.), §374. = 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.)408; Eyre v. Dolphin, 2 Ball & B. 303; Saunders v. Leslie, 3 Ball & B. 515. See for exceptions in cases involving fiduciary and confidential relations, 3 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th ed.), §353. 3 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 410, 411 ; Whaley v. Norton, 1 Vera. 483; Gordon v. Gordon, 3 Swanst 472; Clarke v. Turtou, 11 Ves. 240; Wil- hains v. Llewellyn, 2 Y. & J. 68 ; Hall V. Maltby, 6 Price, 240 ; Montesquieu V. Sandys. 18 Ves. 302; Powys v. Mansfield, 6 Sim. 565 ; Miller v. Miller, 1 N. J. Eq. 386. See, also, §§ 99, 100, supra. And for further expositions of the rule, 3 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th ed.), § 356 ; Smith v. Clarke, 13 Ves. 477, 480 ; Sidney v. Sidney, 3 P. Wras. 269, 276; Clark v. Periam, 2 Atk. 337 : Carew v. Johnston, 2 Sch. & Lef. 280; Wheeler v. Trotter, 3 § 517.] EVIDENCE. 529 aud that the substance of the case made by each party must be proved.' § 517. Judicial notice. — "What is judicially known to the court need not be proved, and averments in pleadings in op- position to such facts will be disregarded on demurrer.' Ju- dicial notice will be taken of the political divisions of a State, such as counties and towns, and of its general geography;.' but not, it IS said, of the local situation, and the distance of tliflferent places in a county from each other.^ In a State court the laws of another State must be proved as any other fact.* Judicial notice will be taken by a State court of who lire the judges of the various courts of record of the State and of their terms of office and the organization and jurisdic- tion of such courts ; ' and the court will of its own motion ad- vise itself so as to verify matters of which it is required to take judicial notice.' Swanst. 174, n. ; Matthew v. Hanbury, 2 Vern. 187. " I do not mean to be understood aa expressing an opinion that no evidence can be put in which is not alleged or specifically described in the bill ; but there must be in the bill allegations broad enough to cover any evidence offered before it be- comes admissible. After that con- fessions or declarations or documents or cumulative facts are admissible to support any allegations to which they apply ; and such allegations are alone often suflScient to render the intro- duction of such evidence proper." Per Woodbury, J., in Nesmith v. Cal- vert, 1 W. & M. 34, 44; Smith v. Burnham, 6 Sumn. 612; Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story, 181. i2Daniell's Ch. Pr. (Ist ed.) 419 Lindsay v. Lynch, 2 Sch. & Lef. 1 Mortimer v. Orchard, 2 Ves. Jr. 243 Legh V. Haverfleld, 5 Ves. 453 ; Wool- lam V. Hearn, 7 Ves. 222 ; Deniston v. Little, 2 Sch. & Lef. 11, n. ; Savage v. Carroll, 2 Ball & B. 451 ; Daniels v. Davison, 16 Ves. 249; Dean &c. of 34 Ely V. Warren, 2 Atk. 199 ; Appeal of Ahl (Pa.), 18 Atl. Rep. 477. 2 Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 452 ; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 546. ' Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 452. As, for instance, its large lakes, rivers and mountains. Winn ipiseogee Lake Co. V. Young, 40 N. H. 420. * Deybel's Case, 4 B. & Aid. 243 ; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 546, n. 6. Bagwell v. McTighe, 1 Pickle, 618 ; Templeton v. Brown, 2 Pick. 53. sVahle V. Brackensieck (111.), 34 N. E. Rep. 335 ; Russell v. Sargent, 7 111. App. 98 : Ellsworth v. Moore, 5 Iowa, 486 ; Upton v. Paxton, 72 Iowa, 295; Tucker v. State, 11 Md. 322; Ex parte Peterson, 33 Ala. 74 ; Kil- patrick v. Com., 31 Pa. St 198. See, also, Newell v. Newton, 10 Pick. 470 Ripley v. Warren, 2 Pick. 592 Hawkes v. Kennebeck, 7 Mass. 461 Woods V. Fitz, 10 Martin, 196 ; Des- pau V. Swindles, 3 Martin (N. S.), 705. 'City of Rock Island v. Cuinely, 126 111. 408. Judicial notice will be taken of " the officials of the county 630 EVIDENOK. [§§ 518, 519. § 518. Judicial Dotice in tlie federal courts. — The courts of the United States take judicial notice of all the public stat- utes of the several States,' and of the laws which prevailad in territory acquired by the United States previous to its acquisi- tion,- and of executive regulations made in pursuance of an act of congress which are to have the force of statutes,' and of the ports and waters of the United States in which the tide ebbs and flows,* and of the boundaries of the several States and judicial districts.' The court will not take judicial notice that a patent is void on its face for want of patentable novelty when it has the slightest doubt that such is the fact." The United States circuit court of appeals will not take judicial notice of what may appear upon the records of dis- trict and circuit courts within the boundaries of the circuit.' §619. Bill in another suit as evidence. — A complaint not under oath, nor signed by the complainant but only by his where the court is sitting; the re- ligion and general customs of the people; their language and the meaning of words; the rules of grammar and arithmetic; and a great multitude of other matters of which every well-informed citizen of the State is presumed to know." Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 458. See, also, 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, g§ 4-6a; Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 39; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 546. 1 Gormley v. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 683. " Of all the laws and jurisprudence of the several States in which they exercise an original or appellate juris- diction." Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), § 34; Owings v. Hull, 9 Peters, 607, 634, 635. Foreign laws written or unwritten must be proved as facts. Diokerson v. Matheson, 50 Fed. Rep. 73; Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S. 546 ; Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400, 436. 2 United States v. Perot, 98 U. S. 438. ■' United States v. Williams, 6 Mont 379 ; s. c, 12 Pac. Rep. 851. But not of the filing by a railroad company of a map of its route with the secre- tary of the interior. That is an act of the party, not an executive act, although it. is indorsed " filed " and thereby becomes a record of the de- partment ; of such records the court does not take judicial notice. M'Kevin v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 464, 467. * United States v. La Vengeance, 2 Dall. 397; The Apollon, 9 Wheat 374 ; The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wlieat 428; Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Peters, 343, 343. » Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), §24. •■ Bottle Seal Co. v. De La Vergne &o. Co., 47 Fed. Rep. 59 ; Lalance &c. Mfg. Ca V. Mosheim, 48 Fed. Rep. 453 ; citing Blessing v. Copper Works, 34 Fed. Rep. 753; Eclipse Co. V. Adkins, 86 Fed. Rep. 554; Standard Oil Ca v. Southern Pac. Co., 43 Fed. Repi 395; New York B. & P. Co. V. New Jei-sey &c. Co., 137 U. S. 445 ; & c, 11 S. Ct. Rep. 193. ^ Fitzgerald v. Evans (G C. A.), 49 Fed. Rep. 436. § 520.] EVIDENOK. 531 attorneys, is incompetent in a suit by the same complainant against another party as an admission by the complainant that he has no cause of action.' But the statements in a sworn bill in equity are competent, though not conclusive, evidence against the complainant therein in another suit be- tween the same parties.* § 520. Method of taking testimony — Federal rules. — According to the ancient and regular practice of courts of chancery, the testimony of witnesses in equity causes is taken secretly and in writing, this constituting the most material difference between proceedings in equity and at common law.' In most of the States, at the present day, the statutes provide for the trials of fact in chancery cases by witnesses examined orally in open court, or by depositions, taken in the same manner and for the same causes as at law.* The United States Kevised Statutes provide that " the mode of ' Delaware County v. Diebold Safe Co., 133 U. S. 473, 487. See, also. Combs V. Dodge, 21 How. 397 ; Pope V. Allis, 115 U. S. 363; Dennie v. Williams, 135 Mass. 88, and cases cited in the following note. 2 Elliott V. Hayden, 104 Mass. 180, where Justice Gray said : — "As no action of the court was obtained upon the bill in equity, the statements therein, if they had not been made upon oath of the plaintiffs, might have been considered as mere sug- gestions of the counsel and incom- petent evidence of the admissions of the parties. Boileau v. Rutlin, 3 Exch. 665 ; Combs v. Hodge, 21 How. 397 ; Church v. Shelton, 2 Curt. C. C. 271. But being upon oath of the jiarties in whose behalf the bill was filed, they are competent evidence as solemn admissions by them in per- son of the truth of the facts stated — upon the same ground upon which sworn answers and pleas in chancery or allegations concerning the sub- stance of the action in a declaration at common law have been held ad- missible in evidence in another suit, Taylor on Evidence (5th ed.), §§ 759, 1560; Central Bridge Co. v. Lowell, 15 Gray, 106, 132; Bliss v. Nichols, 12 Allen, 443, 446, and cases cited ; Boston V. Richardson, 13 Allen, 146, 162. It would, of course, be open to the parties to show that they were made under a mistake." See, also. Doe V. Sybourn, 7 Term E. 3 ; Van- neman v. Swedesboro L. & B. Ass'n, 42 N. J. Eq. 263 ; s. C, 7 AtL Rep. 676 ; Handeside v. Brown, 1 Dick. 236 ; Blanks v. Klein, 53 Fed. Rep., 436. 3 3 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th ed.), §351. < See Greenleaf on Evidence (15th ed.), §§ 358, 259. A party cannot de- mand an examination in open court until the cause is at issue as to all the parties. Kelly v. Gartner (Mich.), 51 N. W. Rep. 278. Or until those who have not answered have been defaulted. Lumber Co. v. Gustin, 54 Mich. 634; Vermillya v. Odell, 1 Edw. Ch. 617; S. C, 4 Paige, 121 ; Hastings v. Palmer, 1 Clarke's Ch. 53. 532 EVIDENCE. [§§ 521, 522. proof in causes of equity . . . shall be according to rules now or hereafter prescribed by the Supreme Court, except as herein specially provided for." • § 621. Time for taking testimony in federal courts. — A United States equity rule provides that " three months and no more shall be allowed for the taking of testimony after the cause is at issue, unless the court or a judge thereof shall, upon special cause shown by either party, enlarge the time."^ It seems that in some cases, when proofs are not taken in proper time, they may be filed under certain conditions nunc pro tunc? But where no motion for that purpose is made, there is no course for the court but to grant a motion by the opposing party to strike the depositions from the files.* A motion for leave to take testimony after the time for taking the same has expired will not be granted upon mere general statements which disclose nothing in regard to the character of the testimony.' § 621SJ. Production of documents by a defendant. — The word " documents " is in practice considered to comprise all written or printed evidence.* The court has inherent author- ity to order a complainant to produce documents in his pos- sion or control, provided (1) he admits the documents are in his possession or control,' and (2) it satisfactorily appears that 1 U. & R S., § 863. By an amend- 548. See Jewett v. Albany City ment, at the October term, 1892, of Bank, Clarke's Ch. 57 ; Boone v. Pier- Equity Rule 67, and adopted by pont, 33 N. J. Eq. 317. A municipal the United States circuit court of ap- corporation has a much stronger peals, it is provided that " Upon due claim for relief herein against the notice, given as prescribed by pre- negligence of its counsel than an in- vious order, the court may, in its dividual would have. Lewis v. Eliz- discretion, permit the whole or any abeth, 25 N. J. Eq. 298. Bpeciflo part of the evidence to be 6 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1820, adduced orally in open court on final n. 6 ; Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 465, hearing.'' n. 8. 2 Equity Rule 69. '2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1818; 8 Fischer v. Hayes, 19 Blatchf. 25 ; Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 465 ; s. a, 6 Fed. Rep. 76 ; Coon v. Abbot, Paine v. Warren, 33 Fed. Rep. 857, 87 Fed. Rep. 98. 358; Atkyns v. Wright, 14 Ves. 211, < Wenham v. Switzer, 48 Fed. Rep. 213 ; Princess of Wales v. Earl of 612. Liverpool, 1 Swanst. 123 ; SomerviUe »Streat v. Steinam, 88 Fed. Eep. v. Mackay, 16 Ves. 383, 387; TTns- § 522.] EVIDKNOB. 533 their production is relevant to his case.' If the document re- lates to the defendant's title or right, and contains nothing supporting the title or claim of the plaintiff, the production worth V. Woodcock, 3 Mad. 432. See, also, WilliamB v. Williams, 1 Md. Ch. 199 ; Robbins v. Davis, 1 Blatchf. 238 ; Jackling v. Edmonds, 8 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 539 ; Bell v. Johnson, IJ. & H. 683 ; Peyton v. Lambert, 6 Ir. Eq. 9. " Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a production of documents must al- ways be decided upon what appears upon the face of the bill and answer." Langdell's Equity Pleading (2d ed.), § 204, containing a learned and lucid discussion of the subject The bill must contain a sufBcient charge of documents, and that by their produc- tion the truth of the bill or of some part thereof will appear. Langdell's Equity Pleading (2d ed.), 205. 206; Atkyns v. Wright, 14 Ves. 211 ; Combe V. Corporation of London, 15 L. J. Oh. 80 ; Hough v. Martin, 2 Dev. & Bat. 226. And an admission in the answer is necessary. Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 229 ; Hofleman's Oh. Pr. (2d ed.) 307 ; 3 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th ed.), § 295. Leave to amend the bill will be given to obtain such an admission. Barnet v. Noble, 1 Jac. & W. 227 ; Erskine v. Bize, 2 Cox's Gas. 226. As to what constitutes a sufficient admission of possession see Langdell's Equity Pleading (2d ed.), § 211, where it is said that in decid- ing the question "a very strict rule is applied" in favor of the defendant. Murray v. Wheeler, Cr. & Ph. 114; Watson V. Renwick, 4 Johns. Ch. 384 ; Gibbons v. Ogden, Halst. Dig. 174; Heeman v. Midland, 4 Mad. 391 ; Wal- burn V. Ingilby, 1 Myl. & K. 61 ; Eager uWiswall, 3 Paige, 369 ; Farqu- harson v. Balfour, Turn. & Russ. 190 ; Hornby v. Pemberton, Mosely, 57; McCann v. Breese, 1 Hogan, 129; Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 807. As to the sufficiency of the answer as an admission of the relevancy of the document, see Langdell's Equity Pleading (2d ed.), § 213 et seq.; Tyler v. Drayton, 2 Sim. & Stu. 309 ; Newton v. Berresford, Younge, 377 ; Bannotyne v. Leader, 10 Sim. 880; Smith V. Duke of Beaufort, 1 Hall, 507 ; Mansell v. Feeuey, 3 J. & Hem. 320; Bolton v. Liverpool, 3 Sim. 467. 'Langdell's Equity Pleading (Sd ed.). g 312; Gibson's Suits in Chan- cery, § 465; Howard v. Robinson, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 136; Cleft v. Cleft, 3 Pickle, 21. " It must further appear that the plaintiff has an interest in the papers called for," Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 307 ; Lingen v. Simp- son, 6 Mad. 290; Ingilby v. Shafto, 33 Beav. 31 ; which, however, may be a common interest with the de- fendant; Burton v. Neville, 2 Cox's Cas. 343 ; such as that of a copartner, Pickering v. Rigby, 18 Ves. 484; Hornby v. Pemberton, Mosely, 58; Kelly V. Eckford, 5 Paige, 458; a tenant in common, Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 310 ; Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 231 ; principal and agent, Gerard v. Penswick, 1 Swanst 534; Earl of Shrewsbury v. Cecil, 1 Cox's Cas. 277 ; the interest of landlord and tenant. Smith v. Duke of Northum- berland, 1 Cox's Cas. 362; Inman v. Hodgson, 1 Young & Jer. 28; Smith V. Alderton, 2 Fowl. Ex. Pr. 60. 1787; the interest of trustees and cestuis que trust, Sparke v. Montrion, 1 Y. & Col. 103. The document must be pertinent to the issue. Bischoffsheim V. Brown. 39 Fed. Rep. 341 ; Potter v. Beal, 50 Fed. Rep. 860, 866. 534 EVIDENCE. [§ 523. will be refused. If it relates to the title of both, its produc- tion will be ordered.' §523. The same subject continued. — If a defendant by his answer submits to produce certain documents, such sub- mission is binding upon him, and he will be ordered to pro- duce them as of course ; ^ which is enforced by attachment for contempt, issuing on proof of service of the order and of fail- ure to produce as required.' Or, when necessary, the court may appoint sequestrators, and order them to seize the docu- ments required to be produced.* But the plaintiff's right to inspect documents is only co-extensive with his right to read in evidence. The defendant, therefore, is entitled to seal up 1 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 312 ; Sampson v. Sweetenham, 5 Mad. 16 ; Tyler v. Drayton, 2 Sim. & Stu. 309 ; Wilson V. Foster, 1 McClel. & Y. (Exch.) 274; Lady Shaftesbury v. Arrowsmith, 4 Ves. 66; Bettison v. Farrington, 3 P. Wms. 63 ; Attorney- General V. Ellison, 4 Sim. 238. On a bill for specific performance letters between the partners may be called for. Preston v. Carr, 1 Young & Jer. 175; Garland v. Scott, 3 Sim. 396. And letters between the parties gen- erally. Whitbread v. Gurney, 1 Younge, 541. But not letters between a party and his solicitor. Bolton v. Corporation of Liverpool, 3 Sim. 486 ; Hughes V. Biddulph, 4 Russ. 190; Vent V. Pacey, 4 Russ. 193. The pro- duction of a deed maybe ordei-ed on a bill to set it aside as fraudulent Comstock V. Apthorpe, 8 Cowen, 386 ; Apthorpe v. Comstock, 1 Hopk. Ch. 144 ; Baloh v. Symes, 1 Turn. & Russ. 87 ; Fencott v. Clarke, 6 Sim. 8 ; Ken- nedy V. Green, 6 Sim. 6. See Beck ford V. Wildman, 16 Ves. 438. And the purchase deed of a bona fide pur- chaser for a valuable consideration. Hoflfman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 317 ; Aston V. Aston, 8 Atk. 302; Salkeld v. Science, 3 Ves. Sr. 107. But see Anon., Freeman's Rep. 275. Previous to a final hearing of a cause the court only orders the production of books and papers upon two principles : se- curity pending the litigation, and dis- covery or inspection for the purposes of the suit Watts v. Lawrence, 3 Paige, 159; Lingen v. Simpson, 6 Mad. 290. ^Langdell's Equity Pleading (2d ed.), §217; M'Intosh v. Great West- ern Ry. Co., 1 Macn. & Gord. 73 ; Latimer v. Neate, 4 CI. & Fin. 570 ; Glover «. Hall, 3 Ph. 484; Hardman V. Ellames, 2 My. & K 745. With liberty to take copies. Barbour's Ch. Pr. {2d ed.) 234 ; Hide v. Holmes, 3 Moll. 372. The document must be produced in the clerk's ofl3ce and filed by him. 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1836. The examination may be conducted without the presence of the defendant or his solicitor. 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. {2d ed.) 235. But in the master's office it is the prac- tice to give notice of inspection to the opposite party. Hoffman's Of- fice of Master, 12. See Hallett v. Hallett, 2 Paige. 482; Hart v. Ten Eyck, 2 Johns. Ch. 513. 8 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1839; Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 465. * 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1056 ; Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 465. § 523.] EVIDENCE. 535 (or conceal in any appropriate way) so much of any document produced as he can swear has no relation to the plaintiff's case.' This he may do by affidavit when he makes the pro- duction, and such affidavit, being in contemplation of law a part of the defendant's answer, and governed by the same rules, is conclusive.^ 1 Langdell's Equity Pleading (5th ed.), S 216; Campbell v. Freoch, 3 Cox's Cas. 286 ; Dias v. Merle, 2 Paige, 594 ; Gerard v. Penswick, 1 Wils. 222 ; Earp V. Lloyd. 3 K. & J. 549 ; Lind v. Isle of Wight Ferry Co., 8 W. R 540 ; Robbins v. Davis, 1 Blatchf. 238. See Telford v. Ruskin, 1 Drew. & Sm. 148. 2 Langdell's Equity Pleading (2d ed), g 216, n. 1 ; 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1824; Napier v. Staples, 3 Moll. 370 ; Potter v. Beal (C. C. A.), 50 Fed. Rep. 860, 866; Purcell v. Macnamara. Wigram on Discovery, p. 240 ; Bowers v. Fernie, 3 My. & Cr. 632 ; Slieflfield Canal Co. v. Shef- field & Rotheram Ry. Co., 1 Phil. 484: Mansell v. Feeney, 3 .Johns. & H. 320. If the affidavit contains contradict- ory statements the court may un- seal and examine the documents to get at the truth. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1824; Caton v. Lewis, 22 L. J. Ch. 946; Lafone v. Falkland Islands Co., 27 L. J. Ch. 25. See, also, Titus V. Cortelyou, 1 Barb. 444. The court will not com pel the production of documents violating professional confidence, or those which would tend to subject the defendant to a criminal charge, penally or forfeit- ure. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5tli ed.) 1833-1835; Rice v. Gordon, 13 Sim. 580 ; Waters v. Earl of Shaftesbury, 13 Jur. (N. S.) 3 ; Wynne v. Hum- bertson, 27 Beav. 421; Ford v. De Pontes, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 993 ; Marsh v. Keith, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1182. See. also. Potter V. Beal (C. C. A.), 50 Fed. Rep. 860. In such cases, however, the party objecting must distinctly swear that he believes the document to be privileged. 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1836; Balguy v. Broadhurst, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 111. "In courts of equity a bill or a cross-bill alleging that the defendant has in his posses- sion or power documents or papers relating to the matters of the bill, which, if produced, will establish their truth, is the foundation of the proceeding. The defendant is re- quired by the bill to admit or deny the truth of these allegations. If he admits having possession or power over any of the dacuments or papers he is required by the bill and is prima facie bound to describe them either in the body of his answer or in a schedule to it The plaintiff then moves the court that the defendant may be ordered to produce and leave in the hands of the proper officer the documents and papers with liberty to the plaintiff to take copies thereof. Upon this application the defendant may controvert the materiality of the evidence sought for, and he can in any event be required to produce only such documents and papers as are referred to in the answer to the bill. This is the ordinary and the only practice to compel the produc- tion of documents except under spe- cial circumstances, as where deeds or other papers contested as false or forged are ordered to be brought into court for inspection." Per Wal- lace, J., in Bischoflsheim v. Brown, 29 Fed. Rep. 341, 343. A provision for an examination of the defend- ants in regard to the subject of in- 536 EVIDENCE. [§§ 524, 525. § 524. Production of documents by the plaintiff.— A de- fendant cannot obtain an order for the production of docu- ments by the plaintiff in order to enable him to answer the bill,' although he makes oath that an inspection is necessary for that purpose.^ If the defendant desires a production and inspection of such documents, he must file a cross-bill against the plaintiff for a discovery of them, in which case all the rules stated in the preceding sections apply in his favor as complainant in the cross-bill.'' But ordinarily no answer to the cross-bill can be obtained until the original bill has been fully answered, and the defendant has complied with any or- der against him for production of documents made in the original suit.* § 625. Subpoena duces tecum against persons not parties. If documents the production of which is desired are in the possession of one not a party to the suit, he may be compelled by a subpoena duces tecum to produce them, and if the sub- poena is not obeyed he will be punished for contempt on proof by affidavit that the documents are in his custody.' quiry and for the production by them § 303. See, also, United States Equity of their account books and papers is Rule 78. proper and usual in an interlocutory ' 3 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 305 ; decree in a suit in equity for the in- Johnson Steel Street-Rail Co. v. fringement of a copyright Cal- North Branch Steel Co., 48 Fed. laghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 618. Rep. 191, 192 ; United States v. Bab- 1 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 1819. cock, 3 Dill. 566 ; Bull v. Loveland, 2 Penfold V. Nunn, 5 Sim. 409. 10 Pick. 9 ; Amey v. Long, 9 East, 3 3 Greenleaf on Evidence (15tli 473 ; Corsen v. Dubois, 1 Holt N. P. ed.), § 302 ; Kelly v. Eckford, 5 Paige, 239. United States Equity Rule 78, 548 ; Bogert v. Bogert, 2 Edw. Ch. authorizing clerks to issue subpoenas 399; White v. Buloid, 2 Paige, 164; in blank, applies to subpoenas duces Talmage v. Pell, 9 Paige, 410 ; 2 Dan- tecum. United States Revised Stat- iell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1819; Lupton utes, section 869, providing for an V. Johnson, 2 Johns. Ch. 429. There order of court for such a subpoena, are a few exceptions to the rule; as, applies to depositions de bene esse for instance, where both parties are under United States Revised Stat- equally entitled to possession. Pot- utes, section 868 ; or in perpefua™ ret ter u Potter, 3 Ark. 719; Pickering memoriam and under a dedimus po- 1'. Rigby, 18 Ves. 484; 8 Greenleaf on testatem under United States Re- Evidence (15th ed.), g 303. vised Statutes, section 866, and not to * 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1819 : testimony taken under the general 8 Greenleaf on Evidence (15tb ed.), powers of a court of equity iu the §§ 526, 527.] EVIDENCE. 537 § 626. The same subject continued. — A person not a party to the suit may be compelled to produce certain drawings by subpoena duces tecum although the papers relate to a valuable secret method of producing a manufactured article.' A sub- poena duces tecum can only be used to compel the production of written instruments, papers, books or documents.^ Pat- terns for stove castings are not the subject of such aw it ; ' nor a piece of metal in the nature of a form or model.* § 527. Subpoena duces tecum against parties. — On gen- eral considerations of expediency and policy it is difficult to mode prescribed by the equity rules. Johnson Steel-Rail Co. v. North Branch Steel Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 191, 193; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713; S. C, 5 S. Ct Rep. 724 Where a witness, intending no disobedience of a subpoena duces tecum, refuses to produce the documents required, in order to contest upon attachment proceedings the right to compel a disclosure, a rule for an attachment for contempt will be discharged as a matter of course upon his producing the documents in accordance with the opinion of the court, and paying the costs of the application. John- son Steel Street-Rail Co. v. North Branch Steel Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 191, 194. The court will not grant a mo- tion to compel the opening of the records of a corporation not a party to the suit, but whose records it is claimed would disclose something of importance to the litigation. Henry V. Travelers' Ins. Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 15. A subpoena duces tecum command- ing a party to appear at a certain place and time named in the writ, and bring with him a certain book, but omitting the direction to testify, is in- valid, and the party refusing to obey it cannot be attached for contempt Murray v. Elston, 23 N. J. Eq. 212. A witness who is required by a sub- poena duces tecum to attend before au examiner and produce a paper in hia possession as evidence in a cause is not bound to produce such paper until he has been sworn as a witness ; to enable him to state upon oath the reasons, if there are any, why he should not be compelled to produce the paper in evidence. Aikin v. Mar- tin, 11 Paige, 499. 1 Johnson Steel-Rail Co. v. North Branch Steel Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 191. See, also, Wertheim v. Railway &c. Co., 15 Fed. Rep. 716; Ex parte Jud- son, 3 Blatchf. 89. 2 Case of Shephard, 3 Fed. Rep. 12. In 1 Wharton on Evidence, § 614, a document is defined as follows : — " An instrument upon which is re- corded, by means of letters, figures or marks, matter which may be evi- dentially used. In this sense the term applies to writings ; to words printed, lithographed or photographed ; to seals, plates or stones on which in- sci'iptious are cut or engraved ; to photographs and pictures ; to maps and plans. So far as- concerns ad- missibility it makes no difference what is the thing on which the words or signs offered may be re- corded. They may be on stones or gems or on wood, as well as on paper or parchment." s Case of Shephard, 3 Fed. Rep. 12. < Johnson Steel Street-Rail Co. v. North Branch Steel Co., 48 Fea. Rep. 191. 638 BVIDENOB. [§ 528. perceive why documents and books whose production would elucidate the issues involved in the suit should be more guarded or inaccessible in the hands of parties than in the custody of others, and accordingly the general rule seems to be settled that a party to the suit,' or the officer of a corporation party ,^ may be compelled by a subpoena duces tecum to produce books and documents of the corporation material to the issue. § 528. Inspection of documents on subpoena duces tecum. Where a party brings documentary evidence into court in obedience to a subpoena duces tecum, he has a right to object to its inspection by his adversary or its introduction in evi- dence before it has been exhibited to any one but the court.' Certain documents which were specifically called for by a sub- poena duces tecum,, and particularly described therein, were placed by the complainant in the examiner's hands, and the defendant thereupon demanded permission to examine the documents, to be used as evidence by him if he should be so advised. The complainant objected to the inspection upon various grounds, which objection was certified to the court, who examined the document, and, upon finding it sufiiciently germane to the issues and in other respects competent evi- dence, granted leave to the defendant to inspect the docu- ment before offering it in evidence.^ After a party has inspected a document produced by his adversary in response to a subpoena duces tecum, issued by him, such document may be admitted as evidence for his adversarj"^ if he himself de- clines to put it in." ' BischofEsheim v. Brown, 29 Fed. Edison Electric L. Co. v. United Rep. 343 ; Murray v. Elston, 23 N. J. States Electric K Co., 44 Fed. Rep. Eq. 212; Merchants' Nat Bank u 294; s. C, 45 Fed. Rep. 55; Wertheim State Nat Bank, 3 Cliff. 201. A party v. Railway &c. Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 716. cannot excuse non-compliance with ' See Potter v. Beal (C. C. A.), 50 a subpoena dtices tecum commanding Fed. Rep. 860. him to produce documents, unpriv- * Edison Electric L. Co. v. United ileged in his own hands, by showing States Electric L. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 65. that he has delivered them into the * Edison Electric L. Co. ■;;. United hands of his counsel. Edison Elec- States Electric L. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. trie L. Co. V. United States Electric 66, 69 ; Jordan v. Wilkins, 2 Wash. L. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 294. C. C. 483 ; Wallar v. Stewart 4 2 Johnson Steel-Rail Co. v. North Cranch, C. C. 532. Branch Steel Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 195 ; §§ 529, 530.] EVIDENCE. 539 § 629. Inspection before trial. — Under the former prac- tice in England a party could not, in the absence of special circumstances, compel his adversary to produce, before the hearing, an exhibit, however it had been proved,' except, per- haps, if it were set out in a deposition in hmo verbal or where it was necessary for cross-examination.' Information and use of the contents of books and documents in a party's posses- sion could only be obtained by bill of discovery, requiring the respondent to set out the contents at large in the answer.* It was held in the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York that the complainant could not be re- quired, by motion, to produce books and documents for the inspection of the defendant in order to enable the latter to prepare for trial ; ' but a similar motion was granted in the circuit court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.' § 530. Inspection in aid of proof. — Although courts of chancery determine every matter by written or printed evi- dence, nevertheless when the subject-matter of the evidence can be readily produced in court, and is of a character to ' 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 885 ; Colgate v. Compagnie Francaise &c., Forrester v. Helme, McCl. 458 ; Lord 23 Fed. Rep. 82, 83 ; Paine v. War- V. Colvin, 2 Drew. 205 ; S. C, 5 De G., ren, 33 Fed. Rep. 357; Edison Elec- M. & G. 47, where the court denied a trie L. Co. v. United States Elec- motion by the complainant so far as trie L. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 294, 300, it sought the production of certain where it was held that such an order documents which had been handed would not be made when a subpoena on behalf of the defendant to a wit- duces tecum would be ample to pro- ness examined on the part of the de- duce the evidence. As to the right fendant before an examiner for the to inspect a document brought into mere purpose of verifying the hand- court by a subpoena duces tecum, see writing; Hodson v. Warrington, 3 Edison Electric L. Co. v. United P. Wms. 35 ; Davers v. Davers, 2 P. States Electric L. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 55. Wms. 410 ; Fencott v. Clark, 6 Sim. 6 Coit v. North Carolina G. A. Co. 8 ; Wiley v. Pistor, 7 Ves. 411. (1881), 9 Fed. Rep. 577, where Butler, 2 Hodson V. Warrington, 3 P. Wms. D. J., in an oral opinion, adopted as a 35. pi-oper practice in equity the provis- 8 Bell V. Johnson, 1 J. & H. 682. ions of United States Revised Stat- See, also. Lord v. Colvin, 5 De G., M. utes, section 724, relating to the pro- & G. 47, 50. duction of books, etc., in the trial of * Coit V. North Carolina G. A. Co., actions at law. The motion should 9 Fed. Rep. 577. See g 340, supra. be supported by an aflSdavit of ma- 6 Guyot V. Hilton (1887), 32 Fed. teriality which may be met by coun- Rep. 743, per Lacombe, J. See, also, ter-afiSdavit 640 EVIDENCE. [§ 531. elucidate the evidence, the chancellor will order the produc- tion of such subjects before him for his better satisfaction as to the truth. Thus he will order an infant to be produced in court for satisfactory proof of its existence, age and discretion ; or an original document or book to be produced, in order to ascertain its genuineness and integrity, or its age, or meaning, or precise state and character; or will require models, ma- chines and patented articles to be brought into court, espe- cially when a comparison becomes important; and where the subject is immovable, or where the inspection of the inside of a house, or of a room, or of a lot or tract of land, is neces- sary to enable the party out of possession to make proper proof, the court will order the party in possession to permit an inspection by witnesses.' § 531. Interlocutory order involving inspection. — A biU was filed alleging that certain documents contained in a trunk in the possession of defendant were the private property of the complainant and personal in their nature, and praying that the defendant be enjoined from permitting the papers to be inspected, and, pending the prosecution of the suit, "from showing them, or any of them, or allowing them, or any of them, to be inspected." The defendant and an intervenor set up adverse claims to the documents, and the court after a hear- ing ordered a master to examine the contents of the trunk, and without proof and without hearing the parties, except an explanation by them, to deliver to the complainant such as were not the property of the defendant, and were "neces- sary and material to be introduced by [the complainant] in his own behalf;" the remainder to be distributed to the de- fendant and the clerk of the court, according as the nature of the same should be determined by the master. It was held by the United States circuit court of appeals that this pro- ceeding was a clear violation of the constitutional and funda- mental rights of litigants as to the method of trial.'' 1 Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 450, (C. C. App.), reversing s. C, 49 Fed. citing 3 Greenleaf on Evidence, Rep. 793. " We do not hold," said Put- §§328,329; Gresley's Eq. Ev. 449-455 ; nam, C. J., "that it is not, in proper 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1663. cases, within the power of the chan- 2 Potter V. Beal, 50 Fed. Rep. 890 cellor to substitLite in lieu oC himself § 532.] EVIDENCE. 541 § 532. Stipulations relating to evidence. — Stipulations between the parties by way of admissions dispensing with proof are encouraged. In general, they ought to be in writ" a suitable master or referee for the purpose of ascertaining prima facie whether or not testimony offered is entitled to be heard ; but we do hold that, on the state of this record, with- out some proof beyond what is here disclosed, the court should not in- spect nor permit an inspection of the contents of the trunk, either private or public, and thus perhaps defeat the very purpose of the bill. . . . An inspection, however, if ever ordered, should be only in cases of real neces- sity, when the other proofs make it clear that private rights cannot be determined without it ; nor should it be made without positive evidence that there are papers of doubtful ownership, nor without some evi- dence of their identity and charac- ter. No inspection should be per- mitted in suits of this character, merely because the defendant is un- able to prove his case without it, nor because of mere doubts, suspicions or suggestions ; nor, as we repeat, ex- cept there is a clear emergency de- manding it It is true that in a lim- ited sense the party who seeks the aid of equity to obtain possession of private papers submits himself to the court ; and yet it is to be remembered that the main object of going into equity may be, not to obtain the papers themselves, but to secure the privacy to which the owner of them is entitled, and which he may not be able to protect except with the aid of the chancellor ; and it is not permis- sible that the chancellor should de- feat at the outset — unless under ex- treme circumstances — any portion of the relief which the complainant seeks, and which, perhaps, may be more effectually denied by permit- ting the privacy of his papers to be violated than by any refusal to give possession of them. . . . It is said that interlocutory production and inspection will not be ordered on the motion of a plaintiff in equity, if in this way he would practically obtain the object of his bill. This was so ruled by Sir John Leach in Lingen v. Simpson, 6 Madd. 390 (ex- plained in Chichester v. Marquis of Donegal, 4 Ch. App. 416-419). . . . To permit an inspection, as ordered by the circuit court, would perhaps defeat the purpose of the bill as ef- fectually as the production asked and refused in Lingen v. Simpson, supra." In Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616; a C, 6 S. Ct. Rep. 524, it was held that an order of court upon compulsory proceedings, com- pelling a party to produce a paper, the character of which was known, in order that it might be used against him, was an unconstitutional and er- roneous order. In a suit for infringe- ment of a patent a complainant will not be granted an inspection of ma- chinery of the defendant kept in secret and claimed to embody important secrets when the complainant intro- duces no evidence to show that it in- fringes his patent. Dobson v. Graham, 49Fed. Rep. 17. Upon a bill by a stock- holder against a corporation and its officers praying for an examination of its books and for an account, it seems that the court may in its dis- cretion order the corporate authori- ties to permit an inspection of the books at any stage of the suit; but it will not make such an order upon the filing of the bill, or before the parties have appeared and pleaded, except upon the most pressing neces- 542 EVIDENCE. [§ 532. ing and signed by the parties or their solicitors.' Such stipu- lations will not be sanctioned where they seek to evade es- tablished principles of law; as, for instance, an agreement permitting a wife to be a witness for or against her husband.' Parties stipulated that " in order to save the delay and ex- pense of a commission to England, ... on final hearing it shall be taken as though the following testimony had been given," setting out certain facts and circumstances. Subse- quently it became necessary to send a commission to England to take testimony. The court declined to reject the stipu- lated evidence where there was no motion to have it ex- punged and the objection to it was first made at the hearing.' "Where a party took depositions out of the time specified in a rule, under an agreement between the parties that the oppos- ing party might introduce oral evidence at the trial, it was held that the court did not err in- admitting such oral testi- mony.'' An agreement that certain facts stated in the report of a prior case may be read in evidence is an agreement that those facts may be considered as legal evidence in the pend- ing case.* A stipulation that a deposition taken in another cause may be read with the same force and effect as if taken upon proper notice is not a waiver of any other objection, and does not entitle the party to read the deposition if the pres- ence of the witness at the trial would otherwise exclude it.' A stipulation that a deposition in another cause may be used does not imply that incompetent evidence therein is to be re- ceived if seasonably objected to.' "Where a court admits evi- dence against an objection based upon a stipulation, its ruling sity, for the pleadings might raise v. Ralne, 2 Bos. & P. 85. See Mar- isaues as to the right of the com- shall v. Cliflf, 4 Camp. (N. P.) 133. plainant which could not be tried on ^ Barker v. Dixie, Rep. t Hardw. an ex parte application. Ranger v. 253 ; Owen v. Thomas, 3 M. & K. 358, Champion Cotton Press Co., 51 Fed. 357. Rep. 61, stating the general rule that ' Dickerson v. Matheson, 50 Fed. where an order would be equivalent Rep. 73. to a decree for the plaintiff or com- * Baker v. Jamison, 73 Iowa, 698. pel the defendant to disclose his de- ' Thompson v. Thompson (Ala.), 8 fense prematurely, the court will re- So. Rep. 419. fuse it. * Schmitz v. St. Louis Ry. Co., 46 ' See § 586, infra; Young v. Wright, Md. App. 380. 1 Camp. (N. P.) 139 ; Gainsford v. ' Appeal of Bridgham, 82 Me. 323. Gammer, 3 Camp. (N. P.) 9 ; Laing §§ 533, 534.J EVIDENCE. r,43 will not be disturbed on appeal if the stipulation is fairly sus- ceptible of the construction which the court must have given it in order to admit the testimony.' Where it is stipulated that the parties shall close their testimony by a certain time, depositions taken before, but not those taken after, that time are admissible on a subsequent hearing.^ §533. The same subject continued. — Under the United States rule in equity providing for the taking of testimony by an examiner,' it has been the practice for counsel to agree that the depositions may be taken down by a typewriter in their presence, at the ofHce of one of them, in the absence of the examiner but under his constructive direction. If one of the counsel refuses to continue the examination and de- mands the production of the witness before the examiner, without adequate cause shown to the court, on a subsequent motion to compel the production of the witness the testi- mony of the witness will be closed.* § 534. Bills of discovery. — Every bill for relief may seek a discovery from the defendant as to the matters charged therein ; but a bill of discovery, strictly so called, is a bill for the discovery of facts resting in the knowledge of the defend- ant, or of deeds, or writings, or other things in his custody or power, and seeking no relief in consequence of the discovery, although it may pray for the stay of proceedings at law till the discovery is made.' It is commonly used in aid of the ' Foster v. Dickerson (Vt), 24 AtL the testimony as taken to stand, and Rep. 353, 261. that the third examiner should con- 2 Jn re Thomas, 35 Fed. Rep. 837. tinue taking the testimony under the 3 Equity Rule 67. original order. Il was held that the iBallarduMoCluskey, 52Fed. Rep. order of the court violated none of 677. After a cause was at issue, on the equity rules, nor any of the gen- motion of the complainant leave was eral principles of equity. Canton v. given to take testimony before any McGraw, 67 Md. 583 ; s. C, 11 Atl. examiner of the court. The first ex- Rep. 287. aminer notified to take testimony * Story's Equity Pleading (10th ed.), being sick, complainant took testi- § 311. Where a bill is for relief as tiiony before a second, and finally well as discovery, it is not necessary before a third, examiner. The de- to allege that the facts a discovery fendants were present and cross- of which is sought are within the examined the witnesses. The court, exclusive knowledge of the defend- on motion of complainant, ordered ant Metier v. Metler's Adm'rs, 19 544 j;VIDENCB. [§ 534. jurisdiction of some court of law to enable the party who prosecutes or defends an action at law to obtain a discovery of the facts which are material to the prosecution or defense thereof.* It will lie in aid of a prosecution or defense in a foreign court.^ The filing of a bill of discovery in aid of a suit at law is justifiable where the costs of such bill will probably be less than the expense of executing a commission in a foreign country to prove the facts of which a discovery is sought.' A bill waiving an answer under oath cannot be maintained as a bill of discovery.^ A discovery will not be allowed merely to guard against anticipated perjury in a suit at law.' After a verdict at law a party comes too late with a bill of discovery.* Upon the question whether a pure bill of discovery will be entertained in the federal courts, or in other jurisdictions where the statutes provide for compulsory ex- amination of adverse parties in actions at law, the authorities are conflicting.' The bill must be filed in aid of some pro- ceeding pending or intended, and if such purpose be not stated in the bill a demurrer will lie.' N. J. Eq. 457, 461. If a bill contains no prayer in the usual form, either for specific or general relief, it may be considered as a bill of discovery merely, although the word decree is erroneously inserted in the prayer for process of subpoena after the word direction; which latter word instead of the former should be in- serted in the prayer of process upon a bill of discovery. Mclntyre v. Trustees &c., 6 Paige, 339 ; Schroep- pel V. Eedfield, 5 Paige, 245. See, also, Eose v. Gannel, 3 Atk. 439; Ambury v. Jones, Younge, 199; James v. Herriott, 6 Sim. 428 ; Baker V. Bramah, 7 Sim. 17 ; South Eastern Ey. Co. V. Submarine Tel. Co., 18 Beav. 429. 1 Story's Equity Pleading ( 10th ed.), 311. The husband being rightly joined, it is no objection to a bill for discovery of matters in which the wife only is interested that the de- fendants are husband and wifa Metier v. Metler's Adm'rs, 19 N. J. Eq. 457. 2 Mitchell V. Smith, 1 Paige, 287. Contra, Bent v. Young, 9 Sim. 180. But not against a defendant not a party to the suit .Tt law, although substantially interested therein. Burgess v. Smith, 2 Barb. Ch. 276. Nor by a defendant against a. co- defendant in the action at law. Dykers v. Wilder, 3 Edw. Ch. 496. But see Savage v. Todd, 9 Paige, 578L 'Vance v. Andrews, 3 Barb. Ch. 370. < Ward V. Peck, 114 Mass. 121. ' Leggett V. Postley, 3 Paige, 599. 6 Duncan v. Lyon, 3 Johna Ch. 851; Brown v. Swann, 10 Pet 498; Paterson v. Bangs, 9 Paige, 637; Green v. Massie, 31 GratL 356 ; Thur- mond V. Durham, 3 Yerg. 99. 'See§g 130, 181, supra, 8 United N. J. E. &c. Co. v. Hop- pock, 28 N. J. Eq. 861, 365; Mayor &C. V. Levy, 8 Ves. 398; Wnlker v. § 535.] EVIDENCE. 545 § 535. The same subject continued. — In a bill for discov- ery merely, it will be sufficient for the court to see that the discovery is material to the defense at law of the party seek- ing the discovery, and how and in what manner it is material.^ A bill for discovery only is not brought to a hearing, and can- not therefore be dismissed for want of prosecution.^ Upon filing a sufficient answer, the defendant is entitled to an order on motion, of course, for taxation and payment of his costs.' But if the defendant's first answer is insufficient, the costs of the exceptions to it may be ordered, on the ex parte application of the plaintiff, to be deducted from the costs payable to the de- fendant.* Devereaux, 4 Paige, 229, 246. Wher- ever under existing statutes the de- fendant has a right to call upon the defendant as a witness, the court will require the defendant to answer intPi-ogatories In proper form and within proper limits ; evidence thus put in the pleadings being more ad- vantageous to the complainant than it would be in the shape of a deposi- tion. Slater v. Barnwell, 50 Fed. Rep. 150. 1 Turner v. Dickerson, 9 N. J. Eq. 140 ; Vance v. Andrews, 2 Barb. Ch. 370. As to allegations of materiality see Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Lunar, 1 Sandf. Ch. 91 ; Williams v. Harden, 1 Barb. Ch. 298 ; Deas v. Harvie, 2 Baib. Ch. 448; Turner X). Dickerson, 9 N. J. Eq. 140 ; March v. Davison, 9 Paige, 580 ; Lane v. Stebbins, 9 Paige, 623; Norwich &c. R Co. v. Storey, 17 Conn. 364 ; Leggett v. Postley, 2 Paige, 599 ; Brown v. Swann, 10 Pet. 497 ; Seymour v. Seymour, 4 Johna Ch. 409. The weight of authority is that in bills for discovery it is not necessary to allege that the facts a discovery of which is sought are within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant. Metier v. Metler's Adm'rs, 19 N. J. Eq. 457. It is a gen- eral rule that no person can be com- 35 pelled to make a discovery that may subject him to a prosecution for fel- ony, or to a penalty, or anything in the nature of a penalty, or tend to show him guilty of any moral turpi- tude, or to answer what is matter of scandal, or what may lead to a legal accusation. March v. Davison, 9 Paige, 580; Northrop v. Hatch, 6 Conn. 361 ; Skinner v. Judson, 8 Conn. 528 ; United States v. Salina Bank, 1 Pet 100. But if the forfeiture or penalty is waived by those who are entitled to it, or is barred by the stat- ute of limitations, it no longer shields the party from a discovery. Skinner V. Judson, 8 Conn. 528. See § 95, supra. If the defendant is protected in law from answering an interroga- tory by any state of facts, he must fully state such facts in his answer as a reason for declining; a mere statement in argument by his coun- sel is not sufficient. Slater v. Barn- well, 50 Fed. Rep. 150. 2 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1558; Woodcock V. King, 1 Atk. 286. 3 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1558; Attorney-General v. Burch, 4 Mad. 178 ; Fitzgerald v. Bult 9 Hare App. 65. * 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1559; Hughes V. Clerk, 6 Hare, 195. See Thomas v. Rawling, 27 Beav. 375. 540 EVIDENCE. [§ 636. § 536. Commissions to take testimony. — It was held by the New York court of chancery that it possessed the power, independently of statutory authority, to issue a commission for the examination of witnesses either in or out of the State.' The same doctrine was affirmed by the New Jersey court of chancery.^ The United States Revised Statutes provide that " in any case where it is necessary in order to prevent a fail- ure or delay of justice, any of the courts of the United States may grant a dedimus potestatem, to take depositions according to common usage." ' The words " in any case " include crim- inal prosecutions, actions at law and suits in equity.* The case must be one pending in the court granting the commis- sion of which the court has jurisdiction, not one pending be- fore some other tribunal or officer over whom the court has no control." The words " common usage," as applied to suits in equity, refer to the ordinary practice of courts of chan- cery." 1 Brown v. South worth, 9 Paige, 351. ••iUna V. Dodd, 38 N. J. Eq. 460, holding that in proceedings for con- tempt the court may order the evi- dence of witnesses resident in for- eign jurisdictions to be so taken. 3 United States Revised Statutes, section 866, which further authorizes the taking of depositions in perpet- uam rei memoriam, and provides that United States Revised Statutes, sections 863, 864, 865, relating to de- positions de bene esse, shall not apply. See Jones v. Oregon Cent. R Co., 3 Sawy. 523. * United States v. Wilder, 14 Fed. Rep. 393 ; United States v. Cameron, 15 Fed. Rop. 794; Peters v. Prevost, 1 Paine, 64 ; Bischoffsheim v. Baltzer, 10 Fed. Rep. 1. 'United States v. Horn Hing, 48 Fed. Rep. 635. 6 United States v. Parrott, 1 MoAll. 447. See, also, 1 Foster's Federal Prac- tice (2d ed.), § 288 et seq. Statutes providing for the taking of testi- mony by commission are strictly con- strued. Lawrence v. Finch, 17 N. J. Eq. 235, 241. See, also. Dwindle v. Howland, 1 Abb. Pr. 1 ; Randall v. Venable, 17 Fed. Rep. 162; Arm- strong V. Brown, 1 Wash. 43 ; Bon- dereau v. Montgomery, 4 Wash. 186 ; Guppy V. Brown, 4 Dall. 410 ; Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet 355. In New Jer- sey it is no objection to the evidence of a non-resident witness, taken by virtue of a commission, that the wit- ness is dead. Lawrence v. Finch, 17 N. J. Eq. 235. An order for oral cross-examination of a witness when taking his deposition by commission is, in effect, to turn the proceedings into viva voce examination ; and if the power to make the order is dis- cretionary with the court, it will only be exercised in a clear case of necessity. Coates v. Merrick Thread Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 73. Where the oath taken by the commissioner was materially different from that pre- scribed by statute, the evidence was overruled, Lawrence v. Finch, 17 N. J. Eq. 235. §§ 537, 538.] EVIDENCE. 547 § 537. Depositions de bene esse under acts of congress. — In taking depositions de hene esse under authority of the acts of congress,' every formality must be strictly observed.^ The provision that " the testimony of any witness may be taken in any civil cause depending in a district or circuit court by deposition de bene esse " applies to equity as well as common- law cases.' Testimony which was regularly in order in rebut- tal may be taken by deposition in that stage of the case.* Where there is an irregularity in a deposition without fault of the party in whose interest it is taken, he should be allowed an opportunity to re-examine the witness.'' A deposition de bene esse taken upon interrogatories propounded by both par- ties is not under the control of one of the parties. When taken it should be promptly forwarded by the commissioner to the court in which the cause is pending for trial.' § 538. Objections to evidence. — The party ofiPering ovi- (L. lice is entitled to have the particular portion objected to pointed out, and the specific ground of objection stated, in order that he may obviate the same if possible.' When par- 1 U. S. R S., §§ 863, 864, 865. See, laches of the defendant Eillert v. also, Equity Rule 68. Craps, 44 Fed. Rep. 792. Where a 2 In re Thomas, 35 Fed. Rep. 337, party attends and cross-examines a 340. witness whose deposition is being 3 Stegner v. Blake, 36 Fed. Rep. 183. taken, all irregularities in the taking A motion in the Supreme Court to of it or occurring during the exam- take depositions de bene esse, pending ination of the witness, not objected an appeal, to be used in the circuit to at the time, are deemed to be court, was denied, there being a rem- waived. In re Thomas, 35 Fed. Rep. edy under section 866 of the Revised 822. Statutes, which gives the circuit 'Hamilton v. Southern Nev. Min. court authority in the matter. Rich- Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 562 ; Satterlee i\ tert;. Jerome, 115 U. S.'55. Bliss, 36 Cal. 489, 511; Cochran v. * Stegner v. Blake, 36 Fed. Rep. 188. O'Keefe, 34 Cal. 554, 558. Failure to •T In re Thomas, 35 Fed. Rep. 822. object is an implied waiver. Perry li First Nat Bank v. Forest, 44 Fed. County v. S. & M. R Co., 65 Ala. 391 ; Rep. 346. Where the complainant's Brewer v. Browne, 68 Ala. 210 ; Mas- testimony has all been taken by com- terson v. Pullen, 62 Ala. 145. An mission, the evidence may be pub- objection on the ground of "irrele- lished, upon the defendant's motion, vancy " or " incompetency " is too before the latter opens his case, with indefinite. Hamilton v. Southern proper precautions that he does not Nev. Miu. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 562 ; deprive the complainant of any ad- Owen v. Frink, 24 Cal. 177; Fisher i» vantage he may enjoy by reason of Neil, 6 Fed. Rep. 90. See, also. Wood 548 EVIDENCE. [§ 539. ticular grounds of objection are specified, such specification is exclusive, and all grounds not pointed out are deemed to be waived.' § 539. The same subject continued. — The United States Supreme Court declared the rule with respect to the neces- sity of incorporating into the record testimony in equity cases before an examiner which is objected to and ruled out, as follows : — "If testimony is objected to and ruled out it must be sent here with the record subject to the objection, or the ruling will not be considered by us. A case will not be sent back to have the rejected testimony taken, even though we might on examination be of opinion that the objection to it ought not to have been sustained. Ample provision having been made by the rules for the taking of testimony and sav- ing exceptions, parties, if they prefer to adopt some other mode of presenting their case, must be careful to see that it conforms in other respects to the established practice of the court." ^ V. Weimar, 104 U. S. 795 ; Camden v. Doremus, 3 How. 539; Burton v. Driggs, 80 Wall. 133 ; Seals v. Robin- son, 75 Ala. 863, 369. The validity or legal effect of a deed is not ques- tioned by objecting to a transcript of the registry on the ground that it is " insufficient and illegal." March v, England, 65 Ala. 375. Motions to suppress, founded on exceptions reg- ularly filed, are properly heard be- fore entering upon the trial. Beattie V. Abercrombie, 18 Ala. 9 ; Wood v. Chetwood, 27 N. J. Eq. 311. By con- sent, however, they may be and fre- quently are heard and determined in connection with the main cause. Binford v. Dement, 72 Ala. 491, 493, where the court disapproved the prac- tice of stipulating that the chancellor may disallow upon the trial all illegal evidence, as casting upon him unnec- essary labor. As a general rule, evi- dence which is merely incompetent "or irrelevant will not be suppressed prior to final hearing; but evidence which is scandalous, or has been taken irregularly or imperfectly, or in violation of the privileges of either of the parties, may be. Williams v. Vreeland's Ex'rs, 30 N. J. Eq. 576, and numerous cases there cited. J Hamilton v. Southern Nev. &c. Min. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 562 ; Evanston V. Gunn, 99 U. S. 665 ; Belk v. Mea- gher, 104 U. S. 379 ; Fischer v. Neil, 6 Fed. Rep. 90. Where a written contract was admitted over an ob- jection that it was incompetent and immaterial, the objection on appeal that its execution was not proved was disregarded. Falk v. Gast L. & E. Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 890. *Blease v. Garlington, 93 V. S. a See, also, Lloyd v. Pennie, 50 Fed. Rep. 4, holding that letters, even if privileged as between husband and wife, when offered as primary evi- dence of a fact befoi-e the examiner, and objected to, should nevertheless be produced, whether admitted in evidence or not, so as to be made 5§ 540, 54:1.J EVIDENCE. 549 § 640. Objections to competency of witnesses. — Objec- tions to the competency of a witness should be taken at the earliest opportunity,' unless the incompetency is unknown or disclosed only by the answers of the witness,' or is of such a nature as to be incurable,' in which case an objection will be entertained although not taken until the hearing.* § 641. Compelling a witness to answer. — On an examina- tion before a special examiner a witness will be compelled by proceedings in contempt to answer questions that seem to be material to the issue.' Upon an application for an attachment in such cases "the court generally inclines towards the appli- cation and requires an answer wherever it seems probable that the testimony may be relevant. Care, however, must be part of the record Where the rec- ord showed a clear title to relief in the complainant, but also that evi- dence was offered which, if admitted, might possibly have proved the con- trary, and was rejected in such a way that the record did not disclose the nature of the proposed proof, the appellate court was unable to enter a decree dismissing the bill. Potter v. Beal, 50 Fed. Rep. 860, 864 1 Binford t<. Dement, 73 Ala, 481 ; Purcell V. McNamara, 8 Ves. 324; Vaughan v. Worrall, 2 Swanst. 395, 398, 399; Mill v. Mill, 13 Ves. 406; Fenton v. Hughes, 7 Ves. 290 ; United States V. Hair Pencils, 1 Paine, 400 ; Gregory v. Dodge, 4 Paige, 557; Minuse v. Cox, 5 Johns. Ch. 441 ; Boone v. Ridgway, 29 N. J. Eq. 543; Sheridan v. Medara, 10 N. J. Eq. 469, holding that an objection to a witness on the ground of incompe- tency should be made before the di- rect examination. See, also, Neville V. Demeritt, 2 N. J. Eq. 331. 2 Binford v. Dement, 72 Ala. 491 ; Goss V. Stinson, 3 Sumn. 608 ; Need- ham V. Smith, 3 Vern. 463 ; Perigal V. Nicholson, Wightw. 63 ; Callahan V. Rochfort, 8 Atk. 648; Rogers v. Dibble, 3 Paige, 338. ^Kelsey v. Snyder, 118 III 544. See, also, Warren v. Warren. 105 111. 568; Lockwood v. Mills, 39 DL 606; Clauser v. Stone, 29 IlL 114. *The objection is then taken by motion for leave to examine as to the point of competency upon aflS- davit of previous ignorance of the fact. Callahan v. Rochfort, 3 Aik. 643. See, also, Mohawk Bank v. At- water, 3 Paige, 60. As to waiver of objections, see Norden v. Williamson, 1 Taunt 378; Honey wood v. Pea- cock, 3 Camp. 196 ; Vaughan v. Wor- rall, 2 Swanst. 400; Moorhouse v. De Passow. 19 Ves. 435. The deposi- tion of a party who was a competent witness when examined may be read at the hearing though he has become incompetent Marlatt v. War- wick, 19 N. J. Eq. 439 ; Williams v. Vreeland, 30 N. J. Eq. 576; Hitch- cock V. Skinner, Hoff. Ch. 21. " To restore the English practice, so long disused in this State, of requiring all objections to the competency of wit- nesses to be made before the depo- sitions are read at the hearing, would be impolitic." Walker v. Hill, 23 N. J. Eq. 513, 518. 5 Johnson Steel-Rail Co. v. North Branch Steel Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 196. 650 EVIDENCE. [§§ 542, 543. exercised to avoid any unnecessary and improper inquiry into private affairs." ' § 542. Return of depositions. — Statutes prescribing the manner in which depositions must be returned require a strict compliance with all the conditions.^ Thus, the South Caro- lina statute provides that depositions taken by an officer shall be " by such officer sealed up . . . and directed to the court . . . and remain under his seal " until opened in court. On one side of an envelope in which a deposition was transmitted to the court by mail was written the name and address of the clerk of the court, the names of the witnesses examined and of the notary, and the title of the cause. On the other side of the envelope there was written or stamped the word "registered." The envelope was securely sealed with mucilage or some other adhesive substance ; and it did not appear in any way to have been opened or tampered with. It was held that the deposition was not admissible.' § 543. Admissibility of depositions without cross-exam- ination. — The genera! rule of the common-law courts is that no evidence shall be admitted but what is or might be under ' Per Butler, J., in Robinson u Rail- statute in this respect" See, also, road Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 340 ; Johnson Brown v. Southworth, 9 Paige, 351 ; Steel-Rail Co. v. North Branch Steel In re Thomas, 35 Fed. Rep. 337. Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 196. Where the envelope containing the 2 See Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet 355; testimony returned by commission- Shutte V. Thompson, 15 Wall. 161. ers showed an abrasion at one end, ^Travers v. Jennings (S. C), 17 which the court was satisfied oc- S. E. Rep. 849, where the court said curred in the transmission in the the statute requires some act on the mail-bags, a motion to suppress part of the notary by which he shall the commission was refused. Eif- evince that the package sent to the fert v. Craps, 44 Fed. Rep. 164. It is court is his work. " If he had used not necessary that the return should sealing wax and had stamped his show that the olBcer before whom notarial seal, or had used sealing wax the commissioner was sworn was and had written his name across the duly authorized to administer an same, or if he had written his name oath in the State where the commis- across the flap of the envelope after sion was executed. All that the court he had caused it to adhere to the requires is competent evidence of body of the envelope, it seems to us the authority of the officer to ad- that any one of these methods would minister the oath. Lawrence v. have answered tlie demands of the Finch, 17 N. J, Eq. 334. S -544.] EVIDENCE. 551 the examination of both parties.' But in equity a deposition is not as of course inadmissible in evidence, even if there has been no cross-examination and no waiver of the right ; ^ and, by a strong preponderance of authority at least, the testimony of a witness may be received where his cross-examination has been prevented by inevitable accident,' without any fault of the party producing the witness or of the witness himself,* or cut off by death.^ § 644. Right of a party to suppress depositions. — When the parties to an equity cause stipulate that testimony may be taken before any oificer or magistrate qualified to administer oaths without special appointment by the court as an examiner, the depositions thus taken must be filed of record as required by United States Equity Rule 67 in cases where an examiner is regularly appointed ; and a party in whose behalf the testi- mony was taken has no right to suppress it." ' Gass V. Stinson, 3 Sumn. 98 ; Cazenove i\ Vaughan, 1 M. & Selw. i, 6; Attorney-General v. Davison, 1 McC. & Y. 160; Anon. v. Brown, Hardres, 315 ; Watts' Case, Hardres, 332: Kissam v. Forrest, 25 Wend. 651. Of. Rex V. Doolin, 1 Jebb (Cr. Cas.), 123. 2 " Thus, if a witness, after being examined on the direct interroga- tories, should refuse to answer the cross-interrogatories, the party pro- ducing the witness will not be de- prived of the benefit of his direct testimony ; for upon application to the court the witness would have been compelled to answer. Courte- nay v. Hoskins, 2 Euss. 253. But if the witness should secrete himself to avoid a cross-examination, there the court would or atleast might suppress the direct examination. Flowerday V. Collet, 1 Dick. 288." Justice Story in Gass v. Stinson, 3 Sumn. 98, 106, where a deposition was admitted, no cross-interrogatories having been seasonably filed and the witness hav- ing died. ' Per Justice Story in Gass v. Stin- son, 3 Sumn. 98, 106. < Scott V. McCann (Md.), 24 Atl. Rep. 536; Gass v. Stinson, 3 Sumn. 98, where Justice Story discusses the question ; Courtenay v. Hoskins, 2 Russ. 253 ; O'Callaghan v. Murphy, 2 Sch. & Lef. 158 ; Arundel v. Arundel, 1 Rep. Ch. 90 ; Nolan v. Shannon, 1 Moll. 157. See, also, Davies v. Otty, 35 Beav. 308; Abadom v. Abadom, 24 Beav. 243. 5 Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Arlington Mfg. Co., 47 Fed. Rep. 4, subject, however, to objections on the ground of hearsay, etc. S. C, per Green, J. The action of an examiner in ad- journing a hearing after a witness is tendered for cross-examination is final And if the party who offered the witness refuses to produce him for cross-examination, his testimony in chief will be suppressed. Shap- leigh V. Chester &c. Co., 47 Fed. Rep. 848. sMott Iron Works v. Standard Mfg. Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 345, wher^ the court said : — " The rule in suits at 552 EVIDENCE. [§ 545. § 646. Be-examination of witnesses. — It is a salutary rule which should be observed, not only for the orderly conduct ot an equity suit but also for the purposes of justice, that the depositions of witnesses previoasly examined as to the same law has long been that when a depo- sition was filed either party was en- titled to read it under the rules which might govern as to its competency and relevancy, and that it could not be suppressed by the party at whose instance the witness was examined in chief. Bennett v. Williams, 57 Pa. St 404; Nussear v. Arnold, 13 Serg. & R 323. If this be so in pro- ceedings at law where nothing is in evidence before the jury until for- mally offered and admitted, much more would it be the case in pro- ceedings in equity where there is no formal offer of testimony at the hear- ing, where all testimony taken in the case is at once practically in evidence, to be regarded or disregarded by the court in making its decree as it shall regard it as competent and relevant or otherwise. In the case of Banku. Forest, 44 Fed. Rep. 246, an action at law, the commissioner before whom a deposition de bene esse had been taken refused to file it, under instruc- tions from the counsel of the party on whose behalf the witness had been examined. But the court held that the deposition was not under the control of the party at whose in- stance it had been taken, and that an order should be made for its filing at the instance of the other party. . . . In the Case of Rindskopf, 24 Fed. Rep. 542, the court said respecting a deposition de bene esse where the party on whose behalf the witness was examined sought to stop the croBS-exammation by withdrawing the proceedmgs for taking the depo- sition : — ■' The party who started the laking of it appears to have no right to its custody or to its suppression. The authority taking it appears to represent the court pro hae vice for the purpose of authenticating the testimony of the witness and preserv- ing it for the trial according to its admissibility and weight "When taken it is taken in the cause for the use of either party according to its relevancy and competency. The party making this motion was inter- ested in the testimony that was taken and seemed to have the right to have it affected by cross-examination as it might be whether used by one party or the other.' In Sturgis v. Morse, 26 Beav. 563, the master of the rolls said: — 'I apprehend that evidence given for any defendant is evidence for the whole cause and that the plaintiff may make use of it both in argument and comment I have known it done repeatedly, and I think that the evidence in the cause may be made use of by the plaintiff against the defendants and by the defendants against the plaintiff.' Upon principle and authority, therefore, I think that this testimony, taken in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, should be filed in the clerk's office. The fees of the commissioner should, however, be paid by the defendants before the testimony is filed — the question as to which party shall ulti- mately pay tliem being left for future decision ; but at present the defendant desiring the use of the testimony should pay the fees. Frese v. Biedenfeld, 14 Blatchf. 402." Mott Iron Works v. Standard Mfg. Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 345. See, also, on the main point. Grant v. Davis (Ind. App.), 81 N. E. Rep. 587. §§ 546, 647.] EVIDENCE. 563 matters will be suppressed unless an order of the court for cause shown has been first obtained for the re-examination, in which the terms on which the leave is granted and the inter- rogatories proper to be asked are specially settled.' The pas- sage of an order allowing a re-examination is a matter rest- ing in the discretion of the court and not subject to review on appeal.* §546. The same subject continued. — When, however, a witness is re-examined without an order for that purpose, and no motion is made to suppress the testimony upon that ground, and the opposing party relies upon objections made when filing cross-interrogatories which were not called to the attention of the chancellor, the case will not be reversed because of such irregularity in taking the deposition.' So where, after the examination of a witness, who had been recalled without leave of court by the party originally calling him, an agreement was made to refer the case to an auditor to state an account on the evidence in the case, the objection that the examination was improper was not sustained.* § 647. Additional testimony — The general rule The general rule which rests on considerations of suppressing per- iThurber v. Cecil Nat. Bank, 52 eery. Browning v. Louisa, 2 Dick. Fed. Rep. 513 ; 3 Greenleaf on Evi- 508. In Trustees &c. v. Heise, 44 Md. dence, g 336 ; Hansom v. Trustees &c., 453, under leave to take additional 11 N. J. Eq. 441 ; Crawford v. Bar- testimony, a party was re-examined tholf, 1 N. J. Eq. 458; Delany v. as to matters upon which he had Noble, 3 N. J. Eq. 441 ; Case v, Abeel, been previously examined and the 1 Paige, 630. The court should always evidence was suppressed. A wit- require satisfactory ground to be ness cannot, without leave of the laid for such leave, such as mistake court, be re-examined on a matter as or inadvertent omission. Girault v. to which he has been previously ex- Adams, 61 Md. 1, 9 ; Rowley v. Adams, amiued ; but the ground of objection 1 M. & K 545. The question was must be specifically stated when he fully considered by Lord Thurlow in is recalled or his testimony will not Vaughan v. Lloyd, 1 Cox, 313, where be excluded. The rule, however, does the rule and the reasons upon which not prevent the recalling of a wit- it is founded are stated with great ness in rebuttal. Osborne v. O'Reilly, cleai-ness. See, also, Remsen v. Rem- 34 N. J. Eq. 60. sen, 2 Johns. Ch. 495, where Chan- '•* Swartz v. Chickering, 58 Md. 290. cellor Kent reviews the authorities 3 Bonner v. Young, 68 Ala. 35. and states the rules which should * Young v. Omohundro, 69 Md. 424 ; govern in taking testimony in chan- s. c, 16 Atl. Rep. 120. 554 EVIDENCE. [§ 547. jury and preventing the fabrication of evidence prohibits the examination of new witnesses and the taking of additional evidence after the parties have had opportunity, by pubUca- tion of the testimony, to understand wherein the evidence taken fails to meet the exigencies of their case.' The rule was formulated and definitely expressed in one of the ordi- nances of Lord Bacon: — "No witnesses shall be examined after publication except by consent or by special order ad informandam conscientiam judicis, and then to be close-sealed to the court to peruse or publish as the court shall think good." ' The power to permit additional testimony to be taken after publication should be sparingly exercised, the merits of the case being Ihe controlling consideration.' cumstances, under the rules. The practice of taking such testimony before the hearing, and keeping it sealed up, to be used by the court at the hearing if it should be deemed meet, is said by the text-writers to have fallen into disuse and not to have been in practice for more than a century.'" Per Story, J., in Wood V. Mann, 2 Sumner, 316, 319. SMulock V. Mulock, 28 N. J. Eq. 15 ; Dixon v. Higgins, 82 Ala. 284 ; s. c, 2 So. Rep. 289, 291. It should not be permitted, said Chancellor Kent, in Gray v. Murray, 4 Johns. Ch. 415, " merely to alter or correct testimony after the cause has been heai'd and discussed and decided upon the very matters of fact to which that testimony referred." Har- rell V. Mitchell, 61 Ala. 270 ; Gordon V. Tweedy, 74 Ala. 233, 236. " It is not proper on the hearing to open the case generally, or to open it with- out special reasons at all. It is the duty of the parties to furnish their proofs before hearing, and the case must be very particular where they can be allowed to do so after they have introduced all that they re- garded as necessary before the hear- ing;." Wendell v. Highstone, 52 Mich. 552; Trustees &c. v. Heise, 44 Md. 1 Dixon V. Higgins, 82 Ala. 284; S. C, 3 So. Rep. 289, where the court said that " though in some instances there may have been too much lax- ity, the courts have generally ob- served the rule; and judicial discus- sions have generally arisen on the engrafted exceptions which have been deemed conducive to the ends of truth and justice." See, also, Eil- lert V. Craps, 44 Fed. Rep. 792, 793. 2 "The true exposition of the latter qualification of this rule would seem to be that the new evidence to in- form the conscience of the judge should not be taken but upon or after the hearing when the judge himself entertains a doubt, or when some additional fact or inquiry is in- dispensable to enable him to make a satisfactory decree. So was the doc- trine held in Newland v. Honeman, 2 Ch. Cas. 74 ; and it is strongly for- tified by what fell from Lord Man- ners, in Savage v. Carroll, 2 Ball & B. 283, 284, and by the master of the rolls in Parker v. Whitby, 1 Turn. & R 366. Except for such purposes, and under some special order of the court itself at or after the hearing, no such testimony taken after publi- cation is now deemed admissible, at least unless under extraordinary cir- §§ 548, 549.] EVIDENCE. 555 § 548. The same subject continued — Illustrations. — Thus, a party will not be allowed to open a case and have evidence retaken where his motion papers fail tc show newly- discovered evidence, or evidence of which he could not avail himself at the first hearing, and where it appears that he merely wishes to deny what he might have denied before.' Where defendant has submitted the cause on the report of a master, bill, answer, replication, exhibits, evidence taken be- fore the master, and exceptions, he cannot at the hearing, after his exceptions have been overruled, introduce other and further testimony.^ An application to open the case after evidence closed, argument heard and report made, in order that the defendants might introduce testimony in their pos- session and knowledge at the time of the hearing, the impor- tance of which they then knew, was refused.' §549. The same subject continued — Exceptions to the rule. — Although the propriety of re-opening a case for the purpose of obtaining additional testimony is discountenanced as a general rule, the exercise of the power is addressed to the sound discretion of the court ;^ and it is not uncommon 453, 465. Notice of the motion should ster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 13 Blatchf. be given to the opposite party. Ham- 349 ; De Florez v. Raynolds, 16 ei-sley v. Brown, 2 Johns. Ch. 438. Blatchf. 397; India Rubber Co. v. See, also, Bogardus u Trinity Church, Phelps, 8 Blatchf. 85; Hitchcock u 4 Sandf. Cli. 369. The deposition of Tremaine, 9 Blatchf. 550; Prevost v. a witness whose examination was Gratz, Peters' C. C. 364 ; Livingston not closed until after publication v. Hubbs, 3 Johns. Oh. 124. Cf. Sharp had passed was allowed to be read, v. Wyckoflf, 39 N. J. Eq. 95. he having been cross-examined by 2 Qq^ ^_ Pierce, 32 111. App. 43. the opposite party and no actual ' Appeal of Shea, 131 Pa. St 303 ; abuse appearing; but such practice & C, 15 Atl. Rep. 629. To the same is irregular. Underbill v. Van Cort- effect. Baker v. Jamison, 73 Iowa, landt, 3 Johns. Ch. 339. 698; S. C, 36 N. W. Rep. 647; Wen- 1 Witters v. Sowles, 31 Fed. Rep. 5, dell v. Highstone, 53 Mich. 552. A holding also that errors of judgment motion to take cumulative testi- on the part of counsel or a want of mony, to be used on an application attention or capacity are not grounds for a rehearing, was refused. Eureka for opening a case to take the testi- Co. i'. Edwards, 80 Ala. 350. mony over again. The question ■• Which was held in Trustees &c. is there thoroughly discussed by v. Heise, 44 Md. 453, 465, uot to be a Judge Wheeler. See, also, Ruggles subject of review by an appellate V. Eddy, 11 Blatchf. 534; Witters v. court. Dixon «. Higgins, 83 Ala. 384; Sowles, 33 Fed. Rep. 765, 766 ; Web- s. c, 3 So. Rep. 389, 391, where it 556 EVIDENCE. [§ 549. to allow it to be done in cases where, from accident or in- advertence, omissions or defects have occurred which the party could have readily supplied, and where it is deemed necessary to a right and satisfactory decree.* Many cases upon the subject were brought together and reviewed by Yice-Chancellor Shad well in Hood v. Pimm,'' where it was shown that a court of equity will at any stage of the proceed- ings before final decree allow defects in proof to be supplied, provided the party applying has not precluded himself from such indulgence by negligence or delay.' Where the insuffi- ciency of proof is due to the inadvertence of counsel, a cause may be ordered to stand over, after final hearing, for addi- tional proof.* Proceedings upon a decree will be stayed for the purpose of allowing parties to take and file testimony newly discovered, when such testimony appears to be mate- rial, and its materiality was not so direct and apparent that the failure to discover and produce it on the first hearing amounted to laches.' Where there is such an insufficiency of testimony as to preclude making a just decree, and the points are covered by the pleadings, and are such that there can be was said to be a common under- ' After a reference and report in standing of solicitors and chancel- an action for a partnership account- lors that when testimony is published ing, defendant filed a petition and by consent " without prejudice " it is afiSdavit to the effect that he had deemed a consent reservation of the discovered numerous checks and re- right to take additional tesstimouy. ceipts which, if taken into account, Gordon v. Tweedy, 74 Ala. 232 ; would show that he was improperly Nunn V. Nunn, 66 Ala. 35 ; Wagoner charged with certain sums by the V. Wagoner (Md.), 10 Atl. Rep. 221 ; master, and as to which sums he was Caswell V. Bunch (Ga.), 7 S. E. Rep. unable to give an explanation on the 270. hearing. The court opened the case 1 Dixon V. Higgins, 82 Ala. 284 ; S. C, to let in further testimony, although 2 So. Rep. 289, 295 ; Hughes u. Eades, the defendant was guilty of laches 1 Hare, 186 ; Attorney-General v. Se- in the non-production of such evi- verne, 1 Col. 317 ; Hood v. Pimm, 4 dence, he having been the acting Sim. 101 ; Mulock v. Mulock, 28 N. J. and controlling manager of the en- Eq. 15, a case which received great tire partnership business. Dignan consideration ; Harrell v. Mitchell, v. Dignau (N. J. Ch.), 17 AtL Rep. 61 Ala. 270 ; Johnston v. Glasscock, 546. 2 Ala. 218, 251 ; Hewes v. Hewes, 1 * Sharp v. Wyckoff, 39 N. J. Eq. 95. Sim. 1 ; Gregory v. Marychurch, 12 Cf. Witter v. Sowles, 31 Fed. Rep. 5. Beav. 275; s. c, 19 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) ^ witters v. Sowles, 82 Fed. Rep. 77, a very instructive case. 765, 766. » 4 Simons, 101. § 550.] EVIDENCE. 557 no doubt that testimony exists as to them, the cause may be remanded by the appellate court with directions to take fur- ther testimony on such points.' §650. Proof at the hearing. — Proof at the hearing is usually confined to verification of exhibits.' Ordinarily no exhibit can be proved at the hearing by witnesses if it re- quires more evidence than the mere proof of its execution, or of handwriting, to substantiate it.' A will cannot be so proven because the sanity of the testator and other requisites under the statute must be proved.* 1 Fuller V. Fuller, 23 Fla. 236 ; S. C., 2 So. Rep. 426; Beckmann v. Ho- boken Bank, 37 N. J. Eq. 95 ; Gor- don V. Tweedy, 74 Ala. 233, 236. 2 See § 520, supra; Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 490 ; Eailroad Co. u. Drew, 3 Woods, 692 ; De Butts v. Bacon, 1 Cranch, 569; Graves v. Budget, 1 Atk. 444. See, also, Mills v. Pittman, 1 Paige, 490. Leave to prove exhib- its viva voce may be granted on a rehearing, Walkei v. Symonds, 1 Mer. 37, n. ; Dale v. Roosevelt, 6 Johns. Ch. 256; or on appeal, Hig- gins V. Mills, 5 Euss. 287. Such evi- dence may be placed upon record by a bill of exceptions. Gaf ney v. Reeves, 6 Ind. 71. A deed charged in the bill and admitted in the answer may be read at the hearing without hav- ing been made an exhibit before the master. Dey v. Dunham, 2 Johns. Ch. J 82. For a definition of exhibits, see Gresley's Eq. Ev. 146, n. ; quoted in Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 466, n. 9. Lord Clarendon prescribed that a special order of the court must be obtained, for leave to prove an exhibit, after due notice to the ad- verse party ; but Chancellor Kent, in Consequa v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. 483, sanctioned the practice of giving notice of intention to prove without an order. ' Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 466 ; Hoflfman's Cb. Pr. (2d ed.) 490; 8 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th ed.), § 310 ; Ellis V. Deane, 3 MolL 63 ; Graves v. Budget, 1 Atk. 444 ; Blox- ton V. Drewitt, Prec. Ch. 64 ; Harris V. Ingledew, 3 P. Wms. 91, 93 ; Eade V. Lingood, 1 Atk. 203; Barfield v. Kelley, 4 Russ. 355 ; Maber v. Hobbs, 1 Y. & C. 585 ; Lake v. Skinner, 1 Jac. & W. 9. < Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 490; Eade v. Lingood, 1 Atk. 203 ; Niblett V. Daniel, Bunb. 810; Pomfret v. Lord Windsor, 2 Ves. Sr. 473. " The examination of the witnesses is re- stricted, at the hearing, ordinarily to three or four very simple points, such as (1) the custody and identity of an ancient document, produced by its custodian ; (3) the accuracy of an of- fice copy by the proper ofiScer ; (3) the execution of a deed or other writing by the attesting witness , and (4) the handwriting of a letter, receipt, note or other writing. The court may ask the witness questions suggested by adverse counsel, and a limited cross-examination may be allowed. Gresley's Eq. Ev. 188 ; 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 882, 883 ; Consequa v. Fan- ning, 2 Johns. Ch. 481. If, however, the court should see that the adverse party is surprised by the introduc- tion of viva voce evidence, and that a cross-examination would not be 558 BviDENOE. [§§ 551, 552. §561. The same subject continued. — It is the inherent and peculiar right of the judge of a court of chancery to re- quire further proof upon any point under his consideration, without the motion and even against the will of the parties, and although the matters of which he would inquire have not been put in issue by the pleadings.' This right may be exer- cised by examining witnesses viva voce in open court, and is employed in cases of contempt,^ and in questions as to the proper custody of a ward;' and "in other cases of emer- gency immediately addressed to the discretion of the Judge, or upon which he entertains doubt." * 'i, 652. Letters rogatory. — Where the government of a foreign country refuses to permit the execution of a commis- sion to examine witnesses therein, a course has been adopted from a practice known in the civil law of issuing what are termed letters rogatory, or, as they are sometimes called, requisitory.' " The court of chancery has always freely ex- ercised this power by a commission either directed to foreign magistrates by their official designation, or more usually to individuals by name, which latter course the peculiar nature of its jurisdiction and proceedings enables it to induce the parties to adopt by consent where any doubt exists as to its sufficient to enable the adverse party additional testimony for the infor- to test the authenticity or genuine- matiou of his conscienc j. ness of an exhibit, the hearing of the ^jioore v. Aylett, Dick. 643; Ga- cause should be suspended, and proof coygne's Case, 14 Ves. 183 ; Turner allowed to be taken as to the authen- v. Burleigh, 17 Ves. 354. ticity or genuineness of such ex- > Ex parte Bates, Gresley's Equity hibit" Gibson's Suits in Chancery, Ev. 494. §466. *3 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th •3 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th ed.), g 331, citing Bishop «;. Church, 2 ed.), § 330 ; Parker v. Whitby, T. & Ves. 100, 106 ; Ex parte Lord, 3 Ves. R. 371. It was held in Dixon v. 26; Bank v. Farque, Ambler, 145; Higgins, 82 Ala. 284 ; S. C, 2 So. Rep. Barnes v. Smart, 1 Y. & Col. 139 ; C89, that the rule of the chancery Margareson v. Saxton, 1 Y. & Col. practice of Alabama which provides 532. See, also, United States Equity that, "after publication passed, no Rule 78; Im re Clarke, 9 Blatchf. 372 ; testimony shall be taken except by Farrall v. Davenport, 5 L. T. (N. S.) consent, or by special application to 436. the chancellor, and allowance by » Hoffman's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 483; him,'' operates only on the rights of Nelson v. United States, 1 Pet C. C. the parties, leaving unabridged the 336, note a, containing a form ; Cun- chancellor's discretion to order such ningham v. Otis, 1 Gall. 166. g 552.] EVIDENCE. 559 iaherent authority.* A special application for letters rogatory is necessary, but they may be allowed to issue without send- ing a previous commission upon satisfactory proof of the fact that the authorities would not permit its execution.^ " The writ or commission is usually accompanied by interrogatories filed by the parties on each side to which the answers of the witnesses are desired. The commission is executed by the judge who receives it either by calling the witness before himself or by the intervention of a commissioner for that purpose, and the original answers, duly signed and sworn to by the deponent and properly authenticated, are returned with the commission to the court from which it issued." ' 1 1 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th ^ i Greenleaf on Evidence (15tl) ed.), 320. ed.), § 330. 2 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. r3d ed.) 483. CHAPTER XYII. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGa 558L Interlocutory applications. 554. Motions. 555. Who may make a motion. 556. Motion by a party in con- tempt 557. Motions of coursa 558. Special motions ex parte. 559. Notice of motions — Federal rules. 560. Form and notice of motions. 561. The same subject continued — Form of notica 562. Renewal of motions. 563. Hearing of motions. 564 Definition and nature of peti- tions 565. Use of petitions illustrated. 566. When a bill is necessary. 567. Verification of a petition. 568. Form of a petition. 569. Notice of petitions. 570. Hearing of petitions. 571. Petitions of intervention — General right to intervene. 572. Intervention by strangers. 573. The same subject continued. 574 Intervention by beneficiaries. 575. Intervention by stockholders as defendants in the federal courts. 576. Intervention on a creditor's bill. 577. The same subject continued. 578. Intervention as a defendant. 579. Requisites of a petition to in- tervene. 580. When an intervention be- comes effective. 581. Consolidation of causes — (a) In the federal courts. § 582. (b) In West Virginia, Georgia and Indiana. 583. (c) In Wisconsin. 584 (d) In New Jersey and Ala- bama, 585. (e) In Tennessea 586. Stipulations relating to causes, when enforced. 587. The same subject continued. 588. Scope of stipulations limited. 589. Who are bound by stipula- tions. 590. The same subject continued — Effect upon infant parties. 591. Construction of stipulations — Parol evidenca 593. Discharging a party from stipulations. 593. Orders — Who may grant orders. 594 Service of orders. 595. Proceedings touching irregu- larities. 596. Terms of orders — Nunc pro tunc orders. 597. Modifying and vacating or- ders. 598. Nature and use of afiSdavita 599. Title of an affidavit. 600. Form of an affidavit 601. Scandal and impertinence in affidavits. 602. Substance of affidavits. 608. Paying money into court 604 The same subject continued. 605. Conduct of the cause. 606. Staying suits to await pay- ment of costs in former suits. §§ 654:, 555.] MISCELLANEOUS PEOOEEDINGS. 561 § 553. Interlocutory applications. — An interlocutory ap- plication is a request made to the court for its interference in a matter arising in the progress of a cause or proceeding, and it may either relate to the process of the court, or to the protection of the property in litigation pendente lite, or to any other matter upon which the interference of the court is re- quired at any time. Applications of this nature are either made orally or in writing. In the former case they are called motions, in the latter petitions.' §554. Motions. — Amotion is an application, either by a party to the proceedings or his counsel, not founded upon any written statement addressed to the court.^ But a rule of the United States Supreme Court provides that "All motions to the court shall be reduced to writing, and shall contain a brief statement of the facts and objects of the motion." ' A motion is either of course or special. Special motions are either «» parte or upon notice.* § 555. Who may make a motion. — A motion may be made by or on behalf of any party to the record, provi(ied such party is not in contempt.^ A person not a party to the record 1 2 Duniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed) 1587 ; Mad. & Geld. 3. A notice is not such 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.1 565. a proceeding as will be set aside on 2 2 Dauiell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1591. motion, although irregular. Mutual See, also. 15 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Safety Ins. Co. v. Roberts, 4 Sandf. Law, p. 887, tit " Motions." Ch. 592. If the court learns from 'Rule 6 of the Supreme Court; any source that its process is not Rule 21 of the United States Circuit being properly executed it rnay of Court of Appeals. Such a rule does its own motion interfere teiiiporarily not apply to motions of course, so that the matter can be inquired lohnson v. Ableman, 35 111. 265. into. Chamberlain v. Larned, 32 N. * 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1592 ; J. Eq. 295. Further directions are ! Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 566. In not given on motion. They can only luits for specific performance, if the be had upon a hearing after a mas- -.itle is the only question in dispute, ter's report or upon the cause coming the court may refer it to a mas- on again for the purpose, in pursu- ter upon motion. Moss v. Matthews, ance of a former order or decree. 8 Ves. 279; Wright v. Bond, 11 Ves. The court can then add to the latter, 39; Gompertz v. . 12 Vea but not so as to materially aflfect or 17; Balmanno v. Lumley, 1 Ves. vary the first decree. Gardner v, & B. 324. And upon a report ad- Bering, 2 Edw. Ch. 131. verse to the title the bill may be dis- ' 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1591. missed on motion. Walters v. Py- See § 556, ivfra. An attachment man, 19 Ves. 351 ; Whitcombu Foley, issued against n, party, after he has .S6 662 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS. [§ 55G. cannot, in general, be allowed to make a motion in a cause, except to be made a party.' Thus an injunction against a de fendant to restrain him from receiving a sum of money in the hands of his attorney, or from permitting it to be paid to an}- one for him or on his behalf, will not be dissolved on motion of a creditor of the defendant, not a party to the suit.^ But a person who is qimsi a party to the record, such as a claim- ant coming in under a decree, or a purchaser of an estate sold by order of the court, may apply to the court by motion.' § 656. Motion by a party in contempt. — The general rule is that one who is in contempt is never to be heard by motion or otherwise until he has cleared his contempt and paid the costs.'' But the rule applies to matters of favor, and a party, although adjudged in contempt, may be heard on matters of strict right.' served a notice of motion, but before the motion made, will not prevent his making it. Jeyes v. Foreman, 6 Sim. 384. iRoss V. Titsworth, 37 N. J. Eq. 333, 339; Linn v. Wheeler, 21 N. J. Eq. 231 ; Belbee v. Belbee, 6 Mad. 28. 2 Linn v. Wheeler, 81 N. J. Eq. 231. But see Tradesman's Bant v. Merritt, 1 Paige, 302 ; Bourband v. Bourband, 21 W. R 1024 ; Speak v. Ransom, 2 Tenn. Ch. 310 ; Dalglish v. Jarvie, 2 Macn. & G. 231. '2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1591 ; Jones V. Roberts, 12 Sim. 189; Earl of Portarlington v. Damer, 2 Phil. 264. See Evping v. Maury, 3 Lea. 381; Majors v. McNeilly, 7 Heisk. 299. Deaderick o. Smith, 6 Humph. 138, requires the purchaser to apply by petition. See, also, Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 774 et seq., for the practice in Tennessee. * Freese v. Swayze, 26 N. J. Eq. 437 ; Ellingwood v. Stevenson, 1 Sandf. Ch. 366 : Johnson v. Pinney, 1 Paige, 64G; Rogers v. Patterson, 4 Paige, 450 ; Evans v. Van Hale, Clarke's Ch. 17 ; Biiokley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y. 40 ; Lane v. Ellzey, 4 Hen. & M. (Va.) 504. 5 Morrison v. Morrison, 5 Hare, 590 ; S. c, 30 Eng. Ch. Rep. 589, n. ; Chuck V. Creraer, 1 Coop. Ch. 205, where many cases are collected in a note ; Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y. 40, where the subject is discussed at con- siderable length by Judge Folger, and the following conclusion drawn from the cases cited above and in the pre- ceding note : — " A party in contempt and until he is purged of it will not be permitted to ask for the favor of the court nor to take any aggressive proceeding against his adversary; but that it is his right to take meas- ures to protect himself and to make any motion designed to show that the order adjudging him in contempt was erroneous. He may move to dis- charge an order, though in contempt for not obeying it" As to this point see O'Dell v. Hart, 1 Moll. 493 ; Barker V. Dawson, cited in 1 Coop. Ch. 207. " And if a party may move to set aside or discharge an order as er- roneous to rid himself of contempt" continued Judge Folger in Brinkley V. Brinkley, supra. " he may, it must follow, take any other course whicli the law allows to a party to establisli § 557.] MISCELLANEOUS PEO0BBDING8. 563 §557. Motions of course. — A motion of course is where, by a standing rule or the known course of the court, the ob- ject of it is granted upon asking for it, and without hearing both sides. No notice of such a motion is necessary, as the court will not hear any defense to it.' Motions of course are entered in the clerk's office without an}- action of the judge in person.^ The United States Equity Eules provide that the clerk's office shall be open and the clerk shall be in attend- ance therein on the first Monday of every month, for the that it is erroneous ; and an appeal from and a review of it in an appel- late court is such other course," — citing Stone v. Byrne, 5 Bro. P. C. 309 ; People v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263, See, generally, as supporting the text, Green v. Green, 3 Sim. 394, 430 ; El lice V. Walmsley, 1 Coop. Oh. 207 Parry v. Perryman, 1 Coop. Oh. 208 Needham v. Needham, 1 Coop. Ch. 208 ; Wilson v. Bates, 3 Myl. & Cr. 201 ; Ricketts v. Mornington, 7 Sim, 200 ; Vowles v. Young, 9 Ves. 173 Anon., 15 Ves. 175; Hill v. Bissel Mosely, 258 ; In re Brady, 1 Moll. 354 Howard v. Newman, 1 Moll. 331 Hawkins v. Hall, 1 Beav. 73; Anon )'. Lord Gort, 1 Hog. 77; Valle v. O'Reilly, 1 Hog. 199 ; Morrison v. Mor- rison, 4 Hare, 590; Wilson v. Met- calfe, MSS., cited m 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 506 ; Herring v. Cloberry, 13 Sim. 410; Lord Wenman v. Os- baldeston, 3 Bro. P. C. 376 ; Hall v. Darney, 1 Dick. 389 ; Hewitt v. Mc- Cartney, 13 Ves. 560; M'Callum v. Beale, 10 Price, 130 ; Howard v. New- man, 1 Moll. 221 ; Lord Cranston v. Goldsbede, 3 Y. & Coll. (Exch.) 70 ; Best V. GoDipertz, 2 Y. & Coll. (Exch.) 583 ; Petty v. Lonsdale, 3 Myl. & Cr. 545, where defendant in contempt for not answering obtained an order nferring the bill for impertinence, u liich wa.". held to be clearly irregu- lar , Clark V. Dew, 1 Russ. & Myl. 107 ; Bishop of Derry v. Tyler, 2 Y. & ColL (Exch.) 71; Everett v. Prytherych, 12 Sim. 368 ; Turner v. Dorgan, 12 Sim. 504 ; Cattell v. Simons, 6 Beav. 304. Where the contempt was the non-performance of a final decree for the payment of money, and the contemner appeared before the court on an order to show cause why an attachment for contempt should not be issued against him, declaring his readiness to comply with the direc- tions of the decree at once, and to answer for his contempt as the court should direct, he was heard on appli- cation to open the decree and to be let in to answer on the ground of surprise. Freese v. Swayze, 26 N. J. Eq. 437. 1 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 567. " Looking through the equity rules it will be found that a distinction is pre- served between special motions and those grantable of course. What con- stitutes a motion grantable of course and a special motion is to be inferred from Rule 5 in Equity. The distinc- tion is that a /notion which requires an allowance from the judge or a no- tice to the opposite party is a special one ; all others are grantable of course." McAllister, J., in United States V. Parrott, 1 McAU. 447, 454 See, also, Halderman v. Halderman, Hemp. 407. '•^Robinson v. Satterlee, 8 Sawy. 134, 141- 564 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS. [§ 557. purpose of receiving, entering, entertaining and disposing all motions, rules, orders and other proceedings which are grant- able of course, and applied for, or had by the parties or their solicitors, in all causes pending in equity, in pursuance of the rules prescribed." 1 "All motions, rules, orders and other proceedings made and directed at chambers, or on rule-days at the clerk's office, whether special or of course, shall be en- tered by the clerk in an order-book, to be kept at the clerk's office, on the day when they are made and directed, which book shall be kept open at all office hours to the free inspection of the parties in any suit in equity and their solicitors. And, except in cases where personal or other notice is specially re- quired or directed, such entry in the order-book shall be deemed sufficient notice to the parties and their solicitors, without further notice thereof, of all orders, rules, acts, no- tices and other proceedings entered in such order-book, touch- ing any and all the matters in the suits to and in which they are parties and solicitors." ^ " All motions and applications in the clerk's office for the issuing of mesne process and final process to enforce and execute decrees; for filing bills, an- swers, pleas, demurrers, and other pleadings; for making amendments to bills and answers; for taking bills pro con- fesso; for filing exceptions ; and for other proceedings in the clerk's office which do not by the rules hereinafter prescribed require any allowance or order of the court, or of any judge thereof, shall be deemed motions and ap])lications grantable of course by the clerk of the court. But the same may be suspended or altered or rescinded by any judge of the court upon special cause shown." ' In the federal courts an order dismissing a bill for want of a replication under the rule^ may be entered as of course.' A motion for the appointment of commissioners to take testimony abroad is not of course." A continuance of a motion to dissolve an injunction is not granted as of course.' I Equity Rule 2. « United States v. Parrott, 1 McAU. ' Equity Rule 4. 447. Equity Rule 5. ' Taylor v. Dickinson, 15 Iowa, 483. ' Equity Rule 66. A party is not compelled to disre- * Robinson v. Satteilee, 8 Sawy. gard an order of course which has 134, 141 ; 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) been irregularly entered by the ad- 249i verse party, and which the latter re- §§ 558, 559.] MISCELLANEOUS PEO0EEDING8. 565 § 558. Special motions ex parte. — A special motion is one which it is not a matter of course to grant, but which re- quires some ground to be laid for it, either by previous order, or by the pleadings in the cause, or by aflSdavits.' Special motions are made either ex parte or upon notice to the op- posite party. When they are made ex pa/rte they must be supported by affidavit.'' Where an order^ made by which a particular act is to be done, unless the other party shall within a certain time show cause to the contrary (which order is usually termed an order nis-i), the party obtaining the order must, after the expiration of the time limited by it, if no cause is shown, move for another order to confirm the pre- vious order nisi absolute. The motion in this case requires no notice; but it must be supported by an affidavit to prove the due service of the order nisi.^ Where there is no danger that the object of the motion would be defeated if notice were given, an ex parte motion will not be permitted.* A ne exeat may issue on an ex parte motion.' §559. Notice of motions — Federal rules. — The United States Equity Rules provide that " all motions for rules or orders and other proceedings which are not grantable of course or without notice shall, unless a different time be assigned by a judge of the court, be made on a rule-day and entered in the order-book, and shall be heard at the rule-day next after that on which the motion is made. And if the adverse party or his solicitor shall not then appear or shall not show good cause against the same, the motion may be heard by any judge of the court ex parte and granted, as if not objected to or re- fused, in his discretion." ' " Any judge of the circuit court, as well in vacation as in term, may, at chambers, or on the fuses to waive ; but he may apply to * 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 352 ; the court to discharge the same and 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 568. In in the meantime may suspend pro- Pratt v. Rice, 7 Nev. 123, the refusal ceedings which are inconsistent to vacate an order granted on motion therewith. Osgood v. JosJin, 3 Paige, without notice, the motion involving 195. ascertainment of very material facts, 1 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 353 ; was held to be error. 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 567. » Collison v. , 18 Ves. 358. 2 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 252. 6 Equity Rule 6. 3 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 353; 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 568. 5G6 MISCELLANEOUS PEOCBBDINGS. [§ 560. rule-days at the clerk's office, make and direct all such inter- locutory orders, rules and other proceedings, preparatory to the hearing of all causes upon their merits, in the same man- ner and with the same effect as the circuit court could make and direct the same in term, reasonable notice of the applica- tion therefor being first given to the adverse party or his solicitor to appear and show cause to the contrary at the next rule-day thereafter, unless some other time is assigned by the judge for the hearing." ' " Except in cases where per- sonal or other notice is specially required or directed, such entry in the order-book shall be deemed sufficient notice to the parties and their solicitors without further service thereof of all orders, rules, acts, notices and other proceedings en" tered in such order-book touching any and all matters in the suits to and in which they are parties and solicitors. And notice to the solicitors shall be deemed notice to the parties for whom they appear and whom they represent in all cases where personal notice on the parties is not otherwise specially required. Where the solicitors for all the parties in a suit reside in or near the same town or city, the judges of the cir- cuit court may, by rule, abridge the time for notice of rules, orders or other proceedings not requiring personal service on the parties, in their discretion." ^ All notices of motion for any process of contempt or commitment must be served per- sonally upon the party to be affected by it, unless an order has been previously obtained for substituted service.' The application for substituted service is made by exjparte motion supported by affidavit.* § 560. Foi'm and notice of motions.— A motion may in- clude several objects, such as the appointment of a receiver, 1 Equity Rule 3. Equity Rule 3. See St. Louis &c. 2 Equity Rule 4. "It is believed Ry. Co. v. Dewees, 23 Fed. Rop. 691, that no authorities can be produced 694. proving that notice of the motion is ^ g Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1595. required in any case where the par- < 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.j 1596. ties to be affected by the appoint- The name of a defendant cannot be ment of a receiver are in court rep- struck out of a bill on motion of a resented by counsel who appear in co-defendant vpithout his consent or resistance of the motion." McLean notice to him of the application. V. Lafayette Bank, 3 McLean, 503, Livingston v. Gibbons, 4 Johns. Ch. 504, holdiDg that such a motion is 94. not embraced in the language of § 56'J.] MISCELLANEOUS PKOCEEDINGS. 56Y an injunction and the payment of money into court.' Parties moving for more than they are entitled to will be ordered to pay costs of the opposing motion.^ If a person makes siep- arate motions for objects which clearly could have been gra,nted on a single motion, he will be required to pay the extra costs.' No person ought to join in a notice of motion who is not interested in the result of the application.'' Costs are not given to the party moving where the opposite party fails to appear, unless asked for in the notice of motion.' It is usual to name in the notice the judge before whom the motion is to be made." Papers upon which the application is made should be attached to the notice, which ought to specify that the motion will be founded thereon.' If it is founded on plead- ings or other papers on file, the notice should specify such papers particularly.' Where the object is to discharge an order for irregularity, it is usual to state the ground of the application." 1 2 Baniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1594, 1595. ^ North American Coal Co. v. Dyett, 3 Edw. Ch. 115. See, also, Lancashire u. Lancashire, 9 Beav. 120; Meet v. Conston, 33 Beav. 578; Sturch v. Young, 5 Beav. 557. No order for payment of costs will be made on an ex parte application. Nokes v. Gib- bon, 3 Jur. (N. S.) 383 ; Cast v. Poyser, 36 L. J. Ch. 353. s Hawke v. Kemp, 3 Beav. 288. ♦3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1595 ; Folland v. Lamotte, 10 Sim. 486. One defendant who answers separately may move to expedite the suit not- withstanding his solicitor is retained by other defendants. De Luze v. Loder, 3 Edw. Ch. 419. 6 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 570. See, also, Mann v. King, 18 Ves. 397; Banta v. Marcel lub, 3 Barb. 873; Pratt V. Walker, 19 Beav. 361. The rule does not apply where both parties appear. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1600 ; Clark v. Jacques, 11 Beav. 633 ; Butler V. Gardener, 13 Beav. 535; Powell V. Cookerell, 4 Hare, 573. f 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1595. '3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 570. 8 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 570. 9 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 1594 ; Brown v. Robertson, 3 Phil. 173. See, also, Lambert v. Hill, 1 Dr. & War. 74; Alexander v. Easten, 1 Caines, 153; Jackson v. Stiles, 1 Co wen, 184, 135, note. But a rule of practice requiring a notice of mo- tion to specify the particular points intended to be insisted on is only ap- plicable to cases where the opposite party has a right to explain or an- swer the matters of the objections by affidavit, or to cases where, by the practice of the court, the opposite party has a right to amend or to perfect his defective proceedings on proper terms. Hanna v. Curtis, 1 Barb. Ch. 363. As to what consti- tutes compliance with such a rule, see Graham v. Pinckney, 7 Rob. 147 ; Harder v. Harder, 26 Barb. 409; Blake v. Looy, 6 How. Pr. 108 ; Kel- logg V. Shafer, 14 Abb. 149 ; Jackson V. Smith, 16 Abb. 201 ; Winebrenner V. Edgerton, 30 Barb. 185 ; Bowman V. Sheldon. 5 Sandf. 660; Hanna v. Curtis, 1 Barb. Ch. 363. 568 MISCELLANEOUS PEOCEEDINGS. [§ 561. §661. The same subject continued — Form of notice. — A notice of motion must be properly entitled in the cause or matter in which the application is to be made.* It must be dated and addressed to the solicitor of the opposite party or to the party himself if personal service is intended.' If a party has appeared by a solicitor all notices must be signed by the latter.' Notice of motion given " on behalf of the re- lator " in an information by the attorney-general was held irregular; it should be on behalf of the attorney-general.^ Notices on behalf of an infant,' or a married woman without her husband,* or other person under disability, must be made by a next friend, and if the person exercising that function on the record declines to join in the motion a next friend must be named for the purpose.' The notice should state the day, place and hour at which the motion will be made.' The bet- ter course is to state that the motion will be made " at the opening of the court on that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard."' It should state clearly the terms of the order asked for."* And it is usual to add a prayer for general relief, — " and for such further or for such other order or relief as the court may think proper to grant," under which a party may have general relief upon the same principles that apply to a prayer for general relief in a bill." Where a mo- tion is to be made by leave of the court the notice ought to mention that it is to be so made ; otherwise the party served may disregard it." 1 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (6th ed.) 1594 ; » Pidduck v. Boultbee, 2 Sim. (N. S.) 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 570 ; Row- 223. latt V. Cattell, 2 Hare, 186; Solomon «Pearce v. Cole, 16 Jur. 214. V. Stalman, 4 Beav. 243; Davis v. '3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.)]595; Barrett, 7 Beav. 171 ; Pollard v. Doyle, Cox v. Wright, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 981. 2 W. R 509. See, also, Guy v. Guy, 2 Beav. 460 ; 2 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1594 ; Furtado v. Furtado, 6 Jur. 227. Moody V. Hebberd, 11 Jur. 941; 8 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 570. Hutchinson v. Horner, 9 Jur. 615 ; 3 See Bodwell v. Wilcox, 2 Caines, 104 ; Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 570. Anon., 1 Johns. 143. SHalsey v. Carter, 6 Rob. 535; » 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 570. Webb V. Dill, 18 Abb. Pr. 264, hold- i')2 Barboui-'s Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 570; ing that the New York code has not Mann v. King, 18 Ves. 297. changed this practice. " 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 576. * Attorney-General v. Wright, 3 '2 Hill v. Riniell, 8 Sini. 632 ; JacU- Beav. 447. See Parker v. State (Ind.), son v. Wilkins, 6 Beav. 607. 38 N. E. Rep. 119. g§ 562, 563.] MISCELLANEOUS PKOOEEDINGS. 569 § 562. Renewal of motions. — After an order denying an application upon the merits has been confirmed by the appel- late court, it is erroneous for the trial court to permit the former motion to be renewed and to grant the application.' A motion which has been once heard and decided cannot be renewed unless on a new ground and by leave of court.' A motion cannot be renewed until the costs of a previous motion to the same effect, which was not brought on, are paid.' §663. Hearirg of motions. — It is the practice to give preference to ex parte motions, in the order of hearing, over such as are opposed.* The course of proceeding, where both ]ia,rties appear, is for the counsel who makes the motion to read the notice of motion, with the affidavit or admission of service, and the other papers upon which the motion is founded. Then, if there are any papers to be used upon the other side, they are read by the counsel for the opposing party. The counsel for the moving party opens and closes the argument.* Upon the hearing of a motion against a third person who is not a party to the suit, the pleadings and other proceedings in the cause cannot be used if they have not been served on such person with the notice of the motion." The mere absence of counsel at the hearing of a motion is not necessarily equivalent to a consent thereto.' On a motion to discharge an alleged irregular order, no parties can be heard in support of the application but those who have joined in 1 Dodd V. Astor, 2 Barb. Ch. 395. cation, to which the complainant ^ Hoffman w Livingston, 1 Johns, answers, by showing cause upon the Ch. 311 ; Dodd v. Astor, 3 Barb. Ch. merits. After this the defendant's 395 ; Fenton v. Lumberman's Bank, counsel is allowed to argue against Clarke's Ch. 360. Not upon mere cu- the cause shown by the complainant, mutative evidence. Bay v. Connor, and this is considered as the reply. 3 Edw. Ch. 478. 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 1799. 3 Bellchamber v. Giani, 3 Mad. 550. « Morley v. Green, 11 Paige, 240. 4 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 574. " Bound v. South Carolina Ry. Co., 5 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 579. 46 Fed. Rep. 315; Like v. Berresford^ But where a party moves to dissolve 3 Bro. C. C. 366 ; Skinners' Co. v. Irish an injunction nisi, the complainant Society, 1 M. & C. 162 ; Tullett v. shows cause upon the merits con- Armstrong, 1 Keen, 428. See Bailey fessed in the answer. Then no reply v. Foi-d, 13 Sim. 495 ; United States is allowed ; the motion for the order Equity Rule 6, quoted in § 559, supra, nisi being considered as the appli- 570 MISOELLANEODS PEOCEBDINGS. [§ 564. the notice of motion.' But all persons interested in the re- port of a master have a right to support his findings and are entitled to be heard in proceedings tending to disturb it.' It is the practice to confine a party to the objections specified in his notice.' But it has been held that a party may have an order discharged for irregularity, although the notice does not state it as an objection ; the omission being material only as to costs.* § 564. Definition and nature of petitions. — A petition is a written request, addressed to the chancellor, setting forth some matter of fact or ground of complaint as to which the petitioner prays the chancellor to make some order or give some direction.* It is ordinarily used for interlocutory pur- poses, and as a general rule cannot be presented in a cause until the bill has been filed.' Petitions may be presented either in a cause or in a matter over which the court has ju- risdiction under some act of the legislature or under special authority.' It was said by Lord Erskine that there are no precise boundaries between motions and petitions as they are applied to carry into effect decrees and orders.' Most things 1 Stubbs V. Saigon, 3 Beav. 408. » 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1603 ; 2 JobnstoQ V. Todd, 5 Beav. 394. Gibson's Suits in Chancery, g 774. 3 Alexander v. Esten, 1 Caines, 152. ''A petition, in common phrase, is a See, also, Jackson v. Stiles, 1 Cowen, request in writing, and in legal lan- 134. As a general rule, where notice guage describes an application to a of a motion is given, or where an court in writing in contradistinction order to show cause is obtained and to a motion, which may be made viva served upon the adverse party, and voce." Per Folger, J., in Shaft v. he neglects to appear and oppose the Phosnix Mut. L. Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. application, the specific relief men- 544, 547. See, also, Bergen v. Jones, tioned in the notice or order and no 4 Met 371. other will be granted. But if the ^ Receiver &c. v. First Nat. Bank, adverse party appears to oppose the 84 N. J. Eq. 450, 457 ; 2 Barbour's Ch. application, and the applicant is not Pr. (2d ed.) 579. See, also, Codwise entitled to the particular relief speci- v. Gelston, 10 Johns. 521. "It is im- fied, the court, under the alternative proper when a stranger to the suit part of the notice or order, may give desires to present new claims and him such further or other relief as raise new issues not involved in the he may be entitled to upon the facts original cause, though in respect to of the case. Rogers v. Toole, 11 the subject-matter of the suit" Paige, 212. Renfro v. Goetter, 78 Ala, 311, 313. ■1 Brown v. Robertson, 3 Phillips' ' 3 DanieU's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 157. Ch. 173. ' Lord Shipbrooke v. Lord Hinch- §§ 565, 666.] MISCELLANEOUS I'KOCKEDINGS. 571 which may be moved for of course may also be obtained as of course upon petition.' It has been held that whether re- lief shall be sought by petition or by bill when it grows out of matters involved in a pending suit rests in the sound dis- cretion of the court.^ A petition may be presented by any person, whether a party to a suit or not.' § 565. Use of petitions illustrated. — Where a dispute arises between the complainant and defendant as to what the decree in the suii embraces, the matter in difference may be presented by petition.* A master's sale may be set aside by the court in a proper case on petition of the complainant, though the purchaser was not a party to the suit. By becom- ing a purchaser-he subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the court.* An order to stay proceedings in a pending cause must be obtained on petition;' and maintenance will be al- lowed to an infant without a bill.' § 5C6. When a bill is necessary. — Where a decree in favor of a defendant upon his cross-bill was expressed to be without prejudice to an inquiry from matters arising since the bill was filed, it was held that the complainant could have the benefit of such new matter by bill and not by petition.^ In a ingbrook, 13 Ves. 393. A party ought strangers to the record that its de- to apply by petition when a long cree was obtained by collusion and statement of facts is necessary to without any real controversy, an- show his title. Jones v. Roberts, 13 nulled the same and dismissed the Sim. 189. suit. 1 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 157. * Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. 29. 2 Fescue V. Lyon, 55 Ala. 441, hold- >> National Bank v. Sprague, 21 N. J. ing that if a supplemental cross-bill Eq. 458. See, also. Mutual L. Ins. is filed when a petition would be Co. v. Goddard, 33 N. J. Eq. 482; propel', a demurrer to it may be over- Campbell v. Gardner, 11 N. J. Eq. 423. ruled and the cross-bill itself be 6 Dyckman v. Kernochan, 2 Paige, treated as a petition. See, also, Kel- 36. sey V. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269, 277; Co- T Ex parte Salter, 8 Bro. C. C. 500; burn V. Cedar Valley Coal & Land 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 157. Co., 138 U. S. 196, 322. 8 The court, in affirming the greater 3 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 579. convenience and efficacy of a bill in See Livingston's Petition, 32 How. such cases, said : — "This certainly is 30 ; S. C, 34 N. Y. 555 ; Jones v. Rob- infinitely more desirable than to pro- erts, 13 Sim. 189 ; Barker v. Todd, 15 ceed against him by simple petition, Fed. Rep. 265, where the court, upon which is nothing more than a mo- heing informed by the petition of tion in writing, and which he could £72 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS. [§§ 567, 568. suit by a receiver of an insolvent bank to recover moneys of the bank received by one of its creditors subsequently to his appointment, it was held that the complainant could have no relief by petition, but only by bill, and that the fact of his being an oflBcer of the court entitled him to no privilege not accorded to other suitors.' § 667. Verification of a petition. — "With regard to the veri- fication of a petition it was said by Judge Folger ^ that " there is nothing in the thing itself nor in the naming of it by its name alone in a statute which demands that it should be ver- ified. Doubtless the general rule is to verify a petition, though often this is required by standing rules of court rather than by force of the term itself or the exigency of the statute." ' §568. Form of a petition. — A petition in a cause should be properly entitled in the cause.* When it is presented in some collateral matter, or there is no suit pending, it is entitled " In the Matter of A. B.," etc." The petition then states by whom it is presented, and the particulars of the case, and concludes by praying the court to make the order required,' A peti- tion for payment from a fund in court need not be as precise in its statements as a bill.' Brevity and form are chiefly to be observed in drawing petitions; and care must be taken to avoid scandal and impertinence, for which a petition, except it be for a rehearing,' may be referred as well as any other proceeding.' Petitions are usually signed by the party or by not be compelled to answer, but n. h; 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) whicb he may resist in many ways 580. to the delay of justice if not to its 63 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 265, defeat; and should he volunteer to n. h; 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) answer, his answer may be as evasive 680. and misleading as human ingenuity 62 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed. ) 580. can devise." Trotter v. Heckscher, If the applicant is not a party he 41 N. J. Eq. 478, 481. should state his residence and de- 1 Receiver &c v. First Nat Bank, scription. Glazbrook v. Gillatt, 9 34 N. J. Eq. 451. Beav. 492. 2 In Shaft V. Phoenix Mut L. Ins. ' Weaver v. Cooper, 73 Ala. 318. Co., 67 N. Y. 544, 547, 548. * Eowe v. Wood, 1 J. & W. 326, n. 3 See Anon., Hopk. Ch. 101. » 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (Ist ed.) 266 ; <3 Daniell'8 Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 265, 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 580. §§ 569, 5T0.] MISCELLANEOUS PEOOEKDINGS. 573 his solicitor,* but the signature of counsel is not necessary ex- cept to petitions of appeal or for a rehearing.' § 569. Notice of petitions. — All petitions except those which are of course require service upon all parties interested.' The English orders in chancery require service to be made two clear days, of which Sunday is not one, before the hearing.* The federal equity rules require "reasonable" notice to the adverse party,' which is served in substantially the same manner as notices of motions.' Where actual service is required it is effected by delivering to the person served a true copy of the petition, and at the same time showing him the original.' Where a petition is served upon an infant or a person of unsound mind a guardian ad litem must be appointed by whom he may appear.' § 570. Hearing of petitions. — If upon the hearing the petitioner does not appear, the petition will be dismissed with costs, upon the production of a copy of the petition and affi- davit of due service by the person upon whom it was served.' The general practice upon the hearing of petitions is nearly the same as that upon motions.'" On the other hand, if the peti- tioner appears, and no one appears in opposition to the petition, an order conformable to the prayer thereof will be made on producing an affidavit of service upon all the parties inter- 1 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) Daniell's Ch, Pr. (1st ed.) 269 ; Bar- 1803. hour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 581 ; Garey v. 2Hathawayt). Scott, 11 Paige, 173. Whittingham, Turn. & Russ. 405, 3 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1607. notes ; Templeraan v. Warrington, 1 See, also. Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. J. & W. 377, n. ; Heneage v. Aikin, Eq. 29. It was held in Weaver v. Coo- IJ. & W. 377. per, 73 Ala. 318, that notice of a peti- ? 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1607. tion for payment from a fund in court As to substituted service see §§ 177 will be dispensed with if the parties et seq.; 559, supra; 579, n. 6, infra. interested appear and answer to it 9 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1607, * 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1606, citing Be Barrington, 27 Beav. 272 ; 1607. Re Ward, 2 Giff. 123; Re Duke of 'Equity Rule 3. Cleveland's Harte Estate, 1 Dr. & 8 See § 559, SMpra. Whoever is served Sm. 46; Re Greaves, W. R. 353. with a petition is considered entitled ^ 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 268, to costs of appearing whether he is 269 ; 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 581. interested in the matter or not 3 i" 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 268, 571 MISOKLLANEOUS rEOOEEDINGS. [§ 571. estod, provided the case justifies the order.' Adverse parties may file answers in denial or avoidance of facts stated in the petition, which answers should be verified by affidavit.'' B}' answering the defendant waives all objections to the form and mode of proceeding; such objections should be taken by demurrer.' The rule with regard to reading affidavits and the general practice as to evidence which may be used upon the hearing of petitions are substantially the same as those with regard to motions.* §671. Petitions of intervention — General riglit to in- tervene. — " Intervention is the generic designation in the civil law of the various technical processes by which, when a suit is pending between two parties, a third party is allowed to interpose for the assertion of some collateral, implicit or ulterior right, adverse to that of either or both of the others, or to defend a responsibility involved in the issue of the con- troversy." ' " No one, even in equity, is entitled to be made or to become a party to the suit unless he has an interest in its object; yet it is the common practice of the court to per- mit strangers to the litigation, claiming an interest in its sub- ject-matter, to intervene on their own behalf to assert their title." " " The United States would generally be allowed to 13 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 269; 2 affidavits. The petition itself is no Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 580, 581. evidence of the facts stated in it See Bound ». South Carolina Ey. Co., They must all be proved aliunde. 46 Fed. Rep. 315. No answer to the petition is required. 2 1 Foster's Federal Practice (2d ed.). Crane v. Brigham (1855), 11 N. J. Eq. § 802 ; Mitf ord & Tyler's PI. 448. " If 29 ; Coxe v. Halstead, 2 N. J. Eq. 311 ; the petition presents an issue of fact. State Bank v. Bell, 7 N. J. Eq. 372, the opposite party may plead to it, or 376. See § 566, n. 8, supra. he may answer it as though it were ^Newman v. Moody, 19 Fed. Rep. a bill ; and if it presents an issue of 858. law he may demur to it, although * 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1608. the common practice is to move to in re Westbrook's Trust?, L. R 11 Eq. dismiss it" Gibson's Suits in Chan- 252, holds that a petition may be <^«^i'y. § ''^'''8. In New Jersey, where amended by adding supplemental a petition is presented and an adverse matter occurring after it was filed, party has a right to be heard in op- ^ Per Caleb Gushing, arguendo, position, the usual proceeding is to Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478. take a rule or order fixing a day for « Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. the hearing. Copies of the petition 276. In that case it was held that and order are served on the opposite where property of the wrong person party, and the parties are heard upon is attached on ]>mcess issued by the §571.] MISCELLANEOUS PEOCEEDINGS. 575 intervene summarily, or by a su for protecting property rights equity." ' Supreme Court he may intervene in the suit for the protection of his rights, by petition pro inte7-esse suo: or by a more formal but dppendent bill in equity, if necessary, or in a summary way by motion merely supported by affidavits; or if pro- ceedings authorized by the statutes of the State in which the cause is pend- ing afford an adequate remedy, by adopting them as part of the practice of the court ; also that he may appeal from a final decree against him, and want of diverse citizenship is no ob- jection to his application to iuter- vene. Everett v. Edwards, 149 Mass. 588; Robertson v. Baker, 11 Fla. 192, 231 ; Earner v. Bayless (Ind.l, 33 N. E. Rep. 907 : Clough v. .Thomas, 53 Ind. 24 ; Mahr v. Society, 127 N. Y. 461. After a decree and sale in pro- ceedings to enforce a trust deed, and while the purchase-money was still undistributed, a party having rights in the property prior to the complain- ants was permitted to intervene and have them adjusted and obtain ))roper relief. French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509. " In a suit in rem where a court has jurisdiction of the res and its decree affects the interest in the res of all persons who have an inter- est in the res, a person who has a lien or claim upon or other interest ia the res is allowed to intervene and be heard for his own interest. The theory of this is that the person by his interest in the res has an interest in a legal sense in the subject-matter of the controversy. But in a suit in personam a person not a party to the suit can have no interest in a legal sense in a personal claim made in the suit against a defendant therein unless it is necessary that such per- son, not a party, should he made n pplemental information or bill, involved in a pending suit in party in order properly to enforce such claim." Per Blatchford, J., in Coleman v. Martin, 6 Blatchf. 119, 120. In Billings v. Aspen Mining & Smelting Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 338. it was held to be error to refuse a petition to become a party complainant in order that a decree might be made which should settle the rights of all the parties. A judgment creditor who has levied on property of his debtor after it has come in to possession of a receiver appointed under a fore- closure suit, which, the creditor alleges, was coUusively brought in order to defeat his recovery, may, on disclaiming any intention to interfere with the possession of the receiver, be permitted to intervene in the fore- closure suit. Farmers' L. & T. Co. i\ Toledo &c. R. Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 233. ' Putnam, C. J., in Potter v. Beal. 50 Fed. Rep. 860, — " in accordance with the broad principles of Florida V. Georgia, 17 How. 478." But in the case first cited it was the opinion of the court that where a United States district attorney sought to reach for user in criminal proceedings certain papers impounded by the court, he ought to procure a proper subpoena duces tecum before making a sum- mary application. His petition to be admitted was dismissed without costs and without prejudice. Where iin administrator, party to a foreclosuie suit for sale of the land of his intes- tate, after request by the creditors, refuses to apply to have the sale sei aside, a creditor, on behalf of himself and other creditors, may obtain re- lief on petition. He may be per- mitted to intervene in the name of the administrator, on such terms as the court may see fit to impose for the indemnity of the latter, or, if 576 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS. [§ 572. § 572. Intervention by strangers. — Where a stranger to a suit seeks to appropriate moneys paid into court by a party to the cause, he must do so by bill and not by petition.' In Massachusetts the rule was stated to be that persons who hold assignments of the interests of parties in a fund in court or liens upon it may appear in equity as claimants, but a judgment creditor without a specificlien cannot intervene and appropriate it to the payment of his debt.' "Where execution has issued in a suit in equity and a levy and sale of certain lands have been made, a third party claiming title cannot in- tervene for the purpose of moving to set aside the execution when there is no privity of estate between him and the party against whom the execution has issued.' The purchaser of a railroad in the hands of a receiver may properly be refused leave to intervene as a complainant and reopen litigation con- ducted by the receiver.'' So may one be refused permission to become a party to the proceedings at a late stage thereof, his position being no better than that of the parties in the occasion require, in his own name. Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 31 N. J. Eq. 17C, citing Drew v. Harman, 5 Price, 319 ; Receiver &c. v. Wortendyke, 37 N. J. Eq. 658; Houlditch v. Marquis of Donegal, 1 Sim. c& Stu. 491 ; Will- iamson V. N. J. Southern R. Co., 25 N. J. Eq. 13. The subject of inter- vention IS treated at considerable length in 17 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 633, citing statutory provisions in many States and decisions there- under. 1 Esterbrook Co. v. Ahern, 31 N. J. Eq. 4, on the principle applied in Linn v. Wheeler,21 N. J. Eq. 231, that no one not a party can make a mo- tion except for the purpose of being made a party. 2 Tuck V. Manning, 150 Mass. 211, where Field, J., said: — "To admit them would be to interfere with the fiual determination of causes, and would convert suits in which money has been deposited in court into pro- ceedings for the benefit of creditors of one or more of the parties." By the course of legislation and practice in Massachusetts, "other parties standing in like relation to the suit, such as executors, administrators, etc., are permitted to intervene by a petition, which is thus made a substi- tute for a bill of revivor." Murray V. Dehon, 103 Mass. 11, 13; Pmgree V. Coffin, 13 Gray, 288. Likewise a new trustee may appear by petition and prosecute a bill filed by his pred- ecessor. Murray v. Dehon, supra. ' His remedy is a bill to quiet title, or he may in an action at law plead the invalidity of the execution. Ex parte Mensing, 55 Fed. Rep. 17 ; s. a sub nom. Claflin v. South Carolina R. Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 17. See, also, Thomson-Houston Electric Ca V. Sperry Electric Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 75.. * Ritchie v. Cincinnati &c. Ry. Ca (Ky.), 31 S. W. Rep. 641. See, also, Fairbanks v. Farwell (111.), 30 N. R Rep. 1056. § 573.] MISCELLANEOUS PEOOEEDINGS. 577 case, and no offer being made by him to become responsible for the delay.' § 573. The same subject continued. — One who has an in- terest in the suit but no interest in the event, and is in no direct privity with the person sued, will not be permitted to intervene and defend.' Where a bill is filed against an executor to establish a claim against the estate, although the residuary legatee is not a necessary party, yet if he has a direct interest in the event of the suit, and the executor is disqualified by his relationship to the complainant from representing and protecting the rights of the legatee, the latter may be ad- mitted on petition to defend the bill in person, and this with- out regard to the good or bad faith of the executor ; if the bill seeks no answer from or decree against the legatee it need not be amended to make him formally a party defendant.' In a suit against a railroad company to restrain it from in- fringement of a patent upon oil cars, the defendant disclaimed ownership of the cars and of any interest in the patent, and insisted that its sole offense was in transporting the cars as a common carrier. It was held that the owner of the cars was entitled to intervene and defend the suit, setting up its rights.'' 1 Central Trust Co. v. Texas &c. Co. v. Ahern, 31 "N. J. Eq. 3, 7. See, Ry. Co., 84 Fed. Eep. 153. A pur- also, Ex parte Railroad Co., 95 U. S. chaser of a judgment during the 221 ; Eyster v. Gafif, 91 U. S. 521. pendpncy of a foreclosure suit from 2 Thomson-Houston El. Co. v. a defendant in the suit is not entitled Sperry El. Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 75. See, to come in by petition and be made also, Ex parte Mensing, 55 Fed. Rep. a party to the suit He must file a 17 ; CoflSn v. Chattanooga Water & bill for that purpose. Loomis v. Power Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 548. Stuyvesant, 10 Paige, 490. A party ' Melick v. Melick, 17 N. J. Eq. 156, who was permitted to intervene in distinguished in Jones v. Winans, 20 a cause and afterwards lost all his N. J. Eq. 96, where a petition to be interest in the subject-matter of the made a defendant by one who was suit has no standing on a petition to neither a necessary nor a proper open the decree. Ward v. Montclair party was denied. Ry. Co., 26 N. J. Eq. 260. Where a < Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pac party becomes bankrupt during the R. Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 521, holding it progress of a cause, it is for the as- immaterial that the petition was en- signee to determine whether he will titled " Petition for interpleader." apply to be permitted to intervene, See, also, Bronson v. La Crosse R and if he does not do so he is bound Co., 2 Wall 283. by the result of the suit. Esterbrook 37 578 MIS0ELLANBOD8 PKOCEEDINGS. [§§ 574, 575. § 574. Intervention by beneficiaries. — Persons belonging to a class represented in the suit, such as mortgage creditors represented by the trustees of the mortgage, are regarded as quasi-Tp&rties, and may be heard on petition or motion.' In suits brought by a trustee or otherwise aifecting trust prop- erty, the beneficiaries of the trust will frequently be allowed to intervene for the purpose of protecting their interests.' But "the rule is now well established that the individual bondholder and the separate beneficiary will not be made parties to suits relating to the mortgage or trust deed unless it is alleged and shown that the trustee is incompetent or for some reason cannot faithfully represent the cestui que trxistP ' § 576. Intervention by stockholders as defendants in tlie federal courts. — Where a corporation is a defendant and upon a petition to intervene alleging "that the directors re- fused to attend to the interests of the corporation, the court will in its discretion allow a stockholder to become a party defendant for the purpose of protecting from unfounded and illegal claims against the company his own interest and th« interest of such other stockholders as may choose to join him in the defense."* 1 Anderson v. Railroad Co., 2 Richards v. Railroad Co., 1 Hughes, Woods, 628; Fidelity Trust & Safety 28. Vault Co. V. Mobile St. Ry. Co., 53 * Per Justice Nelson in Bronson v. Fed. Rep. 850. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 283. See, also, 2 Carter v. City of New Orleans, 19 Ex ■parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, 249. Fed. Rep. 659; Fidelitj' Trust & In the application of this doctrine Safety Vault Co. v. Mobile St Ry. it was held in Central Trust Ca v. Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 850. Marietta &c. R Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 14, ^ Per Goff, Circuit Judge, in Clyde that the circumstances would not V. Richmond &c. R Co., 55 Fed. Rep. justify an intervention. See, also, 445, citing the following cases: — Blackman v. Railroad Co., 58 Ga. Sbiddy v. Railroad Co., 3 Hughes, 189 ; Bayliss v. Lafayette &c. Ry. Co., 320 ; Wetraore v. Railroad Co., 1 8 Bisa 193. The doctrine declared in McCrary, 466 ; S. C, 3 Fed. Rep. 177 Railroad Co. v. Howard, 7 Wall. 393 Richter v. Jerome, 133 U. S. 238 Shaw V. Railroad Co., 5 Gray, 163 Bronson r. Railroad Co., 2 Wall. 383 (supra), is pronounced unsound in Ex parte Printup, 87 Ala. 148. In Forbes v. Railroad Co., 2 Woods, Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Kansas City 323, Justice Bradley used the fol- &c. R. Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 182 ; Van lowing language : — " A suggestion Vechten v. Terry, 2 Johns. Ch. 197 ; in the progress of the suit that an Kerrison v. Stewart, 93 IT. S. 155 ; officer of the court is disposed to act § 576.] MISCELLANEOUS PEOCEBDINGS. 579 § 576. Intervention on a creditor's bill. — The practice of ]ermitting judgment creditors to come in and make them- selves parties to a creditor's bill, and thereby obtain the ben- efit of the suit, assuming at the same time their portion of the costs and expenses of the litigation, is well settled.' Where a bill is filed by judgment creditors in behalf of all judgment creditors to reach property which could not be effectively reached at law, and no order is made requiring others to in- tervene by a certain time or be barred of their rights, all judgment creditors who choose to intervene, even though not until after an interlocutory decree ordering a sale, are entitled to share ratably with the complainants in the proceedings.^ fiaudulently, or that the court has made an injudicious or erroneous order, will not be sufficient ground to allow such a party to intervene. Indeed, it is questionable whether in any case, where a suit is properly instituted against a corporation, a stockholder of that corporation can, even on a suggestion of fraud on the part of its officers, come in by way of intervention as party to that suit, and seek to defend or control the proceedings. An original bill would rather seem to be a proper mode of proceeding." In that case in order granting leave to intervene was afterwards vacated as improvi- dently made. iLibby v. Norris, 142 Mass. 246, exemplifying the practice on cred- itor's bills; Myers v. Fenn, 5 Wall. 'JOo, where it was held that proceed- ings of this kind will not be reversed, where they have been conducted to conclusion without a formal order sjranting permission to the party so coming in, and no objection is made for want of such oi'der. But regu- larly an order of court is necessary, and merely depositing a petition in the clerk's office in vacation is not sufficient Walter v. Chichester, 84 Va. 733 ; Insurance Co. v. Maury, 75 V.n. iiOS. As to the absolute right of parties interested in a common fund brought into court at the suit of the other parties to intervene for a dis- tributive share, see, also, Belmont Nail Co. V. Columbia Iron & Steel Co., 46 Fed. Eep. 336 ; Martin v. Rain- water, 56 Fed. Rep. 7; Forbes v. Railroad Co., 2 Woods, 834; In re Howard, 9 Wall. 175; Campbell v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 368; Will- iams V. Gibbs, 17 How. 289 ; Johnson V. Waters, 111 U. S. 640; Flash v. Wilkerson, 22 Fed. Rep. 689; Kim- berling v. Hartley, 1 McCrary, 136; S. C, 1 Fed. Rep. 571; Phillips v. Blatchford, 26 111. App. 606. In Maryland and in Illinois a creditor may come in either by petition or by fihng the vouchers of his claims. Strike v. McDonald, 2 Harr. & Gill, 191 ; Derrick v. Lamar Ins. Co., 74 111. 404, 407. The doctrine is equally well settled, subject to a few excep- tions, that the holder of an unliqui- dated demand cannot intervene until it is reduced to judgment. George V. St. Louis &c. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 117; Martin v. Michael. 28 Mo. 50; Dunlevy v. Tallmadge, 32 N. Y. 459 ; Turner i\ Adams, 46 Mo. 95 ; Webster V. Clark, 25 Me. 314 ; Dodd v. Levy, 10 Mo. App. 122. 2 George v. St Louis &c. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 117, distinguishing 580 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS. [§§ 577, 578. § 577. The same subject continued. — A creditor who de- lays asking to be admitted as a co-complainant until after the case has been finally heard should be admitted, unless his ad- mission is by consent, only on condition that those who have expended their labor and incurred the risk of trying the case be first paid.* § 578. Intervention as a defendant. — A person not a party to the suit, whatever may be his claim on the property in- volved, cannot intervene by petition and be made a defend- ant, against the objection of the complainant, for the purpose of defeating his entire suit and reaping the proceeds of prop- erty brought into court by a bill, after its dismissal on his defense.^ Trust Co. V. Earle, 110 TJ. S. 710, and holding also that it does not affect the I'ight of such subsequent inter- veners to share ratably that the bill prays that after a sale the proceeds may be distributed among the per- sons in whose behalf the suit is brought "according to their respect- ive rights and equities," where the original complainants and prior in- tervenors had no prior lien on all the property sold when the bill was filed. Johnston v. Markle Paper Co. (Vt), 25 Atl. Rep. 885. 1 Jones V. Davenport, 45 N. J. Eq. 77, 87. Chancellor Bland held, in Strike's Case, 1 Bland, 57f that it was the right of any creditor of the de- fendant to be admitted as a co-com- plainant either before or after final decree; in fact at any time before the property was distributed. See, also. Wilder v. Keeler, 3 Paige, 164. In Smith v. Craft, 11 Biss. 340, Judge Gresham held that if a creditor asked permission after the court had an- nounced its decision, he should only be admitted on condition that the payment of his claim was postponed to that of the complainant Chan- cellor Kent held that a creditor who by superior diligence had acquired a judicial preference was entitled to have that preference preserved to him when the assets were distrib- uted McDermutt v. Strong, 4 Johns. Ch. 687. And Chancellor Walworth, in Edmeston v. Lyde, 1 Paige, 639, said that it did not seem just that a creditor who had sustained all the risk and expense of bringing his suit to a successful termination should be compelled to divide the fruits of his efforts with those who intentionally kept back until there was no risk in becoming parties to the suit 2 Ren fro v. Goetter, 78 Ala. 311, 313, 314. where the court said: — "Gen- erally a complainant may elect whom he will make parties and with whom he will litigate, under the rules governing proper and necessary par- ties. Whenever during the progress of the cause it is disclosed or made known that an absent person is a necessary party in order that an ef- fective decree may be rendered, or that a decree cannot be rendered without affecting such person's rights, it is competent for the court to order that the complainant amend so as to make him a party, and, on failure or refusal, to dismiss his bill ; but the court cannot make him ;i § 579.] MISCELLANEOUS PEOOEEDINGS. 581 / § 579. Requisites of a petition to intervene. — A petition of intervention should disclose upon its face the nature of the suit in which it is filed and the grounds upon which V. Barman, 5 Price, 319. The other party without action taken by the complainant When a person not a party to a pending suit, between whom and the complainant there is no privity, but who has a claim or lien on the property — a new and inde- pendent claim, — or is interested in the subject-matter of the suit, desires for his own protection to present his new claim, to assert his independent rights and raise new issues, he must do so by a formal bill containing proper allegations — an original bill in the nature of a cross-bill or of a supplemental bill, as the case may authorize. Cowles v. Andrews, 39 Ala, 135 ; Caron v. Mowatt, 1 Edw. Ch. 9 ; Anderson v. Jacksonville &c. R Co., 3 Woods, 638; Stretch v. Stretch, 3 Tenn. Ch. 140. In Ex parte Printup, 87 Ala, 148 ; S. C, 6 So. Rep. 418, the rule is again declared that a motion to be admitted as a defend- ant in a suit is irregular, and that in equity jurisprudence there is no such practice as making a person a de- fendant upon his own application and over the objection of the com- plainant The court said that " upon this general rule two exceptions have been engrafted. One of these, grow- ing out of trust relations between a party and third persons, is thus formulated by Judge Story: — 'If the eestuis que trust (or beneficiaries) should not be made parties to the suit, and their interests are apparent, a court of equity will sometimes, as a matter of indulgence, and to pre- vent further delay and expense, allow them (if they wish) to bring forward their claims by petition, in order to have their interests ascer- tained and their rights protected.' Story's Equity Pleading, §308 ; Drew exception is illustrated in those cases where the petitioner desires to inter- vene only for the purpose of proper administration and distribution of a fund which is in the custody or con- trol of the court and in which he, though not a party, is entitled to rights. Carlin v. Jones, 5.5 Ala. 630." The court disapproved Bronson v. La Crosse R Co., 3 Wall. 383, as a case "opposed to all other adjudica- tions on the point" In Stretch v. Stretch, 8 Tenn. Ch. 140, 143, the question received characteristic treat- ment by Chancellor Cooper, who de- lights in vindicating orthodox doc- trines. After quoting the passage from Judge Story {supra), he said : — "The reason of this exception is about this : that the trustee repre- sents the beneficiaries as between them and the opposing party, and if the trust distinctly appears of record there can be little objection to the summary remedy by petition as be- tween the trustee and his cestui que trust. But even in this extreme case the remedy by petition is ' a matter of indulgence,' not of right, and the remedy by original bill in the nature of a cross-bill clear and beyond question. Story's Eq. PL, g 308. It was upon this exception, however, and the authority of Judge Story in the section cited, that our Supreme Court made the ruling in Birdsong v. Birdsong, 3 Head, 389, 303, although the same point had been ruled otherwise in Morris v. Nixon, 7 Humph. 584. The case of Saylors v. Saylors, 3 Heisk. 533, is similar to and based upon Birdsong V. Birdsong. There are cases in the books where the courts have gone 582 MISCELLANEOUS PROOEBDINGS. [§ 579. the party seeks to intervene.' The court will not consider questions argued but not founded on matter set forth in the petition.'' A petition styled a cross-bill, or a " petition in the nature of a cross-bill," may be treated as a petition of inter- vention if it is otherwise in conformity therewith,' but not further, and upon the petition of a stranger permitted him to intervene as a defendant, no objection having been made by the complainant. Such were the cases of Galveston R. Co. v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 4.59, 464; Banks u Banks, 2 Cold. (Tenn.) 546, 548; Wil- son V. Eifler, 7 Cold. (Tenn.) 33. Such, also, was the case of Hill v. Bowers, 4 Heisk. 373 ; for although the printed opinion states that the stranger was permitted to intervene ' without ob- jection by the defendant,' yet, as there were several defendants and only one complainant, and as the word ' defendant ' occurs in the next preceding line, and as there would be no point in the defendant objecting, it seems almost certain that the word 'defendant' as printed is a misprint for the word ' complainant' In Read V. Long, 4 Yerg. 71, parties were made defendants over the objection of the complainant, and the question was not passed upon by the Supreme Court. ... I have myself, in two or three instances, upon principle and authority, ruled against the right to intervene in this mode, and upon reconsideration see no reason to doubt the correctness of ray ruling. No such practice is known in equity as making a person a defendant to a suit on his own application. See Coleman v. Martin, 6 Blatchf. 119 Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 145 Drake v. Goodridge, 6 Blatchf. 151.' In French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 535, Waite, C. J., alludes to the power of the court, "with the consent of the complainants," to admit an in- tervener as a defendant See, also. in support of the text, Lincoln v. New Orleans Exp. Co. (La.), 12 So. Rep. 637 ; Carroll v. Bridewell, 27 La. Ann. 339 ; Fleming v. Shields, 31 La. Ann. 118; Lee v. Bradice, 8 Martin (La.), 55; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Snowden, 68 Md. 118. • Ransom v. Davis' Adm'rs, 18 How. 295. For a form of a prayer for relief on a petition of interven- tion, see French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 519. A party who, having ac- quired an interest during the pend- ency of the suit, applies under the New Jersey chancery act to be made a party in order to move to open the decree, must present in his petition a case of substantial equity. Claiming in the court below the right to be let in as a party for a specified purpose, he cannot object on appeal to the order refusing his admission that he had the right to be joined to the suit for another purpose. Davis v. Sulli- van, 33 N. J. Eq. 569 ; Guest v. Hew- itt. 37 N. J. Eq. 479, which holds that a party who has acquired an interest in a cause after its inception and comes in by petition under the chan- cery act, which provides that he shall be bound by all orders and proceed- ings in the cause against the party whose interest be has acquired, is no further bound by previous orders and decrees than the party whose place he has taken, and is entitled to the same equitable consideration on motion to have a decree set aside or opened. 2 Clyde V. Richmond &c. E. Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 445. 3 French v. Gapen, 105 V. S. 509, § 579.] MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS. 583 where it introduces new and distinct matters not within the scope of the original bill.' An objection that certain persons were allowed to become parties to a creditor's bill on imper- fect petitions cannot be made after answer and submission for trial on the merits.^ Where individual stockholders or bondholders desire to intervene in suits conducted or defended by parties charged with their interests, they should proceed with due diligence, and a petition filed at a late stage of the case may properly be dismissed on the mere ground of delay.' If no exception be taken to a petition to intervene as a de- fendant, the intervener may be treated as if he had originally been made a defendant.* The omission of a formal order granting leave to intervene is no objection where the subse- quent proceedings were carried on with the acquiescence of all parties as if such an order had been entered.' Where the beneficiaries of a trust intervene in a suit by the trustee af- fecting the trust property, service by substitution may be had by leave of the court upon the attorney for the complainant when the latter is beyond the jurisdiction of the court.' An intervention by a stranger to the suit is treated as a depend- ent proceeding so far as to obviate an objection on the ground of want of diverse citizenship of the intervenor.'' The dis- missal of an intervention " without prejudice " means no more than that the intervenor may institute another suit to enforce his alleged rights, and, at best, may perhaps intervene again in the same cause of action in the same case.' An intervenor 619 ; Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault ing leave to intervene as a defend- Co. V. Mobile St Ry. Co., 53 Fed. Rep. ant. 850, 852. 6 Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Co. 1 Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Co. v. Mobile St Ry. Co., 53 Fed. Rep. V. Mobile St Ry. Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 850, holding, however, that such serv- 850, 852. ice cannot be had on a " petition in 2 Gibson v. Trowbridge Furniture the nature of cross-bill " setting up Co. (Ala.), 11 So. Rep. 365. new matter as a basis for affirmative ' Central Trust Co. v. Texas &c. Ry. relief ; Lowenstein v. Glidewell, 5 Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 158. See, also, Dill. 325 ; Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Ha wes V. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450. "Wall. 807; Bowen v. Christian, 16 ♦French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, Fed. Rep. 730. 525. 'Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. & 'Myers v. Fenn, 5 Wall. 205. In 376, 283, 384. See, also, Clark v. Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 348, 349, Mathewson, 13 Peters, 164, 172. appears the form of an order grant- 8 Gaston v. Houston &c. Ry. Ca, 44 684 MISCELLANEOUS PEOOEEDINGB. [§§ 580, 581. has the right to appeal from a final decree and on that appeal contest the validity of interlocutory orders made subsequent to his admission as a party and affecting his interest in the litigation.' § 680. When an intervention becomes eiTective. — The mere filing of a petition to be made a party in a pending suit does not operate to make the petitioner a party.* Where a person applies to be made a party, and an order is made that the cause stand over, with liberty to the complainant to amend his bill by adding proper parties if he should be so ad- vised, such order does not make the applicant a party to the bill, nor create a lis pendens, as to him, prior to his being made a party.' "There are cases in which persons have been treated as parties to a suit after having filed a petition for leave to come in, when no formal order admitting them appeared in the record; but in all such cases it will be found that they have acted or have been recognized as parties in the subsequent proceedings." * § 581. Consolidation of causes (a) — In the federal courts. — The United States Eevised Statutes provide that " When causes of a like nature or relative to the same ques- tion are pending before a court of the United States, or of any Territorj', the court may make such orders and rules con- Fed Rep. 7, 9, holding that such a v. Chichester, 84 Va 723 ; & c, 6 S. E. dismissal is a final decree within Rep. 1 ; Piedmont &c. Ins. Co. v. United States Equity Rule 88, pro- Maury, 75 Va. 508, holding that the viding forrehearings. See, also, Gum- complainant in a creditor's bill had a bel V. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 545 ; s. a, 5 right to dismiss his bill before decree S. Ct. Rep. 616. without the consent of other credit- 1 Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, ors who had simply filed petition^ 352. A bondholder has such an in- to be admitted as parties, terest in the amount allowed as com- 'Bigelow v. Stringfellow, 25 Fla. pensation to the trustee that he may 366 ; S. C, 5 So. Rep. 816. appeal from an adverse decision * Ex parte Cutting, 04 U. S. 14, cit- thereon. Williams v. Morgan, 111 iug Myers v. Fenn, 5 Wall. 205; U. S. 684. As to the right of an in- Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Pet 491 ; Ogil- tervenor to remove a case from a vie v. Ins. Co., 2 Black, 589 ; Bronson State to a federal court, see Hack v. v. Railroad Co., 2 Wall. 304 ; Railroad Chicago &c. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. Rep. v. Bradleys, 7 Wall. 575 ; Umbarger 356; Iowa Homestead Co. v. Des v. Watts, 25 Gratt. 167; Piedmont Moines &c. R Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 97. &c. Ins. Co. v. Maury, 75 Va, 508. 2Jnr-e Doyle, 14 R. L 55; Walter § 582.] MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS. 585 cerning proceedings therein as may be conformable to the usages of courts for avoiding unnecessary costs or delay in the administration of justice, and may consolidate said causes when it appears reasonable to do so." ' It seems that under this statute consolidation can be ordered on motion of the defendant.^ A motion to consolidate three foreclosure suits, where neither was ripe for decree and nothing could be gained for the purpose of a hearing, was denied, with leave to renew the same when either case should be ripe for decree.' § 582. (b) In West Yirginia, Georgia and Indiana. — In "West Yirginia the rule is declared to be " that the consolida- tion of actions is not a matter of right, nor is it a proper subject of any pleading either in bar or in abatement. It de- pends on the circumstances of the case, and is addressed to the discretion of the court; and the only proper mode of bringing it to the view of the court is by a motion for a rule to show cause why the actions should not be consolidated." * Where the parties are the same and separate suits have been brought in equity upon matters which have been united in one suit, and the defense is the same in all, a consolidation rule ought to be granted ; but where the suits are by differ- ent complainants proceeding against different funds of the defendant to satisfy separate and distinct liens, and one of the suits has proceeded to a decree confirming the report of a master before the other is instituted, the court will deny an order for consolidation.* In Georgia, where three suits were proceeding in favor of different parties on the same claim, two of them beino: for the whole claim and the third for a large part thereof, against the same defendant, and the trial of each case would require an investigation into long and complicated accounts involving a large amount, they lU. S. R S., § 921. involved and the complainants in 2Snmmerlin v. Fronteriza &c. some of the suits were defendants in Mining Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 249, 255. others, consolidation was denied. 3 Mercantile Trust Co. v. Missouri, ^ Beach v. Woodyard, 5 West Va. K. & T. Ry Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 8. In 231 ; McRae v. Boast, 3 Rand. (Va.) Central Trust Co. v. Virginia Steel & 481. Iron Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 769, where ^ Beach v. 'VVoodyard, 5 West Va. interests of distinct corporations were 231. 586 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS. [§ 583. were consolidated and disposed of by one decree.* In Indi- ana, where two suits by different complainants against the same defendant, asking for an account and the appointment of a receiver, were consolidated, the rights of the plaintiffs were regarded as separate and distinct, and independent proof was required of each claim.^ § 683. (c) In Wisconsin. — It was held in a recent case in Wisconsin that where two of three heirs having each brought actions to charge the representative of the administrator of the estate of their ancestor, and one who had been the busi- ness partner of the administrator, separately with the profits arising from their dealings with the lands of the ancestor, and where each cause of action arose out of the same transactions, and the rights of all parties could be fully protected in a single action, the court might properly order all four actions to be consolidated, and on motion of the third heir make him a party to the consolidated action.' of the actions thus consolidated. If it be conceded that the practice adopted is not technically regular. we do not understand how the ap- pellants could possibly be injured by it, or what advantage would have accrued to them had the court, in- stead of consolidating the actions, stayed proceedings in or dismissed three of them. If the appellants are not injured by the alleged irregular practice (and we think they are not), it is no ground for reversal of the order of consolidation. But we do not think that the order of consolida- tion is irregular. We cannot doubt that the power inheres in a court of equity, in its discretion, to consoli- date causes pending therein for the purpose of avoiding a multiplicity of suits and trials where the consoli- dation can work no injury to any party. This power is essential to the proper administration of justice, and does not depend upon any statute for its existence. . . . There ia some apparent conflict in the cases on the • Wilson V. Riddle, 48 Ga 609. 2 Midland Ry. Co. v. Island Coal Co., 186 Ind. 384. See Grant v. Davis (Ind.), 31 N. E. Rep. 587. s Biron v. Edwards (1890), 77 Wis. 477. "The question," said Judge Lyon, in the case cited, "is purely one of practice. By what procedure shall the whole controversy be con- centrated in one action? This might have been accomplished by bringing in all the heirs and both defendants in one of the actions, and dismissing the other three. . . . Again, in- stead of dismissing three of the ac- tions, the court might have stayed proceedings therein during the pend- ency of the other action. We per- ceive no valid objection to this prac- tice had it been adopted. But in- stead of pursuing either course sug- gested the court formally consoli- dated the four actions into one ac- tion, provided for pleadings de novo in that action, and in the exercise of its discretion made what seems to be an equitable provision as to the costs j.j 584, 585.] MI8CBLLANKODS PROOBEDINGS. 587 § 584. (d) In New Jersey and Alabama. — In New Jersey it was declared to be within the power of a court of equity to consolidate actions pending therein with or without the con- sent of the complainants, but that the order for consolidation IS a matter of discretion and not of right, and upon such terms as the court may direct.' When the chief matter in contro- versy in two suits between the same parties is the same, and if that were settled there would be no substantial difference between them, and no possible injury can result, an order will be made, on motion, that the testimony taken in either suit may be used in the other, and that the hearing of both shall come on together.^ In Alabama it was held that where two or more suits are pending in the same court of chancery as- serting conflicting rights in the same property, and the facts of each case need to be ascertained before the rights of anj' can be definitely settled, they should be consolidated and heard together, or, if that cannot be done, the suit involving the more important questions ought to be first determined and the hearing of the others stayed in the meanwhile.' § 585. (e) In Tennessee. — Chancellor Cooper of Tennes- see, after a careful examination of the authorities on the sub- ject of consolidation,* concluded as follows : — " I am of opinion subject, some of them holding cer- 310. See Chancellor Cooper's refer- tain limitations on the power which ence to this case in the first note to others reject . . . We shall not the following section (at p. 589). attempt to review or reconcile the ^Ey^ns v. Evans, 23 N. J. Eq. 180. cases, but must determine the ques- Where two bills were filed by the tion on what seems to us the better executors of two testators, who were reason." See, also, Campbell's Case, tenants in common of all their prop- 2 Bland Ch. 209; Grant v. Davis ertj" and devised it to the same per- (Ind.), 31 N. E. Rep. 587. As to the sons, and the parties interested aud later practice in England, before the their rights were the same under modern judicature acts, in respect to both wills, the court recommended consolidation and moving suits from upon the argument that the suits be one court to another for that purpose, consolidated, so that one investiga- see Zambaco u Cassaveth, L. R 1 1 Eq. tion and report of the master and Cas. 489, 442-444 ; Rhodes v. Barrett, one decree might settle the matter. L. R. 12 Eq. Cas. 479, 481 ; Sayers v. Ex'rs of Conover v. Conover, 1 N. J. Corrie, L. R. 9 Ch. App. Cas. 52; Eq. 404. Lyall I. Weldhen, L. R 9 Ch. App. ^Ex parte Brown, 58 Ala. 536. Cas. 287, 289 ; Grrell v. Busch, L. R < In Knight v. Ogden and Ogden v. 5 Ch. App. Cas. 467. Knight (1877), 3 Tenn. Ch. 390, 410, 1 Burn ham v. Balling, 16 N. J. Eq. where he discussed the matter as fol- 588 MISOELLANEOtrs PEO0EEDING8. [§585. that the court of chancery has no power to interfere with the rights of the parties in invitum by an order consolidating in- dependent suits of purely equitable cognizance. And if, in the breaking down of the lines of distinction between law and lows : — " The books of equity prac- tice are entirely silent on the subject of consolidation of causes in this court, from v.hich fact the inference may be fairly drawn that no such practice exists. In Keightly v. Brown, 16 Ves. 344, Sir Samuel Romilly ar- gued in support of a motion of con- solidation made by defendants in several suits by a rector for an ac- count of tithes, the motion being made as of course. But Lord Eldon was manifestly ignorant of any prac- tice of consolidating causes in equity, for he said : — ' I will consult some of the barons of the Exchequer, not seeing my way very clearly to de- termine what ought to be the prac- tice here.' On a subsequent day he said he had mentioned the point to Baron Thompson, who had no idea that the order was of course in the Court of Exchequer, though some- times made under special circum- stances. The order was therefore not made. The note to this case is as follows : — ' There are cases, no doubt, in which the Court of Ex- chequer has ordered several causes brought for the same matters involv- ing the like questions and seeking the same relief to be consolidated. Scott V. AUgood, cited in Fowler's Ex. Pr. 81 ; Mason v. Craft and Pyke V. Brook, Fowler's Ex. Pr. 214. But this court, both when sitting as a court of law and when sitting as a court of equity, has in later cases disapproved that practice. Le Jeune V. Sheridan, For. Ex. 31; Foreman v. Blake, 7 Price, 654; Foreman v. Southward, 8 Price, 575.' In Fore- man V. Blake Chief Barou Richards said : — ' I have never heard of an order in the course of my experience for consolidating causes in equity, nor can I conceive upon what prin- ciple it can be done.' The Warden and Fellows of Manchester College V. Isherwood, 2 Sim. 476, was a case where the plaintiffs had filed sixteen bills for tithes against different per- sons who made the same defense and moved for consolidation of the causes. The vice-chancellor reviewed the authorities, concluding thus : — ' It is evident, therefore, that neither in this court nor in the Court of Ex- chequer has the practice prevailed of compelling the plaintiff to consoli- date his different suits against sev- eral defendants; and the present motion, being a mere experiment in opposition to practice, must be re- fused with costs.' In Cumming v. Slater, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 484, the vice- chancellor refused to make a decree for accounts, it appearing that in an- other suit a decree for the same ac- counts had been rendered, the plaint- iff in this suit being by the decree an acting party in the other, and di- rected the cause to stand over and come on with the other suit upon the hearing of that cause on further di- rections. But in Godfrey v. Maw, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 485, the same learned judge refused to extend tho rule to cases where the two suits were be- tween the same parties and involv- ing the same subject-matter, the frame of the two suits and the rela- tive position of the parties to each not being the same. And see Wen- dell V. Wendell, 3 Paige, 509, where the chancellor held that one of two bills of foreclosure was unnecessary and refused to allow the heirs of the § 685.] MIS0ELLA.NEOII8 PEOOEEDINGS. 589 equity and the blending of the jurisdiction of the courts, cases should arise which in analogy to the rule of law might be consolidated, the exercise of such power should be declined, except in extreme and clear cases." ' mortgagor to be charged with the costs of more than one, giving the soUcitor, who was the same in both suits, leave to elect in which suit he would take a decree. These latter cases indicate the mode in which the court, without consolidation, may control unnecessary litigation. In Burnham v. Dalling, 16 N. J. Eq. 310, Chancellor Green expressed the opin- ion that a court of equity had the power to consolidate causes with or without the consent of the com- plainant, and he ordered three suits of three different wards against the same guardian, after a decree ren- dered in each case, at the instance of complainants, to be consolidated for the purpose of taking the accounts, there being written consent to the consolidation. The chancellor's opin- ion as to the power of the court was consequently a mere dictum. He concedes that even at law the mode of consolidation is not by uniting the several causes in one record. Clason V. Church, 1 Johns. Cas. 39. And our Supreme Court has held that consolidation of causes, partly by consent and partly by order of the court, acquiesced in by the parties, does not change the rules of equity pleading nor the rights of the par- ties, and that these rights must still turn on the pleadings, proof and pro- ceedings of their respective suits. Brevard v. Summar, 2 Heisk. 105; Lofland v. Coward, 13 Heisk. 546. The general rule undoubtedly is that every suitor should be at liberty to direct his suit as he may be advised. The court ought to have no author- ity to ham'-'Pr him by tying him to other parties and compelling him to await their action or be subject to the delays incident to their judg- ment, whim or other fate, as by death or marriage. There is even less reason for forcing defendants against their wishes into a boat with others ; for having been brought into court by one party they may well say, ' We prefer to fight it out with that party.' Nor is there any partic- ular advantage to be gained by a consolidation m invitum where each record must after all be kept sepa- rate and stand or fall on its own mer- its. Such matters should be left exclusively to the parties, whose self-interest will dictate a better agreement for both than the court can enforce upon either. And the matter of costs is always in the dis- cretion of the court, to be used so as to prevent a multiplicity of suits and decrees from proving profitable where such multiplicity is possibla" 1 Knight V. Ogden and Ogden v. Knight (1877), 3 Tenn. Ch. 396, 410. In addition to the cases cited by the chancellor in the preceding note, see, also, Mowry v. Davenport (1880), 6 Lea. 80; Estil v. Decherd, 4 Baxt 515; Masson v. Anderson (1873), 3 Baxt 290, 899 ; Hatcher v. Royster, 14 Lea, 232. In Rodgers v. Dibrell (1880), 6 Lea, 69, it was held that where the defendant in two separate suits against him by different judg- ment creditors to reach the same land makes one answer to both bills he thereby virtually consolidates them so that they might properly be heard together as one cause or as two causes under one style, without any order of consolidation, and in Ogburn v. Dunlap, 9 Lea, 162, that an 590 MISCELLANEOUS PEOCEBDINGS. [§§ 586. 587. § 686. Stipulations relating to causes, when enforced. — Agreerrents of counsel during the progress of a cause ordi- narily tend to the dispatch of business and should be favored by the courts.' It is a general rule that stipulations between the parties or counsel in a cause will not be recognized by the court unless they are in writing or made in open court,^ " ex- cept so far as admitted by the parties against whom they are sought to be enforced.'" Correspondence between counsel containing propositions not accepted will not, although the proposals are afterward orally agreed to, constitute a valid stipulation " in writing " within the terms of a rule of court.* § 587. The same subject continued. — Agreements of counsel in regard to the trial of a cause are not absolute, although in writing, and will not be enforced under all cir- cumstances. It rests in the sound discretion of the court to sustain them or to set them aside, and in the exercise of this discretion and to promote justice, it is not uncommon to re- lieve parties from the obligations thus incurred.^ The right appeal by one of several complain- ants in independent suits which were, by order of the court consolidated and heard together, brought up only his own case, leaving the decree as to the others in full force. Of. Cable V. Ellis, 86 111. 525. In Putnam v. Lyon (Colo.), 32 Pac. Rep. 492, the court refused to reverse a decree on account of an order of consolidation where no harm accrued therefrom. 1 Porter v. Holt, 73 Tex. 447. See § 533, supra. 2 Parker v. Root, 7 Johns. 320; Dubois V. Roosa, 3 Johns. 145 ; Huff V. State, 29 Ga. 424 ; Shippen's Lessee V. Bush, 1 Dall. 250 ; Haylen v. Mis- souri Pac. R. Co., 28 Neb. 660 ; s. c, 44 N. W. Rep. 873 ; Taylor v. Chicago &c. Ry. Co., 80 Iowa, 431 ; s. C, 46 N. W. Rep. 64 ; Lee v. Simpson, 42 Fed. Rep. 434 ; Evans v. State Nat Bank, 19 Fed. Rep. 676 ; § 533, supra. A stipulation or engagement made by a party in the face of the court touching the subject-matter of the litigation is a contract with the court as well as the adverse party, which the court is bound to enforce for the protection of the latter. Banks v. American Trust Co., 4 Sandf. Ch. 438; Jewett v. Albany City Bank, Clarke's Ch. 241. 3 Reese v. Mahoney, 21 Cal. 305, holding that stipulations will not be enforced where there is unreasonable delay in the application. < In re Keller's Will, 7 N. Y. Supl. 199; s. C, 33 Abb. N. C. 376; 18 N. Y. Civ. Pro. 30. It was held in Jack- son V. Cole, 81 Mich. 440 ; & c, 45 N. W. Rep. 826, that a stipulation signed by the parties to a suit providing for a dismissal of the bill and the affirm- ance of a judgment was not valid if made without the knowledge or con- sent of the plaintiff's counsel. 5 Barry v. Mut L. Ins. Co., 58 N. Y. 536, 540 ; Culler v. Piatt (Tex.), 16 S. W. l..p. 1003; Malin v. Kinney, 1 g§ 588, 589.] MISCELLANEOUS PKOCEEDINGS. 591 of a party to be relieved does not depend upon the strict rules of law ; but a stipulation will be set aside where it ap- pears that it was given unadvisedly, and that it would be in- equitable to hold him to it and that the other party has not lieen prejudiced thereby.' § 588. Scope of stipulations limited. — Counsel cannot stipulate as to what the law is so as to bind the court.' It is also a well-established principle that jurisdiction of the sub- ject-matter involved cannot be conferred by stipulation;' nor will the court sanction agreements in evasion of the settled i-ules of law founded on considerations of public policy, as, for instance, an agreement permitting a wife to be a witness for or against her husband.* § 589. Who are bound by stipulations. — A stipulation en- tered of record will not bind parties who come in as interven- ors after it is made and who did not assent to it.'' Where two suits by different complainants against the same defendant were consolidated, a stipulation by one of the complainants for a stay of proceedings and a continuance was held not to bind the other, who was entitled, notwithstanding the agree- ment, to prosecute his claim to final judgment." Caines (N. Y.), 117; The Hiram, 1 ' Sperb w. Metropolitan EI. Ry. Co., Wheat 440; Gerdtzen u Cockrell 10 N. Y. Supl. 8fi5. (Minn.), 55 N. W. Rep. 58 ; Tanziede ■ Breeze v. Haley, 11 Colo. 351. See, i: Jumel (N. Y.), 34 N. E. Rep. 274 ; also, Lee v. Simpson, 42 Fed. Rep. ^. c, 53 N. Y. St. Rep. 4; Buck v. 434; Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 596. Farralt, 3 P. Wms. 242 ; People v. 3 /„ ^e Keeler's Will, 7 N. Y. Supl. Mayor, 11 Abb. Pr. 74; Quiun v 199, citing Griswold v. Sheldon, 4 Lloyd, 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 542 : Ferris v. N. Y. 581 ; McMahon v. Rauhr, 47 Crawford, 2 Denio, 595, 604; Stone- N. Y. 67; Davidsburg v. Knicker- sifer V. Kilburn, 94 Cal. 33, a case booker Ins. Co., 90 N. Y. 526. See, of excusable mistake; McCIure i'. also, Cunnicgham v. State (Tex.), 1 1 Sheek's Heirs, 68 Tex. 426: Han- S. W. Rep. 871. cock V. Winans, 20 Tex. 320; Mil- ■'Barker v. Dixie, Rep. t Hardw. bank r. Jones, 17 N. Y. Supl. 464. 252; Owen v. Thomas, 3 M. & K. where the court declined to grant re- 353, 357. For the construction of lief, the party applying having been stipulations relating to evidence in guilty of laches ; on which point, see, the cause, see § 532, supra. also, People u Board &c., 15 N, Y. 5 Kneeland v. Luce, 141 U. S. 487. Supl. 58a 6 Midland R'y Ca v. Island Coal Co., 126 Ind. 384 592 MISOELLAXEOUS I'EOOEliUINGS. [g§ 590, 591. § 590. The same subject continued — Effect upon infant parties. — A stipulation by an attorney that the action shall abide the event of another action pending binds his adult clients, subject to the power of the court to set it aside or dis- regard it if improvidently, fraudulently or collusively made.' Stipulations in writing by counsel for the guardian ad litem of an infant defendant which apparently waive or surrender any material right of the minor, such, for instance, as the right to a trial, are not binding upon the infant, unless ap- proved and ratified by the court upon a showing that they are beneficial, or at any rate not prejudicial, to his rights and interests. Thus, it is error for a court to enforce a stipula- tion that the suit shall follow the event of another action then pending, if it appears that the matters in controversy in the two actions are not precisely the same, or that he is repre- sented in those actions by different guardians ad litem? § 591. Construction of stipulations — Parol evidence. — A written stipulation is to be construed according to the import of the language it contams in view of the circum- stances under which it was made.' And the construction placed upon it by the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal if it is fairly susceptible of such interpretation.* A 1 Eidam v. Finnegan (Minn.), 50 entirely consistent with good faith. N. W. Rep. 933. See, also, Bingham In Franklin Sav. Bank v. Taylor V. Supervisors, G Minn. 136; Rogers (C. C. App.), 53 Fed. Rep. 854, 865, it V. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 333; Bray v. was held that an apparently regular Doheny, 39 Minn. 355. decree against an infant ought not 2 Eidam v. Finnegan (Minn.), 50 to be set aside because of an alleged N. W. Rep. 933. It has been held agreement or consent of the guard- that an infant defendant is not bound ian ad Miem, which is not referred to by the admissions of his guardian in the record, except upon allegation ad litem either in his answer or for and proof that such agreement was the purpose of the trial. Ashford v. not beneficial to the infant, or for Pattou, 70 Ala. 479 ; Quigley v. Rob- some other reason ought not to have erts, 44 111. 503; Tucker v. Bean, 65 been made. See, also, Walsh v. Me. 353 ; Nevins v. Baird, 19 Hun, Walsh, 116 Mass. 377. 806. See g 390, .Sitpra. But in Eidam ' Schroeder u Frey, 14 N. Y. Supl. V. Finnegan, supra, the court insists 71. See, also, § 532, supra. that the guardian ad Ziton has power < Foster v. Dickerson (Vt), 24 Atl. to make concessions or admissions Rep. 253, 261. Where the stipulation such as are ordinarily made in the is susceptible of a reasonable inter- progress of a cause, and which are pretation the court will not adopt a §§ 592, 593.] MISOELLANEOUS PEOCEEDINGS. 593 stipulation of the parties and finding of the court thereon will be construed, on appeal, with reference to existing laws aflfecting the subject-matter.* "Where the terms of the stipu- lation are not ambiguous, testimony is not admissible to prove the understanding or intention of the parties.'' § 592. Discharging a party from stipulations. — Whether the causes assigned are sufficient to justify the court in dis- charging a party from his stipulation is ordinarily a matter addressed exclusively to the discretion of the court, and will not be reviewed on appeal, especially where the parties can be restored to the same condition in which they would have been if no agreement had been made.' But where the agreement involves something more than a mere matter of practice and affects the substance of the cause of action or the character of the defense, and it appears that it has been entered into by counsel without a knowledge of the facts, and that its with- drawal will not operate to the prejudice of either party, the motion to set aside ceases to be a matter of mere discretion and should be granted by the court.* Thus where the court, upon the plaintiff's motion, proceeded to trial and rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the defendant's absence, not- withstanding a written agreement on file stipulating for a continuance, the judgment was reversed on appeal.^ § 593. Orders — Who may grant orders. — Interlocutory or- ders are either of course or special. Orders of course are those construction at the instance of one " ultimate result" Niagara Fire Ina. of the parties which necessarily im- Co. v. Scammon, 35 III. 583. Cf. putes an intention on his part to Kimberlin v. Tow (Ind.), 33 N. E. mislead or deceive the court Citi- Eep. 770. Such a stipulation is bind- zens' Bank v. Farwell, 56 Fed. Rep. ing so long as the causes of action 570. continue the same. Galbreath v. 'Utah &c. Ry. Co. v. Fisher, 116 Rogers, 45 Mo. App. 324. See, also, U. S. 28. Dilworth v. Curts, 139 111. 508 ; S. G, 2Schroeder v. Frey, 14 N. Y. Supl. 29 N. E. Rep. 861. Of. Little v. Giles, 71, following Schroeder v. Frey, 114 118 U. S. 596. N. Y. 36 ; s. c, 31 N. E. Rep. 410. ' Barry v. Mut L. Ina Co., 53 N. Y. Mussey v. Curtis, 60 Vt 271, distin- 586, 540; Porter v. Holt 73 Tex. 447. guishing Flint v. Johnson, 59 Vt * Porter v. Holt 73 Tex. 447, revers- 190. A stipulation setting forth that ing a decree of the trial court one case shall " abide the event " of 5 McBride v. Settles (Tex.), 16 S. W, another means that it shall abide the Rep. 423. 38 694 MISOELLANEOUS PEO0BEDING8. [§ &93. to which no opposition can be offered, and are drawn up without any direct application to the judge.' Special orders are those which the court, in the exercise of its discretion, may either re- fuse or grant.' " It is a fundamental principle that courts can exercise judicial functions only at such times and places as are fixed by law, and that the judges of courts can enter no orders in vacation except such as are expressly authorized by stat- ute." ' The United States circuit courts are " deemed always open for the purpose of filing bills, answers and other plead- ings, for issuing and returning mesne and final process and commissions, and for making and directing all interlocutory motions, orders, rules and other proceedings preparatory to the hearing of all causes upon their merits." * " For the pur- poses of jurisdiction the chambers of a judge are wherever he happens to be in his circuit or district when the exigencies of the case call for the transaction of chamber business." ' A United States district judge who has, under order of the cir- cuit judge, tried a case in another district, has jurisdiction to pass upon a motion for a new trial in the case, even after he has returned to his own district, where the parties waive his returning to the other district for the purpose of deciding the motion.' Where a judge of the United States district court for the district in which a bill is filed, and the circuit judge for the circuit and the justice of the Supreme Court allotted to that circuit are all absent from the district and circuit, an- other justice of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction at any place in the United States to hear an application for an in- junction.' An order made by a judge after a successor has qualified and assumed the duties of the oflSce, with full recog- nition by his predecessor, is void and will be vacated on mo- tion.' Where an interlocutory order has been passed upon 1 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1589. 5 Per Sawyer, J., in In re Neagle, 39 See § 557, supra. Fed. Rep. 833, 855, 856. See further 2 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1589. as to jurisdiction at chambers, § 16, See § 558, supra. supra. 3 Blair v. Reading, 99 111. 600, 609. « Cheesman v. Hart, 42 Fed. Rep. 98. < Equity Rule 1. By rule 111 of the 'United States v. Louisville &c. United States circuit court for the Canal Co., 4 Dill. 601. See U. S. R. S., southern district of New York, " all § 719 ; Searles v. Jacksonville &a R. special motions in reference to mat- Co., 2 Woods, 621. ters of practice may be made in open 8 United States v. Alexander, 46 court or before a judge at chambers." Fed. Rep. 728. § 594.] MISCELLANEOUS PEOOEEDINGS. 595 and adjudicated by one judge it will not be reconsidered and reviewed by another judge of the same court in the same case.* Where, in pursuance of leave granted, an amended bill is filed, which, however, omits one of the defendants in the orig- inal bill, it will be presumed on appeal, in the absence of af- firmative showing to the contrary, that leave was granted to dismiss the bill as to the omitted defendant.' An order, al- though signed by the judge, is of no efficacy until it is deliv- ered to the clerk to be filed.' § 694. Service of orders. — It is a general rule that all or- ders which are to have the effect of requiring or limiting any act of the opposite party to be done within a specified time, or to bring him into contempt for disobedience, must be served or actual notice thereof given.* If a party in whose favor an interlocutory order or decree is made wishes to limit his adversary's right of appeal, he must serve a copy of the order or decree as entered, or give him a written notice of the entry thereof,' except where the solicitor of the opJ)o- site party has himself drawn up and entered such order.' "Where it is intended to enforce the order by process of con- tempt, the service of the order must be personal upon the party to be affected by it, unless a special order has been ob- tained for substituted service.' And it is absolutely neces- sary that the original order should be shown at the same time that the copy is served, unless the production of the 1 Oglesby v. Attrill, 14 Fed. Rep. 6 Farley v. Farley, 7 Paige, 40. 314; Cole Silver Min. Co. u Virginia 'SDaniell's Oh. Pr. (1st ed.) 271; &c. Co., 1 Sawy. 685, 689. Re Carey, 10 Fed. Eep. 632 ; Hunter 2 Hicklin v. Marco, 56 Fed. Rep. 549. v. , 6 Sim. 429 ; Young v. Good- ' United States v. Alexander, 46 son, 2 Russ. 255 ; 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. Fed. Rep. 728; Danielson v. North- (2d ed.) 590; Lorton v. Seaman, 9 western Fuel Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 49. Paige, 609; People v. Brower, 4 See, also, Whitney v. Belden, 4 Paige, Paige, 405. Where a previous notice 140 ; Earl of Fingal v. Blake, 2 Mol- of a motion or other proceeding in a loy, 60. suit is required to be given, the * 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 590 ; whole of the day on which the no- ■3 DanieU's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 271. tice is served is included in the com- ' Tyler v. Simmons, 6 Paige, 127. putation of time, and the day upon Personal service may be dispensed which the motion is to be made or with where the party cannot be other proceeding had is excluded. found. Jackson v. , 2 Vea Jr. Vandenburgh v. Van Rensselaer, 6 417. Paige, 147. 596 MISCELLANEOUS PE00EEDING8. [§ 595. original is waived.' It is not absolutely necessary that a paper should have been filed at the moment the copy thereof is served, provided it is filed the same day, unless some pro- ceeding has been taken in the meantime to render such sub- sequent filing improper. But service of a paper is not per- fect until the original is actually delivered to the proper officer to be filed.* § 595. Proceedings touching irregularities. — Where a party seeks to set aside the proceedings of his adversary for an irregularity which is merely technical, he must make liis application for that purpose at the first opportunity. If a solicitor, after notice of an irregularity, takes any step in the cause, or lies by and suffers his adversary to proceed therein under a belief that his proceedings are regular, the court will not interfere to correct the irregularity if it is merely tech- nical.' But it is otherwise where the order is void, for in that case nothing can make it valid.^ An application to set aside proceedings for a mere technical irregularity must be made upon the first opportunity.' Where the defendant neglects to appear and oppose a motion for an order directing him to de- liver certain articles to the master, he cannot afterwards resist a motion for an attachment against him for his non-coTipliance with the order by showing that such order ought not to have been obtained. He should have applied to open the motion or vacate the order.^ An ex "parte order, under the immediate direction of the court, although irregularly obtained, cannot be treated by the adverse party as a nullity; and a common order entered contrary to such special order and treating it as a nullity is itself irregular. But if the court afterwards sets aside the special order, leaving the common order in full force, the latter will be made regular by relation as of the time when it was entered.' A mere notice from a party that he 1 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (9d ed.) 590; < Johnston v. Bloomer, 3 Edw. Ch. Wallis V. Glynn, 13 Ves. 380; S. a, 338. Coop. 382. But see Stafford v. Brown, » Parker v. Williams. 4 Paige, 439 ; 4 Paige, 360. Ex'rs of Brasher v. Van Cortlandti 2Quincy v. Foot, 1 Barb. Ch. 496. 2 Johns. Ch. 243; Skinner v. Dayton, 3 Crowell «. Botstord, 16 N. J. Eq. 5 Johns. 191. 458; Johnston v. Bloomer, 3 Edw. « Higbie r. Edgarton, 3 Paige, 253. Ch. 32& 'Studwell v. Palmer, 5 Paige lOr., § 596.] MISCELLANEOUS PEOOEBDINGS. 597 intends to proceed in a manner which would be irregular does not make it necessary for the adverse party to apply to the court on the subject until some proceeding in the cause is had which is irregular and inconsistent with the rights of such ad- verse party.' Where a party by a slip has lost the opportu- nity to set up a mere technical or unconscientious defense, and comes to the court for a favor which it is necessary should be granted to enable him to set up such defense, the court will require him to do equity as a condition of granting the favor asked.* §696. Terms of orders — Nunc pro tunc orders. — Where a party obtains an order for relief from a regular proceeding against him in the suit, upon certain terms to be performed by him as a condition of such relief, he must seek the solicitor of the adverse party, and perform or comply with such terms, or he will lose the benefit of the order.' An order requiring a defendant to attend before a master and comply with the order of reference in a creditor's suit and to pay the costs, or show cause why an attachment should not issue against him, should specify the amount of the costs which the defendant is to pay.* Where one who filed a bill to enjoin the sale of property asked to have the property left in his custody dur- ing the pendency of the litigation, upon terms that he return it when so ordered, the court can make an affirmative order compelling him to return or pay the value of the property.' On motion to set aside an invalid order the other party can- not on such motion be let in on terms ; he must make a motion for that purpose.' Where a subsequent proceeding in a cause is required to be had within a limited time, as within a cer- tain number of days from or after the entry of an order or the service of a notice or other paper, the whole of the first day is to be excluded from the computation of time.' An order of the oourt made upon a motion is not res adjudicata in such 1 Vandenburgh v. Van Rensselaer, 6 5 Moore v. Diament, 41 N. J. Eq. 612. Paige, 147. * Johnston v. Bloomer, 3 Edw. Ch. 2Hartson v. Davenport, 3 Barb. 338. Ch. 77. '' Vandenburgh v. Van Bensselaer, 3 Hoffman v. Treadwell, 5 Paige, 83. 6 Paige, 147. * Hammersley v. Parker, 1 Barb. Ch. Ch.a5. 598 MISCELLANEOUS PBO0BEDING8. [§§ 597, 598. a sense as to conclude the court as to points of law involved in its decision, whether arising in the same case or in another.' A nunc pro tunc order is always admissible when the delay has arisen from the act of the court.* Application to enter an order nunc pro tunc is a motion of course where the party entitled to the order comes recently; but after considerable delay notice should be given.' § 597. Modifying and vacating orders. — It is a general rule that every order made in the progress of a cause may be rescinded or modified upon a proper showing of mistake, sur- prise or irregularity.* Where an order is improper, the course for the injured party is to apply to open the motion or vacate the order.' Where the facts are all before the court, an ap- plication to vacate a decree or set aside an order may be made upon motion merely; it is not necessary to file a peti- tion." And ex parte orders made upon petition may be va- cated upon motion for irregularity.' § 698. Nature and use of affidavits. — An aflBdavit is an oath in writing, sworn to before some person who has author- ity to administer an oath.' Affidavits are generally resorted to in support of, and in opposition to, interlocutory applica- tions, or for certifying the service of process, notices, etc., and may also be used in support of the bill or of the answer. The United States courts have " power to impose and administer 1 Banks v. American Trust Co., 4 8 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 597. Sandf. Ch. 438. "Whenever under these rules an 2 Gray v. Brignardello, 1 Wall. 627. oath is or may be required to be ' 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 585 ; taken, the party may, if conscien- Anon., 3 Atk. 521. See, also, Will- tiously scrupulous of taking an oath, iamson v. Henshaw, 1 Dick. 129. in lieu thereof make solemn aflirma- * Ashe V. Moore, 2 Mer. 383 ; Fan- tion to the truth of the facts stated ning V. Dunham, 4 Johns. Ch. 35 ; by him." United States Equity Rule Nelson v. Barker, 3 McLean, 379 ; 91. An affidavit, where nothing ap- Eslava v. Mazange, 1 Woods, 633 ; pears to show that it was taken out Doss V. Tyack, 14 How. 297, 318. of the jurisdiction of the officer be- sHigbie v. Edgarton, 3 Paige, 253. fore whom it was sworn, will be pre- 6 Collins V. Ex'rs of Taylor. 4 N. J. sumed to have been taken within Eq. 163 ; Gerrish v. Black, 109 Mass. the limits of his jurisdiction. Parker 474 V. Baker, 8 Paige, 428. But see Lane ' In re Marrow, Craig & Ph. 143. v. Morse, 6 How. Pr. 394. See 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 1808. § 599.] MISOELLANEOtrS PROCEEDINGS. 599 all necessary oaths." • Affidavits in the United States circait or district courts may be taken by a commfssioner of the cir- cuit court for the district.^ Affidavits made without the United States may be verified before any secretary of lega- tion or consular officer v?ithin the limits of his legation, con- sulate or commercial agency.' It was one of Lord Clarendon's orders that the officer administering an oath should, if he sees the party to be rash or ignorant, admonish him and see that he read the affidavit or hear it read in the officer's presence.* §599. Title of an affldavit. — An affidavit must be cor- rectly entitled in the cause or matter in which it is made; for an affldavit made in one cause cannot be read to obtain an order in another." It will be sufficient if it was correctly entitled when it was sworn, although the title of the cause may have been subsequently altered by amendment.* In pro- ceedings for contempt against a witness or other person not a party to the suit, all affidavits subsequent to the order for 1 U. S. E. a, § 725. Whether the court may compel a person to have his affidavit taken, quare. Hammer- schlag Mfg. Co. V. Judd, 26 Fed. Rep. 292 ; Bacon v. Magee, 7 Cowen, 515 ; Day V. Boston Belting Co., 6 Law Rep. (N. S.) 329. 2 U. S. R S., § 945. 3U. S. R S., § 1750. In Pinkerton V. The Barnsley Canal Co., 3 Y. & J. 377, n., Lord Eldon directed in an order that the court would receive an affidavit sworn out of the juris- diction, provided " it should be shown that the person before whom the affi- davit purports to have been sworn is, according to the law of the country in which it is sworn, qualified to ad- minister an oath, and that the signa- ture of such person should be prop- erly verified." As to verification of the signature of a magistrate, see Lord Kinnaird v. Lady Saltoun, 1 Mad. 227 ; Garvey v. Hilbert, 1 J. & W. 180. By the law of nations a notary public has credit everywhere. See Hutcheon v. Mannington, 6 Ves. 823. * Beames' Orders, 209. If the de- ponent is blind the ofiicer should certify in the jurat that the affidavit was carefully and correctly read over to him in the presence of such officer before he swore to the same. Matter of Christie, 3 Paige, 242, holding, also, that where a petition or affidavit is sworn to by a person who has been found a lunatic by inquisition, the officer before whom the same is sworn should state in the jurat that he had examined the deponent for the purpose of ascertaining the state of his mind, and that he was appar- ently of sound mind and capable of. understanding the nature and con- tents of the petition or affidavit 5 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 238; 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 600; Gib- son's Suits in Chancery, § 770. 6 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (Ist ed.) 238; Hawes v. Bamford, 9 Sim. 653. 600 MISCELLANEOUS PEOCEEDINGS. [§ 600. the attachment should be entitled in the name of the State on the relation of the party prosecuting the attachment.' Where the parties are numerous it is sufficient to give the name of the first complainant and of the first defendant, add- ing " and others " or " et al." without setting forth the names of all the defendants at length.^ In ordinary cases the court will disregard the misentitling of a paper which could not have misled the opposite party, except in the case of sworn papers, when such misentitling would exempt the deponent from the punishment of perjury, although his oath is false.' § 600. Form of an affidavit. — The venue should appear on the face of the affidavit, so that it may be known in what county and State the oath was taken. The venue may be placed next below the title of the cause, or it may be prefixed to the jurat. If the affidavit is sworn to in open court, and the jurat so shows, that is sufficient evidence of the venue.'' The true place of residence, description and addition of every person swearing the same must be inserted, except that par- ties to the cause may describe themselves in an affidavit as the above-named plaintiff (or defendant), without any further description.* Affidavits ought to be fairly and legibly writ- ten, in one hand, without blots, or interlineations of any words of substance; otherwise the officer administering the oath may refuse to swear them, or the register may refuse to file them." Where, however, small blots or interlineations happen, the officer usually marks them in the margin with his initials.' After the substance of the affidavit has been stated, the affi- davit usually concludes with a denial of any further knowl- edge on the subject, thus : — " And further this deponent saith not." This formality, however, is not essential to its validity.' The person swearing to an affidavit must subscribe his name 1 Stafford v. Brown, 4 Paige, 360. <* 3 Daniell's Ch. Pi-. (1st ed.) 239 ; 2 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 601; Maury v. Van Arnum, 1 Hill, 870. "White V. Hess, 8 Paige, 544 ; Gib- 6 g Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 603 ; 3 son's Suits in Chancery, § 770. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 240. 3Hawleyu. Donnelly, 8 Paige, 415. 7 2 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.) 603; * Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 770. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 241. See Mosher v. Heydricli, 45 Barb. 8 g Barbour's Ch. Pr. (2d ed.)603; 549 ; Cooli v. Staats, 18 Barb. 407 ; Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 770. Belden v. Devoe, 12 Wend. 23a § 601.J MIS0ELLAXE0D8 PE00EEDING8. 601 at the foot thereof on the right side.^ If the affiant cannot sign his own name, he should make his mark, and his signa- ture should be duly witnessed.' The deponent must be duly sworn to the truth of the contents of his affidavit.' The offi- cer administering the oath must also certify that fact in a jurat written at the foot of the affidavit upon the left-hand side; the jurat should be duly dated and signed officially.* §601. Scandal and impertinence in affidavits. — Scandal- ous and irrelevant matter should be carefully avoided, and if inserted such matter may be expunged by the same process as scandal and impertinence in a bill or other pleading.' It is competent for the court, upon the mere examination of an affi- davit or other paper read before it on a motion, to order scandalous or impertinent matter contained in it to be ex- punged without a reference to a master and to charge the proper party with the costs.' "Where the court itself directs an a^^davit to be referred to a master for impertinent or scandalous matter, there is no occasion to go into the master's office with formal exceptions. The order to refer is enough.' The solicitor who draws and the counsel who signs a scandal- ous or impertinent pleading or proceeding are personally lia- ble for the costs of expunging the matter, and ought to be charged therewith in the first instance." The court will not 1 3 Barbour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 603 ; The mere omission of the date of the Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 770 ; jurat has been considered not a fatal Hathaway v. Scott, 11 Paige, 173. objection. Schoolcraft v. Thompson, 2 Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 770. 7 How. Pr. 446. 3 The oath administered is as fol- '3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 240. lows: — "You swear that the contents It is scandalous and impertinent to of this affidavit by you subscribed draw inferences or state arguments are true. So help you God." If the in the affidavit reflecting upon the deponent is a Quaker the words are : — character or impeaching the motives " You solemnly, sincerely and truly of the adverse party or his solicitor, declare and affirm," etc., omitting the Powell v. Kane, 5 Paige, 265. words "so help you God." 2 Bar- 6 Powell u. Kane, 5 Paige, 265. hour's Ch. Pr. (3d ed.) 603. 'Powell v. Kane, 2 Edw. Ch. 450. * Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 770. 8 Powell v. Kane, 5 Paige, 365; Any irregularity in the form of the Ex parte Smith, 1 Atk. 139. Where affidavit or of the jurat will be a the solicitor of a party put imperti- ground for its rejection by the court nent and scandalous matter in his 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 241. See, own affidavit used on a motion, he also, Laimbeer v. Allen, 3 Sandf. 648. was ordered to pay the costs of re- 602 MISOELLANBOTJS PBO0EBDING8. [§ 602. refer an affidavit for impertinence merely, where it is not also scandalous, after such affidavit has been answered.* §602. Substance of affidavits.— An affidavit should give all the necessary circumstances of time, place, manner and other material incidents." It must also be sufficient to sus- tain the case made by the motion or petition of which it is the groundwork.' Where the affidavit deposes to words spoken, it is a proper precaution to add "or words to that ef- fect." * It is to be observed, particularly, that every affida- vit of service of writs or of orders, upon which process of contempt is to be founded, must truly and fully prove good service; and that if the complainant's name, the court, the re- turn of the writ, or anything material be omitted, no attach- ment can be thereupon regularlj' issued; for until a due serv- ice be shown, no contempt appears to the court.* An affidavit should give facts and not hearsay, opinions, inferences, or con- clusions of law.' But allegations in an affidavit on a motion, made upon information and belief, if not controverted must be taken as true.' An affidavit by the defendant that he has a good defense, without stating the nature and substance of it, is not sufficient.' ferring it and of a hearing upon ex- ' Houston v. City of San Francisco, ceptions taken by him to the master's 47 Fed. Rep. 337, 388. See, also, report Powell v. Kane, 2 Edw. Ch. Merritt v. Lyon, 16 Wend. 405. 450. ' Sea Ins. Co. v. Stebbins, 8 Paige, • Matter of Burton, 1 Russ. 380. 658. An afiSdavit to set aside proceed- ^SDaniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 339; ings for irregularity should be made Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 770. either by the party or his solicitor. »3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st ed.) 239; The affidavit of the counsel is not Sea Ins. Co. v. Stebbins, 8 Paige, sufficient, unless an excuse is shown 505 ; Meach v. Chappell, 8 Paige, for dispensing with the affidavit of 135. the party or the solicitor. People v. • Ayliffe v. Murray, 3 Atk 60. Spalding, 2 Paige, 386. Where the s Hinde, 453; 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. veracity of the deponents to affida- (1st ed.) 289. vits in support of a motion is im- • Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 770. peached by the affidavits read at the It is not sufficient in an opposing hearing of the motion, the affidavits affidavit, where the adverse party of such deponents will not be wholly has no opportunity to answer, to rejected, nor will they be fully cred- state a matter upon the belief of the ited ; but the affidavits upon both deponent only. Quincy v. Foot, 1 sides will be taken into considera- Barb. Ch. 496. tion, with other circumstances, by § 603.] MISCELLANEOUS PEOCBBDINGS. 603 § 603. Paying money into court. — There are many cases wherein the court will order money or choses in action to be paid into court before a final decree. The order is usually made on a defendant, but it may be made on the complainant also. The order is never made against a defendant unless it be shown that he has the money or chose in action in his posses- sion or under his control, or that it belongs to the complainant, ■ and that it is a trust fund.' A complainant will be ordered to pay money into court when on his own admissions in his bill he owes the defendant a certain sum which it is equitable he should pay before he can require the defendant to do equity, or before he can in good conscience ask the interposition of the court as against the defendant.^ " Paying into court " and " bringing into court," where these terms are used in the statutes and rules of court or in decrees, mean paying to or depositing with the register, assistant register or clerk of that branch of the court in which the suit is pending or the decree was rendered.' As a general rule, upon a bill filed against an executor or administrator for a distribution of the estate of the decedent, if it appears that there is a clear balance in his hands uninvested, beyond all just claims made by him upon the fund, such balance will be directed to be brought into court and invested pending the suit.* Under special cir- cumstances a non-resident vendee of lands filing a bill for specific performance of the agreement to convey the lands to him was required to pay into court the consideration that was to have been paid at the time of the execution of the deed, though he was not in possession.* Where the subject of litigation was a fund in the hands of an insolvent assignee who was a defendant in the cause and had no personal inter- the court, in deciding upon the mer- and other matters in the suit are con- its of the motion. Francis v. Church, tested, the court will order the ad- Clarke's Ch. 475. mitted debt to be paid to the com- 1 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1770- plainant without waiting for a final 1774: Gibson's Suits in Chancery, decree. Clarkson v. De Peyster, § 763. Hopk. Ch. 374 2 Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 763. ^ Leavitt v. De Launay, 4 Sandf. Where it appears from the answer Ch. 480. of a defendant that he has in his * Hosack v. Rogers, 6 Paige, 415. hands a specific sum which he ad- ' Binns v. Mount, 28 N. J. Eq. 24, mils to be due to the complainant, 604 MISOBLLANEODS PROCEEDINGS. [§ 604. est therein but claimed the fund for the benefit of others, the money was ordered to be brought into court and invested to abide the further order of the court.' Where the right to a debt due from a third person is in litigation it cannot with safety be paid to either party after notice, but the debtor will be permitted, pending the litigation, to pay it into court to the credit of the cause." Where a sum is reported to be due from a defendant and he acquiesces in the report, but the case is delayed by other questions, the court will sometimes order the reported sum to be paid into court.' § 604. The same snbject continued. — Money will not be ordered to be paid into court which is not ascertained to be due by an account or decree in the cause, or admitted to be due by the answer or other proceedings in the cause. A parol admission proved by affidavit is not sufiicient.'' Where a vendor in a bill against him for specific performance is re- sisting performance and does not recognize a bargain, he can- not compel the vendee to pay the consideration into court.' Where a bill is filed to restrain proceedings on a judgment recovered at law, the court will not require the complainant to bring the amount of the judgment into court unless it is shown that there is danger of the complainant's insolvency.' When money has been paid into court upon an order, such payment is merely a collateral security, and is not to be taken as the property of the opposite party until so adjudged upon the hearing; it belongs to the party who may event- ually be found entitled to it, and it may be ordered to be re- turned to the party paying it if on the hearing he show a ' Haggerty v. Duane, 1 Paige, 321. the court to direct the payment of a 2 Mills V. Pittman, 1 Paige, 490. gross sum by one party to another ' Clarkson v. De Peyster, Hopk. pending a suit and where there is Ch. 274 no sum in court Bogert v. Bogert, 4 McTighe v. Wadleigh, 22 N. J. 2 Edw. Ch. 399. But see Feldraan v. Eq. 81, 83, where the court said: — Grand Lodge, 19 N. Y. Supl. 73. No " I know of no precedent for an part of the fund in the defendant's order to pay money into court on hands will be ordered to be paid to a proof by depositions that the de- party pending the suit unless a clear fendant has admitted that he has balance is admitted by the defend- received or that he has it" ant's answer. Cooke v. Barker. sBirdsall v. Waldron, 2 Edw. Ch. Hopk. Ch. 117. 315. It is contrary to the practice of " Rodgers v. Rodgers, 1 Paige, 451 § 605.] MISOELLANKOUS PEOOEBDINGS. 605 right to it.' An order for the payment or transfer of a fund should always be entitled in the cause to which the fund be- longs. A fund may be transferred from one cause to another upon petition filed in the cause from which the transfer is sought, in which case there should be an order of record in the cause showing the transfer, and also an order of record in the cause to which the transfer is made, showing the receipt of the fund and whence derived.^ § 605. Conduct of the cause. — As a general rule the pros- ecution of a decree devolves upon the plaintiff, he being con- sidered to be in most cases the person principally interested in forwarding it.' A reference upon an interlocutory order is for the same reason usually prosecuted by the party obtain- ing it, whether plaintiff or defendant.* In the case of concur- rent suits, the conduct of the proceedings is usually intrusted to the plaintiff in the first suit in point of time.' It will, how- ever, if any sufficient reason appear, be intrusted to any other party, in which case it will be given, as a general rule, to the defendants or respondents having the greatest interest.* A creditor coming in under a decree may be permitted to prose- cute the same on the ground of the plaintiff's delay, although he be not interested in the whole of the decree,' and not- withstanding the cause has abated by the death of a defend- ant.' Under like circumstances a defendant to a creditor's bill, after having been admitted as a co-complainant, may have the conduct of the cause committed to himself on terms as to indemnifying the complainant against future costs in the cause.' So in an administrator's suit;'" or in a suit by 13 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1778. 423. See, also. Powell v. Walworth 2 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1803. 2 Madd. 183; Price v. North, 2 Y. & The transfer may be made on motion Coll. (Exch.) 628 ; Jeud wine v. Agate, if the facts sufficiently appear in the 5 Russ. 283 ; Wyatt v. Sadler, 5 Sim. record. Gibson's Suits in Chancery, 450. § 703, n. 8 Cook v. Bolton, 5 Russ. 282 ; 3 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1169. Brown v. Lake, 6 Coll. 620 ; Johnson * 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1169. v. Hammersley, 24 Beav. 498. 6 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1169; » Thompson v. Fisler, 33 N. J. Eq. Belcher v. Belcher, 13 W. R. 913. 480, where the party applied by mo- 6 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1169; tion, grounded on complainant's Re Hutchinson, 1 Dr. & Sm. 27, 30. delay. ' Edmunds v. Acland, 5 Madd. Ch, i" Fleming v. Prior, 5 Madd. Ch. 31 ; Fleming y. Prior, 5 Madd. Ch. 423 ; Williams v. Chard, 5 De G. & 606 MISCET,LANEOUS PEOCEEpiNGS. [§ 606. next of kin ; ' or in proceedings for an account ; * or in prose- cuting a reference.' The party thus acquiring the conduct of the cause stands in the place of his predecessor in that be- half, and is entitled to inspect and take copies of all papers in the suit which may be in possession of the latter or his solicitor.* § 606. Staying suits to await payment of costs in former suits. — Where a suit at law has been discontinued by a plaintiff voluntarily, or through the negligence or default in any way of the plaintiff, and a new suit is brought for the same cause of action, or where a second suit is brought to try the same question over again, as in ejectment suits to try the same title, a court of law will order the second suit to be stayed until the costs of the first suit are paid.' A court of equity adopts and acts upon the same principle,' and will stay the proceedings in a suit until the costs of a former suit by the complainant in that court for the same matter have been paid.' The rule was applied where the complainant's bill in the former suit was dismissed upon demurrer.' The prin- ciple has never been extended so far, however, as to stay pro- ceedings where the first suit was in a court of law and the last is in a court of equity ; ' nor where the party was not Sm. 9 ; Be Hutchinson's Trusts, 1 Newland's Ch. Pr. 413 ; 3 Hoffman's Dr. &Sm. 30. Ch. Pr. 77; Updike v. Bartles, 13 1 Sims V. Eidge, 3 Mer. 458. N. J. Eq. 231. 2 Hallett V. Hallett, 3 Paige, 23 ; ' Kerr v. Davis, 7 Paige, 53 ; Spires Alvanley v. Kinnaird, 8 Jur. 114 v. Sewell, 5 Sim. 193 ; Updike v. 'Quackenbush I). Leonard, 10 Paige, Bartles, 13 N. J. Eq. 331; Onge u 131. Truelock, 2 Molloy, 41. < 3 Darnell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1170 ; « Updike v. Bartles, 13 N. J. Eq. Bennett v. Baxter, 10 Sim. 417 ; s. a, 331, where the defendant asked that 4 Jur. 50. the proceedings be stayed until the 5 Sears v. Jackson, 11 N. J. Eq. 45 ; costs of the former suit were paid, Mechart v. Halsey, 3 Wils. 150. It and tliat after such payment he be was said in Buckles v. Chicago &c. allowed time to plead, answer or Ey. Co., 47 Fed. Eep. 429 (a case at demur. The application was sus- • law), that, being in the nature of an tained by proof of the identity of the equitable discretion inherent in every cause of action, of the decree for court, the power should be exercised costs in the former suit and of their cautiously, ex aequo et bono, as the taxation, and demand for payment right and justice of the particular 9 Kerr v. Davis, 7 Paige, 53 ; Dem- case may seem to require. arest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. 461 ; 6 Holbrook v. Cracroft, 5 Ves. 706, Stebbins v. Grant, 19 Johns. 196. n. b; Pickett v. Loggan, 5 Ves. 703 ; § 606.] MISCELLANEOUS PKOCEEDINGS. 607 legally liable for the costs of the first suit.' Thus where a suit abates by the death of a party the right to costs up to that time is extinguished ; ' and for a court to stay another suit until the defendants were paid their costs in the first suit, terminated in such a manner, would in effect be to award costs to the defendants in a case where they were not entitled to them.' If the matter of the two suits is so distinct that the second bill could not have been produced by a fair amendment of the first, the suit will not be stayed.* There are instances where, after a judgment of nonsuit against a person suing in forma pauperis, and another action by him for the same cause, the court has intimated that it would, in a case of great vexation, interpose to stay proceedings in the second cause until the costs of the former action were paid.' Where the identity of the suits is disputed it may be a proper course to refer the matter to a master;" or the chancellor may proceed to determine the question without a reference.' Upon grant- ing a motion to stay proceedings the proper order is that the defendant have time to plead, answer or demur till the end of thirty days after the complainant shall have paid the costs of the former suit.' Where several suits are brought by dif- i Sears v. Jackson, 11 N. J. Eq. 45 ; was refused with costs and permis- Corbett v. Corbett, 16 Ves. 410, where sion to set off the same against the the first suit was dismissed without costs due from the plaintiff in the costs. first suit. « Sears v. Jackson, 11 N. J. Eq. 45, » Wild v. Hobson, 2 Ves. & B. 113. 47; Travis v. Waters, 1 Johns. Ch. See Corbett v. Corbett, 16 Vea 410, 89, — "unless the costa are' payable holding that never on account of out of a particular fund, or are con- what passed in the former cause uected with a duty towards the party could a party be dispaupered in the claiming costs." s. c, per Piatt, J. second. The "particular fund" must be one ^See Budge v. Budge, 13 Beav, 385, in court, or one over which the court 386. lias control. Sears v. Jackson, supra. ' Budge v. Budge, 18 Beav. 385, 386. ' Sears v. Jackson, 11 N. J. Eq. 45. 8 Updike v. Bartles, 13 N. J. Eq., < Budge V. Budge, 13 Beav. 385, 231, 333. A federal court will sus- where the master of the rolls said pend proceedings on a creditor's bill, that for the application of the rule where it appears that a state court he did not consider that the two bills had first acquired jurisdiction by a should be identical ; but it was suffi- like bill, until the course of the state cient if they were for the same mat- court has been developed. Hewlett ter; or if the second bill might be v. Central Carolina L. & C. Co., 56 produced by a fair amendment of Fed. Rep. 161. I lie first The defendant's motior 608 MISCELLANEOUS PEOOEEDINGS. [§ 606. ferent legatees for general legacies with an allegation of a deficiency in the fund, it is a matter of discretion as to which suit the account shall be taken in. The court will direct the suit which is most beneficial for the legatees to be proceeded in ; and if there is doubt on that subject will refer it to a master to ascertain which suit is most for the interest of the legatees and other persons interested in the estate.* ' Ross w Crary, 1 Paige, 418. END OF VOL. L I